1. The Ayn Rand Institute Press just published Russia to America: A Guide to Ayn Rand Home and Sites. The book contains photos of places where Rand lived (interior and exterior), photos of places Rand visited, background information and maps. The book was enjoyable and filled in a few spots in Rand's biography. I'd mention that the book is $14.95 and while billed at 96 pages contains a fair amount of padding. The photos and text end at page 79, which are followed by a chronology of Rand's life and four blank pages which are included in the page count.
2. Ayn Rand Institute supporters James Valliant and Robert Nasir had a podcast on moral perfection. Valliant proudly announced that he and Nasir were "morally perfect." However, Valliant seems to think that moral perfection is "doing the best you can." He even said a non-Objectivist could be morally perfect. Valliant's discussion of the idea of sin and perfection in Christianity, Kant, etc. is, not surprisingly, somewhat caricatured. I'd recommend John Passmore's book on perfectibility for a more balanced approach. Perfection didn't play a large role in Rand's ethics, but see here.
3. Scott Schiff and William Swig on the Ayn Rand Fan Club podcast had an insightful discussion of what constitutes the Objectivist movement and whether it is growing. They focus on Yaron Brook who says interesting and perhaps contradictory things on this. Brook says that if you consider "small O Objectivism" then the movement is growing and seems pleased about it. Yet he also thinks the Objectivist movement is too broad. Brook is happy that Fox News is going to interview him on Objectivism, but isn't happy about the pseudo-Objectivists (presumably David Kelley, et al.). He says that he doesn't know how to define the Objectivist movement. I thought this was curious considering that the founder of Objectivism said, if I recall correctly, that definitions were the guardians of rationality. It's hard to square this with his hostility to Open Objectivism. He also said that it's hard to define what increasing influence might mean. But as Will and Scott note, one could just look at the number of academic philosophers and intellectuals in universities, which would appear to be the way Rand measured influence. By that metric, the Objectivist movement isn't growing and may well be stagnating. Brook concedes that the growth in his YouTube channel has stalled.
4. A new book, Ayn Rand at the Movies, will be released soon. It discusses movies that are based on her works, movies about her, and things related to Rand and films in general. As some have noted, it's interesting that Rand never had great success in the field of movies, which was in some sense her favorite medium.
7 comments:
Valliant proudly announced that he and Nasir were "morally perfect."
Wow. I wish I could be perfect like them.
Saying you and your buddies are morally perfect sounds like a second handler's way to increase your self esteem.
-Anonamouse
My memory was correct:
___________________________
Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration.
___________________________
NP
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html
By that metric, the Objectivist movement isn't growing and may well be stagnating.
Of course, Yaron Brook can't admit that Objectivism is stagnating (or perhaps even shrinking) because that would make cthe Ayn Rand Institute look bad. ARI is supposed to be increasing Rand's influence, not care taking its senescence.
But for multiple reasons, this stagnation and decline were always built in features of Objectivism. A "closed" philosophy struggles to adapt to new paradigms. The political and economic issues that were in the forefront fifty years ago aren't necessarily in the forefront today. So much of Objectivism seems dated and out of step with the manias that afflict political debate amongst the chattering classes. The non-fiction often deals with topics of the sixties and early seventies. Atlas Shrugged, a novel that was supposed to be somewhat futuristic (circa 1957) deals with trains, which, when the book was published, were getting killed in the passenger travel marketplace by the plane, which would very quickly become the dominant form of long distance travel. Rand's philosophy has all the flavor of a lost world. This has to make it less appealing as time goes on. And given the fact that even in its halcyon days, Objectivism never appealed but to a small minority, this must lead to a shrinking over time of its stalwart adherents.
Sounds like they need an Objectivist version of Lenin?
But even the revolution he led needed an awful lot of help to get it going. No one just read books and thought, ah, that sounds like a great idea. The poverty and brutality they experienced lead them to that position.
But then again, The Czar and his advisors really were second-handers.
I can understand what's in it for the Lenins of Objectivism. But what about the little people?
"Wow. I wish I could be perfect like them."
But what good does it do them to make such statements?
You don't magically become more intelligent, productive, healthier or even more employable.
If you were interviewing someone for a job and they came out with that "zinger", I'd imagine you'd say "Well, let wrap this up eh? I've a lot more applicants for the job, please don't call me...I'll call you..."
Anyone who is interested in the Passmore book on perfectibility can get it here. (The Third Edition.)
https://www.libertyfund.org/books/the-perfectibility-of-man/
Intellectual history is more interesting than the standard Objectivist view.
NP
Post a Comment