Leonard Peikoff on Internet Discussons


syrakusos

Recommended Posts


Over on RoR, Joe Maurone posted this link and I found the podcast interesting to consider on several levels.



"What is your opinion of Objectivist clubs and advocacy groups on the Internet?"



http://www.peikoff.com/2008/01/07/what-is-your-opinion-of-objectivist-clubs-and-advocacy-groups-on-the-internet/



First, I have to agree that across the boards I know of a range of understanding of Objectivism is obvious. Also, it is important to note that here on MSK's OL I doubt that many other of the active participants even claim to be Objectivists. I do. If you look at the Corners, we do have Ed Hudgins, Robert Campbell, Stephen Boydstun, clearly. But day to day, the content is carried by MSK, Selene, and others who while they do know Objectivism and largely agree with the canonical works, do not at all limit themselves to it. In addition, Carol (soon to return, we hope) is flatly not an Objectivist but only interested in it as an observer.



So, that brings up Peikoff's two main points. (He named three.) People post and argue opinions that are not at all validated by Objectivism. Those who do attempt to write from an Objectivist framework may be wrong because they have an incomplete understanding of the philosophy.



Deeper than that, Peikoff also spoke twice about the mental habits associated with online posting. There, I have to disagree. I grant the ad hoc nature of the chat; however, I am also given to spending up to an hour on something like this as I think through my ideas and check my grammar. To me, this is serious.



By contrast, I took two days to write up about 40 hours of active research (in numismatics) for an article to be published in April of this year by the ANA. I confess that my internet writing is not usually so focussed. So, too, does Leonard Peikoff delineate levels of mental focus and intellectual engagement. I agree with his general taxonomy. I just apply it differently; and I have no podcast. In fact, it appears clear to me now that some of the infamous "Peikoff howlers" were the consequence of his being willing to speak ad lib without the prior focus and later reflection that he gives to formal writing.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good thing, as far as "advertising", not so good when there are no "experts" to correct us. Peikoff makes reasonable, if predictable points, while admitting he knows little to nothing about the forums. Well, there are some experts - but then they shouldn't be expected to right every error under discussion. Mostly, he misses the most important aspect of these groups, that by the simple matter of making your thoughts explicit for others to read, you are learning. By comprehending the responses from them, you're also pushed to learn.

All in all, keeping in mind that LP is most likely referring to what he sees as young Objectivists, I can't help feeling he should have more confidence in each person's mind to work through it himself, errors and all: it's the best way to learn, the most certain and the most enjoyable. The academic purist holding to high standards is agreeable and necessary, but a hint of the authoritarian still lingers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Michael, this topic received discussion earlier on OL here.

I have found that having editorial control and having a standing slot showing on the front forum page (the Corner innovation of MSK) entirely changed the worth of investment of time and effort for serious sustained compositions to be posted in internet forums, as here. I imagine one could have a site in which all the slots were such Corners whose writers were gathered in advance with the aim of publishing their new extended compositions there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, thanks for the links. And thanks, also, for the content of your corner. I confess that it is always a slog for me because you are pursuing subjects beyond my range. But I do read the Corners, yours and the others. In this, MSK's OL does provide a service that no other Objectivish site does. (I do not visit them all. I have maybe five minutes each on Noodle Food and SOLO Passion. Diana Hsieh is probably competent just by her credentials. Lindsay Perrigo, of course, has spoken for himself.)

Most recently, I have been on Galt's Gulch Online which off-hand may have a third of its active writers actually conversant with the canonical works. Just for one example, the question was posed, "What would Ayn Rand think" about millionaires such as Carnegie, Gates, and Buffett, who give away their wealth?" Read the answers. Then, look at the status of the writers by their "Points." Rockymountainpirate and LetsShrug are leaders there. They both said that Ayn Rand would say that you can spend your own money any way you wish. Indeed, but how you do that is a salient question and one she pursued in depth. I consider the libertarian replies to be shallow. These are people - again easily two-thirds of them as my intuitive guess - who were attracted by the movie to perhaps actually read the book. Based on that, they believe that they know what Ayn Rand would think about that subject or anything else.

