Peikoff’s View of Objectivist Forums and Blogs


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

hat one was an inherent math-wizard (like, oh, 'Rainman') nor that there was never any 'struggle' with subject 'X'.

~ Re Ramanujan, he was a genius in math like Fischer was in chess...and like Newton was in alchemy. Ramanujan had his mystic side also. Other than physics (and inductive arguments), Feynmann was good only at bongo-playing.

LLAP

J:D

Feynman was one of the co-inventors of Quantum Electrodynamics. There is hardly a paper in Quantum Electro-Dynamics or Quantum-Chromo Dynamics that is not festooned with Feynman Diagrams. He is rated by his peers as one of the ten greatest physicists of the 20-th century. He is also one of the greatest physics teachers whoever lived. He is legend.

RICHARD PHILLIPS FEYNMAN (1918-1988)

Richard Feynman shared the Nobel Prize in Physics (with Julian Schwinger and Tomonaga Shin’ichiro) in 1965 for his formulation of a comprehensive theory of quantum electrodynamics—how electrically charged particles interact with photons and with each other. His version of this theory, and its accompanying “Feynman diagrams”—intuitive, pictorial representations of interactions among elementary particles—revolutionized the way scientists think about these processes in many fields of physics.

In addition, R.P.Feynman put nanotechnology on the map.

One does not get a Nobel Prize for playing the bongo drums.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al:

~ I said "Other than physics (and inductive arguments).." which preluded your "WTF?" question about your mis-contextually selective quoting of me, and which implicitly included all you spelled out.

~ Maybe you missed the part before "...only..." after which I was referring to 'other' talents one can be additionally be, if not a 'genius', then at least good in, though such may have nothing to do with 'math'.

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on your side in this, John, but you ought to be aware that Feynman was also a math genius--he could do cube roots of large numbers in his head faster than a highly trained abacus master.

Ayn was a genius as a writer and thinker, as BB said, but not in math--though a teacher had once advised her to become a mathematician, she was so good at it.

Edited by ashleyparkerangel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashley...:

~ Thank you for seeing...PART OF...my main points.

~ My PRIMARY point (tangentially argued off from by Ba'al re a side comment of mine) was nothing more than that the term "genius" is sometimes too myopically concentrated on its meaning as being only a numerical score on some 'IQ'-test given whenever (and we all know they're constantly finessed in improvements) over mucho decades now (hence, what 'meaning' about one given to a 10-yr old 3 decades ago?)

My SECONDARY point was about the more usual (amongst us non-professional Psychometricists) impressionistically (subjectively?) evaluated 'general' view of the term use, admirably clarified by Barbara Branden in an earlier post in this thread; ie: a worthwhile view.

~ My TERTIARY point was that too many see 'math'-wizardy as an inherent necessity-of-meaning re anyone being called a 'genius.' By that view, Michaelangelo was not one anymore than Socrates, Bach, Stravinsky or Jefferson.

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara Branden writes: “I think you underestimate the pressures that go with the package. I would never suggest to a young person that he or she go to ARI for instruction in Objectivism. The pressures are not merely "us against them" -- which is relatively harmless in view of the infinitely more dangerous and destructive pressure to become a true believer, convinced that all wisdom resides with Rand and ARI and that wisdom is to be found nowhere else. This, plus many of the ideas that are part and parcel of the ARI teachings … make ARI a source of instruction to be avoided like the plague. … The ARI ideal and the proof of its success is the student who thinks it unnecessary to read, because he already knows everything worth knowing, who finds it unnecessary to expose his convictions to challenges and debate, because those who disagree with him do so only because they are evil, who does not grasp what it would mean to respect someone who does not agree with him, who is narrow, pedantic, insulated from reality which he sees only through a fog of floating concepts, who is cold, dogmatic, hypercritical and obsessed with the evil of most of the world.”

