Spring 2002 Journal of Ayn Rand Studies
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES (volume 3, number 2).
Our most provocative issue yet opens with an essay by one of the most
important voices in contemporary Continental thought: the Lacanian
philosopher, Slavoj Zizek. Our contents include:
===
The Actuality of Ayn Rand - Slavoj Zizek
The Trickster Icon and Objectivism - Joseph Maurone
Is Benevolent Egoism Coherent? - Michael Huemer
Goals, Values, and the Implicit: Explorations in Psychological Ontology -
Robert L. Campbell
Book Reviews
A Contest of Wills: A review of David Kelley's CONTESTED LEGACY OF AYN
RAND - Jonathan Jacobs
Having Your Say: A review of Ayn Rand's THE ART OF NONFICTION: A GUIDE FOR
WRITERS AND READERS - Stephen Cox
Discussion
Reply to Kirsti Minsaas: On the Ayn Rand CLIFFSNOTES - Andrew Bernstein
Reply to Roderick Long: Mistaken Identity: Long's Conflation of
Dialectics and Organicism - Roger E. Bissell
Reply to Roderick Long: Dialectics: A Reconstruction - Bryan Register
Reply to Roderick Long: Dialectical Libertarianism: All Benefits, No
Hazards - Chris Matthew Sciabarra
Rejoinder to Bissell, Register, and Sciabarra: Keeping Context in Context:
The Limits of Dialectics - Roderick T. Long
Abstracts
Contributor Biographies
Index to Volume 3
====
For abstracts of the articles, point your browsers to:
http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/v3_n2/3_2toc.asp
For contributor biographies, point your browsers to:
http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/v3_n2/3_2bio.asp
Stay tuned!!! Our Fall 2002 issue will include major essays on Reason &
Emotion, Epistemology, Aesthetics, Ethics, Politics, and Popular Culture!!!
Phil
> This is to announce the publication of the Spring 2002 edition of THE
> JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES (volume 3, number 2).
Wow, even including such brilliant luminaries as Michael Huemer.
Here's some suggestions for future issues:
-- Include essays by N. Branden on ESP and psychic powers generally
(he seems to be into that lately.)
-- "Astrology and Objectivism: Incompatible or hidden dialectic
connections?" Sciabarra could write that one.
-- "Did Ayn Rand Really Exist? A debate between Kantian
historians and Existentialists." Concludes by applying
the Objectivist epistemology to interpreting the results of
the coin toss used to decide the outcome of the debate.
Extended debate will include whether or not the coin
actually exists.
--
Philip Oliver
The works of Ayn Rand on CD-ROM
www.Objectivism.net
Chris Cathcart
. . . And HPO legend Phil(ler) Oliver maintains his lofty standards of
excellence! Despite diligent past competition from Stephen (Plan)
Speicher, Oliver extends to 354 his record of consecutive posts in which
he makes a total jackass of himself! Let's all give him a big round of
applause!
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Chris Cathcart
news:kONK8.2$fR2...@typhoon.nyu.edu
> Discussion
>
> Reply to Kirsti Minsaas: On the Ayn Rand CLIFFSNOTES - Andrew Bernstein
Gee. Shouldn't someone be putting a little pressure on Andy Bernstein
about intellectual slumming with this journal and its ilk? After all,
it harbors and welcomes avowed anti-Objectivists, irrationalists,
mystics, Kantians, Existentialists (and the rest of their Continental
ilk), postmodernists, deconstructionists, reconstructions, linguistic
analyts, dialecticians, feminists, environmentalists,
Libertarians/anarchists, Tolerationists, paragraphs, clauses,
sub-clauses, sub-sub-clauses, Hegelians, Marxists, modern physicists,
complexity-worshippers, context-droppers, snarling wimps,
post-structuralists (whatever those are), subjectivists, nihilists,
altruists, emotivists, intuitionists, pragmatists, determinists, and all
the rest of their anti-mind ilk.
Kyle Haight
Chris Cathcart <cath...@liquidinformation.com> wrote:
>
>> Discussion
>>
>> Reply to Kirsti Minsaas: On the Ayn Rand CLIFFSNOTES - Andrew Bernstein
>
>Gee. Shouldn't someone be putting a little pressure on Andy Bernstein
>about intellectual slumming with this journal and its ilk?
You know, when I noticed Dr. Bernstein's piece in this journal, I wondered
how long it would take before Cathcart used it as an opportunity to take
his hobby horse out for another spin. Answer: less than a day.
When the "ARIan" establishment fails to "excommunicate" Dr. Bernstein, I
wonder whether Cathcart will take that as a data point contradicting
his characterization, or if he will simply accuse the "ARIans" of
hypocrisy for failing to live up to his projections.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
Ken Gardner
>. . . And HPO legend Phil(ler) Oliver maintains his lofty standards of
>excellence! Despite diligent past competition from Stephen (Plan)
>Speicher, Oliver extends to 354 his record of consecutive posts in which
>he makes a total jackass of himself! Let's all give him a big round of
>applause!
You apparently missed a few of his posts. The actual number is much
higher than 354.
Ken
Chris Cathcart
news:adhkif$p07$1...@og1.olagrande.net
> In article <b079129b7ea25d4f607...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
> Chris Cathcart <cath...@liquidinformation.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Discussion
> >>
> >> Reply to Kirsti Minsaas: On the Ayn Rand CLIFFSNOTES - Andrew Bernstein
> >
> >Gee. Shouldn't someone be putting a little pressure on Andy Bernstein
> >about intellectual slumming with this journal and its ilk?
>
> You know, when I noticed Dr. Bernstein's piece in this journal, I wondered
> how long it would take before Cathcart used it as an opportunity to take
> his hobby horse out for another spin. Answer: less than a day.
Always glad to be of service.
> When the "ARIan" establishment fails to "excommunicate" Dr. Bernstein,
I didn't say anything about "excommunicating" (I can't even recall using
that term much -- shunning is more like it). I said something about
placing pressure on him not to go "slumming" in that journal -- partly
tongue-in-cheek because Who the Fuck Really Knows what rationale can be
spun out.
But don't ask me -- ask those who like the ARIan establishment, like
Betsy Speicher and Phil Oliver, whose comments have disparaged the
journal as not a serious forum for dialogue about Rand's ideas. I'm
sure they'd be plenty happy to spin out a rationale for you; I've given
up on trying to predict what these folks can spit out next. Something
-- whatever it is -- "justifies" Bernstein defending his work in that
particular journal.
I
> wonder whether Cathcart will take that as a data point contradicting
> his characterization,
And what is my characterization, exactly?
> or if he will simply accuse the "ARIans" of
> hypocrisy for failing to live up to his projections.
There are plenty of things for which to accuse ARIans of hypocrisy or
double-standard. But the devil's always in the details; I'd have to
hear the reasoning behind why an ARIan like Oliver or Mrs. Speicher
would now consider it okay to take the journal seriously enough to
submit articles to it, when I was under the impression that "serious
Objectivists" wouldn't be touching the journal with the proverbial
ten-foot pole.
Phil
> You know, when I noticed Dr. Bernstein's piece in this journal, I wondered
> how long it would take before Cathcart used it as an opportunity to take
> his hobby horse out for another spin. Answer: less than a day.
There's a big difference between Dr. Bernstein replying to what was
likely an error riddled piece regarding one of his popular publications,
and submitting something as though he respected the publication itself.
It's a safe bet that he despises the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. I would
not be surprised if the publisher of Cliffsnotes asked him to make the
reply, because whatever junk (most likely) that it contained also
impugned them by implication.
Chris Cathcart
> "Kyle Haight" <kha...@olagrande.net> wrote
> > You know, when I noticed Dr. Bernstein's piece in this journal, I wondered
> > how long it would take before Cathcart used it as an opportunity to take
> > his hobby horse out for another spin. Answer: less than a day.
>
> There's a big difference between Dr. Bernstein replying to what was
> likely an error riddled piece regarding one of his popular publications,
> and submitting something as though he respected the publication itself.
Oh. Being "likely an error riddled piece" in a forum such as this
didn't stop those Good Objectivists like Andrew Bernstein from not
responding to such pieces in the past.
> It's a safe bet that he despises the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.
Ah yes, so much so that it's too unworthy to even publish in, much less
take seriously as a forum of ideas.
> I would
> not be surprised if the publisher of Cliffsnotes asked him to make the
> reply, because whatever junk (most likely) that it contained also
> impugned them by implication.
Of course, this is only speculation on Philler Material's part. So if
Rand responded to one of her critics in publication, could we speculate
that it was at Random House's urging?
So, this is the extent of the "rationale" we get from Philler Material
so far. And, like most everything about Philler Material's ravings,
there's no solid fact introduced anywhere. (And, of course, we see Mr.
Philler's standards of intellectual accountability in action, once
again. You're accountable depending only on the SOURCE of a challenge
raised -- just more of the same intellectual cowardice and dishonesty on
Mr. Philler's part.)
355...
Kyle Haight
Obviously I can't speak for either of them, but I'll toss my own
reasoning into the pot. There is arguably a distinction between using
the journal as a forum for the presentation of new, positive work, and
using the journal as a forum for defending the value of positive works
presented in a different venue.
The first implies viewing the journal as a medium in which serious
and valuable discussions of things Randian may be found. The latter
only implies viewing the journal as something that may be read by
people with an interest in things Randian. It's possible to accept
the second view of the journal without accepting the first.
I haven't read any issues of JARS myself, so I can't judge whether it
is better characterized as a valuable forum for serious academic work
on Rand or as the next step in Rand's academic deconstruction into
incomprehensibility and irrelevance. The abstracts I've read of the
articles in earlier issues left me with a mixed-to-negative impression,
so I've decided to remain rationally ignorant on the point.
I do have to say that I thought Phil Oliver's hypothetical future
article descriptions were pretty damn funny, though. I've read enough
academic philosophy journals to know that there's stuff even more
bizarre that is apparently considered academically respectable work
these days.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
Kyle Haight
Chris Cathcart <cath...@liquidinformation.com> wrote:
>
>> There's a big difference between Dr. Bernstein replying to what was
>> likely an error riddled piece regarding one of his popular publications,
>> and submitting something as though he respected the publication itself.
Interesting. I wrote my earlier post before reading this one, and Phil's
reasoning is essentially the same as mine. I guess that makes me an
"ARIan" after all. Nuts.
>Oh. Being "likely an error riddled piece" in a forum such as this
>didn't stop those Good Objectivists like Andrew Bernstein from not
>responding to such pieces in the past.
Has JARS published any other reviews of works written by ARI-affiliated
Objectivists?
>And, like most everything about [Phil Oliver's] ravings, there's no
>solid fact introduced anywhere.
As opposed to the various solid facts you have introduced about how
Dr. Bernstein is being shunned by "ARIans" like Phil and Betsy Speicher
for having dared to publish his reply to criticism in JARS? I must
have missed those.
Bottom line for me is that speculating about Dr. Bernstein's motives
is just that: speculation. I don't have the facts necessary to draw
any strong conclusions about his reasons for acting. I can point out
some distinctions and principles that I think might be relevant to
his decision, but that's about it.
Oh... one other thought occurs to me. ARI-affiliated Objectivists have
been subjected to a great deal of criticism by people like Cathcart for
their general refusal to engage their critics in academic journals such
as JARS. Dr. Bernstein has now done so. Might a word of praise from
such people be warranted now that he has done what they were pushing for?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
Resijinth
consistently and without fail applies the non-initiation of force (and
fraud) principal. An anarchist says that chaos is a good thing so any
rules like that are bad things. An Objectivist says that people aren't
allowed to do it, but a goverment can do whatever it wants so long as
it is democratic and supports capitalism. Now see the fallacy of your
view that anarchists and libertarians are the same thing.
-Resijinth
Chris Cathcart
> In article <ae5c68e7a6be5d77d3d...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
> Chris Cathcart <cath...@liquidinformation.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There's a big difference between Dr. Bernstein replying to what was
> >> likely an error riddled piece regarding one of his popular publications,
> >> and submitting something as though he respected the publication itself.
>
> Interesting. I wrote my earlier post before reading this one, and Phil's
> reasoning is essentially the same as mine. I guess that makes me an
> "ARIan" after all.
Must be. ;-)
> >Oh. Being "likely an error riddled piece" in a forum such as this
> >didn't stop those Good Objectivists like Andrew Bernstein from not
> >responding to such pieces in the past.
>
> Has JARS published any other reviews of works written by ARI-affiliated
> Objectivists?
Don't know, though I assume the website has contents of past issues.
> >And, like most everything about [Phil Oliver's] ravings, there's no
> >solid fact introduced anywhere.
>
> As opposed to the various solid facts you have introduced about how
> Dr. Bernstein is being shunned by "ARIans" like Phil and Betsy Speicher
> for having dared to publish his reply to criticism in JARS? I must
> have missed those.
Did I say or suggest that he's being so shunned?
> Bottom line for me is that speculating about Dr. Bernstein's motives
> is just that: speculation.
Goooood. That's exactly right. Which is why comments should be kept to
what's readily verifiable. You will note that my earlier comments
didn't refer to possible motives on Mr. Bernstein's part, but on the
part of the likes of Mrs. Speicher and Phil Oliver and other ARIans,
based on past readily verifiable evidence -- namely, the evidence that
they have a great amount of contempt for academic philosophy and the
idea of engaging them in forums where Rand's ideas aren't given the most
favorable of treatment. (Yeah, you can nitpick and whittle away at this
characterization as you like, but the contempt these folks express for
much of the academic establishment is pretty open and blatant enough.
Not that some level of contempt for the academic establishment isn't
warranted, mind you, but for these folks, the contempt has often
bordered on the fanatical.)
> I don't have the facts necessary to draw
> any strong conclusions about his reasons for acting. I can point out
> some distinctions and principles that I think might be relevant to
> his decision, but that's about it.
>
> Oh... one other thought occurs to me. ARI-affiliated Objectivists have
> been subjected to a great deal of criticism by people like Cathcart for
> their general refusal to engage their critics in academic journals such
> as JARS. Dr. Bernstein has now done so. Might a word of praise from
> such people be warranted now that he has done what they were pushing for?
> Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Sure. Since responsiveness to challenges is by and large a good thing,
indicating intellectual accountability among other things, Bernstein
deserves some credit on that count. You'll note that my original
part-tongue-in-cheek comment was directed not toward Mr. Bernstein, but
toward the folks in the ARIan ranks who like to sneer at critics more
than engage them.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
nn
n
Kyle Haight
Resijinth <Resi...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>A libertarian and an anarchist are not the same thing.
Let's play count-the-errors, shall we?
>A libertarian consistently and without fail applies the non-initiation
>of force (and fraud) [principle].
This implies, among other things, that the 1980 Libertarian presidential
candidate wasn't a libertarian. (His tax plan called for a 50% reduction
in tax rates... which implies that the remaining taxes were acceptable
at least as a transitional position. "Without fail?") More broadly,
this would seem to imply that people who propose things like school
vouchers or education tax credits are by definition not libertarian;
however these are widely viewed as libertarian positions.
>An anarchist says that chaos is a good thing so any rules like that
>are bad things.
No, an anarchist says that government as such should be done away with.
Some anarchists take this view on moral grounds ("the state is inherently
illegitimate"); others on pragmatic grounds ("we can achieve the goals
we want without needing government"). The individualist anarchist
journal _Liberty_ used the motto "Liberty: The Mother of Order, not the
Daughter of it".
>An Objectivist says that people aren't allowed to do it, but a
>goverment can do whatever it wants so long as it is democratic and
>supports capitalism.
Government, according to Objectivism, should be restricted to protecting
the individual rights of its citizens. There's nothing in there that
strictly requires democracy; and it flat-out contradicts majoritarian
versions of democracy.
>Now see the fallacy of your view that anarchists and libertarians are
>the same thing.
This is technically true, but not in the way Resijinth probably intends.
Some anarchists are libertarians. Some anarchists are not libertarians.
Some libertarians are anarchists. Some libertarians are not anarchists.
They are distinct but overlapping sets. I'd draw you a Venn diagram, but
it's late and this post is in ASCII.
So that's five sentences, stating four distinct points, three of which
are questionable at best.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
Chris Cathcart
news:b967c56d.02060...@posting.google.com
> A libertarian and an anarchist are not the same thing. A libertarian
> consistently and without fail applies the non-initiation of force (and
> fraud) principal. An anarchist says that chaos is a good thing so any
> rules like that are bad things.
I don't know of anarchists, especially any self-labeled ones, that say
this sort of thing. Whoever does say it is most likely a nutcase
peddling some crackpot notions. But it wouldn't describe the mainstream
of anarcho-capitalists who post here, not by the furthest stretch.
(Why these folks would want to employ a tainted and misleading label
like "anarchist" . . . well, that's another matter. I've come to nearly
despise the label, however reasonable and informed I might find David
Friedman's arguments to be.)
> An Objectivist says that people aren't
> allowed to do it,
Do what?
> but a goverment can do whatever it wants so long as
> it is democratic and supports capitalism.
Uh, no. You are right about the "supports capitalism" part, but that
significantly constrains the "whatever" the government can do (as long
as...). And there's no specific endorsement of democracy as the
institutional mechanism required to secure the protection of individual
rights.
