Nathaniel's lectures on Basic Principles of Objectivism


Recommended Posts

So, TAS does not want to have "controversial speakers." So who does TAS invite to address the 2008 Summer Institute?

:)

I don't see a contradiction, because Jerry's comment is a bit awry.

It is not that TAS doesn't want to have controversial speakers, it is that they don't want to give ~awards~ to controversial speakers.

Allowing controversial speakers to speak does not, in itself, ~endorse~ and ~approve of~ and ~honor~ those speakers. Giving them an award certainly does!

Just for the record, I think a lifetime award to both Nathaniel and Barbara, as well as Tibor, would be completely in order. If TAS doesn't want to do it, perhaps we should start up ~our own~ organization and kick it off with just such an award ceremony!

Then, for the second ceremony, we could honor (probably in absentia) Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley, and Chris Sciabarra.

The list goes on, of course. But I'd start with these.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger; Maybe it should like the Baseball Hall of Fame. When the BHOF was created several people who were very famous were made members. Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb come to mind.

The six individuals you mentioned could be the first class. I think you are sadly right about Leonard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, TAS does not want to have "controversial speakers." So who does TAS invite to address the 2008 Summer Institute?

:)

I don't see a contradiction, because Jerry's comment is a bit awry.

It is not that TAS doesn't want to have controversial speakers, it is that they don't want to give ~awards~ to controversial speakers.

Allowing controversial speakers to speak does not, in itself, ~endorse~ and ~approve of~ and ~honor~ those speakers. Giving them an award certainly does!

Just for the record, I think a lifetime award to both Nathaniel and Barbara, as well as Tibor, would be completely in order. If TAS doesn't want to do it, perhaps we should start up ~our own~ organization and kick it off with just such an award ceremony!

Then, for the second ceremony, we could honor (probably in absentia) Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley, and Chris Sciabarra.

The list goes on, of course. But I'd start with these.

REB

Roger, The implication from Wil Thomas' response was that the Brandens were viewed as"controversial" figures and that such an award would be viewed as an endorsement or at least an acknowledgement of the Brandens' contribution to the development and spread of Objectivism. In the case of Professor Machan, apparently his scholarly works were neo-Objectivist but not pure enough.

Well, David Kelley's invitation for Nathaniel to speak at TOC events was viewed as an endorsement by TOC Board member Allan Blumenthal, who promptly resigned and has not spoken at TOC events since. An interesting aside is that Allan Blumenthal is a relative of Nathaniel, and a member of Rand's Inner Circle until, finally, he was told by Ayn that his presnce was no longer welcome. Subsequently, he told Barbara Branden in her biography of Rand, that he had come to the conclusion that Rand may have been evil from the start and that that aspect of her personality was a causative element in her creation of Objectivism. It is curious that such a statement did not detract from his acceptance on the IOS/TOC board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, David Kelley's invitation for Nathaniel to speak at TOC events was viewed as an endorsement by TOC Board member Allan Blumenthal, who promptly resigned and has not spoken at TOC events since. An interesting aside is that Allan Blumenthal is a relative of Nathaniel, and a member of Rand's Inner Circle until, finally, he was told by Ayn that his presnce was no longer welcome. Subsequently, he told Barbara Branden in her biography of Rand, that he had come to the conclusion that Rand may have been evil from the start and that that aspect of her personality was a causative element in her creation of Objectivism. It is curious that such a statement did not detract from his acceptance on the IOS/TOC board.

Oh, dear, the way things get mixed-up and false stories get spread...

You might be right about Allan's viewing Nathaniel's invitation as an "endorsement," or at least a "sanction," but that isn't quite how David described the issue to my husband and me back at the time when it was decided to invite Nathaniel. Instead the sound of it was more that Allan just didn't want to be part of an organization where Nathaniel was speaking.

That Allan is a relative of Nathaniel's is true; he's Nathaniel's first cousin. They grew up together and never got along well.

You have it backward about the split between Ayn and Allan. The Blumenthals split with Ayn, not the reverse. She made things unpleasant enough for them with her nagging about their musical and artistic tastes (and some other issues), Joan says it almost seemed as if she was trying to drive them away. But the break originated from their side. You can find this in Barbara's biography (pp. 386-87). (I also know the story in more detail than Barbara provides, having heard further details from Allan himself not long after he and Joan had broken with Ayn.)

What you write about Allan's opining on Ayn's evil is NOT in Barbara's biography. Instead it's a further gloss on something Roy Childs reports in his final interview, conducted by Jeff Walker. It goes significantly farther than what Allan is reported as saying in Jeff Walker's book -- which in turn goes farther than what Allan was saying in 77-80 (after which I lost touch with him). Back then (the late '70s) he said, "I thought the ideas were great and the woman was crazy." He clearly didn't mean "crazy" as in certifiable, instead colloquially. He was negative but not as negative as it sounds as if he became later on.

