Reisman on Betraying Rand
Here is George Reisman's Blog reviewing Ayn Rand Answers, The Best of Her Q&A, Edited by Robert Mayhew, New American Library, 2005. x + 241 pp., a book about which I know nothing, but the review might be a landmark in what the phrase "blistering criticism" means. The post gets hotter and hotter as it moves along.
Comments (19)
While I agree that releasing the Q&A's as edited text instead of recordings is a bad idea, Reisman seems a little unhinged in his worshipful adoration of Ayn. I think this quote says it all:
"As a result, in order to put her oral material into the form of a book, Prof. Mayhew was placed in the impossible position of trying to improve upon Ayn Rand. This is an assignment that no one in the world would be capable of carrying out but Ayn Rand herself."
I haven't heard these Q&A sessions, but based on Rand's written works I would think that anyone with a good grasp of Austrian economics could improve upon Ayn Rand.
Published: March 5, 2006 12:58 PM
While I admire much of Rand's work but disagree with her on a number of things, and am most probably not as admiring as Mr. Reisman, I invite Mr. Wright to clarify what he means by the sweeping statement that "anyone with a good grasp of Austrian economics could improve upon Ayn Rand." It is my understanding that Rand had a pretty good understanding of Austrian economics, although her defense of the State was indeed mistaken. But Mises himself wasn't a full-blown anarchist like Rotbhard. In one area at least, she made an improvement on many Austrian economists, even Mises: she did not extend Austrian value subjectivism (I prefer to say value agent-relativity) to mean or call for moral subjectivism.
Published: March 5, 2006 6:11 PM
I have to say though that I agree with Reisman and Wright and Sciabarra, who has also written on a similar issue. I find the practice of ARI, Peikoff, and Mayhew of publishing altered (censored?) versions of Ayn Rand's own words very disturbing. The intellectual dishonesty of it is mindboggling. How Mayhew could make the admissions that he does and still unashamedly publish such an edited work is difficult for me to understand.
Published: March 5, 2006 6:24 PM
[S]he did not extend Austrian value subjectivism (I prefer to say value agent-relativity) to mean or call for moral subjectivism.
Did Mises?
Published: March 5, 2006 11:52 PM
Essentially, yes. Mises did not believe that reason could discover objective moral truths. He was also a utilitarian who appealed to the values that most people held in his defense of liberalism. I'm frankly surprised that anyone is questioning this. I had thought it would be uncontroversial, as not a few Austrians side with Mises on this issue and seem to prefer moral subjectivism.
Published: March 6, 2006 8:48 AM
I should clarify that in my last post I do not mean objective in the Austrian sense. I do not mean it as the opposite of Austrian subjective value, but in the Objectivist (or even Aristotelian) sense of objective agent-relative value.
Published: March 6, 2006 8:55 AM
"The intellectual dishonesty of it is mindboggling. How Mayhew could make the admissions that he does and still unashamedly publish such an edited work is difficult for me to understand."
You have things backwards here. Since Mr Mayhow HAS admitted that he motified the Q&A, there is nothing dishonest about it, unless you wish to claim that he has systematically tried to missrepresents Miss Rand's views.
Part of the issue here is of motivation. If the Q&A is intended to be an informational tool relevant to current events, rather than a historical record, then it makes sense to edit the answers. I share Reismans's frustration, but I would not say the issue here is intellectual honesty.
Published: March 6, 2006 9:58 AM
No, David... He may have admitted that he modified the Q&A but he hasn't been explicit about what specifically he has changed and what the original wording was. We're left to wonder what is Rand's wording and what is his.
Published: March 6, 2006 10:05 AM
The title of the book is dishonest and misleading. It should be Ayn Rand's Answers as (Partially) Rewritten by Mayhew.
Published: March 6, 2006 10:09 AM
Geoffrey, sorry I haven't been around sooner. In response to the invitation in your first comment, instead of composing my own answer (I'm short on time this week), I'll refer you to an article by one Mark Skousen -- who claims to be something of an Austrian, though I'm not terribly familiar with him -- which "improves" upon Ayn, so to speak.
link
Published: March 6, 2006 10:44 AM
I'll give one example. Regardless of the logical extention of Rand's basic philosophy, she never stopped insisting that a minimalist government was required. I've read it suggested that, due to her upbringing, the equation of "anarchy" and "chaos" was so embedded that "anarchy" was rejected out of hand by reflex. No matter how powerful her intellect, she was indeed an emotionally powerful personality as well. Sometimes emotion won, just like in us all.
Published: March 6, 2006 11:22 AM
You might be right about her stance on anarchy for all I know, but you should realize that one of the key points of Objectivism is that emotions come from our values, and one of the primary benefits of a consistent and explicit philosophy such as Objectivism is the ability to feel much stronger emotions than those who muddle through life.
Published: March 6, 2006 11:34 AM
Roy... Thanks for the link. However, it is one thing to say that Austrians (or a particular Austrian) have improved upon Rand in a particular issue. It is quite another to make a blanket statement that anyone with a good grasp of Austrian economics could improve upon Ayn Rand. Improve how? And improve on what exactly? This sounds as if Austrian analysis on anything is superior to Rand in every way.