(I'll add that the whole idea of the institutional mechanisms that would
be expected to protect individual rights is just as central to
anarcho-capitalist analysis as to Rand's. In the end, their aim is the
same; the disagreement is over the correct institutional mechanisms we
can reasonably expect will create effective safeguards for individual
rights.)
> Now see the fallacy of your
> view that anarchists and libertarians are the same thing.
I never said they were, though my sarcasm may have obscured that.
Steve Reed
> [...] It's a safe bet that he despises the "Journal of Ayn Rand Studies."
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. I had the unfortunate circumstance of
finally encountering Andrew Bernstein in the flesh recently, and it was not at
all a pleasant experience, and I can entirely believe that he would have
contempt for this scholarly creation that exalts informed -dialogue.- It fits,
and it would discredit him, not Chris Sciabarra, a man worth ten of him.
I did not meet Bernstein personally. I attended the free presentations that
were made in Hollywood at the location of the C-SPAN broadcast about Ayn Rand,
back on May 12. With "The Fountainhead" being my favorite novel for the past
25 years, I was not going to miss some intense discussion of it. Not even when
it was sponsored by ARI.
I'll note below some counterpoints of the weekend, and this is a fitting spur
to my putting them on record.
But I first bring up Bernstein. He ostensibly stood before the audience of
about 25 people and "moderated" a panel of high-school juniors and seniors who
had entered the ARI's scholarship essay contest about "The Fountainhead."
It was not a panel "discussion," in any sense of the word. It had no agenda,
no broader focus to the questions, and little genuine interaction. Bernstein
launched into general questions, starting with "What do you think of Toohey
and his moral agenda?" and careening all over the map, among the characters,
around the plot, with little logical connection. Bernstein alternated
mini-lectures about how a point of character or plot manifested, to him, with
an eagerness to pounce on the students' comments and ... well, not quite tear
them apart, but something worse: making clear that none of them, to him, were
substantive.
And some were quite perceptive. One girl noted that an episode of creative
frustration was akin to "having 10,000 forks around you, when what you need to
eat is a spoon." Others were quite cutting in the faults of Toohey and Wynand
-- even one boy who had the courage, as I see it, to actually admit in that
company that he still was a Christian. The crestfallen look on Bernstein's
face spoke volumes, without a sound. What, I asked myself, did the ARI expect
from those who entered the contest? That they'd abandon all of their past
without a second thought, solely from the power of Rand's prose? Rather than
from how they digested and integrated it?
Bernstein kept up a meandering barrage of questions for over 75 minutes, one
that may have been more diffuse when directed at the originally planned 18
students. Those in the L.A. area had sent 18 RSVPs, but only five attended,
and each had a barrage similarly out of proportion. (Bernstein unctuously
praised the five for being the only ones who "weren't frauds" by the fact of
their attending. Moral judgments without bothering to ascertain fact ... where
have we seen this praised before?)
One girl clearly was uncomfortable with speaking on stage, and didn't
volunteer comments -- and this was rewarded, by Bernstein, with his asking her
at least three times, at length, about whether she had any response. He didn't
listen when the four others tried to link one character, or plot element, or
any other element to another. He spilled out -his- next insight.
This was the single most arrogant, genially abusive, and unperceptive
performance that I have ever witnessed from a member of a university faculty.
Bernstein wouldn't stop. The five students were under visible distress for at
least the last half-hour, until the "moderator" got his cue to stop -- not
from any ARI staffer in the audience (which would have been courteous to
arrange in advance) but from a female staffer coming on stage, and pulling on
his coat to get his attention!
I haven't read the reviews of the Cliffs Notes, nor had I heard Andrew
Bernstein before that day, nor had I read anything of his beyond two or three
op-eds and the contents of his "TF" Cliffs Notes. Yet a sense of unease that
I'd received, nonetheless, from my limited reading came into sharp focus. The
man is not a teacher. He is not someone who admits anyone for long into his
consciousness, at least when he has students in front of him.
Only one word suffices for his performance: arrogance. Unrelated to any sound
perception, to any achievement, to any awareness of whom he is addressing.
Arrogance from every pore.
Such a man showed a sense of life in his behavior that, I submit, is incapable
of grasping the concept of scholarly interaction. He will, I predict, stride
in to "correct" what has been said about his Cliffs Notes, and ignore any
interactions from genuine argument. And for me, owning a set (so far) of
"JARS," planning to subscribe, and knowing this is coming, it will not be a
pretty sight to read.
=====
Everything else about that weekend (I attended the free showing of "Ayn Rand:
A Sense of Life," with my brother, the previous Friday) was intriguing and
enlightening in some way, at the very least.
Even in meeting a furiously moving blue female ball that was setting up video
cameras in front of the speakers. I recognized her from her Website, asked who
she was, proclaimed that this was a good occasion for a truce, and introduced
myself to Betsy Speicher.
She was entirely pleasant and even cordial, as we brought up mutual interests,
acquaintances, and even HPO for a bit -- she thought I was one of her more
worthwhile opponents, however much we disagreed. I was charmed by her energy
and Philadelphia accent, and I said so, and I still think so.
I even was led to follow her suggestion and stay to see Bernstein ... and how
I reacted was certainly not something to blame her for. She clearly has a
strong and quite personal admiration for him that I cannot fathom. It was,
however, an opportunity to say good-bye to Betsy again afterwards, and that
was worth far more than Andy Bernstein.
Of incandescent brilliance, and entirely pleasant and edifying, was Shoshana
Milgram Knapp's morning talk about the characters and imagery of "The
Fountainhead." I followed her discussion of the novel's scaffolding with rapt
attention, and she gave every sense of someone who wanted to seek truth first,
not the satisfaction of one's position.
In the Q&A I asked about the use and utility of Rand's extended flashbacks
about Toohey and Wynand's early lives, and she made an excellent connection
between them: They both have consciously hidden agendas, they're not meant (by
Rand or by their own intentions) to have everything known about them, and the
only way to gain some background was to have some insights provided by the
novel's omniscient narrator.
Professor Knapp redeemed that day, even in retrospect. The panel about the
Objectivist movement, with Edwin Locke, Harry Binswanger, and Michael
Berliner, didn't do much of it, with their constant self-congratulation and
inflating of what ARI had been and is now doing. Some of the details were
informative, but I zoned out on their normal -- not Bernstein-class --
arrogant demeanors.
And it was a hoot to see the C-SPAN show projected on the big movie screen,
being the only dog in the manger amidst braying ARI supporters. (The actual
set for those interviewed was on the roof of the film-production company's
building that was used, and it was a closed set.)
Eric Daniels, the younger scholar, was superb and erudite, making frequent and
potent connections between Rand and her time, with the '30s-'40s period of
"TF" being in focus. I gave a "Yessss!" out loud when he made ideological and
personal links between Rand and Mencken, Frank Chodorov, and Albert Jay Nock,
all of whom would have been her compadres of spirit if she'd dropped her
defenses and been willing to listen more to them. (As Rand did with Isabel
Paterson, also mentioned.)
Peikoff was his usual bloviated self, complaining that he didn't like Southern
California -- then why did you drag yourself and Rand's archives here, Lenny?
-- and insulting most of the callers. His thundering defenses of every mistake
that Israel ever made were cheered with vigor by the ARI sympathizers all
around me. I avoided my urge to get a few catty comments about theocracies on
record, and adjourned instead to the lobby for about 20 minutes.
Out in the fresher air, I heard the Ayn Rand Archives' director Jeff Britting
talking about some of the artifacts and photos, at cut-away moments, with the
interviewer and guests up on the roof. HE was a real pleasure. I spoke with
him at length after "A Sense of Life," the Friday previous, being astonished
at how well the film was assembled -- I had never seen it. He both executive
produced and wrote its music score, and I could see a musician's sensibility
as to themes and variations in how the visuals were assembled. I told him so,
and discussed many other matters.
I asked him about how he saw the recent brouhaha about Peikoff's retaining
(and then having had to give up) the two pages of Rand's "TF" manuscript. He
declined to go into how he felt about that -- I don't blame him -- but did
want me to know that the four Rand MSs were all duplicated onto acid-free and
bound paper before they were sent to the Library of Congress. In talking about
this and other works of the Archives, I was struck with his attention to an
intricate task, and impressed by his confident professional tone.
So much so that I chose to help with their underfunded task. I sat in that
lobby reading "The Illustrated 'Fountainhead,'" a book collecting the
condensed and line-art-illuminated "comic strip" version of the book that Rand
prepared in 1945-46. ARI gave this as a premium to contributors. I wasn't
about to shell out for it, as pleasurable as it was to read ... until I saw
Britting again across the lobby.
I filled out a donation slip and MasterCard invoice. I made them out, however,
for the specific benefit of the "Ayn Rand Archives." That $50 is the most I
could ever bear to give them, and it's the closest to my money that ARI will
ever get ... and it was entirely due to Britting, a man of sizable talents who
is swept up, I believe, in a realm of zealots.
And, besides, I not only got the comic-strip "TF," but also can and do now put
my coffee into a stainless-steel travel mug commemorating the weekend. I had a
bit of an inner chuckle pointing out the tag on the bottom of this premium, to
the ARI staffers: "Made in China." Mainland, that is. They were properly -- in
terms of what they consider improper, not me -- chagrined ...
I can't conclude this without noting my most eyebrow-raising moment. I stood
six feet from ARI executive director Yaron Brook when he was noting, as the
crowd broke up at the end of the weekend, that he often wore a bulletproof
vest. ... I stopped my slow exit from the theater. This I had to hear.
It turns out that he wears the vest whenever he speaks to an audience about
the Objectivist virtues of the theocratic, socialist, and terror-using (my
adjectives, and reality, not his) State of Israel. I'll leave you to make the
connections about his choices and his courage, or lack thereof ...
That, in disjointed fashion, was my weekend with ARI. And they were much less
ferocious close up. And I had some notable insights, meeting some quite
conscientious and dedicated people, even if I disagree with the details and
strategy (as I still do) of much of what they are doing.
O'course, if I were trapped in a semester course with a Bernstein, a quarter
century ago at Northwestern University, I'd -still- be having nightmares ...
--
* Stev...@earthling.net *
"The road to wisdom?
Well, it's plain
and simple to express:
Err
and err
and err again
but less
and less
and less."
-- Piet Hein
Kyle Haight
Chris Cathcart <cath...@liquidinformation.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting. I wrote my earlier post before reading this one, and Phil's
>> reasoning is essentially the same as mine. I guess that makes me an
>> "ARIan" after all.
>
>Must be. ;-)
I find it interesting that Phil's argument was subjected to ridicule
and my essentially similar one was not. You aren't judging arguments
based on their source, are you, Cathcart?
>Did I say or suggest that he's being so shunned?
Ok, I went back and reread your original post -- what you wrote was
that someone (the "ARIans" by implication) *ought to be* shunning
Dr. Bernstein for having submitted a reply to criticism to JARS.
So I'll withdraw that criticism. That's what I get for posting late
at night.
I think there are sound reasons why one might think that publishing
new work in JARS is a bad idea while still being willing to publish
rebuttals to critical reviews. Therefore I disagree with the view
that Bernstein ought to be shunned for his actions... at least on
the basis of the limited facts I have on hand.
(A minor digression -- I went back and scanned the abstracts for earlier
issues of JARS. There have been three reviews of works by ARI-affiliated
Objectivists: Tara Smith's _Viable Values_, Allan Gotthelf's _On Ayn Rand_,
and Bernstein's Cliff's Notes. Judging from the abstracts, only the
review of Bernstein's work was severely critical.)
>namely, the evidence that they have a great amount of contempt for
>academic philosophy...
Heck, *I* have a great amount of contempt for academic philosophy. That's
why I dropped out of graduate school and got a real job. There is
real value to be found in the detailed and systematic exploration of
ideas that academic philosophy *done well* is capable of providing.
I haven't seen much of that in academic philosophy *as it seems to be
done today*. There is also real value to be found in the more layman-
oriented works that constitute the bulk of the Objectivist corpus to date.
The universities are only one front in a very broad culture war.
>Not that some level of contempt for the academic establishment isn't
>warranted, mind you, but for these folks, the contempt has often
>bordered on the fanatical.)
I would note that in the case of Rand herself, the fanaticism of the
contempt has been very very mutual.
>Sure. Since responsiveness to challenges is by and large a good thing,
>indicating intellectual accountability among other things, Bernstein
>deserves some credit on that count.
How very generous of you.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
Kyle Haight
Steve Reed <Stev...@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>It was not a panel "discussion," in any sense of the word. It had no agenda,
>no broader focus to the questions, and little genuine interaction. Bernstein
>launched into general questions, starting with "What do you think of Toohey
>and his moral agenda?" and careening all over the map, among the characters,
>around the plot, with little logical connection.
I've attended a number of lectures given by Dr. Bernstein, and my
impressions have been mixed. I think he has a wonderfully positive
sense of life. I'm less impressed with his intellectual rigor. I took
a course on the thought of Nietzsche from him at a conference one year
that can be most charitably described as "rambling". Some points nn the
course description were repeated multiple times; others were never discussed
at all due to lack of time. I sometimes got the sense that his methodology
consisted of reading some Nietzsche, then getting up in front of the class
and saying whaever came to mind. But that sense of life is really
infectious...
>Eric Daniels, the younger scholar, was superb and erudite... I heard
>the Ayn Rand Archives' director Jeff Britting... HE was a real
>pleasure... And I had some notable insights, meeting some quite
>conscientious and dedicated people, even if I disagree with the
>details and strategy (as I still do) of much of what they are doing.
One interesting trend I've noticed is that people who dislike ARI often
praise members of what I think of as the "up and coming" generation;
people like Tara Smith, Eric Daniels and (apparently) Jeff Britting.
This leads me to wonder whether their dislike of ARI will attenuate
over time as the older Objectivists they dislike retire from active
participation in the institute's activities and are replaced.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
John Alway
newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
I sometimes think you are overly sensitive to minor things. Your
characterizations sound wrong. Perhaps you aren't very good at that
sort of thing. =)
I've seen Bernstein lecture once, have listened to several other
of his lectures and have heard his various interviews on Prodos.com,
and I have a very high opinion of him.
However, my brother attended the American Renaissance School in
White Plans New York, which was a high school where Andy Bernstein was
a teacher. Bernstein was loved among his students, including my
brother who always speaks highly of him. There was another guy who
used to post here that attended that school who seemed to have that
same high opinion of him.
He does have a little of that tough New Yorker attitude. That's
part of what makes him who he is.
...John
Resijinth
> Some anarchists are libertarians. Some anarchists are not libertarians.
> Some libertarians are anarchists. Some libertarians are not anarchists.
> They are distinct but overlapping sets. I'd draw you a Venn diagram, but
> it's late and this post is in ASCII.
>
> So that's five sentences, stating four distinct points, three of which
> are questionable at best.
Under this definition, then, the same goes for Objectivists and
libertarians. I know a few Objectivist libertarians.
The fact remains, though, that if Objectivists (Of the ARIan type, and
probably even the TOCers.) uphold the principal that government is
here to protect rights, then they do it in the pragmatic
consequentialist way: If a government act prevents more initiation of
force than it causes, then it is a good government.
This is unreasonable, insofar as it says that a governmen can still be
a good government by INCREASING the usage of initiation of force, so
long as the force it prevents cancels it out so that it is still 0.
-Resijinth
Brad Aisa
>
> "Chris Matthew Sciabarra" <cm...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:kONK8.2$fR2...@typhoon.nyu.edu
>
> > Discussion
> >
> > Reply to Kirsti Minsaas: On the Ayn Rand CLIFFSNOTES - Andrew Bernstein
>
> Gee. Shouldn't someone be putting a little pressure on Andy Bernstein
> about intellectual slumming with this journal and its ilk?
I don't see why. Dr. Bernstein is a self-aware adult who presumably acts
on rational motives according to rational principles. I am sure he has a
good reason for wanting to say something in that journal.
The unceasing exceptions to the allegedly "dogmatic" positions
attributed to decent people by entities like Mr. Cathcart, demonstrate
the invalidity and incoherence of their analyses.
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@NOSPAMbrad-aisa.com>
http://www.brad-aisa.com/ -- PGP public key available at:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Brad+Aisa&op=index
Kyle Haight
Resijinth <Resi...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>The fact remains, though, that if Objectivists (Of the ARIan type, and
>probably even the TOCers.) uphold the principal that government is
>here to protect rights, then they do it in the pragmatic
>consequentialist way: If a government act prevents more initiation of
>force than it causes, then it is a good government.
Would you happen to have a cite from Rand supporting the claim that
this is the Objectivist view of government? It certainly isn't my
understanding. Rand argued that government action should be strictly
limited to the use of *retaliatory* force. The initiation of force
is wrong, whether by individuals *or* governments,
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
Chris Cathcart
news:3CFE8EC0...@brad-aisa.com
> Chris Cathcart wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Matthew Sciabarra" <cm...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:kONK8.2$fR2...@typhoon.nyu.edu
> >
> > > Discussion
> > >
> > > Reply to Kirsti Minsaas: On the Ayn Rand CLIFFSNOTES - Andrew Bernstein
> >
> > Gee. Shouldn't someone be putting a little pressure on Andy Bernstein
> > about intellectual slumming with this journal and its ilk?
