I often give thought to what Rand had accomplished and subsequently endured when, after over a decade of dedicated and almost unimaginable research, focus, and introspection, she had produced such a profound work of fiction and philosophy as AS, and its initial reception by those who no doubt occupied her thoughts for decades, so absurdly "discredited" it! Hell, her decision to undertake "Atlas" was following a suggestion that she fully expand on her ideas so powerfully dramatized in "Fountainhead!"
My opinion is that Rand's decision to switch from fiction to non-fiction thereafter (post 1957) was a tortuous one that was both the cause and result of what I believe to have become deep psychological disappointment.
I cannot imagine the internal conflicts she must have endured during her later years.
Thanks for writing a necessary reminder of the destructive moral, political, intellectual, corruption that so often characterizes "conservatism!"
Although Rand wrote relatively little against the idea of God, her simple metaphysics (the axioms, the primacy of existence) and epistemological pearls (hierarchy of knowledge, stolen concepts, floating abstractions) have devastating implications for theism that are nuclear bombs waiting to be detonated once you engage them straightforwardly. Buckley was no dummy. He knew a direct and honest assessment of these principles would not end well for him. Plus, Catholicism for him was the foundation of all cognition and morality. It was the weight-bearing premise of his entire worldview.
Well, many intelligent people lack wisdom. But that doesn’t make them dummies. Intelligence is the ability to learn—and Buckley was prodigious in that respect. But he was fallible in his reasoning and character. Fallibility isn’t a sign of lack of intelligence.
“Intelligence is not an exclusive monopoly of genius; it is an attribute of all men, and the differences are only a matter of degree.” — Ayn Rand
Craig:
A superb and always needed reminder!
I often give thought to what Rand had accomplished and subsequently endured when, after over a decade of dedicated and almost unimaginable research, focus, and introspection, she had produced such a profound work of fiction and philosophy as AS, and its initial reception by those who no doubt occupied her thoughts for decades, so absurdly "discredited" it! Hell, her decision to undertake "Atlas" was following a suggestion that she fully expand on her ideas so powerfully dramatized in "Fountainhead!"
My opinion is that Rand's decision to switch from fiction to non-fiction thereafter (post 1957) was a tortuous one that was both the cause and result of what I believe to have become deep psychological disappointment.
I cannot imagine the internal conflicts she must have endured during her later years.
Thanks for writing a necessary reminder of the destructive moral, political, intellectual, corruption that so often characterizes "conservatism!"
Dave
Although Rand wrote relatively little against the idea of God, her simple metaphysics (the axioms, the primacy of existence) and epistemological pearls (hierarchy of knowledge, stolen concepts, floating abstractions) have devastating implications for theism that are nuclear bombs waiting to be detonated once you engage them straightforwardly. Buckley was no dummy. He knew a direct and honest assessment of these principles would not end well for him. Plus, Catholicism for him was the foundation of all cognition and morality. It was the weight-bearing premise of his entire worldview.
This is an excellent explanation.
There are also pretentious wanna bees who use big words and rationalizations to put on a front .
Indeed, but the fundamental point stands—namely, that intelligence is an attribute of all men.
That was no excuse for lying about Ayn Rand. He was a dummy.
I wasn’t excusing him, but explaining why he chose not to directly engage Rand’s reasoning.
Buckley didn’t lack intelligence. He lacked the virtue of honesty.
How man uses his intelligence is what is important. A smart crook is still a crook.
How intelligent is a person faking reality?
Well, many intelligent people lack wisdom. But that doesn’t make them dummies. Intelligence is the ability to learn—and Buckley was prodigious in that respect. But he was fallible in his reasoning and character. Fallibility isn’t a sign of lack of intelligence.
“Intelligence is not an exclusive monopoly of genius; it is an attribute of all men, and the differences are only a matter of degree.” — Ayn Rand
Hear, hear!