About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, September 8, 2006 - 11:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Had Rand ever met a critic of her that she considered good? If not, then, it's very unfortunate.

Post 1

Friday, September 8, 2006 - 2:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shame - There are a few good ones about, who Rand could of learnt much off...

Andy

Post 2

Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 12:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Duplicate Deleted by Author



(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/09, 12:24am)


Post 3

Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 12:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

I believe Rand wrote a letter of appreciation to a critic who wrote an article about the Fountainhead which should be in her "Letters of Ayn Rand."

Sounds like this was a remark regarding critics of Objectivism on a philosophical level. Know she was done a great injustice about AS in the National Review by excommunist Whitaker Chambers who said something about "hearing the jackbooted thugs marching" or the like.

T





Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 5:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If this quote is accurate, then Ayn Rand made a great error. Even Aristotle wouldn't have dreamed of making a remark so arrogant, overarching, and indefensible. So no-one nowhere could teach her anything anywhere? This is absurd, even for the realm of philosophy, where she excelled and admittedly easily lapped the field.

It was a large part of Rand's job -- as a revolutionary cultural critic and vast philosophical innovator -- to find good critics. Lacking that, it was her job to make them.

In my judgment, Rand's distance from professional intellectuals, colleges, professors, and academic journals was wildly improper and weakened her considerably -- intellectually and personally. Living in an echo chamber and surrounding yourself with sycophants isn't right.

Every broad, general analyst of her type needs to devote 10% or so of their time and effort to answering their critics. Her  comment and concomitant attitude -- especially if sustained and not a mere rhetorical quip -- is improper and highly cultish. This, obviously, is the same terrible error the cultists at ARI make continuously.  


Post 5

Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 12:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andre,

I agree with the gist of your criticisms, but the comment was being made spontaneously, on a popular and sensationalistic "talk show." She had lung cancer and her husband was dead at that point. I have seen the interview, and found her to come off quite well

I also think that saying it was Rand's job to make critics smacks of altruism, especially given the decades of rejection that she had received from academia. I assume that you did not mean that it was her duty. In any case, your point that suspicion, sycophancy and self-absorption don't help make the case for Objectivism, now or back then, are correct.

Ted
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/10, 1:06pm)


Post 6

Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 5:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How does one go about "making" good critics? By what means?

Should Rand have concieved a child soley for the purpose of criticizing her work? Or are you insinuating that she should have converted people to her ideas and taken criticism from these individuals?

Of all the people who follow her ideology, few have raised serious criticisms against her beliefs other than some of the blatantly irrational things that she believed as a result of her flawed view of the human mind.

I would certainly give a damn about my critics, but if there are no good ones, then it is, by no means, my obligation to conjure them out of thin air.

Post 7

Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 5:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So no-one nowhere could teach her anything anywhere?
She said that she had yet to meet a good critic; she did not say that nobody could teach her anything.

(Edited by Ben Hoffman on 9/10, 5:43pm)


Post 8

Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 9:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In a broad sense, a good critic should be somebody who is intelligently your equal, who cares enough to spend time to study your work and truly understand them, who would always give your his honest opinions, whether they being positive or negative, and who is always benevolent.

Post 9

Monday, September 11, 2006 - 4:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
JMW wrote:

Of all the people who follow her ideology, few have raised serious criticisms against her beliefs other than some of the blatantly irrational things that she believed as a result of her flawed view of the human mind.

Could you please name some of these "blatantly irrational" beliefs, how they related to her "flawed view of the human mind" and exactly what were the flaws in her view of the mind?


Post 10

Monday, September 11, 2006 - 5:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted and Jack: I think pretty much anyone can find good critics if they look hard enough. It's a big planet, filled with many experts, and many Rand fans too.

She may have had to work and search much harder than other professional intellectuals. Maybe it was even an objective outrage that this was necessary. I tend to think this. Maybe she indeed had to really go out of her way to write or visit an obscure college professor and specialist in Aristotelean epistemology, for instance, to get good feedback on Objectivist epistemology. But it almost certainly would have been worth it. She chose not to make the effort, I think. 

I reject altruism and social duty absolutely. But getting people to critique you can be a great boon, intellectually and personally. It makes you much stronger and happier, potentially. As Benjamin Franklin once famously noted, your critics are secretly your friends, since they helpfully point out your errors. 

Given Rand's fame, fortune, intelligence, virtue, connections, personal charm, etc., she could have gotten a lot of high-quality intellectual friends if she wanted them. But I don't think she wanted them. She preferred being a big fish in a slightly smaller bowl. 

She also preferred to create and then live in her own personal Galt's Gulch and Shangri-La. This choice is great as far as it goes. But perhaps it doesn't go far enough.

It's terrific to be worshipped as a goddess. It must feel fantastic! But it's possibly, quietly even sweeter and more wonderful to be surrounded by equals and friends -- not worshippers. 

Of course, there's only so much a single heart can stand. She fought the whole world magnificently until quite old. Maybe she thought she had strived enough and couldn't do any more. Maybe she thought she needed a rest. She certainly deserved living in Shangri-La and resting profoundly.

Personally, I want the paradise of Star Trek's Captain Pike! I don't condemn Ayn completely on any of this. But there was more to life. She was a great hero -- but evidently not infinitely great.

Everyone needs critics. And she even could have utilized those inside her "collective" if she had allowed them to think and speak freely. But she didn't. This has to be seen as a fault.  


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.