>
> I don't see why. Dr. Bernstein is a self-aware adult who presumably acts
> on rational motives according to rational principles. I am sure he has a
> good reason for wanting to say something in that journal.
Yeah, I would assume he has a good reason for saying something in that
journal as well. But having good reasons to engage critics hasn't
stopped Good Objectivists from not engaging critics in the past, as I've
previously said.
> The unceasing exceptions to the allegedly "dogmatic" positions
> attributed to decent people
What specifically is the "attribution" I make and against which specific
decent people have I made them, to which there are exceptions? Hmmmmmm?
Aside from vague generalities that enable you to think you've scored
rhetorical points.
> by entities like Mr. Cathcart, demonstrate
> the invalidity and incoherence of their analyses.
Uh, huh. There isn't anything inconsistent in saying that the ARIan
environment is an atmosphere that encourages anti-intellectual
sentiment, and saying that there are some people associated with ARI
that rise above that sneering attitude. There has been plenty of
evidence abound for years that bears out the characterization that there
is vicious sneering anti-intellectualism prominent within the ARIan
sect. Only only needs to observe representative examples of such here
on this newsgroup, in the personages of the likes of Phil Oliver.
And, there are also those who avoid dumping on intellectual integrity
and accountability, by actually engaging critics, including in an
academic atmosphere. Tara Smith is a prominent example. Under the
leadership of someone like Ms. Smith I'd expect a more flourishing
intellectual environment than what you get under the leadership of the
likes of Peikoff and Schwartz, where loyalty to personages is paramount
over pursuit of truth and integrity.
There are people associated with ARI, and then there are ARIans.
Members of one group can contribute to progress and intellectual
flourishing, while the other group contributes primarily to intellectual
stagnation. As soon as the ARIans get dumped or die a long, slow death,
they will only get in the way of advancing Objectivism and rational
ideas generally.
The good ones can start by dropping this silly idea that the JARS is
this awful forum just because it encourages debate and discussion that
they may find distasteful. Learn to just get over it, and discover that
dialogue and responsiveness to criticism are conducive to growth and
avoidance of stagnation. They can start by dropping this attitude that
their opponents are dishonorable people who like to peddle irrationality
(per Phil Oliver's characterization near the start of the thread).
Chris Cathcart
"Chris Cathcart" <cath...@liquidinformation.com> wrote in message
news:ed74060c6cacf0dcd9f...@mygate.mailgate.org
> As soon as the ARIans get dumped or die a long, slow death,
> they will only get in the way of advancing Objectivism and rational
> ideas generally.
That should read: "Until the ARIans...".
(And, of course, one should note that generally being in the way, being
an obstacle, being part of what gives the Objectivist movement a bad
name, won't prevent good ideas from being advanced. It's specifically
the sneering, anti-intellectual *attitude* that these folks embody that
needs to be eschewed for that to happen. And having the likes of
Peikoff and Schwartz in the leadership *is* determinental to the cause,
I think. But, hopefully, in 30 or so years, they and their spirit
should be irrelevant to Objectivism.)
Betsy Speicher
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Brad Aisa wrote:
> I don't see why. Dr. Bernstein is a self-aware adult who presumably acts
> on rational motives according to rational principles. I am sure he has a
> good reason for wanting to say something in that journal.
Rather than guess about his motives, I asked Dr. Bernstein why he wrote
for Sciabarra's journal. He asked me to post the following:
To All Sincerely Concerned With Objectivism
By Andrew Bernstein
Last year Chris Sciabarra solicited from me an article for his journal in
response to its review of the CliffsNotes on Ayn Rand's novels. All I
knew of Mr. Sciabarra was that he had written a strange book entitled Ayn
Rand: the Russian Radical, in which he argued that she was a great thinker
of the Hegelian school. Knowing nothing of his journal, I wrote several
lines in response. This was a serious error on my part. I was
irresponsible in not researching this journal and identifying its nature.
In a world in which some individuals profess to love Ayn Rand's work but
make a living criticizing it - and where some similarly profess to admire
Objectivism but insult the Ayn Rand Institute, its staff and contributors,
I should have known better.
The so-called Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is filled with writings by
people with whom I refuse to knowingly associate under any circumstances.
I deeply regret my thoughtless decision to contribute to this journal, and
hereby irrevocably repudiate any and all association with it.
In this regard, the fault is entirely my own. This journal does not hide
what it is. Its contents are available on the Internet for all to see.
In failing to do the requisite research and gather the necessary data, I
failed to properly use my mind. I must now suffer the consequences of
that.
To all who are sincerely concerned with Objectivism, I apologize, and
recommend a complete repudiation and boycott of this journal and of any
and all of Mr. Sciabarra's work.
--
Roderick T Long
to the latest issue of Chris Sciabarra’s Journal of Ayn Rand
Studies, I was pleased that Bernstein was (as I supposed)
demonstrating the independence of judgment to write for a periodical
disapproved by the official ARI hierarchy. Well, apparently
Bernstein’s decision was prompted by ignorance rather than
independence, and he has since had a trip to the woodshed; this
Maoist-style public “confession” is the result. “I
failed to properly use my mind” -- can you imagine Howard Roark
or Dagny Taggart signing their name to this sort of abject apologia?
That ARI subjects its scholars to this sort of ideological discipline
is a sign of how far that organization has drifted away from
Objectivist principles. Ayn Rand once wrote: “A rational mind
does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp of
reality to anyone’s orders, directives, or controls.”
The contrast between ARI and JARS, in their respective approaches to
scholarship, could not be clearer. In its willing to explore
extensions and revisions of the Objectivist paradigm, JARS practices
the independence of judgment that Objectivism champions. For ARI
scholars, by contrast, the ultimate frame of reference seems to be,
not objective reality, but the consciousness of Leonard Peikoff.
Roderick T. Long
Phil
in his estimation, a mistake by responding, and honestly
stated so. This is in distinction to the pretentious idiots
of the Kelley/academia world who, in reality, should
apologize for practically every second of their existence,
but virtually never apologise for any of their continuous,
egregious errors.
EricK
By Andrew Bernstein
<sad pathetic apology deleted>
> To all who are sincerely concerned with Objectivism, I apologize, and
recommend a complete repudiation and boycott of this journal and of
any
and all of Mr. Sciabarra's work.
Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that an intelligent grown
man has to make a humiliating public apology for writing a reply to a
journal that reviewed his book? Give me a break!
-Eric
Chris Cathcart
> Dr. Bernstein was simply making it clear that he made,
> in his estimation, a mistake by responding, and honestly
> stated so. This is in distinction to the pretentious idiots
> of the Kelley/academia world who, in reality, should
> apologize for practically every second of their existence,
> but virtually never apologise for any of their continuous,
> egregious errors.
356 . . .
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Chris Cathcart
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.02060...@shell.forethought.net
Bravo to Andrew Bernstein! Owning up to one's serious errors and
expressing deep regret about them is a sure sign of intellectual
integrity and accountability. My estimation of the man is higher now
than ever before.
The Kelley crowd and their intellectual-tolerationist ilk, on the other
hand, should be apologizing for every waking moment in which they've yet
to blow their own brains out.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
--
Chris Cathcart
06061033...@posting.google.com>...
Hey, nice to see a familiar name posting here. :-)
(More below)
> When I saw Andrew Bernstein’s name listed among the contributors
> to the latest issue of Chris Sciabarra’s Journal of Ayn Rand
> Studies, I was pleased that Bernstein was (as I supposed)
> demonstrating the independence of judgment to write for a periodical
> disapproved by the official ARI hierarchy. Well, apparently
> Bernstein’s decision was prompted by ignorance rather than
> independence, and he has since had a trip to the woodshed; this
> Maoist-style public “confession” is the result. “I
> failed to properly use my mind” -- can you imagine Howard Roark
> or Dagny Taggart signing their name to this sort of abject apologia?
At the JARS website, there's a page entitled, "What They're Saying About Us":
http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/reviews.asp
Maybe the JARS should add to the comments therein the following:
"The so-called Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is filled with writings by
people with whom I refuse to knowingly associate under any circumstances.
I deeply regret my thoughtless decision to contribute to this journal, and
hereby irrevocably repudiate any and all association with it."
-- Andrew Bernstein, Ayn Rand Institute scholar
Ken Gardner
What exactly are you referring to? Is it online somewhere and, if so,
where?
Ken
Brad Aisa
>
> Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that an intelligent grown
> man has to make a humiliating public apology for writing a reply to a
> journal that reviewed his book? Give me a break!
"has to"???
Talk about a loaded insult with attitude!
Dr. Bernstein made what he considered to be a serious error, *by his own
standards*, and wanted to apologize for it, and set the record straight.
It is entirely appropriate, given the nature of TJOARS, and what it
means to associate with it -- he wouldn't want that action to go
unexplained or unrepudiated.
I have to say though, that it was pretty surprising that he wouldn't
check into Sciabarra's journal, given that he'd read his book, which
should set alarm bells off for anyone with an actual objective
epistemology.
Brad Aisa
>
> The Kelley crowd and their intellectual-tolerationist ilk, on the other
> hand, should be apologizing for every waking moment in which they've yet
> to blow their own brains out.
No -- they should simply get a clue and get it together, intellectually.
Ken Gardner
>The so-called Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is filled with writings by
>people with whom I refuse to knowingly associate under any circumstances.
[...]
>In failing to do the requisite research and gather the necessary data, I
>failed to properly use my mind.
The grammar police are getting restless...
Ken
Ken Gardner
>Roderick T Long <lon...@mail.auburn.edu> wrote in message news:<bcf636b.02
>06061033...@posting.google.com>...
>Hey, nice to see a familiar name posting here. :-)
No kidding. There are at least two regular posters here (including
myself), maybe three, who would love to know Professor Long's views on
whether Aristotle, in fact, regarded universals or essentials as
metaphysical rather than epistemological, as charged in both ITOE and
OPAR. You may recall this particular controversy from about six
months ago.
I say Rand and Peikoff are both wrong on this point and that in fact
Aristotle was very close to hitting upon Rand's objective theory of
concepts (substitute "distinguishing characteristics" for essence and
"omitted measurements" for accident and it would be a perfect match).
Ken
Brad Aisa
>
> When I saw Andrew Bernstein’s name listed among the contributors
> to the latest issue of Chris Sciabarra’s Journal of Ayn Rand
> Studies, I was pleased that Bernstein was (as I supposed)
> demonstrating the independence of judgment to write for a periodical
> disapproved by the official ARI hierarchy. Well, apparently
> Bernstein’s decision was prompted by ignorance rather than
> independence, and he has since had a trip to the woodshed; this
> Maoist-style public “confession” is the result. “I
> failed to properly use my mind” -- can you imagine Howard Roark
> or Dagny Taggart signing their name to this sort of abject apologia?
God but this is grossly offensive and insufferably presumptuous -- it
really says a lot about the mentality of a person who would write it,
and very little about Andrew Bernstein & Co.
The error made my creeps such as this, again and again, is the
outrageous assumption of projecting THEIR standard of value upon others,
then attributing all kinds of cowardly or unseemly motivations to them.
It maybe never occurs to them that a person might VOLUNTARILY and
ENTHUSIASTICALLY and INDEPENDENTLY conclude that associating with
certain individuals was NOT IN THEIR INTEREST, and then refrain from
doing so.
There is a categorical difference between someone of wholesome motives
and a valid, (reasonably) objective/inductive epistemology, expressing
intellectual opinions on Objectivism or Rand, and the kind of
neo-post-modern, cynical, whacked out fetishists orbiting around
Sciabarra.
ASSOCIATING WITH AND SANCTIONING PERSONS OF BAD CHARACTER IS IMMORAL AND
IMPRACTICAL.
Anyone who claims value can be had, has no conception whatsoever of the
nature of good and evil, and the manner in which evil is able to thrive.
> That ARI subjects its scholars to this sort of ideological discipline [...]
More outrageous presumption! This is pure speculation, with no evidence,
and based on egregiously flawed and loaded premises to boot!
> The contrast between ARI and JARS, in their respective approaches to
> scholarship, could not be clearer.
You got that right! ARI intellectuals are devoted to reality and an
inductive/objective method. JARS intellectuals are devoted to...
something obviously different. I get the impression that crowd is just
bored with the old-style post-modernist nonsense, and are trolling for
something new to "deconstruct" and nihilize (you read the word here
first folks!)
In its willing to explore
> extensions and revisions of the Objectivist paradigm, JARS practices
> the independence of judgment that Objectivism champions. For ARI
> scholars, by contrast, the ultimate frame of reference seems to be,
> not objective reality, but the consciousness of Leonard Peikoff.
I have to say though, that I thank God almost daily for the existence of
Kelley, Branden, Sciabarra, and the lessor planetoids and asteroids
orbitting around them -- they really do act as efficient garbage
collectors for the Objectivist movement...
Brad Aisa
>
> [Until] the ARIans get dumped or die a long, slow death,
> they will only get in the way of advancing Objectivism and rational
> ideas generally.
What nonsense -- and what an inadvertently telling remark as well.
Notice the social-metaphysical orientation here -- good ideas are
somehow being prevented from coming into being, because some minds are
preventing it -- *people*, in this view, are primary, not reality.
In fact, a wide variety of people have been positively influenced by
Rand's ideas, and make use of them in their own work. Despite the many
government controls in our world today, the flow of ideas is largely
unimpeded, and good intellectual products find an audience. Nobody can
stop the development of good new ideas, and certainly no one associated
with ARI has any such power.
EricK
Ken Gardner wrote in message <5kpvfusjnrqt0hhoo...@4ax.com>...
>><sad pathetic apology deleted>
It's up above in Betsy's post.
Chris Cathcart
> Chris Cathcart wrote:
> >
> > [Until] the ARIans get dumped or die a long, slow death,
> > they will only get in the way of advancing Objectivism and rational
> > ideas generally.
>
> What nonsense -- and what an inadvertently telling remark as well.
>
> Notice the social-metaphysical orientation here -- good ideas are
> somehow being prevented from coming into being, because some minds are
> preventing it -- *people*, in this view, are primary, not reality.
*Sigh*
Quoting myself:
"(And, of course, one should note that generally being in the way, being
an obstacle, being part of what gives the Objectivist movement a bad
name, won't prevent good ideas from being advanced. It's specifically
the sneering, anti-intellectual *attitude* that these folks embody that
needs to be eschewed for that to happen. And having the likes of
Peikoff and Schwartz in the leadership *is* determinental to the cause,
I think. But, hopefully, in 30 or so years, they and their spirit
should be irrelevant to Objectivism.)"
Buzz off, Aisa.
EricK
Brad Aisa wrote in message <3CFFE723...@brad-aisa.com>...
>EricK wrote:
>>
>> Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that an intelligent grown
>> man has to make a humiliating public apology for writing a reply to a
>> journal that reviewed his book? Give me a break!
>"has to"???
>Talk about a loaded insult with attitude!
>Dr. Bernstein made what he considered to be a serious error, *by his own
standards*, and wanted to apologize for it, and set the record straight.
It is entirely appropriate, given the nature of TJOARS, and what it
means to associate with it -- he wouldn't want that action to go
unexplained or unrepudiated.
His own spineless standards in my opinion, and Bernstein is from New York no
less. I find the nature of most newspapers to be left-wing and their
commentary and op-ed pages "anti-man" yet that wouldn't prevent me from
writing a letter to the editor that I disagree with, and I certainly
wouldn't apologize to anyone for doing it even though the paper includes
what I consider offensive material. If Andrew doesn't like the journal,
then fine, don't read or submit material to it anymore, but what reason does
he need to apologize to anyone? In fact, the proper thing now would be to
take back his apology and say "screw you individuals who think I need to
apologize to anyone for responding to a negative review of my work".
>I have to say though, that it was pretty surprising that he wouldn't
check into Sciabarra's journal, given that he'd read his book, which
should set alarm bells off for anyone with an actual objective
epistemology.
Who knows what he was thinking? Maybe he received enough hate mail or
subtle threats from people associated with ARI that he felt he though this
ability to lecture (and get paid) under the auspices of ARI was in jeopardy.
That's my guess.
-Eric
di...@dianahsieh.com
inconsistent with the virtue of pride. (Pride requires that we
acknowledge and correct our moral failings, but not that we subject
ourselves to a public humiliation of detailing that failing.)
For the sake of argument, let's presume that he did make a serious error
in judgment in publishing that short comment in JARS. An adequate apology
would be something along the lines of the following:
"I recently published a short comment in JARS regarding my CliffsNotes
books. I was ignorant of the sort of articles and authors JARS publishes,
many/most/all of which I emphatically do not sanction. I ought to have
investigated further before giving my consent to publish. I do not
approve of JARS in any way and will not published in that forum again. I
apologize for any confusion this incident might have created."
Such an apology would have conveyed the appropriate information and regret
without going into the pathetic and demeaning details of whether Bernstein
used or did not use his mind properly. (Those details might be relevant
to a more personal discussion with a friend, but not to the whole world.)
However, the more troubling aspect of Bernstein's apology is the
implausibility of the claim that he didn't know about the nature of JARS
or Chris Sciabarra's works. Does he not talk to the other folks over at
the ARI? I thought that the consensus on Chris Sciabarra and JARS was
well-known, particularly by the professional Objectivist-types. Am I
wrong?
Of course, the most troubling aspect is that such a published comment
could have gotten anyone into so much hot water in the first place!
diana.
