Diana Mertz Hsieh Meets The Wall of Hypocrisy


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 309
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Stephen,

The quote I challenged was: “Objectivism, as both a systematized philosophy and a movement, exists because of Dr. Peikoff.”

This is just plain false. The first systematic presentation of the philosophy was by Nathaniel Branden:

In January of 1958, in response to the requests for a detailed, systematic presentation of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Nathaniel conceived the idea of organizing Nathaniel Branden lectures.

Who Is Ayn Rand?, p. 188

As I am sure you know, Ayn Rand fully approved the content of that book. It is true that OPAR provided the first systematic presentation of Objectivism in book form, but that’s not what the statement claimed. Branden’s “Basic Principles” course was the first systematic presentation of Objectivism.

It should also be noted that, by Peikoff’s own admission, his course contained numerous errors which Rand required him to correct. No doubt that’s the reason she refused to elevate him to the same equal status (i.e., equal to her as an authority) that Branden had previously enjoyed.

You say: "The proposition that without Peikoff’s efforts Objectivism as a systematized philosophy would not exist was a proposition put forward by Brook last summer."

That just further confirms my suspicions that ARI is deliberately engaging in the Stalinist practice of rewriting history.

Needless to say, NBI also created the Objectivist movement. In “To Whom It May Concern,” Ayn Rand stated: “The question had been raised that this public repudiation might be a severe blow to the Objectivist movement. . “

Again, the statement giving Peikoff credit for the Objectivist movement is totally false and misrepresents Objectivist history.

The Objectivist movement was well underway long before Peikoff commandeered it. In fact, if he had not usurped Rand’s throne and assumed virtual dictatorship of “official” Objectivism, fraudulently claiming to be Rand’s “intellectual heir” after her death, I am convinced the movement would be immeasurably stronger and more widespread than it is today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking news from Oonline - the links to DMH's activism sites have been removed from the ARI website, as reported by Thomas M. Miovas Jr. on the Checking Premises thread.

Maybe she removed them herself in a bold, courageous act of something or other.

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

Oops, not so fast. 9th is over there and just found that there was only one site, Free Colorado and maybe Colorado has been freed so there is no more need for it.

And I thought I just had my first scoop.

Oh, rats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, rats.

That's right, it's going to be Room 101 for you.

On the OO date rape thread, faced with the charge that my "judgement can't be trusted", I retorted that I only care if people "trust my facts, meaning, am I an honest reporter?" Well, of all the people in O-land, Thomas Miovas is one of, if not the least reliable person I've run into. His facts don't check, he makes shit up...and here he's got me defending Comrade Sonia! I mean WTF!?!?!

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=288526

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23076&view=findpost&p=290271

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen,

The quote I challenged was: “Objectivism, as both a systematized philosophy and a movement, exists because of Dr. Peikoff.”

This is just plain false. The first systematic presentation of the philosophy was by Nathaniel Branden:

In January of 1958, in response to the requests for a detailed, systematic presentation of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Nathaniel conceived the idea of organizing Nathaniel Branden lectures.

Who Is Ayn Rand?, p. 188

As I am sure you know, Ayn Rand fully approved the content of that book. It is true that OPAR provided the first systematic presentation of Objectivism in book form, but that’s not what the statement claimed. Branden’s “Basic Principles” course was the first systematic presentation of Objectivism.

It should also be noted that, by Peikoff’s own admission, his course contained numerous errors which Rand required him to correct. No doubt that’s the reason she refused to elevate him to the same equal status (i.e., equal to her as an authority) that Branden had previously enjoyed.

You say: "The proposition that without Peikoff’s efforts Objectivism as a systematized philosophy would not exist was a proposition put forward by Brook last summer."

That just further confirms my suspicions that ARI is deliberately engaging in the Stalinist practice of rewriting history.

Needless to say, NBI also created the Objectivist movement. In “To Whom It May Concern,” Ayn Rand stated: “The question had been raised that this public repudiation might be a severe blow to the Objectivist movement. . “

Again, the statement giving Peikoff credit for the Objectivist movement is totally false and misrepresents Objectivist history.

