Objectivist Fundamentalism,

[Dennis Hardin]

I was thinking about how I might try to summarize some of the key points of Barbara’s lecture when I came across a website devoted to Christian fundamentalism. One particular passage seemed to say it all. I did have to make a few changes beyond substituting “Objectivism” for “Christianity,” but not all that many. Please note that this is my summation, not Barbara’s. I do not mean to speak for her, and I humbly apologize in advance if I have misrepresented her in any way.

Objectivist fundamentalists share important key traits with religious fundamentalists. They are certain that they alone possess true knowledge of the fundamentals of Objectivism and that they therefore represent “true” Objectivism based on the authority of a literally interpreted Ayn Rand. They believe it is their duty to carry on the great battle of modern history, the battle of God (i.e., Rand) against Satan (i.e., the Brandens), of light against darkness, and to stamp out all dissenters who attempt to undermine Objectivism. Faced with this titanic, historical struggle, they condemn any non-orthodox “objectivists” as unfaithful to Rand and therefore not genuinely Objectivist. They call for a return to an inerrant and infallible Objectivist canon based on a purified, idolized image of Rand and her “official” statement of the Objectivist doctrines, from which there shall be no deviation. Any criticism of Rand herself is immediately deemed evil and blasphemous. Fundamentalist leaders typically deny allegations of personal power-lust, but their demand for blind, unquestioning obedience suggests otherwise. To accomplish their imperious, tyrannical goals, they use every means available—including cruel, vitriolic screeds (i.e., PARC), vicious public denunciations based on an appeal to arbitrary moral authority and the flagrant rewriting of history—to defend their ideological domain and propagate their fundamentalist faith and practice.

[Barbara Branden]

I was thinking about how I might try to summarize some of the key points of Barbara’s lecture when I came across a website devoted to Christian fundamentalism. One particular passage seemed to say it all. I did have to make a few changes beyond substituting “Objectivism” for “Christianity,” but not all that many. Please note that this is my summation, not Barbara’s. I do not mean to speak for her, and I humbly apologize in advance if I have misrepresented her in any way.

Objectivist fundamentalists share important key traits with religious fundamentalists. They are certain that they alone possess true knowledge of the fundamentals of Objectivism and that they therefore represent “true” Objectivism based on the authority of a literally interpreted Ayn Rand. They believe it is their duty to carry on the great battle of modern history, the battle of God (i.e., Rand) against Satan (i.e., the Brandens), of light against darkness, and to stamp out all dissenters who attempt to undermine Objectivism. Faced with this titanic, historical struggle, they condemn any non-orthodox “objectivists” as unfaithful to Rand and therefore not genuinely Objectivist. They call for a return to an inerrant and infallible Objectivist canon based on a purified, idolized image of Rand and her “official” statement of the Objectivist doctrines, from which there shall be no deviation. Any criticism of Rand herself is immediately deemed evil and blasphemous. Fundamentalist leaders typically deny allegations of personal power-lust, but their demand for blind, unquestioning obedience suggests otherwise. To accomplish their imperious, tyrannical goals, they use every means available—including cruel, vitriolic screeds (i.e., PARC), vicious public denunciations based on an appeal to arbitrary moral authority and the flagrant rewriting of history—to defend their ideological domain and propagate their fundamentalist faith and practice.

Dennis, your summary is exact. Thank you.

Barbara

[Robert Campbell]

Dennis,

You've described Objectivist fundmentalism perfectly.

The fundies' rewriting of history extends all the way to rewriting Rand herself, with permission obtained from the arbitrary moral authority exercised by Leonard Peikoff.

Robert Campbell

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis,

You've described Objectivist fundmentalism perfectly.

The fundies' rewriting of history extends all the way to rewriting Rand herself, with permission obtained from the arbitrary moral authority exercised by Leonard Peikoff.

Robert Campbell

Barbara and Robert—Thank you! I really wish I could take full credit for this summation, but I might be accused of plagiarism from the author of the article on Christian fundamentalism. The similarities are quite amazing. The principles are essentially the same. Only the concretes differ.

