It's occasionally said (and I believe I said it) that Ayn Rand thought that taxation should be voluntary, or more accurately, that she believed government should be funded by voluntary contributions.
That, however, is somewhat misleading. Look at what she said in "Government Financing in a Free Society":
As an illustration (and only as an illustration), consider the following possibility. One of the most vitally needed services, which only a government can render, is the protection of contractual agreements among citizens. Suppose that the government were to protect--i.e., to recognize as legally valid and enforceable--only those contracts which had been insured by the payment, to the government, of a premium in the amount of a legally fixed percentage of the sums involved in the contractual transaction. Such an insurance would not be compulsory; there would be no legal penalty imposed on those who did not choose to take it--they would be free to make verbal agreements or to sign uninsured contracts, if they wished. The only consequence would be that such agreements would not be legally enforceable; if they were broken, the injured party would not be able to seek redress in a court of law.
Such an arrangement would hardly be voluntary. A makes a contract with B for a million dollars. A is afraid that B might default or otherwise refuse to pay. The only way A may enforce his contract is by paying a fee to the government. Even if the contract contained an arbitration clause, the arbitration agreement could not be enforced (as such agreements are today under the American Arbitration Act) by enforcing it in court.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Why Rand's Critics "Overcompensate"
Objectivists quite rightly complain that much criticism of Rand and Objectivism is unfair. For whatever reason people often find it difficult to fairly discuss ideas with which they agree. Most Christians shake their heads when they read Objectivist critiques of their views, I imagine.
Here are a few reasons why I think Objectivism is easy to misrepresent or, perhaps better put, for critics to "overcompensate" in their criticism.
1. Rand is the greatest thinker since Aristotle. While I admit that she is worth reading and even important, some of the claims about her genius and originality are overstated. And is everything Rand said worthy of great praise? I think of Leonard Peikoff's claim that Rand's diagnosis of the streaker at the Academy Awards as a Kantian nihilist as the summit of cultural criticism.
2. Rand is a great novelist and Atlas Shrugged is the greatest work of fiction ever. Like many people I enjoy The Fountainhead but think Atlas Shrugged brought out some of her worst tendencies, such as using characters as a soap box.
3. Rand's style. It strikes me as hectoring in the extreme and does to many others as well. Of course that doesn't mean someone should call her a "fascist" or "totalitarian."
4. Rand's life. Unless Rand's three biographers (Barbara Branden, Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller) got it completely wrong, Rand had a cruel and eccentric side and encouraged what, with some exaggeration, might be called a "cult." Rand's critics might not know the controversy about Rand's character, but aren't they entitled to rely on these books (in particular those written by non-insiders, Burns and Heller)? When Peikoff tells us that Rand's only character flaw was occasionally blowing her top (which he tries to turn into a virtue) aren't Rand's critics justified in concluding that maybe orthodox Objectivism has something to hide?
5. Rand's movement. The denunciations of fellow advocates (Peikoff's attack on Gotthelf's 2000 book Ayn Rand for example), the splits, Harry Binswanger's loyalty oath, the rewriting of Rand's journals and other material (first revealed by Burns) to conform to Rand's reports about herself, etc. make Objectivism look a little eccentric.
6. Altruism. Rand's jeremiad against altruism just doesn't "resonate" with most people. For example, in Burns' book there some discussion of Rose Wilder Lane's interaction with Rand. Lane grew up on the frontier when people just "helped out." She could never understand why all behavior should be motivated by self-interest or why Rand couldn't appreciate the difference between coercive and non-coercive altruism.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Jeff Riggenbach: Ayn Rand and the Early Libertarian Movement
Here is a discussion by Jeff Riggenbach on the two new biographies of Rand from the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Robert Mayhew Reviews Goddess of the Market
Orthodox Objectivist Robert Mayhew recently reviewed Goddess of the Market in The Objective Standard, a magazine associated with the Ayn Rand Institute. It is probably the harshest review of this excellent new biography of Ayn Rand.
Perhaps the most sensational claim in Goddess is that the published version of archival material has been rather heavily rewritten to conform to the Objectivist view of Rand. Rand is rewritten to sound more definitive, for example. One of the perpetrators named by Burns is none other than Robert Mayhew, in his Ayn Rand Answers, a selection of her question and answers. Robert Campbell has confirmed the rewrite by comparing what Rand said to what Mayhew claims Rand said. The amount and nature of the changes are truly stunning. It would have been nice for Mayhew to inform his readers that he is specifically criticized by Burns.
In any event, Prof. Mayhew's review leaves a lot to be desired. Let's discuss Mayhew's central points.
