Letters: Libertarianism and Abelard and Heloise (October 1997)

Libertarianism

I congratulate Robert Bidinotto on his perceptive and intellectually stimulating comments on the nature of libertarianism (IOS Journal, April and August 1997). While much of what he says is valid, I think he demonstrates that Objectivism, even in its intellectually mature and sophisticated form, has not fully exorcised its tendency towards oversimplification in regard to the practical world of ideas.

Bidinotto claims that the different premises held by libertarians lead them to conflicting policy conclusions on various important issues. While this may be true the following are also true: (a) Libertarians holding different premises can still agree on a wide range of issues; (b) Libertarians sharing the same premises can disagree on many issues.

[Proposition] (a) is true because libertarians typically share some very general principles. An example is: "the voluntary exchange of all goods and services." The logical implications of such a principle are enormous. The fact that libertarians may differ over how to establish this principle is irrelevant in a large number of cases. Nor is it the case that, if libertarians differ over the correct validation of a principle such as property rights, irreconcilable conflicts of opinion must result. It is frequently the case that we can understand what something means before we are in a position to validate it. Indeed in most cases we must have some conception of what the thing means before we can validate it. Unless we are in a situation where we have a set of premises and are trying to see what (currently unknown) conclusions follow from them.

[Proposition] (b) is true because, while principles can often be easy to grasp, the application of principles is frequently complex. It might be thought that at least if individuals share the same premises there is less chance of serious clashes on policy conclusions, such as abortion, for example. However, Objectivism itself is not immune to serious clashes of this sort. There are some Objectivists who think that anarchy is the correct logical conclusion to be drawn from Objectivist premises.

While it is true that the correct validation of liberty is important, it is also the case that many people have been able to see that liberty is a good thing despite holding widely different views over its validation. This probably means that there are many "partial" validations. People are persuaded to liberty from a variety of intellectual backgrounds. There must be some true facts that cause this to happen. As the majority of these people are not Objectivists this suggests that there are some true facts of reality that are sufficient to propel individuals in this direction, even if they don't get the whole picture, due to their having the wrong philosophical foundation.

Kevin McFarlane
Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire
England

Abelard and Héloïse

Enthusiastically seconding Roger Donway's enthusiasm for Helen Waddell's Peter Abelard, I would like to draw to the attention of interested parties a play which I think is the most magnificent written in this century: Abelard and Heloise, by Ronald Millar, available from Samuel French, Inc.

Nathaniel Branden Beverly Hills, California

Roger Donway responds:

How could I have forgotten Ronald Millar's Abelard and Heloise" which was "inspired by" Helen Waddell's Peter Abelard, and which appeared on Broadway in 1971? My thanks to Nathaniel Branden for reminding me of it.

Clive Barnes, the drama critic of the daily New York Times, described the play as having "a strong and simple romantic theme, writing that has more than a touch of wit, and here and there even flashes of real distinction to it." Not having seen the play on stage is one of the great regrets of my aesthetic life, in large measure because the role of Héloïse was played by Diana Rigg.

Barnes said that: "Miss Rigg has the more difficult role and was, I thought, perfect, as sensuous as a cat, with hidden fires beneath the surface, and a radiant beauty far more beguiling than that of many more obviously pretty women." After noting that Rigg, by virtue of her role, had become the first major actress to play a nude scene on Broadway, Barnes commented that it was "the most tasteful, tactful, and apposite nude love scene I have ever encountered."

In conclusion, Barnes wrote: "This is, I feel, a rather better play than most of the London critics suggested but whether it will be able to repeat its huge public success in London will depend, quite possibly, on just how romantically inclined the Broadway public is right now." (New York Times, March 11, 1971) Abelard and Heloise closed after fifty-three performances.

Samuel French has shops in New York City, Hollywood, Toronto, and London. It sells Millar's play for $5.50, plus postage and handling.