RoR: Forum

Hi Bill,
I remember the nice thing you said about something I wrote before. So I have mixed feelings about your announcement.

I have just one question:
Why are so many Objectivists angry at Ayn Rand?

Really? What are these Objectivists angry at Ayn Rand about?

Post 1

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 9:27am

I knew there were some Objectivists angry at Ayn Rand, but I had no idea that there were "so many" of them. I wonder how many there actually are? I'm hoping Mr. Perry will make a clear distinction between "disagreement with Ayn Rand" and the emotion of "anger" toward her, as they are not the same.

I want to more closely examine the open-closed system issue. Why are the closed system advocates producing more scholarly works about Objectivism than the open system advocates? What is the status of those works within the philosophy?

I am of the opinion that one of the reasons could be because the open system folks are just too busy living their lives, while the closed system folks have no lives, aside from their cloistered groups working to prove the system is closed. Closed lives, closed system. Simple. That's just my take on it, of course.

Post 2

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 10:50am

Hong and Teresa,

This is one of the things I want to explore in my one year "sabbatical" so I really don't want to say much about it. I haven't arrived at a full conclusion. But I will tell you what I am talking about. I have had numerous conversations with people whose voices quivered when talking about Ayn Rand. Others faces got red in similar discusssions. The subjects included discussion of the Brandens and the affair, personal enounters with Rand, and discussions of the effect of her philosophy on their lives. This is not the same thing as disagreement with Rand. I've met many people who disagree with her on some points, but don't have this anger at Rand.

I've seen far more Objectivists than most. I attended eight TOC summer seminars. In addition I spoke to many more Objectivists in the course of my work at The Objectivist Center. So my sample size is large. I had multiple conversations with some of these people, but I've put the number above 30 different people.

Bill

Post 3

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 12:33pm

I have had numerous conversations with people whose voices quivered when talking about Ayn Rand. Others faces got red in similar discusssions. The subjects included discussion of the Brandens and the affair, personal enounters with Rand, and discussions of the effect of her philosophy on their lives. This is not the same thing as disagreement with Rand. I've met many people who disagree with her on some points, but don't have this anger at Rand.

I'm almost glad I didn't discover Rand until just prior to her death. I don't have any strained memories of her, and I'm grateful for that. In another 20 or 30 years, no one's going to give a damn about the Rand/Branden nonsense. May it rest in peace...

In another 60 years, Branden will be most likely be a footnote. Arguments over his influence will have since been settled (hopefully) long before then. I predict there will be more merges then separations in the movement, because there's only so far one can be separated with out completely breaking way to a whole new sphere. Old errors will be corrected by our grandchildren, but remembered by them with slightly embarrassed amusement.

If ideas are worth spending time on, thought about, argued over, and understood to have importance to the degree this "open/closed" system debate has (and I agree it is important) those conclusions will be enduring. The Branden/Rand morass will not endure. I don't even see it as worth any present consideration, let alone any more in the wider, broader, future spectrum.

All I care about is that people will be saying easily, and without hesitation: "It is, and I know it" instead of "We can't be sure of anything."

Have a wonderful, exhilarating, exciting study, Mr. Perry. Think well.

Post 4

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 1:22pm

Bill,

I wish you a prosperous intellectual voyage. I got to gradually work my way through Copleston in the 70s, and I still use him for refreshment of memory and direction to the literature.

Thank you for your work at TOC during the twilight of my years a sponsor there. Thank you for your sincere follow-up with me when I decided to discontinue my financial donations to it.

I really enjoyed your work on Rand and Ortego.

Stephen

Post 5

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 2:27pm

Thank you Stephen!

Bill

Post 6

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 2:58pm

Hong -- As Bill progresses on his intellectual journey, it will be interesting to know how much anger at Rand he finds coming from older Objectivists who were more directly effected by the Rand-Branden break. I don't find that much anger towards Rand today but I don't read as many of the web posting as Bill so he might see more, in addition to his personal contacts. Now I see more anger at the Brandens than at Rand.

But to me Rand's personality should not be the central issue. Her wonderful ideas should be. With Teresa, hope that in the future they will be the central focus of a movement that as more individuals working together to promote those idea rather than fighting with each other over the affair or other such matters.

Post 7

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 4:06pm

Bill, Ed,
Thanks for your replies. I didn't really doubt that Bill knew those angers toward Ayn Rand displayed by some people. Though I was a bit surprised by this expression since I hadn't explicitly thought about it that way.