The Objectivist movement was well underway long before Peikoff commandeered it. In fact, if he had not usurped Rand’s throne and assumed virtual dictatorship of “official” Objectivism, fraudulently claiming to be Rand’s “intellectual heir” after her death, I am convinced the movement would be immeasurably stronger and more widespread than it is today.

Nathaniel Branden was the one and true entrepreneur of Objectivism.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread’s OO sibling has taken a refreshing turn towards exposing the “idolatry” certain people practice towards Peikoff. It seems that once one has read OPAR it’s a matter of “applied justice” to treat the author like the most delicate hothouse flower. Having read all of Rand’s published material at the time OPAR was first released, my attitude has long been that where it’s good, it’s not original, and where it’s original, it’s not good, but be that as it may, for now I’m here for the lulz.

There’s a new essay on Checking Premises, under the title The Role of Respect in Man's Life.

http://www.checkingp...ses.org/respect

To be respectful means to afford a special consideration to a person in acknowledgment of their achievements that matter to you. It means to treat them specially. It means to demonstrate in action your intellectual and emotional evaluation, to align your body with your mind, your actions with your ideas, and to show integrity in action to your values, and lastly to be just toward those who have earned and deserve your respect. For “to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement.”

Align body with mind, and actions with ideas? Is it just me, or does this not sound like one should kneel before his holiness, and, I don’t know, perform some particular action? Give him a “special consideration”?

1259350.jpg

Go ahead, call me a perv, but I can’t help reading an unwholesome subtext into this. To withhold from him the happy ending he earned with that book would certainly be the act of a rank moral embezzler.

All this is not to deny that we’re dealing with a cultural deficit in respect, as Ali G convincingly argues here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the statement giving Peikoff credit for the Objectivist movement is totally false and misrepresents Objectivist history.

The Objectivist movement was well underway long before Peikoff commandeered it. In fact, if he had not usurped Rand’s throne and assumed virtual dictatorship of “official” Objectivism, fraudulently claiming to be Rand’s “intellectual heir” after her death, I am convinced the movement would be immeasurably stronger and more widespread than it is today.

Nathaniel Branden was the one and true entrepreneur of Objectivism.

--Brant

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of these pieces by Chip Joyce appear to be exploring new territory where sycophancy is concerned.

Objectivism, as both a systematized philosophy and a movement, exists because of Dr. Peikoff. The only reason there is a possibility to profess to be an "Objectivist"-whatever and to hang a shingle, is because of him. They also know they need his sanction, for as long as he is alive.

Stuff like this makes me feel relieved that I am not an Objectivist :)

And I will have to respectfully disagree with Stephen B here. I don't think that Yaron Brook can be trusted, so far as the history of Objectivism is concerned.

According to the chapter on him in Gary Weiss's book Ayn Rand Nation, Brook read Atlas Shrugged in 1977, but didn't really get involved in organized Objectivism until he moved to the United States ten years later. And when he got involved, he started out by meeting Michael Berliner and Leonard Peikoff. Brook's entire career with Objectivism has been in or around ARI.

Brook neither knows the earlier history and sociology from personal acquaintance (he was 7 years old when Rand-Branden hit the fan), nor does his work environment include the most reliable sources on these subjects.

Besides, Yaron Brook is not, and generally does not pretend to be, a philosopher. I doubt he would be able to explain what in the history and philosophy of science John McCaskey and David Harriman were actually disagreeing over, when Harriman got McCaskey run out of ARI.

How, then, could Brook know what Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand does that Basic Principles of Objectivism didn't do (or vice versa)?

Ayn Rand never did write that treatise. OPAR is no substitute.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

Diana Hsieh has not held any faculty position in philosophy.

I used to think her goal was to get a job at the Objectivist Graduate Center.

I wonder whether it has sunk in that, after being called out by Leonard Peikoff, she has no chance of ever attaining it.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, how annoying, I posted on OO and they took it down. On OO my current avatar is an adorable picture of Beaker from the Muppets, don't ask why, but anyway the video makes better sense with the right avatar. Here's the post:

"The Ayn Rand Institute has removed all links from Diana Hsieh on their web site. The time has come to make a choice. Are you with ARI or the group of people who have been mutilating the Objectivist philosophy and insulting Leonard Peikoff?"