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*
| diana mertz hsieh *--* di...@dianahsieh.com |
| http://www.dianahsieh.com *--* http://www.noodlefood.org |
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*
Mark Sieving
>
> To All Sincerely Concerned With Objectivism
> By Andrew Bernstein
[snip]
> In a world in which some individuals profess to love Ayn Rand's work but
> make a living criticizing it
I can't imagine a better way to show respect and admiration for ideas
than to take them seriously enough to criticize them. Work that can't
stand up to criticism isn't worth much. The notion that some ideas
are above criticism is a characteristic of religion, not scholarship.
Chris Cathcart
news:ee78eb23.0206...@posting.google.com
> > To All Sincerely Concerned With Objectivism
> > By Andrew Bernstein
>
> [snip]
>
> > In a world in which some individuals profess to love Ayn Rand's work but
> > make a living criticizing it
>
> I can't imagine a better way to show respect and admiration for ideas
> than to take them seriously enough to criticize them. Work that can't
> stand up to criticism isn't worth much. The notion that some ideas
> are above criticism is a characteristic of religion, not scholarship.
Well, comments like Mr. Bernstein's pretty much sums up his (dare I say
"and that of his ilk," since Bernstein is and acts only as an
individual?) views about intellectual integrity. Intellectual integrity
leads to LOVE for Ayn Rand's ideas after having come to understand them;
CRITICISM is one of those nasty things that nihilists do for fun and/or
profit, but not out of devotion to and respect for ideas.
No, that isn't what Mr. Bernstein said, but it's this reference made in
distate to *criticism* of Ayn Rand's ideas, that reflects a certain kind
of *attitude* towards ideas that his become infamously associated with
ARI/Peikoff/etc.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Chris Cathcart
> Dr. Bernstein made what he considered to be a serious error, *by his own
> standards*, and wanted to apologize for it, and set the record straight.
> It is entirely appropriate, given the nature of TJOARS, and what it
> means to associate with it -- he wouldn't want that action to go
> unexplained or unrepudiated.
And it's that attitude towards the JARS that represents *precisely* the
kind of intellectual cancer I was talking about. You and others of like
mind (oh wait, I can't say that, you all act as individuals, with
completely independent opinions) can go and sneer all you want in your
diatribes against JARS. Go on ahead and characterize it as what's wrong
with academia, how it represents a corruption, how it betrays the things
that Ayn Rand stood for. Go ahead and sneer at Chris Sciabarra's work
and scholarship, with your utter contempt for any interpretation that
you find distasteful, and for any author that would dare invoke such
distaste.
But it doesn't fly, and you all should know it by now. It's just a lot
of empty bluster that conveys one main thing: You don't like things and
people that present criticism and varying interpretation of things you
love and hold dear. You dislike contemporary academia but for the wrong
reasons; you'd rather flit around ignorantly pretending to understand
the non-Objectivist (or non-Orthodox-Objectivist) ideas and caricaturing
them as representing fundamental corruptions built upon lifetimes of
evasion and dishonesty. Why? Because goddamn them, intellectual
integrity and honesty and respect for ideas could only lead you one
place: to appreciation and love for Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
It's transparent, too. Look at Peikoff, "scholarly" painting Kant the
way he does in _Ominous Parallels_, with laughable, one-sided, biased
"scholarship" -- held up as a great example of good scholarship by the
Good Objectivists. Yeah, buy into that, and you buy into all this other
nonsense about academia, and about journals like JARS. Practice that
methodology consistently enough, dig yourself into a hole like a good
dogmatist, and the end-result is a raving little clown like Phil Oliver,
a Know-It-All who doesn't know jackshit about thinking rationally or
philosophically or about taking ideas seriously.
But go right on ahead, sneer and avoid the content of the message I
present in all-too-blunt terms. But you and others ask for evidence for
the dogmatic, sneering, anti-intellectual attitude held by the
Orthodoxy, one needn't look any further than the opinion they hold
towards the JARS, and toward the person and activities of Chris
Sciabarra. Sciabarra's offense? Daring to publish controversial and
unpopular things about Rand, and daring to welcome dialogue from
all-comers that the dogmatists ASSUME (or believe, based on flimsy,
biased information and reasoning) are intellectually corrupt.
JARS is the only *serious* journal devoted to scholarly dialogue on
Rand's ideas right now. And the people who spit on it . . . well, draw
your conclusions about 'em.
Chris Cathcart
> Roderick T Long wrote:
> >
> > When I saw Andrew Bernsteins name listed among the contributors
> > to the latest issue of Chris Sciabarras Journal of Ayn Rand
> > Studies, I was pleased that Bernstein was (as I supposed)
> > demonstrating the independence of judgment to write for a periodical
> > disapproved by the official ARI hierarchy. Well, apparently
> > Bernsteins decision was prompted by ignorance rather than
> > independence, and he has since had a trip to the woodshed; this
> > Maoist-style public confession is the result. I
> > failed to properly use my mind -- can you imagine Howard Roark
> > or Dagny Taggart signing their name to this sort of abject apologia?
>
> God but this is grossly offensive and insufferably presumptuous --
Boo hoo hoo! Look at me, Brad Aisa, getting all sanctimonious and
outraged! Waaaaaa!
> it
> really says a lot about the mentality of a person who would write it,
> and very little about Andrew Bernstein & Co.
>
> The error made my creeps such as this,
That's right, Braddy-Boy! Sneer! Sneeeeeeeer! SNEEEEEEER till your
face can't take it any longer!
> again and again, is the
> outrageous assumption of projecting THEIR standard of value upon others,
> then attributing all kinds of cowardly or unseemly motivations to them.
Cowardly, unseemly creeps! Go Brad, go!
You know, Braddy-Boy, it helps, when launching into invective-filled
rants, to actually back it up with substance. *I* have substance behind
my anti-ARI/Peikoff/etal rants. How 'bout you?
You haven't even a clue who Roderick Long is, do you? 'Nuff said,
byatch.
> It maybe never occurs to them that a person might VOLUNTARILY and
> ENTHUSIASTICALLY and INDEPENDENTLY conclude that associating with
> certain individuals was NOT IN THEIR INTEREST, and then refrain from
> doing so.
Mr. Bernstein followed a party line -- independently, enthusiastically,
not under any kind of duress, of course -- that, among other things,
adheres to this dumbfuck-ignorant characterization of people like Chris
Sciabarra. Sciabarra claims that Rand is a great thinker of "the
Hegelian school"? That's about as worthless as Dr. Ridpath's
enthusiastic, independently-arrived-at judgment of the book as reflected
in his hatchet-j... er, review, of Sciabarra's book.
> There is a categorical difference between someone of wholesome motives
> and a valid, (reasonably) objective/inductive epistemology, expressing
> intellectual opinions on Objectivism or Rand, and the kind of
> neo-post-modern, cynical, whacked out fetishists orbiting around
> Sciabarra.
That's right, Braddy. SSSSSSSSNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRR!!!!! If
you can, do it in your 1960s-cult-NBI-days Branden tone!
Let it out, Braddy, sneer.
Scholarly dialogue that you find distasteful = whacked-out fetishists.
You wouldn't happen to know about lifestyles others may find bothersome
and distasteful, would you? Some might label such lifstyles perverted
and fetishistic and whacked-out, but such persons may be ignorant
bigots.
> ASSOCIATING WITH AND SANCTIONING PERSONS OF BAD CHARACTER IS IMMORAL AND
> IMPRACTICAL.
Who has bad character, hmmmmm? Sciabarra? The contributors?
Apparently you don't know jacskhit about evaluating character.
> > That ARI subjects its scholars to this sort of ideological discipline [...]
>
> More outrageous presumption! This is pure speculation, with no evidence,
> and based on egregiously flawed and loaded premises to boot!
Oh, it's outrageous. No historical precedent for this kind of thing at
all. Egregious. You hear me, Brad? EEEEGREGEEEOOUS!!!!
Sneer, Brad, sneer!
> > The contrast between ARI and JARS, in their respective approaches to
> > scholarship, could not be clearer.
>
> You got that right! ARI intellectuals are devoted to reality and an
> inductive/objective method. JARS intellectuals are devoted to...
> something obviously different. I get the impression that crowd is just
> bored with the old-style post-modernist nonsense, and are trolling for
> something new to "deconstruct" and nihilize (you read the word here
> first folks!)
Sneer, Brad, sneer! Do it ignorantly if at all possible -- it adds to
the dramatic effect.
> In its willing to explore
> > extensions and revisions of the Objectivist paradigm, JARS practices
> > the independence of judgment that Objectivism champions. For ARI
> > scholars, by contrast, the ultimate frame of reference seems to be,
> > not objective reality, but the consciousness of Leonard Peikoff.
>
> I have to say though, that I thank God almost daily for the existence of
> Kelley, Branden, Sciabarra, and the lessor planetoids and asteroids
> orbitting around them -- they really do act as efficient garbage
> collectors for the Objectivist movement...
Sneeeeeeer, Braddy! We need more effective sneeeeers! Hideous,
menacing, SNEEERS!
Then, buzz off.
Betsy Speicher
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Roderick T Long wrote:
> That ARI subjects its scholars to this sort of ideological discipline
> is a sign of how far that organization has drifted away from
> Objectivist principles.
ARI had nothing to do with it. Bernstein finally read the JARS web site
and decided he didn't want to be associated with it.
> The contrast between ARI and JARS, in their respective approaches to
> scholarship, could not be clearer.
Indeed!
> In its willing to explore extensions and revisions of the Objectivist
> paradigm, JARS practices the independence of judgment that Objectivism
> champions.
Independence from what?
> For ARI scholars, by contrast, the ultimate frame of reference seems to
> be, not objective reality, but the consciousness of Leonard Peikoff.
Hardly, but don't take my word for it.
I invite anyone who is interested to be an independent thinker, read both
JARS and the work of ARI-affiliated and supported scholars and writers on
the www.aynrand.org and www.aynrandbookstore.com web sites, and decide for
himself which is truer to reality and the values of Ayn Rand.
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.4cybernet.com/
Betsy Speicher
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 di...@dianahsieh.com wrote:
> However, the more troubling aspect of Bernstein's apology is the
> implausibility of the claim that he didn't know about the nature of JARS
> or Chris Sciabarra's works. Does he not talk to the other folks over at
> the ARI? I thought that the consensus on Chris Sciabarra and JARS was
> well-known, particularly by the professional Objectivist-types. Am I
> wrong?
Yes. Contrary to the ARI Conspiracy Myth, ARI-affiliated people don't get
together and decide what they will think as a group. They decide things
independently based on their own individual knowledge of the facts. Also,
when they do get together to discuss things, the conversation is almost
always about facts and common values. They hardly ever discuss Kelley,
Branden, Sciabarra, etc. There is very little interest in their
activities and opinions.
> Of course, the most troubling aspect is that such a published comment
> could have gotten anyone into so much hot water in the first place!
It didn't. Some people on h.p.o. were wondering why Bernstein wrote for
JARS, so I asked him. He asked me why I was curious and I pointed him to
the JARS web site. He read it and decided he wanted to issue that
statement. That's all.
Bernstein is not in hot water with me or with anyone anywhere that I know
of -- except maybe Chris Sciabarra.
Betsy Speicher
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Brad Aisa wrote:
> I have to say though, that it was pretty surprising that he wouldn't
> check into Sciabarra's journal, given that he'd read his book, which
> should set alarm bells off for anyone with an actual objective
> epistemology.
He hadn't read the whole book, just browsed it and heard things
second-hand. He should have looked into JARS further and he wishes he
had. He's not infallible, but I don't think he will be making THAT kind
of mistake again.
Betsy Speicher
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Chris Cathcart wrote:
> And it's that attitude towards the JARS that represents *precisely* the
> kind of intellectual cancer I was talking about. You and others of like
> mind (oh wait, I can't say that, you all act as individuals, with
> completely independent opinions) can go and sneer all you want in your
> diatribes against JARS.
JARS is so stupid, clueless, and pretentious that it's not worth a sneer.
> Go on ahead and characterize it as what's wrong with academia,
That too.
> how it represents a corruption, how it betrays the things that Ayn Rand
> stood for.
JARS is so off the mark that I don't think it rises to that level.
> Go ahead and sneer at Chris Sciabarra's work and scholarship, with your
> utter contempt for any interpretation that you find distasteful, and for
> any author that would dare invoke such distaste.
Nah. He's too silly and entertaining.
> But it doesn't fly, and you all should know it by now. It's just a lot
> of empty bluster that conveys one main thing: You don't like things and
> people that present criticism and varying interpretation of things you
> love and hold dear.
If that's what Sciabarra wants to do, it's a free country and he's welcome
to do it. People are free to be dumb and make fools of themselves in
public if they want to.
> You dislike contemporary academia but for the wrong reasons; you'd
> rather flit around ignorantly pretending to understand the
> non-Objectivist (or non-Orthodox-Objectivist) ideas and caricaturing
> them as representing fundamental corruptions built upon lifetimes of
> evasion and dishonesty. Why?
Actually, it is only on h.p.o. that I spend any time dealing with such
ideas and people at all.
> Because goddamn them, intellectual integrity and honesty and respect for
> ideas could only lead you one place: to appreciation and love for Ayn
> Rand and Objectivism.
That's right, but is it something that must be understood first-hand.
> JARS is the only *serious* journal devoted to scholarly dialogue on
> Rand's ideas right now.
Opinions vary.
> And the people who spit on it . . . well, draw your conclusions about
> 'em.
Especially after reading JARS. ;-)
EricK
Betsy Speicher wrote in message ...
>It didn't. Some people on h.p.o. were wondering why Bernstein wrote for
>JARS, so I asked him. He asked me why I was curious and I pointed him to
>the JARS web site. He read it and decided he wanted to issue that
>statement. That's all.
>
>Bernstein is not in hot water with me or with anyone anywhere that I know
>of -- except maybe Chris Sciabarra.
Unlikely based on the fact that he had to make a humiliating apology, and
made it make it public for thousands (including non-objectivists) to read.
Or maybe he realized he wasn't in hot water yet, and put two and two
together based on episodes that have taken place in the past.
Apologetic public comments such as "I was irresponsible", "I should have
known better", "I deeply regret my thoughtless decision", and "I must now
suffer the consequences" suggest to me a deep fear of being in hot water (or
the potential to) with someone other than yourself.
I remain perplexed. How is Ridpath's review of Sciabarra's book not
considered "knowingly associated" with the Sciabarra and his crowd while
Bernstein WRITING a piece IN DEFENSE of his own work is? What moral
principle distinguishes one action as moral and the other deserving an
embarrassing public apology for the entire world to read if they have access
to the internet?
-Eric
di...@dianahsieh.com
:> However, the more troubling aspect of Bernstein's apology is the
:> implausibility of the claim that he didn't know about the nature of JARS
:> or Chris Sciabarra's works. Does he not talk to the other folks over at
:> the ARI? I thought that the consensus on Chris Sciabarra and JARS was
:> well-known, particularly by the professional Objectivist-types. Am I
:> wrong?
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
: Yes. Contrary to the ARI Conspiracy Myth, ARI-affiliated people don't get
: together and decide what they will think as a group. They decide things
: independently based on their own individual knowledge of the facts. Also,
: when they do get together to discuss things, the conversation is almost
: always about facts and common values. They hardly ever discuss Kelley,
: Branden, Sciabarra, etc. There is very little interest in their
: activities and opinions.
I'm not promoting some sort of conspiracy theory here. My point is simply
that professionals are and ought to be aware of the current scholarship in
their field. Such scholarship is usually a subject of discussion amongst
professionals, including scholarship with which those professionals
disagree.
From this perspective, it is implausible (but not impossible) that
Bernstein didn't know the general opinion of JARS held by his
philosophical associates. Such ignorance is even more implausible given
the (negative) in-print attention that the ARI-affiliated folks have given
Chris Sciabarra's work over the years, as well as the number of years that
JARS has been in existence. At the very least, I would have expected
Bernstein to be aware enough of the goings-on in his field of study that
the prospect of publication in JARS would have raised red flags for him.
I've heard good things about Andy Bernstein from just about everyone who
has been in contact with him, including present supporters of the TOC.
I'm not inclined to think ill, but I find his claim to ignorance
astonishing.
Chris Cathcart
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Brad Aisa wrote:
>
> > I have to say though, that it was pretty surprising that he wouldn't
> > check into Sciabarra's journal, given that he'd read his book, which
> > should set alarm bells off for anyone with an actual objective
> > epistemology.
>
> He hadn't read the whole book, just browsed it and heard things
> second-hand. He should have looked into JARS further and he wishes he
> had. He's not infallible, but I don't think he will be making THAT kind
> of mistake again.
Gee, the way you and Bernstein and all these other people characterize
things (all opinions independently and freely arrived-at, of course),
the JARS is something to be avoided like the plague. Tell us, what is
the evil lurking in the pages of JARS that would make it so darned
regrettable to even defecate within 20 yards of it? It's just a journal
of scholarly debate and dialogue, for crying out loud -- not a truly
hideous evil like the second coming of Nathaniel Branden or something
like that. (We all know how everyone involved there freely and
independently arrived at their own judgments of him, now don't we.)
And you expect all this to gel nice and smoothly with common sense.
