Prof. Jennifer Burns blog

[softwareNerd]

The Economist has reviewed Burns's book. Edited October 24, 2009 by softwareNerd

[Grames]

From the Economist article:

“Atlas Shrugged” conjured up a world in which all creative businessmen had gone on strike, retreating to Galt’s Gulch in Colorado, and culminated in a dramatic court scene in which Galt detailed the evils of collectivism.

Fantastic. Who needs to read Atlas Shrugged to write about it?

[khaight]

Fantastic. Who needs to read Atlas Shrugged to write about it?

Wow, that's just sad. It never ceases to amaze me how basic standards of intellectual honesty, accuracy and professionalism just go out the window when people are writing about Rand.

[Plasmatic]

Simply amazing!

[softwareNerd]

Wow, that's just sad. It never ceases to amaze me how basic standards of intellectual honesty, accuracy and professionalism just go out the window when people are writing about Rand.

Maybe you only notice it when you know the subject this well. I think this type of thing is rampant in journalism whether they're writing about climate, health or the financial crisis. I would have expected The Economist to use a better quality of writer, but perhaps I suppose that is unrealistic.

[kainscalia]

A quote from a Beethoven letter directed to one of his critics would apply here:

“Dear Sir,” Beethoven wrote, “I am sitting in the smallest room in my house. Your review is before me. Soon, it will be behind me. Yours truly, Ludwig van Beethoven.”

[Thales]

From the Economist article:

Fantastic. Who needs to read Atlas Shrugged to write about it?

I thought the best scene was where the Orcs were marching in long lines in the land of Mordor. That's the part that I think captured the countries imagination and inspired the tea parties.

[softwareNerd]

And here is another review on a blog, by (I think) an Objectivist. (Update: See below, another poster points out that this reviewer has stated that he is not an Objectivist)

Edited October 25, 2009 by softwareNerd

[~Sophia~]

Maybe you only notice it when you know the subject this well. I think this type of thing is rampant in journalism whether they're writing about climate, health or the financial crisis.

Sadly, I agree.

[spaceplayer]

And here is another review on a blog, by (I think) an Objectivist.

Jeff Perren, who wrote the review, has already stated that he's not an Objectivist:

" One note, in the spirit of full disclosure, however. I'm not an Objectivist. My views are sufficiently at variance from Objectivism, libertarianism, conservatism, and - it goes without saying - modern liberalism or Progressivism, that I can't honestly place myself within any of the popular categories with any accuracy. (Yes, I know that Objectivism is much more than a political philosophy. So, I claim, are those others.)"

[Steve D'Ippolito]

It's a truism that the closer you are to an actual news story, the more out-to-lunch the media reports on it appear to be.

[WhitneyFisher]

I went to five stores, including 2 Barnes & Noble stores before I found this book by Jennifer Burns. I had to ask for assistance from one of the clerks; the inventory check said "in stock" when I looked it up and it was supposed to be located in the Philosophy section of the store--- I had already checked, but the clerk went back with me to double check. When it wasn't there and he ran to find it, he said it was laying in the store room a bit hidden underneath incoming boxes of other new titles; this was a week ago. It had been sitting in the store room for almost a month, "buried under the surface." That was a bit awkward to me, seeing as how prevalent Rand is becoming each day.

So I've read "through the book"...

First of all, there was absolutely nothing in its context for it to have been placed in the Philosophy section of the bookstore. I honestly would even go so far as to place in it the History section, if not in the New Biography section. Anyway, my excitement to read it diminished rather quickly upon reading the first few pages. While I admire Burns for her intensive research on Ayn, I felt that the context of the book spend more time tending to the political arena in which Ayn lived rather than on the "Goddess of the Market" herself. I understand the importance of the political and social environment of which she lived, but I had hoped to have learned less about history and more about the woman who coined Objectivism. It is a "Randwich" filled with a lot of fluff but not enough Rand. In the last sentence of the introduction, Burns makes a comment about her life being "not a triumph, but a tragedy of sorts"; perhaps this sets my personal tone as to why this book was buried in the back storage room somewhere. It seems to me in direct contradiction to all Rand has taught us; one who uses "Goddess" to describe Rand in the title, while commenting that this goddess lived a life of tragedy, would be the number one objection and a direct contradiction to all of Rand's work.

