 |
Comments |
|
 | Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 6:21:54 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Neil Parille
E-mail: neilparille(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/
I found this review (or start of a review) quite measured. One thing I found interesting was:
_____
Burns correctly suggests that the social group surrounding Rand, led by the vicious and deceitful Nathaniel Branden, grew strange, unfriendly, and stultifying. I suppose that Rand would acknowledge as her greatest mistake getting tanged up with that catastrophe. The tendency Burns describes was deeply unfortunate. But it did not define Rand's broader social relations or her ideas. Thus, Burns is unfair to claim that Rand's "system" was "oppressive to individual variety." (And Rand did not advocate variety as such, but variety in the context of an individual's rational goals.)
____
If Mr. Armstrong is implying (I'm not sure that he is) that Rand didn't know what Branden was doing in her name, then I find this hard to believe. In addition, while Rand denounced Branden for many things in 1968, running a social group that was "strange, unfriendly, and stultifying" wasn't one of them. Finally, the purges and conformity didn't end with Branden's departure.
I'd point out that I think Prof. Burns fleshes out many of the ideas discussed here in greater detail in her book.
I certainly recommend the book.
|
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 7:25:04 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Conrad
Where is the link to the original?
"Rand made some mistakes, but Burns doesn't capture their nature here."
Maybe you could point out a few? |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 7:29:01 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Jeff Montgomery
E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/
Neil, considering you post on the snark-fest known as ObjectivistLiving.com (where Barbara Branden posts), one can see you've made your decision about the Branden years. I wonder if readers here realize how many ugly Molotov cocktails have been hurled over here from that site (not to mention at Peikoff and the Ayn Rand Institute). You need to show better judgment in your choice of venues and associates if you hope to be taken seriously in other areas. That site is an albatross for the Objectivist community.
I've found Burns' book very enjoyable so far (I'm about 1/4 through it). After years of smears and bizarre distortions, it's refreshing to read a real biography, and it's something I look forward to as I sit down with it.
One of the things that I've found interesting so far was the development of her thinking from rather pessimistic and vague on the topic of the individual to a more positive and integrated world view once she became interested in politics and she saw a true "way out" of the rising collectivism of the American 30s. Her interest in the brooding, elitist Nietzsche gave way to a reason-dominated view in a matter of a few years. Fascinating. |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 7:32:27 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Normally, I wouldn't dignify Neil Parille with a response, but I do have some relevant information on this question of whether Rand knew what Branden was doing in her name.
Leonard Peikoff told me that Nathaniel Branden used to grill him harshly in private conference for his supposed philosophic crimes. Branden claimed to have Ayn Rand's sanction in doing so. Peikoff assumed that was true. However, that wasn't the case at all -- as was discovered in the course of the break. Branden was conducting these intimidation sessions of his own accord, without Ayn Rand's knowledge. She was not pleased -- to put it mildly.
People often criticize Leonard Peikoff and others for breaking with the Brandens without knowing about the affair. However, that presumes that the Brandens were only guilty of lying about that one personal matter, not about anything else. In fact -- duh! -- Nathaniel Branden was lying, bullying, and manipulating whoever and whenever he could. That was his character then -- and now. Any of his victims would be completely justified in condemning and breaking with him -- just as Ayn Rand was. |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 8:01:30 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Joe Maurone
E-mail: spaceplayer2112(at)hotmail.com
I've added my own review to the book's page on Amazon.com. The two excerpts below sum up what I think of it:
Given the controversy surrounding Ayn Rand, a reader looking for an unbiased, non-partisan review might take comfort in Burns' insistence that she is "less concerned with judgement than with analysis," a choice that Burns says that Rand would "certainly condemn." Burns claims that she approaches Rand as a "student and a critic of American thought." But Burns' comment about Rand's "condemnation" foreshadows what's to come...