In this, Leonard Peikoff remains on target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, that brings up Peikoff's two main points. (He named three.) People post and argue opinions that are not at all validated by Objectivism. Those who do attempt to write from an Objectivist framework may be wrong because they have an incomplete understanding of the philosophy.

Those points are also true of Peikoff. His published writings and public proclamations are often not validated by Objectivism, and he often appears to have an incomplete understanding of the philosophy.

Deeper than that, Peikoff also spoke twice about the mental habits associated with online posting. There, I have to disagree. I grant the ad hoc nature of the chat; however, I am also given to spending up to an hour on something like this as I think through my ideas and check my grammar. To me, this is serious.

By contrast, I took two days to write up about 40 hours of active research (in numismatics) for an article to be published in April of this year by the ANA. I confess that my internet writing is not usually so focussed. So, too, does Leonard Peikoff delineate levels of mental focus and intellectual engagement. I agree with his general taxonomy. I just apply it differently; and I have no podcast. In fact, it appears clear to me now that some of the infamous "Peikoff howlers" were the consequence of his being willing to speak ad lib without the prior focus and later reflection that he gives to formal writing.

Peikoff is used to being isolated from intelligent criticism. His "mental habit" and style of "intellectual engagement" is to avoid facing challenges from better thinkers. He has a long history of destructive vindictiveness against those who are smarter than he is. He wouldn't last very long in any forum which he doesn't control. Intellectually, he'd get his ass kicked in a forum like OL. He wouldn't be able to handle the substance, but he also wouldn't have the power to silence anyone, excommunicate them or demand their resignation.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan, I might be willing to enjoy bashing Dr. Peikoff, but it does nothing for the discussion. I went back and followed the link that Stephen provided to the earlier discussion from 2008, when this first broke. Barbara Branden participated in that. However, like this, it quickly broke down into a hijacked discussion of something else entirely.

Historically, my experience is with this board and Rebirth of Reason, primarily, although, as I said, I am currently active on Galt's Gulch Online. I also occasionally do visit and post to Objectivism Online and Betsy Speicher's "For Rand Fans." I do that when I have some kind of special post to upload. I tend not to cross-post, but I do want some things redundantly saved; and I recognize that different board have different communities.

Betsy Speicher and Objectivism Online are both more doctrinaire. OO specifies that no criticism of ARI will be allowed. Although I am "friends" with David Veksler on LinkedIn, in fact, I carry "1 Warning" because one of his moderators "Software Guru" (or something like that) said that my "senile rambling" has no place on their board. I was impressed. I mean it is no mean feat for someone who is not a doctor to offer such a diagnosis online. It borders on the miracle cures offered at a distance by televangelists.

Also, I am not alone in having the special "problem" (if you will) of having a lifetime of experience with Objectivism. I read Anthem at 16 in the 11th grade and took the "Basic Principles" course the following year. I am now 64. So, maybe it is my own short-coming, but I think that I understand Objectivism and have never actually asked for technical help. Maybe I should. When it comes to women presidents in midi-skirts listening to Mozart and I am pretty much able to keep Objectivism separate from the opinions of Ayn Rand.

That said, I still have no patience with the newbies who come in from the Atlas Shrugged movies and want to amalgamate their own opinions with what they imagine Atlas Shrugged to be about. So, again, on Galt's Gulch we have a LGBT advocate grinding that ax being contradicted by a conservative who quotes the Bible in support of a heterosexual marriage in which the man has duties to himself and to his wife while his wife has duties to only him. "Oh, yes, John! You are the perfect man! I will give up my job on the railroad and mend your shirts for the rest of my life!"

Technical philosophy is not a topic. Granted, my own abilities limit my interests, but I understand the broad claim that ethics rests on epistemology. So, when newer newbies come in and say that they hate Obama and want to seal the borders against Mexicans, they receive positive visibility from the established writers, independent of any conformity to the very questions that Objectivism would raise on issues of immigration. The consequence is that every month apparently thousands of people come to the philosophy of Objectivism thinking that it is whatever they want it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan, I might be willing to enjoy bashing Dr. Peikoff, but it does nothing for the discussion.

I wasn't bashing Peikoff, but identifying the reality of his poor intellectual habits and behavior. I was rejecting his ignorant bashing of Internet forum discussions.