Tell us, how would someone covering the Objectivist movement for a news
story characterize things here? "There is even a publication titled
_Journal of Ayn Rand Studies_, where Rand's ideas are subject to
academic critiques. The Marina Del Rey, CA, based Ayn Rand Institute,
however, will have nothing to do with it because . . . " Fill in the
blanks, Mrs. Speicher. Tell us what explanation is given that doesn't
make them ARIans out to sound like sectarian kooks. Let me guess,
they'll go straight to Lenny Payoff for the juiciest quote: "I'd rather
the whole movement blow up than ally myself with this slime."
You know, Lenny and Harry could have started up a journal like this
years (YEARS) ago. They could maintain high standards of editorial
integrity and welcome contributions from anyone. Any reason why you
think they might not have done that, other than "they would rather
devote their time to other matters"?
Now, *that* journal would be one not to be avoided by the plague,
because of who's in charge, now wouldn't it? Their editorial standards
would be so tip-top that Dr. Ridpath's careful, scholarly, appropriately
charitable critique of _Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical_ would be the
order of the day.
Right, Mrs. Speicher?
Chris Cathcart
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.020606...@shell.forethought.net
>
>
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 di...@dianahsieh.com wrote:
>
> > However, the more troubling aspect of Bernstein's apology is the
> > implausibility of the claim that he didn't know about the nature of JARS
> > or Chris Sciabarra's works. Does he not talk to the other folks over at
> > the ARI? I thought that the consensus on Chris Sciabarra and JARS was
> > well-known, particularly by the professional Objectivist-types. Am I
> > wrong?
>
> Yes. Contrary to the ARI Conspiracy Myth, ARI-affiliated people don't get
> together and decide what they will think as a group. They decide things
> independently based on their own individual knowledge of the facts. Also,
> when they do get together to discuss things, the conversation is almost
> always about facts and common values. They hardly ever discuss Kelley,
> Branden, Sciabarra, etc. There is very little interest in their
> activities and opinions.
Suuure. All these ARI-affiliated people all think and arrive at
decisions independently and free from any kind of threats. <nudge>
<wink>
To an outside observer, the ARI-affiliated folk act all reasonable and
common-sensibly. <nudge> <nudge> All these different matters pertaining
to philosophy or popular culture, they just all happen to independently
agree. Being all reality-oriented, they all come to the same
conclusions about what Kant actually advocated, for instance. <wink>
And then, just to throw us critics a curve, they actually *disagree*
about things. Open, frank discussions about the value of Allan
Gotthelf's book on Rand. Should it have been more like OPAR in
structure? Is it really necessary to be like OPAR in structure? Tough
issues, requiring tough consideration.
Suuuure, all these people independently, totally duress-free, choose to
accept the Binswanger Loyalty Oath. <wink> <wink> <nudge> <wink>
> > Of course, the most troubling aspect is that such a published comment
> > could have gotten anyone into so much hot water in the first place!
>
> It didn't.
He got into hot water at least with himself, then. He did something
DEEPLY REGRETTABLE, a SERIOUS ERROR in judgment. He failed to maintain
full focus at all times, especially where evil was lurking just around
the corner. (It was an an academic journal? Shouldn't he have been
suspicious?) And he IRREVOCABLY (now, where have we heard this word
before?) repudiates any and all association with this monstrously evil
Journal.
No, wait -- it's not an evil journal, it's just a silly little
insignificant journal. Yeah, I would express deep remorse if I
submitted remarks to such a silly, stupid little journal, too. It would
constitute a serious breech of rationality, something requiring a full
public statement.
Now really, Mrs. Speicher.
What would an outside observer think about this? Some guy publishes a
statement in some journal, and then goes on and makes a lengthy,
remorseful repudiation. This is the kind of behavior that speaks to
common sense?
Some people on h.p.o. were wondering why Bernstein wrote for
> JARS, so I asked him.
Being a tolerationist/nihilist, I assumed the worst: I assumed that he
actually was interested in engaging criticisms of his work in a
scholarly setting.
He asked me why I was curious and I pointed him to
> the JARS web site. He read it and decided he wanted to issue that
> statement. That's all.
Boy, given the tone of the statement, the amount of moral horror he must
have encountered when going to that site must have been pretty
significant.
> Bernstein is not in hot water with me or with anyone anywhere that I know
> of -- except maybe Chris Sciabarra.
Nah, it just gives Chris more evidence of how unreasonably certain
people can behave.
Chris Cathcart
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Chris Cathcart wrote:
>
> > And it's that attitude towards the JARS that represents *precisely* the
> > kind of intellectual cancer I was talking about. You and others of like
> > mind (oh wait, I can't say that, you all act as individuals, with
> > completely independent opinions) can go and sneer all you want in your
> > diatribes against JARS.
>
> JARS is so stupid, clueless, and pretentious that it's not worth a sneer.
(. . . sneers Mrs. Speicher.)
[snip rest in similar vein]
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Chris Cathcart
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.020606...@shell.forethought.net
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Roderick T Long wrote:
>
> > That ARI subjects its scholars to this sort of ideological discipline
> > is a sign of how far that organization has drifted away from
> > Objectivist principles.
>
> ARI had nothing to do with it. Bernstein finally read the JARS web site
> and decided he didn't want to be associated with it.
Suuuuure, all ARI-affiliated folk just independently, totally
duress-free, decide not to associate with the journal. <wink> <wink>
I wonder how, given the history of the ARI and the folks who established
it, what someone with common sense might have concluded about this turn
of events? Not that you would actually know the answer to this....
> > The contrast between ARI and JARS, in their respective approaches to
> > scholarship, could not be clearer.
>
> Indeed!
Great! Now, will we be seeing an ARI-sanctioned philosophic journal
anytime soon? Just let us know if or when it will be in the works, and
where we can go if we want to pre-order.
> > In its willing to explore extensions and revisions of the Objectivist
> > paradigm, JARS practices the independence of judgment that Objectivism
> > champions.
>
> Independence from what?
Who, me? Where am I? What's happening to me? Who stole my dentures?
I have no idea what you're talking about! <wink> <nudge> <nudge> <wink>
<nudge>
> > For ARI scholars, by contrast, the ultimate frame of reference seems to
> > be, not objective reality, but the consciousness of Leonard Peikoff.
>
> Hardly, but don't take my word for it.
Yep, they just all independently, freely, individually, split from David
Kelley and none will have anything to do with it. <wink>
> I invite anyone who is interested to be an independent thinker, read both
> JARS and the work of ARI-affiliated and supported scholars and writers on
> the www.aynrand.org and www.aynrandbookstore.com web sites, and decide for
> himself which is truer to reality and the values of Ayn Rand.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we all know about that. You've been *saying* this
kind of thing for years (YEARS!). And, almost invariably, it's the same
empty bluff every time. Someone challenges your positions, your
suspicious characterizations? Hell if you're going to actually defend
'em; just ask everyone to go find out and verify for themselves, rather
than satisfying the burden of proof herself. Exercising independent
rationality and thought, they'll all arrive at the same conclusion Mrs.
Speicher did. <wink> <nudge> <wink>
Ken Gardner
>> In a world in which some individuals profess to love Ayn Rand's work but
>> make a living criticizing it
>I can't imagine a better way to show respect and admiration for ideas
>than to take them seriously enough to criticize them. Work that can't
>stand up to criticism isn't worth much. The notion that some ideas
>are above criticism is a characteristic of religion, not scholarship.
At the risk of engaging in excessively anal hair-splitting, I think
this statement holds true only if the criticism itself is objective
(i.e. logical, based on fact, and not engaged in merely for its own
sake).
Ken
Ken Gardner
>I, for one, find Bernstein's apology to be sad and degrading. It is
>inconsistent with the virtue of pride. (Pride requires that we
>acknowledge and correct our moral failings, but not that we subject
>ourselves to a public humiliation of detailing that failing.)
Does this statement nail the essence of that "apology," or what? Next
I thought he was going to have someone lash him a hundred times, or
something.
>"I recently published a short comment in JARS regarding my CliffsNotes
>books. I was ignorant of the sort of articles and authors JARS publishes,
>many/most/all of which I emphatically do not sanction. I ought to have
>investigated further before giving my consent to publish. I do not
>approve of JARS in any way and will not published in that forum again. I
>apologize for any confusion this incident might have created."
The problem here, and for that matter the problem with his statement
generally, is that it simply isn't credible. How could he possibly
not know who Chris Sciabarra is or what JARS was all about? Bernstein
didn't just fall off the turnip truck; he has been actively involved
with ARI for years.
>Such an apology would have conveyed the appropriate information and regret
>without going into the pathetic and demeaning details of whether Bernstein
>used or did not use his mind properly. (Those details might be relevant
>to a more personal discussion with a friend, but not to the whole world.)
Probably not, but he was already beyond the point of no return when he
published his comment in the first place.
>However, the more troubling aspect of Bernstein's apology is the
>implausibility of the claim that he didn't know about the nature of JARS
>or Chris Sciabarra's works. Does he not talk to the other folks over at
>the ARI? I thought that the consensus on Chris Sciabarra and JARS was
>well-known, particularly by the professional Objectivist-types. Am I
>wrong?
I don't think so. There is more to this episode than meets the eye...
[...]
Ken
Ken Gardner
[Re Bernstein's apology]
>>>Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that an intelligent grown
>man has to make a humiliating public apology for writing a reply to a
>journal that reviewed his book? Give me a break!
>>What exactly are you referring to? Is it online somewhere and, if so,
>where?
>It's up above in Betsy's post.
Thanks, and I apologize for a hasty post. I often read the new posts
before going back to the older posts that I was already "watching,"
including the one in which Betsy posted Bernstein's somewhat odd
apology. I think Diana Hseih nailed precisely what was also bothering
me about that apology.
Ken
George Dance
> To All Sincerely Concerned With Objectivism
> By Andrew Bernstein
>
> Last year Chris Sciabarra solicited from me an article for his journal in
> response to its review of the CliffsNotes on Ayn Rand's novels. All I
> knew of Mr. Sciabarra was that he had written a strange book entitled Ayn
> Rand: the Russian Radical, in which he argued that she was a great thinker
> of the Hegelian school.
Did Bernstein read the book or not? If so, then that should have told
him what the author's journal would be like, so he didn't 'know
nothing'.
If not, then on what does he base his opinion that the book was
'strange'?
> Knowing nothing of his journal, I wrote several
> lines in response. This was a serious error on my part. I was
> irresponsible in not researching this journal and identifying its nature.
> In a world in which some individuals profess to love Ayn Rand's work but
> make a living criticizing it
It's possible to 'love Ayn Rand's work' in general, yet criticize
specific arguments she makes within certain of her works. A and not-B
is not a contradiction.
- and where some similarly profess to admire
> Objectivism but insult the Ayn Rand Institute, its staff and contributors,
Similarly, A and non-C, A and non-D, and A and non-E, are not
contradictions.
> I should have known better.
>
> The so-called Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is filled with writings by
> people with whom I refuse to knowingly associate under any circumstances.
> I deeply regret my thoughtless decision to contribute to this journal, and
> hereby irrevocably repudiate any and all association with it.
Bernstein sounds here like a pompous ass, and based on this evidence I
certainly don't think he's someone I would knowingly associate with.
Yet I will continue to read, admire, and refer others to some of his
work (such as the Teacher's Guide to Objectivism), without
contradiction.
> In this regard, the fault is entirely my own. This journal does not hide
> what it is. Its contents are available on the Internet for all to see.
> In failing to do the requisite research and gather the necessary data, I
> failed to properly use my mind. I must now suffer the consequences of that.
One can only wonder what 'consequences' he means, since he doesn't
tell us of any.
>
> To all who are sincerely concerned with Objectivism, I apologize, and
> recommend a complete repudiation and boycott of this journal and of any
> and all of Mr. Sciabarra's work.
Objectivists will probably do what they continue to do - read JARS (or
not) for themselves and each make his own informed (or otherwise)
decision.
Betsy Speicher
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, EricK wrote:
> Betsy Speicher wrote in message ...
> >It didn't. Some people on h.p.o. were wondering why Bernstein wrote
> >for JARS, so I asked him. He asked me why I was curious and I pointed
> >him to the JARS web site. He read it and decided he wanted to issue
> >that statement. That's all.
> >Bernstein is not in hot water with me or with anyone anywhere that I know
> >of -- except maybe Chris Sciabarra.
> Unlikely based on the fact that he had to make a humiliating apology,
Consider the possibility that, after seeing what was on the JARS web site,
he WANTED to.
> Apologetic public comments such as "I was irresponsible", "I should have
> known better", "I deeply regret my thoughtless decision", and "I must
> now suffer the consequences" suggest to me a deep fear of being in hot
> water (or the potential to) with someone other than yourself.
Some people, who live in constant fear of the disapproval of others, are
motivated by such concerns. Others might do the same thing because they
realize they may have endorsed something that they didn't really mean to
and want to set the record straight. Knowing Dr. Bernstein, I would put
him in the latter category.
> I remain perplexed. How is Ridpath's review of Sciabarra's book not
> considered "knowingly associated" with the Sciabarra and his crowd while
> Bernstein WRITING a piece IN DEFENSE of his own work is? What moral
> principle distinguishes one action as moral and the other deserving an
> embarrassing public apology for the entire world to read if they have
> access to the internet?
It is very revealing that you consider admitting a mistake in public to
be "embarrassing." If a person is more concerned with the opinions of
others than with the facts, he tries to hide his mistakes from public
view. If, on the other hand, the facts are more important, it is a matter
of pride to admit his mistakes and correct them.
Betsy Speicher
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 di...@dianahsieh.com wrote:
> I'm not promoting some sort of conspiracy theory here. My point is
> simply that professionals are and ought to be aware of the current
> scholarship in their field. Such scholarship is usually a subject of
> discussion amongst professionals, including scholarship with which those
> professionals disagree.
Among the ARI-affiliated people I know, this varies widely. I'm very much
interested in such things and Dr. Bernstein is probably one of the least
interested.
> From this perspective, it is implausible (but not impossible) that
> Bernstein didn't know the general opinion of JARS held by his
> philosophical associates.
Someone like Dr. Bernstein, who is one of the most independent-minded
people I know, doesn't give much weight to others opinions, even
those of like-minded friends. Also, he is one of the more generous and
trusting people I know, tends to assume the best about people, and
generally gives them the benefit of the doubt.
> Such ignorance is even more implausible given the (negative) in-print
> attention that the ARI-affiliated folks have given Chris Sciabarra's
> work over the years,
Only one review in TIA that I know about.
> as well as the number of years that JARS has been in existence.
Dr. Bernstein had never read it and neither have most of the Objectivist
intellectuals I know. Some have only given it a preliminary glace and
then dismissed it.
> At the very least, I would have expected Bernstein to be aware enough of
> the goings-on in his field of study that the prospect of publication in
> JARS would have raised red flags for him.
I don't think he cares, but he probably should have looked into the matter
beforehand. I'll bet he will next time.
> I've heard good things about Andy Bernstein from just about everyone who
> has been in contact with him, including present supporters of the TOC.
He is a dynamic, entertaining, and caring teacher. What's not to like.
Betsy Speicher
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Chris Cathcart wrote:
> Gee, the way you and Bernstein and all these other people characterize
> things (all opinions independently and freely arrived-at, of course),
> the JARS is something to be avoided like the plague. Tell us, what is
> the evil lurking in the pages of JARS that would make it so darned
> regrettable to even defecate within 20 yards of it?
I don't think JARS is evil. It is too clueless and dumb to rise to
level of "evil." It is rather just a silly waste of time.
> It's just a journal of scholarly debate and dialogue, for crying out
> loud -- not a truly hideous evil like the second coming of Nathaniel
> Branden or something like that.
Actually, it is more like a parody of a scholarly journal and, if it were
meant as a parody, like "The Onion" and "The Journal of Irreducible
Results," would be one of the funniest.
> (We all know how everyone involved there freely and independently
> arrived at their own judgments of him, now don't we.)
Well, that's MY opinion. Others may vary.
> You know, Lenny and Harry could have started up a journal like this
> years (YEARS) ago.
Dr. Binswanger did have such a Journal -- The Objectivist Forum.
> They could maintain high standards of editorial integrity
He did.
> and welcome contributions from anyone.
That is not consistent with maintaining high standards of editorial
integrity. Some people have more true and more valuable ideas than
others.
Betsy Speicher
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Chris Cathcart wrote:
> "Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > Yes. Contrary to the ARI Conspiracy Myth, ARI-affiliated people don't
> > get together and decide what they will think as a group. They decide
> > things independently based on their own individual knowledge of the
> > facts. Also, when they do get together to discuss things, the
> > conversation is almost always about facts and common values. They
> > hardly ever discuss Kelley, Branden, Sciabarra, etc. There is very
> > little interest in their activities and opinions.
> Suuure. All these ARI-affiliated people all think and arrive at
> decisions independently and free from any kind of threats. <nudge>
> <wink>
Suuure. All these medical doctors all think and arrive at decisions
independently and free from any kind of threats and that's why they reject
the Miracle Cancer Cure from God. <nudge> <wink>
> To an outside observer, the ARI-affiliated folk act all reasonable and
> common-sensibly. <nudge> <nudge> All these different matters pertaining
> to philosophy or popular culture, they just all happen to independently
> agree. Being all reality-oriented, they all come to the same
> conclusions about what Kant actually advocated, for instance. <wink>
To an outside observer, the medical doctors act all reasonable and
common-sensibly. <nudge> <nudge> All these different matters pertaining to
disease or treatments, they just all happen to independently agree.
