Is Objectivism a cult?

Robert Campbell notes: "Mike at Passing Thoughts is continuing his defense of the Ayn Rand Institute and its ways. See http://passingthoughts.blogsome.com/2005/10/08/blog-wars/#comments

"His previous blog entry applied the epithet 'arbitrary gibberish' to the entire contents of 6 1/2 annual volumes of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Then, in the comments section to the selfsame entry, he admitted to never having read a single article that has appeared in JARS."

One of the contributors to NoodleFood (Diana Hsieh's blog) was defending Peter Schwartz's lecture on Contextual Knowledge against my criticism of it by claiming that I wasn't fairly representing Schwartz, even though this person acknowledged that he hadn't actually heard Schwartz's lecture. Of course, that wasn't necessary, since he "knew" that since Schwartz was a principal of ARI, whatever Schwartz said ~must~ be correct and anyone who would dare to criticize it, incorrect.

As for the "arbitrary gibberish" comment, ARI groupies are fond of substituting epithets and hyperbole for rational argument. When I was allowed to post comments on Diana's blog, I made some remarks in defense of compatibilism. Diana quickly put a stop to any discussion of that, and later made the comment that compatibilism was "beyond stupid," while acknowledging that her husband had been a compatibilist until she persuaded him otherwise. Was he "beyond stupid" before he changed his mind? Then, as was noted previously, she had the following to say about Robert Campbell: "Based upon my own personal experience, describing Robert Campbell�s approach to ARI as 'malicious dishonesty' seems too kind." Mind you, Robert's "approach to ARI" is not just wrong, not just mistaken or misguided and not just immoral, but worse than "maliciously dishonest"! I guess that goes along with her "beyond stupid" remark. She also described Chris Wolf who wrote an article critical of Andrew Bernstein's conduct as a "raving lunatic." Do you detect a pattern here?

Robert quotes Mike at Passing Thoughts: "(1) The National Review is a destructive magazine. It actively attacks Objectivism and Ayn Rand, and it actively promotes the religious right. There have been valuable articles written in the National Review, yet somehow I don�t think calling NR a destructive force while conceding that it publishes the occasional insightful piece is a contradiction or problem. I wouldn�t be shocked if there have been some quality articles published in JARS. But that, in and of itself, doesn�t make JARS a worthwhile publication, and it doesn�t change the fact that, as a whole, JARS is a damaging force in Rand scholarship."

Robert comments: I'm curious to know whether there is ever a difference, for the members of ARI, between criticizing Rand's ideas and 'attacking' and 'destroying' them--or her."

This is so funny, because on Diana's blog, she claimed that defending compatibilism would "destroy" Objectivism. That certainly ascribes a lot of intellectual power and influence to an idea that, according to her, is "beyond stupid." It also betrays a rather low opinion of Objectivism's ability to withstand criticism. But that, apparently, is how the supporters of ARI view their philosophy - a weak and fragile system of ideas that is so precarious it is forever on the verge of collapse.

- Bill

Post 261

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 10:30pm

I wrote: "Shades of Nathaniel Branden back in the '60's. I remember asking him a question about some point that was covered in his lecture, and was greeted with exactly the same response. He shouted at me in an angry, accusatory tone of voice: WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTION??!! I think this stems from Rand's tendency to respond to questions she didn't like in a similar manner."

Adam Reed replied, "I had the same experience from Nathaniel Branden, and other lesser lights in the Establishment, but NEVER from Ayn Rand herself. Did you? Or is it an assumption that everything NB did in those days was in imitation of Ayn Rand? Do you have any direct evidence of "Rand's tendency to respond to questions she didn't like in a similar manner?"

Yes, because I heard her impugn the questioner's motives on various occasions. Viz., "What is the motive of a person who would ask this kind of question?" or words to that effect.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/09, 10:32pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/09, 10:41pm)

Post 262

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 11:26pm

Good for you, Bill.

Finally someone who knew Rand personally is coming out and giving first-hand accounts of these things.

More people who knew her need to do the same.

Not to denigrate her. But to arrive at the truth.

Also to stay the current whitewash attempt from "the authority of selectively chosen facts" (plus a couple other goodies like rationalizations presented as speculations and attempted character assassination).

Michael

Post 263

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 11:39pm

Robert Campbell wrote:

Here is a list of the articles just recently published in Volume 7, number 1 of JARS.

Chris Matthew Sciabarra: The Rand Transcript, Revisited
Kirsti Minsaas: Mimesis and Expression in Rand's Theory of Art
Nicholas Dykes: The Facts of Reality: Logic and History in Objectivist Debates about Government
Robert White: Ayn Rand versus Adam Smith
Peter Jaworski: Feser on Nozick (Review)
Fred Seddon: Kant on Faith
Roderick Long: Reference and Necessity: A Rand-Kripke Synthesis? (Review)
Michael Huemer: How to Be a Perceptual Realist (Reply)
Ari Armstrong: Direct Realism and Causation (Rejoinder)

Note: this is a partial list of articles in Vol. 7, no. 1 of JARS. Omitted from Robert's list were the following:

Kevin Hill: Seddon on Rand
[ahem] Roger Bissell: Langer and Camus: Unexpected Post-Kantian Affinities with Rand's Aesthetics

My piece directly follows the one by Minsaas (who also gives some amount of analysis and critique of my previous JARS essays on aesthetics).

