TheAgitator.com
Isabel Paterson
Monday, May 11th, 2009The American Conservative has an appreciation of Isabel Paterson, namesake of one of my pooches.
Think of her as a better-written, less creepy and cultish, less contradictory Ayn Rand.
33 Responses to “Isabel Paterson”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
“A world without God would be a world without an intellectual and moral framework, and thus without a grounding for liberty. These were ideas that Rand, a dogmatic atheist, could never fully grasp.
”
Actually, Rand has sound arguments why this is wrong, not just that she “could never fully grasp.” Without a non-subjective, non-mystical source for man’s rights, men can NOT successfully defend capitalism or individualism, and that is the sorry state we see the world and particularly the US in today.
“Creepy and cultish” – I’d like to say I respectfully disagree, but this kind of intellectual cheap shot is very unfortunate (and unworthy of respect, hence) coming from a generally well-thinking and well-meaning chronicler; particularly when the general subject at hand would be best defended using Rand’s arguments.
Which of Rand’s contradictions bother you? She contradicted herself by rejecting anarchy, for example. But your writings wouldn’t suggest that would bother you.
Goddammit Radley I have to do even more reading now then try to explain it the the sheeple around me. They think I’m nuts already.
Interesting article. I do agree with Tim C regarding the “creepy and cultish” comment being a cheap shot. I’ve come to expect that kind of insult from people who can’t handle addressing Rand’s ideas head on. You’re typically better than that.
Yeah, no kidding.
Explaining to a starry-eyed Obamaist what the likely outcome of the New New Deal will be is a trying exercise.
There are signs of life out there in economy-land, lets hope it recovers before all these “Doctors” kill it.
Which of Rand’s contradictions bother you?
How about the fact that she supported foreign aid to Israel? She opposed all government aid programs as theft and paternalistic . . . except when it was a cause she happened to believe in.
She also believed in the primacy of the individual, unless that individual happened to be a Native American, African, or other undeveloped culture Rand believed to be “savage.” At which point she was okay with slaughtering them.
“Creepy and cultish” – I’d like to say I respectfully disagree, but this kind of intellectual cheap shot is very unfortunate (and unworthy of respect, hence) coming from a generally well-thinking and well-meaning chronicler; particularly when the general subject at hand would be best defended using Rand’s arguments.
Rand demanded adherence to all of her views, or she excommunicated you from her inner circle and shunned you. That included not just her political views, but her views on the way you should run your own life. That’s plenty creepy and cultish to me.
Rand on balance was unquestionably a benefit to the cause of liberty. That doesn’t mean she can’t be criticized.
Ayn Rand’s followers are no more creepy and cultish than the followers of Jesus, Mohamod, The Artist Formally Known as Prince, President Obama, etc. So…yeah…I guess Radley has a point there.
I’m a die hard fan of Ayn Rand, but I’ll admit that Objectivism is kind of religiony amongst it’s followers. Rand being the prophet and such. Most of her admirers don’t appreciate that irony though.
Calling Rand “Creepy and Cultish” is no cheap shot.
It’s true.
She was creepy and cultish.
I’ll have to agree with Radley and Mattocracy.
I was a member of SoO (Students of Objectivism) while I was an undergrad. There was a member there whom I referred to as “the Prophet” mainly because a) I didn’t know his real name, b) he had a shaved head and a very deliberate way of speaking, but mostly c) because whenever you asked him a question, he would consistently answer by quoting something from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, or one of her speeches or essays… He very much had a “She wrote it, I believe it, that settles it mentality.” Never once did I hear anything resembling an original thought or opinion.
Rand’s views on sex were strange, to put it mildly.
In her view, having a casual fling with someone who did not share your every political and social viewpoint was close to beastiality.
People call me creepy all the time. I think of it as a badge of honor. I’d be cultish too, if I could, but no one follows me ’cause I’m so friggin’ creepy.
For me, Ayn Rand is the one who opened my eyes to a libertarian perspective through Atlas Shrugged. It was such an awakening, that I doubt I will ever be able to see her from a purely objective point of view. I’ve read the book three times and am ready for a fourth. I consider it unique among all the books I’ve read in both substance and style.
She doesn’t walk on water and I’m not offended by anyone who wishes to point out that she had failings. I just choose not to focus on them. I also think fairly highly of Gandhi and Thomas Jefferson both of whom had significant flaws.
Radley… is it possible your opinion of Ayn Rand has been slightly tarnished due to her criticisms of libertarians? ;)
“She doesn’t walk on water and I’m not offended by anyone who wishes to point out that she had failings.”
This is true, and in fact I disagree with her on some things (for instance, she did an essay on how a woman can’t be President that is a giant “wtf” given most of her other writings, though her asserting this kind of makes sense given her treatment of sex in her fiction).
