tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post4180668032936250250..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: A Convenient UntruthDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-25208849241255067372010-01-14T14:10:32.175-08:002010-01-14T14:10:32.175-08:00"Did she scream in bed? Who did she scream wi..."Did she scream in bed? Who did she scream with? What were her favorite sexual positions? "<br /><br />Please, some things are best left unsaid and stop coming on here frediano with straw-man arguments that just won't wash.<br /><br />Steven JohnstonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-68440393960660965342010-01-14T13:22:03.589-08:002010-01-14T13:22:03.589-08:00Frediano:
>Anything but her her ideas, please.
...Frediano:<br />>Anything but her her ideas, please.<br /><br />This is a strange comment. Actually, this site contains some of the most extensive and detailed criticism of Rand's ideas you'll find online, Frediano. Just take a look at our ARCHNFILES sidebar for Economics, Ethics, Epistemology, History etc. There's now over 400 posts - not to mention a whole book, which kicked this site off - so take your time. <br /><br />And if you take a look at the latest post you'll see right now we're up to Objectivism and Politics, Part 38. Hardly "anything but her ideas"!!<br /><br />Of course, once you've had a chance to familiarise yourself with the ARCHNblog, you're welcome to tackle any of these criticisms we've made, and debate them right here. Whether you agree with us or not, I think you'll find few critics who've taken the time to study Objectivism as thoroughly as we have here.<br /><br />Over to you.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-58732101267684449922010-01-14T12:48:39.686-08:002010-01-14T12:48:39.686-08:00Riveting. And, what of the foot fungus of Ayn Ran...Riveting. And, what of the foot fungus of Ayn Rand? It was said to be terrible. And, I hear she was mean to cats.<br /><br />Anything but her her ideas, please.<br /><br />Because you can't. I guess it must hurt to be nailed to the wall by someone dead for a quarter of a century...<br /><br />Gee, what is it about what this woman actually wrote that has folks of a certain bent still lathered up and deflecting about her ... foot fungus... 25 years later? <br /><br />As in, there is no such thing as bad publicity.<br /><br />Ironically, if not Burns, Heller includes as a chapter heading a quote from Rand, paraphrased: "Don't ask me what I feel, about my friends, about my family, about my life. Ask me what I think."<br /><br />Or, deflect, as an absolute necessity, with breathtaking exposes of ... <br /><br />Seriously. Was she a folder, or a crumpler? Did she scream in bed? Who did she scream with? What were her favorite sexual positions? Was she mean to kittens?<br /><br />Anything but the ideas; why, we hardly notice that.<br /><br />Sorry for pointing that out. Back to "The Foot Fungus of Ayn Rand..."fredianohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03635675676762077736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70460970740301308682010-01-06T05:46:55.193-08:002010-01-06T05:46:55.193-08:00Robert,
Have people who have written for JARS bee...Robert,<br /><br />Have people who have written for JARS been refused access to the archives?Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-25405090953694946402010-01-06T01:46:23.259-08:002010-01-06T01:46:23.259-08:00Laj:
"...it seems more that you and Dan have ...Laj:<br />"...it seems more that you and Dan have reached a point where there is clearly a lot of bad faith about each other's hidden premises so you're better off just accepting it that way."<br /><br />Correct...;-)Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-86549727868144919792010-01-05T18:46:51.040-08:002010-01-05T18:46:51.040-08:00Since I have not been attempting to make such a ca...<i>Since I have not been attempting to make such a case, I have no need to ever respond to any such query. But if I understand what you wrote, I think it contains a false premise: You said that "the other citation that Hsieh provides is also a graduate student". But the example she gives is from a 2002 paper by Merrill Schleier, a full professor who got her Ph.D. in 1983. Clearly an established professional scholar.</i><br /><br />Thanks for the corrections. On the latter, for some reason, I assumed that a title would be next to the citation, and why I assumed that, I have no clue - I should simply have looked up the author. But this is not an issue that I have given much thought to. Ideological limitations, sloppy research, I guess, but such is life. <br /><br />On the former, I don't think you've misrepresented yourself at all (at least, not as obviously as Dan thinks). You've presented a position on the Archive's access that is fully consistent with the facts publicly available and Dan's also is, and despite my false premise pointed out by you, my conclusion that the Archive does play favorites is consistent with James Valiant getting access. My point is that various hidden premises buttress all these differing conclusions, and it seems more that you and Dan have reached a point where there is clearly a lot of bad faith about each other's hidden premises so you're better off just accepting it that way.