1. Mayhew asserts that Burns believes in historical determinism and that she alleges that Rand's ideas are a product of her environment. Nonetheless Mayhew is nice enough to claim that Burns is not "generally Marxist." Yet neither of the quotes from Goddess which Mayhew reproduces show that Burns is a determinist. In fact the two quotes describe merely the influence of Rand's early environment on her thought. Mayhew is also upset that Burns implies that some of Rand's ideas were "caused by her encounter with other thinkers." Indeed she does. Burns gives solid evidence for this, including the influence of Herbert Spencer, Isabel Paterson and H.L.Mencken. The obvious question here is, so what? While Mayhew might be correct that Burns should he discussed these influences in more detail, it's not as if a strong case can't be made that Rand was influenced by others more than she let on. For example in Shoshana Milgram's essay in Mayhew's Fountainhead anthology, she shows the strong influence of Nietzsche on Rand's thought. We may grant that Rand didn't take various ideas from other thinkers and pluck them at random in her thought, but it's not as if there aren't similarities. Does Mayhew believe Rand is diminished if one contends that other thinkers influenced her?
2. Mayhew next complains that Burns ignored Rand's philosophy when it comes to her politics. As an example he mentions Burns' brief discussion of Rand's rejection of environmentalism. Burns writes that Rand was unable to accept the motives of environmentalists at "face value." I generally think Burns is correct here. Rand often searched for hidden agendas instead of confronting ideas head on. One thinks of Rand's critique of religion. She was much more concerned with the alleged motivations of religious thinkers than their actual ideas. A classic example of this is Rand's contention that a streaker at the Academy Awards
was a Kantian nihilist instead of a someone pulling a prank. That Rand's critique of environmentalist was somewhat prescient (and here I agree with Mayhew) doesn't mean that Burns hasn't put a finger on an occasional weakness in Rand's thought.
3. Mayhew attacks the book for its selectivity. I was surprised, like Mayhew, with the amount of discussion of Rand's private life. However Mayhew goes overboard in his claim that this is addressed to the detriment of Rand's political ideas. I think the reader of Goddess would understand quite well why Rand disagreed with conservatives and non-Objectivist libertarians. In my opinion Burns strikes close to the right balance between Rand's ideas, her life, and her influence on the conservative and libertarian movements. I would have preferred a bit more and detailed discussions of her political philosophy.
4. Mayhew puts a jab in a footnote about the supposed errors in the book touching on Rand's life. Without telling us what these are it's hard to evaluate this claim. Does Mayhew consider Burns' contention that Frank drank too much to be an error? Does he claim that Burns is wrong to suggest that Rand was not entirely candid about her early life? Mayhew does write that Burns exaggerates Rand's use of amphetamines; however there is reason to conclude that Rand's use was excessive and exacerbated her difficult side.
Finally, one can't but help noting the religious tone that opens the review. Mayhew compares Rand to Jesus, her followers to his disciples, and Nathaniel and Barbara Branden to Judas!
Perhaps the most sensational claim in Goddess is that the published version of archival material has been rather heavily rewritten to conform to the Objectivist view of Rand. Rand is rewritten to sound more definitive, for example. One of the perpetrators named by Burns is none other than Robert Mayhew, in his Ayn Rand Answers, a selection of her question and answers. Robert Campbell has confirmed the rewrite by comparing what Rand said to what Mayhew claims Rand said. The amount and nature of the changes are truly stunning. It would have been nice for Mayhew to inform his readers that he is specifically criticized by Burns.
In any event, Prof. Mayhew's review leaves a lot to be desired. Let's discuss Mayhew's central points.
1. Mayhew asserts that Burns believes in historical determinism and that she alleges that Rand's ideas are a product of her environment. Nonetheless Mayhew is nice enough to claim that Burns is not "generally Marxist." Yet neither of the quotes from Goddess which Mayhew reproduces show that Burns is a determinist. In fact the two quotes describe merely the influence of Rand's early environment on her thought. Mayhew is also upset that Burns implies that some of Rand's ideas were "caused by her encounter with other thinkers." Indeed she does. Burns gives solid evidence for this, including the influence of Herbert Spencer, Isabel Paterson and H.L.Mencken. The obvious question here is, so what? While Mayhew might be correct that Burns should he discussed these influences in more detail, it's not as if a strong case can't be made that Rand was influenced by others more than she let on. For example in Shoshana Milgram's essay in Mayhew's Fountainhead anthology, she shows the strong influence of Nietzsche on Rand's thought. We may grant that Rand didn't take various ideas from other thinkers and pluck them at random in her thought, but it's not as if there aren't similarities. Does Mayhew believe Rand is diminished if one contends that other thinkers influenced her?