The problem of the "analysis" over "judgement" claim is apparent in the author's constant use of negative adjectives regarding Rand throughout the book, best exemplified by the claim on page 235: "There seems to two Objectivisms: one that genuinely supported intellectual exchange, engagement, and discourse, and one that was as dogmatic, narrow-minded and stifling as Rand's harshest critics alleged." This is very similar to the claims made by both Barbara and Nathaniel Branden. Burns does little to explain her opinions, a flaw compounded by the promotion of having access to unedited, archival material, which, at this point, comes to function as a crutch for the author to use as an argument of authority. |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 12:03:06 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: JT
E-mail: JT30014(at)hotmail.com
I haven't read the either of these books, so I can't render an informed verdict on the whole. But based on what I've heard, I'm wondering what the value is of a book that contains a massive amount of historical information about Ayn Rand, while also misrepresenting some of what she believed and stating/implying that her philosophic principles are wrong without proving why. Many historians write about the same subjects to reveal new facts or interpretations, but I haven't heard anyone say there's never-been-published material here. If there is, then I'd appreciate someone telling me that. If not, then what's the point? Clearly, a biographer has an interest in writing about Ayn Rand because of her very widespread name-recognition and controversial pronouncements. But why should someone else read it, especially someone who understands Objectivist ideas and thinks they're correct? |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 13:41:53 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
JT, from what I have read on Burns' website, she claims to analyze Rand's impact on conservatism. Whether or not Rand agreed with conservatism, it is without a doubt she had an influence on its practitioners. If this book provides any insight on that, it could be useful in attempts to woo conservatives to Objectivism.
Burns also apparently had access to the unedited archives, so there may be some historical details that have not been explored before. In order to understand how to reach out it and spread Objectivism, it may be insightful to see Burns' analysis. If Burns is being honest that she started from a somewhat negative view of Rand that evolved into something more positive, it may also be insightful to see how she arrived at her conclusions.
To the extent that she misinterprets or misunderstands Rand, others who read her book may have the same misconceptions. Since this appears to be a serious book, it would be unfair to dismiss it as a hatchet job, and thus in order to discuss Objectivism effectively with someone who has read the book, it would be useful to understand what it is saying. |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 14:07:48 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Moe
As to Maurone's point on the Archives material not being available for review: it would have been nice if the AR Archives had allowed the information to be copied or reproduced. According to Burns' blog, she was not allowed to do so. Maurone's argument seems to be that any good point made by Burns that relies on what she claims is Archives material should be dismissed or discounted due to unverifiability. Fair enough, I suppose, but this unverifiability is a convenient argument for those who wish to disagree with any non-party-line interpretation of Rand that Burns may make.
As to Ari Armstrong's extended Fountainhead quote:
a) Is there a copyright/fair use problem here?
b) Can't describe how much that added to my understanding of the argument. |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 14:38:57 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Paul
E-mail: pdspds(at)gmail.com
It's odd to see that Nathanial Branden is still causing pissing matches among Objectivists. Should there be a statute of limitations on this sort of thing? |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 14:43:32 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
No, not given that he continues his very dishonest hostility to Ayn Rand and Objectivism to this day -- including posing as someone else on this very web site:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2004/08/unnecessary-evidence.html |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 15:38:41 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: PDS
E-mail: pdspds(at)gmail.com
Sockpuppetry should be condemned in all its unhappy manifestations. I grant you that (and no I am not Natty Brando in cyber-drag).
This is, after all, your living room. It just seems a little like fly-swatting to me, and with a sledgehammer at that.
20 years ago, the average Objectivist would have given an eye tooth (and possibly a more relevant body part) to have a respected academic do a biography of Ayn Rand, and that enthusiasm, if I am correct, would "price in" the fact that some terminology would be misused and some snark (the word wasn't invented back then, I don't think) would leak into the equation.
Perhaps it makes sense to simply consider this particular cup half full, notwithstanding whatever the Brandens did 41 years ago.
In any event, I just stumbled into this blog a few days ago and love it. Thanks for your efforts. |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 15:57:09 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Joe Maurone
E-mail: spaceplayer2112(at)hotmail.com
Moe: "Maurone's argument seems to be that any good point made by Burns that relies on what she claims is Archives material should be dismissed or discounted due to unverifiability."
If you read the full review, you'll see that I don't say it should be "dismissed" or "discounted," but "used with caution" (the same thing Burns advises towards THE PASSION OF AYN RAND or THE JOURNALS OF AYN RAND.) Thanks. |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 16:25:54 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: JT
E-mail: JT30014(at)hotmail.com
KPO'M: "JT, from what I have read on Burns' website, she claims to analyze Rand's impact on conservatism....If this book provides any insight on that, it could be useful in attempts to woo conservatives to Objectivism."