From my own vintage point of view, I am in awe of Rand's stunning intellect and her noble philosophy, which I immediately related to as soon as I came across her ideas only a couple of years ago. I am also very much interested in her as a person and in how she had lived her life, because her life is an inspiration to me as well. Considering where she came from, what she had achieved, the problems in life she had encountered, and numerous obstacles she had to overcome, I only have the outmost admiration and profound empathy toward her.

I do understand that for people who are personally more closer to her, things might be a bit different. And I am not sure that I'd have the same amount of empathy toward those who were or still are angry at Rand or the Brandens. Because Rand had an affair with Branden? So what?

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/02, 4:12pm)

Post 8

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 10:04am

Anyone who thinks he or she may have anger toward Ayn Rand might try this sentence completion:

I am angry with Ayn Rand because ....

Repeat 10 times by making a complete sentence over and over without self-editing or hesitation. This is a do, not think exercise. Don't worry about being "wrong;" there is no "wrong."

Even if you think you don't have any anger, try it for fun; you might be surprised.

--Brant

Post 9

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 11:37am

Bill,
Uh oh! After our conversation at the 2005 TOC Conference, in which you indicated that you had some disagreements with TOC, I had a feeling that you may be parting ways in the near future.

Some of the issues that you listed as intending to explore during your "sabbatical" are intriguing - both the questions and the way that you formulate them.
Some examples:
"WHY ARE SO MANY OBJECTIVISTS ANGRY AT AYN RAND?" They are? If you are referring to reactions that some Objectivists have had to breaches between her stated ethical principles and her actions (e.g., the affair debacle and her subsequent statements and actions about that incident; her claims that libertarians were "stealing" her ideas- thus denying decades of personal friendships and exchange of ideas with von Mises, Hazlitt, Paterson, Chamberlain, Hospers, etc.), then their anger is understandable, although not really justified (because they are expecting Rand to have been a perfect -infallible?- example, in action, of her own philosophy). These people need to examine the history of philosophical/ideological/ religious movements and the glaring inconsistencies that the originators, developers, and their followers have often displayed. Of course, this criticism equally applies to those that seem almost to deify Ayn Rand as being more-than-human, never making an error or omission, and view her pronouncements as above critical examination (Personally, I believe that she was one of the most brilliant philosophers, a stunning novelist, and the greatest defender and advocate of reason, human rights, and liberty. But not a "god.")
I personally have seen at least equal disapproval displayed toward the Brandens. However, ("The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" not withstanding) this anger is similarly misplaced, totally out of proportion, and irrelevant to their positive contributions to Objectivism (which are ignored or denied).

"WHY ARE THE CLOSED SYSTEM ADVOCATES PRODUCING MORE SCHOLARLY WORKS ABOUT OBJECTIVISM THAN THE CLOSED SYSTEM ADVOCATES?"
Really? WHERE? And in what format? If you are referring to published books and journal papers, I do not see anything from the closed-system side even remotely approaching the voluminous contributions from such open system advocates as Sciabarra, Tibor Machan, Douglas Den Uyl, Douglas Rasmussen, John Hospers, etc.(especially, Tibor Machan's phenomenal published output).

It is true that ARI scholars have many recorded lectures available on tape or CD, but the audio-only format is not conducive to the dissemination, efficient study, and critical examination by scholars of the topics discussed. I would go so far as to say that the almost exclusive use of audio-only media (or worse, internet forums requiring a "loyalty oath"), shows a peculiar reticence to have their arguments examined by anyone that is not already in complete agreement with them. Other than Peikoff (who still has restricted about 90% of his output to audio-only!), I can think of only a few ARI scholars (Tara Smith springs to mind) that are openly publishing on Objectivism in book format or in scholarly journals.
But perhaps I have somehow missed the bulk of scholarly works by closed system advocates that you have alluded to, so could you please state where these published works are and where they can be found in print?

Incidentally, what effect would Ayn Rand's ideas have had if she had only issued them on tape or other audio-only media, and no books?

I greatly enjoyed your lecture on Ortega y Gasset at the 2005 TOC conference. I am sure that you have contributed much to the growth and application of Objectivism, and it sounds like you have plans to contribute much more. As a Sponsor of TOC, I would like to accept your offer of email or phone elaborations about your reasons for leaving the organization. Thanks, Jerry Biggers

Post 10

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 3:36pm

Wow, I had no idea Objectivists were angry at Rand re: her philosophy. Is this anger because of direct contact with Rand herself? Or is it because of losing sight that Rand meant her philosophy to be a guideline? Or both? I'd have thought some Oists were angry at each other about Rand.