Where was this link previously on the ARI site? I just checked, and under "community groups" there's:

Colorado

Front Range Objectivism, Denver, CO

Contact

Diana Hsieh

E-mail

fro@frontrangeobjectivism.com

http://www.aynrand.o...ommunity_groups

I suppose that if this disappears in the near future we'll have some evidence for your purge hypothesis.

I just checked again, and there’s been no change on the ARI website. I think enough time has passed that we can now reject the purge hypothesis. Here’s a thought for you, when you lie, or in your case, repeat a lie, people find out. As a result, whatever position is opposite to your own gains strength. Therefore, next time you’re tempted to lie about other people is O-land, imagine that you’re pressing the start button on a copy machine that’s going to churn out more Kelleyites.

So as I was saying, heard any more juicy excommunication stories lately?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, Ninth.

More line-drawing in the sand. I've stayed out - too many deep waters -

but from what I've read, you're doing sterling work.

I'm of the general opinion that every organisation will tend toward petty politics

and power play, but what is it about Objectivism? The fervor!

(sigh...)

Actually, and I won't earn any brownie points, I think Ms Hsieh is emerging well

from all this: now she's out in the open she is displaying grace, integrity

and independence in her comments and rationale against the attacks.

(Again, from what I've seen.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, and I won't earn any brownie points, I think Ms Hsieh is emerging well

from all this: now she's out in the open she is displaying grace, integrity

and independence in her comments and rationale against the attacks.

(Again, from what I've seen.)

What someone ought to do is put together links to her behavior towards Betsy Speicher in 2006. I’m afraid WSS’s thread title here, particularly the reference to hypocrisy, isn’t demonstrated well enough by the content of the thread. Comrade Sonia went after BS for just the sort of thing that the Checking Premises morons are now complaining about, in that case it had to do with Peikoff's voting directions and the threat of an "imminent theocratic takeover".

If you listen to her 40 minute discussion of date rape, consent for sex, etc., she doesn't mention Peikoff's podcast once. I take this to be a demonstration of the fact that she's out of the Peikoff criticizing business. I call that cowardice.

BTW I got an email from an OO moderator, and his objection is to the Muppet video in the post. 106.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis, concerning #46 and #47:

The idea that Objectivism as a systematized philosophy and as a movement exists because of Dr. Peikoff is not an idea fastened on ignorance of the history of the philosophy and the movement. The view was put forward (in the one example known to me) by Yaron Brook last summer in his presentation “The Objectivist Movement: 50 Years Later.”

I am personally more settled about what is a philosophy (and, as you know, I’m pretty strict about what philosophy is which) than about what is a philosophical movement. The proposition that without Peikoff’s efforts Objectivism as a systematized philosophy would not exist was a proposition put forward by Brook last summer. That was mainly an acknowledgement that OPAR was a systematic presentation of Rand’s philosophy. I remember that from the ’60’s I had thought, “but Rand, you need a grand systematic book-length, pure exposition. Where is your Being and Time or Being and Nothingness or Process and Reality?” She seemed to think somewhat along those lines too, as she would say now and then that she was working on such a book. As life looked to be running out soon, she said that Peikoff’s ’76 lecture series The Philosophy of Objectivism was an accurate systematic presentation, and it was announced that he would be developing it into a book. When she died, I sent him a note encouraging him in this work. He delivered what I expected (less high-brow than those books mentioned above, but you have to make choices on that), and I think Rand would smile to him as I smile to him for that.

Perhaps Rand didn’t need such a book to have her philosophy survive. Plato did not have such a book, and he did all right. Plato’s philosophy, however, was pretty wildly open-ended, kind of like Nietzsche, really. As of Atlas Shrugged, Rand’s philosophy was a lot more systematic than theirs. Rand’s philosophy as presented in the fiction monologues collected in For the New Intellectual, even that fairly unsystematic and incomplete presentation was not nearly so wildly open to interpretation and fantastical development as Plato or Nietzsche.

Be that as it may, Rand got a systematic and more complete presentation of her philosophy in OPAR than had been available in FNI. It has contributed to the survival and understanding of her philosophy as she had developed it. Brook thought that until OPAR was produced and published there was, in some way, not an Objectivist philosophy. I think he had the idea that without a summa such as, say, Process and Reality, you don’t have your philosophy fully systematized and seen in it’s fullness. But his remarks were oral and a little informal here and there. I’m sure he would be more exact if he were to put pen to paper for publication.