If the book offers historian's analysis of Ayn Rand's impact on political conservatism in America, then that could be of value. I'm not optimistic about the idea of wooing a lot of modern-day conservatives to Objectivism, though. The irrationalist, religious element in the conservative movement is too fervent.
"If Burns is being honest that she started from a somewhat negative view of Rand that evolved into something more positive, it may also be insightful to see how she arrived at her conclusions."
Maybe, but I don't know. From the excerpts I've read, she still doesn't understand what Rand believed on important issues. If her "something more positive" view of AR isn't in response to Rand's philosophic system, then I don't see how that change could be very meaningful.
"Since this appears to be a serious book, it would be unfair to dismiss it as a hatchet job, and thus in order to discuss Objectivism effectively with someone who has read the book, it would be useful to understand what it is saying."
I wouldn't dismiss it as a "hatchet job." It appears that a lot of research went into the project, and I haven't heard anyone say that it's full of baseless attacks on AR. I wouldn't read this book for the purpose of discussing Objectivism effectively with someone else, though. |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 16:52:41 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Neil Parille
E-mail: neilparille(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/
Diana,
When does LP say he informed Rand of NB's bullying? If before the break, then I'm not aware of any mention of this in the diaries James Valliant transcribes.
Do you dispute the other witnesses who claim that NB's bullying went on in Rand's presence?
BTW, do you still stand by your praise of Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics?
-Neil Parille |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 19:35:11 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Jeff Montgomery
E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/
Joe Maurone said:
>Burns' insistence that she is "less concerned with judgement than with analysis,"
D'oh! That phrase stuck out like a sore thumb when I read the into, and I was afraid it was going to cause problems. I just haven't gotten that far in the book yet. That's the same premise in David Kelly's Truth and Toleration, or the idea that judgement is not itself a form of objective analysis. The premise being that judgments are non-objective.
JT said:
> I haven't heard anyone say there's never-been-published material here
I think there's something to be said for a new biography, even if extensive analysis reveals that one might have pieced it together from other published work, although I doubt that's the case if she's going into archives and Rand's journals. I personally don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of Rand history, or the time to parse all the many facts, so I welcome the efforts of those who want to do it. So far I've found the book benign and interesting. Of course I haven't gotten to the portion on the Branden years yet... Regardless it will be interesting, and will be worth blogging about. |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 19:38:35 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Jeff Montgomery
E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/
Oops, I mean: David KELLEY.
There was actually a point in my life growing up when I remember asking my Mom: "Is my name Jeffery or Jeffrey?". It was the latter :) lol |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 22:43:29 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Michael Caution
E-mail: mcaution(at)gmail.com
I actually received my copy of Burns' new book today and have read up through the introduction and I can agree with all of Ari points and more. In my reading there were several more errors in Burns' interpretation of Rand that is quite alarming given that this is only the introduction.
Just before the "extreme" and "simplistic" quote on page 3 there is the sentence, "What Rand confronted in her work was a basic human dilemma: the failure of good intention." If this sentence is taken as to mean: individuals all want the good and their primary motivation is finding a way to bring about human flourishing, but somehow have failed in their noble endeavor, and that Rand, through her works, illuminated the correct way to help these misguided individuals, then this is false. Throughout human history there have always been what Rand called the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, "those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter"the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit"the destruction of his mind." (Galt's Speech, "For the New Intellectual", 138) So no it is not true that all individuals seek the good and as a student of history I'm hoping that Burns is not implying this interpretation of the sentence. The other way the sentence could be taken, and I think this is what Burns had in mind, is that: Rand herself viewed the human dilemma as a failure of good intentions evidence by the wars of the 20thC. In the first, Burns views the destructive nature of totalitarianism as a failure of good intentions. In the second it is Rand's. Such a statement is baffling to say the least. On several occasions Rand points out the fact that statism in any form is immoral and not to be thought of as some "noble experiment" that has failed despite good intentions. Statism fails in practice because it has to fail. It is morally corrupt. This is the whole essence in Atlas Shrugged when John Galt describes the motive force in an individual's life as either driven by the Morality of Life or the Morality of Death. Those who claim to be their brother's keeper are most certainly not acting on the Morality of Life and this is what Rand writes about in Atlas. For someone who has spent eight years of her life studying the ideas of Rand and to not grasp this distinction by Rand herself in her most famous novel of all time certainly didn't do her homework.