I question the accuracy of the story Roy Childs tells -- about Allan and Joan arguing that Ayn was evil (on an evening when Roy visited the Blumenthals along with Barbara, who counter-argued, said Roy, that, no Ayn wasn't evil). Maybe, if Barbara reads this, she could say how accurate the report is.

Something I know for a fact is that Roy could elaborate stories and even get them thoroughly wrong. For instance, he tells a story in the same interview about a good personal friend of mine and gets every detail wrong -- and I know that the friend wasn't the source of any of the errors because I was there the night Roy met her, at a private dinner party attended by only four people, my friend and I, her then-current boyfriend, and Roy. I wasn't even out of earshot of any of the conversation, so I know what he was told, and how wrong he got it (though he makes a good story of what he reports).

Also in the same interview he describes AR as high on speed from her diet pills plus caffeine. As I mentioned on another thread (see), possibly Roy himself was the source through which, on the West Coast (Roy's homebase), Ayn's use of diet pills became magnified.

Long and short: I don't know if Allan really did eventually come to the opinion that Ayn was evil, or if that's a Childs-style exaggeration. But it is not in Barbara's biography.

Ellen

PS: Barbara gives the date of the split between Ayn and the Blumenthals as 1978; that's off by a year -- it was 1977.

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen; Interesting material in your last post.

Can I ask when the Blumenthal's reconciled with Barbara Branden. I was at the LP convention in 1984 in New York City and Joan was on the podium with Barbara and I had an indication that Barbara and Joan had reconciled before that event.

Alan Blumenthal had been one of the signers to the addendum to TWIMC.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen; Interesting material in your last post.

Can I ask when the Blumenthal's reconciled with Barbara Branden. I was at the LP convention in 1984 in New York City and Joan was on the podium with Barbara and I had an indication that Barbara and Joan had reconciled before that event.

Alan Blumenthal had been one of the signers to the addendum to TWIMC.

I'm not sure when Barbara and the Blumenthals reconciled. I, too, was at the convention. Barbara and Joan had clearly made it up before then, but I don't know how much before.

The addendum read:

We, the undersigned, former Associate Lecturers at Nathaniel Branden Institute, wish the following to be on record: Because Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, in a series of actions, have betrayed fundamental principles of Objectivism, we condemn and repudiate these two persons irrevocably, and have terminated all association with them and with Nathaniel Branden Institute.

Allan Blumenthal

Alan Greenspan

Leonard Peikoff

Mary Ann (Rukavina) Sures

.

I thought the "condemn and repudiate these two persons irrevocably" was disgraceful -- as if it isn't possible for people to change, or for new information to come to light...

With two of "the undersigned," the words were rescinded in the case of Barbara. I think Alan Greenspan might have had some occasional exchange with NB -- I'm not sure of that.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

You've mentioned Rand not telling everything relevant about the split in her To Whom It May Concern. I think it was particularly unfair of Rand to ask (or allow, I don't know the details) these four people to denounce the Brandens without telling them the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, David Kelley's invitation for Nathaniel to speak at TOC events was viewed as an endorsement by TOC Board member Allan Blumenthal, who promptly resigned and has not spoken at TOC events since. An interesting aside is that Allan Blumenthal is a relative of Nathaniel, and a member of Rand's Inner Circle until, finally, he was told by Ayn that his presnce was no longer welcome. Subsequently, he told Barbara Branden in her biography of Rand, that he had come to the conclusion that Rand may have been evil from the start and that that aspect of her personality was a causative element in her creation of Objectivism. It is curious that such a statement did not detract from his acceptance on the IOS/TOC board.

Oh, dear, the way things get mixed-up and false stories get spread...

You might be right about Allan's viewing Nathaniel's invitation as an "endorsement," or at least a "sanction," but that isn't quite how David described the issue to my husband and me back at the time when it was decided to invite Nathaniel. Instead the sound of it was more that Allan just didn't want to be part of an organization where Nathaniel was speaking.

That Allan is a relative of Nathaniel's is true; he's Nathaniel's first cousin. They grew up together and never got along well.

You have it backward about the split between Ayn and Allan. The Blumenthals split with Ayn, not the reverse. She made things unpleasant enough for them with her nagging about their musical and artistic tastes (and some other issues), Joan says it almost seemed as if she was trying to drive them away. But the break originated from their side. You can find this in Barbara's biography (pp. 386-87). (I also know the story in more detail than Barbara provides, having heard further details from Allan himself not long after he and Joan had broken with Ayn.)