Brook indicated that after Rand died, he and others had wondered how much Rand’s novels would continue to be read. He seemed to think that the Ayn Rand Institute had helped enormously with the sales of those books (in 2009 and beyond, there had been boosts from elsewhere, he realized). I don’t know how big the boost from ARI has been, but I certainly always applauded their essay contests on Rand’s novels. Brook told the story of how years ago ARI had gotten into the enter-academia business (for scholars after the generation of established academics Gotthelf and Lennox). Many of the good things that have happened on that front, whether scholarly books or positions at universities and colleges, have happened in part by sustained ARI (including Peikoff) plan. I imagine Brook was squarely right about that.

As to philosophic movements, well, there was the logical positivist movement. Not just a school, it is said, but a philosophic movement (not to be confused with a political movement). I’m inclined to think that what was of most value were the movements in the individual minds in that “movement” and the influence they had on each other and later thinkers. I agree with the line attributed to Newton, “the world is moved by the power of patient thinking.”

The “Objectivist movement”? If that is something initiated by an institution NBI, perhaps it is something kept going by subsequent institutions such as ARI and David Kelley’s institute. Or for that matter, by the institution that is this site.

Stephen:

If you would care to say so, I would be interested in hearing something about the reception you recieve at Orthodox conferences, such as the one you reference above from last summer. I am assuming you attended the conference, given your comments. Are you considered by the Orthodox folk a "False Friend", do they treat you with appropriate respect, or are you simply ignored?

I am not simply trolling for gossip here.

I find it very interesting how the Orthodox Objectivism has in many ways seemed to have caved in on itself, and become a philosophical "in grown toe nail." I sensed this was coming 25 years ago, and dodged a bullet by going into the "real world," rather than becoming an Objectivist Academic.

My sense is that a modern Howard Roark, for instance, would probably refuse to shake Gail Wynand's hand, if you know what I mean--not only bad for the plot line, but also revealing of a form of psychological weakness unbecoming a Randian hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it very interesting how the Orthodox Objectivism has in many ways seemed to have caved in on itself, and become a philosophical "in grown toe nail." I sensed this was coming 25 years ago, and dodged a bullet by going into the "real world," rather than becoming an Objectivist Academic.

David,

I made a similar choice, around the same time. I attended some graduate courses in philosophy with every intention of obtaining a university position and working with ARI, but decided my differences with the Objectivist hierarchy were too great for me to continue moving in that direction. I switched to psychology, a field where I could operate independently of academia and institutional Objectivism.

It was a decision I have never regretted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it very interesting how the Orthodox Objectivism has in many ways seemed to have caved in on itself, and become a philosophical "in grown toe nail." I sensed this was coming 25 years ago, and dodged a bullet by going into the "real world," rather than becoming an Objectivist Academic.

David,

I made a similar choice, around the same time. I attended some graduate courses in philosophy with every intention of obtaining a university position and working with ARI, but decided my differences with the Objectivist hierarchy were too great for me to continue moving in that direction. I switched to psychology, a field where I could operate independently of academia and institutional Objectivism.

It was a decision I have never regretted

Amen, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it very interesting how the Orthodox Objectivism has in many ways seemed to have caved in on itself, and become a philosophical "in grown toe nail." I sensed this was coming 25 years ago, and dodged a bullet by going into the "real world," rather than becoming an Objectivist Academic.

David,

I made a similar choice, around the same time. I attended some graduate courses in philosophy with every intention of obtaining a university position and working with ARI, but decided my differences with the Objectivist hierarchy were too great for me to continue moving in that direction. I switched to psychology, a field where I could operate independently of academia and institutional Objectivism.

It was a decision I have never regretted

Amen, so to speak.

Very interesting. I wonder how many aspiring Objectivist academics were similarly turned away from that path. And what is the current state of the grand plan to foist bestow Objectivist professors on mainstream academia, and conquer Harvard and Yale with the power of reason? I doubt that the subject of this thread would say no to a nice little niche in the Ivy League.