This is just one glaring misrepresentation of Rand. Elsewhere Burns describes Rand as a "rationalist philosopher" (5) and resorts to psychologism saying "Her dual career as a novelist and a philosopher let Rand express both her deep-seated need for control and her genuine belief in individualism and independence." (5) Her deep-seated need for control?! She also mistakenly attributes Romantic fiction as escapist in nature. (5)
Having only read the introduction thus far I can only say so much but I think it is because Burns lacks a full understanding of the Objectivist corpus that she leaves herself susceptible to the prevailing interpretation of Rand as a tragic, contradictory woman who couldn't live up to her own ideals. It would be interesting to know just how much contact she had with scholars from the ARI and how much of an influence they were upon her formulations. I think that if Burns did have a solid Objectivist foundation from which to work from her book wouldn't be plagued by such glaring missteps. |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 22:52:19 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Michael Caution
E-mail: mcaution(at)gmail.com
Having said all that I do intend to read the whole book and I think this first attempt at a scholarly look at Rand deserves much credit and much of our attention. This is sure to be the first of many later examinations of Rand of which it will be used as a source. Therefore I think it is important to critique Burns' work where it needs it but also to praise her for those parts that are good. |
|
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 9:16:14 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Richard Lawrence
E-mail: rl0919(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/
Regarding Rand being called a "rationalist philosopher," it is important to realize that the word 'rationalist' is commonly used with more than one meaning. There is a general sense in which it means "supportive of reason," and a more specific sense in which it refers to views that denigrate sensory experience in favor of non-empirical thinking. Rand used the word in the latter sense when she condemned rationalism, but I'm pretty sure that Burns means it in the more general sense.
A more general caution for reading later parts of the book is that I've found it is sometimes hard to tell if Burns is describing the views of someone she is talking about, expressing a degree of agreement/sympathy with that person's views, or just giving her own view of the subject. In some cases it seems to be one or another, but she isn't careful about clearly distinguishing these situations in her writing, which can be frustrating if you are trying to understand what her perspective is on an issue. |
|
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 10:42:15 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: JT
E-mail: JT30014(at)hotmail.com
Jeff Montgomery: "I think there's something to be said for a new biography, even if extensive analysis reveals that one might have pieced it together from other published work, although I doubt that's the case if she's going into archives and Rand's journals."
So if I were to write a biography of AR using only material that has already been published about AR or is well-known, that would be valuable to readers? How? It would be valuable to ME if the book is issued by a respected publisher with my name on it and I receive royalty checks from book sales. But I don't see how that would be valuable to anyone else.
Again, I haven't read the book. It may be that there's fresh analysis, such as AR's particular impact on conservatism after WWII ended and the Fountainhead was published, that makes it worthwhile. |
|
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 10:50:03 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
"Regarding Rand being called a "rationalist philosopher," it is important to realize that the word 'rationalist' is commonly used with more than one meaning. There is a general sense in which it means "supportive of reason," and a more specific sense in which it refers to views that denigrate sensory experience in favor of non-empirical thinking. Rand used the word in the latter sense when she condemned rationalism, but I'm pretty sure that Burns means it in the more general sense."
A classic example of what I call "Objectivese". Objectivists use a lot of terms (such as "sacrifice," "selfish," and "altruistic") in ways different from the rest of society. (Recognizing this fact is a *different* issue from making the judgement of who is using the words correctly. I consider "Objectivese" correct English, but I *do* note by calling it such that it is different from *common* or *conventional* English.) I've noticed on occasion O-ists hearing someone use the word in a conventional way, and then berate them on the assumption that they are trying to say what an Objectivist would mean using that word. "I am a rationalist" brings condemnation down on the person who says it, and he is bewildered, because he thought he was saying he was an advocate of reason. (I saw this specific case happen once, to an unwary person who stumbled into an Objectivist chat room. Fortunately the misunderstanding got cleared up in less than five minutes, unfortunately, the "rationalist" decided to be stubborn about following conventional usage.)