Post 11

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 4:36pm

Jerry,

I'll be happy to talk to you about these issues. Send me an RoR mail and I'll give you my e-mail address.

I addressed the question about anger in post 2. While some are angry for reasons you mention I think it is a much deeper issue for many people. It is one of the things I want to think and write about.

I do want to address scholarly output briefly because you are not the first person to misunderstand what I meant. That means I was unclear. You wrote, " Really? WHERE? And in what format? If you are referring to published books and journal papers, I do not see anything from the closed-system side even remotely approaching the voluminous contributions from such open system advocates as Sciabarra, Tibor Machan, Douglas Den Uyl, Douglas Rasmussen, John Hospers, etc.(especially, Tibor Machan's phenomenal published output)."
I do not consider any of the people you mentioned to be "open system" advocates, and neither do they. Sciabarra considers himself to be a post-Randian. Den Uyl, and Rasmussen consider themselves to be Aristotelians, and not Objectivists at all. Eric Mack, Lester Hunt, and John Hospers never considered themselves to be Objectivists at all. Writing about Rand with some sympathy doesn't make you an Objectivist.

Tibor Machan considers himself to be a neo-Objectivist. He is the closest to being an open system advocate. He is certainly a prolific writer. But other than his earlier work, most of what he has written has been popular rather than scholarly. You left out the one true open system advocate who has published recently, Stephen Hicks. He is the only person I consider to be an open system Objectivist who has published a major scholarly work recently although Kamhi and Torres' work on aesthetics came out a few years ago.

ARI has produced a number of works recently. Many were done for the centenary. They include article collections on We the Living and Anthem. A book about Rand's appearance before HUAC.

Tara Smith has produced three books. The third which is about to come out will be published by Cambridge Press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_Smith

Robert Mayhew has written a number of things outside the collections above.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=pd_sl_aw_tops-1_stripbooks_8155065_2/103-5709306-1878231?search-alias=stripbooks&rank=-relevance2,+availability,-unit-sales&field-author=robert%20mayhew

Here is a listing of some of the subject areas of Shoshana Milgram's work:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6485

In addition she is writing a Rand biography.

Thomas Bowden has some work as well that is academic although most is not:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5149&news_iv_ctrl=1181

If you look at the biographies of the ARI academics you will see that many, but not all have scholarly publications. You can look here for the list:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_speakers_writers

In addition ARI has a new journal out called The Objective Standard. http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/

Part of this is semantic debate. But you have overlooked much of the work being done by ARI scholars. With Smith, Mayhew, Gotthelf, Amy Peikoff and others placed at major universities through the Anthem Foundation this work will continue and expand.

I've written too much in this post. This is one of the areas I want to explore, and not to comment about further right now. But I did want to correct the mistaken impression that I left.

Bill

Post 12

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 5:09pm

Great to know Tara has another work coming out - looking forward to it....

Post 13

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 6:25pm

"What is the difference between self absorption and rational self interest? "

I am particularly interested in the point and will welcome your thoughts on the subject when you publish them. In my small sample it seems like many self described objectivists do not draw any distinction between the two. I went out on a few dates recently with some objectivists women and all three I went out with were seemingly incapable of asking me any questions. Now they were polite and talkative, and I really don't think I am an un-insteresting guy, but since the first girl I went out with who didnt ask any questions I paid attention in the later two dates. Nope, no questions. Not one single one. Even through numerous online conversations with one, many of which she initiated, no questions. So basically I had to carry all the conversations by asking a lot of questions and volunteering alot of information. Not my idea of a mutually enlightening and stimulating relationship.

Michael

Post 14

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 8:34pm

First needs define 'self absorption'.....

Post 15

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 11:25pm

Second needs grammar catch-up 21st Century.

;-)

Ed
[now ... you KNOW I'm just kidding around w/ya', Rev -- dontcha'?]

Post 16

Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 5:02am

MFD wrote:

I went out on a few dates recently with some objectivists women and all three I went out with were seemingly incapable of asking me any questions. Now they were polite and talkative, and I really don't think I am an un-insteresting guy, but since the first girl I went out with who didnt ask any questions I paid attention in the later two dates. Nope, no questions. Not one single one. Even through numerous online conversations with one, many of which she initiated, no questions. So basically I had to carry all the conversations by asking a lot of questions and volunteering alot of information. Not my idea of a mutually enlightening and stimulating relationship.