Being all reality-oriented, they all come to the same conclusions about
the Miracle Cure, for instance. <wink>
> And then, just to throw us critics a curve, they actually *disagree*
> about things. Open, frank discussions about the value of Allan
> Gotthelf's book on Rand. Should it have been more like OPAR in
> structure? Is it really necessary to be like OPAR in structure? Tough
> issues, requiring tough consideration.
And then, just to throw us critics a curve, they actually *disagree* about
things. Open, frank discussions about the value of surgery versus
chemotheraphy. Tough issues, requiring tough consideration.
> Suuuure, all these people independently, totally duress-free, choose to
> accept the Binswanger Loyalty Oath. <wink> <wink> <nudge> <wink>
Suuuure, all these doctors independently, totally duress-free, choose to
reject the Miracle Cure. <wink> <wink> <nudge> <wink>
> > > Of course, the most troubling aspect is that such a published
> > > comment could have gotten anyone into so much hot water in the first
> > > place!
> > It didn't.
> He got into hot water at least with himself, then. He did something
> DEEPLY REGRETTABLE, a SERIOUS ERROR in judgment.
That's right.
> He failed to maintain full focus at all times, especially where evil was
> lurking just around the corner.
Wrong. The evidence shows that he made an error of knowledge.
> (It was an an academic journal? Shouldn't he have been suspicious?)
Probably, but Dr. Bernstein tends to trust people more than most.
> And he IRREVOCABLY (now, where have we heard this word before?)
> repudiates any and all association with this monstrously evil Journal.
He didn't say "monstrously evil."
> No, wait -- it's not an evil journal, it's just a silly little
> insignificant journal.
That's my opinion, but I don't know if Dr. Bernstein and I agree about
that.
> > Some people on h.p.o. were wondering why Bernstein wrote for JARS, so
> > I asked him. He asked me why I was curious and I pointed him to the
> > JARS web site. He read it and decided he wanted to issue that
> > statement. That's all.
> Boy, given the tone of the statement, the amount of moral horror he must
> have encountered when going to that site must have been pretty
> significant.
I think it was quite a shock given he was assuming much better of them.
Jason Lockwood
> be "embarrassing." If a person is more concerned with the opinions of
> others than with the facts, he tries to hide his mistakes from public
> view. If, on the other hand, the facts are more important, it is a matter
> of pride to admit his mistakes and correct them.
I often use the expression "I stand corrected" if I make a mistake and I or
someone else points it out. I WANT to know if I've made a mistake so I don't
make the same mistake twice. I've known Dr. Bernstein for a number of years
and he has always come off as an extraordinarily reality-based guy. I take
his open apology to mean exactly what he intended it to mean.
-Jason Lockwood
EricK
Betsy Speicher wrote in message ...
>> Apologetic public comments such as "I was irresponsible", "I should have
>> known better", "I deeply regret my thoughtless decision", and "I must
>> now suffer the consequences" suggest to me a deep fear of being in hot
>> water (or the potential to) with someone other than yourself.
>
>Some people, who live in constant fear of the disapproval of others, are
>motivated by such concerns. Others might do the same thing because they
>realize they may have endorsed something that they didn't really mean to
>and want to set the record straight. Knowing Dr. Bernstein, I would put
>him in the latter category.
What consequences must he suffer? He was simply defending his work based on
a negative review. This in not way implies that he endorses JARS or those
associated with it anymore than me writing a letter to the editor implies I
support the views of that paper or people associated with it. What he
initially did was courageous in my book and was an action of integrity.
Wouldn't you defend your work if it was misinterpreted especially in a
journal dedicated to discussing Radn's views?
>> I remain perplexed. How is Ridpath's review of Sciabarra's book not
>> considered "knowingly associated" with the Sciabarra and his crowd while
>> Bernstein WRITING a piece IN DEFENSE of his own work is? What moral
>> principle distinguishes one action as moral and the other deserving an
>> embarrassing public apology for the entire world to read if they have
>> access to the internet?
>It is very revealing that you consider admitting a mistake in public to
be "embarrassing." If a person is more concerned with the opinions of
others than with the facts, he tries to hide his mistakes from public
view. If, on the other hand, the facts are more important, it is a matter
of pride to admit his mistakes and correct them.
It's embarrassing because he didn't make any mistake based on common sense.
Episodes like these are what what make ARI folk look wacky especially to new
people exploring this site and wondering what this guy did that was so
wrong, and now he must suffer consequences and make a public apology. Have
you ever had to apologize for something remotely similar this or even known
someone who has? If he made a legitimate mistake and hurt people he knew
(this would exclude a public apology), then he should apologize, but I just
don't see this being the case based on what he did.
-Eric
EricK
Ken Gardner wrote in message ...
>>It's up above in Betsy's post.
>
>Thanks, and I apologize for a hasty post. I often read the new posts
>before going back to the older posts that I was already "watching,"
>including the one in which Betsy posted Bernstein's somewhat odd
>apology. I think Diana Hseih nailed precisely what was also bothering
>me about that apology.
>
No problem. I met Bernstein a while back after he gave a lecture on
abortion. We hung out at someone's house for a few hours and talked about
various things including Nozick's book ASU. He seemed like a positive
fun-loving guy so it's a little painful to see him have to make a public
apology for something I don't think was wrong. In fact, my guess, which is
based on the short time I spent with him, is that the apology was simply him
covering his butt with the ARI crowd, and that he is not suffering any sort
of consequences at all if he was implying personal mental anguish as one of
those consequences. It probably hurts me more to see him stoop to such a
level than his own pain for his actions. hehe
-Eric
Phil
> I think it was quite a shock given he [Dr. Bernstein] was assuming much b
> etter of them.
Before reading h.p.o., and some years randomly running across sundry people
formerly or currently associated with the Brandens or Kelley, I assumed that
anyone I met in person or IRC with a serious expressed interest in Ayn Rand
was the sort of person that I'd find really interesting - reality oriented,
logical,
just generally intriguing. This newsgroup, and other internet resources,
does serve at least one important purpose - to expose the horror story mindset
possible to some people who profess to like Ayn Rand's writings or even
to be Objectivists. Objectivism really is an extreme philosophy.
It does seem generally that those especially interested in Objectivism
are either really good people, or are really messed up. I am not
sure what the explanation is for the latter type, but I suppose
the fundamental reason is that one cannot live a contradiction. Some
people really are looking for a cult (and are very sensitive when
this is pointed out to them, as one can to the cultish Kelley or Branden
followers who project this onto the genuinely independent thinkers that they
envy and hate.)
As distasteful as it is to read the psychotic rants of a Cathcart or Wolf or
Reed or their sundry ilk over the years, it's necessary information for
one's rational self defense, to know what sort of ugly distortions and
fractured, contradictory madness is really possible, even if unimaginable,
especially when in relation to the luminously beautiful writing and
ideas of Ayn Rand.
I do think that the Journal of Ayn Rand studies rises to the level of
evil, in the same sort of way that Kant's philosophy does. Kant was
supposedly offering a view of reason, but one that was insanely
detached and opposed to reality. JARS supposedly offers something
related to Objectivism, but it is similarly irrational, albeit by
second-handedly conveying Kant and similar others, as "applied"
to Objectivism. Kant's philosophy *is* ludicrous, but deadly to
the un-innoculated. JARS is one more concrete application of
the modern attack on reality and reason, against the prime
philosophic defender of reality and reason, Objectivism. A
biological analogy would be a destructive organism that attacks
the immune system of its host. To make that analogy, JARS and
similar modern academic junk, are intellectual AIDS. Granted
that in reality, their own irrationality makes them ultimately
impotent and irrelevant, the goal is evil - the "deconstruction"
(the *destruction*) of Objectivism.
--
Philip Oliver
The works of Ayn Rand on CD-ROM
www.Objectivism.net
grelbr
tnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> It's up above in Betsy's post.
No it's not, cuz you changed the subject thus starting a new thread.
grelbr
Phil
EricK
EricK
Now that I've had more time to reflect, I offer my deepens apologies to
those who I misled to believe the apology was in the new thread I started. I
alone was responsible for doing this, should have known better, and deeply
regret my thoughtless decision to carelessly post that it was up above in
Betsy's post, when in fact, it was not. I must now suffer the consequences
and will lose many nights of sleep because of this.
:-)
Betsy Speicher
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, EricK wrote:
> Betsy Speicher wrote in message ...
> >> Apologetic public comments such as "I was irresponsible", "I should
> >> have known better", "I deeply regret my thoughtless decision", and "I
> >> must now suffer the consequences" suggest to me a deep fear of being
> >> in hot water (or the potential to) with someone other than yourself.
> >Some people, who live in constant fear of the disapproval of others,
> >are motivated by such concerns. Others might do the same thing because
> >they realize they may have endorsed something that they didn't really
> >mean to and want to set the record straight. Knowing Dr. Bernstein, I
> >would put him in the latter category.
> What consequences must he suffer?
Pretty much what he said. _HE_ feels bad for doing something he wishes he
hadn't - publishing something in a magazine that, after checking it out,
he does not want to be associated with.
> He was simply defending his work based on a negative review. This in
> not way implies that he endorses JARS or those associated with it
> anymore than me writing a letter to the editor implies I support the
> views of that paper or people associated with it.
But aren't there _some_ publications that you wouldn't want to be
published in? After looking over their web site, Dr. Bernstein decided
that JARS was one such publication as far as he was concerned.
> What he initially did was courageous in my book and was an action of
> integrity. Wouldn't you defend your work if it was misinterpreted
> especially in a journal dedicated to discussing Radn's views?
Perhaps, but _where_ happens to matter. That's why Dagny wouldn't defend
Rearden Metal on Bertram Scudder's radio show.
> > It is very revealing that you consider admitting a mistake in public
> > to be "embarrassing." If a person is more concerned with the opinions
> > of others than with the facts, he tries to hide his mistakes from
> > public view. If, on the other hand, the facts are more important, it
> > is a matter of pride to admit his mistakes and correct them.
> It's embarrassing because he didn't make any mistake based on common
> sense.
He thought he did. He assumed JARS was a different kind of publication
than it actually was and he could have, and should have, checked it out
first.
> Have you ever had to apologize for something remotely similar this or
> even known someone who has?
Sure, but the "had to" came from a loyalty to my own values -- especially
the truth -- not from anyone making me do it. If I make a mistake in
public, as soon as I realize it I admit it, especially to the people who
trust me and my judgement.
> If he made a legitimate mistake and hurt people he knew (this would
> exclude a public apology), then he should apologize, but I just don't
> see this being the case based on what he did.
He decided that JARS was a good place to defend his work and then
discovered, based on his own standards, that it wasn't a place he wanted
to be in nor were these the people he wanted to address.
To draw an analogy, how would you feel if you were discussing your
business activities and associates with someone you thought was a reporter
for a respectable newspaper. Later you found out he was really from the
IRS and was preparing to audit you and your associates. Would you be
upset? Would you be sorry you had spoken to him? Would you apologize to
your associates? I certainly hope so.
Betsy Speicher
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, EricK wrote:
> I met Bernstein a while back after he gave a lecture on abortion. We
> hung out at someone's house for a few hours and talked about various
> things including Nozick's book ASU. He seemed like a positive
> fun-loving guy
He IS!
> so it's a little painful to see him have to make a public apology for
> something I don't think was wrong.
HE thought is was wrong. Considering why and how he defended a woman's
right to an abortion based on the principles and values of Ayn Rand, don't
you think he would be just a teensy weensy bit upset to have his name in a
publication that prints something like this?
RAND ON ABORTION: A CRITIQUE
GREGORY R. JOHNSON and DAVID RASMUSSEN argue that Rand's defense of
abortion on demand is inconsistent with her own fundamental
metaphysical, epistemological, and moral principles, ...
Knowing he could have checked out JARS ahead of time and didn't, he is
probably rather upset with himself for not doing that.
> In fact, my guess, which is based on the short time I spent with him, is
> that the apology was simply him covering his butt with the ARI crowd,
If you knew Bernstein, you'd know that he is what he is regardless of what
other people think and his delightful, extroverted, in-your-face
passionate pursuit of the things he loves has been know to upset certain
people I know, especially if they are repressed. He doesn't care.
> and that he is not suffering any sort of consequences at all if he was
> implying personal mental anguish as one of those consequences.
As he wrote, when it comes to attacks on his values by people he does not
respect, he DOES care, particularly if he might have avoided dealing with
them and didn't.
EricK
Betsy Speicher wrote in message ...
>> something I don't think was wrong.
>
>HE thought is was wrong. Considering why and how he defended a woman's
right to an abortion based on the principles and values of Ayn Rand, don't
you think he would be just a teensy weensy bit upset to have his name in a
publication that prints something like this?
> RAND ON ABORTION: A CRITIQUE
I could see him not agreeing with the article but that's still a silly
reason for making a very personal public apology. As for myself, I would
enjoy reading a point of view different than mind (maybe I would even learn
something I hadn't thought of) and might even feel inspired to write a
response to that article. I'm sure Sciabarra would gladly welcome one from
Bernstein since he has written on abortion before.
>> In fact, my guess, which is based on the short time I spent with him, is
>> that the apology was simply him covering his butt with the ARI crowd,
>
>If you knew Bernstein, you'd know that he is what he is regardless of what
>other people think and his delightful, extroverted, in-your-face
>passionate pursuit of the things he loves has been know to upset certain
>people I know, especially if they are repressed. He doesn't care.
That's why it's odd seeing him feel obligated to apologize to anyone for
defending his work.
>> and that he is not suffering any sort of consequences at all if he was
>> implying personal mental anguish as one of those consequences.
>
>As he wrote, when it comes to attacks on his values by people he does not
>respect, he DOES care, particularly if he might have avoided dealing with
>them and didn't.
Still not a valid reason for a public apology.
-Eric
EricK
Betsy Speicher wrote in message ...
>
>Pretty much what he said. _HE_ feels bad for doing something he wishes he
>hadn't - publishing something in a magazine that, after checking it out,
>he does not want to be associated with.
Fine, then let him feel bad, but why should other people feel offended? Do
you? Should your friends feel offended that you post on HPO because of the
often offensive and controversial material that is on this site?
>
>> He was simply defending his work based on a negative review. This in
>> not way implies that he endorses JARS or those associated with it
>> anymore than me writing a letter to the editor implies I support the
>> views of that paper or people associated with it.
>But aren't there _some_ publications that you wouldn't want to be
>published in? After looking over their web site, Dr. Bernstein decided
>that JARS was one such publication as far as he was concerned.
But writing a review in defense of his work does not mean he endorses JARS-
just that he wishes to set the record straight for those who read JARS and
find interest in Rand's ideas. Do you feel it necessary to apologize
publicly and to your close friends because many of the posts at HPO are
offensive to you?
>> What he initially did was courageous in my book and was an action of
>> integrity. Wouldn't you defend your work if it was misinterpreted
>> especially in a journal dedicated to discussing Radn's views?
>
>Perhaps, but _where_ happens to matter. That's why Dagny wouldn't defend
>Rearden Metal on Bertram Scudder's radio show.
If he doesn't like the journal, then he doesn't have to read or write to it
anymore. I'm talking specifically about apologizing to others who may think
that he has sinned by defending his work there. Did you want him to
apologize to you?
>> It's embarrassing because he didn't make any mistake based on common
>> sense.
>
>He thought he did. He assumed JARS was a different kind of publication
>than it actually was and he could have, and should have, checked it out
>first.
And what if he checked it out and decided it was fine to publish his article
there proudly without any shame involved? Would you care, or do you think
anyone else should be upset with him?
>> Have you ever had to apologize for something remotely similar this or
>> even known someone who has?
>
>Sure,
For posting at HPO? :-)
>> If he made a legitimate mistake and hurt people he knew (this would
>> exclude a public apology), then he should apologize, but I just don't
>> see this being the case based on what he did.
>
>He decided that JARS was a good place to defend his work and then
>discovered, based on his own standards, that it wasn't a place he wanted
>to be in nor were these the people he wanted to address.
The fact that you think it's normal for someone to make an apology in the
fashion that he did is really twisted. Go read his apology again. It's an
extremely personal confession, and if it's genuine, he is being much harder
on himself than is justified considering I don't think he made a mistake.
>To draw an analogy, how would you feel if you were discussing your
>business activities and associates with someone you thought was a reporter
>for a respectable newspaper. Later you found out he was really from the
>IRS and was preparing to audit you and your associates. Would you be
>upset? Would you be sorry you had spoken to him? Would you apologize to
>your associates? I certainly hope so.
If I was being lied to, then no, I wouldn't apologize to anyone since it
wasn't me that was in error. If I was being careless and my acton caused
others to be hurt, then perhaps, but what actions did Bernstein do that
caused others to be hurt similar to your IRS example? In addition,
Sciabarra did not lie or deceive Bernstein about himself or the journal. In
fact, what actually occurred was that Bernstein was a first reluctant to
write a piece for the journal, then decided in favor of it, and then made
the apology after he was getting some heat (or what he perceived to be) from
perhaps you and others.
-Eric
Dan Lind
8...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
[...]
