Nathaniel Branden, RIP

Nathaniel Branden passed away yesterday.

I never met him.  He sent me an email a few years ago thanking me for my critique of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.

Here is Chris Sciabarra's excellent tribute.

Charles Murray on Ayn Rand

Charles Murray writes on Ayn Rand.

But there’s no getting around it: taken as a whole, there is a dismaying discrepancy between the Ayn Rand of real life and Ayn Rand as she presented herself to the world. The discrepancy is important because Rand herself made such a big deal about living a life that was the embodiment of her philosophy. “My personal life is a postscript to my novels,” she wrote in the afterword to “Atlas Shrugged.” “It consists of the sentence: ‘And I mean it.’ I have always lived by the philosophy I present in my books—and it has worked for me, as it works for my characters.” As both books [the Heller and Burns biographies] document, that statement was self-delusion on a grand scale.

 Incidentally, this is the 20th anniversary of The Bell Curve.

Harry Binwsanger on Ayn Rand

Harry Binswanger has always come across as a little cultish in  his praise of Ayn Rand.  Here is something from 2009.

I think there’s something that nobody here is getting: It’s not that Ayn Rand had three or four ideas, and the question is whether or not a given person understands them correctly. Ayn Rand wrote extensively, systematically on hundreds of topics in philosophy, and many in related fields. She developed, over a period decades, a rich, deep, multi-tiered philosophical structure.

If by "hundreds" we take to be a minimum of 300 and systematically we take to be around 10 pages, then we are talking about 3000 pages of writings.  I don't think Rand wrote that much pure philosophy at all.

The one area of philosophy which Rand treated in a systematic way was her theory of concepts.

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life

Interesting article from a racial realist site.

The Obscolesence of Ayn Rand, or so says the American Conservative

Essay in the American Conservative.

Baker argued that Rand would see the industrious factory worker as more virtuous than a crony capitalist industrialist, and that valuing of work and productivity is a virtue that even Christians can admire in Rand’s thought.

The problem with rehabilitating Rand at this point in the course of human events isn’t that she was a militant atheist, a celebrant of narcissism, or any other of her manifestly evil qualities and positions. It’s that she doesn’t matter. Rand is an artifact of the industrial age, when Hank Rearden could smelt his steel with manly independence and grant himself delusions of standing apart from and above the world as a “maker.”

The economy of the 21st century looks increasingly likely to be an economy of service. Instead of “laboring and producing” his sustenance on this earth, man receives his goods from the machines that grow his food at astonishing efficiency, and produce his goods at previously unthinkable rates. What does he do with himself after that? Some on the left would like to grant him a basic income, an annual cash grant to every person to liberate him from the tyranny of necessity. Others on the right continue to labor under the idea of entrepreneurial production, whereby a man will pull himself up by his bootstraps by producing. Neither of these options are suited to an economy of service.

A Common Thread: A Classic Essay From 2004

A Common Thread: Anti-Egalitarianism in Objectivism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism
by Neil Parille

Introduction

             Matthew Humphreys, in an interesting article, draws attention to the fact that many Objectivists and libertarians feel a greater affinity to the contemporary Right than the Left.  Mr. Humphreys notes that there are various “currents of thought” found in the Right with which Objectivists and libertarians can make common cause.
             One current of thought (which Mr. Humphreys doesn’t discuss) between these three traditions is their opposition to egalitarianism.  Although not an easy concept to define, I take egalitarianism to mean the belief that all people are (or can be) equal in intelligence and worth and that society should attempt to promote equality (particularly of income) among people.  On a cultural level, egalitarians often assert that all societies and cultures are of equal value.
             I will discuss the opposition to egalitarianism focusing on the works of three American authors who each represent one tradition: Russell Kirk, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard.  In spite of their differences on many issues of fundamental importance, there is a common thread of anti-egalitarianism running throughout their writings.