Betsy Speicher and Objectivism Online are both more doctrinaire. OO specifies that no criticism of ARI will be allowed. Although I am "friends" with David Veksler on LinkedIn, in fact, I carry "1 Warning" because one of his moderators "Software Guru" (or something like that) said that my "senile rambling" has no place on their board. I was impressed. I mean it is no mean feat for someone who is not a doctor to offer such a diagnosis online. It borders on the miracle cures offered at a distance by televangelists.

Indeed, but such diagnoses aren't limited to online forums. In fact, the little nobody tyrants running the forums are just following the behavior of Rand's heir and the Official Objectivist Authorities associated with him. The behavior has nothing to do with the medium, or with age of experience. Certain people want to own and control Objectivism, and to claim to speak for it.

That said, I still have no patience with the newbies who come in from the Atlas Shrugged movies and want to amalgamate their own opinions with what they imagine Atlas Shrugged to be about. So, again, on Galt's Gulch we have a LGBT advocate grinding that ax being contradicted by a conservative who quotes the Bible in support of a heterosexual marriage in which the man has duties to himself and to his wife while his wife has duties to only him. "Oh, yes, John! You are the perfect man! I will give up my job on the railroad and mend your shirts for the rest of my life!"

Technical philosophy is not a topic. Granted, my own abilities limit my interests, but I understand the broad claim that ethics rests on epistemology. So, when newer newbies come in and say that they hate Obama and want to seal the borders against Mexicans, they receive positive visibility from the established writers, independent of any conformity to the very questions that Objectivism would raise on issues of immigration. The consequence is that every month apparently thousands of people come to the philosophy of Objectivism thinking that it is whatever they want it to be.

Again, Peikoff and those associated with him do the same thing. They emotionally opine on subjects and take irrational positions which are not consistent with Objectivism. They seem to think that they have the authority to make Objectivism whatever they want it to be.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly, he misses the most important aspect of these groups, that by the simple matter of making your thoughts explicit for others to read, you are learning. By comprehending the responses from them, you're also pushed to learn.

You hit the heart of the matter, Tony.

Rocks in a tumbler knock off each other's rough edges to become smoothed and polished. I believe that is one of the most useful purposes of a forum.

All in all, keeping in mind that LP is most likely referring to what he sees as young Objectivists, I can't help feeling he should have more confidence in each person's mind to work through it himself, errors and all: it's the best way to learn, the most certain and the most enjoyable.

Being judged by the intellectual orthodoxy of any doctrine rapidly fades in importance when compared to reality which does not hesitate even for an instant to reveal the flaws in our premises through what is set into motion by our own actions. The level of validity of everyone's principles can be evaluated for themselves simply by examining their own lives.

The process you aptly described as "work through it" isn't static nor is there a fixed goal. It is self correcting aspiration.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly, he misses the most important aspect of these groups, that by the simple matter of making your thoughts explicit for others to read, you are learning. By comprehending the responses from them, you're also pushed to learn.

You hit the heart of the matter, Tony.

Rocks in a tumbler knock off each other's rough edges to become smoothed and polished. I believe that is one of the most useful purposes of a forum.

All in all, keeping in mind that LP is most likely referring to what he sees as young Objectivists, I can't help feeling he should have more confidence in each person's mind to work through it himself, errors and all: it's the best way to learn, the most certain and the most enjoyable.

Being judged by the intellectual orthodoxy of any doctrine rapidly fades in importance when compared to reality which does not hesitate even for an instant to reveal the flaws in our premises through what is set into motion by our own actions. The level of validity of everyone's principles can be evaluated for themselves simply by examining their own lives.

The process you aptly described as "work through it" isn't static nor is there a fixed goal. It is self correcting aspiration.

Greg

Yes Greg. There is one thing I know you'll appreciate and that's that philosophies like yours and mine have no place or use, except to be put into action living a life. That we have in common, despite the rest.