If Objectivism wants to swell the ranks, I think they should forget the universities and go for infiltrating the Catholic schools, where huddled masses yearn to breathe free. Catch them young and train them your way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I have attended only two of the summer conferences attached to ARI, the one last year and one in 1992. I was treated with respect and friendliness all around at both of them. I would not be considered a “false friend” by anyone who has read my writing. I have been perfectly open about the ways in which I agree with and disagree with Rand’s philosophy. My respect and affection for Rand and for scholars who have concentrated on her work is also pervasive in my writings.

When I attended in 1992, I was publishing Objectivity. That was not an Objectivist publication, though I welcomed essays from authors sympathetic to Objectivism. It was open to anyone friendly towards objectivity, rationality, and modern science. That the publication took Rand’s ideas seriously was perhaps as bright to Objectivists and quasi-Objectivists as it was dark to those in the wider culture who despise Rand and her ideas. (I got some of the Rand-was-an-idiot, an ignoramus, a psycho, . . .-mail from the latter, because they saw Rand’s ideas being studied seriously and generally sympathetically by bright scholarly people in my journal. Fortunately, I also got letters saying things like “Don’t ever change the name of your journal—you practice it” and “I hope you live forever.”)

At the 1992 conference, I attended four lecture series. Two were good, and two were not good for me because they were too elementary. The series I attended last summer were all excellent, and I’m pretty sure the series I could not attend were of the same high caliber and of value, within each series, to people with different levels of philosophical training. I met some of the nicest people. Overall, it was a wonderful experience.

The only nasty thing I saw there were the brief parts of Yaron Brook’s presentation on the history of Objectivist advocacy that brushed David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden. (In the hallways later, I heard others who were displeased by that element of stale, petty punching.) The larger and more important part of that presentation revealed a lot of history of ARI initiatives over the years of my absence that was impressive indeed.

David, I think that 25 years ago, and even today for the most part, one could not become an Objectivist professional academic. One needed to become a professional academic in something else in philosophy, get established, then maybe later add some public writings concerning Objectivism.

I think your sense of the ARI network of thinkers caving in on itself is illusory. In recent years, a few Objectivists in that network have found steady positions in colleges and universities and have published works on Objectivism. The presses of their Objectivist works include Cambridge, Pittsburgh, Rowman & Littlefield, Lexington, and University Press. The present is pregnant with the future –Leibniz

I do not know how much recognition of Objectivist philosophy as a serious philosophy (rather than being regarded as only a street alternative to supernaturalism and as a moral rationalization for capitalism) might be won in the next fifty years. Perhaps significant further development of it, close comparison of it with other philosophies, and genuine, serious criticism of it will continue to come from independent scholars such as me in public forums such as this one and from scholars, academic and independent, in Reason Papers and Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Perhaps positions held by Objectivists in academia and Objectivist writings in academic and other respected presses will decline to none.

Rand’s novels will remain. Some minds will recognize themselves and awaken in reading them.

One thing for which principals in and around ARI are proud is that they have “kept Rand’s philosophy pure.” That is a positive thing by me. Fidelity and competence in representation is a good thing. Logically, that by itself does not preclude discerning new, significant, genuinely and contextually logical implications of the philosophy (which of course, are necessarily true to the philosophy).$ I also think a philosophy that is systematic and is comprehensible to a great many educated people who are not scholars can prosper by a mid-level catechism or two. That is one merit I saw for the proposed book by David Kelley The Logical Structure of Objectivism and Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. I don’t mean by catechism a work explicating a faith and accepted in any part on authority, such as the author having a Ph.D. and having been close to Rand or having had an article in The Objectivist. By mid-level I mean above the fully popular level of the Principal Doctrines of Epicurianism.* Closer to the latter would be collections of short quotations of Rand; collections of longer philosophic passages from her novels, which is For the New Intellectual; and the collection The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Regardless of which side thinkers have taken in the (highly equivocal) open/closed issue, if they have sufficient learning in philosophy and its history more generally, they continue to create fresh, informative work uncovering ramifications of Rand’s philosophy, setting it in ever-greater contrast and connection with other philosophies. Then they say what they have produced is under the open conception or under the closed conception. Most scholars of Objectivism, however, do as I do. They tend to the grain and ignore that hyped chaff. Back to the grain for me.