Robert Campbell writes: “I agree with Barbara that the Ayn Rand Institute is not a good place for students to learn about Objectivism. Not only because of the religious atmosphere (complete with monitoring for deviationism, and suspicions about heresy), and the sharply delineated hierarchy of authority figures to whom deference is constantly due. Also because much of what is taught is Leonard Peikoff's interpretation of Ayn Rand, to the exclusion of interpretations by others who knew and worked with her, or by others who didn't know her, but have made a careful study of the Randian corpus.”

------------------------

As a student finishing out my sophomore year at the Objectivist Academic Center, I must say that the OAC bears no resemblance whatsoever to Ms. Branden’s or Mr. Campbell’s descriptions. I assert that their opinions are based on the number of classes they have taken with the OAC (zero), and that the value of those opinions ought to be weighed accordingly.

One is never asked about his “allegiance” or pressured to join (or not to join) certain groups. There is no loyalty oath on the application, no interrogation before admission. The issue is never brought up. (If there were any “monitoring for deviationism,” I might have been asked about the fact that I am disallowed membership to the HB List, that I am a member of the Atlasphere, that I openly criticized Peikoff’s statement about the election, that I am unclear about the issue of Sanctioning the Sanctioner Sanctioners, or even that I post here from time to time.)

The first class does not advocate Objectivism directly, but instead introduces students to important questions in the history of philosophy. The next two classes focus on improving writing skills.

I’m now taking the Seminar on Ayn Rand’s Philosophy of Objectivism (SARPO). In the first lecture, Dr. Ghate stressed the importance of avoiding a rationalistic approach to learning Objectivism (he spent 3 hours on this). He explained how he was going to continually challenge us to think independently, to take an inductive approach, and to come up with our own answers and examples. Interactive discussion takes up a large portion of each class.

There has never been any “pressure” to become a “true believer.” Exactly the opposite – students are encouraged to raise challenges and objections in class, and the professor does an excellent job of addressing these in a professional manner. No one is ever berated or publicly chastised.

I probably raise more questions that anyone else, especially about Dr. Ghate’s approach: “Why are you bringing this point up first instead of that?” “Why do you focus on this so much? I don’t see why it’s important.” “I don’t know that I agree with how you conceptualized that,” etc. As always, Ghate deals with my questions in a deliberate, professional manner, then gives me the opportunity to respond. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don’t, but I’m always satisfied about the quality of the engagement.

This is not to imply that the professor doesn’t present a well-organized, hierarchically structured view of Objectivism’s major tenants. He most certainly does. But his presentation is infused with questions and challenges to encourage open student discussion.

Branden’s and Campbell’s descriptions of the OAC are so off the mark, I’m truly baffled. I won’t venture to question their motives – all I can do is state definitively that, based on my experience, they are 100% wrong.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with all those points, JD. My concept of genius is basically AR's, which I assume everyone here knows. My own point was only that Feynman is not a good example of a non-mathematical genius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a student finishing out my sophomore year at the Objectivist Academic Center, I must say that the OAC bears no resemblance whatsoever to Ms. Branden’s or Mr. Campbell’s descriptions. I assert that their opinions are based on the number of classes they have taken with the OAC (zero), and that the value of those opinions ought to be weighed accordingly.

Pretty argument, however, clearly their position is based in their estimates of the culture of ARI of which OAC is a part.

Interesting that the lectures from the OAC about rationalism haven't cured you of it yet. Maybe you should ask for your money back. ;)

Seriously though, I found most of Peikoff's lectures very useful, and wouldn't doubt that there's a lot of good stuff taught in the OAC, but I also would be surprised if there were not pressures to strip you of your intellectual independence as well. If you succumbed, it would be your own damn fault and not theirs.

