Grames Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Prof. Burns is the author of the upcoming book "Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right" http://www.jenniferburns.org/index.php Her latest two entries are about gaining access to the archives of the estate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) I have the book and have read it. I found it in or near the philosophy section (i.e. back of the store) of a large Barnes and Noble. It was not on any of the front tables as a new release, and so did not have a 30% off price discount. It was shelved alphabetically among the B's by author; it was pure happenstance that I found it at all as it was not my purpose for visiting the store. The subtitle puts forth the book's agenda. Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right traces connections to and from Rand with others broadly (and vaguely) construed to be on the "American Right". Letters, conversations, friendships, interviews and intellectual influences are traced, collated, correlated and compared to establish the means and magnitude of Rand's influence to date within politics in America. The book and the author deliberately do not engage in examining what Objectivism is or its merits. The result is a thorough yet mechanical documentation of the people and papers that have swirled around Ayn Rand and her legacy. This is a useful recapitulation of intellectual history and the context in which Rand worked. The narrowness of Burns goal is contradicted by several evaluative statements. The introduction describes Rand's ethical conclusions as simplistic, and Rand as contradictory. Identification of Kant as a villain is described as "Objectivism's kooky side". These are typical of statements made in incomprehension. The author reports that Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is regarded by her successors as her most significant work, but gives no evidence of having read it herself. The book can report on relationships and history, but lacking any insight into Rand's own ideas it cannot properly evaluate those ideas or relationships. At least these jarring asides are few in number. "Goddess of the Market focuses on Rand's contributions as a political philosopher, for it is here she has exerted her greatest influence." This is true but not everyone influenced by Rand actually understood her. Ayn Rand had written that "it is earlier than you think." When she is known primarily for her epistemology then it will no longer be "earlier than you think". Edited October 4, 2009 by Grames Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Noodle Food has posted Ari Armstrong's comments on the introduction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Author Burns was interviewed on The Daily Show. great to have publicity about Rand on a show that has a young audience. HT: NoodleFood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Brian Doherty, senior editor of Reason magazine and author of Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement has a disappointingly superficial article about Prof. Burns book. One would think he would have more to say. This short "review" originally appeared in the Washington Times, perhaps the newspaper format emasculated him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Author Burns was interviewed on The Daily Show. great to have publicity about Rand on a show that has a young audience. HT: NoodleFood Hey, that was pretty good! I think Jon Stewart is coming along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 (edited) Hey, that was pretty good! I think Jon Stewart is coming along. Maybe Brook could find a way to get a Daily Show interview. It'll need slightly different prep (because of the non-serious/comedy angle of the show) but, it could be an easier way to get "left-wing" exposure than the more serious shows (I can't see the MS-NBC talking heads inviting someone from ARI). Edited October 19, 2009 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 That was pretty good, and kind of encouraging! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Individual Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Should I get the Burn's book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Should I get the Burn's book?Depends on what you're interested in. From the blurbs it appears that it might explain which non-Objectivists were somewhat influenced by Rand. So, my guess is that it is more about recent/contemporary history than about politics or general philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Individual Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) Depends on what you're interested in. From the blurbs it appears that it might explain which non-Objectivists were somewhat influenced by Rand. So, my guess is that it is more about recent/contemporary history than about politics or general philosophy. I'm interested in Ayn Rand's personal life and how she developed her philosophy throughout the years. I watched her speech at Kepler's bookstore. She seems quite okay. But judging from the interview she gave in The Daily Show, she doesn't seem to have a full grasp of Objectivism. Edited October 20, 2009 by The Individual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussK Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I bought the book mainly for its potential reference material. I probably won't even get around to reading it for a few months. There's another book coming out soon called "Ayn Rand and the World She Made," which seems similar, but I don't have plans on buying it. I think both books will be similar in their content of meaningful substance, and Oxford University Press trumps Nan A. Talese/Doublday. -btw, I purchased the book on Amazon.com. They're having some great deals on prices and shipping right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I bought it today. I have a crazy habit of reading the stuff that interest me first no matter where it is in the book.... Certain statements are pretty much dismissive.The tone is, to me, one that says the author is not overly impressed by Oism as a philosophy. This is a first impression and later when I'm finished, Ill post specifics. One thing that annoys me is comments basically counting Rand as "right winged". Now I have to say that I am not one who is overly interested in Rand the person. I really don't care what she was like, or who she got along with. I'm more interested in ideas/principles.I do have an interest in her ideas effect on those around her in America.This is really why I bought the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Individual Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I bought it today. I have a crazy habit of reading the stuff that interest me first no matter where it is in the book.... Certain statements are pretty much dismissive.The tone is, to me, one that says the author is not overly impressed by Oism as a philosophy. This is a first impression and later when I'm finished, Ill post specifics. One