What you write about Allan's opining on Ayn's evil is NOT in Barbara's biography. Instead it's a further gloss on something Roy Childs reports in his final interview, conducted by Jeff Walker. It goes significantly farther than what Allan is reported as saying in Jeff Walker's book -- which in turn goes farther than what Allan was saying in 77-80 (after which I lost touch with him). Back then (the late '70s) he said, "I thought the ideas were great and the woman was crazy." He clearly didn't mean "crazy" as in certifiable, instead colloquially. He was negative but not as negative as it sounds as if he became later on.

I question the accuracy of the story Roy Childs tells -- about Allan and Joan arguing that Ayn was evil (on an evening when Roy visited the Blumenthals along with Barbara, who counter-argued, said Roy, that, no Ayn wasn't evil). Maybe, if Barbara reads this, she could say how accurate the report is.

Something I know for a fact is that Roy could elaborate stories and even get them thoroughly wrong. For instance, he tells a story in the same interview about a good personal friend of mine and gets every detail wrong -- and I know that the friend wasn't the source of any of the errors because I was there the night Roy met her, at a private dinner party attended by only four people, my friend and I, her then-current boyfriend, and Roy. I wasn't even out of earshot of any of the conversation, so I know what he was told, and how wrong he got it (though he makes a good story of what he reports).

Also in the same interview he describes AR as high on speed from her diet pills plus caffeine. As I mentioned on another thread (see), possibly Roy himself was the source through which, on the West Coast (Roy's homebase), Ayn's use of diet pills became magnified.

Long and short: I don't know if Allan really did eventually come to the opinion that Ayn was evil, or if that's a Childs-style exaggeration. But it is not in Barbara's biography.

Ellen

PS: Barbara gives the date of the split between Ayn and the Blumenthals as 1978; that's off by a year -- it was 1977.

___

Thanks. I stand corrected on the details that you provided. The story that Allan Blumenthal later described Rand and her philosophy as "evil" does not appear in Barbara's book (at least, I could not find it after reading your post). In which case, as you said, that story probably originated from Jeff Walker's interview with Roy Childs and subsequently, in Walker's book, The Ayn Rand Cult.

I did not attend TOC seminars when Allan Blumenthal was a guest speaker. It would be interesting to know if anyone, during a Q&A session, asked Dr.Blumenthal about whether his reported description of Rand as "evil" (and that her philosophy was really just a defensive elaboration on her part), was accurate. After all, that is a rather stunning denunciation from someone who had been a longtime personal friend and a lecturer at NBI, that he had come to the conclusion that Ayn was "evil." It would be interesting to hear Barbara's opinion about this, as she probably has first-hand information on its veracity, or lack thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, you are right in your post correcting Jerry Biggers' description of Allan Blumenthal's break with Rand and his estimate of her.

Jerry, this is not in any way a criticism of you. I have an idea of the sort of stories that float aroumd, and it's impossible for someone who wasn't directly involved to know what is true and what isn't. But it was Joan and Allan who ended their relationship with Rand, it was not Rand's decision. Further, I never heard Allan state that Rand was evil -- it's not the way he talks or thinks.

Chris, you asked when the Blumenthals and I reconciled. It was in 1976. I had returned to New York in 1975, where I remained for two years, and Joan and I -- after not seeing each other for more than seven years -- almost literally bumped into each other on Fifth Avenue one day. We had been close friends in Winnipeg from the time we were twelve or thirteen; we had taken an apartment together when we attended UCLA; I had introduced her to Ayn and Objectivism; and we had married cousins. Our rupture in 1968, after Rand published "To Whom It May Concern," was very painful for both of us. We began talking, and over the next few weeks I told Joan -- and then Allan -- a great deal that she had not known about "the break' and my part in it, and we began picking up the pieces of our friendship. It was a development that made me very happy, and still does; my friendship with Joan has always been one of the most importamt relationships of my life.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, you are right in your post correcting Jerry Biggers' description of Allan Blumenthal's break with Rand and his estimate of her.

Jerry, this is not in any way a criticism of you. I have an idea of the sort of stories that float aroumd, and it's impossible for someone who wasn't directly involved to know what is true and what isn't. But it was Joan and Allan who ended their relationship with Rand, it was not Rand's decision. Further, I never heard Allan state that Rand was evil -- it's not the way he talks or thinks.

Chris, you asked when the Blumenthals and I reconciled. It was in 1976. I had returned to New York in 1975, where I remained for two years, and Joan and I -- after not seeing each other for more than seven years -- almost literally bumped into each other on Fifth Avenue one day. We had been close friends in Winnipeg from the time we were twelve or thirteen; we had taken an apartment together when we attended UCLA; I had introduced her to Ayn and Objectivism; and we had married cousins. Our rupture in 1968, after Rand published "To Whom It May Concern," was very painful for both of us. We began talking, and over the next few weeks I told Joan -- and then Allan -- a great deal that she had not known about "the break' and my part in it, and we began picking up the pieces of our friendship. It was a development that made me very happy, and still does; my friendship with Joan has always been one of the most importamt relationships of my life.

