| | James,
As I noted in my latest response to Casey, I disagree with your assessment here:
"Legitimate, responsible" criticism of Objectivism is very hard to find, indeed, and, of course, it depends upon what you mean by a "critic."
It isn't that hard to find. Are the published criticisms of Rand's ideas by, say, Tibor Machan, Eric Mack, Doug Rasmussen, Kirsti Minsaas, Roger Bissell, and Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi all illegitimate and irresponsible?
The real critics, many of whom I cite in my book, like Tuccille (that is, his recent work), Walker, and now our friend from COMMENTARY, and the like, do rely heavily on the Brandens -- if they often also embark on their own excursions into fantasy and distortion.
Actually, Tuccille played fast and loose in It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand, published over 30 years ago... More to the point, though, you seem to be saying that "real critics" are people who indulge in crude hatchet-jobbery.
In another post farther up the thread you asked who else besides Ayn Rand has been subjected to so much unscholarly treatment. No question, her ideas have been mercilessly distorted by many who have tried to discredit them. But this phenomenon is more common than you seem to think. Herbert Spencer died in 1903, and has had no disciples for 3, maybe 4 generations, yet outrageous distortions of his ideas are still given currency by people who would be much more careful in their treatment of other thinkers. Jean Piaget is a 20th century figure whose ideas have often been shamefully misrepresented, even though most of his published work is about cognitive development, his moral views were far less troubling to academics in the humanities and social sciences than Rand's have been, and he wrote scarcely a word about politics.
Another "critic" I cite in my book, Chris Sciabarra, whatever one thinks of his work, belongs in completely different category. This is something I hope is also clear from my book.
I appreciate your saying this, as I appreciate your willingness to participate in the comment section under his review of your book on Notablog.
But this brings us back to the ARI question, which you deflected in a previous post on this thread.
As far as I'm concerned, what the principals at ARI think about Ayn Rand scholarship has been made eminently clear, through words or through actions. What's more, Tom Rowland has been rather reliably presenting the official line from ARI, right on this thread. There isn't a whole lot more to be learned, by asking the people who run ARI about its policies or its social norms.
For instance: I assume you know that The Russian Radical has been officially pronounced a "worthless book" (in a review by John Ridpath in an ARI-affiliated publication). I assume you also know that the current penalty for publishing in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is ostracism or expulsion from ARI. I don't think that I am jumping to conclusions when I note that works by the scholars that I previously mentioned are simply not cited in print by ARI-affiliated scholars. Or that the alleged philosophical errors, if any, in David Kelley's book about perception have never been mentioned in public by anyone affiliated with ARI, yet that book has ceased to be cited.
Since your declared values, as well your conduct toward Chris Sciabarra, appear to run counter to the strictures promoted by ARI, I think your frank assessment of that organization and its institutional culture would make a particularly significant contribution to this thread.
Robert Campbell
|
|