That said, thanks to Radley for explaining the “creepy/cultish” remark, though if “Rand on balance was unquestionably a benefit to the cause of liberty” I’d think that focusing on the negative and contradictory parts of her character will only help perpetrate the idea that her ideas lack merit before they are even examined.
The same goes with my above acknowledgement – yes, she had her issues, and at times wrote of ideas that contradicted her philosophy (for instance, Indians as “savages” as Radley points out; even the Plains Indians had far more advanced civilization than is typically given credit for), but focusing on these, and particularly, using them to say “well she said this wack thing so how the heck can you buy her arguments about selfishness and capitalism,” is definitely missing the point, and is all too common. So this kind of casual remark can be quite dangerous in that it assists this very process.
As far as new readers of her material blindly reading and parroting, this does happen – the trick is identifying her philosophical essentials and applying them correctly, even when evaluating her own work. Most of it passes the test.
Radley… is it possible your opinion of Ayn Rand has been slightly tarnished due to her criticisms of libertarians?
Not really, given that I’ve made some of those same criticisms!
Hahahah ;)
(I hope you took that as intended, btw… I love Rand’s work, but as a non-atheist I’ve had my own battles having to defend my admiration of her philosophies with 100% hardcore Objectivists.)
Unfortunately, secular morality is unpersuasive to most people and certainly doesn’t constrain the power-hungry. That’s why the more intelligent atheists in the past recognized that religion was necessary and thought that people like Dawkins and Hitchens who want to pull the rug out from under organized religion were morons inviting moral disaster to befall society. Atheist rulers have tended to be far quicker to simply slaughter anyone and anything that gets in the way of their ideology, as demonstrated by the willingness of the Communist regimes (which were almost entirely, without exception, officially atheist) to massacre their opposition and anyone suspected of being associated with it.
Whether it be a true statement or not, “God said so” is the most effective moral basis for rights we’ve yet found as far as convincing the public to behave.
That’s the beauty of secular morality. There is no penalty for writing yourself an exception when it meets your needs, if you have more guns than the next guy. If he doesn’t successfully fend you off, you get to feel pangs of hypocrisy while enjoying his property with no prospect of justice coming in the next life (assuming no religion be true).
You mean, as opposed to “God’s Prophet” going back to “Thou shalt not kill” and saying “But it’s OK to kill heathens and gays and anyone else who is anathema.”
Trying to reason with an “Obamist”? Jonathan Swift has a quote for you on that.
If you are easily offended by the “creepy and cultish” description of Ayn Rand, then I offer the possibility that you don’t know enough about her. I’m a huge, huge fan of hers by the way.
Paterson’s “The God of the Machine” (IMO) is just better written than an Ayn Rand novel.
“…when millions are slaughtered, when torture is practiced, starvation enforced, oppression made a policy… it must be at the behest of very many good people, and even by their direct action, for what they consider a worthy object.” –Paterson
I wonder if we’ll ever be able to publicly discuss ending foreign aid to Israel. Even if we’re bankrupt, they get the check. Hell, I have a hard time even finding a dozen libertarians that are against the aid.
Balko says, “She also believed in the primacy of the individual, unless that individual happened to be a Native American, African, or other undeveloped culture Rand believed to be “savage.” At which point she was okay with slaughtering them.”
Pardon my ignorance, but I haven’t seen this particular charge before. Could you (or someone else) please give more details on Rand’s support for “slaughtering” “undeveloped” people?
Maybe this has nothing to do with this charge, but I’ve seen a number of discussions in which one party (usually “liberal”) attacks white people for wiping out American Indians, or claims that the US was built via slavery. Now, at that point, one can hang one’s head in shame and guilt, or try to take issue with equating Americans/white people/whatever to Nazi concentration camps. Suffice it to say, I can imagine a lot of possible arguments being made back and forth, which could be twisted to mean that one is “okay with slaughtering them.” I’ve seen a million of those and I see how quickly those accusations fly.
I’m not saying that sort of scenario has anything to do with Balko’s characterization of Rand. I’m just curious if it’s something like that, or something explicit that she wrote.
You wouldn’t get an argument from me. In fact, I think it’s time we make it clear that Israel is a chunk of beachfront property that we have no interest in defending with the blood of U.S. soldiers, which I think is currently a forgone conclusion if it were ever seriously in danger of being over-run or attacked by missiles.
“Could you (or someone else) please give more details on Rand’s support for “slaughtering” “undeveloped” people?”
She did say something like this…I should have clarified in my response that I was accepting/paraphrasing Radley’s assertion with a certain degree of looseness (I’m rather doubtful that “slaughter” was in her terminology). I don’t have too much time to dig through books at the moment, but I did find this bit – http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand –
“[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using…. What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.”