So that's an argument for going to the OAC in spite of their religious tendencies.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post, Dan. What Barbara was talking about, however, derives from the "true believer" context created by Leonard Peikoff nearly 40 years ago when he demanded Ayn Rand be taken on faith. He re-enforced that with his reaction to "The Passion of Ayn Rand." I'm glad to hear that that context seems to be weakening, but it's there and eventually you will butt your head up against it. I am sure that there have been and are many valuable courses on Objectivism taught in/from southern California, but the basic premise has to be that Objectivism is what AR said it was while she was alive and there is essentially nothing to be added or subtracted from the philosophy--it's a closed system. In other words, you are really learning a catechism. You are allowed to ask all sorts of questions out of ignorance for the sake of your enlightenment. This creates an illusion of critical thinking.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, you are really learning a catechism. You are allowed to ask all sorts of questions out of ignorance for the sake of your enlightenment. This creates an illusion of critical thinking.

That's a great answer.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on your side in this, John, but you ought to be aware that Feynman was also a math genius--he could do cube roots of large numbers in his head faster than a highly trained abacus master.

Doing cube roots in one's head is arithmetical, not mathematical.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you mean he did not create new mathematical ideas, you are correct. So by AR's definition, he was not a math genius. Touché.

So Feynman is a relevant example. Sorry, JD!

Still, anyone with Feynman's math ability is a genius in my estimation, in the sense of intellectual power.

Edited by ashleyparkerangel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you mean he did not create new mathematical ideas, you are correct.

Not so. Feynman invented integration over histories. This is a novel variation of the Least Action Principle

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you mean he did not create new mathematical ideas, you are correct.

Not so. Feynman invented integration over histories. This is a novel variation of the Least Action Principle

Ba'al Chatzaf

Isn't that more of a physics achievement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

Your account of your studies at OAC comes across as sincere. (And sincerity is not something that outsiders can count on, when they ask ARI affiliates about goings-on within that organization.)

I have access to extremely sparse data about OAC, but they are still enough to indicate that not everyone's experience has been the same as yours. I have it from a well-placed source that Diana Hsieh was questioned at length by Onkar Ghate before being allowed to enroll at OAC. The questioning focused on her past role in TAS and on the nature of her connection with David Kelley.

Further, I can't evaluate the quality of the curriculum without knowing many more details than you would have space to include in your missive.

For instance, in SARPO are pre-1968 articles by Nathaniel Branden, or other authors who published under Ayn Rand's supervision but were later excluded from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, included among the readings? Is "Fact and Value" considered part of the Objectivist corpus in SARPO, or is it acceptable to treat it as a latter-day interpretation of Objectivism that is open to question?

Have you read anything out of Tara Smith's latest book in SARPO? If Dr. Smith's book is among the readings, what would happen if a participant asked why self-esteem is discussed in the book but no article or book by Nathaniel Branden is ever cited on the subject?

Is the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion covered in SARPO? If so, what would happen if a participant examined Dr. Peikoff's assertions about Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (e.g., The Ominous Parallels, p. 216 hardcover), then drew on Dr. Peikoff's treatment of arbitrary assertions in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (e.g., the example of a "savage" saying "2 + 2 = 4" without understanding), and concluded that Dr. Peikoff has made arbitrary assertions about Gödel's Theorem?

Does anyone ever point out the lack of agreement between Dr. Peikoff's claims about arbitrary assertions in "Fact and Value" and his claims about them in OPAR? (It's rather apparent.)

My assessments of the Ayn Rand Institute, as I once noted over at SOLOP, are based on a "black box" methodology. I know virtually nothing, and can get virtually no reliable information, about what happens inside the box. All I can see is what goes in and what comes out.

For instance, I note that Don Watkins posts all manner of fire-breathing bigotry against non-ARIans (e.g., David Kelley was expelled from ARI for "the sanction of libertarianism"), I learn in a direct exchange with him that he has never heard of a long list of intellectual contributors outside the ARI orbit, and then I discover that he has been hired to write op-eds for ARI.

I note that Andrew Bernstein engages in public penance for publishing a brief reply to a review in the pages of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, then I find that anyone in the ARI orbit who will answer my question at all either approves of Dr. Bernstein's action, or considers it no big deal. Yet his public penance, and subsequent call for a boycott of JARS, were cited as reasons for not accepting an Anthem Foundation grant to place him in a university philosophy department.

