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

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 5:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Obviously the answer is 'b'... but will say the approach to answering why could had been better done [but in the context of her and her life and the multitude of such attitude to her writings over her years, the way she responded was very understandable, even if the questioner was sincere and not aware of the insulting]...

Post 1

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 7:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
B, or maybe D. The thing is, it wasn't even a question, it was just a comment. How was she supposed to respond?

Post 2

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 7:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
B and D both work (except that they use the word 'question' and there was no question).

There was no question, just a person pushing their view in an insulting fashion that showed ignorance of Rand's actual views:

Saying things like, "I belonged to your cult..." "now that I've matured..." "I know that Ms. Rand doesn't like responsibility..." "I realized that there was a world around us..." "You are trying to create an elitist society...." "not practical..."

That person was doing just what Rand said, attempting to spread her own views... on Rand's dime.

Rand made the distinction between believing that no one should interfere with another right to hold their own ideas, but that doesn't mean she anyone required to be tolerant in their mind of nonsense or agree with what others think.
-------------

Off Topic:

I disagreed with her statement that she has never found an honorable opponent who disagreed with her. I suspect that popped up in the heat of the moment and that it worked for the context in her mind, but it did not fit context that was logically implied - because she has had arguments over the years with people who were not pushing a dishonest agenda and were making a reasonable effort to be clear and focused.

I never understood why she was fond of Donahue... apart from his political views which are bad enough, he always came across to me as a little condescending and always waiting for a way to kick others from his moral high-horse, but only if he thought he could get away with doing so without any loss of popularity - like were he accused Rand of being arrogant.

I always wished she had chosen a better style for handling 'opponents' - the knowledge content of her answers was usually awesome, and the logic impeccable, but the style of her answer was often much harsher than need be and distracted people from the facts and the logic.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 8:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand's published letters show that, early on, she was willing to debate seriously and with good will.  One reason why she gave the practice up, I suspect, is that the quality of the challenges fell over the years.  This clip is a case in point.  The woman leads with a personal insult and backs down immediately when Rand calls her on it.  After that her challenge turns out to be puerile and uninteresting.

Incidental intelligence: Elsewhere in the clip Rand mentions the FLlW masterpieces to be found in Chicago and its suburbs.  The photo at left (as of this writing) shows one of them - Unity Temple, the UU church in Oak Park.  I suspect it was her source for the Stoddard Temple.  Compare Wright's account of the first in his Autobiography with Rand's descriptions of the second.

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 1/18, 10:06am)


Post 4

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 3:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

... but in the context of her and her life and the multitude of such attitude to her writings over her years, the way she responded was very understandable, even if the questioner was sincere and not aware of the insulting

It's very likely the woman critic was aware of the insulting nature of the comment. The same thing happened to Rand the year before on Donahue. Recall Rand's first response to it:

[to woman] "Did you see the show last year? Do you want to create a scene?" ... [to Donahue] "Pass it up."

If this woman truly was so enthralled with Rand early on ("devoured her books", etc.), and she made it a point to be available to be in the audience, then it's very likely that she either saw or reviewed Rand's appearance on Donahue the year before.

Imagine if you had a favorite author. Not just a favorite, but one who literally changed your life. And that author was only very rarely interviewed. And all of a sudden there was this show upon which he was to be interviewed ... well, I think you get the picture (the chance she was unaware of the previous year's event is slim-to-none).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/18, 3:48pm)


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 4:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Laure,

The thing is, it wasn't even a question, it was just a comment. How was she supposed to respond?
According to a currently unnamed but nonetheless self-acclaimed expert on Ayn Rand, she was supposed to grit her teeth and endure listening to someone who not only differed with her on a matter, but who did so in a very rude manner. Only then, could it be said that Ayn Rand was a mature person with good character traits. Only then, if she was a willing victim of rudeness, could she pass muster in the court of public opinion.

But alas, I am already letting the cat out of the bag!

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 4:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

Saying things like, "I belonged to your cult..." "now that I've matured..." "I know that Ms. Rand doesn't like responsibility..." "I realized that there was a world around us..." "You are trying to create an elitist society...." "not practical..."

That person was doing just what Rand said, attempting to spread her own views... on Rand's dime.

As I said above, I think Rand was being kind. This woman critic wasn't just innocently attempting to spread an alternative view on a talk-show dedicated to Ayn Rand. Instead, she very-heavily utilized the fallacious "argument from intimidation" in a public attempt to discredit Rand. She was not just an innocently-parasitic-opportunistic promoter of her own worldview.

I disagreed with her statement that she has never found an honorable opponent who disagreed with her. I suspect that popped up in the heat of the moment and that it worked for the context in her mind, but it did not fit context that was logically implied - because she has had arguments over the years with people who were not pushing a dishonest agenda and were making a reasonable effort ...

I think she's being more normative and less exact (literal).

In other words, when she talks about honorable opponents, she's talking about opponents who are truly opponents on the same field or in the same arena in which she was active. In other words, she's talking about professional philosophers and others of that caliber. So, when she says: "opponent" then she is referring to someone like B. F. Skinner or J. Rawls (someone who is a real opponent to her), and specifically not referring to some cackling, wise-cracking house-wives (or SWFs) of Chicago.

I never understood why she was fond of Donahue...

In the previous year's interview with him, Rand gave the answer away when she said Donahue could choose to remain focused on ideas (whereas others didn't have enough good character to do that). The same kind of incident as above had just occurred, and Donahue was trying to bring debate back around from being intimidatingly 'ad hominem' to one based on the merit of the ideas alone. Rand really, really appreciated that about him.

Donahue was an opponent which she could respect merely for his own respect of the very idea of a marketplace (rather than a ruthless and nasty battlefield) of ideas. Someone who could civilly disagree. Not many thinkers of her caliber could (or would) do that.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/18, 4:43pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 4:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter,
... she was willing to debate seriously and with good will.  One reason why she gave the practice up, I suspect, is that the quality of the challenges fell over the years.  This clip is a case in point.  The woman leads with a personal insult and backs down immediately when Rand calls her on it.  After that her challenge turns out to be puerile and uninteresting.


What's especially interesting, though, is how the genesis of the terribly-low quality of the debate is placed upon Rand's shoulders, as if she was supposed to be a modern-day version -- indeed, a Second Coming -- of Jesus Christ himself; long-suffering, self-abnegating, with near infinite patience, and an almost totally-unconditional warmth toward others.

Many people do not like Rand because of how she woefully compares -- on "Christian" standards, at least -- with Christ. Instead of questioning their "Christian" standards, they work to vilify Rand. I'd say that as many as half of all of her critics are guilty of doing this.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/18, 4:57pm)


Post 8

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 9:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is it time to let the cat all the way out of the bag now? Does anyone want to hazard a guess regarding which overt Rand-expert thinks this particular video demonstrates that Rand just couldn't bear to listen to anyone who differed with her?

Ed


Post 9

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Anne Heller?

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 6:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bingo, Steve.

I picked up her Ayn Rand biography and it has got great detail, but Anne -- for all the "objectivity" she has been lauded to have -- takes some really cheap pot-shots, often interpreting behavior under the worst imaginable light (to the point of being unreasonable about it) and assuming the worst intentions.

It's sad, really.

Ed


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.