Previously: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H

I digressed, David. Quite a few people at such conferences who are not acquaintances of mine recognize by my face who I am, thanks to web images. Others see my name tag and recognize. Some talk to me about things I have written at this site (not about which-side-are-you-on stuff, which would carry the disrespectful insinuation that my own work and priorities are of secondary interest). As you can see from the arithmetic of reads in my Corner, most who read my writing here could not plausibly be people who are posting here. The social feel for me at the two ARI-related conferences I have attended was one of warm cordiality. Not ignored or snubbed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

$

. . . I do not regard extensions I make from Rand’s philosophy primarily as further definition of Objectivism. I develop parts of Rand’s philosophy further than she had, and some of this could sensibly be said to be implicit in certain parts of her philosophy (not to say that Rand had the technical background, time, or inclination to make those developments). They are my own quest, and the sum, including much debt to Rand and some at odds with Rand, is my own philosophy.

Objectivism is the name of the philosophy formulated by Ayn Rand. I know that David Kelley has long aimed to contribute to the definition of what is Objectivism. That is simply a different aim than mine. However, I see at his organization's site these days that he says that Objectivism is the name of the philosophy founded by Ayn Rand. That gets off on the wrong foot in an introduction. It sells Rand short by way of understatement. I'm quite sure David is not attached to such a short sell, nor to the picture that bright thinkers now and in the future will be providing definition of Objectivism showing Rand was only a little ways along with the task, nor to the picture that every true-to-reality correction of Rand's philosophy is just a further definition of Objectivism. Likely the short-selling introductory statement is a sales gimmick for "open" Objectivism as David conceives an open philosophy (and not as all comers conceive or hope it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I have attended only two of the summer conferences attached to ARI, the one last year and one in 1992. I was treated with respect and friendliness all around at both of them. I would not be considered a “false friend” by anyone who has read my writing. I have been perfectly open about the ways in which I agree with and disagree with Rand’s philosophy. My respect and affection for Rand and for scholars who have concentrated on her work is also pervasive in my writings.

When I attended in 1992, I was publishing Objectivity. That was not an Objectivist publication, though I welcomed essays from authors sympathetic to Objectivism. It was open to anyone friendly towards objectivity, rationality, and modern science. That the publication took Rand’s ideas seriously was perhaps as bright to Objectivists and quasi-Objectivists as it was dark to those in the wider culture who despise Rand and her ideas. (I got some of the Rand-was-an-idiot, an ignoramus, a psycho, . . .-mail from the latter, because they saw Rand’s ideas being studied seriously and generally sympathetically by bright scholarly people in my journal. Fortunately, I also got letters saying things like “Don’t ever change the name of your journal—you practice it” and “I hope you live forever.”)

At the 1992 conference, I attended four lecture series. Two were good, and two were not good for me because they were too elementary. The series I attended last summer were all excellent, and I’m pretty sure the series I could not attend were of the same high caliber and of value, within each series, to people with different levels of philosophical training. I met some of the nicest people. Overall, it was a wonderful experience.

The only nasty thing I saw there were the brief parts of Yaron Brook’s presentation on the history of Objectivist advocacy that brushed David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden. (In the hallways later, I heard others who were displeased by that element of stale, petty punching.) The larger and more important part of that presentation revealed a lot of history of ARI initiatives over the years of my absence that was impressive indeed.

David, I think that 25 years ago, and even today for the most part, one could not become an Objectivist professional academic. One needed to become a professional academic in something else in philosophy, get established, then maybe later add some public writings concerning Objectivism.

I think your sense of the ARI network of thinkers caving in on itself is illusory. In recent years, a few Objectivists in that network have found steady positions in colleges and universities and have published works on Objectivism. The presses of their Objectivist works include Cambridge, Pittsburgh, Rowman & Littlefield, Lexington, and University Press. The present is pregnant with the future –Leibniz

I do not know how much recognition of Objectivist philosophy as a serious philosophy (rather than being regarded as only a street alternative to supernaturalism and as a moral rationalization for capitalism) might be won in the next fifty years. Perhaps significant further development of it, close comparison of it with other philosophies, and genuine, serious criticism of it will continue to come from independent scholars such as me in public forums such as this one and from scholars, academic and independent, in Reason Papers and Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Perhaps positions held by Objectivists in academia and Objectivist writings in academic and other respected presses will decline to none.