2. Mayhew next complains that Burns ignored Rand's philosophy when it comes to her politics. As an example he mentions Burns' brief discussion of Rand's rejection of environmentalism. Burns writes that Rand was unable to accept the motives of environmentalists at "face value." I generally think Burns is correct here. Rand often searched for hidden agendas instead of confronting ideas head on. One thinks of Rand's critique of religion. She was much more concerned with the alleged motivations of religious thinkers than their actual ideas. A classic example of this is Rand's contention that a streaker at the Academy Awards
was a Kantian nihilist instead of a someone pulling a prank. That Rand's critique of environmentalist was somewhat prescient (and here I agree with Mayhew) doesn't mean that Burns hasn't put a finger on an occasional weakness in Rand's thought.
3. Mayhew attacks the book for its selectivity. I was surprised, like Mayhew, with the amount of discussion of Rand's private life. However Mayhew goes overboard in his claim that this is addressed to the detriment of Rand's political ideas. I think the reader of Goddess would understand quite well why Rand disagreed with conservatives and non-Objectivist libertarians. In my opinion Burns strikes close to the right balance between Rand's ideas, her life, and her influence on the conservative and libertarian movements. I would have preferred a bit more and detailed discussions of her political philosophy.
4. Mayhew puts a jab in a footnote about the supposed errors in the book touching on Rand's life. Without telling us what these are it's hard to evaluate this claim. Does Mayhew consider Burns' contention that Frank drank too much to be an error? Does he claim that Burns is wrong to suggest that Rand was not entirely candid about her early life? Mayhew does write that Burns exaggerates Rand's use of amphetamines; however there is reason to conclude that Rand's use was excessive and exacerbated her difficult side.
Finally, one can't but help noting the religious tone that opens the review. Mayhew compares Rand to Jesus, her followers to his disciples, and Nathaniel and Barbara Branden to Judas!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
"The Greatest Novel Ever Written"
This link contains letters from Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard to Ayn Rand praising Atlas Shrugged. That Murray Rothbard would praise Rand so highly, in spite of their differences and his problems with her movement, is an obvious testimony to her charisma.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Material About Rand, the New Bios, and the PARC Wars
Over at SOLOPASSION I have started a post with a number of links to material about Rand, the new biographies and the PARC wars. The PARC wars material is not meant to be comprehensive, but only to allow readers to get some background on the controversies about Rand's life.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Goddess of the Market (Amazon Review)
My Amazon review of Goddess of the Market:
Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was a pivotal figure in the modern libertarian movement. What is most interesting is that her influence was also great on the conservative movement, notwithstanding her atheism and secularism. Jennifer Burns, a professor of history at the University of Virginia, has written an outstanding intellectual biography of Rand, one that focuses on Rand’s political ideas and activism.
As anyone who has been following the buzz about this book knows, Prof. Burns (who is not an Objectivist) was granted almost complete access to material at the Ayn Rand Archives, which is associated with the Ayn Rand Institute. There has always been a bit of controversy about the Archives. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the material released (such as the Journals). Prof. Burns was able to compare published versions with the originals. The suspicions raised by scholars such as Chris Sciabarra were fully justified, in particular with respect to the published version of Rand’s journals. As Prof. Burns writes, “On nearly every page of the published journals an unacknowledged change has been made from Rand’s original writing. In the book’s foreword the editor, David Harriman, defends his practice of eliminating Rand’s words and inserting his own as necessary for greater clarity. In many case, however, his editing serves to significantly alter Rand’s meaning.” She adds, “similar problems plague Ayn Rand Answers (2005), The Art of Fiction (2000), The Art of Non-Fiction (2001), and Objectively Speaking (2009).”
Rand said she developed her philosophy at age two and one-half and it remained essentially the same. The historical record has been rewritten to accord with Rand’s self-mythologizing. (This is not cast aspersion on the current archivists, who are very much aware of – and upset at – the jiggery pokery sanctioned by Rand's estate.)
Given the rewriting of the historical record by the estate, what does that say about the accuracy of the ARI-sanctioned description of Rand set forth by Leonard Peikoff in his 1987 Ford Hall Forum address and James Valliant in his 2005 The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics? Peikoff and Valliant claimed that Rand’s only flaw was occasional anger, which they attempted to justify as Rand’s righteous rage against a relativistic world. The Peikoff and Valliant view is, to say the least, misleading. Prof. Burns confirms Rand’s abusive treatment of the Collective, her mistreatment of her husband, and her tendency to sever relationships over minor matters, among other things. Although Prof. Burns doesn’t label Rand’s husband an alcoholic, the evidence that he drank more than one should is quite strong. She also concludes that Rand’s behavior was likely affected by decades of amphetamine use.
Nothing in this book shows the portrayal of Rand in Barbara Branden’s 1986 biography of Rand (The Passion of Ayn Rand) to be wrong in any substantial regard, much less deliberately dishonest. Prof. Burns does find fault with certain aspects of The Passion of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden’s memoirs.
