I’ve made my case for why it’s a lie. Your response does nothing to address my case.
What exactly are you referring to?
You said that it lowered your esteem for the man. Now you’re saying it’s trivial?
I never said you were a liar.
Even if Rand’s philosophical arguments “are extremely weak and undermine the better arguments,” the response shouldn’t be to insult her more. When an intellectual discussion turns into a battle of insults, it seems to me that both sides lose.
My impression of Rand is that she had good and bad in her, just like any human being. On one hand, she could be intolerant and close-minded, but on the other she stood uncompromisingly for what she believed in. On one hand she condemned the libertarian movement in the 70s as a “mockery of philosophy and ideology,” but on the other she opened up the minds of millions to libertarian ideas, and continues to do so.
It would not surprise me if she got into an argument with Mises and either one of them threw an insult in the heat of debate. I don’t think this single anecdote says much about the character of either person. I’m just grateful that brilliant minds like Mises and Rand were able to have debates so we can stand on the shoulders of giants.
You said that it lowered your esteem for the man. Now you’re saying it’s trivial?
I’m tired of this as it’s clear you’re arguing from some big misunderstandings in the discussion. I quoted Mises’ denial of saying it as lowering my esteem for him. I was impressed with the original quote as Rand is notoriously uncivil in person and infamously weak in philosophy, and this gives a good anecdote for recounting the Austrian’s rejection of Randism. Nevertheless, it is basically trivial, as is this entire discussion.
Calling something a"lie" as opposed to a “mistake” necessitates a personal accusation against someone as a liar and implies that the quoted writer is a liar. You have no basis for such accusation against anyone. Kirk’s stating that he suspected it was a deliberate fabrication by Randists is not a basis for you designating it a “lie.”
I think this whole argument stems from Cal posting only the quote from Buckley’s book with no context about whether he thought it was true, and why he thought it was worthy of discussion. He didn’t reveal until later posts that he was applauding Mises for insulting Rand. His “esteem” for Mises was lowered after Grayson revealed that the anecdote was false. Is this right?
Is this right?
Yes.
I see. You’re correct, I didn’t understand that. I thought you considered the alleged insult as blameworthy, and that what you regarded as Mises being disingenious in denying it as compounding the blameworthiness.
No. The notion is commonplace of a lie being orginated by a liar, and then passed on by people who may even believe the lie. The fact that it is passed on by people who believe it does not change the fact that it’s a lie. And calling it as such does not necessarily imply that the person who is passing it on is a liar. In the context of someone passing on something as hearsay, if someone calls the piece of gossip a lie, it will be readily assumed by many people that the accuser is not saying that the person passing on the gossip is lying about what he heard, but rather that the information itself is false, and that whoever orginated it promoted a falsity deliberately.
After reading the thread I think the verbaige contained in the moderator notes…well…sucks!
I’m going to stick up for the moderator here and say he was just doing his job. Misunderstandings happen, especially over the internet it seems.
Thank you Leo, but I would also note that my misunderstanding had nothing to do with the my edit of the OP. I 100% stand by that edit. The characterization is a lie, and here on the Mises Forums, it’s important for the many people who wouldn’t find such a crude “zinger” against Rand to be admirable to know that.
You’re right, I also should have thanked you for pointing out the “zinger” in the first place.
I apologize. I misunderstood your position. Someone really needs to make a movie about Mises already.
Comon i think its great that he had the kind of passion and fire in himself and even if used it untactfully, it adds plenty of character and interesting drama to be retold. Wouldve been a shame if he were just a boring quiet book worm.
Wasn’t Mises Jewish himself or come from a Jewish background?
I don’t understand why anyone expects or assumes any human being to be a saint.
Mises was Jewish. To be honest, I’ve heard (being a Jew myself) dinner table conversations go like that.
The characterization is a lie according to Hulsmann, in that sense that it was a pejorative exclamation. It was probably a humorous response to a joke exclamation. Or it didn’t occur at all, ang Buckley was passing along something someone else told him.
The phrase “ignorant little Jew girl,” purportedly said by Mises, appears in Goddess of the Market (an Ayn Rand biography) as well, but, as has been mentioned, the characterization in the OP is a lie - that of both parties, in fact.
Rand very much admired Mises, and Mises had written her a letter of congratulation upon the publication of Atlas Shrugged. There was no true animosity between the two.
While Hazlitt may have not known of Mises being rude to anyone else, it is not like Mises does not have a reputation of being quite rude as Milton Friedman has reflected:
By the way, calling such a characterization a “lie” with the evidence at hand in this thread is far too harsh of a judgment. At worst its a lie, but before anything is called a lie, there must be an intent to decieve. If there was no intent to decieve then the characterization was simply a story probably blown out of proportions, false, but no lie.
I laughed at the OP story…