Your thoughts on this article on Ayn Rand?

[BurgessLau]

As the previous poster [...] pointed out, the reader is laughing at the silliness of the piece.

I am a reader. I am not laughing at the alleged "silliness of the piece." Your claim fails.

[y_feldblum]

You found fault with the way in which the construction of my sentence fails to make perfectly clear - only almost perfectly clear - what I meant.

The intention of the author is for the reader to laugh at the silliness of the piece.

The substance of my point stands, and apparently stands uncontested.

[non-contradictor]

Mr. Laughlin, "perceive" in its non-epistemological sense, a sense which it is perfectly acceptable to use in the context of values, art, and humor, can mean "consider". It is only necessary to use the philosophical meaning of "perceive" in the context which makes it necessary: that context is metaphysics, epistemology, and science.

The object of the joke is not Ayn Rand. The object is the piece itself. The author of the text was not attacking Ayn Rand, just as Jonathan Swift was not attacking the children of the poor.

Please explain what you mean by "non-epistemological" sense, and why it is "perfectly acceptable" to use this sense. How can the object of the piece be the piece itself? It sounds to me like that paradox: "This statement is false." It needs to refer to something else.

EDIT: I would think, that in order to be valid as a joke, the piece would have to be "joking on" something else. i.e. It can not make fun of itself. I for one am not confortable saying that the piece was not intended to be malicious. Maybe it was just intended to make us Objectivists mad, I don't know. But it sure seems to me as if the object of the joke IS Ayn Rand. A piece in which they so obviously connect her to the things she fought against, is probably making her roll around in her grave. That is NOT funny. Honestly, if she was alive today, do you think SHE would think it is funny?

Edited January 26, 2005 by non-contradictor

[BurgessLau]

The intention of the author is for the reader to laugh at the silliness of the piece.

What is your evidence for saying this was the author's intention?

Do you believe a moral evaluation should consider only the author's alleged intention? Or should it also consider the result -- such as a smear, whether intended or not?

[BurgessLau]

Mr. Laughlin, "perceive" in its non-epistemological sense, a sense which it is perfectly acceptable to use in the context of values, art, and humor, can mean "consider". It is only necessary to use the philosophical meaning of "perceive" in the context which makes it necessary: that context is metaphysics, epistemology, and science.

Acceptable to whom and in what context?

What is the advantage of tolerating an ambiguity with the term "perception," a term which has a specific meaning in one's philosophy -- when philosophy sets the context for all other knowledge? If a writer means "consider," why is "perceive" better?

The object of the joke is not Ayn Rand. The object is the piece itself.

As often is the case, I am confused. Are you saying the author of this attack on Ayn Rand is joking about, that is, denigrating his own work? If so, why is that amusing, rather than repulsive?

[y_feldblum]

My evidence is: all the humor I have ever read, seen, or heard, and the context in which this particular piece appears.

The piece is plainly silly. It appears in a silly context, and it is similar to many silly pieces I have seen. It is not malicious: the context it appears in is not malicious, and it is not as similar to malicious pieces that I have seen.

There is no ambiguity. The context is clear and specific enough to avoid ambiguity. Ambiguity happens when the context of a word is unknown or when the same word in the same context can have multiple meanings. You know the context, and you know Myself was not referring to epistemological sense-perception. "To perceive X as" in the context of art and creative works is different in meaning from "to perceive X" in the context of epistemology. Myself meant what he said and used appropriate words; I provided a synonym.

[JRoberts]

It is not malicious: the context it appears in is not malicious, and it is not as similar to malicious pieces that I have seen.

Would you agree or disagree with the statement: Ideas are to be taken seriously?

Would you also state that Objectivism is a prime value in your life?

If so, then please tell me how this piece is not malicious.

[y_feldblum]

For the same reason that Swift's words - though each one on its own is more malicious to the children of the poor than are the words of this piece to Ayn Rand - are, when taken altogether in their proper context, not malicious.

If you read A Modest Proposal and come away thinking Swift wants to eat babies, you have misread the piece. Same here.