Additionally, I don't think Skousen's article proves what you want it to prove. In fact, I think it only proves that he's misread Rand. For example:
" But then Roark denies a basic tenet of sound economics--the principle of consumer sovereignty. When the dean of the architectural school tells Roark, "Your only purpose is to serve him [the client]," Roark objects. "I don't intend to build in order to serve or help anyone. I don't intend to build in order to have clients. I intend to have clients in order to build." (1994:14) This bizarre, almost anti-social, attitude sounds like a perverse rending of Say's Law,..."
This is not anti-social nor necessarily bad business. It is only bad business if one takes the purpose of business to be solely to satisfy consumers and solely to maximize profits, but as any good Austrian would point out...the market exists to satisfy both the producer and the consumer. Skousen seems to think it is anti-social to not seek to satisfy the consumer solely. Roark expects that enough people will like his work, as he demands it to be done, enough to contract with him to design and build a building for them. If Skousen had carefully read the Fountainhead more carefully he would see that Roark is not unresponsive to his customer's wants. He just prefers not to have customers whose wants are that he should build anything they please and his wants be damned. He refuses to lower his standards and to be a slave to their every whim to the detriment of his wants, but he still recognizes the need for clients who will be pleased with his work. Far from improving upon Rand, it seems to me that Skousen has not only misread Rand but misunderstood Austrian economics.
David... You're right, but just because someone claims to be an Objectivist, and just because Rand originated Objectivism, doesn't mean their emotions are completely in sync with their consciously held premises. That is the ideal certainly, but few people if any ever completely accomplish this on every issue. Evidence strongly suggests Rand had problems in this regard as well.
Published: March 6, 2006 12:39 PM
It is quite another to make a blanket statement that anyone with a good grasp of Austrian economics could improve upon Ayn Rand.
Sorry, I was unclear with that statement. What I meant was that anyone with a solid understanding of economics is already ahead of Rand, who, to me, does not seem to have such an understanding. I didn't mean that any random Austrian economist could write better than Rand, or outdo her in any other way.
The problem with Roark and similar characters is not that they're necessarily bad businessmen, but that Rand sets them up as the objective ideal. Not only that, but there is a sense of contempt in her (fictional) works for businessmen who make a compromise between their values and those of their customers. Upon removal of her ideal businessmen in Atlas Shrugged, society collapses. In Rand's world, the less-than-ideal businessmen are not productive enough to run the machinery of the world.
This is nonsense. In Human Action, Mises refers to Rand's ideal man as the "genius". He notes that such men indeed do not have the same economic motives as the rest of us (though he attributes somewhat different motives to them than Rand), but such men are so rare that they merit little consideration. They are responsible for great advances in science and other endeavors, but they are by no means necessary. And they are hardly morally superior.
Published: March 6, 2006 1:31 PM
Also, Rand seems to think that society owes something to brilliant minds merely on account of their brilliance. An example from Atlas Shrugged that comes to mind is Halley, who leaves for the Gulch in disgust because of the whims of the music market. Ayn’s feelings (or at least those of her protagonists) toward the free market seem to include a good deal of arrogant loathing.
Published: March 6, 2006 1:40 PM
When we talk about Rand's world I think it is important to distinguish between her fiction and her nonfiction. Although she wasn't always clear enough in her nonfiction about the gulf between her ideal businessmen and actual businessmen, I don't think she thought the real world was the same as the fictional worlds she created. She called her style of fiction Romantic Realism for a reason; it is a fictional story set up to dramatize a theme about how men ought to be, but at the same time she doesn't expect everyone to be a genius.
Rand would be the first to object to calling the creative genius who actualizes his potential morally superior to the janitor who actualizes his potential. I forget exactly where she says this but it is probably in her anthology, The Virtue of Selfishness.
What do you mean that "Rand seems to think that society owes something to brilliant minds merely on account of their brilliance"? She certainly wouldn't argue that geniuses have a right to society's recognition and wealth. Granted, she probably thought that rational people ought to recognize and admire the achievements of geniuses, but what is controversial about this?
Published: March 6, 2006 2:14 PM
Roger Bissell makes a similar criticism to Reisman's but about Rand's The Art of Fiction here: .
Chy... I'm afraid I can't quite follow your statement/question (?) Perhaps you could restate it?
Published: March 7, 2006 12:43 AM
"Rand seems to think that society owes something to brilliant minds merely on account of their brilliance"
I thought it was obvious that the "brilliant minds", i.e. the strikers, in Atlas Shugged wanted the same thing that Austrian economics wants: freedom to pursue goals without arbitrary government regulations and looting.
Published: March 5, 2007 1:17 PM
With regard to Roark, Say's Law, and Consumer Sovereignty, I'd like to point out that the modern bestselling business book, Built to Last by Collins and Porras, draws the conclusion that visionary companies that change the world and outperform their competition, have, as a comparative advantage, an ideology -- a purpose unrelated to profit. I have written on how this ties into my own business plans here:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig3/guillory9.html
Published: April 4, 2008 2:04 PM