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845776740665082229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-57929884371351797472010-01-05T13:01:39.300-08:002010-01-05T13:01:39.300-08:00Robert Campbell wrote (taken somewhat out of order...Robert Campbell wrote (taken somewhat out of order):<br /><br /><i>For that matter, has Richard ever been allowed into the Archives?</i><br /><br />I've never asked, nor do I have any compelling reason to ask. If you have specific projects in mind, feel free to send me suggestions.<br /><br /><i>Perhaps Richard could explain what policy he thinks the Ayn Rand Archives should follow, as to who is considered a legitimate scholar and allowed access.</i> […]<br /><br /><i>Would he be comfortable, for instance, with a blanket prohibition against any "commentator hostile to Ayn Rand and Objectivism"?</i><br /><br />That strikes me as an unnecessarily restrictive condition and counterproductive to the Archives' announced purposes. If someone has a specific past history of misrepresenting materials from the Archives, then excluding them would be reasonable. But presumably that means they have to have had access at some point in the past for such a conclusion to apply, and I'm talking about flagrant misrepresentation, not just differing interpretation or editorial decision-making.<br /><br />Within reasonable limitations, I see no reason why anyone with appropriate academic credentials and a realistic research proposal shouldn't be allowed to conduct research there, regardless of their opinions about Rand and Objectivism. Not knowing the physical condition of the materials and facilities, I couldn't say anything specific about what those limitations would need to be, nor am I a professional archivist in any case. I also have no objection to the Archives applying special restrictions to avoid conflict with sponsored projects. But I see no good basis for ideologically-driven restrictions.<br /><br />Ideally, the bulk of the content could someday be made available digitally, with relatively little limitation on who is permitted access. But until that is possible, I don't immediately assume bad faith on the part of archivists who have a myriad of legitimate concerns to worry about, from the hazards of over-handling decades-old materials to the privacy of still-living persons who may be discussed in archived materials.<br /><br />BTW, it is not surprising that it takes a non-regular here to actually ask what my opinion is on how such matters ought to be handled, rather than assuming I am an "apologist" for whatever the current practices are.Richardhttp://www.noblesoul.com/orc/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-85988844053477038882010-01-05T12:58:44.953-08:002010-01-05T12:58:44.953-08:00There seems to be a notion in the heads of some pa...There seems to be a notion in the heads of some parties that: 1) I claim to know what the specific policies and practices of the Archives are, and 2) I am defending those policies and practices. Given that both of those notions are unfounded in reality and disconnected from my actual comments, any posting based on them is likely to descend in to fantasy.<br /><br />Daniel Barnes wrote:<br /><br /><i> Strangely, despite running the Objectivist Reference Centre, Richard has apparently never heard of this long running policy of excluding any scholar with any connection to JARS from the Archives. It was outside "the limitations" of his knowledge. Or if he had, he somehow forgot to mention it.</i><br /><br />That's right, I never heard of this purported "long running policy". I say purported because no details have been given other than Robert Campbell's conclusions. Was someone actually told this is a policy? Is there an established pattern of such denials, and if so, what are the instances? I know from past situations that Dr. Campbell sometimes presents conclusions based on very limited evidence as if they were firmly established facts, so I would want to hear about specific evidence rather than just his conclusions. Anyhow, even assuming the claim is in fact true, I'm not sure why it is so strange that I would not be aware of it, since there is no connection between JARS and the Objectivism Reference Center (note the name, which I've corrected you on before). You run a blog critical of Rand, yet you were apparently unaware of it as well. Or you somehow forgot to mention it.<br /><br />Abolaji wrote:<br /><br /><i>And while I don't expect Richard to respond anytime soon, I think that is the query he needs to respond to in part to make a case for the fairness of the Archives.</i><br /><br />Since I have not been attempting to make such a case, I have no need to ever respond to any such query. But if I understand what you wrote, I think it contains a false premise: You said that "the other citation that Hsieh provides is also a graduate student". But the example she gives is from a 2002 paper by Merrill Schleier, a full professor who got her Ph.D. in 1983. Clearly an established professional scholar.Richardhttp://www.noblesoul.com/orc/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-50748832555549058662010-01-05T12:56:57.409-08:002010-01-05T12:56:57.409-08:00Daniel Barnes wrote:
I must say it's this sor...Daniel Barnes wrote:<br /><br /><i>I must say it's this sort of thing that I find particularly hilarious. Let's just step back a moment and recall that this is coming from someone to whom Ayn Rand - the author whose philosophy earned the imprecation "the Gospel of Spleen" - is an intellectual hero. Rand is deservedly famous for her "pattern of distortions, one-sided interpretations, and claims of knowledge about other people's secret thoughts" which you can find in just about every essay she ever wrote.</i><br /><br />So are you admitting that you <i>do</i> engage in distortions, etc., but think this is OK because someone else did it in the past? (I imagine that would be the Barnesian interpretation, were our roles reversed.) If you mean to make some accusation of hypocrisy, I note that I am not Ayn Rand and she was dead before I ever heard of her, so I can hardly be held to account for her argumentative sins. I have also stated disagreements with her in the past in ARCHNblog comments that you have read, so you already know that my view of her is not one of unqualified endorsement. Yet you ignore this and try to pull off a poorly done <i>tu quoque</i> argument, which would be a fallacy even if accurate.<br /><br />If I point out distortions and misinterpretations of my own comments, then supposedly I am presenting myself as "the Little Miss Manners of highbrow debate", a claim that is itself another distortion. If I'm going to get, I'm willing to give also, a fact that should be apparent in this very thread. (Ironically, the comment thread you linked to as an example of my "denunciations" is a mild, civil discussion.)<br /><br />Finally, if I want to comment on some particular, I'm not obligated to first address something you consider more important. And since I have pointed out past distortions and dubious interpretations on multiple occasions (possibly every time I gotten involved in a discussion here, although I haven't checked all the threads to be sure), I think I'm well within my rights to refer to a "pattern of distortions" without first having to collate all the complaints into one place as a demonstration of the pattern.Richardhttp://www.noblesoul.com/orc/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1951464933726285862010-01-01T17:46:07.911-08:002010-01-01T17:46:07.911-08:00I think Laj is granting too much credence to the o...<i>I think Laj is granting too much credence to the official excuses for keeping Anne Heller out. </i><br /><br />I have no doubt this is possible, and Heller pointed out an important difference between Burns and herself when both spoke at the Cato Institute: Burns was a graduate student when she first got access, while Heller was already a known professional writer. <br /><br />Given that the other citation that Hsieh provides is also a graduate student, it might mean that graduate students may see no difference in being permitted access, while professional scholars will have a different experience.<br /><br />However, my original point was that Richard was to some degree being spoken past - it's by looking at individuals like Valiant and reviewing who else has gotten access to the archives other than Burns (as Greg pointed out) but who is not a graduate student that might be the key question. And while I don't expect Richard to respond anytime soon, I think that is the query he needs to respond to in part to make a case for the fairness of the Archives.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845776740665082229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-44432025352331504022009-12-31T03:19:48.265-08:002009-12-31T03:19:48.265-08:00Why on earth would any sane person want access to ...Why on earth would any sane person want access to the archives at the ARI? What possible enjoyment could anyone get wading through those? Isn’t life too short?<br />I can understand Objectivists themselves and those wishing to write a bio of Rand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-44993662604461435262009-12-30T23:00:13.964-08:002009-12-30T23:00:13.964-08:00(Frank, handsome yet bland, already seemed to fulf...(Frank, handsome yet bland, already seemed to fulfill a concubine role to the domineering Rand. Burns poignantly records that at one point Rand makes him wear bells on his shoes around the house so she would know his whereabouts).<br /><br /> ^<br /> |<br /> | <br /> |<br />I'm going to let you all finish, but this is one of the kinkiest things of on this blog, One of the kinkiest things on this blog.<br /><br />Ayn Rand actually deserves mad props here.Wellsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-78150985236773512062009-12-30T19:01:12.376-08:002009-12-30T19:01:12.376-08:00A thought about Leonard Peikoff's originality ...A thought about Leonard Peikoff's originality (or lack of it).<br /><br />Peikoff's personal myth of origin <i>requires</i> him to have made no creative contribution to Objectivism. His claim to authority depends on Ayn Rand having spoken and his having listened and repeated.