Isn’t it a riot? Peikoff and his sycophants think they are blazing a radical new trail through philosophical history, when, in fact, their version of Objectivism perpetuates the same madness that ushered in the long, barbaric nightmare of the Middle Ages. You can’t ask people to surrender their brains, no matter how wonderfully rational your explicit philosophy might be. As soon as men begin acting like sheep, there’s no telling what new horrors could engulf the world.

I heard George H. Smith give an excellent talk on ‘Objectivism and Religion’ back in the early 70s, shortly after I moved to California from Tennessee. I remember thinking that the issue would resolve itself as soon as the Rand-Branden schism was no longer in the forefront. After all, in her PLAYBOY interview, Ayn Rand said that ‘Objectivism is its own defense against those who would treat it as a dogma.’ But that was before she chose Leonard Peikoff as her new intellectual heir.

When Bush looked into Putin’s eyes, he should have seen the soul of Joseph Stalin. When Rand looked into Peikoff’s eyes, she should have seen the soul of Immanuel Kant.

[9thdoctor]

But that was before she chose Leonard Peikoff as her new intellectual heir.

It bears repeating that there is no confirmed evidence that Rand designated him as her “intellectual heir”, that is, beyond the rumoured codicil stuffed inside Russell’s teapot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Just wondering, why does it say “former member” under your picture?

[Dennis Hardin]

But that was before she chose Leonard Peikoff as her new intellectual heir.

It bears repeating that there is no confirmed evidence that Rand designated him as her “intellectual heir”, that is, beyond the rumoured codicil stuffed inside Russell’s teapot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Just wondering, why does it say “former member” under your picture?

Now that you mention it, I do not recall ever reading a statement by Rand endorsing Peikoff as her philosophical “heir” in the same way that she had previously sanctioned Branden (in the original “Afterword” to ATLAS SHRUGGED). I clearly remember a Q&A session following a taped NBI lecture in which Rand explicitly told Branden that he had, in effect, “a blank check” to speak for her. Her introduction to THE OMINOUS PARALLELS was somewhat guarded and delimited to that book, which she had personally overhauled from beginning to end. Perhaps she did have strong reservations about extending any intellectual authority to Peikoff, and for good reason. As her (self-proclaimed?) intellectual heir, he has been a walking-talking disaster.

I was a “former member” for a long time and recently rejoined OL after a prolonged leave of absence. I guess Michael will get around to correcting that tag eventually. The main reason for my departure no longer applies and is undeserving of further attention.

[George H. Smith]

Dennis,

You've described Objectivist fundmentalism perfectly.

The fundies' rewriting of history extends all the way to rewriting Rand herself, with permission obtained from the arbitrary moral authority exercised by Leonard Peikoff.

Robert Campbell

Barbara and Robert—Thank you! I really wish I could take full credit for this summation, but I might be accused of plagiarism from the author of the article on Christian fundamentalism. The similarities are quite amazing. The principles are essentially the same. Only the concretes differ.

Isn’t it a riot? Peikoff and his sycophants think they are blazing a radical new trail through philosophical history, when, in fact, their version of Objectivism perpetuates the same madness that ushered in the long, barbaric nightmare of the Middle Ages. You can’t ask people to surrender their brains, no matter how wonderfully rational your explicit philosophy might be. As soon as men begin acting like sheep, there’s no telling what new horrors could engulf the world.

I heard George H. Smith give an excellent talk on ‘Objectivism and Religion’ back in the early 70s, shortly after I moved to California from Tennessee. I remember thinking that the issue would resolve itself as soon as the Rand-Branden schism was no longer in the forefront. After all, in her PLAYBOY interview, Ayn Rand said that ‘Objectivism is its own defense against those who would treat it as a dogma.’ But that was before she chose Leonard Peikoff as her new intellectual heir.

When Bush looked into Putin’s eyes, he should have seen the soul of Joseph Stalin. When Rand looked into Peikoff’s eyes, she should have seen the soul of Immanuel Kant.

Hey, Dennis, good to see that you are alive and kicking.