Rand’s novels will remain. Some minds will recognize themselves and awaken in reading them.

One thing for which principals in and around ARI are proud is that they have “kept Rand’s philosophy pure.” That is a positive thing by me. Fidelity and competence in representation is a good thing. Logically, that by itself does not preclude discerning new, significant, genuinely and contextually logical implications of the philosophy (which of course, are necessarily true to the philosophy).$ I also think a philosophy that is systematic and is comprehensible to a great many educated people who are not scholars can prosper by a mid-level catechism or two. That is one merit I saw for the proposed book by David Kelley The Logical Structure of Objectivism and Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. I don’t mean by catechism a work explicating a faith and accepted in any part on authority, such as the author having a Ph.D. and having been close to Rand or having had an article in The Objectivist. By mid-level I mean above the fully popular level of the Principal Doctrines of Epicurianism.* Closer to the latter would be collections of short quotations of Rand; collections of longer philosophic passages from her novels, which is For the New Intellectual; and the collection The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Regardless of which side thinkers have taken in the (highly equivocal) open/closed issue, if they have sufficient learning in philosophy and its history more generally, they continue to create fresh, informative work uncovering ramifications of Rand’s philosophy, setting it in ever-greater contrast and connection with other philosophies. Then they say what they have produced is under the open conception or under the closed conception. Most scholars of Objectivism, however, do as I do. They tend to the grain and ignore that hyped chaff. Back to the grain for me.

Previously: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H

I digressed, David. Quite a few people at such conferences who are not acquaintances of mine recognize by my face who I am, thanks to web images. Others see my name tag and recognize. Some talk to me about things I have written at this site (not about which-side-are-you-on stuff, which would carry the disrespectful insinuation that my own work and priorities are of secondary interest). As you can see from the arithmetic of reads in my Corner, most who read my writing here could not plausibly be people who are posting here. The social feel for me at the two ARI-related conferences I have attended was one of warm cordiality. Not ignored or snubbed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

$

. . . I do not regard extensions I make from Rand’s philosophy primarily as further definition of Objectivism. I develop parts of Rand’s philosophy further than she had, and some of this could sensibly be said to be implicit in certain parts of her philosophy (not to say that Rand had the technical background, time, or inclination to make those developments). They are my own quest, and the sum, including much debt to Rand and some at odds with Rand, is my own philosophy.

Objectivism is the name of the philosophy formulated by Ayn Rand. I know that David Kelley has long aimed to contribute to the definition of what is Objectivism. That is simply a different aim than mine. However, I see at his organization's site these days that he says that Objectivism is the name of the philosophy founded by Ayn Rand. That gets off on the wrong foot in an introduction. It sells Rand short by way of understatement. I'm quite sure David is not attached to such a short sell, nor to the picture that bright thinkers now and in the future will be providing definition of Objectivism showing Rand was only a little ways along with the task, nor to the picture that every true-to-reality correction of Rand's philosophy is just a further definition of Objectivism. Likely the short-selling introductory statement is a sales gimmick for "open" Objectivism as David conceives an open philosophy (and not as all comers conceive or hope it).

Stephen: thanks for the thorough and thoughtful response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be considered a “false friend” by anyone who has read my writing. I have been perfectly open about the ways in which I agree with and disagree with Rand’s philosophy. My respect and affection for Rand and for scholars who have concentrated on her work is also pervasive in my writings.

Stephen,

Writing about Rand or Objectivism and taking a position contrary to Leonard Peikoff's is all that's required for you to be labeled a "false friend of Objectivism."

I wasn't calling myself an Objectivist when I started being so labeled.

Neither were Chris Sciabarra nor a host of others.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism is the name of the philosophy formulated by Ayn Rand.

Stephen,

I agree with your definition as stated.