We may talk about theories and doctrine till we are blue in the face, but it's not going to cause the slightest thirst in many horses, let alone lead them to the water and drink. However, the structuring and verbalizing of ideas is a practical test in its own right, making them real to one's self - then whatever explicit response one gets is fairly secondary, though when congenial and equally searching, the cherry on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leonard Peikoff doesn't seem to have the power to be his own man. He seems to have become a "philosopher" in response to the dominant influence in his life--Ayn Rand. As the moon does not rotate on its axis because of the earth's gravitational lock, he doesn't either. Nathaniel Branden almost suffered the same fate, but Rand's influence wasn't strong enough to bust him out of psychology. I'm not saying LP shouldn't have been a philosopher, I'm saying he isn't one (he's head of a church, albeit one with an exceedingly strong intellectual bias)--and that's probably why Sydney Hook would not endorse him for a teaching position. Her philosophy is my philosophy is a contradiction in terms. No it isn't: her philosophy is not your philosophy for she insisted that practically her whole smorgasborg of opinions was Objectivism. Go eat that. You can't. You can only pretend. That's what students of Objectivism did back then and that's what the Orthodox do today. Consider this nonsense: "[Objectivism] is a dangerous philosophy to play with or accept half-way: it will stifle the mind that attempts to do so. In this respect, Objectivism, like reality, is its own avenger." ("To Whom it May Concern," The Objectivist, p.8, May, 1968, vol. 7, No. 5.) True. Exactly true, save, presented by her, it's stifling no matter how completely it's embraced/embracing and the more the worse. And why nonsense? Because that is/was the philosophy of only one person and could not be anyone else's. What happened to Nathaniel Branden in 1968 was being hit by Ayn Rand using (her) Objectivism as a weapon. She also chopped down a few other things, like NBI and the affiliated book service and, fortunately, some naive illusions.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the moon does not rotate on its axis because of the earth's gravitational lock, he doesn't either.

Brant,

Good metaphor, but sometimes, alignment with gravitational and magnetic fields are actually innate in living beings.

See here:

Dogs are sensitive to small variations of the Earth's magnetic field

by Vlastimil Hart, Petra Nováková, Erich Pascal Malkemper, Sabine Begall, Vladimír Hanzal, Miloš Ježek, Tomáš Kušta, Veronika Němcová, Jana Adámková, Kateřina Benediktová, Jaroslav Červený and Hynek Burda.

Frontiers in Zoology

27 December 2013

From the article:

Several mammalian species spontaneously align their body axis with respect to the Earth's magnetic field (MF) lines in diverse behavioral contexts. ...

Result

Dogs preferred to excrete with the body being aligned along the North-South axis under calm MF conditions.

Of course, any metaphorical frontloading is purely unintentional...

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll never forget David Kelley's words: "What Leonard Peikoff is giving voice to here is intrinsicism". [T'nT]

Afterwards concisely explaining the fine line between this and subjectivism one has to walk.

Whaat! You mean it's not only subjectivism that's the 'enemy'? Further, that Objectivist's are as prone to it as anyone?? For that insight I can never repay him.

Objectivism was a whole new ball game for me after that. It struck me exactly right, what had been bugging me, and why I'd shifted away from it for so long.

"It will stifle the mind that attempts to do so". Hm. Haven't seen that before.

I will make bold as to mention the unmentionable, that Rand herself could be intrinsicist , on occasions. Countering her own many, vehement exhortations to think independently.

After all, her writing hardly mentions it except as a 'value-without-valuer' fallacious methodology, interestingly.

But I think Rand could pull it off with sheer intellectual power and her wealth of output. Peikoff had probably never got over her standing over his shoulder while writing, giving him hell: "Can't you think in concepts?!"[Related by LP himself]

For all that I respect what I have read of his original material, he's never quite lost that derivative authoritarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always found Peikoff's voice and manner of speaking to be quite annoying.

Were it not for AR he'd probably be flipping burgers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always found Peikoff's voice and manner of speaking to be quite annoying.

Were it not for AR he'd probably be flipping burgers.

You mean like Hugh Akston? :laugh:

Ellen

Well played, Ellen!

Alas, he closed his diner down.

--Brant

I had to go to McDonald's instead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... derivative authoritarianism.

Tony,

What a rich phrase.

A hidden trap in Objectivism is a temptation to derive reality from principles instead of the contrary. Authoritarianism can likewise be derived.