Robert Tracinski drifts away from ARI, I start reading The Intellectual Activist regularly, and I see that while well informed about many other things, he is not only woefully uninformed about philosophy of science during the last 100 years--but the source for his misreadings of Karl Popper and others, as can be diagnosed from the style and the rhetoric, is almost certainly someone in the ARI orbit.

So when I made my comments, I was referring the intellectual culture of ARI as a whole, not to OAC, about which I know far too little.

Now if your description of OAC is accurate, it should follow that the average ARI-affiliated intellectual of the coming generation will be far more open to discussion and intellectual exchange with non-ARIans than was the case with previous generations. This would be a highly desirable outcome, but I doubt you've yet convinced anyone here of its likelihood.

Robert Campbell

PS. I'm still trying to understand what ARIans presently think "rationalism" is. I've studied the lecture from Objectivism through Induction on "the arbitrary." There are some improvements over OPAR in the way the notion is introduced (OPAR manages to thoroughly condemn arbitrariness before it offers any information on how to identify it; OTI tries to identify it first). But there are other lines of argument, purporting to be "inductive" and free of "rationalism," that come across to me as anything but (such as Dr. Peikoff's appeal to a special kind of cognitive paralysis that allegedly sets in as soon as you realize you're up against "the arbitrary," or the strange example of Harry Binswanger's bachelor party and the moral that Dr. Peikoff expects his audience to draw from it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you mean he did not create new mathematical ideas, you are correct.

Not so. Feynman invented integration over histories. This is a novel variation of the Least Action Principle

Ba'al Chatzaf

Isn't that more of a physics achievement?

Feynman's work the renormalization of quantum field theory is both first rate physics and first rate mathematics. Feynman's approach is now part of the standard tool kit for physicists.

Tell me. Was Newton's work on calculus mathematics or physics? Answer: both.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feynman's work the renormalization of quantum field theory is both first rate physics and first rate mathematics. Feynman's approach is now part of the standard tool kit for physicists.

Tell me. Was Newton's work on calculus mathematics or physics? Answer: both.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What I mean is, was Feynman's work here the application of known math, or the creation of new mathematical ideas? In other words, has it become part of the tool kit of pure mathematicians as well? (I truly do not know.) (Sorry for this tangent, all!)

Edited by ashleyparkerangel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara Branden writes: "I think you underestimate the pressures that go with the package. I would never suggest to a young person that he or she go to ARI for instruction in Objectivism. The pressures are not merely "us against them" -- which is relatively harmless in view of the infinitely more dangerous and destructive pressure to become a true believer, convinced that all wisdom resides with Rand and ARI and that wisdom is to be found nowhere else. This, plus many of the ideas that are part and parcel of the ARI teachings … make ARI a source of instruction to be avoided like the plague. … The ARI ideal and the proof of its success is the student who thinks it unnecessary to read, because he already knows everything worth knowing, who finds it unnecessary to expose his convictions to challenges and debate, because those who disagree with him do so only because they are evil, who does not grasp what it would mean to respect someone who does not agree with him, who is narrow, pedantic, insulated from reality which he sees only through a fog of floating concepts, who is cold, dogmatic, hypercritical and obsessed with the evil of most of the world."

Robert Campbell writes: "I agree with Barbara that the Ayn Rand Institute is not a good place for students to learn about Objectivism. Not only because of the religious atmosphere (complete with monitoring for deviationism, and suspicions about heresy), and the sharply delineated hierarchy of authority figures to whom deference is constantly due. Also because much of what is taught is Leonard Peikoff's interpretation of Ayn Rand, to the exclusion of interpretations by others who knew and worked with her, or by others who didn't know her, but have made a careful study of the Randian corpus."