Barbara

Barbara, THANK YOU for responding and clearing this story up! - Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara; Thank you for answering my question about you and Joan. Looking back the whole episode seems so unbelievable. If that was the case for those in the trenches like me it must have really seemed that way to those in the heart of the events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger; Would you ask Dr. Branden if any of Seminar recordings were brought out by Books for Libertarians in the 70ths. This was done on cassettes. BFL merged with Laissez Faire Books in about 1975. I don't know when the items went from the Laissez Faire Books catalog.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

You've mentioned Rand not telling everything relevant about the split in her To Whom It May Concern. I think it was particularly unfair of Rand to ask (or allow, I don't know the details) these four people to denounce the Brandens without telling them the details.

Allan Blumenthal knew. Remember, he was called in for counseling NB, and he was called in by Nathaniel and Barbara, anticipating how upset Ayn would be at the final scene. I agree in regard to the other three. And I think the specific wording -- the inclusion of "irrevocably" -- is wording which isn't rational for anyone to have been asked to or wanted to consent to signing, short of its being a case of really enormous wrongdoing. It's a judgment call as to how enormous "really enormous" would be. But the circumstances in this instance could hardly qualify, and doubly not since three of the signatories weren't even told the specifics. I find it indicative of the way Rand was viewed that persons were willing to treat "NB behaved wrongly to Ayn" as if it was so "really enormous" as to justify "irrevocably."

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris and Brant, I think the recorded Q&A sessions that NB did for Academic Associates from 69 to 73 were called "Seminar." But I'm not aware that these were ever re-released on either cassette or CD. I'd really like to get hold of them. I agree with you, Brant, that transcribing them would be a good thing, and I think that they should be released, together with the Basic Principles lectures, and a retrospective essay. Not just the "hazards and benefits" essay, but one that addressed individual points of the original lectures that he no longer agrees with or feels a strong need to clarify.

I'll report back to you in April on this, after I've spoken with NB personally. In the meantime, I am nearly finished transcribing the 4th of BB's 10 lectures on Efficient Thinking. Great stuff!

REB

They were called Seminar. I have all the vinyl. Now that I think about it a little more, transcriptions would probably be of value only to scholars as the Q n A format is tedious to read, especially over forty-eight records. There is little commercial value now. I have only listened to a few of those records more than once. I might be willing to send them to you after you finish Barbara's course. If I do and you do listen to them, get Nathaniel's permission to make simultaneous copies in another format.

--Brant

OK, Brant, thanks for the offer! I'll let you know what he says in April.

REB

Hi Roger, Brant, & Chris:

I also have the complete 48 LP "Seminar" set, plus an original LP set of BPO. I agree that at least an edited copy of SEMINAR should be available. I say "edited" because some material pertains to issues of the 1970s' and may not particularly be of interest to some.

Anyway, both sets need to be transcribed, but since I am not a touch-typist, such transcription would take an inordinate amount of time for me and be quite tedious. In particular, BPO needs to be transcribed, annotated for relevant updates, and published. For reasons which seem to be as odd as the Perigo invitation, TAS has not been willing to do this. I am sure that if that were done and presented to Nathaniel for his own editing, he would most likely approve its publication.

Hi, Jerry -- I agree with you that the Seminar should be transcribed, along with BPO -- and that making available "at least an edited copy" (removing dated material) of the former is a good idea. I also agree that Nathaniel would probably be willing to approve publication of at least BPO, with annotations/updates. I will approach him in person about both matters in April.

Between you and Brant, perhaps I will be able to follow up my transcription of BPO with a transcription of the 48 issues of Seminar. IMO, both you and Brant would be entitled to copies of the transcription, whether done by one of you or by a third party who offered them to you for "free." If Brant's offer is still good when the time comes, I will probably be happy to plunge on ahead with that project.

When I asked Nathaniel in a Q&A session after his lecture at the 2005 TOC Summer Institute, he sort of demurred, stating that (to my recollection) it would be better just to wait for Kelley and Thomas to finish The Logical Structure of Objectivism. Well, it has been a very long wait since the "draft" first appeared in 1999, I think, on the TOC website.

When I asked Will Thomas, at the Sponsors' Dinner during the 2006 Sunmmer Seminar, about when LSO would be ready for publication, he seemed to be annoyed by the question, and stated that the LSO project was "boring" (in its structure and manner of presentation) and not really worth devoting time to (To which I responded, "So make it more interesting!). I don't know what was said about LSO at the 2007 Summer Institute because I could not attend most of it due to illness.

