tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post3083093746454717253..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivism & “Metaphysics,” Part 16Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-81216778860332606302010-10-26T15:08:18.486-07:002010-10-26T15:08:18.486-07:00All I'm saying is that proving Rand was unorig...All I'm saying is that proving Rand was unoriginal does not require the charge of plagiarism against her.<br /><br />That charge actually opens a weak spot in the argument because it demands solid evidence. One cannot say Rand was a plagiarist on the basis that she wanted to appear original, and then toss in some possible similarities between her writings and those of others. <br /><br />On the other hand, Rand was not a scholar. She was a 'loose cannon,' a fringeist with an extremist streak. She often discussed ideas with others and then, if she liked the result, she reinterpreted these ideas based on her "instincts," which are just a combination of her colorful personality and background experiences.<br /><br />So I'd rather see any direct similarities between her ideas and those of others as coincidental. The charge of unoriginality can be made to stick other ways. Simply pointing out that ideas similar, or better, identical to hers existed in the past takes Rand down a notch or two. But accusing her of plagiarism is a charge which is not likely to stick and will soon take down with it the charge of unoriginality.<br /><br />Believe me, I've had plenty of discussions with triumphalists in the Rand community who love that kind of charge because they can easily twist it around and use it to triumphantly proclaim Rand's "brilliant originality" again. Any such base charges which you can't definitively prove only makes Rand seem stronger, even omnipotent and god-like, to them.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-49516887718765558392010-10-26T14:48:36.020-07:002010-10-26T14:48:36.020-07:00Greg wrote:
>Perhaps. A year ago I would've...Greg wrote:<br />>Perhaps. A year ago I would've tended to agree with that, but since reading Jennifer Burns' book on Rand, I tend to be more suspicious of claims concerning Rand's "originality." <br /><br />Absolutely. Rand wanted to portray herself as unique. But where do you draw the line on calling it plagiarism? When "borrowing" ideas no longer becomes self-serving but innocent instead? Or is it just unconscious borrowing anyway? <br /><br />Those questions are irrelevant, I need to know if Rand ever read or even heard of Haldane. <br /><br />A quick look here http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/misc/read.html does not reveal anything by Haldane.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-10336914561759982022010-10-26T11:14:17.108-07:002010-10-26T11:14:17.108-07:00"Then perhaps the idea arose during one of th..."Then perhaps the idea arose during one of their many 1950s discussion periods. I don't think Haldane necessarily contributed anything to that discussion, even subconsciously, coincidences happen."<br /><br />Perhaps. A year ago I would've tended to agree with that, but since reading Jennifer Burns' book on Rand, I tend to be more suspicious of claims concerning Rand's "originality." According to Burns, Rand was a great deal more indebted to Isabel Paterson than we have heretofore realized. For example, the "A is A" mantra and Rand's hatred for Kant both have their origin in Paterson. Given Rand's narrow reading, I suspect a great deal more that one finds in Objectivism originally has its source in what Rand learned from Paterson.<br /><br />This is not to suggest that Rand plagiarized from Paterson. Rand nearly always added her own spin to whatever she borrowed from her teacher. Indeed, Paterson does not appear to have been all that pleased with what Rand did with some the older woman's notions. Paterson, being much better read and far more knowledgeable, understood the wider context of many of these notions, and therefore could better gauge when they were being grossly misapplied and vulgarized. Rand, in her ignorance, had no idea what a mess she was making of Paterson's ideas.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-85850373321067593002010-10-23T10:31:27.655-07:002010-10-23T10:31:27.655-07:00Greg wrote:
>Rand delegated this task to her un...Greg wrote:<br />>Rand delegated this task to her underlings.<br /><br />Then perhaps the idea arose during one of their many 1950s discussion periods. I don't think Haldane necessarily contributed anything to that discussion, even subconsciously, coincidences happen. I'd never heard of Barbara's thesis and now I'm wanting to know if it is available to read online.<br /><br />I think the anti-determinist statement can be easily formulated in terms of a question: if you are a determinist, then how do you know determinism is true? <br /><br />Determinism doesn't make all knowledge impossible, knowing the truth of determinism only requires omniscience. But I don't know of any determinists who, when pressed, consider it more than an assumption held on the basis of faith or belief.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-86449931489511810352010-10-22T18:16:40.990-07:002010-10-22T18:16:40.990-07:00"Where did Rand offer the argument that deter..."Where did Rand offer the argument that determinism is self-refuting in that it makes knowledge impossible? "<br /><br />Rand delegated this task to her underlings. As far as I know, the first Objectivist presentation of the argument appeared in Barbara Branden's thesis, <i>Human Freedom and Human Mechanism</i>. It was later restated by Nathaniel Branden and (many years later in OPAR) by Leonard Peikoff.<br /><br />There's also a bit of a controversy over another restatement of the argument by Murray Rothbard in his essay "The Mantle of Science." N. Branden alleged that Rothbard had plagiarized Barbara Branden's thesis, and this is sometimes presented as the reason for Rothbard's break with Rand in the late 50s.<br /><br />If, as seems likely, Barbara Branden got the argument from Rand, where did Rand get it from? Did she make it up on her own? Perhaps, but I rather doubt it. She probably got it from Isabel Paterson, who probably got it (first or second hand) from Haldane himself. But all this is mere guess work and not terribly important, since the argument really isn't all that good or special, hardly even worth the trouble of plagiarizing.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-30888973359438525042010-10-21T17:33:15.188-07:002010-10-21T17:33:15.188-07:00Excellent post, Greg, an enjoyable read. Where did...Excellent post, Greg, an enjoyable read. Where did Rand offer the argument that determinism is self-refuting in that it makes knowledge impossible? The Haldane reference was a good catch. I too have found from time to time that someone in the past has duplicated a future Rand declaration. There is nothing new under the sun.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27181713690585833772010-10-21T04:30:13.362-07:002010-10-21T04:30:13.362-07:00Greg,
Like Haldane, Darwin wrote:
__
Why is tho...Greg,<br /><br />Like Haldane, Darwin wrote:<br /><br />__<br /><br />Why is thought, being a secretion of the brain, more wonderful than gravity, a property of matter.<br /><br />___<br /><br />Interesting take on Peikoff's statement about Rand's failure to undestand people. <br /><br />As I think I've said before, an Objectivist should have no qualms about one world government as long as the right people are in charge or even making Leonard Peikoff dictator.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.com