Do you think that Leonard Peikoff is entitled to make changes or additions to Objectivism?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your sense of the ARI network of thinkers caving in on itself is illusory. In recent years, a few Objectivists in that network have found steady positions in colleges and universities and have published works on Objectivism. The presses of their Objectivist works include Cambridge, Pittsburgh, Rowman & Littlefield, Lexington, and University Press. The present is pregnant with the future –Leibniz

Stephen,

I wouldn't say that it's caving in on itself. If only because such a process will necessarily be slow: the ARI affiliates who have landed tenured positions will remain in them for years to come. Alan Gotthelf is past retirement age, but Tara Smith, Robert Mayhew, and Darryl Wright are nowhere near it.

Along with the publications you mention, there are some developments you haven't mentioned:

• The Anthem Foundation is now minus John McCaskey, after he was ousted in a fit of Peikovian pique. What impact will this have on its effectiveness?

• The Ayn Rand Society is being gradually taken over by ARIans. (This will work, from the ARIan standpoint, if ARS doesn't lose its non-ARIan constituency in the process—or if it grows so much as to make the loss of non-ARIans a non-concern.)

• The younger ARI-affiliated philosopher who is getting the biggest push, Greg Salmieri, hasn't gotten a tenure-track job yet.

• Alan Gotthelf (and Greg Salmieri's) compendium, supposedly forthcoming from Blackwell, has kept slipping its announced publication date.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism is the name of the philosophy formulated by Ayn Rand.

Stephen,

I agree with your definition as stated.

Do you think that Leonard Peikoff is entitled to make changes or additions to Objectivism?

Robert Campbell

Of course. Not only Leonard. It is a matter of logic and what is essential to the philosophy formulated by Rand. If Rand had something self-contradictory in her philosophy, then resolving it does not always change the philosophy so far as to no longer be that philosophy. Likewise for correcting an untruth in the philosophy.

An addition to the philosophy that is genuinely a logical implication of the philosophy is part of the philosophy. Pasch's theorem was an implication of Euclidean geometry for over two millenia (in fact it makes a good axiom for that geometry) without anyone, including Euclid, knowing about it. A new application of the philosophy may or may not be part of the philosophy depending on whether the fit is uniquely right and whether the application is philosophy.

If Rand or anyone else thought that nothing in her philosophy could be changed or added to, then she or they were simply wrong about that. I've seen a statement from Einstein along such lines of "entirely immutable, else collapse" trotted out in criticisms of his relativity theories as well. In his case as well as in Rand's, that key to toppling the system is no true key at all.

Philosophy is for intelligence. As Rand once remarked, "It is not fools I seek to address."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that Leonard Peikoff is entitled to make changes or additions to Objectivism?

Of course. Not only Leonard. It is a matter of logic and what is essential to the philosophy formulated by Rand. If Rand had something self-contradictory in her philosophy, then resolving it does not always change the philosophy so far as to no longer be that philosophy. Likewise for correcting an untruth in the philosophy.

An addition to the philosophy that is genuinely a logical implication of the philosophy is part of the philosophy. Pasch's theorem was an implication of Euclidean geometry for over two millenia (in fact it makes a good axiom for that geometry) without anyone, including Euclid, knowing about it. A new application of the philosophy may or may not be part of the philosophy depending on whether the fit is uniquely right and whether the application is philosophy.

If Rand or anyone else thought that nothing in her philosophy could be changed or added to, then she or they were simply wrong about that. I've seen a statement from Einstein along such lines of "entirely immutable, else collapse" trotted out in criticisms of his relativity theories as well. In his case as well as in Rand's, that key to toppling the system is no true key at all.

Philosophy is for intelligence. As Rand once remarked, "It is not fools I seek to address."

Which means that Peikoff as well would have to agree to additions made by others, or to corrections made by others of errors in the philosophy.

But has he ever done that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Rand or anyone else thought that nothing in her philosophy could be changed or added to, then she or they were simply wrong about that.

Stephen,

Whether Rand thought that or not, Leonard Peikoff is on record saying that nothing can be changed or added to Objectivism.

By anyone who is not Ayn Rand.

Which of course would include Leonard Peikoff.

Yet he has also demanded, at one time or another, that his own work post-1982 be accorded the same status as Rand's work.

He has even demanded that the work of certain of his protégés be accorded the same status as Rand's work.

That's what the McCaskey ouster was about, so far as I can determine.

Robert Campbell

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