That surprises me. My impression and understanding was that Will was gung-ho about LSO, and that David was the one dragging his heels (or, at least, not revved up) about getting it ready to publish. I do sympathize with the idea (whosever it is) that logic is hard to make interesting (if the reader is not already interested in it). I was quite impressed with the "beta" version of LSO, though it was clear that they still had quite a ways to go with it.

As of now, the only published systematic presentation of Objectivism is Peikoff's OPAR (which, in itself, is an edited revision of his taped lecture series, that "replaced" Branden's BPO). So, when "inquiring minds" go looking on library shelves or in bookstores for a systematic presentation of Objectivism, all they can find is OPAR? Hey, really great idea, guys!

While I think OPAR is significantly flawed, it's also fairly good. It lays out the structure of the philosophy pretty well, and it's clearly written, in Peikoff's inimitable style of exposition. Once David Harriman's Objectivism Through Induction (based on Peikoff's more recent lectures) is published, a serious student will be able to sit down with OPAR and OTI and work it out for himself, deciding for himself whether or not to accept the whole ball of wax.

Also, in several years, I will have had enough essays published using my own approach -- the dual-aspect nature of the objective -- that a compilation book paralleling OPAR and OTI and BPO will be a realistic next step. My working title is Objectivism Outside the Box, the allusion being to ARI's so-called "closed system" view of Objectivism, which (I argue) has seriously impeded further development of the philosophy, and not only since Rand's demise.

(Note: although this book is not going to be about my tetrachotomy thesis, there will be numerous applications of it throughout. I am planning a separate book on tetrachotomies, aimed at a more general audience. Throughout, however, my goal will be to make my philosophizing as forbidding and inaccessible -- in a word: boring! -- as possible. Which won't be difficult. I'll just write in my usual manner. :)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you write about Allan's opining on Ayn's evil is NOT in Barbara's biography. Instead it's a further gloss on something Roy Childs reports in his final interview, conducted by Jeff Walker. It goes significantly farther than what Allan is reported as saying in Jeff Walker's book -- which in turn goes farther than what Allan was saying in 77-80 (after which I lost touch with him). Back then (the late '70s) he said, "I thought the ideas were great and the woman was crazy." He clearly didn't mean "crazy" as in certifiable, instead colloquially. He was negative but not as negative as it sounds as if he became later on.

Thanks. I stand corrected on the details that you provided. The story that Allan Blumenthal later described Rand and her philosophy as "evil" does not appear in Barbara's book (at least, I could not find it after reading your post). In which case, as you said, that story probably originated from Jeff Walker's interview with Roy Childs and subsequently, in Walker's book, The Ayn Rand Cult.

Jerry,

I'm afraid I have to correct further. Please note, I didn't say that the "evil" story appeared subsequently in Walker's book. It isn't in Walker's book either.

Here is what Allan is reported as saying in Walker's book The Ayn Rand Cult:

pg. 247

According to Allan Blumenthal, Rand "created an entire system including her philosophical system, to deal with her own psychological problems." To which this interviewer stammered, "All of Objectivism was to deal with her own psychological problems?" Blumenthal insisted, "That's my view." Though surely an exaggeration, this perspective reframes the statement she once made: "Objectivism is me..." [ellipsis in original]

The interview Walker conducted with Allan (and Joan) Blumenthal was October 31, 1991.

The interview conducted with Roy Childs which Walker lists in the index was the following day, November 1, 1991. As far as I know this is the same interview which was then reprinted in the April 1993 Liberty. Between those dates was Childs' tragically early death in May 1992.

Here's something interesting I hadn't noticed before: Roy starts the interview which was published in Liberty by saying:

Liberty, Volume 6, Number 4, pg. 31

Last night I ws over at the Blumenthals'. An interesting discussion went on about whether Ayn Rand was evil, with the Blumenthals and Kay Nolte Smith saying yes and Barbara Branden being very defensive of Rand. I never heard anything about Ayn and about Nathan like the stories I heard there..." [ellipsis in original]

Now if that interview indeed is the one Walker cites in the index to his book, occurring on 11/1/91, and if he has the dates correct of that and the interview with the Blumenthals, and if Childs literally meant the "last night," then the evening gathering at the Blumenthals must have been the same day, I assume later in the day, as Walker's interview with them.

I did not attend TOC seminars when Allan Blumenthal was a guest speaker. It would be interesting to know if anyone, during a Q&A session, asked Dr.Blumenthal about whether his reported description of Rand as "evil" (and that her philosophy was really just a defensive elaboration on her part), was accurate. After all, that is a rather stunning denunciation from someone who had been a longtime personal friend and a lecturer at NBI, that he had come to the conclusion that Ayn was "evil." It would be interesting to hear Barbara's opinion about this, as she probably has first-hand information on its veracity, or lack thereof.