I have never been a good prognosticator, but perhaps my worst prediction of all time occurred not long after Ayn Rand's death in 1982. In a talk for some supper club or other in the L.A. area, I predicted that the dogmatic wing of Objectivism would not long survive Rand's passing, at least not as a significant force.

My prediction was based on the belief that dogmatic Objectivism was largely a charismatic phenomenon, one sustained by Rand's extraordinary personal characteristics. I speculated that Peikoff, lacking Rand's charisma, would be unable to exercise the tight control needed to maintain an orthodox movement.

What I didn't foresee was the institutionalization of orthodoxy through ARI, nor did I appreciate how Peikoff's closely guarded monopoly on Rand's papers would stifle future scholarship by denying access to writers with different points of view.

Rand has become far more of a cultish icon under ARI than she ever was under NBI. Having been ordained by Peikoff, who in turn was ordained by Rand herself, ARI passes the only true Rational Spirit to future generations of believers.

The next occupant of the See of St. Peikoff remains to be seen, but I don't think it will matter that much. So long as the person is not totally incompetent, ARI will continue to exert influence into the foreseeable future.

Let us hope that this prediction is as bad as my earlier prediction. 8-)

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

r.

When Bush looked into Putin's eyes, he should have seen the soul of Joseph Stalin. When Rand looked into Peikoff's eyes, she should have seen the soul of Immanuel Kant.

I don't doubt for a minute that Putin is a thug, but has he had seven million kulaks killed and does he operate a gulag? As to L.P., whatever else you think of I. Kant, Kant was intellectually brilliant. The same cannot be said of L.P..

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Dennis,

You've described Objectivist fundmentalism perfectly.

The fundies' rewriting of history extends all the way to rewriting Rand herself, with permission obtained from the arbitrary moral authority exercised by Leonard Peikoff.

Robert Campbell

Barbara and Robert—Thank you! I really wish I could take full credit for this summation, but I might be accused of plagiarism from the author of the article on Christian fundamentalism. The similarities are quite amazing. The principles are essentially the same. Only the concretes differ.

Isn’t it a riot? Peikoff and his sycophants think they are blazing a radical new trail through philosophical history, when, in fact, their version of Objectivism perpetuates the same madness that ushered in the long, barbaric nightmare of the Middle Ages. You can’t ask people to surrender their brains, no matter how wonderfully rational your explicit philosophy might be. As soon as men begin acting like sheep, there’s no telling what new horrors could engulf the world.

I heard George H. Smith give an excellent talk on ‘Objectivism and Religion’ back in the early 70s, shortly after I moved to California from Tennessee. I remember thinking that the issue would resolve itself as soon as the Rand-Branden schism was no longer in the forefront. After all, in her PLAYBOY interview, Ayn Rand said that ‘Objectivism is its own defense against those who would treat it as a dogma.’ But that was before she chose Leonard Peikoff as her new intellectual heir.

When Bush looked into Putin’s eyes, he should have seen the soul of Joseph Stalin. When Rand looked into Peikoff’s eyes, she should have seen the soul of Immanuel Kant.

Hey, Dennis, good to see that you are alive and kicking.

I have never been a good prognosticator, but perhaps my worst prediction of all time occurred not long after Ayn Rand's death in 1982. In a talk for some supper club or other in the L.A. area, I predicted that the dogmatic wing of Objectivism would not long survive Rand's passing, at least not as a significant force.

My prediction was based on the belief that dogmatic Objectivism was largely a charismatic phenomenon, one sustained by Rand's extraordinary personal characteristics. I speculated that Peikoff, lacking Rand's charisma, would be unable to exercise the tight control needed to maintain an orthodox movement.

What I didn't foresee was the institutionalization of orthodoxy through ARI, nor did I appreciate how Peikoff's closely guarded monopoly on Rand's papers would stifle future scholarship by denying access to writers with different points of view.

Rand has become far more of a cultish icon under ARI than she ever was under NBI. Having been ordained by Peikoff, who in turn was ordained by Rand herself, ARI passes the only true Rational Spirit to future generations of believers.

The next occupant of the See of St. Peikoff remains to be seen, but I don't think it will matter that much. So long as the person is not totally incompetent, ARI will continue to exert influence into the foreseeable future.

