| | Michael,
I meant "what is the point of your questions?"
I'm still not sure that I get the point of these three questions. Is there supposed to be a morally correct answer? A rationally correct answer? You are clearly angry that Ayn Rand's Journals were used in this way but I don't think you make your case in what you write
So maybe I can make them clear to myself and answer them
This is the issue I want to discuss: Does Valliant make his case?
So here's my take on some of your comments and questions from that perspective.
1. Questions about the use of Rand's Journals to make the case
Answer: If a case is going to be made by anyone it can't be Ayn Rand because she never made a case. She never did what Valliant does. She never read, let alone critiqued the Brandens' books. And she never presented her Journals with commentary to explain them against any of their charges.
Now, of course, you could argue that that is your point. If she didn't do it, what gives anyone the right to do what she didn't do? Have I understood your objection?
I think there is a problem with this argument. She didn't make a case because she thought she had already made as much of a case as she needed to. And then she dropped it. Finished. No more comments by her about the Brandens. Case closed. She's banished the Brandens from her life, from her thoughts (at least as far as that is possible to someone with her memories), and from Objectivism. She kept what they had done under her mentorship in the "canon" and assumed that they would be honorable enough to speak only for themselves in the future, and not continue to make any claims about Objectivism or her. And, perhaps, she trusted that everyone else would simply take her at her otherwise trustworthy word.
But they didn't. Each of the Brandens wrote about her in terms that she never had a chance to defend against, and each of them has re-inserted themselves into Objectivism, a practice to which she has had no opportunity to object on any grounds. And people in general, on the basis of those books began to impune her trustworthiness, her motives and even her sanity. And it is wider than the Brandens. IT is in every issue that has been raised over the years since -- from homosexuality to "truth and toleration" to musical taste to the Reismann's to dogmatism to cultishness. So, my argument is this: a case for Rand needs to be made -- her case, as much as that is possible given that we can't actually put her or the Brandens on the stand. And given that the person being defended is Ayn Rand, I am willing to introduce any and all of her writings. And, given that she cannot be her own lawyer (a practice that is usually frowned upon even if the defendant is alive) I am willing to allow, even welcome, someone to be her "mouthpiece."
2. Why I haven't dealt with some of the claims and why I am no longer willing to sit on this Jury.
In a word, I believe the Jury pool is tainted. And the first piece of evidence is what I suppose most of the readers of the last sentence are now thinking. Now, I don't claim to be a mind reader, but I've had enough experience on this site to know that I'm probably pretty close when I say that you are thinking that I am the one tainting it with my defense of Ayn Rand and ARI's "propaganda."
But of course, that is the very point at issue in this case. You claim, for instance, that ARI is not interested in the truth, they are interested in "proving a point." What point is that, if it isn't the truth? Isn't the truth the point at issue?
And, as I've seen on this and other forums, if someone tries to defend against one of the Brandens' assertions, or give another view, or argue a contrary point they are called "dogged literalists," "Randroids", "true believers." They are accused of "whitewashing", "protecting Rand's public image" But these are all the very point at issue.
At issue is whether I or anyone can wholeheartedly and whole-mindedly accept Peikoff's position in "Fact and Value" without automatically having it assumed that I am a "cultist." Indeed at issue is why anyone who claims to be a fan of Ayn Rand would dismiss without argument -- on no other grounds than that it comes from ARI -- anything they put out.
As for double standard, I quote the lovely Kat. "It is such a shame that this book is taken seriously at all." If I or Valliant or Peikoff say that -- as it was said and is being said repeatedly -- about the Brandens' books, we are accused of "wanting to hide the truth of the affair," "cultism", "evasion", "whitewashing Rand's goddess image" etc. But my bet is that Kat will be sanctioned many times over, and only I will call her on it.
If we say that the Brandens' books are "ugly and evil" and consist, insofar as they "humanize" Rand, largely of gossip and faulty interpretation from disgruntled associates who have an ax to grind, that's "ARI propaganda", but my bet is that Kat and others, saying the same thing about Valliant's book, will be sanctioned many times over, and only I will call her on it.
Being forced by Ayn Rand's words to admit that the affair took place when he was unwilling to accept the word of the Brandens' (after all Rand had condemned them as liers) is "evasion" on Peikoff's part. But refusing to accept that the Brandens might not be quite as wonderful as some of the people on this thread want to believe, when Rand's own words (forget Valliant's commentary) condemn them, that's NOT?
Give me a break.
Now for the issue of 'lies'. I had originally thought that I would answer David's post #29, but decided against an immediate response, thinking that the first thing that needed to be done was to get past the invective and double standard. I haven't managed to do that, but in the interest of completeness before I disengage, let's look at the first of them: "the lie that the disagreement over how Rand picked the name "Rand" was ominously indicative of a larger malevolence on Barbara Branden's part?" Well, this is part of what's at issue, isn't it? If, indeed that is Valliant's claim, it isn't enough to simply say it's a lie, one must prove it. And one must prove it by, to some extent at least, showing that it wasn't indicative of a larger malevolence. But, that is what the entire book is about, isn't it?
The point made by Shiff is next.
Quoting Shiff: "Is Mr. Valliant suggesting that the Brandens decided after their break with Rand (or perhaps before) that they would keep their stories straight on how Rand repressed feelings of anti-semitism as a means of discrediting her or as part of their plan to financially exploit her? Absurd.
So if their stories don't match exactly they're proven liers; and if their stories are the same, they must be co-ordinating their lies."
Again, these are some of the points at issue, aren't they?
Some points. I'm not clear what is being called "absurd" in the first paragraph -- the entire idea, the part of co-ordination, the part of discrediting, or the part of financial exploitation.
Again the point at issue, so requiring more than "absurd" as validation.
To the issue of the Brandens acceptance as gospel here, I doubt very much that the idea that Rand repressed feelings of [about?] anti-semitism is being called absurd. This, unlike Valliant's claim, is accepted at face value.
Further, I don't see in this review any example of "if their stories don't match exactly they're proven liers." There may be one in Valliant's book, but I don't see it referenced here, and, in any case, it a point at issue requiring more than "shame."
And so on. I don't see a single "lie" whose truth or lack thereof is not a point at issue requiring more than the invocation of received wisdom. "Does Valliant think O'Connor was an alien from outer space?" is not an argument against Valliant's discussion of this issue.
So, I know I won't have satisfied everyone. And I'm pretty sure the sanctions will not be numerous. But if sanctions were what I'm about, I wouldn't be here.
And, on this thread, I have no more to say.
Tom
PS to Alec, you really have a way of conflating and expanding what people say and giving it whatever twist you like. It is a rare gift. I offered a way for us to communicate, and you replied with more invective. So be it.
|
|