That totally stuns me. Perhaps some of the Objectivist women here can shed light on why these women MFD dated would have acted this way. It makes me appreciate my curious Catholic wife even more.

Post 17

Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 7:55am

It's gotten to the point where I am very attuned to it, or perhaps hypersensitive. I am really fascinated by people and will ask tons of questions if it is a person with a lot of interests and hobbies so I guess I expect something even remotely similiar with a romantic partner. It is representative of the level of interest you have in another person. You are either two people with a mutual interest or even captivation with one another or one is merely audience member. People who I pick up on as liking my questions as a celebrity likes questions in an interview I discontinue associating with.

I remember a conversation with one of these women, I had asked her what classes she was taking, what she was studying, what she wanted to do, which classes she liked and which she disliked and why, etc etc. Then I allowed a short lull in the conversation, about 30 seconds, now, you'd think a typical person would say, "Oh, are YOU taking any classes?" given we just talked about what classes she was taking for about 15 minutes. I intentionally let the lull drag on to see if she would say something, even giving her an inquisitive follow up. Nope, crickets chirped int he background. Mentally I rolled my eyes and asked another question...

Another one of these woman, who I am still 'friends' with, was the same way whenever we hung out, never asking me any questions. Recently she had some kind of internal crisis and realized she had no inspiring people in her life and I told her I thought she was getting more and more distant whenever I saw her, and she seemed to be that way with other people I saw her interact with as well. She complained she found no more ideas to inspire in people she knew, so of course I pointed out that she never makes an effort to actually get to know people and is probably surrounded by intelligent and inspiring people does not even know it. Oh well...

Michael

Post 18

Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 11:13am

Self-Absorption and False Egoism

> I went out on a few dates recently with some objectivists women and all three I went out with were seemingly incapable of asking me any questions. Now they were polite and talkative, and I really don't think I am an un-insteresting guy, but since the first girl I went out with who didnt ask any questions I paid attention in the later two dates. Nope, no questions. Not one single one. Even through numerous online conversations with one, many of which she initiated, no questions. So basically I had to carry all the conversations by asking a lot of questions and volunteering alot of information. [Michael]

Unlike the shocked, stunned, and easily amazed Luke :-), this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Nor does the fact that it was three *in a row*. I've seen this over and over, but with -both- men and women "Objectivists" (I don't mean I date both sexes--I am heterosexual--but I mean I've observed it in social situations).

The basic reason is this (it was in my case): Most people are brought up with and accept altruism which teaches that one should have an interest in other people, be social, learn manners, learn social skills. When students of Objectivism early on accept what seems to them like "selfishness", unless they are particularly mature or encounter it after adolescence, they very often tend to reject *everything* in the "altruist package". They throw sensitivity, give-and-take, social awareness away along with the altruist bath water. Or never develop them So what you get is the Objectivist "Motormouth" or Monologist (or, at a distance, the "serial poster" who allows no breathing room for reply and drowns you in every thought he ever had at infinite length). Or the self-absorbed person who actually doesn't care about you except as an audience. Or, on a better level, the person (you might have met) who wants to get to know you as well, and is not fundamentally self-absorbed, but has never paid attention to the skills needed to have intimacy, friends, or mutual visibility...and instead has disproportionately spent time reading books or on online forums like this rather than with people.

Even if you are aware and try to develop social skills and awareness, but didn't do it very early, you can be awkward or clumsy at it. This doesn't bother me in a woman, because I sense she is trying [nor should this bother a good-hearted woman in a man, through some false, judgmental perfectionism.]

My last date with an Oist woman was last year, and there were some similarities to what you describe: What she did -in addition- to not showing much interest in me, not asking questions, etc. was keep the discussion on an academic or formal rather than a personal or fun level. I had no further interest in asking her out again. In a novel, an "adding machine in skirts" might stylize the virtue of reason. In real life, it doesn't. It isn't appropriate or ratonal. And is definitely a turn off. Not all Oist women are this way, of course. But forget about it having to be an Oist. Find someone you like, who likes you, and who is not afraid to be a woman or a well-rounded, human being.

Note that everything I am discussing about Oist women could be discussed about Oist men. Ladies? :-)

Phil

PS, I've had to work hard to try to overcome "Nietzschean tendencies", since for me they started very early in life. It's slow. And first you have to admit these mistakes are there and that they are wrong and a perversion of Objectivist morality, instead of proudly defending them (which I'm sure some idiot will write a post doing).

Post 19

Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 12:17pm