Michael

Quite, Michael, but with the caveat that it sure helps to know what the principles ARE when starting out, to know what goal to aim for. One-way derivation doesn't crack it, as you say - but it takes a whole lot of facts of reality to derive one advanced abstraction -an ounce of precious metal from a mountain of ore- and that takes time, effort and staying rigorously true to what you know. Jumping straight to the principles and implementing them at the drop of a hat, is alluring (I've done it and I know) because they work - very, very effectively. But it is cheating if it's not a self-created concept, and most importantly cheating oneself in the end.

There are times I can almost believe that Objectivism is not for the young... What am I saying! - it has to be so - and the ride is exciting and liberating if you don't let any authoritarianism get to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does a newbie study Objectivism? Jump right in, but generally avoid the Internet.

Be knowledgeable about American history, especially its political-intellectual history and English roots. Without that you're wasting your time.

Read The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal and For the New Intellectual.

Be aware that Prometheus giving you the gift of fire is not conducive to critical thinking which is the true gift you'll not find in this supposed finished product. Officially Rand denied it was a finished product anyway, only she was finished with what she had done to this or that point of time--that that wasn't likely to be changed. But Galt's speech was originally going to be her major if not last exposition on the subject. It was designed to save this (real) world, not that (fictional) world. Or, hello or goodbye, depending on what kind of person you are.

Finally, be aware it is a vertically integrated philosophy embracing four basic principles--that is, metaphysics, epistemology, rational self-interest and freedom logically held together by the basic individualism of a (thinking, autonomous) human being (step 1) with the social aspect off that base (step 2)--and its heart and soul is the ethics. If you are of a libertarian orientation you likely are much more centered on the politics. As for the axiomatic base of the philosophy, it's the same as for good science. Reason applied to reality searching for the truth. Again: each basic principle of the philosophy is starkly individualistic. It is the principles that are absolutist, but not their application! Nobody knows enough to let a philosophy lead him around by the nose and don't let anybody lead you. Utopian thinking will mess you up. The hard rock of truth is existential and is to be carefully examined and used in the context of the tentativeness of knowledge, especially abstractions built upon abstractions.

--Brant

nothing I wrote is to be considered a true and accurate representation of any kind of Objectivism except my own

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be aware that Prometheus giving you the gift of fire is not conducive to critical thinking which is the true gift you'll not find in this supposed finished product. Officially Rand denied it was a finished product anyway, only she was finished with what she had done to this or that point of time--that that wasn't likely to be changed. But Galt's speech was originally going to be her major if not last exposition on the subject. It was designed to save this (real) world, not that (fictional) world. Or, hello or goodbye, depending on what kind of person you are.

Finally, be aware it is a vertically integrated philosophy embracing four basic principles--that is, metaphysics, epistemology, rational self-interest and freedom logically held together by the basic individualism of a (thinking, autonomous) human being (step 1) with the social aspect off that base (step 2)--and its heart and soul is the ethics. If you are of a libertarian orientation you likely are much more centered on the politics. As for the axiomatic base of the philosophy, it's the same as for good science. Reason applied to reality searching for the truth. Again: each basic principle of the philosophy is starkly individualistic. It is the principles that are absolutist, but not their application! Nobody knows enough to let a philosophy lead him around by the nose and don't let anybody lead you. Utopian thinking will mess you up. The hard rock of truth is existential and is to be carefully examined and used in the context of the tentativeness of knowledge, especially abstractions built upon abstractions.

Please tell me that this is the opening paragraph to an article or a book...

it is excellently written...

Kudos.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always found Peikoff's voice and manner of speaking to be quite annoying.

Were it not for AR he'd probably be flipping burgers.

You mean like Hugh Akston? :laugh:

Ellen

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's very flattering. Sometimes I think I do get good enough, high enough, to kiss George H. Smith's feet, if I had a wont to though I don't want to. Any non-fiction book I write would take years of research, a major work of scholarship heavily referenced, but I'm so involved with things as they are right now, it's doubtful.

Really, go read George. As for me, I'm on OL plugging away, searching for brilliance to inflate my ego to bask in its golden glow.

--Brant

you're giving me quite a tan (off to see my dermatologist)

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