Happy reading to all, including those ARI partisans who have the courage to explore forbidden writings in the privacy of their own homes. :-)

Roger Bissell, post-Randian musician/writer

Post 264

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 4:15am

Roger,

Many apologies! I was in too much of a hurry, working back and forth between the front cover (which doesn't list all of the articles) and the table of contents inside.

Robert

PS. Kevin Hill's piece, "Seddon on Rand," is another book review.

Post 265

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 4:26am

Adam,

Bill Dwyer says that Rand also questioned the motives behind some questions.

Again, if she wasn't in the habit of doing it, and the practice stems entirely from Nathaniel Branden when he ran NBI, why didn't it stop in September 1968?

Either NB was still being emulated after he'd become persona non grata; or other members of Rand's circle had independently arrived at the same pattern of conduct and now continued it, presumably without encouragement from Rand; or they were all following the example of someone other than AR or NB.

Robert Campbell

PS. Whose example would ARI members cite, if asked why they like to question the motives behind questions?

Post 266

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 7:42am

RE NBI in the 60's:

I took every course they offered in NYC between fall of 1965 until they self-destructed in summer of 1968.

I also found the atmosphere to be repressive -- and Rand was as much or more responsible for it than Branden.

One of her favorite responses to an innocently asked question was:

"Only a person of low self-esteem could ask such a question." (Uttered in an angry tone). It shut everyone up real fast, and thereby inhibited much honest inquiry from which we all would have benefited.

Steve

Post 267

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 9:09am

Robert said:

Again, if she wasn't in the habit of doing it, and the practice stems entirely from Nathaniel Branden when he ran NBI, why didn't it stop in September 1968?

Either NB was still being emulated after he'd become persona non grata; or other members of Rand's circle had independently arrived at the same pattern of conduct and now continued it, presumably without encouragement from Rand; or they were all following the example of someone other than AR or NB.

Robert, your logic is unassailable, but that doesn't mean it won't be assailed.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 268

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 10:02am

My rule for dealing with ARI-aligned people is to deal with them on an individual basis and show respect. I understand Robert's concern that a new generation of kids is learning the tools for shuttering debate and dealing harshly with philosophical opponents who might be allies. But I would say to a prospective philosophy student or student interested in philosophy, maintain your independence. Go study from Gotthelf and Lennox at Pitt or Darryl Wright at Harvey Mudd. They are good teachers. And none of them is into indoctrination. There is a rich Objectivist corpus to be studied. Read Kelley and Branden and take courses and attend lectures with them.

ARI as an institution is a polemicist organization. Ayn Rand was a polemicist author. They have rules of association and many people believe the price of association is too high. That may be so, but I always recommend that people see for themselves and weigh the evidence. When they do that, there is less regret and hard feelings ala Diana Hsieh.

Jim

Post 269

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 5:47pm

Michael wrote, "Good for you, Bill.

"Finally someone who knew Rand personally is coming out and giving first-hand accounts of these things.

"More people who knew her need to do the same.

"Not to denigrate her. But to arrive at the truth.

"Also to stay the current whitewash attempt from "the authority of selectively chosen facts" (plus a couple other goodies like rationalizations presented as speculations and attempted character assassination)."

Thanks, Michael. You should have seen the reception I got on Diana's blog for daring to suggest that Rand was anything less than perfect. It was the standard, "You're trying to show that a person of greatness has feet of clay" response; "you're trying to belittle her character and achievements. How dare you!" All said in a collective knee-jerk spirit of denial.

I had related a story told to me by a close friend, who was a great admirer of Rand, so much so that he had traveled all the way from California to Boston just to hear her lecture at the Ford Hall Forum. He told me that he was outside the auditorium after the lecture talking to someone and didn't see Rand as she was making her exit. Apparently, he was in her way with his back turned to her when the next thing he heard was her shouting at him: "GET OUT OF MY WAY! DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?? Needless to say, he was quite shocked and humiliated, as he was a real fan of hers.

Of course, the folks on Diana's blog were quick to dismiss this story as false, on the grounds that it was contrary to Rand's character, even though my friend, who was a very honest guy and very sympathetic to Objectivism, had absolutely no reason to lie about it.

- Bill

Post 270

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 8:32pm

Bill, this isn't the first time you've told this "Get out of my way story," but I hope it's the last. If it happened it was out of character and no one has any idea of its long lost context. If it happened to you and it's your story, that's one thing, but your hearsay testimony doesn't cut it. I've got a lot of issues with the Ayn Rand of the 1960s, but she doesn't deserve this. I also saw her at the Ford Hall Forum for many years in the late 60s and 70s and I have no such stories.