<br /><br />In reality, I suspect that several Objectivist epistemological doctrines are his. That essay on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy has a distinctly Leibnizian cast to it, for which I doubt that Ayn Rand was responsible. The latter-day doctrine of the arbitrary assertion appears to be his work as well.<br /><br />I am not saying that the distinctly Peikovian components in Objectivism are all good. (I've been pretty rough on the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion in particular.) But I think it is a serious mistake for those who are inclined to be critical of Leonard Peikoff's work to buy into his myth of origin.<br /><br />Robert CampbellRobert Campbellhttp://www.robertlcampbell.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-54268182683823510952009-12-30T16:12:34.867-08:002009-12-30T16:12:34.867-08:00Perhaps Richard could explain what policy he think...Perhaps Richard could explain what policy he thinks the Ayn Rand Archives should follow, as to who is considered a legitimate scholar and allowed access.<br /><br />For that matter, has Richard ever been allowed into the Archives?<br /><br />Would he be comfortable, for instance, with a blanket prohibition against any "commentator hostile to Ayn Rand and Objectivism"?<br /><br />I think Laj is granting too much credence to the official excuses for keeping Anne Heller out. <br /><br />Ms. Heller has said that she was given conflicting explanations at different times for being barred from the Archives (the alleged grant of monopoly to Shoshana Milgram was just one of them). She was not allowed to see material on Ayn Rand in the archives of the Curtis Brown literary agency, which are kept at Columbia University, because Leonard Peikoff specifically denied her permission.<br /><br />Robert CampbellRobert Campbellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-24054324274820151402009-12-30T13:46:38.270-08:002009-12-30T13:46:38.270-08:00So, apropos of this discussion, I asked Robert Cam...So, apropos of this discussion, I asked Robert Campbell of the Journal Ayn Rand Studies via email what his experience with the Archives was. He replied:<br /><br />"In the past, the Ayn Rand Archives were <i>never</i> open to <i>anyone</i> who published in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Well, with the lone exception of [the ARI's] Andrew Bernstein, but his one-paragraph reply was barely published when he publicly repented his sin."<br /><br />Now, JARS is a "non-partisan, semi-annual, interdisciplinary, double-blind peer-reviewed scholarly periodical". Yet they have been not only blocked from access, but this block has extended to <i>anyone that's written for the publication.</i> The bizarre incident with Andrew Bernstein, where he had to subsequently publicly atone for contributing <i>a single para</i> to JARS, is detailed <a href="http://solohq.solopassion.com/Articles/Sciabarra/Partisanship_vs_Objectivity_in_Ayn_Rand_Scholarship.shtml" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />So clearly this idea that the Archives have been "open" to all interested and credentialed scholars is, in fact, bullshit.<br /><br />Now let's cut to Richard Lawrence:<br />>To assess [Peikoff's claim] beyond that would require guesswork about the Archives' actual degree of openness...I replied within the limitations of the knowledge I actually have...<br /><br />Strangely, despite running the Objectivist Reference Centre, Richard has apparently never heard of this long running policy of excluding any scholar with any connection to JARS from the Archives. It was outside "the limitations" of his knowledge. Or if he had, he somehow forgot to mention it.<br /><br />Well, now he knows.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-50464846121468217582009-12-29T23:59:22.928-08:002009-12-29T23:59:22.928-08:00Laj:
>Finally, if anyone needs to remember how ...Laj:<br />>Finally, if anyone needs to remember how partisan ARI scholarship can be, I got two words for you: James Valiant. If he can get access, says a lot about partisanship.<br /><br />As usual, Laj hits the nail on the head.<br /><br />What, exactly were the serious academic credentials that gave Valliant access to the Archives? Answer: he was going to write a hit piece on the Brandens. That's all the qualification you need, obviously. In Valliant's case they would have been better off with the homeless people...;-)<br /><br />I think you can reasonably say the Archives are "open" the day they let someone from the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in.<br /><br />Now, I'm perfectly happy to agree that there are conflicting tensions at the Archive, and perhaps even within the ARI itself. Burns talks about the eye-rolling that goes on among Archive staff members there when the policy of rewriting-by-stealth (as perpetrated by Harriman and the like) is discussed. It's not uncommon for well meaning people to find themselves working with an unconscionable official policy, with the result that they often work to subvert it. But that doesn't change the obviously highly restrictive official policy, and the dishonesty of claiming it is otherwise.