Is this for real or is Cathcart performing another of his longwinded
impersonations?
This was also my reaction on reading bits of Bernstein's apologia
embedded in other posts. I sensed the whiff of Cathsacrasm in the
air.
Reminds me of a teenager using words far more extreme and language far
more grandiloquent than the subject matter warrants.
I do believe Rand would roll over in her grave at this crap.
Dan Lind
Chris Cathcart
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Chris Cathcart wrote:
>
> > Gee, the way you and Bernstein and all these other people characterize
> > things (all opinions independently and freely arrived-at, of course),
> > the JARS is something to be avoided like the plague. Tell us, what is
> > the evil lurking in the pages of JARS that would make it so darned
> > regrettable to even defecate within 20 yards of it?
>
> I don't think JARS is evil. It is too clueless and dumb to rise to
> level of "evil." It is rather just a silly waste of time.
And yet, rather than regarded as a silly frivolity, it's regarded as
this thing for which deep regret is involved in associating with it --
that it constitutes a serious error of judgment.
Like EricK keeps asking, what did Andy *do* that should be so
upsetting? So it's a silly, clueless, dumb journal. Maybe he should
research things before contributing to something he thought was
serious. Big deal. So why all the hand-wringing? (Or can we expect
the same evasive glibness we usually get from you?)
> > It's just a journal of scholarly debate and dialogue, for crying out
> > loud -- not a truly hideous evil like the second coming of Nathaniel
> > Branden or something like that.
>
> Actually, it is more like a parody of a scholarly journal and, if it were
> meant as a parody, like "The Onion" and "The Journal of Irreducible
> Results," would be one of the funniest.
Of course, when you're asked to substantiate your glib
characterizations, you reliably retreat into "check it out for
yourself."
> > (We all know how everyone involved there freely and independently
> > arrived at their own judgments of him, now don't we.)
>
> Well, that's MY opinion. Others may vary.
Well, duh. But supposing you offered something other than glib,
evasive replies . . .
> > You know, Lenny and Harry could have started up a journal like this
> > years (YEARS) ago.
>
> Dr. Binswanger did have such a Journal -- The Objectivist Forum.
Oh. I guess in the safety and security of your own rationalized
worldview, _The Objectivist Forum_ is a scholarly journal that runs
like any normal scholarly journal would run. Maybe the rest of us out
in the real world would have a differing opinion.
> > They could maintain high standards of editorial integrity
>
> He did.
>
> > and welcome contributions from anyone.
>
> That is not consistent with maintaining high standards of editorial
> integrity. Some people have more true and more valuable ideas than
> others.
I didn't say anything specifically about publishing opinions that
aren't very good or well-supported. No good journal would do that.
Maybe I should have said for clarity's sake that the journal would
welcome *submissions* from anyone and proceed from there. Your
glibness aside, I think we all know pretty damn well that something
like _The Objectivist Forum_ doesn't really welcome that sort of
thing, but is a publication, as the title suggests, to expounding upon
an already-agreed-to doctrine.
For instance, you point, in a negative fashion, to an abstract of an
article in JARS by David Rasmussen and Gregory Johnson on the subject
of Rand's views about abortion. And it was transparently obvious that
you weren't objecting to the quality of their arguments, per se, but
to the fact that someone would DARE to even publish an article saying
that Rand's position on abortion isn't justified by her philosophy.
It's your *presumption*, based on the abstract, that the article is
dumb, clueless, etc. It's the very *airing* of such an opinion in a
journal with such a title that you evidently find irksome, regardless
of whether the opinion has merit.
And you would glibly stand there, pretending that the "journals" you
like stand for a scholarly exchange of ideas, rather than being, as is
obvious to anyone with common sense, publications pretty much like any
others that preach to the converted.
So, all transparency and glibness accounted for, what you *really*
consider to be a forum with high editorial standards and intellectual
integrity when it comes to discussion of Objectivism is one whose only
participants are those who are already in agreement with the views of
the editor(s), who is already someone who preaches the version of
"Objectivism" you like. After all, how could Harry publish a
dissenting opinion that he "knew" to be in error (which would only be
the result of evasion or lack of understanding)? Absolute Contextual
Certainty, and all. (In reality, it's the height of conceit.)And you
wonder why you and your ilk's notion of objective certainty is just
ideological dogmatism masquerading under the banner of reason. You,
and everyone else with half a brain, should recognize just how much of
a sham your notion of scholarly dialogue is.
Chris Cathcart
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, EricK wrote:
>
> > I met Bernstein a while back after he gave a lecture on abortion. We
> > hung out at someone's house for a few hours and talked about various
> > things including Nozick's book ASU. He seemed like a positive
> > fun-loving guy
>
> He IS!
You know, you and your ilk around here are truly charming. Andy
Bernstein -- now there's a guy who's fun-loving, charming, thoughtful,
generous, benevolent, radiant, passionate, etc. etc. etc. But apply
your standards of identification (preceded by judgment, of course) to
Chris Sciabarra, and you get: silly, stupid, comical, whacked-out,
deconstruction-fetishistic, and probably just downright immoral.
You know, I have little access to evidence about the persona of Andrew
Bernstein. For all I know, all these folks who say he's such a warm,
radiant, positive guy are probably right. I *do* have more indepth
access to the persona of Chris Sciabarra, and to the persona of you,
Mrs. Speicher. And my objective judgment is that Chris Sciabarra is
pretty much all the things that you say about Andrew Bernstein. He's
a good guy, fighting the good fight, with a positive, benevolent
outlook.
You, Mrs. Speicher, appear to be a cheery individual, but personality
doesn't necessarily carry over well into the intellectual realm.
About you, the most fitting statement I think I could say is that you
are a cheerleader.
> > so it's a little painful to see him have to make a public apology for
> > something I don't think was wrong.
>
> HE thought is was wrong. Considering why and how he defended a woman's
> right to an abortion based on the principles and values of Ayn Rand, don't
> you think he would be just a teensy weensy bit upset to have his name in a
> publication that prints something like this?
>
> RAND ON ABORTION: A CRITIQUE
>
> GREGORY R. JOHNSON and DAVID RASMUSSEN argue that Rand's defense of
> abortion on demand is inconsistent with her own fundamental
> metaphysical, epistemological, and moral principles, ...
>
> Knowing he could have checked out JARS ahead of time and didn't, he is
> probably rather upset with himself for not doing that.
Are you making a conscientous effort to be transparent or something?
I mean, the very FACT that someone in the very same publication may
write something you strongly disagree with, is cause to dissociate
oneself from it, regardless of the merits of the argument?
(My own estimation of the arguments of those authors and the authors
themselves -- Mr. Johnson, in particular -- isn't exactly the most
positive. But what I find "deeply troubling" is not the fact that
their arguments would get aired in a journal with the name "Ayn Rand"
on it, but the notion that no good scholarly journal with the name
"Ayn Rand" on it would even publish an article advancing their
*conclusion*, whatever the content of their argument.)
[...]
> > and that he is not suffering any sort of consequences at all if he was
> > implying personal mental anguish as one of those consequences.
>
> As he wrote, when it comes to attacks on his values by people he does not
> respect, he DOES care, particularly if he might have avoided dealing with
> them and didn't.
What's noteworthy is the insinuation contained in the above language
that statements of disagreement with your ideas constitute an ATTACK
on things one values. You only need look at the idiot ravings of Phil
Oliver to see the kind of mentality to which such insinuation
ultimately leads.
Chris Cathcart
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Chris Cathcart wrote:
>
> > "Betsy Speicher" <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Yes. Contrary to the ARI Conspiracy Myth, ARI-affiliated people don't
> > > get together and decide what they will think as a group. They decide
> > > things independently based on their own individual knowledge of the
> > > facts. Also, when they do get together to discuss things, the
> > > conversation is almost always about facts and common values. They
> > > hardly ever discuss Kelley, Branden, Sciabarra, etc. There is very
> > > little interest in their activities and opinions.
>
> > Suuure. All these ARI-affiliated people all think and arrive at
> > decisions independently and free from any kind of threats. <nudge>
> > <wink>
>
> Suuure. All these medical doctors all think and arrive at decisions
> independently and free from any kind of threats and that's why they reject
> the Miracle Cancer Cure from God. <nudge> <wink>
All cute and glib and everything, as I'd come to expect from you, but
would you care to address things substantively?
> > To an outside observer, the ARI-affiliated folk act all reasonable and
> > common-sensibly. <nudge> <nudge> All these different matters pertaining
> > to philosophy or popular culture, they just all happen to independently
> > agree. Being all reality-oriented, they all come to the same
> > conclusions about what Kant actually advocated, for instance. <wink>
>
> To an outside observer, the medical doctors act all reasonable and
> common-sensibly. <nudge> <nudge> All these different matters pertaining to
> disease or treatments, they just all happen to independently agree.
> Being all reality-oriented, they all come to the same conclusions about
> the Miracle Cure, for instance. <wink>
Here's some substance for ya: the analogy doesn't hold up well at all.
Take a look at the vast majority of the way ARI-affiliated/aligned
folks view and treat Immanuel Kant's ideas. It isn't so much the fact
that they come to a pretty uniform conclusion about what he advocated,
but the fact that their analyses are, so consistently, so dreadfully
bad by the standards of decent and respectable scholarship.
When a whole bunch of people of a certain more or less close-knit
association happen (independently and all, of course) to arrive at
similar judgments by almost uniformly bad approaches to argument,
something is fishy, quite fishy indeed. A similar but more widespread
example of this very phenomenon can be observed in the form of major
religions.
So, you take qualified professionals and ask them about their informed
opinion of the Miracle Cure, and you get pretty uniform agreement
about it's lack of medical soundness. Appeals to research in the
field, their own medical knowledge, and so forth.
Then, you take a group of ARIans and ask them about their views on
Kant, and you get pretty uniform agreement supported by dreadfully bad
scholarship in pretty much every case. (All your glibness and
transparency and bluffery aside, the normal anti-Kant writings from
the ARIans *are* dreadfully bad by the standards of respectable
scholarship.)
What's the reasonable conclusion to draw? That the ARIans are just
like the medical doctors in their reasonableness and standards of
justification and accountability?
Chris Cathcart
> Betsy Speicher wrote
> > I think it was quite a shock given he [Dr. Bernstein] was assuming much b
> > etter of them.
>
> Before reading h.p.o., and some years randomly running across sundry p
> eople
> formerly or currently associated with the Brandens or Kelley, I assumed that
> anyone I met in person or IRC with a serious expressed interest in Ayn Rand
> was the sort of person that I'd find really interesting - reality oriented,
> logical,
> just generally intriguing. This newsgroup, and other internet resources,
> does serve at least one important purpose - to expose the horror story mi
> ndset
> possible to some people who profess to like Ayn Rand's writings or even
> to be Objectivists. Objectivism really is an extreme philosophy.
> It does seem generally that those especially interested in Objectivism
> are either really good people, or are really messed up. I am not
> sure what the explanation is for the latter type, but I suppose
> the fundamental reason is that one cannot live a contradiction. Some
> people really are looking for a cult (and are very sensitive when
> this is pointed out to them, as one can to the cultish Kelley or Branden
> followers who project this onto the genuinely independent thinkers that they
> envy and hate.)
Hey, I wanna be an independent mind . . . JUST LIKE PHIL OLIVER!
> As distasteful as it is to read the psychotic rants of a Cathcart or W
> olf or
> Reed or their sundry ilk over the years, it's necessary information for
> one's rational self defense, to know what sort of ugly distortions and
> fractured, contradictory madness is really possible, even if unimaginable,
> especially when in relation to the luminously beautiful writing and
> ideas of Ayn Rand.
Thank goodness we have people like Phil Oliver around, who lead by
example.
>
> I do think that the Journal of Ayn Rand studies rises to the level of
> evil, in the same sort of way that Kant's philosophy does. Kant was
> supposedly offering a view of reason, but one that was insanely
> detached and opposed to reality. JARS supposedly offers something
> related to Objectivism, but it is similarly irrational, albeit by
> second-handedly conveying Kant and similar others, as "applied"
> to Objectivism. Kant's philosophy *is* ludicrous, but deadly to
> the un-innoculated. JARS is one more concrete application of
> the modern attack on reality and reason, against the prime
> philosophic defender of reality and reason, Objectivism. A
> biological analogy would be a destructive organism that attacks
> the immune system of its host. To make that analogy, JARS and
> similar modern academic junk, are intellectual AIDS. Granted
> that in reality, their own irrationality makes them ultimately
> impotent and irrelevant, the goal is evil - the "deconstruction"
> (the *destruction*) of Objectivism.
357 . . .
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
Phil
> Reminds me of a teenager using words far more extreme and language far
> more grandiloquent than the subject matter warrants.
Try www.onelook.com, a good dictionary site. It will let you look
up the meanings of words longer than two syllables, which I
gather must be hard for you.
Chris Cathcart
news:ad7b0c77.0206...@posting.google.com
> Phil <new...@objectivism.net> wrote in message news:<T78M8.87144$4i.877999
> 8...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>
> [...]
>
>
> Is this for real or is Cathcart performing another of his longwinded
> impersonations?
Well, if one wanted to portray a persona that is hell-bent on being an
unreasonable, dogmatic raving loony, it's hard to do better than Phil
Oliver. Strange as it sounds, it's almost as if he's aware the the low
intellectual esteem in which the ARIans' critics hold them, and strives
to *outdo* that.
You've gotta think that the more reasonable ARI-supporters around here
see Philly do his thing and sigh and mutter under their breaths, "C'mon,
this is just over-the-top, Phil."
I wish I could say that I could outdo Phil Oliver, but he's about as
good as it gets with no effort on anyone's part but his. I just refer
to his postings now if people want evidence of the mind-rotting effects
of hardcore ARIanism. (And, one need only point to the postings of
Stephen Speicher, when he's around, to see in real live action the kind
of seething malevolence that can materialize....) Yes, folks, there
*are* people who've gone off the deep end, spouting all their silliness
in the utmost seriousness.
I guess since Grossman gave up his act a few years back, Phil Oliver is
officially the HPO Punching Bag now, though Tom Shitheel scores high
marks as well.
Dan Lind
90d2e2d0cc61045d5...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
>
> I wish I could say that I could outdo Phil Oliver, but he's about as
> good as it gets with no effort on anyone's part but his.
Well, perhaps this is an instance in which the subject so perfectly IS
an exaggeration that there's no room for additional caricature by a
cartoonist.
Dan Lind
Jim Klein
>Such an apology would have conveyed the appropriate information and >regret
without going into the pathetic and demeaning details of whether >Bernstein
used or did not use his mind properly.
You just don't know what it's like to use a mind like a broken record.
Those are catch-phrases to the faithful, who believe that the purpose of a
brain is to store as many cliches as physically possible. Hearing Bernstein
talk about failing to use his mind properly is like listening to the Horse's
Ass talk about the "profound value" of Rand's philosophy.
The ARI and its devotees represents Objectivism by Rote, which itself is
fundamentally opposed to Rand's Objectivism.
>(Those details might be relevant to a more personal discussion with a
friend, >but not to the whole world.)
You're confusing his words with saying something. He didn't. That note was
more like a catharsis than a genuine apology.
> However, the more troubling aspect of Bernstein's apology is the
> implausibility of the claim that he didn't know about the nature of JARS
> or Chris Sciabarra's works.
There's nothing implausible about that at all. The ARI is about some weird
(by Objectivist standards, anyway) primacy of judgement, the sort of
judgement that gets formed in the absence of identification. Among other
things, that's why Bernstein "refuse[s] to knowingly associate under any
circumstances" with many of the folks who write for the journal. He dare
not subject himself to the challenges they might represent; making himself
greater is about the last thing on his mind.
Or, more clearly, it explains why he "hereby irrevocably repudiate[s] any
and all association with [the journal]." You see, it doesn't matter what
the journal says or what it may say in the future. He IRREVOCABLY
repudiates ANY and ALL association with the journal. The facts, WHATEVER
THEY MIGHT BE IN THE FUTURE, shall not sway him from his existing judgement.
What...you don't know what faith is all about? Why would he need the facts
in order to form his judgement? What he needs to know is the "nature" of
the publication...not "nature" as an Objectivist means the word, but
"nature" the way any ol' religionist means it. IOW, is he with 'em or agin'
'em? That's all he needs to know and now that he knows, he knows that he
made a terrible mistake earlier. And how does a religionist make up for a
mistake of that type? Just read his note, that's how.
It's much simpler than many would have you believe. Those devoutly faithful
to the ARI are the perfect antithesis of Objectivist philosophy, and have
been ever since Leonard Peikoff decided to sacrifice his own great mind for
the "greater cause" of furthering Rand's philosophy.
I mean, they _must_ be the opposite of Rand's heroic men because they choose
an emotionalistic and faith based philosophy. But nowhere is it clearer IMO
than by their consistent inversion of the roles of identification and
judgement. An Objectivist identifies--always, first and foremost, as
"reason is man's only absolute"--and then proceeds to judge and act
volitionally pursuant to those identifications. An ARIan OTOH judges first,
and then comes up with a contrivance of subjectivism like no other in order
to pretend that the identifications match his judgement.