The value of Goddess of the Market, however, is not the light it sheds on various Objectivist controversies, but in the fascinating story it tells. Rand’s life intersected with many of the best known people in the conservative and libertarian movement such as Albert Jay Nock, Isabel Paterson, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard. Prof. Burns shows Rand’s gradual disillusionment with the conservative movement over its embrace of religion. She never felt at home with the libertarian movement, which she as saw almost exclusively as anarchist and subjectivist. Perhaps she saw libertarianism as a competitor (she could never decide whether she had nothing in common with them, or if they plagiarized her ideas).
Burns also highlights Rand’s involvement in politics. She worked for Wendell Wilkie’s campaign and attempted to organize a movement to fight the spread of collectivism. Much of this was known before, but Prof. Burns tells the story with new details and corrects the record on various matters, such as Rand’s split with Isabel Paterson.
Goddess of the Market breaks new ground in Ayn Rand scholarship. Hopefully the new openness of the Archives will permit scholars to delve more deeply into Ayn Rand’s life and her intellectual development.
Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was a pivotal figure in the modern libertarian movement. What is most interesting is that her influence was also great on the conservative movement, notwithstanding her atheism and secularism. Jennifer Burns, a professor of history at the University of Virginia, has written an outstanding intellectual biography of Rand, one that focuses on Rand’s political ideas and activism.
As anyone who has been following the buzz about this book knows, Prof. Burns (who is not an Objectivist) was granted almost complete access to material at the Ayn Rand Archives, which is associated with the Ayn Rand Institute. There has always been a bit of controversy about the Archives. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the material released (such as the Journals). Prof. Burns was able to compare published versions with the originals. The suspicions raised by scholars such as Chris Sciabarra were fully justified, in particular with respect to the published version of Rand’s journals. As Prof. Burns writes, “On nearly every page of the published journals an unacknowledged change has been made from Rand’s original writing. In the book’s foreword the editor, David Harriman, defends his practice of eliminating Rand’s words and inserting his own as necessary for greater clarity. In many case, however, his editing serves to significantly alter Rand’s meaning.” She adds, “similar problems plague Ayn Rand Answers (2005), The Art of Fiction (2000), The Art of Non-Fiction (2001), and Objectively Speaking (2009).”
Rand said she developed her philosophy at age two and one-half and it remained essentially the same. The historical record has been rewritten to accord with Rand’s self-mythologizing. (This is not cast aspersion on the current archivists, who are very much aware of – and upset at – the jiggery pokery sanctioned by Rand's estate.)
Given the rewriting of the historical record by the estate, what does that say about the accuracy of the ARI-sanctioned description of Rand set forth by Leonard Peikoff in his 1987 Ford Hall Forum address and James Valliant in his 2005 The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics? Peikoff and Valliant claimed that Rand’s only flaw was occasional anger, which they attempted to justify as Rand’s righteous rage against a relativistic world. The Peikoff and Valliant view is, to say the least, misleading. Prof. Burns confirms Rand’s abusive treatment of the Collective, her mistreatment of her husband, and her tendency to sever relationships over minor matters, among other things. Although Prof. Burns doesn’t label Rand’s husband an alcoholic, the evidence that he drank more than one should is quite strong. She also concludes that Rand’s behavior was likely affected by decades of amphetamine use.
Nothing in this book shows the portrayal of Rand in Barbara Branden’s 1986 biography of Rand (The Passion of Ayn Rand) to be wrong in any substantial regard, much less deliberately dishonest. Prof. Burns does find fault with certain aspects of The Passion of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden’s memoirs.
The value of Goddess of the Market, however, is not the light it sheds on various Objectivist controversies, but in the fascinating story it tells. Rand’s life intersected with many of the best known people in the conservative and libertarian movement such as Albert Jay Nock, Isabel Paterson, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard. Prof. Burns shows Rand’s gradual disillusionment with the conservative movement over its embrace of religion. She never felt at home with the libertarian movement, which she as saw almost exclusively as anarchist and subjectivist. Perhaps she saw libertarianism as a competitor (she could never decide whether she had nothing in common with them, or if they plagiarized her ideas).
Burns also highlights Rand’s involvement in politics. She worked for Wendell Wilkie’s campaign and attempted to organize a movement to fight the spread of collectivism. Much of this was known before, but Prof. Burns tells the story with new details and corrects the record on various matters, such as Rand’s split with Isabel Paterson.
Goddess of the Market breaks new ground in Ayn Rand scholarship. Hopefully the new openness of the Archives will permit scholars to delve more deeply into Ayn Rand’s life and her intellectual development.
Friday, September 11, 2009
September 11, 2001
Where were you? I was visiting Indian ruins in Argentina.
Where were you when the world stopped turnin'that September day?
Out in the yard with your wife and children;
Or working on some stage in L.A.?
Did you stand there in shock at the sight of that black smoke Rising against that blue sky?
Did you shout out in anger in fear for your neighbor
Or did you just sit down and cry?
Did you weep for the children that lost their dear loved ones?