 Conservatism: Russell Kirk
             The twentieth century’s leading American conservative author was Russell Kirk (1918-1994).  Although Kirk was a frequent critic of Rand and Rothbard, his critique of egalitarianism was similar.  In one of his later essays, Kirk rejects the concept of  “equality of condition” by which he means the “equality of incomes and other awards.”  (Kirk does not reject the idea that people should be equal before the law.)  [Kirk, Redeeming the Time, p. 217.]  He states:

 In short, I have been arguing that it is profoundly unjust to endeavor to transform society into a table land of equality.  It would be unjust to the energetic, reduced to equality with the clack and indolent; it would be unjust to the thrift, compelled to make up losses of the profligate; it would be unjust to those take the long view, forced to submit to the domination of a majority interested chiefly in short-run results.  [Id., p. 225.]

According to Kirk, the drive for equality has resulted in high taxation, a decline in educational standards, and multiculturalism.

 Objectivism: Ayn Rand
             Needles to say, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was not an egalitarian.  Her novels depict a world divided between the good and the evil, the intelligent and the stupid, and the strong and the cowardly.  Although she was skeptical of genetic and racial differences in character and intelligence, she was clear that human beings and cultures differ in many respects and equality was neither possible nor desirable. 
             Perhaps Rand’s fullest exposition of her anti-egalitarianism is found in her 1971 essay “The Age of Envy.”  Her criticism of egalitarianism is somewhat similar to Kirk’s and she sees similar consequences, including multiculturalism (although she didn’t use the term) and a decline in educational standards.  [Rand, Return of the Primitive, pp. 140-49.]
             In “Galt Speaks,” Rand advances what Objectivists call the “pyramid of ability principle,” namely that those less capable benefit when the more capable are allowed to advance to the limit of their abilities.  [Rand, For the New Intellectual, pp. 185-86.]  This concept is not unique to Rand, and Kirk quotes the British conservative W. H. Mallock to the same effect in his 1894 book Labour and the Popular Welfare: “Equality benefits no one.  It frustrates men of talent; and it reduces the poor to a poverty still more abject. . . . For inequality produces the wealth of civilized communities: it provides the motive which induces men of superior benefit to exert themselves for the general benefit.”

 Libertarianism: Murray Rothbard
             Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), the last century’s most important libertarian thinker, was likewise a staunch opponent of egalitarianism, who attributed to egalitarianism many of the same ills as Kirk and Rand.  Indeed, two of Rothbard’s most important essays were “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature” and “Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor.”  Rothbard sees similar results flowing from the egalitarian agenda:

Equality of condition would reduce humanity to an anthill existence.  Fortunately, the individuated nature of man . . . makes the ideal of total equality unattainable.  But an enormous amount of damage – the crippling of individuality, as well as economic and social destruction – could be generated in the attempt.

[Rothbard, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays, p. 279.] 
       Throughout Rothbard’s vast cultural criticism, he exposed the egalitarian fallacies behind “Women’s Liberation,” multiculturalism, and “progressive education.”  In particular, his attack on progressive education mirrors Rand’s critique, focusing on the political, cultural, and “epistemological” aspects of this movement.  [Rothbard, Education: Free and Compulsory, pp. 53-55.]

 Conclusion
             How this common opposition to egalitarianism “plays out” in contemporary politics is beyond the scope of this brief article.[1]  Yet, anti-egalitarianism constitutes a common thread among the Objectivist, libertarian, and conservative traditions. 

---

[1]  Likewise, there is not space to discuss the common influences on these thinkers.  Kirk, Rothbard, and Rand each read (and approved) of Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses.  They also read Schoeck's Envy (although Rand didn't appear to approve of it, judging from the Marginalia).

Open Immigration: Has the Pushback Begun?

According to Objectivists such as Craig Biddle and Diana Hsieh, a person should be free to emigrate from country A to country B as long as he doesn't have a criminal record, an infectious disease, and isn't a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer. 

This is commonly called "open immigration."  Most Objectivists associated with the Ayn Rand Institute appear to be for it.