Let us hope that this prediction is as bad as my earlier prediction. 8-)

Ghs

Ghs: I'm sorry your prediction was wrong. I think they have made an excellent choice with Yuron Brook and the demoting of Michael Berliner.

Sadly Open Objectivism is not doing well. One example is person who runs the DC ARI office attended TAS Summer Seminar years ago. I have not heard of anyone who has stopped attended ARI events for TAS events.

[Brant Gaede]

this space reserved for evil

Edited April 30, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Ghs: I'm sorry your prediction was wrong. I think they have made an excellent choice with Yuron Brook and the demoting of Michael Berliner.

Sadly Open Objectivism is not doing well. One example is person who runs the DC ARI office attended TAS Summer Seminar years ago. I have not heard of anyone who has stopped attended ARI events for TAS events.

"Open Objectivism" isn't a movement nor can it be one. It is ideas held and used by various and many people in different ways. The ARI model is not for independent thinkers who also don't need the TAS one either. Money flows to dogmatism because for some people with money that's easier than actually trying to think through and deal with these ideas which, after all, sound right, especially after reading Atlas.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

Hey, Dennis, good to see that you are alive and kicking.

I have never been a good prognosticator, but perhaps my worst prediction of all time occurred not long after Ayn Rand's death in 1982. In a talk for some supper club or other in the L.A. area, I predicted that the dogmatic wing of Objectivism would not long survive Rand's passing, at least not as a significant force.

My prediction was based on the belief that dogmatic Objectivism was largely a charismatic phenomenon, one sustained by Rand's extraordinary personal characteristics. I speculated that Peikoff, lacking Rand's charisma, would be unable to exercise the tight control needed to maintain an orthodox movement.

What I didn't foresee was the institutionalization of orthodoxy through ARI, nor did I appreciate how Peikoff's closely guarded monopoly on Rand's papers would stifle future scholarship by denying access to writers with different points of view.

Rand has become far more of a cultish icon under ARI than she ever was under NBI. Having been ordained by Peikoff, who in turn was ordained by Rand herself, ARI passes the only true Rational Spirit to future generations of believers.

The next occupant of the See of St. Peikoff remains to be seen, but I don't think it will matter that much. So long as the person is not totally incompetent, ARI will continue to exert influence into the foreseeable future.

Let us hope that this prediction is as bad as my earlier prediction. 8-)

Ghs

Hi George,

Wow! Amazing how time flies. Can you believe we are sexagenarians now?

I must be a much worse prognosticator than you, because I was convinced that Objectivism would have had a huge impact on the world by now. Every day, I am amazed when I hear seemingly intelligent people talking about Jesus Christ, intelligent design, etc., etc. It makes me wonder how they can dress themselves in the morning. I try to be sympathetic and nonjudgmental and make an effort to communicate, but boy-oh-boy, I cannot help but feel some sense of despair. I am not condeming them; I truly would like to understand how they could still be spouting stuff I rejected as totally illogical fifty years ago.

Did you ever hear Peikoff's course on "Understanding Objectivism," given soon after Ayn Rand's death? I thought it was terrific and that it suggested he would move Objectivism in a constructive direction of reaching out to those who might disagree on various points. He actually seemed to want to help people understand rather than preach down to them. Alas, that did not last long. His true colors were soon to emerge. As you say, Objectivism is even more of a cult now than when Rand was alive, and I think it is largely a testimony to the emotional power of authoritative moral judgment. Peikoff has assumed the role of the Grand Inquisitor, while offering true believers an easy path to salvation: idolize Rand as perfect in every way and join me in my condemnations of Branden, Kelley, Reisman, ad nauseum. He even said as much in the Q & A period after his "Fact and Value" lecture announcing the Kelley schism. (Oh yeah, and there's a third step in the ascendance to moral purity: you had better agree that Objectivism is a closed system or you are a no-good, worthless, corrupt "tolerationist.")