Did you pray for the ones who don't know?
Did you rejoice for the people who walked from the rubbleand sob for the ones left below?
Did you burst out in pride for the red white and blue
And the heroes who died just doin' what they do?
Did you look up to heaven for some kind of answer?
And look at yourself for what really matters?
I'm just a singer of simple songs;I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
Faith, Hope and Love are some good things He gave us
And the greatest is Love.
Where were you when the world stopped turning that September day?
Teaching a class full of innocent children;
Driving down some cold interstate?
Did you feel guilty 'cause you're a survivorin a crowded room did you feel alone?
Did you call up your mother and tell her you love her?
Did you dust off that bible at home?
Did you open your eyes hope it never happened;
And close your eyes and not go to sleep?
Did you notice the sunset the first time in ages;
Or speak to some stranger on the street?
Did you lay down at night and think of tomorrow;
Go out and buy you a gun?
Did you turn off that violent old movie you're watchin'
And turn on "I Love Lucy" reruns?
Did you go to a church and hold hands with some strangers?
Stand in line and give your own blood?
Did you just stay home and cling tight to your familyThank God you had somebody to love?
I'm just a singer of simple songs;
I'm not a real political manI watch CNN,
but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
Faith, Hope and Love are some good things He gave us
And the greatest is Love.I'm just a singer of simple songs;
I'm not a real political manI watch CNN,
but I'm not sure I can tell you the differencein Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to GodAnd I remember this from when I was young
Faith, Hope and Love are some good things He gave us
And the greatest is Love.And the greatest is Love.
And the greatest is Love.
Where were you when the world stopped turnin'that September day?
-Alan Jackson
©2001 EMI Music / Tri-Angels Music (ASCAP)
Where were you when the world stopped turnin'that September day?
Out in the yard with your wife and children;
Or working on some stage in L.A.?
Did you stand there in shock at the sight of that black smoke Rising against that blue sky?
Did you shout out in anger in fear for your neighbor
Or did you just sit down and cry?
Did you weep for the children that lost their dear loved ones?
Did you pray for the ones who don't know?
Did you rejoice for the people who walked from the rubbleand sob for the ones left below?
Did you burst out in pride for the red white and blue
And the heroes who died just doin' what they do?
Did you look up to heaven for some kind of answer?
And look at yourself for what really matters?
I'm just a singer of simple songs;I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
Faith, Hope and Love are some good things He gave us
And the greatest is Love.
Where were you when the world stopped turning that September day?
Teaching a class full of innocent children;
Driving down some cold interstate?
Did you feel guilty 'cause you're a survivorin a crowded room did you feel alone?
Did you call up your mother and tell her you love her?
Did you dust off that bible at home?
Did you open your eyes hope it never happened;
And close your eyes and not go to sleep?
Did you notice the sunset the first time in ages;
Or speak to some stranger on the street?
Did you lay down at night and think of tomorrow;
Go out and buy you a gun?
Did you turn off that violent old movie you're watchin'
And turn on "I Love Lucy" reruns?
Did you go to a church and hold hands with some strangers?
Stand in line and give your own blood?
Did you just stay home and cling tight to your familyThank God you had somebody to love?
I'm just a singer of simple songs;
I'm not a real political manI watch CNN,
but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
Faith, Hope and Love are some good things He gave us
And the greatest is Love.I'm just a singer of simple songs;
I'm not a real political manI watch CNN,
but I'm not sure I can tell you the differencein Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to GodAnd I remember this from when I was young
Faith, Hope and Love are some good things He gave us
And the greatest is Love.And the greatest is Love.
And the greatest is Love.
Where were you when the world stopped turnin'that September day?
-Alan Jackson
©2001 EMI Music / Tri-Angels Music (ASCAP)
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Economic Reasoning: The Most Common Fallacies
This lecture by Dr. David Gordon has a few comments on Objectivism.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Retouching Rand
I posted this piece over at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature. Probably my hardest-hitting piece. For those few viewers of my blog I should note that I have a relatively high opinion of Rand, certainly higher than my posts would indicate. I hope to do a series on the things I like about Rand starting in September.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
You Can't Fake Reality
Jennifer Burns' forthcoming intellectual biography of Ayn Rand is called Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right.
Of particular note is that Prof. Burns was given full access to Rand's papers at the Ayn Rand Archives (which is associated with the Ayn Rand Institute). According to this review, the skepticism that many have had with respect to the accuracy of material put out by the ARI (see here and here) is fully justified. In fact, things may have been worse than suspected.
Of particular note is that Prof. Burns was given full access to Rand's papers at the Ayn Rand Archives (which is associated with the Ayn Rand Institute). According to this review, the skepticism that many have had with respect to the accuracy of material put out by the ARI (see here and here) is fully justified. In fact, things may have been worse than suspected.