Harry Binswanger is even more radical.  

This is a defense of a policy of absolutely open immigration, without border patrols, border police, border checks, or passports.  After a phase-in period, entry into the U.S. would be unrestricted, unregulated, and unscreened, exactly as is entry into Connecticut from New York.

If 100,000 men from the Taliban region of Pakistan want to come to the United States, Binswanger thinks they should be allowed in, no questions asked. 

Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's legal and some say "intellectual" heir, is against open immigration.

Now, on the website of the eccentric Ed Cline, one Ed Mazlish has posted an outstanding rebuttal of open immigration. 

A couple of the many excellent comments:

A free society with a government limited to protecting individual rights is a monumental achievement in the history of mankind - it is not the product of random happenstance or chance, as tens of thousands of years of tyrannies demonstrate. It is not something that occurs in nature, waiting for man to come and pick it off trees as though it were low hanging fruit. A free society has certain cultural requirements and prerequisites, without which it could never be created and without which it cannot be maintained. Proper immigration policy must reflect these facts and must serve to preserve the cultural factors on which a free society is based.
* * *
The true justification for immigration restrictions is the need to protect those who respect individual freedom from those who are cultural collectivists - not the need to protect the welfare state from overload or even the need to protect innocent Americans from jihad. Even if the welfare state were repealed today and all jihadists were terminated tomorrow, the ideological requirement to protect a free, democratic, and rights respecting society from masses of incompatible cultural collectivists would still remain.

Hopefully, writers such as Biddle and Binswanger will respond to Mazlish's critique. I'm not holding my breath.

Robert Knapp: Mathematics is About the World: How Ayn Rand's Theory of Concepts . . . .

Robert Knapp (ex brother-in law of Shoshana Milgram, future Rand biographer) has a book out about mathematics. He is associated with the Ayn Rand Institute.

Well, the books just keep on coming, don't they?  I don't see how you can get 532 pages on mathematical theory from Ayn Rand's theory of concepts, but what do I know.

Certainly things have changed for the better in terms of books by Objectivist writers.  There was next to nothing not too long ago.

The Unconquered

Robert "Rewrite" Mayhew will soon be coming out with The Unconquered, with Another Earlier Adaption of We the Living.  

From Amazon:


In the 1930s, Rand was asked to adapt her first novel, We the Living, for the theatre. We the Living is a story of life in post-revolutionary Russia and Rand's first statement against communism. It was not a commercial success when it was published, but has gone on to sell over 3 million copies.

The first substantial fiction of Rand to appear in over twenty years, this important volume contains two never-before published versions of the play - the first and last versions (the latter entitled The Unconquered). With a preface that places the work in its historical and political context, an essay on the history of the theatrical adaptation by Jeff Britting, the curator of the Ayn Rand Archives, and two alternative endings, this book is a must-have for anyone interested in Rand's philosophy. 

Well, let's just say that anything Prof. Mayhew edits should be used with extreme caution.  That being said, I enjoyed his collections of essays on Rand's fiction.

A Companion to Ayn Rand (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy)

In February Gregory Salmieri and the late Allan Gotthelf's long-awaited A Companion to Ayn Rand (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy) will be published.  This is Amazon's description:

The first publication to offer a serious academic study of Rand’s often marginalized corpus, this comprehensive companion provides critical analysis of her prolific and iconoclastic writings, including her novels, her political commentary, and the essays in which she laid out her philosophy of Objectivism.

• The first publication to provide a wide-ranging critical commentary for an academic readership on Rand’s varied and challenging output
• Contains chapters by many of the leading experts in Rand’s thought
• Provides informed contextual analysis for scholars in a variety of disciplines
• Features original research on unpublished material and drafts from the Rand archives in California
• Features insightful and fair-minded interpretations of Rand’s controversial beliefs

The editors and the comments about "original research . . . from the Rand archives" makes me think that all the contributors will be associated with the Ayn Rand Institute.  While ARI writers have produced much good material, it tends not to be very critical.