I would rather have read a very well-written book, but as biased as all hell, in absolute objection to Objectivism, than a book resembling a research paper on the history/social conditions during industrialism, and throwing Ayn Rand's name in with a semi-intimate fact about her life every once in a while. This is not to bash Burns on her status as an author, for she writes well; and clearly, she is not living in a fog somewhere, for she took the opportunity to capitalize on a name that screams capitalism-- many of us will have invested in this book. It was impeccable timing in our current political/social climate for one to put Ayn Rand's name on something--- I just don't think this relatively sluggish "biography" would be the way Ayn Rand would want to be written about today. The only way to get to know Rand is to read Rand. Lesson learned.

[softwareNerd]

... many of us will have invested in this book.

List your copy for sale on Amazon, and post your negative review. That might save someone from wasting money, just as your post here might do.

[intellectualammo]

Robert Mayhew does a review of this book in The Objective Standard here:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...nifer-burns.asp

I haven't read the review, nor this thread, nor the book, but thought I'd mention it.

[RussK]

Robert Mayhew does a review of this book in The Objective Standard here:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...nifer-burns.asp

I haven't read the review, nor this thread, nor the book, but thought I'd mention it.

Although I've had the book for some time now, I've only just begun reading it. Today, in my email, I got notice from the Objective Standard that the Mayhew review was accessible on their website. After reading the first few paragraphs, I stopped; I have not read past p. 119 yet and don't want to know about what's next.

I agree with much of what Mayhew says about Burns's determinist ideas, but I think he goes to far. As examples to illustrate Burns's determinist view towards the formulation of Rand's ideas, Mayhew uses a few quotations from the book: "Consistency was the principle that grabbed her attention, not surprising given her unpredictable and frightening life,” "At Petrograd State University Alisa was immune to the passions of revolutionary politics, inured against any radicalism by the travails her family was enduring," and "The noninitiation principle, sometimes called the nonaggression principle, can be traced to thinkers as varied as Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, and Herbert Spencer. Placing it at the center of her natural rights theory, Rand breathed new life into an old idea." Not one of these statements strikes me as being deterministic or false; however, they are all opinions as Mayhew points out. For example, consistency was important to Rand, and I would be surprised if her "unpredictable and frightening life" had no effect. Additionally, regarding the nonaggression principle, while Mayhew is correct in saying that Burns provides no discussion for the basis of the idea from any of the philosophers she mentions, her statement still has merit: it can be traced back and Rand did "breathe new life into an old idea"--which I consider a positive statement.

It's important to remember that ideas are not generated in a vacuum, so neither was Rand's philosophy. She developed her ideas based upon observing reality, which included various social experiences. When Burns discusses these social experiences that influenced Rand, from the Willkie campaign and groups to her correspondence with Isabel Paterson, what I come away with is not that Rand simply cherry-picked ideas but instead that she was influenced by these various ideas. There's a difference between saying that Rand was influenced by people and that her ideas came from those people. The fact that Rand was influenced by various ideas--including Nietzsche, later Aristotle, as well as social interactions--does not change the fact that she integrated those ideas herself while changing the "old ideas" into things unique to Rand.

I'll continue reading the book, and I think it's been worth the purchase. After I complete the book, I'll finish Mayhew's review; and maybe my opinion of the book will change once I've finished it.

Edited December 9, 2009 by RussK

[Grames]

The Mayhew review is essentially correct but I think spotty. The Oscar Wilde quote about vulgarizing heroes leads his review and is the essence of his point, and is correctly applied. The determinism is there and in a modern historian is unsurprising. Burns is also definitely non-philosophical in understanding politics. His criticism of Burns selectivity is wrong, the point of the book was to trace relationships and the communication of ideas. NBI made startling progress in spreading Objectivism and its dissolution was important, and it is precisely the kind of event this book is a history of. Its cause needed to be covered.