------------------------

As a student finishing out my sophomore year at the Objectivist Academic Center, I must say that the OAC bears no resemblance whatsoever to Ms. Branden's or Mr. Campbell's descriptions. I assert that their opinions are based on the number of classes they have taken with the OAC (zero), and that the value of those opinions ought to be weighed accordingly.

One is never asked about his "allegiance" or pressured to join (or not to join) certain groups. There is no loyalty oath on the application, no interrogation before admission. The issue is never brought up. (If there were any "monitoring for deviationism," I might have been asked about the fact that I am disallowed membership to the HB List, that I am a member of the Atlasphere, that I openly criticized Peikoff's statement about the election, that I am unclear about the issue of Sanctioning the Sanctioner Sanctioners, or even that I post here from time to time.)

The first class does not advocate Objectivism directly, but instead introduces students to important questions in the history of philosophy. The next two classes focus on improving writing skills.

I'm now taking the Seminar on Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism (SARPO). In the first lecture, Dr. Ghate stressed the importance of avoiding a rationalistic approach to learning Objectivism (he spent 3 hours on this). He explained how he was going to continually challenge us to think independently, to take an inductive approach, and to come up with our own answers and examples. Interactive discussion takes up a large portion of each class.

There has never been any "pressure" to become a "true believer." Exactly the opposite – students are encouraged to raise challenges and objections in class, and the professor does an excellent job of addressing these in a professional manner. No one is ever berated or publicly chastised.

I probably raise more questions that anyone else, especially about Dr. Ghate's approach: "Why are you bringing this point up first instead of that?" "Why do you focus on this so much? I don't see why it's important." "I don't know that I agree with how you conceptualized that," etc. As always, Ghate deals with my questions in a deliberate, professional manner, then gives me the opportunity to respond. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't, but I'm always satisfied about the quality of the engagement.

This is not to imply that the professor doesn't present a well-organized, hierarchically structured view of Objectivism's major tenants. He most certainly does. But his presentation is infused with questions and challenges to encourage open student discussion.

Branden's and Campbell's descriptions of the OAC are so off the mark, I'm truly baffled. I won't venture to question their motives – all I can do is state definitively that, based on my experience, they are 100% wrong.

--Dan Edge

Dan,

I appreciate the sincerity of your reply and disagreement more than you might imagine.

You managed to do exactly what I have hoped would be the tone for serious disagreements with Barbara (and Robert). You kept to the facts and kept to the posting guidelines while making your disagreement very clear.

I don't expect you to get involved in any polemics and I understand your post more as a statement to go on record than engagement (although you are more than welcome to continue the discussion). I was quite interested in your first-hand account and if this is the direction ARI is taking, I can only applaud it.

On the other side, I do hope you will consider that there are reasons for Robert and Barbara's evaluations and they were not made out of thin air, but also made in all sincerity. There's a lot of accumulated history involved.

You have set a high bar as a participant on OL. You did the initial donkey-work of exposing the extent of the plagiary issue (for which I am extremely grateful). Now you strongly disagree with Barbara in a manner that is totally acceptable to civilized debate. You must be aware of my love, admiration and feelings of gratitude towards her (that I have written about several times and that are reflected in the no Branden bashing policy in the posting guidelines). At least your posting manner shows it.

The goodwill shown in your style more than deserves my goodwill as a response. Even if we should arrive at one impasse or another, I only see good coming from it. Clearly stated views with reasons among people of goodwill is a very fertile patch for growth and change.

I don't mean at an institutional level, either. I don't give two hoots about changing the Objectivist movement qua movement. I leave that to those who care. My only concern on OL is to make sure that Objectivists and Objectivism-friendly people of goodwill have space to do and express their own first-hand thinking—individual by individual. (This is one reason why civility is stressed.) I am convinced that all the good that could ever come comes from individual first-hand thinking. Otherwise, what comes is usually a bunch of power games and I find that boring.

Thank you for your high standard of conduct.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

A technical question re the list software: Could you move the posts pertaining to issues of "genius" -- definitions, difference from "IQ," respects in which AR was/wasn't a "genius," the posts about Feynman and mathematical/physics genius -- to a different thread?