thing that annoys me is comments basically counting Rand as "right winged". Now I have to say that I am not one who is overly interested in Rand the person. I really don't care what she was like, or who she got along with. I'm more interested in ideas/principles.I do have an interest in her ideas effect on those around her in America.This is really why I bought the book. Yeah, people normally assume Ayn Rand is right-winged because of her pro-capitalism ideas. It bugs me too. Enjoy the book; I shall wait for your review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) There's a seven part YouTube presentation (promotion) given by Professor Burns on her book at Kepler's Books and Magazines, Menlo Park, California. Edited October 20, 2009 by Trebor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 FWIW, here is a review of the book, written by a blogger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 FWIW, here is a review of the book, written by a blogger. An excellent review, I think, not having yet read Professor Burns' book. Thank you for posting that, softwareNerd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) Prof. Burns has written an article titled "Howard Roark in New Delhi". Hopefully, her attempts at publicity for her book will translate into publicity for Rand and Objectivism. HT: Google group "Ayn Rand in India" Edited October 22, 2009 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 The more I see her speak and read her writing, I supect her intention is subversive. Basically to marginalize the parts of Oism that were uniquely Rands as "phsychology" and to put the rest "in context" as someone elses input originally. I'm working on getting specific with this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 The more I see her speak and read her writing, I supect her intention is subversive. Basically to marginalize the parts of Oism that were uniquely Rands as "phsychology" and to put the rest "in context" as someone elses input originally. I'm working on getting specific with this point.She is not an Objectivist. So, one must expect that she will critique it. The publicity will lead at least a few people to Rand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 She is not an Objectivist. So, one must expect that she will critique it. The publicity will lead at least a few people to Rand. Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy blog has a post and comment thread on Ayn Rand and Burn's book. Assessing Ayn Rand: “An Utterly Intolerant and Dogmatic Person Who Did a Great Deal of Good” That is Milton Freidman speaking. Intolerant yes, dogmatic only in the eyes of the uncomprehending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) Harry Binswanger recently wrote very convincingly about the philosophical premises behind the writing of the introduction. His view is that she is probably a determinist who believes Ayn Rand's politics are the consequence of growing up in Russia, despite Rand's repeated statements that politics was a superficial area of her philosophy that depended primarily on her ethics and epistemology. She always said she was primarily an advocate of reason, not of capitalism, yet Burns seemed to miss this. Edited October 22, 2009 by ex_banana-eater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) She is not an Objectivist. So, one must expect that she will critique it. The publicity will lead at least a few people to Rand. Sure, and as one who considers intellectual activism to be crucial to creating a free enviornment for one to persue one values,I think countering missconceptions and exposing certain agendas counter to said free enviornment is important. Edit: and will do more to attract newcomers to Oist ideas. Edited October 22, 2009 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) Harry Binswanger recently wrote very convincingly about the philosophical premises behind the writing of the introduction. His view is that she is probably a determinist who believes Ayn Rand's politics are the consequence of growing up in Russia, despite Rand's repeated statements that politics was a superficial area of her philosophy that depended primarily on her ethics and epistemology. She always said she was primarily an advocate of reason, not of capitalism, yet Burns seemed to miss this. Where can I read this? HBL? I'm not sure she "missed" this. I think she has an intention to sweep Oism away as a barrier to having ones cake and eating it too [capitalism and individualism without egoism]. Her "advocacy of reason" and selfishness as a basis for the rest is simply "psychology" is the implication, not consequences of inescapable axioms. I submit this is exactly the type of response Burns wants to engender: Despite all of the above, I was never much influenced by Rand or impressed by her writings. I became a libertarian in high school primarily as a result of reading Friedman, Hayek, Nozick, and Thomas Sowell – and because being a refugee from communism prevented me from becoming a left-liberal, as would otherwise have been likely. I also read some of Rand’s books at that time. But I wasn’t impressed with her effort to defend free markets based on her theory of the “virtue of selfishness.” or her “Objectivist” philosophy. Many of her ideas seemed poorly developed or superficial. I was also turned off by her intolerance for disagreement and her lack of serious effort to engage with opposing points of view. I still think these criticisms of Rand are largely accurate. There was, however, one important point that I underrated: Ayn Rand was the greatest popularizer of libertarian ideas of the last 100 years. Many more people have read Rand’s books than have read all the works of Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Nozick, and all the other modern libertarian thinkers combined. In becoming a libertarian without any influence from Rand, I was actually unusual. Over the last 15 years, I have met a large number of libertarian intellectuals and activists of the last two generations, including some of the most famous. More often than not, reading Rand influenced their conversion to libertarianism, even though very few fully endorse her theories or consider themselves Objectivists. Burns quotes Milton Friedman’s perceptive assessment of Rand as “an utterly intolerant and dogmatic person who did a great deal of good.” I think he was probably right. From Assessing Ayn Rand: “An Utterly Intolerant and Dogmatic Person Who Did a Great Deal of Good” Ilya Somin • October 22, 2009 12:46 am Edited October 22, 2009 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 ... politics was a superficial area of her philosophy that depended primarily on her ethics and epistemology. She always said she was primarily an advocate of reason, not of capitalism, yet Burns seemed to miss this.Indeed, stepping back still further, though she spent so much time on advocacy, Rand's primary and personal focus seems to have been her fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.