NoodleFoodlers (E-mail) | Recent Comments NoodleCaboodle (Info) | Archives | Blogroll RSS Feed (Via E-mail) | OList.com Coalition for Secular Government | FIRM
A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!

Tuesday, December 02, 2008 Reflections from Reason By Diana Hsieh @ 2:46 PM Do we need a reminder of even how some of the better elements of the libertarian movement can be hostile to Ayn Rand? Perhaps not, but here's one that ran across my inbox a little while ago. It's a tidbit from a December 2008 Reason article on the origins of their magazine: [Tibor] Machan: Manny [Klausner] was never an Objectivist, and even Bob [Poole] was more mild-mannered about it. I was the philosophically grounded one, but I stylistically repudiated the atmospherics of the Objectivist world. I was excommunicated back in 1963 from the Rand thing. [Oh whatever, Tibor.] [Bob] Poole: We wanted a magazine for thinking people, not Randians. As time went on and various marketing strategies were tried it became clear that Rand was some people's cup of tea and not others', and if we wanted to be influential being an explicitly Objectivist magazine was not the recipe for doing that. [Emphasis added.] Bob Poole's first comment is offensive as stated, but I'm willing to be generous, given that this was an "oral history." Perhaps he meant that he wanted a magazine for all thinking people, not just Randians. (I've seen Poole speak a few times; he never struck me as hostile to Objectivists. However, my memory might not be what it should on that score.) However, it's his second comment -- that "Rand was some people's cup of tea and not others'" -- that's just so very libertarian. Reason couldn't possibly insist that their writers agree on any fundamental principles, like respect for reason, right? No way! That might alienate some people, namely people whose "cup of tea" is supernaturalism, mysticism, and altruism. So anything goes -- and the result is today's often disgustingly postmodern Reason. (Or rather, that's what it became after the departure of the sensible and interesting Virginia Postrel some years ago. I've paid it very little attention since that decline.) The libertarian movement took so many ideas from Ayn Rand, while often spitting in her face in a manner worthy of James Taggart. If only they'd learned her most basic lesson -- that philosophy matters because it's the fundamental motor of human life -- the history of the last 50 years might be different. Labels: False Friends of Objectivism, Libertarianism   E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)

Comments on "Reflections from Reason"
	Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 15:52:55 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: Cecil R. Williams E-mail: c1992w(at)gmail.com I had just subscribed to 'Reason' Magazine when their 100th AR Anaversary Issue came out. The article was disgusting and I immediately canceled my subscription. My personal opinion is that 'Reason' does more to destroy people's ability to reason than does 'Slate' or 'Details.' They do this with witticisms and wordsmithing that provokes a dominating feeling in the rank and file reader. What trash! Cecil R. Williams
	Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 15:58:38 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: Jared Seehafer E-mail: jared(at)seehafer.net I read "Rand was some people's cup of tea and not others" not as saying that they couldn't insist that their writers be consistent, but rather that Rand was too polarizing to appeal to a general audience. Therefore, water her down, take out of all the essentials, and call it 'libertarianism'. That's something that presumably everyone could get behind with little difficulty. As for "Randians", Poole could be referring to the prone to rationalism "Objectivist" drones that we've all run into. That would be giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he made a distinction between well meaning Objectivists and "Randians".
	Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 16:02:45 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: Michael Labeit E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com This is actually a very good example of the libertarian desire to subscribe somewhat to Rand's economics and simultaneously cling to other "less rational" philosophical convictions. The libertarian relationship with Rand's philosophy is highly "selective": they want the capitalism but not necessarily the godlessness or the faithlessness or the selflessness. And this applies just to the "pro-market" libertarians. How does one grapple with the fact that socialists, communists, and progressives have embraced the term "libertarian?"
	Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 16:18:00 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: Amy Zook E-mail: azook(at)mit.edu While I agree with the point of your article, I have to take issue with your criticism of Poole's comment about "Randians". This may be merely an issue of differing terminology, but I think it is an important one. I have always considered the term "Randian" (or "Randite" or "Randroid") to refer to someone who considers Rand, and not reason, their ultimate authority. I would wager that Poole is using the term in a similar fashion. Ayn Rand's works are not the Bible, and dogmatic faith in reason is no better, and certainly not more moral, than dogmatic faith in anything else. But there are plenty of so-called "Objectivists" who have never grasped this concept and continue to spout copious quotes from Ayn's works as answers to questions primarily because it saves them from having to think. Indeed, just as the most dangerous conservatives are those who say they are for a free market, but are really for big business bonuses from the government, I would consider "Randians" (in my sense of the word) one of the greatest dangers to Objectivism today. They are the ones who make people refer to us as a "cult," because in reality, that is precisely the mentality they have adopted. In addition, their attitude encourages us as Objectivists to feel that we have all the answers, when the truth is that there are many things Ayn left untouched, which we should be actively working to explore. So when Poole says that the magazine was to be for thinking people, and not Randians, I see no contradiction in that statement. I am proud to call myself an Objectivist, but I would never want to be labeled a Randian. The very word implies a "follow the leader" mentality, something no Objectivist would ever claim by choice.
	Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 16:52:14 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: Tom Rowland E-mail: trowland08(at)gmail.com Diana -- As another example, just this past Sunday on the Ayn Rand Google alert, there was a link to a particularly ugly quote that Reason had taken from New York Magazine. As ugly as it was, the opportunity for all the vermin to surface in the comments in both magazine's web sites was even uglier. In your quote, I found the comment on Reason's desire to be influential very telling in its setting of priorities: first -- be influential; second, find a way to say something that has only a tangential relationship to the truth as a means to that end. The influence they have was reflected in the comments. Quite a contrast to ARI's desire to influence the culture by speaking clearly about Objectivism. I am reminded of Peikoff's recent comment on one of his podcasts about Ayn Rand's intolerance for some questions. "Did this attitude drive some people away?" paraphrasing his remark. "Of course it did. What do you think? That she wanted to have such people around her and would placate them to achieve it?" One thing's for sure, Ayn rand was not a pragmatist.
	Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 17:00:24 mst Comment ID: #6 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Amy -- You said "I have always considered the term "Randian" (or "Randite" or "Randroid") to refer to someone who considers Rand, and not reason, their ultimate authority. I would wager that Poole is using the term in a similar fashion." I've been around all kinds of Objectivist circles for 15 years -- including the libertarian circles in which Bob Poole runs -- but I've never heard the term "Randian" used in that way before. If anything, the term tends to be used in a looser way than "Objectivist" to refer to a person who kinda sorta agrees with AR. (That interpretation is perfectly consistent with Poole's statement too.) Or it's just used as synonymous with "Objectivist," and again, that's consistent with Poole's statement. The term "Randian" doesn't imply anything on its own. The similarly-constructed terms "Aristotelian" and "Kantian" have no such overtones of obedience to an authority, after all. As for such dogmatic people being a serious threat to Objectivism, I see too little of them these days to think that.
	Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 17:02:56 mst Comment ID: #7 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Tom -- You hit the nail on the head better than I did. Their primary goal was influence; truth was only a secondary concern, at best. Blech!
	Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 18:27:32 mst Comment ID: #8 Name: Ryan Mulkerin I think every reference to Rand that I read in Reason has a note of condescending sympathy toward the movement. It seems that it goes without saying (or proof) that Rand's "dogmatism" destroyed the Objectivist movement. It disgusts me every time I see it. Reason has a weird optimistic theme that runs throughout its articles that despite all terrible cultural trends everything is going to be alright. It doesn't matter what the countries philosophical outlook is as long as some state is considering legalizing medical marijuana or that the teenagers today are really tech-savvy. Despite all this I do read the magazine's website every so often for some general updates on the progress of liberty.
	Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 20:31:14 mst Comment ID: #9 Name: 123 I agree with Objectivism, but are the ideas that libertarians have adopted really stolen from her? Aren't they the same ideas from the enlightenment, from Adam Smith, John Locke, etc.? Adam Smith believed in rational self interest and capitalism and enlightenment philosophy was based in reason. In what ways are their ideas completely stolen from Ayn Rand? (I agree with Objectivists that disagree with libertarianism with no philosophical principles) please don't overreact to asking this. i'm just wondering how they have stolen from her when they reject important parts of her philosophy and accept ideas that have been around for a few hundred years. maybe i'm making a mistake here.
	Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 20:57:47 mst Comment ID: #10 Name: PMB 123...for one (particularly relevant) aspect, the connection between reason and freedom. Second, to the extent they have it, a sense that capitalism is not only productive but MORAL. Third, a fully-conceptualized grasp of the initiation of force principle (it had been hinted at, but not defined in terms of purely physical force used to violate rights). You could come up with much more if you took it down to the level of individual libertarians.
	Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 21:00:23 mst Comment ID: #11 Name: PMB " Adam Smith believed in rational self interest and capitalism and enlightenment philosophy was based in reason." I should have been more specific. (1) Adam Smith did not believe that self-interest was MORAL. He said it was a (an unfortunate) fact of human nature, but one that capitalism channeled to the public good. AR regarded it, and was the first to regard it, as the MORAL END toward which capitalism was the means. (2) The Enlightenment philosophy *was* based on reason, but no one before AR explicitly grasped the connection between between reason and freedom (which you really couldn't grasp without a theory of objective values).
	Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 22:25:13 mst Comment ID: #12 Name: John F. Schmidley E-mail: Sarrisan98(at)Gmail.com Tom -- "I am reminded of Peikoff's recent comment on one of his podcasts about Ayn Rand's intolerance for some questions. "Did this attitude drive some people away?" paraphrasing his remark. "Of course it did. What do you think? That she wanted to have such people around her and would placate them to achieve it?" I am curious - I've been following Dr. Peikoff's podcasts for a while, but I do not remember this particular one (Perhaps I missed it). Which one is it in which he makes that remark (It's something I think I would remember... and jot down for future use!).
	Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 6:14:46 mst Comment ID: #13 Name: Spoudaios John, I also do not remember hearing that in the podcasts. I'd like to re-listen to it, since I seem to have no recollection of it at all.
	Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 6:15:08 mst Comment ID: #14 Name: William E. Perry E-mail: wperryster(at)gmail(dot)com Bob Poole is now on the Board of Directors of The Atlas Society. Bill
	Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 10:46:19 mst Comment ID: #15 Name: subzero John F. Schmidley , I remember hearing it in the podcasts, but don't remember which one. He added that Ayn Rand would not want to attract people who would not accept the egoism was a virtue and deal with fundamentals.
	Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 16:09:12 mst Comment ID: #16 Name: Valda Redfern E-mail: valda.redfern(at)gmail.com URL: http://valzhalla.blogspot.com Ryan Mulkerin observes "Reason has a weird optimistic theme that runs throughout its articles that despite all terrible cultural trends everything is going to be alright." A brief visit to their website a few years ago put me off Reason for good, and I haven't read it since, but this remark reminds me of evangelical Christians I have met: they are unreasonably cheerful in the face of setbacks, especially those for which they themselves share the blame. An example is a young man I used to know who was desperately keen to pass his 'A' Level physics exam so that he could take an engineering course at University. He failed the exam, for the second time. Anyone else would have been distraught: they would have questioned their study skills, or considered a different course; but this guy smilingly accepted his "misfortune" and settled back for a third try. If he just stuck at it, God would provide him with the knowledge he required, and he'd pass the exam when God was ready to let him.
	Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 21:18:38 mst Comment ID: #17 Name: Andrew Dalton E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com Ryan and Valda - And as if on cue, I found this piece linked from Instapundit today: http://www.reason.com/news/show/129993.html
	Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 18:48:06 mst Comment ID: #18 Name: XSPR Fuck an ayn rand!!
	Friday, December 5, 2008 at 13:34:25 mst Comment ID: #19 Name: 123 I understand the distinction between Smith and enlightenment philosophy and Ayn Rand, but not how the ideas of libertarians are stolen from her. It seems that libertarians think there just should be liberty and that capitalism is the result of liberty, whether moral or not. There is no philosophy to it, so I don't understand why they've stolen from her. I do know that some libertarians are libertarian because of her influence, but aren't Objectivist because they don't agree with all of the philosophy. If a politician were Objectivist and spread Objectivist ideas, should he give credit to Ayn Rand in doing so? I think a lot of people have an irrational, blind prejudice to her name and shut out anything she's said, even if they would agree with it. Why do Objectivists think it's too early for an Objectivist politician?
	Monday, December 8, 2008 at 3:44:42 mst Comment ID: #20 Name: Tom Rowland E-mail: trowland08(at)gmail.com Think for a minute, 123. Blind prejudice is indeed irrational. Do you really want to appeal to people with an irrational blind prejudice about the person whose ideas they unwittingly accept? Imagine the result. Politician: Capitalism is the only economic system that supports the right of an individual to act in his own self-interest! IBS Person: Yeah! Politician: Capitalism recognizes that the only way that freedom can be violated is by the initiation of physical force. IBS Person: Yeah! Politician: If you want to know more, read the books written by Ayn Rand. IBS Person: BOO! Down with Ayn Rand! OMG, You've got to be kidding.
Post Your Comment on "Reflections from Reason"
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 5 plus 6 equals 2096182232166343227