A cautionary suggestion--when talking to someone who is not an Objectivist or new to it, and he uses one of these words, do *not* assume he is using it the same way you are--especially if the word is "altruist" or one of its forms. Ask for a clarifaction: "What do you mean by altruist?" As often as not, people think that helping out their friends (and relatives that they value) is "altruist." (This makes us look bad--to them--when we condemn "altruism" in the sense *we* mean the term.) If it turns out he's following conventional usage, explain the distinction to him in a non-condemnatory fashion. You may even get a "geez, if I actually meant to say *that* you'd be right to condemn me!" for your effort. |
|
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 11:14:33 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Richard Lawrence
E-mail: rl0919(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/
For those questioning whether there is anything new in the book, the answer is yes. It is true Burns synthesizes a great deal from previously published sources, but this is valuable because very few of her readers will have a comprehensive knowledge of the biographical and historical sources she has used. There are literally dozens of books that discuss some aspect of Rand's life. Some of these are books primarily about other subjects in which Rand makes an appearance, such as biographies of people she interacted with and general histories of conservatism and libertarianism. For the rare reader who has already covered all of this material, perhaps it will be mostly old news, but I doubt that is common. Of course Burns can't simply assume that her readers will be versed in Rand's general biography, so there is necessarily some repetition of things that you might know from reading another bio or seeing "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life". But even for those who have read extensively about Rand, there is still new material from her unpublished journals and letters. I expect that those most informed about Rand's life will find more disagreement with Burns' interpretations than boredom from reading about things they already know. (And they will find several minor factual errors, although none of particular consequence from what I've noticed.) |
|
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 19:34:00 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
JT, to clarify my previous post, what I meant by "wooing conservatives" is that I think there are a number of people who previously identified with the Republican Party or the conservative movement who have been turned off in recent years by the GOP's sharp capitulation to the religious fringes of the party. The GOP used to describe itself as having a "big tent." Now, that label is more appropriate for the Democratic Party, though it seems the extreme left is trying to use the Democratic majority to pass through an extreme left agenda.
This leaves the "disgruntled conservative" with an apparent dilemma. Supporting the GOP is no longer acceptable because the religious elements have taken control. However, while the Democratic party has a fiscally responsible wing that is trying to assert itself, its existence enables the Pelosis, Reids, and Obamas of the world to flex their muscle, which rules them out, as well. It is these people to whom Objectivism may appeal. |
|
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 20:26:38 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: BrianS
Instapundit provided a link a couple days ago to this Wilson Quarterly review of the two books:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay ...
Here is an indication of the ideas some are deriving from the two works:
"As Burns puts it, “The clash between her romantic and rational sides makes [her life] not a tale of triumph, but a tragedy of sorts.”"
"Betrayed by her emotions when Branden finally rejected her..."
"Rand is typically written off as a writer whose basic appeal is to maladjusted adolescents, a sort of vaguely embarrassing starter author who is quickly outgrown by those of us who develop more sophisticated aesthetic and ideological tastes. There’s more than a small degree of truth to such a characterization..."
"Heller draws a critical but sympathetic thread through Rand’s biography, arguing that Rand’s insistence on individualism was heavily informed by the anti-Semitism her family faced in pre- and post-revolutionary Russia."
"Heller also has a great eye for the contradictions and hypocrisy that ultimately make her subject more approachable. For instance, Rand fueled her endless writing sessions not with rational determination but with amphetamines and by sticking herself with a needle to maintain “focus,” a tacit admission that even her mind had its limits."
"Rand and her acolytes were masters of revising history so that the grand dame was seemingly a timeless genius who had no real influences or predecessors (except for Aristotle, of all people). Heller’s account of the figures who helped Rand develop her thought - especially Isabel Paterson, a New York Herald Tribune book reviewer and author with whom Rand predictably broke - helps recover an entire intellectual tradition that has mostly been forgotten."
"Burns is particularly sharp at analyzing how Cold War conservatives such as Buckley rejected Rand’s rationalism..."