--Brant

Post 271

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 8:56pm

Okay, here is one of my Ayn Rand hearsay stories, posted for the sake of fairness and balance: Miss Rand apparently took the bus to Boston from New York for at least one Ford Hall Forum appearance, and some of the Objectivist staff went with her. There was a threatened bus strike (I remember this) and the staff was wondering how they might get back to NYC if that happened. Someone suggested hitch-hiking. Miss Rand opined that if it came to that she might have to display some leg.

--Brant

Post 272

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 9:24pm

It's true Ayn Rand took a bus to Ford Hall Forum at least once. A friend of mine sat behind her.

Post 273

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 9:28pm

Brant,

Let me add a couple of two cents worth here that might shed some light on this story, but from a different perspective.

Bill's story sounds very credible to me, but not in the sense that most people take it - meaning an offensively arrogant lapse by Ayn Rand. I think it meant something else entirely.

I have personally produced over 300 popular music concerts (and a host of other public presentations). An impresario's delight (an overflow house) is a security nightmare.

I happened to have attended one of Ayn Rand's presentations in the Ford Hall Forum - merely because I showed up several hours early. The crowd was unbelievable. The next year, stupidly, I went closer to opening time and I could not get in. Even the crowd in the foyer was too big to hear the loudspeakers for the overflow crowd correctly, so I wend back to my dorm room and caught the lecture on the radio.

If you have ever seen a throng of fans lunging at you, trying to touch you, talk to you, get your attention somehow, it is no fun. One stupid thing by anyone can instantly turn into a disaster for the star.

I can imagine Ayn Rand in that context wanting to get out of there as fast as she could. So anybody blocking her way would cause her to become worried big time.

So if she said, "GET OUT OF MY WAY! DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?" She could have meant, "I am the speaker of tonight's event and I have to leave NOW before the hordes get here and I get swamped. Get out of my goddam way!"

She could have been scared - in the precautionary sense.

I know I would have been (as I have been while escorting many artists).

I have seen this situation enough times up close to think that this is a highly possible reason for her outburst in this story, if true (which I have no reason to doubt - as it sounds right as rain to me in that context).

Michael

Post 274

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 9:30pm

Hi Brandt,

You wrote, "Bill, this isn't the first time you've told this "Get out of my way story," but I hope it's the last. If it happened it was out of character and no one has any idea of its long lost context."

I'm a little puzzled by your response. You say that no one has any idea of its long lost context. But you wouldn't have any idea anyway, if you weren't there; obviously, one has to rely on the guy's story, which I did, because I knew him personally. The only reason I mentioned it in this context is that it fit with the rather inconsiderate manner in which Rand often treated questions from her students, which has already been attested to by several of the people on this thread, including you!

You continued, "If it happened to you and it's your story, that's one thing, but your hearsay testimony doesn't cut it."

I realize it's hearsay and in that respect does not have quite the same degree of credibility as a first-person account. So, you'll have to trust my judgment as to my friend's honesty, but as I say, I don't see why he would have any reason to lie about this.

You write, "I've got a lot of issues with the Ayn Rand of the 1960s, but she doesn't deserve this. I also saw her at the Ford Hall Forum for many years in the late 60s and 70s and I have no such stories."

That's good to know. And I was in no way suggesting that she did this every time she turned around.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/10, 9:51pm)

Post 275

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 9:33pm

The crowds were always there. I could never understand why all those people didn't subscribe to the Forum as I did instead of just showing up hoping for a seat. Never had any trouble getting in, but I got there early to get the best seat I could. One year I sat up on the stage with a bunch of nuns!

--Brant

Post 276

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 9:40pm

The first time I went to the Ford Hall Forum to see Ayn Rand was in the Fall of 1968. I drove from New Jersey and stopped off to visit Stony Creek, CT. Driving down to the end of one street there were a bunch of houses in a circle, half were backed up to the water's edge. There on the mailbox of one house was the name "Rand." It was a surreal moment.

--Brant

Post 277

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 9:57pm

I was probably a little too short with you, Bill, because I'm going to be posting something about Ayn Rand derived from the public record that isn't very nice and I don't like doing it, but the current whitewashing and sanitizing of Ayn Rand calls for a more objective assessment of this heroic lady than we have had heretofore on this forum, so I'm somewhat on edge over what is negative and seems to be trivial.

--Brant

Post 278

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 12:17am

The last time I went to hear Ayn Rand at the Ford Hall Forum I hadn't subscribed to the Forum and I didn't have a ticket. The Forum had also been moved to a different auditorium. I listened to her on my station wagon radio. (I think they didn't broadcast the q and a part.) What was it that drove me to do that, even after I was no longer part of the cult? (A cult has as much to do with the cultee as the culter, if not more.) The realization that this was a tremendously important historical personage and that I was a witness, even if only in a small way, to history. There is only one 20th Century name worth mentioning to characterize it which is not soaked in blood, and that name is Ayn Rand. And in a thousand years the bad guys will be mostly forgotten; not her.

--Brant

Post 279

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 7:01am