Under the influence of Rand’s heir, Leonard Peikoff, the archives were
off-limits to many scholars for years. Peikoff has a history of wanting to
protect Rand’s reputation, even if that means giving facts short-shift. That Burns had full access to Rand’s papers is a good sign for future Rand-related scholarship—though Burns does warn that scholars who were involved in “Objectivist controversies” may still find themselves barred from seeing the papers.
Because of her access, Burns was able to document the influence of Nietzsche on Rand. One of the great modern myths, regarding Rand, is that she emerged from Russia with a fully formed philosophical system, at least in all the essentials. Burns is able to document that Rand was in the process of forming her ideas over a period of decades. And while I found her discussion of Nietzsche’s influence on Rand fascinating, I thought she should have given equal emphasis to the whys and hows of Rand shifting away from Nietzsche.
* * *
One other area that I found of significant interest is Burns discussion of the various problems surrounding Rand documents made public by the
Ayn Rand Institute, Leonard Piekoff’s organization. There has been a great deal of controversy over indications that ARI doctored documents. Some of this doctoring was admitted by ARI, which asserted that they merely made clarifications consistent with what Rand had intended to say. Burns, who has seen the originals, says this is not the case.
She does say that the letters of Rand, that have been released, “have not been altered; they are merely incomplete.” But the same is not true for other works of Rand, including her Journals. Burns writes, “On nearly every page of the published journals an unacknowledged change has been made from Rand’s original writing. In the book’s foreword the editor, David Harriman, defends his practice of eliminating Rand’s words and inserting his own as necessary for greater clarity. In many case, however, his editing serves to significantly alter Rand’s meaning.” She says that sentences are “rewritten to sound stronger and more definite” and that the editing “obscures important shifts and changes in Rand’s thought.” She finds “more alarming” the case that “sentences and proper names present in Rand’s original …have vanished entirely, without any ellipses or brackets to indicate a change.”
The result of this unacknowledged editing is that “they add up to a different Rand. In her original notebooks she is more tentative, historically bounded, and contradictory. The edited diaries have transformed her private space, the hidden realm in which she did her thinking, reaching, and groping, replacing it with a slick manufactured world in which all of her ideas are definite, well formulated, and clear.” She concludes that Rand’s Journals, as released by ARI, “are thus best understood as an interpretation of Rand rather than her own writing. Scholars must use these materials with extreme caution.”
The bad news is that “similar problems plague Ayn Rand Answers (2005), The Art of Fiction (2000), The Art of Non-Fiction (2001), and Objectively Speaking (2009).” Burns says all these works were “derived from archival material but have been significantly rewritten.” Rand scholars have long suspected such manipulation of documents; Burns confirms it with evidence she herself saw.Certainly an explantion for this is required. For a number of years we have been told that the Archives will be publishing a collection of oral history entitled 100 Voices. I would recommend that the ARI make the actual interviews available on the web and provide access to non-ARI scholars.
New Books on Rand -- Early Reviews
The first reviews of the new books on Ayn Rand by Anne Heller and Jennifer Burns are in. It appears that the books will be outstanding.
Here are the two reviews of Prof. Burns' book: here and here.
Here is the first review of Anne Heller's book.
Here are the two reviews of Prof. Burns' book: here and here.
Here is the first review of Anne Heller's book.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Test Your Knowledge, Number 8
Identify:
1. Piers Paul Read
2. Paul Prudhomme
3. Pierre Paul Prudh’on
4. Louis-Marie Prudhomme
As:
A. Contemporary Novelist
B. Painter
C. Cajun Chef
D. French Leftist Journalist
1. Piers Paul Read
2. Paul Prudhomme
3. Pierre Paul Prudh’on
4. Louis-Marie Prudhomme
As:
A. Contemporary Novelist
B. Painter
C. Cajun Chef
D. French Leftist Journalist
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right
Here is an interview with Jennifer Burns, author of the forthcoming Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Hessen on The Objectivist and The Ayn Rand Letter
Robert Hessen discusses the The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist and The Ayn Rand Letter in Ronald Lora, The Conservative Press in Twentieth Century America. Go to page 349.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Szasz on Rand and Branden
This is an incredibly harsh attack on Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden by Thomas Szasz from his book Faith in Freedom. Go to page 123.
Greenspan: The Man Behind Money
Google books has made available a generous selection of Justin Martin's 2000 book Greenspan: The Man Behind Money. Martin has a lengthy discussion of Greenspan's involvment with Rand on pages 35-53.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Taking Ideas Seriously, Part II
[Cross-posted at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature]
In part one of this essay I discussed some of the problems with the Objectivist theory of history. Here I will discuss Leonard Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels, in which Peikoff applies Rand’s philosophy of cultural change to a concrete historical episode.