"Together, [the two books] provide a rounded portrait of a woman who, as Burns writes, “tried to nurture herself exclusively on ideas.” As Rand’s biography underscores, she failed miserably..." |
|
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 20:42:49 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Michael Caution
E-mail: mcaution(at)gmail.com
The term "rationalist" does have a very specific technical philosophical meaning and encompasses a whole tradition of thought. However, given Burns lack of understanding of Objectivism and the Objectivist distinction that the rationalist/empiricist dichotomy is invalid her statement is left vague and could be interpreted as either an advocate of reason or a philosopher in the rationalist tradition. Given that this is a scholarly book on a philosopher this is sloppy writing and reflects poorly on Burns. |
|
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 21:45:20 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Michael: A check of the Wilson Quarterly review shows that Burns is not a philosopher but a political scientist. She may not have the nuances of philosophical terminology under her command. The skills needed to research and write a biography, and the skills needed to clarify a philosophical point, not only are not the same but are not often found in the same person. If the biographer provides you with the facts, accurately enough so that you can make your own conclusions about the philosophical meaning, they've done their job, even if they attribute an entirely different philosophical meaning to those facts.
And while Objectivism isn't an obscurantist philosophy, it's not a transparently obvious one, either; there are nuances of Rand's thought that I didn't get a grip on for literally decades after first encountering them.
Bill Stoddard |
|
| Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 0:03:41 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Sajid
"If the biographer provides you with the facts, accurately enough so that you can make your own conclusions about the philosophical meaning, they've done their job, even if they attribute an entirely different philosophical meaning to those facts"
True but with one caveat. The different philosophical meaning has to have some sort of rational underpinning. I don't think there is any justification of an outright smear job even if one gets the facts straight. No matter what work is written, once cannot present ALL of the facts so some sort of selection has to happen and thus, even if one does get the facts straight, one can still have a pernicious agenda.
I haven't read the book, just responding to the comment. |
|
| Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 1:05:44 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Michael Caution
E-mail: mcaution(at)gmail.com
Bill: I had said "on a philosopher". I was referring to Rand. Burns is reporting on a philosopher and and should be careful to make clear distinction in the terms she chooses to use. |
|
| Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 6:48:35 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: PMB
"The skills needed to research and write a biography, and the skills needed to clarify a philosophical point, not only are not the same but are not often found in the same person."
The question is, did either biographer consult an Objectivist philosopher? Did they even feel the need to? Those are real questions--I don't know the answers, although from the bits I've read my guess would be no. But one of the first obligations of a biographer of a philosopher is to understand his or her philosophy. Imagine someone writing a biography of Einstein without understanding physics and not consulting physicists. |
|
| Friday, October 9, 2009 at 7:35:05 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Richard Lawrence
E-mail: rl0919(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/
"The question is, did either biographer consult an Objectivist philosopher?"
Don't know on Heller, but for an answer to this question regarding Burns, we can look at the "Acknowledgments" section of her book. The only philosopher of any kind that I see mentioned is Tibor Machan. There are a number of unfamiliar names mentioned, but from the context I don't get the impression that any of them are philosophers. There are also some Objectivists mentioned who are not philosophers. And as is typical for acknowledgments, the degree of assistance these folks provided could have varied widely, from answering a single question to reviewing the entire manuscript. |
|
| Sunday, November 1, 2009 at 19:44:24 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: John Donohue
E-mail: john(at)jrdonohue.com
URL: http://jrdonohue.com
if that "rationalist" sentence had passed under the eyes of an Objectivist pre-publication reader/editor it would instantly have set off alarms. It would have been corrected. This suggests either no Objectivist read the drafts or if they did and pointed it out, Burns deliberately left this misleading phrase intact. Even Machan, of whom I am not a fan, would have pointed it out.
Per the second paragraph of #19 above, Richard Lawrence, this author gets to 'give her opinions.' Per many of the citations, she is not someone who grasps the full Objectivist world-view. Well, she still has the right to write a biography I guess and it still has to be challenged in the marketplace of ideas I guess...
...but it makes me wish these people would write what Miss Rand suggested: 'a biography of an idea.' Then it could be challenged on ITS ideas. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