[AisA]

Here are the first three statements from the piece in question:

The Confessions of Ayn Rand is a selection of her writings combined with fragments of biographical material. It is quite timely in view of her recent Beatification and of the consequent revival of the Rand cult. Ayn Rand never quite had the popular attention accorded to Mother Theresa; she lived in an earlier time when the media cult of the personality was not quite so frenzied.

This is clearly making fun of Miss Rand and her "cult" of followers.

[y_feldblum]

The piece begins with the silly proposition that, despite all of what you know about Ayn Rand, she was really a devout Catholic, very closely connected to the Pope, and made a Christian saint immediately upon her death. It goes on to make the silly proposition that the "Ayn Rand Cult" is a cult of messianic, fundamentalist, altruistic Christians. It calls Ayn Rand the equivalent - in thoughs and deeds, if not in popularity or reknown - with Mother Theresa. Moreover, her works lauding reason free of the mysticism of religion and rational egoism free of the same and capitalism free of the tyrannical rule of still more mysticism, are proposed to be a confessional lauding mysticism, mysticism, and mysticism.

Anybody familiar even with Ayn Rand's name will know all of these propositions are the exact opposite of reality. Who can the author possibly be trying to convince? Nobody is under the impression that Ayn Rand is now one of the saints of the Catholic church.

The author isn't laughing at the well-dressed man who slips on a banana peel. He is presenting absurdities dressed in a serious tone. The joke is the contradiction between the absurdities and the manner in which they are presented. The content of the piece could have been the exact opposite of anything, but the joke would not be the content.

[JMeganSnow]

There is nothing to be done with these foolish words than to laugh scornfully and dismiss them. They are not worth the expenditure required to get angry, and certainly not worth refuting or attacking; doing so gives them weight and validity they do not deserve.

Inferring that the author meant the words maliciously gives them too much credit; how could Ayn Rand be harmed by sludge such as this? Her words and works stand above such pathetic attempts, inviolate.

[geoff27]

Given the quasi-dogmatic tone that seems to be creeping into these forums lately, this might get me banned (or at least scolded!), but I'd like to remark upon the strangely grim of the reactions to this piece. I'm with y_feldblum on this.

I consider myself pretty sensitive when it comes to attacks on Ayn Rand's philosophy OR on her character, and usually pretty quick to defend either to the best of my knowledge and/or ability, but this piece did not strike the immediate, negative chord with me that it apparently did with many of you. I read it, chuckled to myself, and then dismissed it, confident that it was written by someone with at least a basic understanding of Rand's philosophy who wanted to write something absurd and silly, contrary to reality, the target audience of which would be people with a similar knowledge of Rand and her writing.

Most importantly: Do I take ideas seriously? Certainly-- but only the ones that are based in reality! The ones that aren't, such as "elephants can fly, they just choose not to," are baseless, and so I don't pay attention to them unless they are presented in a context that is intended to be humorous (a joke, or satire, or parody). I believe that this piece was intended to be humorous, given the many references to Rand being heavily religious, etc. Things that, as y_feldblum has pointed out, are ludicrous to read if one has any knowledge of Rand at all.

It's a far, far cry from something that misrepresents her ideas out of ignorance, or out of maliciousness (things I see much more often than I'd like, and are much more deserving of such indignation), and so I'm somewhat mystified and disappointed by the grave scorn being heaped upon this ultimately harmless (if silly) piece of writing.

[Free Capitalist]

Yes the circumstances and the jokes in that piece are ludicrous, but they aren't funny - just stupid. Something that is ludicrous is not necessarily funny from that aspect alone, which is a distinction that I think y_feldblum and geoff are missing.

[AisA]

Anybody familiar even with Ayn Rand's name will know all of these propositions are the exact opposite of reality. Who can the author possibly be trying to convince? Nobody is under the impression that Ayn Rand is now one of the saints of the Catholic church.

But this is not quite true. Miss Rand's atheism is well known, but the fact that we are not a cult is not well known. It is, in fact, one of the most widely held beliefs about Objectivists. I hear the accusation routinely.