The Ominous Parallels (“OP”) was published in 1982 with a preface by Ayn Rand. Peikoff’s thesis is that the rise of the Nazis was the direct result of the influence of Immanuel Kant on German philosophy and culture. Kant inspired even more irrational philosophers as Hegel and Fichte, who went on to influence twentieth century German speaking irrationalists such as Sigmund Freud, Thomas Mann, Karl Barth, Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger (most of whom, curiously enough, were anti-Nazi). This intellectual climate paved the way for the Nazis to take control of Germany in 1933. Peikoff gives short shrift to the Great Depression, the Treaty of Versailles, and mistakes made by anti-Nazi politicians to mount an effective resistance to Hitler as explanations for the rise of Nazism.
The most obvious problem for Peikoff is that Kant was not a Nazi or even a proto-Nazi. His political views were generally of the classical liberal variety. The second formulation of the categorical imperative (which Peikoff never quotes in his lengthy discussion of Kant’s ethics) is the rather un-Nazi sounding “act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.” For any number of reasons, Kant seems particularly ill-suited as the intellectual godfather of Adolph Hitler.
A larger problem is Peikoff’s assumption that the influence of ideas flows one way (from bad to worse) and that later thinkers will inevitably draw the conclusions that Objectivists assert must be drawn from bad ideas. Peikoff does not establish (or even attempt to establish) that his and Rand’s idiosyncratic understanding of Kant was accepted by German philosophers and intellectuals. In addition, Peikoff does not show (or again even attempts to show) that German intellectuals drew the political conclusions that he thinks are inevitable from Kantian philosophy. Such a demonstration would require the review of an enormous amount of literature (most of it untranslated) by German intellectuals from Kant to 1933. If Kant’s immediate followers were not collectivists of the Nazi variety, any claim that Kantianism leads inevitably to collectivism or Auschwitz (which Peikoff alleges was Kant’s “dream”) is rather debatable.
We shouldn’t be surprised, then, that there are only a couple of Nazis whom Peikoff cites as finding support in Kant. The first is Lothar Gottlieb Tirala. Peikoff calls him a “philosophically trained Nazi ideologist” who believed that Aristotle was non-Aryan. (OP, pp. 57, 65-66.) I suspect that Tirala first came to Peikoff’s attention through von Mises’ works Human Action and Omnipotent Government. Von Mises discusses him as a representative advocate of “polylogism,” the belief that different classes or races employ different logic. Tirala was a physician who headed the Nazi’s Institute for Racial Hygiene. He was seen as something of an eccentric even by most Nazis because of his theory that proper breathing could cure a host of diseases. He does not appear to have been taken seriously as a philosopher. (Best I can tell, his only work translated into English was The Cure of High Blood Pressure by Respiratory Exercises.)
The second is Adolph Eichmann. Peikoff relies exclusively on Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem, her famous account of his 1961 trial. According to Peikoff, “[h]e was a faithful Kantian Adolph Eichmann told his Israeli judges.” (OP, p. 96.) As Fred Seddon shows, Peikoff’s use of Arendt is highly misleading.
As David Ramsay Steele notes, one of the presuppositions of Objectivist theory is that there is a “tight fit” between metaphysics and epistemology on the one hand and ethics and politics on the other. However, the one theme running through Nazi ideology is not Kantianism or even philosophy, but biology and race. Fanciful theories of Aryan supremacy were probably accepted by the average Nazi not because of epistemology but because of the all too human need to find scapegoats in a time of crisis. Peikoff is aware that the rise of the Nazis took place simultaneously with the acceptance by many intellectuals of esoteric racial theories of Aryan superiority, but makes the dubious claim that these ideas were believed only because bad philosophy paved the way for them. Of course many German philosophers such as Hegel and Fichte were ardent nationalists, but it does not appear that they advocated proto-Nazi racial ideas. Even the most prominent philosopher who was a member of the Nazi party (Martin Heidegger) did not accept Nazi racial theories completely. If one had asked the average Nazi (or even Nazi intellectual) why he believed in racist ideology I would be surprised if he gave reasons having anything to do with the philosophies of Kant, Hegel or Fichte.
Interestingly enough, probably the most widely quoted philosopher by the Nazis was Friedrich Nietzsche. Unlike the obscure and abstruse Kant, Nietzsche actually sounds like a Nazi, at least at times. His philosophy is also tinged with racial and biological overtones. This is not to say that he would have approved of the Nazism, but if Nazism should be laid at the feet of any thinker (a dubious proposition) it would be Nietzsche. As readers of this blog know, Rand admired Nietzsche and echoes of his philosophy show up even in her later works. So we shouldn’t be surprised that Peikoff (always eager to defend Rand) tells us that his influence on the rise of the Nazis is “debatable.” (OP, p. 43.)
In part one of this essay I discussed some of the problems with the Objectivist theory of history. Here I will discuss Leonard Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels, in which Peikoff applies Rand’s philosophy of cultural change to a concrete historical episode.