If anyone ever wanted a public demonstration of the power of moral judgment, all they would need to do is ask Peikoff's legions of obedient sycophants if they can do a better job of defending those three positions than Peikoff has. It is sad to see alleged Objectivists try to wallow through that muck. But they obviously feel it does not matter what they say in defending that nonsense: "Father Peikoff likes me if I believe this way, so my soul is safe from persecution." Truly pathetic.

For Peikoff's sake, I hope we are right to deny all the silly speculation about an afterlife. If Peikoff ever does cross paths with Rand again in some mystical never-never land, she will surely show him the true meaning of Hell. She invested all that time and energy writing Atlas Shrugged to change the world, and he has done everything he could to bury her ideas under the moralistic cloak of a lunatic fringe.

From what I have seen, I think Yaron Brook may be a step in the right direction. He has shown no reluctance to address any audience which he believes might be sympathetic to Rand's ideas, and so far (strangely) Peikoff has given him free reign. Time will tell. (I started to say, "we shall see," and then I remembered I am 62. Sigh.)

[9thdoctor]

He even said as much in the Q & A period after his "Fact and Value" lecture announcing the Kelley schism.

Are you sure there was a lecture? I've never heard of it, I thought there was just the essay, and that he's in fact publicly refused to discuss the subject further. The truth was revealed in all its henceforth self-evident glory in that essay.

[Alfonso Jones]

For Peikoff's sake, I hope we are right to deny all the silly speculation about an afterlife. If Peikoff ever does cross paths with Rand again in some mystical never-never land, she will surely show him the true meaning of Hell. She invested all that time and energy writing Atlas Shrugged to change the world, and he has done everything he could to bury her ideas under the moralistic cloak of a lunatic fringe.

Dennis -

Great paragraph! Imagine the amazement of Rand, wondering how it turned out this way, and so quickly? Reason transubstantiated into dogma, the first-hander into slavish followerhood.

Bill P

Edited May 1, 2010 by Bill P

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Dennis,

You've described Objectivist fundmentalism perfectly.

The fundies' rewriting of history extends all the way to rewriting Rand herself, with permission obtained from the arbitrary moral authority exercised by Leonard Peikoff.

Robert Campbell

Barbara and Robert—Thank you! I really wish I could take full credit for this summation, but I might be accused of plagiarism from the author of the article on Christian fundamentalism. The similarities are quite amazing. The principles are essentially the same. Only the concretes differ.

Isn’t it a riot? Peikoff and his sycophants think they are blazing a radical new trail through philosophical history, when, in fact, their version of Objectivism perpetuates the same madness that ushered in the long, barbaric nightmare of the Middle Ages. You can’t ask people to surrender their brains, no matter how wonderfully rational your explicit philosophy might be. As soon as men begin acting like sheep, there’s no telling what new horrors could engulf the world.

I heard George H. Smith give an excellent talk on ‘Objectivism and Religion’ back in the early 70s, shortly after I moved to California from Tennessee. I remember thinking that the issue would resolve itself as soon as the Rand-Branden schism was no longer in the forefront. After all, in her PLAYBOY interview, Ayn Rand said that ‘Objectivism is its own defense against those who would treat it as a dogma.’ But that was before she chose Leonard Peikoff as her new intellectual heir.

When Bush looked into Putin’s eyes, he should have seen the soul of Joseph Stalin. When Rand looked into Peikoff’s eyes, she should have seen the soul of Immanuel Kant.

Hey, Dennis, good to see that you are alive and kicking.

I have never been a good prognosticator, but perhaps my worst prediction of all time occurred not long after Ayn Rand's death in 1982. In a talk for some supper club or other in the L.A. area, I predicted that the dogmatic wing of Objectivism would not long survive Rand's passing, at least not as a significant force.

My prediction was based on the belief that dogmatic Objectivism was largely a charismatic phenomenon, one sustained by Rand's extraordinary personal characteristics. I speculated that Peikoff, lacking Rand's charisma, would be unable to exercise the tight control needed to maintain an orthodox movement.

What I didn't foresee was the institutionalization of orthodoxy through ARI, nor did I appreciate how Peikoff's closely guarded monopoly on Rand's papers would stifle future scholarship by denying access to writers with different points of view.