That is why I reacted to the piece as if it were an attempt to ridicule Objectivism by saying that we are so cultish in our behavior Miss Rand might as well be a Catholic saint.

Its a shame, because five minutes on this forum is enough to refute the cult notion.

[RationalBiker]

There is nothing to be done with these foolish words than to laugh scornfully and dismiss them.  They are not worth the expenditure required to get angry, and certainly not worth refuting or attacking; doing so gives them weight and validity they do not deserve.

You are saying this according to your values and priorities, as though it is a universally true statement. Other people place a higher value on the use of words and concepts, even foolish ones, than you do. This comes from seeing the damage done by the careless or foolish usage of words.

[Capitalism Forever]

Given the quasi-dogmatic tone that seems to be creeping into these forums lately, this might get me banned

Sorry to disappoint you, but what you wrote after this comes nowhere near of even getting you warned. You'll have to try much harder if you want to get the moderators' attention. For example, you need to use words like "dogmatic" and "creeping"...

[Dominique]

I think this is an issue more for psychology than for philosophy, but Miss Rand did have some words on the subject:

You might also look up the topic "Humor" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon as it contains an excerpt from one of Miss Rand's Q & A periods on the subject of humor.

Also besides that thread there is one about Objectivist Jokes

which might help to shed light on the issue of humor. I think this is interesting and needs to be discussed more, because I think humor can be very important, but certainly it is important that one not just laugh off everything, as was mentioned in the Fountainhead (will quote when I can) that some things, such as the meetings Toohey organized could be laughed off as irrelevant or ludicrous wastes of time, when in fact there was a sinister motive.

It is important to be aware of the consequences of such things, as bad ideas are often smuggled in and perpetuated under the guise of humor.

[geoff27]

Sorry to disappoint you, but what you wrote after this comes nowhere near of even getting you warned. You'll have to try much harder if you want to get the moderators' attention. For example, you need to use words like "dogmatic" and "creeping"...

Heh. The only that disappoints me in this case is when people add fuel to one or more negative Objectivist stereotypes.

Yes the circumstances and the jokes in that piece are ludicrous, but they aren't funny - just stupid. Something that is ludicrous is not necessarily funny from that aspect alone

Right, but the specific instance we're talking about involves certain details (Rand being religious, canonized as a saint, etc.). It's easy to be ludicrous without being funny-- if the piece had described Rand as the seventeenth President of the United States, it would only have been ludicrous, because it's limited to simply being untrue. I admit that the piece is hardly a laugh riot... but it's also not just a collection of random, unrelated statements. The statements it contains are assembled deliberately to give a picture of her life that is utterly contrary to reality, very likely with the intention to amuse anyone familiar with the actual facts. If it said that she was the 17th President, as well as the inventory of the cotton mill, as well as the author of "Travels with Charley," it would simply be ludicrous, with even less potential for humor than it already has.

[JMeganSnow]

You are saying this according to your values and priorities, as though it is a universally true statement.  Other people place a higher value on the use of words and concepts, even foolish ones,  than you do.  This comes from seeing the damage done by the careless or foolish usage of words.

This is true, however I respond with this: "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me."

The only place where the reputation of Ayn Rand or Objectivism holds any importance is in the minds of rational people. There, her ideas speak for themselves. I do not fear the words of irrationalists, merely the force of their arms. Damage is not done by irrational "concepts", but by people acting on them.

In holding that this article constitutes an attack you are asserting that the irrational (as these words obviously are) has weight in the minds of rational people. It may have weight in the minds of irrational people, but what of it? Everything an irrational person believes has a similar status, that being, nothing.

The only possible damage inflicted by this statement is that it may temporarily swing the progress of someone moving from rationality to irrationality. If someone is moving towards rationality it may retard their progress briefly, but if their intent is to become more rational they will discard this as they discard all other irrationalities that they encounter. If they are becoming less rational they really aren't worth worrying about.

Maybe the title of this topic really should be "a discussion of slander, libel, and the nature of satire".

