From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:08:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.175024.13668@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Peter Nelson (I think):
>>   Having read Rand's political and ethical writings, I have found 
>>   nothing of sufficient intellectual rigor to form the basis of 
>>   anything relevant to the discussion.  Her work is incredibly flawed
>>   and empty for someone who has attracted so much attention.  (Although
>>   it should be noted that the attention she attracts is among "middle-
>>   brows", sophomore philosophy students and the like; she has little
>>   following among serious philsophers or political thinkers.) ...

>First of all, let's dispense with the notion, implicit in so
>much that I see written here, that one philsophical text can
>be determined in some objective or absolute way to be better
>or truer than another.  

What a crock!  Implicit in your response is that in some sense, your
writings are better than Peter's.  If yours are no better, then why bother
posting anymore?  If you really believed this neo-pragmatist/deconstructionist
nonsense, you would stop writing.

Here's a simple example:

#1: Gordon Fitch is an ignoramus.

#2: You are reading something right now.

Do you think that these are equally true?  Do you not deny #1?  Do you dare
deny #2 without being seen as a fool?

>For instance, Peter asserts that
>Rand's work is bad because no academic philosophers take it 
>seriously.  

Clearly an appeal to authority.  I should point out that there ARE academic
philosophers who take Rand seriously (I know several personally).  It is 
true that she's not terribly popular, but that unpopularity is not 
universal.

>But that is not because there is something
>inherently wrong with Rand's work, it's because it doesn't
>serve their needs.

Look, when Rand (or anyone else) takes a position, it is either right or
it is wrong.  Even to deny this requires that you accept it as true.

Taking the other side of the argument for a moment though, just what needs 
does this view of yours serve?  The need to be able to put down any idea
as naive?  It is certainly of value to court jesters who want to poke fun
at everything, but of what value is that?

If I have a belief that my neighbors are aliens and this helps me put my 
petty personal problems into perspective, does that mean that such a 
position is true?  Why bother with all the effort of trying to find the
truth is just fantasy is just as effective?

>This is because Rand's philosophy is, as noted,
>fundamentally middlebrow.  That is, it is more rationalized 
>than vulgar philosophy, which is almost always characterized 
>by simple assertions, and yet it requires almost no effort to
>understand beyond the initial reading.  

What's so bad about clarity?  Actually, I find that every time I read
Rand's stuff I spot a new point I had missed previously, but it IS
very clear for the most part.  It sounds like you would prefer Nietzsche's
poets (who muddy their waters to make them appear deep).

>It is ideally
>attuned, then, to persons whose formal intellectual training
>is at about a high-school or college freshman level, and who
>are not really interested in abstract thought.  

This sounds to me like just an ad hominem argument against anyone who
agrees with Rand.  I certainly don't fit into any of the categories you
mentioned, and neither do most of the other objectivists I know.  (Most
people disinterested in abstract thought are more interested in Andrew
Dice Clay philosopy. ;-)

>The academic,
>on the other hand, needs heavier stuff both for aesthetic
>reasons 

Such as?  The need to write ponderous academic papers in order to get tenure?

>and also because, to maintain the respect of her
>profession, she must prove she can manipulate and
>interpret difficult texts and complex ideas.

I don't get your point here.  Is this another claim that clarity is
a sign of simplemindedness?  Do you really think it is intellectually valuable
to write the kind of dense nonsense that fills today's academic journals
(in more fields than just philosophy)?  

It is interesting too that this is more of a criticism of Rand than of her
ideas, is that what you intended?

>Now, middlebrowness itself would not explain the enduring
>popularity of Rand's writing; every year, hundreds, if not
>thousands, of resolutely middlebrow texts appear, telling
>their readers what to think and how to get through life,
>to be soon replaced by more of their kind.  Few of them,
>however, deal as well with guilt as Rand's.

There's more to the appeal than just dealing with guilt, but I agree (!)
that Rand's criticism of unwarranted guilt is quite attractive.  On the
other hand, I hear people criticize her for using guilt and being too much
of a moral dogmatist.  Which do you agree with?