Rand has become far more of a cultish icon under ARI than she ever was under NBI. Having been ordained by Peikoff, who in turn was ordained by Rand herself, ARI passes the only true Rational Spirit to future generations of believers.

The next occupant of the See of St. Peikoff remains to be seen, but I don't think it will matter that much. So long as the person is not totally incompetent, ARI will continue to exert influence into the foreseeable future.

Let us hope that this prediction is as bad as my earlier prediction. 8-)

Ghs

Ghs: I'm sorry your prediction was wrong. I think they have made an excellent choice with Yuron Brook and the demoting of Michael Berliner.

Sadly Open Objectivism is not doing well. One example is person who runs the DC ARI office attended TAS Summer Seminar years ago. I have not heard of anyone who has stopped attended ARI events for TAS events.

Chris,

I think open Objectivism is doing fine, it's just becoming self-organized. People meet through Atlasphere, facebook, livejournal, Ayn Rand meetups etc. and do their own thing. I do think it's important to have a national (or international) organization that can attract 150+ people so that people who are interested in learning the philosophy in a more open-ended, Socratic way can do so.

There are several things ARI does very well:

1. Turn out a good quantity of university level philosophy professors who are good teachers

2. Provide a clear message that people can understand

3. Execute on organizational development projects.

4. New work in certain areas like philosophy of law, advanced ethics, ancient Greek scholarship and history of the industrial revolution

5. Provide stepwise, disciplined student development programs

TAS and likeminded individuals are like Objectivism's startup companies. There are going to be a lot of new initiatives that fluorish and fizzle. It's the new ideas that are created and what people do with them that matter.

Jim

[George H. Smith]

Hi George,

Wow! Amazing how time flies. Can you believe we are sexagenarians now?

You must be confusing me with another George H. Smith who writes books on atheism. I am only 39. (If that perpetual age worked for Jack Benny, it will work for me.)

I must be a much worse prognosticator than you, because I was convinced that Objectivism would have had a huge impact on the world by now.

The progress of Objectivism (and of libertarianism generally) has actually exceeded my early expectations. Alexis de Tocqueville once observed that Americans, generally speaking, are a highly pragmatic people with little interest in the details of abstract philosophy; and I think this observation is even more true now than it was in the 19th century.

For example, over the years I have encountered many people who have told me how much they enjoyed reading AS and other novels by Rand, and how much they agree with the ideas expressed therein. Then when I mention Rand's pro-free market perspective or her atheism, they either express surprise that Rand held these views, or they say that, well, they agree with her other ideas but not with those.

Strange, I know, but I'm sure others have had similar experiences. My explanation is that people read selectively, passing over uncomfortable ideas and focusing only on those ideas that they agreed with already. In other words, people tend to read pragmatically.

Every day, I am amazed when I hear seemingly intelligent people talking about Jesus Christ, intelligent design, etc., etc. It makes me wonder how they can dress themselves in the morning. I try to be sympathetic and nonjudgmental and make an effort to communicate, but boy-oh-boy, I cannot help but feel some sense of despair. I am not condemning them; I truly would like to understand how they could still be spouting stuff I rejected as totally illogical fifty years ago.

While I was writing ATCAG during the early 1970s, a number of people told me that they didn't see the point of such a book. Christianity, they believed, was a dying force in America, and within a few decades it would cease to have much influence at all, with or without books defending atheism.

I never believed this. Christianity is woven into the fabric of American culture, and there has always been an ebb and flow of religious enthusiasm in the history of America.

What I find disturbing is that the puritanical form of Christianity has taken on secular garb, as we see in various PC movements where the mere use of certain words is condemned as a kind of blasphemy. It's this puritanical strain, in whatever form it manifests itself, that constitutes the biggest threat to a free society. There are other forms of Christianity that are more hospitable to libertarian values, and I have no real problem with those, despite my philosophical objections.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

What I find disturbing is that the puritanical form of Christianity has taken on secular garb, as we see in various PC movements where the mere use of certain words is condemned as a kind of blasphemy. It's this puritanical strain, in whatever form it manifests itself, that constitutes the biggest threat to a free society. There are other forms of Christianity that are more hospitable to libertarian values, and I have no real problem with those, despite my philosophical objections.