<br /><br />I hope Burns is right - that the Archives do become open to outside scholars. Nothing could please us ARCHNbloggers more than Rand getting some first hand scrutiny from the intellectual mainstream.<br /><br />But I also note that Burns' remarks Laj cites are all more or less prior to the uniformly hostile reaction to her work (and Heller's) from Peikoff, Binswanger, Cline etc. She's also revealed the scandal of the ARI's covert re-writing of Rand, which is surely a major act of intellectual dishonesty, and a major embarrassment. As a result, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and make a speculative prediction that there'll be a snap-back; that the freedom given to Burns has resulted in what the ARI regard as an abomination, and has embarrassed them to boot, so that you <i>won't</i> see the Archives become more open to non-Objectivist scholars. The swallow that is Burns does not make a thaw at the ARI.<br /><br />Happy to admit I was wrong in say 12 months time, if a troop of non-Objectivist projects have marched thru the Archives in that time. I'll be watching with interest.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45608983026860970412009-12-29T19:52:58.751-08:002009-12-29T19:52:58.751-08:00Given the long history of generally unfriendly, ev...<i>Given the long history of generally unfriendly, even to the point of hostility, behavior of ARI toward non-ARI affliated scholars (even towards those sympathetic to Rand), it would appear that its up to the other side to prove its case: the weight of the facts is all on ours. You may say that Heller is problematic; but the fact is, she was denied access. What non-ARI affliated scholar other than Burns has been granted access? Moreover, denying access to the archives to protect commercial interests of the authorized biographer does not strike me as an adequate excuse. In any case, it is not entirely consistent with an open policy.</i><br /><br />Diana Hsieh gave an example of one other scholar in the blogpost that Dan links to.<br /><br />OK, so the ARI is open to scholars except those who are interested in working on a biography of Ayn Rand. In any case, saying that Heller was blocked purely for partisan reasons is easy to dispute.<br /><br />Burns argued that the functioning of the Archives was similar to that of others she worked with. <br /><br />I think that in the absence of information on a specific scholar that was denied access and was not working on a biography (again, just one will suffice), we're using our judgments about how we know the ARI to operate as a proxy for how the Archives operate, which Burn's blogposts have clearly disputed, and to my mind, quite convincingly. Also, Burns talked about the preservation efforts. If it is purely being used as cover, it was a well chosen cover.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845776740665082229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-78952121744801006362009-12-29T19:33:12.648-08:002009-12-29T19:33:12.648-08:00"My main point is that Heller's case is p..."My main point is that Heller's case is problematic if used as an example of bias on the part of ARI. You'll need another scholar to make the case of the archives not being open."<br /><br />Given the long history of generally unfriendly, even to the point of hostility, behavior of ARI toward non-ARI affliated scholars (even towards those sympathetic to Rand), it would appear that its up to the other side to prove its case: the weight of the facts is all on ours. You may say that Heller is problematic; but the fact is, she was denied access. What non-ARI affliated scholar other than Burns has been granted access? Moreover, denying access to the archives to protect commercial interests of the authorized biographer does not strike me as an adequate excuse. In any case, it is not entirely consistent with an open policy. <br /><br />The stated policy of the ARI archives is that physical access is limited to scholars and staff of ARI. Inquiries about access from unversity affliated graduate students and scholars are "encouraged." Here is the actual wording of the policy: <br /><br />"At present, due to preservation tasks, physical access to the Archives is limited to the Ayn Rand Institute staff and affiliates. However, research inquiries from university-affiliated graduate students and scholars are encouraged and will be accommodated whenever possible. "<br /><br />The phrase "accommodated whenever possible" is rather vague and gives a lot of wiggle room for denying access. There are other ambiguities in the wording that can be used as well. In any case, I don't think Peikoff is justified at this time in describing the archives as open, when non-ARI afflicated scholars must go through a screening process by an organization not known for dealing fairly with those outside its ranks.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-49640115763972542372009-12-29T18:31:39.167-08:002009-12-29T18:31:39.167-08:00Finally, if anyone needs to remember how partisan ...Finally, if anyone needs to remember how partisan ARI scholarship can be, I got two words for you: James Valiant. If he can get access, says a lot about partisanship.