I fear that the related variegated issues will be lost to memory on this thread. Who would think of looking for them here?

Further, speaking of civil disagreement with Barbara -- which you spoke of in your post to Dan Edge (a post I applaud) -- there is something pertaining to AR-as-genius on which I have a disagreement with Barbara and on which I'd like to add some material. She talked in a post above about persons such as Hospers and Efron being so impressed by AR's quickness in regard to, respectively, philosophy and science. I question both reports. Hospers, in his written 1990 Liberty Memoir, tells a story at least partly at variance with Barbara's account of his opinion. Efron is the only actual scientist I've ever heard tell of by name who, reputedly, praised AR's scientific acumen -- and I doubt the reports, both because of what I've heard directly from other scientists who had any conversation on scientific issues with Ayn Rand and because I see no signs in AR's own writing, including her Journals, of her being "swift" at science.

Also...here's an intriguing thing pertaining to PARC and James Valliant: As has been noticed before, Valliant doesn't hesitate to accept "the Brandens'" accounts where those are flattering to Rand -- while meanwhile describing both as "monuments of dishonesty" where he doesn't like what they said. In Valliant's far-less-than-stellar performance on the Dawkins list, the source from which he seemed to have gotten his report of the regard in which "many scientists who knew her" (the quote is from memory; it was like that if not exactly that) expressed high regard for AR's scientific acumen is most of all Passion.

With all respect to Barbara, I think the issue of just what Hospers, and "scientists" who knew AR, really did say needs discussing. But I don't want to type in material from Hospers' Memoir on this thead, where I expect it will be lost to notice.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

Following up on your point, for the most part the only sources Valliant has for Rand's life (at least specific incidents, such as her reaction to the surprise party or breaks with certain people) are the Branden books and TARC. Valliant can't quite make up his mind whether the Brandens' account are so consistent as to demonstrate their (virtually Satanic) collusion, or so contradictory as to show that they are biased and inaccurate historians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always found it came down to two words, NB's: "Poor Leonard."

He basically defies every known principle involving organizational leadership. It's not his fault, he's just not cut from the right cloth. In corporate America he'd be cut down as a CEO in like a day. He's a museum curator. Then, soon, he'll die, and hmmm...you gotta wonder: who's gonna pick up the baton when he tosses it?

And, does it matter?

Talk about cutting your losses and making a judgment call...AR really did it with this one. She managed to keep the legacy alive via that baton toss, but it smells like grandma. It smells like dead people.

rde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich,

Dr. Peikoff does think of himself as a museum curator. In the now-notorious DVD about his life, he says that he is a "footnote to Ayn Rand" and is content to be remembered as such.

Presumably he is going to bequeath the papers and other artifacts in the Estate of Ayn Rand and the copyrights to her books to Amy and Kira.

Will either of them want to keep monitoring the "purity" of Objectivism and maintaining the whip hand over the Ayn Rand Institute?

Meanwhile, the US Congress keeps extending copyright terms. Under present law, my understanding is that The Fountainhead won't go out of copyright till 2038 and Atlas Shrugged will be toting that © until 2052.

That's a long time to exert leverage, if anyone in the next generation cares to.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~ Pardon my 'blurting' here...Consider it a 'defense' of the worth of all us non-Leonardo da Vinci/Socrates/Jefferson/Rand/Edison/Goddard/Einstein/etc Eddie Willers types: the types that DON'T 'Trail-Blaze', a la Kirk, and take the risk "to go where no man (er, 'one') has gone before".

~ Yes, we all 'could' (in the right situations, IF we can find them, to Trail-Blaze within), but we know we (most) won't; we have other things to do. Yet...

~ I think that even Einstein appreciated a bit that the serendipity of his interests and knowledge combined with the 'problems' he discovered, helped him become a 'Trail-Blazer'...like Rand.

2Bcont

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now