- This topic has 4 voices and 3 replies.
-
-
Greg Salmieri has published an article in response to one by Skye Cleary at Aeon. Yaron discussed the article in a recent podcast, in case the initial article sounds familiar.
Cleary is author of Existentialism and Romantic Love (2015) and the associate director of the Center for New Narratives in Philosophy at Columbia University. She also is the managing editor of the Blog of the American Philosophical Association and teaches at Columbia, Barnard College, and the City College of New York.
So when an academic philosopher with some recognized position within the profession writes:
“Vilifying Rand without reading the detail, or demonising [sic] her without taking the trouble to refute her, is clearly the wrong approach. Making her work taboo is not going to help anyone to think critically about her ideas either.”
… well, one is tempted to cheer.
Even Dr Samieri says, “I couldn’t agree more.” And stresses the importance of Cleary’s point by using an excerpt from his Introduction to A Companion to Ayn Rand: “To take an author seriously means to read her, not with an eye toward confirming one’s prejudices (whether favorable or unfavorable), but simply with an eye to understanding what she thinks and why.”
But then the money line:
“I was sorry to see Cleary approach Rand differently in her Aeon piece.”
reminds us readers not to cheer too soon!
The way he leads the reader through his arguments reads like a graduate-level course in philosophic writing. For example, when Cleary says, “A couple of awkward conversations about repairing a fireplace” proves Rand believes “might is right” and she endorses rape, Dr Salmieri provides the full scene in summary. As to fireplaces, Salmieri succinctly states: “He makes clear (without saying explicitly) that he knows that the damage was intentional, and his comments on the stresses involved in the formation of marble are a metaphor for their relationship.
“Another intellectual strength of the article (as if it needed any more
) is the clear evidence it is written by an active mind looking for truth and wanting to understand as deeply as possible. To the concerns about rape (regardless of how inaccurately Cleary interprets the scene) he says:A sympathetic portrayal of anything resembling a rape raises obvious concerns—ones that the intellectual and literary community is more sensitive to in 2018 than it was in 1943. So this scene deserves to be discussed and debated, and in my view, existing discussions of it by authors sympathetic to Rand are pat and too defensive. However, too often the scene is used as an attempt to dismiss Rand or to attribute views to her that she did not hold, which is what I think Cleary does in the passage I just quoted.
One final point: I suggest reading it as I did – Salmieri’s article first. Fully appreciate its benevolence and uncompromising justice. Then click and read the original article. If you are like me, smoke from ears and fire from throat will be the mildest of responses! Again appreciate the skill exhibited by Dr Salmieri.
I’m reminded of the incredible composure by Onkar Ghate at the Cato symposium last year (ostensibly) on Rand’s We The Living. I was screaming at the screen as I watched live from afar. Hearing the supercilious criticisms that didn’t even have the courage to be forthright was more than I could bear. Other than a tapping of his otherwise relaxed foot, though, Ghate too made his points without rancor and without giving an inch.
Truly wonderful to experience what it means to be a Professional Intellectual! Inspiring to those of us striving to be intellectual professionals. Thank you to Dr. Salmieri!
/sb
-
) is the clear evidence it is written by an active mind looking for truth and wanting to understand as deeply as possible. To the concerns about rape (regardless of how inaccurately Cleary interprets the scene) he says:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.