I could easily be wrong about this, but as best I recall, the last time Allan was a guest speaker at TOC was in 1992, which was before the Liberty interview with Roy Childs appeared (to repeat, it appeared in April 1993, almost a year after Roy's death). Walker's book was published in 1999, although the interview with Allan was from late 1991. Meanwhile there'd been a two-hour Canadian Broadcasting feature on Ayn using material from the Walker interviews and called Ideas: The Legacy of Ayn Rand. The date of that is given as 1992, but I don't know the month, or what Allan is shown saying in it. I've never seen it.

My point is that it might be that people at TOC as of the last time Allan talked there didn't know of Allan's reported remarks to ask him about them.

Ellen

EDIT: Furthermore... I just saw Barbara's post #35: It sounds from Barbara's report as if Roy's story was another of those where he made a much more entertaining story of something than what actually happened would have provided. ;-)

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well, these discussions about the contents, possible change in lecturers, and so on, about Nathaniel Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism (BPO), and the need for an annotated (and indexed) printed version, seems to go on and on. And on.

Everyone seems interested (with the possible exception of TAS), yet everyone is "passing the ball around, but no one decides to make a run at the hoop "(or, if they did, they got blocked). This, of course, includes me, since I am not a touch-typist, which would make creating a viable transcription quite impractical. Unless you consider "about 10 years," practical. This reluctance is quite understandable, but nothing gets done. Roadblocks to an in-print BPO include:

1) Dr. Branden's reluctance to approve the project when he is deeply involved in activities that seem more worthwhile than editing and revising lectures almost 50 years-old. He also seems to think that The Logical Structure of Objectivism (LSO) by Kelley and Thomas, will replace the need for an in-print BPO. However, these two projects are quite different, in style, in format, and in intended audience.

2) An examination on the TAS website of the 1999 "draft" of LSO shows that it is primarily written in a style that would appeal to academics. It is not likely that that type of presentation will appeal to perusers of the Philosophy bookshelves at Borders, Barnes & Noble, or other independent bookstores that can squeeze a small philosophy section between their more popular religion and occult/new age/metaphysical sections. Whereas, in contrast to LSO, BPO is presented in a lively and engaging manner that could be carried across to the printed page. Its main target would be those wanting an expansion on key concepts presented in Rand's novels, along with ideas on the practical application of Objectivism to their own lives.

3) Another factor is that LSO is taking a long time to reach fruition (bringing up memories of Peikoff,s The Ominous Parallels, for which early drafts appeared in The Objectivist around 1968, with publication announced in 1969, and apparently went through interminable re-writes until it finally appeared in 1982, about 14 years after its announcement), and quietly sank without so much as a ripple of reaction from the literary critics of the left and right. Hopefully, this "Curse of The Ominous Parallels" is not also afflicting this long-anticipated project.

So, will you ever see Basic Principles of Objectivism as a printed book? Probably not. Maybe your children. Or their great grandchildren. But I am open to hearing suggestions as to how this currently non-existent project could be successfully completed....Anyone?

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some further thoughts...

The hortatory style of Nathaniel Branden's lectures in Basic Principles of Objectivism is not to everyone's taste. It hasn't been to his own taste, for quite a few years.

However, the style is faithful to the manner of presentation that Objectivism was getting in the 1960s. It would be easy to go from a transcription of the lectures (at least the versions that are currently in circulation) to the printed page (much easier than with any of Leonard Peikoff's lectures). The editorial tasks would then consist of eliminating a few repetitive passages, adding some footnotes to explain period allusions, and an introduction and/or afterword about the historical context of the lectures and how they differ from NB's later thinking.

I don't know where people get the idea that a later presentation of Objectivism necessarily supersedes an earlier one.

Rand's ideas were subject to some development, even after she publicly announced that she had a philosophical system to offer, but she never acknowledged any significant changes on the record. Leonard Peikoff's 1976 lectures replaced Nathaniel Branden's 1958-1967 lectures for one and only one publicly acknowledged reason: NB had been kicked out and LP remained in good odor. I've never seen a list of philosophical improvements that would lead an informed consumer to prefer LP 1976 over NB 1967. Ayn Rand never issued such a thing. She merely deauthorized one treatment and authorized another.

So the notion that some later Objectivist publication renders Basic Principles of Objectivism obsolete is just wrong. Even if The Logical Structure of Objectivism is published, and there are good reasons to consider the completed LSO a better treatment than NB's or LP's, theirs won't end up on the junkpile on account of that.

Meanwhile, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is a quintessentially Peikovian document, and for that very reason isn't a particularly good book. The Ayn Rand Institute's academic affiliates will need to repeat Tara Smith's operation on the ethics--cutting out the anti-academic remarks and pulling the heat source out from under the hypercondemnation--every time they write about a different portion of the system.