BTW very often the identifications do match the judgement, but then that's
the case for any religionist. It's the _approach_ that's inverted, and
that's why this country is falling into a sinkhole of ritualistic
selflessness while numbskulls like Betsy are squawking that Objectivism is
WINNING.
jk
Jim Klein
>I'm talking specifically about apologizing to others who may think
> that he has sinned by defending his work there.
As well you should, because that's exactly what happened here. All the
explanations and contortions can't change this simple fact.
We can tear it apart, but then it only gets worse. More precisely,
Bernstein wrote the note because _he_ thought he sinned. And he wrote the
note _to others_ because that's what a sinner does, who believes in that
sort of sin.
Betsy may be busy cracking jokes about the journal, but there's at least one
person here who won't let the philosophical issues involved go unnoticed.
jk
Jim Klein
>He's not infallible, but I don't think he will be making THAT kind
>of mistake again.
This is cute...a self-proclaimed Objectivist talking about the _kinds_ of
mistakes there are. I guess that goes along handily with there being so
many kinds of truth.
jk
Jim Klein
news:lqpvfu0jmi1ukqcrg...@4ax.com...
> >In failing to do the requisite research and gather the necessary data, I
> >failed to properly use my mind.
>
> The grammar police are getting restless...
I don't get it. Is it the repetition of "fail" or the mixing of the tenses?
I don't think either are a technical error, the latter because there are two
complete clauses involved. Or maybe I'm wrong about that.
I agree if your point is that the style is weak, but then that just matches
the substance. Did you have something else in mind?
jk
Jim Klein
> You know, I have little access to evidence about the persona of Andrew
> Bernstein.
Little maybe, but not none. Chris Wolf shared with us his experience with
Andrew Bernstein and I for one think the facts of the matter lend some
insight into his (Bernstein's) character. [For those who don't know, Chris
Wolf was a former regular writer here but hasn't been heard from in quite a
while. Further, he and I disagree on nearly every matter of opinion but
each of us acknowledges the honesty of the other. Point being that I don't
look to Wolf for conclusions, but his presentation of facts--like these
concerning Andrew Bernstein--are IMO unassailable.]
The facts may be found at: http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/dinner.html
> For all I know, all these folks who say he's such a warm,
> radiant, positive guy are probably right.
Wolf made an interesting point, near the end: "Why would Bernstein have
behaved as he did? I think it was simply because he felt he was in the
presence of people who weren't particularly important, or valuable, to him,
so he treated them like dirt."
This was covered as a philosophical point some time ago here, and mentioned
again recently. You'll recall that Betsy explicitly admitted that she
judged folks based on their value _to her_, and I pointed out how this was a
clear example of Objectivism inverted. Rather than
identification --> judgement --> value
which is the Objectivist approach to dealing with others, Betsy--and
presumably Bernstein--engage in precisely the opposite:
value --> judgement --> identification.
Well...to the degree they bother with identification at all, that is! And
even when they do, there's always the "truth in reality" and that other one.
Folks who _judge_ others based on their _value_, are the worst sort of
folks. That is an admitted rejection of the existence of objective justice,
and it inevitably manifests as plain ol' parasitism. While I don't know
much about Bernstein on this point--except of course that he's willing to
use the unsavory reputation of an academic journal among his fellow
Churchmen to make himself look better--I do know that Betsy and the H.A. are
exemplary parasites.
Notice that to be judged positively by Betsy, one has to be of value TO HER.
It's funny how she can cite Rand chapter and verse, but somehow managed to
miss the meaning of Galt's Oath.
jk
Mark Young
>>> In failing to do the requisite research and gather the necessary data, I
>>> failed to properly use my mind.
Ken Gardner:
>> The grammar police are getting restless...
Jim Klein:
> I don't get it. Is it the repetition of "fail" or the mixing of the
> tenses?
Split infinitive. Cicero never would have done such a thing!
...mark young
Jim Klein
news:3D026CAC...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> Split infinitive. Cicero never would have done such a thing!
Thank you. As I'm sure you've been prone to occassionally notice, that's
one I always forget. Taking care of that and my incessant passive voice
might help quite a bit. All I need now is something to say!
jk
Mark Sieving
>> Unlikely based on the fact that he had to make a humiliating apology,
>
>Consider the possibility that, after seeing what was on the JARS web site,
>he WANTED to.
Does it really make much difference whether he *had* to make a
humiliating apology or he *wanted* to make a humiliating apology?
The latter seems worse to me.
-- Mark Sieving
msie...@ameritech.net
Betsy Speicher
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, EricK wrote:
> Betsy Speicher wrote in message ...
> >> What consequences must he suffer?
> >Pretty much what he said. _HE_ feels bad for doing something he wishes
> >he hadn't - publishing something in a magazine that, after checking it
> >out, he does not want to be associated with.
> Fine, then let him feel bad, but why should other people feel offended?
I don't know that they do. They probably feel sorry for him.
> Do you?
No.
> Should your friends feel offended that you post on HPO because
> of the often offensive and controversial material that is on this site?
Some of my friends think I am wasting my time here, but I disagree with
them about that, so here I am.
> >> What he initially did was courageous in my book and was an action of
> >> integrity. Wouldn't you defend your work if it was misinterpreted
> >> especially in a journal dedicated to discussing Radn's views?
> >Perhaps, but _where_ happens to matter. That's why Dagny wouldn't defend
> >Rearden Metal on Bertram Scudder's radio show.
> If he doesn't like the journal, then he doesn't have to read or write to it
> anymore.
He can also regret that he wrote there originally -- and say so.
> I'm talking specifically about apologizing to others who may think
> that he has sinned by defending his work there.
I don't think that was what he was doing. I think he was expressing
regret for not checking out JARS before he wrote something for it.
> Did you want him to apologize to you?
No, but I _was_ curious what a nice guy like Bernstein was doing in a rag
like JARS.
> >He assumed JARS was a different kind of publication than it actually
> >was and he could have, and should have, checked it out first.
> And what if he checked it out and decided it was fine to publish his
> article there proudly without any shame involved?
A is A and that would not happen. Bernstein has certain standards and
JARS is a publication which does not measure up to them.
> Would you care, or do you think anyone else should be upset with him?
I cared enough to ask, since I doubted that he contributed knowingly to a
publication like that. It turned out he didn't know what JARS was.
> >> Have you ever had to apologize for something remotely similar this or
> >> even known someone who has?
> >Sure,
> For posting at HPO? :-)
Nah. But I have made mistakes including some big, fat public ones which
required a big, fat public apology.
> The fact that you think it's normal for someone to make an apology in
> the fashion that he did is really twisted. Go read his apology again.
> It's an extremely personal confession, and if it's genuine, he is being
> much harder on himself than is justified considering I don't think he
> made a mistake.
He thinks writing for a publication without checking it out first is a big
mistake and it bothered him a lot when he found out what JARS really was.
If I did something like that, I might feel real bad too.
> >To draw an analogy, how would you feel if you were discussing your
> >business activities and associates with someone you thought was a reporter
> >for a respectable newspaper. Later you found out he was really from the
> >IRS and was preparing to audit you and your associates. Would you be
> >upset? Would you be sorry you had spoken to him? Would you apologize to
> >your associates? I certainly hope so.
> If I was being lied to, then no, I wouldn't apologize to anyone since it
> wasn't me that was in error. If I was being careless and my acton caused
> others to be hurt, then perhaps, but what actions did Bernstein do that
> caused others to be hurt similar to your IRS example?
I think the fact that HE was hurt is sufficient.
> In addition, Sciabarra did not lie or deceive Bernstein about himself or
> the journal. In fact, what actually occurred was that Bernstein was a
> first reluctant to write a piece for the journal, then decided in favor
> of it, and then made the apology after he was getting some heat (or what
> he perceived to be) from perhaps you and others.
Not true. Bernstein was not at all reluctant at first which is why he
wrote it. And he never "got heat" from anyone and he certainly wouldn't
expect it from me and people like me. Recently a mutual friend of ours
was in a similar situation and all he got were the facts he needed and
loads of empathy.
Betsy Speicher
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Chris Cathcart wrote:
> Take a look at the vast majority of the way ARI-affiliated/aligned
> folks view and treat Immanuel Kant's ideas. It isn't so much the fact
> that they come to a pretty uniform conclusion about what he advocated,
> but the fact that their analyses are, so consistently, so dreadfully bad
> by the standards of decent and respectable scholarship.
In fact, most of the ARI scholars agree with most pro-Kantian scholars
about _what_ Kant advocated. The difference is that the former consider
Kant's ideas false and harmful and the latter don't.
> When a whole bunch of people of a certain more or less close-knit
> association happen (independently and all, of course) to arrive at
> similar judgments by almost uniformly bad approaches to argument,
> something is fishy, quite fishy indeed. A similar but more widespread
> example of this very phenomenon can be observed in the form of major
> religions.
Then why do the ARI scholars agree with the pro-Kantians about the
substance of Kant's views?
> So, you take qualified professionals and ask them about their informed
> scholarship.)
> What's the reasonable conclusion to draw? That the ARIans are just
> like the medical doctors in their reasonableness and standards of
> justification and accountability?
Yes, and that Walsh's views on what Kant was advocating are out of line
with most Kant experts.
Betsy Speicher
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Chris Cathcart wrote:
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.02
> > > Gee, the way you and Bernstein and all these other people
> > > characterize things (all opinions independently and freely
> > > arrived-at, of course), the JARS is something to be avoided like the
> > > plague. Tell us, what is the evil lurking in the pages of JARS that
> > > would make it so darned regrettable to even defecate within 20 yards
> > > of it?
> > I don't think JARS is evil. It is too clueless and dumb to rise to
> > level of "evil." It is rather just a silly waste of time.
> And yet, rather than regarded as a silly frivolity, it's regarded as
> this thing for which deep regret is involved in associating with it --
> that it constitutes a serious error of judgment.
By a DIFFERENT Objectivist in different circumstances than me. We don't
all think alike, you know -- or do you?
> Like EricK keeps asking, what did Andy *do* that should be so
> upsetting?
Something that upset HIM.
> So it's a silly, clueless, dumb journal. Maybe he should research
> things before contributing to something he thought was serious. Big
> deal. So why all the hand-wringing? (Or can we expect the same evasive
> glibness we usually get from you?)
Bernstein is more passionate and extroverted than most Objectivists.
That is part of his personal style and temperament. I can see him doing
something like that and other Objectivists, in similar circumstances, not.
> > Actually, [JARS] is more like a parody of a scholarly journal and, if
> > it were meant as a parody, like "The Onion" and "The Journal of
> > Irreducible Results," would be one of the funniest.
> Of course, when you're asked to substantiate your glib
> characterizations, you reliably retreat into "check it out for
> yourself."
Ah yes, when I am cornered, I advocate independent examination of the
relevant facts. Are you against that?
> > > You know, Lenny and Harry could have started up a journal like this
> > > years (YEARS) ago.
> > Dr. Binswanger did have such a Journal -- The Objectivist Forum.
> Oh. I guess in the safety and security of your own rationalized
> worldview, _The Objectivist Forum_ is a scholarly journal that runs
> like any normal scholarly journal would run.
No, it DIDN'T run like any of today's "normal" scholarly journals. That
is why it was worthwhile for those of us who value Ayn Rand.
> Maybe the rest of us out in the real world would have a differing
> opinion.
I'm sure you do.
EricK
Betsy Speicher wrote in message ...
>
>I don't know that they do. They probably feel sorry for him.
>
>> Do you?
>
>No.
So the apology was unnecessary as far as YOU were concerned?
>> Should your friends feel offended that you post on HPO because
>> of the often offensive and controversial material that is on this site?
>
>Some of my friends think I am wasting my time here, but I disagree with
>them about that, so here I am.
Do you think your friends would care if you wrote a piece for JARS?
>> If he doesn't like the journal, then he doesn't have to read or write to
it
>> anymore.
>
>He can also regret that he wrote there originally -- and say so.
He definitely overdid the apology by making it a permanent public document
for anyone to read.
>> I'm talking specifically about apologizing to others who may think
>> that he has sinned by defending his work there.
>
>I don't think that was what he was doing. I think he was expressing
>regret for not checking out JARS before he wrote something for it.
>
>> Did you want him to apologize to you?
>
>No, but I _was_ curious what a nice guy like Bernstein was doing in a rag
>like JARS.
It was obvious that he was defending his work, which was reviewed critically
in JARS. He wanted to set the record straight about his work for people who
read the journal in the future.
>> >He assumed JARS was a different kind of publication than it actually
>> >was and he could have, and should have, checked it out first.
>
>> And what if he checked it out and decided it was fine to publish his
>> article there proudly without any shame involved?
>
>A is A and that would not happen. Bernstein has certain standards and
>JARS is a publication which does not measure up to them.
Then take another person associated with ARI who may have different
standards.
>> Would you care, or do you think anyone else should be upset with him?
>
>I cared enough to ask, since I doubted that he contributed knowingly to a
>publication like that. It turned out he didn't know what JARS was.
Say another individual associated with ARI, maybe Tara Smith perhaps. Say
she enjoys mixing it up with others she disagrees with just like you do on
HPO, and Sciabarra published her articles in JARS. If you know she
wouldn't, then take another individual that lectures for and is associated
with ARI. Are you capable of being friends with that person?
>> In addition, Sciabarra did not lie or deceive Bernstein about himself or
>> the journal. In fact, what actually occurred was that Bernstein was a
>> first reluctant to write a piece for the journal, then decided in favor
>> of it, and then made the apology after he was getting some heat (or what
>> he perceived to be) from perhaps you and others.
>
>Not true. Bernstein was not at all reluctant at first which is why he
>wrote it.
He initially declined Sciabarra's request and then agreed.
>And he never "got heat" from anyone and he certainly wouldn't
>expect it from me and people like me. Recently a mutual friend of ours
>was in a similar situation and all he got were the facts he needed and
>loads of empathy.
It's too bad that Andrew felt the need to make a public apology because I
would like to see the long-term consequences of not making an apology. My
guess is that he would not be associated with ARI for very long. Maybe
Chris will have to opportunity to have someone else associated with ARI with
different standards (not to mention thicker skin) than Bernstein to submit
an article in the future. The public apology Bernstein made was exactly
what any critic of ARI (and the intolerant atmosphere it breeds) would have
predicted.
-Eric
malenor
> inconsistent with the virtue of pride. (Pride requires that we
> acknowledge and correct our moral failings, but not that we subject
> ourselves to a public humiliation of detailing that failing.)
>
Those actions wouldn't be the requirement of some sort of *DUTY* I
hope, for Rand's sake!
di...@dianahsieh.com
: di...@dianahsieh.com wrote in message news:<3cff...@mindmeld.idcomm.com>...
Well, DUH, no.
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*
| diana mertz hsieh *--* di...@dianahsieh.com |
| http://www.dianahsieh.com *--* http://www.noodlefood.org |
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*
David Friedman
publishing in JARS, wrote:
"Gee. Shouldn't someone be putting a little pressure on Andy
Bernstein
about intellectual slumming with this journal and its ilk? After all,
it harbors and welcomes avowed anti-Objectivists, irrationalists,..."
Obvious translation: ARI is a bunch of intolerant conformists, and
it's surprising that Bernstein, a member of that bunch, did something
as contrary to its orthodoxy as to publish in JARS.
On June 5, Brad responded:
"I don't see why. Dr. Bernstein is a self-aware adult who presumably
acts
on rational motives according to rational principles. I am sure he has
a
good reason for wanting to say something in that journal.
The unceasing exceptions to the allegedly "dogmatic" positions
attributed to decent people by entities like Mr. Cathcart, demonstrate
the invalidity and incoherence of their analyses."
Obvious translation: "Chris Cathcart claims the ARI people are
dogmatists, the fact that Bernstein published in JARS is inconsistent
with that claim, so obviously Chris's view is wrong--and why doesn't
Chris admit it?"
On June 6th, Betsy publishes Bernstein's abject public apology for the
error of publishing in JARS.
If Chris is correct about ARI, this is the result we would
expect--Bernstein violated the orthodoxy, someone pointed the fact out
to him, so he promptly retracted his unorthodox act--apologetically.
Hence Brad's argument, which sounded persuasive before Betsy posted,
is wrong. On the evidence so far, at least in this incident, the ARI
people acted just as Chris's view predicts.
Does Brad reply with "Guess I was wrong that time?" No. He responds to
Chris's next bid of overdone sarcasm with:
> Chris Cathcart wrote:
> >
> > The Kelley crowd and their intellectual-tolerationist ilk, on the other
> > hand, should be apologizing for every waking moment in which they've yet
> > to blow their own brains out.
>
> No -- they should simply get a clue and get it together, intellectually.
So whether or not Cathcart or Bernstein is willing to admit errors, it
doesn't look so far as though Brad is.
Ken Gardner
[...]
>This was also my reaction on reading bits of Bernstein's apologia
>embedded in other posts. I sensed the whiff of Cathsacrasm in the
>air.
I, for one, find the constant bitter sarcasm from Chris to be
excruciating boring, totally ineffective, and even counter-productive.
I cannot imagine why he is doing it except to satisfy his well-known
raging hard on for ARI and for certain individuals here at HPO --
which, IMO, is an improper motive for posting on HPO or any other
newsgroup. In so doing, Chris is merely wasting our time, except that
I can easily see some newbies or lurkers actually being sympathetic
towards the targets of his attacks. At least until they get to know
them. <G>
Ken