George,

Would you include apocalyptic environmentalism as a secular outgrowth of one of the more pernicious strains of Christian belief?

Robert Campbell

[Dennis Hardin]

He even said as much in the Q & A period after his "Fact and Value" lecture announcing the Kelley schism.

Are you sure there was a lecture? I've never heard of it, I thought there was just the essay, and that he's in fact publicly refused to discuss the subject further. The truth was revealed in all its henceforth self-evident glory in that essay.

I clearly recall a Q & A period during which he did answer some questions regarding "Fact and Value," and I thought it was after a lecture derived from his 'Intellectual Activist' essay. At one point in the Q & A, the self-annointed "intellectual heir" effectively dared anyone in the audience to disagree with him on key points and suffer the consequences.

On second thought, I believe this may have been an extended Q & A related to “Fact and Value” rather than a spoken rendition of his essay. It probably occurred at an Objectivist summer seminar.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Dennis Hardin

[9thdoctor]

On second thought, I believe this may have been an extended Q & A related to “Fact and Value” rather than a spoken rendition of his essay. It probably occurred at an Objectivist summer seminar.

Mmm, that may have flown under my radar. BTW, his podcast for today includes a discussion of open vs. closed systems. It's the first question on the podcast. It's useful as tits on a bull, he never addresses Kelley's arguments.

[Dennis Hardin]

On second thought, I believe this may have been an extended Q & A related to “Fact and Value” rather than a spoken rendition of his essay. It probably occurred at an Objectivist summer seminar.

Mmm, that may have flown under my radar. BTW, his podcast for today includes a discussion of open vs. closed systems. It's the first question on the podcast. It's useful as tits on a bull, he never addresses Kelley's arguments.

The last time I debased myself by listening to a Peikoff podcast (in March, 2009), he was telling his throng how much he enjoyed attending Catholic confirmation services. He said it was cool to attend confirmation ceremonies because, like marriage ceremonies, it is a rite that can have a secular base.

One of the most excruciating experiences I endured as a teenager was catechesis, a long period of strictly supervised instruction in the teachings of the Bible consisting of mind-numbing rote memorization, done in preparation for receiving the sacrament of confirmation. Catholic (or, in my case, Episcopal) confirmation is supposed to bring an increase and deepening of “baptismal grace.” According to one source, the purpose of all that tedious, agonizing study is to root the young person more deeply in the divine, uniting him more firmly to Christ, rendering his bond with the Church more perfect and giving the youth a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as a true witness of Christ. [What utter horsebleep!]

Catechesis is customarily conferred only on those old enough to “understand” it. As I recall, I was around 13. I vividly remember being asked to study and memorize some of the most arbitrary, irrational garbage imaginable, and I do not recall ever feeling more utterly bewildered by what I was being asked to believe. At a time when I was desperately struggling to understand the world around me, I was being force-fed cognitive poison. I felt as though I were forcibly cast into a living nightmare.

And here we have the self-annointed “leader” of the Objectivist movement claiming that Catholic confirmations are just ducky. I can just imagine going through the horror of my own "confirmation" and seeing Peikoff sitting in a pew, bestowing his blessing on my mystical indoctrination and the attempted destruction of my ability to think.

He is not an Objectivist in any meaningful sense of the term. I don't know why anyone would care what he had to say about anything.

[Reidy]

Who invites him (or does he crash them)?

Edited May 5, 2010 by Reidy

[9thdoctor]

I don't know why anyone would care what he had to say about anything.

When it comes to his podcast, at least the price is right. Often they’re a waste, sometimes there’s a real howler, and sometimes there’s new biographical info. Here’s a couple I’ve shared here.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7631&view=findpost&p=79235

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7941&view=findpost&p=85284

Then there’s this, a real beauty (not by me):

[Dennis Hardin]

You must be confusing me with another George H. Smith who writes books on atheism. I am only 39. (If that perpetual age worked for Jack Benny, it will work for me.)