And will David Harriman's recension of Objectivism through Induction get rid of some of the loony stuff that is in Dr. Peikoff's original lectures? How can Mr. Harriman be counted on to do that, when he appears to agree wholeheartedly with a lot of the loony stuff? He definitely supports Dr. Peikoff's campaign against 20th century physics...

As for why David Kelley and Will Thomas won't publish The Logical Structure of Objectivism, I don't get it. Do they want it to be perfect before they publish it? If that's the case, they'll probably never finish it. And if Will Thomas has become bored with the project, what work-related activity does he think is exciting?

Don't they realize that they need to get the book out there, so the ARIans can no longer claim that theirs are the only reliable, "up to date" (whatever that means...) interpretations of Objectivism?

Robert Campbell

PS. The reluctance to honor Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, or Tibor Machan for contributions to Objectivism is true to form. I've come to the conclusion that David Kelley's definition of Objectivism has never moved all that far from Leonard Peikoff's. Really, it's Peikovianism minus the intellectual intolerance. (I don't mean to disparage the importance of putting a stop to the intolerance.) If you are not a Ph. D. philosopher, and you do not take LP's 1976 lectures as defining your system of thought, you don't qualify as a "real Objectivist" from this standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some further thoughts...

The hortatory style of Nathaniel Branden's lectures in Basic Principles of Objectivism is not to everyone's taste. It hasn't been to his own taste, for quite a few years.

However, the style is faithful to the manner of presentation that Objectivism was getting in the 1960s. It would be easy to go from a transcription of the lectures (at least the versions that are currently in circulation) to the printed page (much easier than with any of Leonard Peikoff's lectures). The editorial tasks would then consist of eliminating a few repetitive passages, adding some footnotes to explain period allusions, and an introduction and/or afterword about the historical context of the lectures and how they differ from NB's later thinking.

I don't know where people get the idea that a later presentation of Objectivism necessarily supersedes an earlier one.

Rand's ideas were subject to some development, even after she publicly announced that she had a philosophical system to offer, but she never acknowledged any significant changes on the record. Leonard Peikoff's 1976 lectures replaced Nathaniel Branden's 1958-1967 lectures for one and only one publicly acknowledged reason: NB had been kicked out and LP remained in good odor. I've never seen a list of philosophical improvements that would lead an informed consumer to prefer LP 1976 over NB 1967. Ayn Rand never issued such a thing. She merely deauthorized one treatment and authorized another.

So the notion that some later Objectivist publication renders Basic Principles of Objectivism obsolete is just wrong. Even if The Logical Structure of Objectivism is published, and there are good reasons to consider the completed LSO a better treatment than NB's or LP's, theirs won't end up on the junkpile on account of that.

Meanwhile, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is a quintessentially Peikovian document, and for that very reason isn't a particularly good book. The Ayn Rand Institute's academic affiliates will need to repeat Tara Smith's operation on the ethics--cutting out the anti-academic remarks and pulling the heat source out from under the hypercondemnation--every time they write about a different portion of the system.

And will David Harriman's recension of Objectivism through Induction get rid of some of the loony stuff that is in Dr. Peikoff's original lectures? How can Mr. Harriman be counted on to do that, when he appears to agree wholeheartedly with a lot of the loony stuff? He definitely supports Dr. Peikoff's campaign against 20th century physics...

As for why David Kelley and Will Thomas won't publish The Logical Structure of Objectivism, I don't get it. Do they want it to be perfect before they publish it? If that's the case, they'll probably never finish it. And if Will Thomas has become bored with the project, what work-related activity does he think is exciting?

Don't they realize that they need to get the book out there, so the ARIans can no longer claim that theirs are the only reliable, "up to date" (whatever that means...) interpretations of Objectivism?

Robert Campbell

PS. The reluctance to honor Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, or Tibor Machan for contributions to Objectivism is true to form. I've come to the conclusion that David Kelley's definition of Objectivism has never moved all that far from Leonard Peikoff's. Really, it's Peikovianism minus the intellectual intolerance. (I don't mean to disparage the importance of putting a stop to the intolerance.) If you are not a Ph. D. philosopher, and you do not take LP's 1976 lectures as defining your system of thought, you don't qualify as a "real Objectivist" from this standpoint.

Well, I suppose we will all survive if BPO never makes it to print publication....However, I do believe that many of the lectures contain original material or at least, present some of the essentials of Objectivism in a provocative and stimulating manner. And I think the "cause" of Objectivism would be advanced if these lectures were in book form (with, or without, modifications).

Obviously, occasional references to events and personalities of the early sixties would need either to be updated or footnoted to explain or update the context.

One of the major differences between Branden's lecture set and Peikoff's is that Branden devotes alot of lectures to psychological issues, whereas Peikoff pretty much eliminates reference to psychology and devotes much more space to epistemology. Strangely, Peikoff has little to say about metaphysics, religion, or even altruism, whereas Branden devotes considerable time to discussing these issues.