It is a weakness of the book that it is not so much an intellectual history but a history of the social lives of some intellectuals. Burns therefore ducks grappling with ideas, possibly she thinks historians don't do that sort of thing (philosophize) i.e. this is an example of academic compartmentalization.

[RussK]

The Mayhew review is essentially correct but I think spotty. The Oscar Wilde quote about vulgarizing heroes leads his review and is the essence of his point, and is correctly applied. The determinism is there and in a modern historian is unsurprising. Burns is also definitely non-philosophical in understanding politics. His criticism of Burns selectivity is wrong, the point of the book was to trace relationships and the communication of ideas. NBI made startling progress in spreading Objectivism and its dissolution was important, and it is precisely the kind of event this book is a history of. Its cause needed to be covered.

It is a weakness of the book that it is not so much an intellectual history but a history of the social lives of some intellectuals. Burns therefore ducks grappling with ideas, possibly she thinks historians don't do that sort of thing (philosophize) i.e. this is an example of academic compartmentalization.

There's no mistaking that those sociological ideas of Marx that Mayhew identifies are present in Burns's presentation; and Burns definitely subordinates philosophy to social action. I think you're spot on about what you said about academic compartmentalization, and I had a similar thought--that she may not have thought it her role, or just wanted to focus on the social aspects from the start of the project--when I was reading the Mayhew review. However, even with this compartmentalization, I think that detailing the progression of Rand's ideas and some of the influences behind them is great.

I admire Rand and her works, which have influenced my life a great deal, and while Burns's book probably won't add much to my philosophical understanding, it will add to my knowledge of her history. Unfortunately, the readers who don't understand the nature behind philosophy and politics, or ideas and social action, the compartmentalization will not help them understand the history of her philosophy in a meaningful manner; and it may help continue or strengthen in them that divorce between ideas and politics, etc...

[Grames]

Excerpt from a new blog post by Burns:

Whether Rand’s popularity will last into the new decade remains to be seen. One reason Rand has emerged as a leading intellectual on the right because there has been little competition for the role.

Yet integrating Rand into the pantheon of conservative thinkers has consequences, primarily for the balance of power between market and religious fundamentalists.

Keeping Rand at bay was one way religious believers measured their strength within the conservative movement and asserted their dominance over secular libertarians. Her acceptance, then, is a sign that the libertarian wing of the movement is gaining strength as economic issues move to the fore of American politics. The relaxation of tension around Rand may also signify that the ideal of unregulated capitalism itself is becoming more firmly welded to the conservative world view.

Hmmm. "Libertarian wing." I hate that. Still, this is progress of a sort.

[kainscalia]

I posted this, though I doubt she will publish it:

With all due respect, Professor: although you have done a very competent job in your book, from a historical perspective, I continuously found your attitude towards the philosophy in itself to be that of someone who either strived to misrepresent it or who simply did not understand it and did not put much effort to understand it at all.

I am aware that your focus is a historical one, but it seems to be a very obvious oversight to attempt a book about a philosopher without actually studying the philosophy itself. At best you have offered an incomplete portrait, at worst you have presented a disingenuous reduction of the personage by not attempting to understand the concepts of the philosophy and instead relegating your explanation of Rand to a point of view which is aimed as a platform for your criticisms of the person in question and not as an honest evaluation of the person *and* the philosophy. A philosophy by itself can be the subject of a book, but the biography of a philosopher without integrating an honest study of the philosophy itself is inconceivable.

I kept finding several philosophical mistakes concerning your conception of Objectivism at large (such as Rand's conception of selfishness, which you seem to have taken to be some sort of conception of cynical exploitation and misanthropy), and I must hope that these were honest mistakes - for the alternative must be that you sought to misrepresent the philosophy intentionally, which is a level of intellectual dishonesty that I do not wish to consider in an academic of your stature.

It is in absolute sincerity that I suggest you read the book "Objectivism in one lesson" by Andrew Bernstein- not as an attempt to 'convert' you but as a source against which you may wish to compare your assertions about the philosophy and correct, in a future edition, your intellectual inaccuracies regarding some very salient and important aspect of the philosophy. It is only the intellectually honest thing to do.

Yours truly,

Kain Scalia