Of course, this book will not be "[t]he first publication to offer a serious academic study of Rand's often marginalized corpus . . . ."  In the early 80's Den Uyl and Rasmussen edited The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand.  The book was something of a mixed bag, but certain essays were quite good.

"New" Book by Leonard Peikoff - The Cause of Hitler's Germany

 


Leonard Peikoff published many years ago The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America.  Peikoff argued that America was on the same path as Germany during the Weimar years.  There were chapters on Germany and chapters on the U.S.

In November The Cause of Hitler's Germany will be published.  The cover says "previously published in The Ominous Parallels," so I'm wondering if its just the chapters on Germany.

In any event, the book had its share of problems.  One of Peikoff's sources was Rauschning's The Voice of Destruction (aka Hitlers Speaks), which is now known to be bogus. 

Some of the alleged Hitler quotes that Peikoff uses from this book sound too good to be true, such as "We are now at the end of the Age of Reason"

David Gordon: The Life of Murray Rothbard

David Gordon discusses Murray Rotherbard's life.  Brief mention of Rand and Objectivism early on.

Brian Doherty: The State of the Revolution

Brian Doherty, author of Radicals for Capitalism, discusses the state of the libertarian movement.

Objectivists For Welfare

Mmost Objectivists (such as Harry Binswanger) support virtually unlimited immigration (although I’m told that Binswanger exempts Israel from his belief in open borders).  Well, this was apparently the featured post recently on Binswanger’s email list. 

A young man named Jan Koum was raised by immigrants who were on welfare and food stamps--exactly what the anti-immigration advocates warn us about.
Except that he grew up and became a software developer, and just sold his company, WhatsApp, to Facebook for $19 billion.

Being anti-immigration is very short-sighted, to say the least.

Also, I see no reason at all why immigrants should be treated differently with regard to welfare: if anything, I suspect they tend to be morally superior and more eager to not depend on handouts, than the Americans who take them. Or at least the next generation makes it, which is so often not the case with Americans on welfare. 

     —  Chip Joyce

Immigrants – even when they are on welfare – are morally superior to the rest of us.

Amazon Review: How We Know

I posted a brief review of Harry Binswanger's new book on Amazon.Com.

Harry Binswanger is a philosopher who was associated with Ayn Rand in her later life. This is his long awaited book on epistemology written from the perspective of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. It covers most of the major topics in epistemology, including some that Rand didn't comment on, such as propositions.

Generally speaking, I enjoyed this book. Although Binswanger is a rather dogmatic Objectivist, the tone is surprisingly mild. More than the typical Objectivist he tries to understand the ideas with which he disagrees and present them in a fair manner.

The heart of the book is an exposition of Rand's theory of concept formation, which her acolytes consider her greatest achievement. She developed an elaborate theory of "measurement omission" in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I'm not persuaded that all concepts are formed on the basis of measurement omission (what measurements are omitted when we form the concept "justice"?), but Binswanger makes a decent effort. Unfortunately, he presents no evidence that the Objectivist theory of concepts is true. I'd like to see the psychological studies that adults (much less children) form concepts the way Rand and Binswanger claim. Indeed I suspect that we often form concepts without having two or more examples and a "foil." If I'm wandering in Borneo and see an animal that no one has seen before, do I need to see another one to conceptualize it?

On the negative side, Binswanger appears to believe the urban legend that people in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat. I was surprised that he doesn't mention David Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses, an important Objectivist work on epistemology

How We Know - Harry Binswanger's New Book

Objectivist philosopher Harry Binswanger's new book, How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation is out.  I've started reading it and it's quite good.

A few preliminary comments:

1. The tone is actually surprising.  Although he disagrees with other views, it’s not in the snarky tone of something like OPAR.

 

2. He generally says “Rand” and not “Ayn Rand,” which was quite a relief.

 

3. No mention of Branden, Kelley or any published criticisisms of Rand.  I guess that’s not a surprise.