The Ominous Parallels (“OP”) was published in 1982 with a preface by Ayn Rand. Peikoff’s thesis is that the rise of the Nazis was the direct result of the influence of Immanuel Kant on German philosophy and culture. Kant inspired even more irrational philosophers as Hegel and Fichte, who went on to influence twentieth century German speaking irrationalists such as Sigmund Freud, Thomas Mann, Karl Barth, Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger (most of whom, curiously enough, were anti-Nazi). This intellectual climate paved the way for the Nazis to take control of Germany in 1933. Peikoff gives short shrift to the Great Depression, the Treaty of Versailles, and mistakes made by anti-Nazi politicians to mount an effective resistance to Hitler as explanations for the rise of Nazism.
The most obvious problem for Peikoff is that Kant was not a Nazi or even a proto-Nazi. His political views were generally of the classical liberal variety. The second formulation of the categorical imperative (which Peikoff never quotes in his lengthy discussion of Kant’s ethics) is the rather un-Nazi sounding “act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.” For any number of reasons, Kant seems particularly ill-suited as the intellectual godfather of Adolph Hitler.
A larger problem is Peikoff’s assumption that the influence of ideas flows one way (from bad to worse) and that later thinkers will inevitably draw the conclusions that Objectivists assert must be drawn from bad ideas. Peikoff does not establish (or even attempt to establish) that his and Rand’s idiosyncratic understanding of Kant was accepted by German philosophers and intellectuals. In addition, Peikoff does not show (or again even attempts to show) that German intellectuals drew the political conclusions that he thinks are inevitable from Kantian philosophy. Such a demonstration would require the review of an enormous amount of literature (most of it untranslated) by German intellectuals from Kant to 1933. If Kant’s immediate followers were not collectivists of the Nazi variety, any claim that Kantianism leads inevitably to collectivism or Auschwitz (which Peikoff alleges was Kant’s “dream”) is rather debatable.
We shouldn’t be surprised, then, that there are only a couple of Nazis whom Peikoff cites as finding support in Kant. The first is Lothar Gottlieb Tirala. Peikoff calls him a “philosophically trained Nazi ideologist” who believed that Aristotle was non-Aryan. (OP, pp. 57, 65-66.) I suspect that Tirala first came to Peikoff’s attention through von Mises’ works Human Action and Omnipotent Government. Von Mises discusses him as a representative advocate of “polylogism,” the belief that different classes or races employ different logic. Tirala was a physician who headed the Nazi’s Institute for Racial Hygiene. He was seen as something of an eccentric even by most Nazis because of his theory that proper breathing could cure a host of diseases. He does not appear to have been taken seriously as a philosopher. (Best I can tell, his only work translated into English was The Cure of High Blood Pressure by Respiratory Exercises.)
The second is Adolph Eichmann. Peikoff relies exclusively on Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem, her famous account of his 1961 trial. According to Peikoff, “[h]e was a faithful Kantian Adolph Eichmann told his Israeli judges.” (OP, p. 96.) As Fred Seddon shows, Peikoff’s use of Arendt is highly misleading.
As David Ramsay Steele notes, one of the presuppositions of Objectivist theory is that there is a “tight fit” between metaphysics and epistemology on the one hand and ethics and politics on the other. However, the one theme running through Nazi ideology is not Kantianism or even philosophy, but biology and race. Fanciful theories of Aryan supremacy were probably accepted by the average Nazi not because of epistemology but because of the all too human need to find scapegoats in a time of crisis. Peikoff is aware that the rise of the Nazis took place simultaneously with the acceptance by many intellectuals of esoteric racial theories of Aryan superiority, but makes the dubious claim that these ideas were believed only because bad philosophy paved the way for them. Of course many German philosophers such as Hegel and Fichte were ardent nationalists, but it does not appear that they advocated proto-Nazi racial ideas. Even the most prominent philosopher who was a member of the Nazi party (Martin Heidegger) did not accept Nazi racial theories completely. If one had asked the average Nazi (or even Nazi intellectual) why he believed in racist ideology I would be surprised if he gave reasons having anything to do with the philosophies of Kant, Hegel or Fichte.
Interestingly enough, probably the most widely quoted philosopher by the Nazis was Friedrich Nietzsche. Unlike the obscure and abstruse Kant, Nietzsche actually sounds like a Nazi, at least at times. His philosophy is also tinged with racial and biological overtones. This is not to say that he would have approved of the Nazism, but if Nazism should be laid at the feet of any thinker (a dubious proposition) it would be Nietzsche. As readers of this blog know, Rand admired Nietzsche and echoes of his philosophy show up even in her later works. So we shouldn’t be surprised that Peikoff (always eager to defend Rand) tells us that his influence on the rise of the Nazis is “debatable.” (OP, p. 43.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