>The function which Rand's philosophy admirably serves is
>the extrusion of guilt.  

Sez who?  It serves a lot of other "functions" as well.  Do you agree?

>I say this because of the prominent
>place given to the idea that selfishness is a good thing.

In the area of morality, that is true, but objectivism hardly treats
morality as a primary.  Actually, I consider the biggest attraction to
be the reality-orientation and rigorous application of reason Rand advocated.
There are lots of philosophies which absolve people of guilt, but none
of them seem to have the following Rand does.

>Most people would not think in these terms because they
>would already regard selfishness as a necessary thing.  

On the contrary, MOST people consider selfishness to be the epitomy of evil.

>But
>many parents teach their children rather impractical ideas,
>including the idea that selfishness is evil, others
>(especially the parents, or a favored sibling) come first, 
>and so forth.  There may also be some kind of biological 
>programing towards altruism.  

Such as?  Where's your evidence that there are ANY innate ideas, altruistic
or othrwise?  If anything, the biological basis of pleasure would seem to
be the foundation for a natural selfishness.

>In any case, guilt about 
>selfishness obviously is an important problem for many
>people.

That's true, but it wouldn't seem ot account for Rand's popularity, and 
even if it did, would not reflect on whether her ideas are true or not.
If you insist that the truth of a statement is irrelevant, then I suggest
that you practice what you preach, and stop claiming to have anything 
important to say.


>In order to extrude guilt, Rand sets up a logical engine
>which can operate only in a solid, mechanical universe with
>well-defined components.  

Well, she does use reason consistently, I'm glad you agree, but 
hat's wrong with "setting up a logical engine"?  What's wrong
with the idea that the universe is composed of well-defined 
components?  I suspect that your view of what a "mechanical universe"
is probably is based on assumptions we don't share.  If by "mechanical",
you mean "causal", then there's nothing wrong with that either.

>Hence, Objectivism.  Once the
>premises (the worldview) are set up, the engine can be run
>and the guilt can be extruded -- can be shown to be not only
>irrelevant, but evil.  Thus, Rand's philosophy actually
>accomplishes something useful, which is more than can be
>said about a great many philosophers.  

Indeed, but you seem really hung up on Rand's ethics.  How much of 
her stuff have you actually read?  It sounds like you just read
The Virtue of Selfishness and nothing more.  

So, tell me, what positive value have the non-middlebrow philosphers
offered?  That is, aside from generating material for lots of 
academic publications or justifying political movements?

>The fact that it is
>not of the highest quality from an academic or aesthetic 
>point of view is unimportant.  

What's your aesthetic gripe?  Are you talking about her fiction?  I thought
you were one of those people who think that aesthetic value is arbitrary
can cannot be objectively judged.

>The only thing I really see
>"wrong" with it -- from my point of view -- is that the
>deterministic performance of the logical engine, along 
>with the strong emotional need for it, produce a kind of
>totalitarianism in many of its adherents.  

Totalitarianism?  I don't think that word means what you think.

If you mean that a lot of people get very excited about her ideas, I agree.
Do you think that's bad?  Are you excited about your ideas?

>For instance,
>this article may well draw _angry_ rebuttals because it will
>seem insufficiently reverent.

Am I angry?  I'm not angry, I'm just exasperated that anyone posessing 
even a middlebrow level of intelligence can actually believe some of the
things you seem to insist on (all the relativist, pragmatist, and 
deconstructionist nonsense).  People get flamed whenever they post something
others disagree with, and there's often a bit of fire in flames.  

>On the whole, I think philosophies should be judged on how
>well they serve those who consume them, as judged by the
>consumer.  Not everyone can metabolize Wittgenstein or 
>Heidegger, nor should they.
 
Well excuse me, but *I* care whether their positions are true or not.  If that
is not a concern of yours, why not just retreat to your fantasies and be happy?

--Brian


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books