So I have to say kind of hrmmm to that, as previously indicated. While she doesn’t say “slaughter” she does say “take over the continent” – and as I previously mentioned, this conveys a pretty striking level of arrogance and ignorance about the American Indians. Now, as far as differences of philosophy, well, this is where persuasion rather than force (teach them rights and then property rights, for instance) that would be the correct approach – just as it is with the teeming hordes who are intellectually much closer to the Indians than to western rationalism today.
As far as aid to Israel goes, I’m afraid my comment is it’s in our self interest to do so, as we sure as hell haven’t been willing to do what Israel is when the shit comes right down to hitting the fan.
Mr Balko,
As a Hoosier and liberty lover, I’ve enjoyed your writing for some time. I was quite surprised (and offended) by your gratuitous and unsupported ad hominem attack on Ayn Rand.
From reading your comment #6, I suspect you’ve been getting your information about her at least partly from the ax-grinding works of the Brandens. That’s unfortunate. I’d recommend reading Rand herself if you want to understand (let alone criticize) her views. Secondary sources about her are frequently wrong or misleading, especially when written by libertarians such as Rothbard or the Brandens.
(Further, I agree with Tim C in comment 1 regarding Rand’s reasoning and your cheap shot.)
Such a display of ignorance. I’ll break it down for you nice and simple:
1) It’s “you shall not murder.” The KJV was translated by people who didn’t really have that great of a knowledge of Hebrew.
2) The Jews were only in one instance authorized to kill people en masse for their religion and culture, and that was to claim the holy land. If you believe in Judao-Christian morality, it is understood that this was an order by God for a time and place, not something that can be used to justify bloodshed again.
3) Homosexuality was covered by criminal law in ancient Israel. As such, it was punished according to the law, not a justification for bloodshed against one’s neighbor. Furthermore, if you knew anything about the Old Testament law, you’d know it was harder to convict anyone of a capital offense under the OT law than it is to convict someone of any offense under modern American law due to factors: you needed 2 credible eye-witnesses to any such crime, and the penalty for perjury was being summarily sentenced to the punishment for the crime of which the defendant is accused.
If Ryan Frederick’s case had been tried under the OT law, half of the police would have been put on trial for breaking into his house, and the prosecutor and most of the witnesses who testified against Frederick would have been executed for perjury/misleading the court for the same purpose because the penalty for perjury in a murder case was execution.
4) There is actually a standard in the Old Testament for identifying a prophet. “Prophets” like Mohammed and David Koresh fail it miserably. The penalty for being a false prophet in and of itself was execution, and there would be no hope for mercy for a false prophet who ordered atrocities to be committed in the name of God.
What else… Oh yeah…
5) Jews were free to leave ancient Israel with their property if they felt that it was not for them. There was no authority to make them stay or use their property to stop them.
6) There is no scriptural basis for coercion in the Church (see Luke 9 where Jesus rebuked some of His disciples for suggesting a punishment for refusing to believe.) What the Roman Catholic Church often did in the middle ages and early colonial period was unsupportable by actual scripture.
Are people giving a thumbs-down to Mike because you think he’s incorrect, or because you don’t like that he’s not?
Mike T
The issue was not whether the Bible per se grants believers exceptions from its own rules. You maintained that the “convenient exception” was the particular failing of secular (vs., presumably religious) philosophy, while I argued that “God’s Prophets” were just as prone to that failing.
Conveniently, you provided proof by way of your examples.
1) The “Thou shalt not commit murder / kill” equivocation is almost as old as the KJV itself. So what if it was mistranslated? You have just illustrated how “Gods Law” is always reinterpreted by believers to suit whatever argument you wish to make.
2) You wrote: “The Jews were only in one instance authorized to kill people en masse for their religion and culture, and that was to claim the holy land. If you believe in Judao-Christian morality, it is understood that this was an order by God for a time and place, not something that can be used to justify bloodshed again.”
You have just made my point – GOD HIMSELF authorized slaughter of innocents to serve his ends – at least if you are a believer.
And I’m really not sure where you get “only one instance”. In Numbers 21, God authorizes the slaughter of the peoples of the Canaanites, the Amorites, and the Bashan [Numbers 21:35 “So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none him left alive; and they possessed his land.”]
3) You wrote “Homosexuality was covered by criminal law in ancient Israel. As such, it was punished according to the law, not a justification for bloodshed against one’s neighbor”
The ‘Criminal Law’ you refer to is Leviticus. You may remember that it is actually a book of the Bible. It also prescribes death for adultery, several varieties of incest, bestiality and being a wizard or having a “familiar spirit”. Blasphemy – by either a Jew or a “as well as the stranger, as he that is born in the land,” is also punishable by death. [Leviticus 24:16]
Note that Leviticus is almost entirely put in the Voice of God Himself.