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845776740665082229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-21432076292261369962009-12-29T18:30:03.978-08:002009-12-29T18:30:03.978-08:00Here is Burns's position on the question of &q...Here is Burns's position on the question of "openness" (and she obviously has good insight into the partisanship of Randian scholarship if you've read her series on the Archive):<br /><br /><i>1.) I believe the archive will continue to offer access to scholars interested in Rand’s work, and by scholars I do not mean those exclusively associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, but persons enrolled in or working for a degree granting institution or those who can demonstrate, through the formulation of a cogent research proposal, that they have a serious intellectual interest in Rand.<br /><br />2.) Scholars primarily interested in the personal or biographical aspects of Rand will encounter difficulties, at least until the publication of Shoshana Milgram Knapp’s authorized biography of Rand. Knapp, an English professor at Virginia Tech, is devoting significant time to this project. Though I do not know the details of her arrangement with the archive or the Estate, it is my understanding that authors working on projects which may compete or conflict with hers will not be given access to the Ayn Rand Archive (this is the reason Anne Heller was denied permission to view Rand’s papers.) The publication of Knapp’s book should be good news for the entire community interested in Rand. She is a serious scholar who does careful work, and she will likely produce a detailed and intelligent account of Rand’s life. Knapp has shared some of her preliminary findings with me, and I know they will arouse great interest. Her project was originally limited to the years prior to 1957, but may have developed since.</i><br /><br />The rest is here:<br /><br />http://jenniferburns.org/blog/74-in-the-rand-archive-part-iv-prognostications<br /><br />Of course, this is her opinion/prediction. But for obvious reasons, it carries good weight and you can see that it is tempered by the knowledge of partisan scholarship on the part of the ARI and her uncertainty as to what her book's effect on future decisions will be.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845776740665082229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-33672390080580314242009-12-29T18:12:39.771-08:002009-12-29T18:12:39.771-08:00Dan and Others,
While I fully appreciate your jud...Dan and Others,<br /><br />While I fully appreciate your judgment of bias for Objectivist scholarship on the part of the ARI, I think that you haven't found the right kind of scholar to prove this out and that Richard's position is not being addressed.<br /><br />I wouldn't compare Richard's post with Diana Hsieh's, whose rationalization of keeping out anti-Objectivist scholars was an add-on without any basis I am familiar with. Richard did not go that far.<br /><br />Look at Jennifer Burns's blogpost:<br />http://jenniferburns.org/blog/64-in-the-rand-archives-part-1-gaining-access<br /><br /><i><br />"As it turned out, the archives were open, and willing to have me, with stipulations. The primary stipulation was that I not use the archival material to write a full length biography, since the Ayn Rand Institute had commissioned an Objectivist literary scholar, Shoshana Milgram, to write an authorized biography. Because my focus was on Rand in relationship to a particular aspect of American history – the American right – my work was classified as a “special study.” I was also told I would not be shown certain material related to legal disputes and a few items of sensitive nature pertaining to persons still living. Other than that, I had free rein in the archive. (Along the way, I did in fact stumble across some material I wasn’t supposed to see – more on that later)."</i><br /><br />So Burns says she was notified of this stipulation of not writing a bio when she requested access, and in sense, she could have been accused of falling foul of it if the ARI wanted to go that far.<br /><br />My main point is that Heller's case is problematic if used as an example of bias on the part of ARI. You'll need another scholar to make the case of the archives not being open.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845776740665082229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-49630456100234863952009-12-29T18:10:15.788-08:002009-12-29T18:10:15.788-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845776740665082229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-84293712909529030832009-12-29T13:31:58.186-08:002009-12-29T13:31:58.186-08:00Richard: "But where this discussion really we...Richard: "But where this discussion really went downhill was when you started displaying your telepathic powers: You knew that Peikoff was lying, to the point of knowing his specific thoughts when he spoke"<br /><br />One doesn't need to be telepathic to suspect Peikoff of lying. It is not improbable to assume that Peikoff knows the admittance