The set of CDs that are sold through TAS originated from the Academic Associates' album set issued in 1969 or 1970, which were identical to the last NBI taped lectures with the exceptions that several lectures from the "original" NBI version were replaced and material from Who is Ayn Rand? and from articles originally published in The Objectivist Newsletter were added (CD Lectures 16, 17, & 18).

I think a comment that Chris Grieb made earlier in this thread, that Peikoff originally did a "guest" lecture on "The Concept of God" in the NBI BPO series, may be in error (although Peikoff did contribute other guest lectures to other NBI series). Anyway, the original NBI brochures that I have, circa 1965-66, do not list Peikoff as giving that lecture. Incidentally, Branden's lecture on The Concept of God was credited in George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God (p. 41) for much of the material used in a chapter of that book with the same title.

As to the decision of TAS not to present any special "award" or recognition to the Brandens or to Machan, that is of course, their right, However, I believe it is historically short-sighted to not make that recognition.

Regarding, the delay in publishing a "final" copy of LSO, all I have heard is that David Kelley is still revising it. Personally, I feel that if he sees some sort of problem in a final formulation, that issue could simply be acknowledged with a footnote or an appendix on the "problem." and that "it" is still an issue among philosophers of Objectivism. To be a little sarcastic here, we are not expecting a "final dispensation," a la God to Moses (which wasn't final, anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry; I know I heard LP give the God lecture on tape in DC in 1966. I believe my friends in Pittsburgh in 1965 said LP gave the God lecture.

It should be remembered that Peikoff was in Denver in 1964-65 teaching at the University of Denver which may explain why he did not give the God lecture at NBI in New York City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I took the taped lectures in the mid-60s Peikoff gave the God lecture, Rand literature, Mary Ann Rukavina (later Sures) visual art and Barbara Branden efficient thinking. The latter two also gave full courses on the same topics. My impression is that the tapings of these lectures, as well as of Branden's own, were at least a few years old even then.

Edited by Reidy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry; I know I heard LP give the God lecture on tape in DC in 1966. I believe my friends in Pittsburgh in 1965 said LP gave the God lecture.

It should be remembered that Peikoff was in Denver in 1964-65 teaching at the University of Denver which may explain why he did not give the God lecture at NBI in New York City.

Chris:

Quite possibly, you (and your friends in Pittsburgh) may be correct, but I think it was in a different lecture series. Without a complete set of the brochures that NBI periodically mailed out announcing forthcoming lecture series or other events, it would be difficult to rule it out. Perhaps you may still have an NBI brochure indicating the Peikoff BPO guest lecture.

In 2002, I asked Russ LaValle, then of TOC, why certain lectures were replaced in the CD set of BPO (which were really the same as those issued on LP [that's "long playing" record, not Leonard Peikoff!] by Academic Associates). He answered that he had relayed my question to Nathaniel Branden, who replied that during the "life" of a particular series of lectures, materials were occasionally revised or replaced, and that included using or replacing "guest" lecturers.

However, that explanation would not account for the fact that practically all of the specific argumentation contained in the BPO "Concept of God" lecture is not also present in Peikoff's "Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series (revised for the book version, "OPAR"). If that material had also been in a guest lecture that Peikoff did for BPO, then I think he likely would have used his own material again in his later lecture series and book.

But this may be just an "academic" issue. I have read (somewhere) that Rand reviewed and approved of every word that was published in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist. I have also heard that one of the reasons for the long delay in the issuance of Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels is that Rand was editing his copy and that he had to keep rewriting the manuscript to suit her. If that was the case, it was also likely that she exercised the same degree of editorial control over the taped lecture series issued through the Nathaniel Branden Institute. That would mean that every lecture series offered by NBI, no matter the lecturer, always had, in effect, a "ghost writer," Ayn Rand!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I took the taped lectures in the mid-60s Peikoff gave the God lecture, Rand literature, Mary Ann Rukavina (later Sures) visual art and Barbara Branden efficient thinking. The latter two also gave full courses on the same topics. My impression is that the tapings of these lectures, as well as of Branden's own, were at least a few years old even then.

O.K., that's at least two NBI alumni who specifically remember Peikoff as giving a guest lecture on "The Concept of God" at some point, in BPO.

So, to those who heard that Peikoff lecture, to the best of your recollection, was it identical in content with the lecture of the same title given by Nathaniel Branden (and later recorded by Academic Associates)? Since Peikoff later devoted very little space in OPAR to this issue, I am curious as to whether he offered a new slant to this issue, or whether he was just , in effect, "reading from a script." Which, as I said earlier, was likely approved/edited/ghost-written by Ayn Rand. By the way, that is not a criticism of Ayn Rand. It's her philosophy, after all.

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