4) I’d like to see you try that “false prophet” schtick in front of a Mosque in Iraq. It would be interesting to watch what happened to you (from a safe distance). A “false prophet” is nothing more than one you choose not to believe. The ‘true prophets” are bad enough anyways. For the unforgivable sin of calling Elisha “thou old bald head”, Elisha cursed the children of Bethel and God sent two she-bears to tear forty-two children apart. [II Kings 2:23-24]
5) So Jews were free to leave Isreal. So what? It doesn’t change the fact that the Bible authorizes killing people who were different.
6) Several texts prescribe tolerance. Again, so what? That hasn’t stopped the practitioners of the Abrahamic faiths from persecuting others – that blasphemy statute in Leviticus that I cited above can be stretched to cover anyone who is not a member of the faith. And The Revelation of St. John the Divine is pretty graphic on what will happen to those who are not believers.
Like most believers, your interpretation is selective. And it is that selectiveness that allows justification of just about any crime in the name of God.
(I won’t deny that the citations above are also selective, but I will point out that I am choosing them from a book supposedly inspired by your “All-Knowing, All-Wise, Unchangeable God”, who could presumably have avoided inconsistency.)
Thorn,
Personally it was because it is more shit cult clutter posing as rational discussion. Hey look! My cult god says it is OK to karma you down and steal your wife! Yay! I’m OK because my cult says I’m OK! This is easy!
I mean everyone knows Christians and Jews have never done anything wrong in the history of history.
Such a display of ignorance, indeed.
Ack… Free thinking certainly isn’t.
$23 bucks for the paperback on Amazon… $350 for the hardback… As you can guess, I picked up the paperback.
Otter
Yeah, I found that out from a recommendation for a different book from another poster here. Devil’s Advocate by Taylor Caldwell. Just got it in the mail, used. Cover price was $1.50. I paid $25.
I decided to hold off on The God of the Machine for a while.
But, there are thousands of books out there that can be had for mere pennies. All the ones I don’t want to read, for example.
Tim C. — Her position on a woman president may seem rather troubling, a genuine “WTF” as you put it. But, not all of Rand’s writings can be considered a formal part of her philosophy. That’s not me saying that; that’s my understanding of what the people who claim to be upholding her philosophy say.
I’ve read her article on that issue. What was even more telling for me was her comment on one of her Donahue interviews, when the issue came up. She seemed horrified that a woman would be Commander in Chief: in other words, that a woman would have the job of sending men to their death. I believe Leonard Peikoff tried to explain this as a revulsion she experienced as a woman.
For what it’s worth, I had something happen to me, once, that opened my eyes to this. It’s kind of funny, actually.
Years ago, I gave the “Tomb Raider” video game a try. It was great fun directing Lara Croft on her adventure. However, at some point in my playing, the video character died. She actually fell from a cliff, and then lay dead on the floor of the cavern. A very strange thing happened at that point: specifically, what I experienced was strange.
At the time, I had played other video games, most notably, Doom II. I had no problem looking at the image of a dead man — even though that man was supposed to be me. But, when I looked at Lara lying there, it struck me as looking at the broken body of a woman. It’s hard to articulate exactly why, but what I felt, as a man, was revulsion.
It wasn’t long after that that I compared to this — admittedly rather tame experience — to Rand’s revulsion to the idea of a woman sending men to their deaths. Her remarks kind of made more sense to me. Her horror was that of a woman qua woman (as she might say).
Don’t get me wrong: I’m sure I could vote for a woman for president, assuming she was a good candidate. But, I don’t think “WTF” anymore when I think of Ayn Rand’s reaction to it. It was a part of her psychology, and I think it’s a legitimate reaction.
“She also believed in the primacy of the individual, unless that individual happened to be a Native American, African, or other undeveloped culture Rand believed to be ‘savage.’ At which point she was okay with slaughtering them.”
I’d like to see you cite that, Radley.
“Rand demanded adherence to all of her views, or she excommunicated you from her inner circle and shunned you.”
What whiney-ass bulllshit. Look: I excommunicated her. Don’t you get it? Grown-ups laugh at nonsense like that. Your complaint isn’t against Rand: it’s against the fools who acted like kids around her.
Tim C.: you could serve yourself well by looking into the racism of Tecumseh, for instance.
> Rand demanded adherence to all of her views, or she excommunicated you from her inner circle and shunned you. That included not just her political views, but her views on the way you should run your own life.
It is a shame that this false caricature persists. It’s a further shame that it tends to shut out calm and critical discussion of her ideas.
Yes, there are people who try to use Objectivism as a argument-winning cudgel, rather than as a guide to living a successful life. There are similar personalities within many intellectual traditions.
To claim that all Objectivists are like that, or even most, is an unjust and inaccurate insult.