policy of the AR archives. The fact that he commented on it at all suggests he has some idea about the policy; which means he must, at some point, have been involved either in making that policy or approving such policy as was made. Therefore, he is (probably) in a position to know what that policy is; and so if he misrepresents it, it is not a stretch, nor does it require ESP, to assume he is lying. <br /><br />Now this notion about the archives not letting "homeless people wander in and ramble through Rand's papers" is utterly beside the point. We wouldn't be criticizing Peikoff or archive admittance policies for not allowing homeless people access to them. Our criticism is based on the fact that Heller was denied access. No individual can in good faith say the archives are open to "everybody" (except, we all assume, homeless people and the like) while Anne Heller is denied access. (And surely, you are not suggesting that Anne Heller is merely somebody "off the street"!) Either Peikoff is ignorant of archive policy (in which case, he really shouldn't be commenting on it), or he is being dishonest.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-31442546376678849342009-12-29T13:29:18.992-08:002009-12-29T13:29:18.992-08:00"The fact that Heller was denied access is pr..."The fact that Heller was denied access is proof that the archives are not open to anybody. After all she's a serious researcher ..."<br /><br />Bingo.<br /><br />Peikoff can hardly claim that "the archives of the institute ... are open to anybody in the universe. They’re not restricted to Objectivists ... so anybody can get in ..." when the author of a major biography of Rand is denied access.<br /><br />Heller is exactly the sort of person who would be welcomed to the archives if they were open to outsiders.<br /><br />Either Peikoff doesn't know the policies of the ARI (which he runs) or he's being disingenuous here.Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963295565160636175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-72991052160020177322009-12-29T13:01:29.864-08:002009-12-29T13:01:29.864-08:00Richard:
>Then again, someone with common sense...Richard:<br />>Then again, someone with common sense would also recognize that saying a statement "is at best an exaggeration" is hardly an endorsement.<br /><br />No, it is weasely-worded, disingenuous waffle, just as I said, and just like the rest of your reply.<br /><br />>That imprecation is earned through a long-term pattern of distortions, one-sided interpretations, and claims of knowledge about other people's secret thoughts.<br /><br />I must say it's this sort of thing that I find particularly hilarious. Let's just step back a moment and recall that this is coming from someone to whom <i>Ayn Rand</i> - the author whose philosophy earned the imprecation <a href="http://www.la-articles.org.uk/alice2.htm" rel="nofollow">"the Gospel of Spleen"</a> - is an intellectual hero. Rand is deservedly famous for her "pattern of distortions, one-sided interpretations, and claims of knowledge about other people's secret thoughts" which you can find in just about every essay she ever wrote.<br /><br />Yet Richard, who runs a whole site dedicated to the Gospel of Spleen, also would like us to simultaneously believe he is the Little Miss Manners of highbrow debate. He enthusiastically swallows Rand's voluminous ravings, which commit all of the sins of the above and more, yet chokes on the gnat of the ARCHNblog! He boldly and unequivocally voices <a href="http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2009/06/ayn-rand-contra-evolutionary-dynamics.html?showComment=1245948925668#c1424544727091690254" rel="nofollow">his denunciations of little old us</a>, yet when we criticise the ARI - which has approximately the same relationship to American intellectual life as North Korea does to the rest of the world - like a typical Useful Idiot he feels compelled issue gaseous, finely nuanced apologetics on behalf of the Dear Leader such as we see above. <br /><br />Of course, in all this scholastic fiddle-faddle Richard is simply conforming to the <a href="http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2008/10/objectivist-double-standard.html" rel="nofollow">Objectivist Double Standard.</a> And while we freely accept that in the now-hundreds of posts and thousands of comments here at the ARCHNblog there are bound to be distortions and mistakes we've made, as I recall Richard has not even attempted to demonstrate that there are any of significance, let alone any "patterns of distortion". (In fact, contra Richard, the major theses of the book ARCHN, and the ARCHNblog itself seem to have found support in recent non-partisan work on Rand like Burns "Goddess"). <br /><br />It would be much more interesting if he was to actually tackle something of importance that he thinks we have wrong, rather than his apparent focus on either trivial meta or vague apologetics. In fact, I'd be happy to let him guest post he had some decisive criticism of the ARCHNblog's major arguments. But certainly nothing like this has emerged from him to date.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.com