[Dominique]

Maybe the title of this topic really should be "a discussion of slander, libel, and the nature of satire".

I will agree with this suggestion, and then ask:

Is libel and slander excused if done in the name of satire?

Or perhaps first we need definitions of terms:

libel:

A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

The act of presenting such material to the public.

slander:

A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

satire:

A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.

Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

satire

n : witty language used to convey insults or scorn;

So is it not libel and slander if there is not a measurable negative influence on the person's reputation, or if the person is not living?

[JMeganSnow]

So is it not libel and slander if there is not a measurable negative influence on the person's reputation, or if the person is not living?

It is libel or slander if it is false, no more and no less.

Libel and slander can be harmful, but only to the extent that they result in actions; they are not harmful in and of themselves. At least, this is my contention; if I am reasoning incorrectly please inform me.

After you defined satire, though, I revised my idea that the article could be considered satire. Objectivism is not vice or folly or stupidity, and Ayn Rand hardly deserves insults or scorn.

I continue to contend that it is not important, though, and not worth anger or resentment. I think my own response was well-justified: derision via my own satire (which was well deserved) and then identifying it as false.

I didn't find it funny, merely stupid and bizarre, but I don't think it's worth getting angry at someone that DID think it was funny (and stupid) either.

[source]

I have contacted the owner of the site and the author of the text and suggested to him that he put his disclaimer on the page, explaining to him also that his "joke" doesn't come across as one and that someone might take the (mis)information seriously.

[Free Capitalist]

In holding that this article constitutes an attack you are asserting that the irrational (as these words obviously are) has weight in the minds of rational people.

Megan, the world is not binary, and articles are not all neatly split into "rational" articles where everything is completely consistent, and "irrational". The truth of the matter is that few articles are ever neatly fitted into either category, and instead create a continuum where some articles are more rational than others. That is why even some of the worst articles make good points, and that is how they make people upset - they carry a terrible message but yet still appear to have a logically consistent argument, which creates a contradiction within the person, conflicting emotions, anxiety, etc.

Also, when you say that, paraphrasing, "This article is obviously irrational, so it's wrong to get angry over it", you are putting the cart before the horse. Whether one gets angry or not is not up to the person; they just get angry. By saying that it is wrong for them to do so you are encouraging repression (both in others and in yourself, because you undoubtedly follow the same rules you suggest to others). Instead of saying that the anger is wrong, you should figure out why the person got angry, what subconsciously held beliefs got them to that state, etc.

If you accept this integrated approach to emotions, and apply it to this case, you will see that some people will feel anger, mixed with anxiety, because the paper will make some kind of sense and they will be unable to easily find a response, though they feel they ought to. Other people will feel anger because they value very highly the very thing the paper aims to attack, and what do people do when their values are threatened? They get angry.

Edit: minor edit in meaning.

Edited January 27, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[JMeganSnow]

By saying that it is wrong for them to do so you are encouraging repression (both in yourself and others because you undoubtedly follow the rules you suggest to others).

Now that is utterly fascinating. You are correct, I was mistaken to imply that it is somehow "wrong" to get angry. I will amend by saying that, in my evaluation, it wasn't worth the effort of getting angry. Am I still incorrect in that? Is the effort not in getting angry, but in supressing the anger?

I find myself supressing anger constantly (and by an effort of will) because I don't like the results of my irrational actions when I let myself be guided by anger. The only way I have discovered to avoid acting irrationally is to avoid getting angry.

Is it that I hold a set of incorrect value-judgements and assessments that I get angry when there's no use? Or is it just that I just need help in avoiding the expression of said anger?

[Bryan]

I will agree with this suggestion, and then ask:

Is libel and slander excused if done in the name of satire?

...

So is it not libel and slander if there is not a measurable negative influence on the person's reputation, or if the person is not living?

I would agree with you that something couldn’t be libel or slander unless there is malicious intent and damage is done. Whether the person is alive or dead does not matter as long as there are living people that could be directly damaged by the act. A satire could qualify if it meets the requirements of either.