The progress of Objectivism (and of libertarianism generally) has actually exceeded my early expectations. Alexis de Tocqueville once observed that Americans, generally speaking, are a highly pragmatic people with little interest in the details of abstract philosophy; and I think this observation is even more true now than it was in the 19th century.

For example, over the years I have encountered many people who have told me how much they enjoyed reading AS and other novels by Rand, and how much they agree with the ideas expressed therein. Then when I mention Rand's pro-free market perspective or her atheism, they either express surprise that Rand held these views, or they say that, well, they agree with her other ideas but not with those.

Strange, I know, but I'm sure others have had similar experiences. My explanation is that people read selectively, passing over uncomfortable ideas and focusing only on those ideas that they agreed with already. In other words, people tend to read pragmatically.

While I was writing ATCAG during the early 1970s, a number of people told me that they didn't see the point of such a book. Christianity, they believed, was a dying force in America, and within a few decades it would cease to have much influence at all, with or without books defending atheism.

I never believed this. Christianity is woven into the fabric of American culture, and there has always been an ebb and flow of religious enthusiasm in the history of America.

What I find disturbing is that the puritanical form of Christianity has taken on secular garb, as we see in various PC movements where the mere use of certain words is condemned as a kind of blasphemy. It's this puritanical strain, in whatever form it manifests itself, that constitutes the biggest threat to a free society. There are other forms of Christianity that are more hospitable to libertarian values, and I have no real problem with those, despite my philosophical objections.

Ghs

Well, George, as I recall Jack Benny was still 39 when he died. Far too old to die young.

I won't disagree with the points you make, but I must tell you that cultural descriptions don't help me understand individuals. I could not function if I had to turn my brain off whenever I encountered a brazen contradiction, yet most people seem to have no problem doing so. Saying that everybody does it leaves me none the wiser. The macro perspective does not truly explain the micro.

I agree with Ayn Rand that freedom and capitalism will not survive unless people challenge the ethical premise of altruism, and that will likely depend on their acceptance of reason as an absolute and rationality as a primary virtue. So I would disagree with your libertarian hospitality to Christian values. But then that just restates the perennial Objectivist-libertarian controversy, scarcely a front page headline.

Despite all that, it is a true pleasure to see you here on OL and to have a chance to interact with you again. I wish I could post more frequently, but I have to get my beauty sleep. (I'm not sure if that's the real reason, but it will have to do for now.)

[Robert Campbell]

Jim,

I very much like your comment about start-ups. Most start-ups fizzle. But without people willing to attempt them, little innovation would ever happen.

So we can agree that innovation isn't going to be coming from the Ayn Rand Institute.

There are several things ARI does very well:

1. Turn out a good quantity of university level philosophy professors who are good teachers

I'm not sure how much longer they'll be able to do this. The philosophy professors ARI has sponsored are few in number, and as they become more prominent, they're going to have to choose between their intellectual credibility in the profession and their continuing loyalty to the Institute and/or the Estate.

Then there are the ARI loyalists who are trying to establish themselves in academia without the sponsorship of ARI or the Anthem Foundation. Will they kiss up to ARI and its principals indefinitely, hoping for a promotional push that never materializes?

Robert Campbell

[william.scherk]

Then there’s this, a real beauty (not by me):

Right, it's by me, the Doctor Who throwback.

My favourite WTF moment in the podcast are these lines:

Now you may ask 'don't you have free will?'

as an adult, to unearth your errors or change your mistakes

and change your sexuality.

I think that can be done in some cases

but for the most part,

by everything I have seen

psychology is simply not advanced enough

to enable a person to do itt.

Then it gets worse.

The full rampaging stupidity of an Objectivist who gave up inquiry for a pontificate. Ick.

If you watch this thing again on Youtube, make sure you enable the captions. They allow you to savour the maunderings of a man who hasn't cracked a book on this subject in the past two decades at least, let alone examined the research. This is a dunderhead on the subject of sexual orientation.

. . . it is sad that this is the present day figurehead for Randianism. The only more horrifying leader than Peikoff would be Diana Hsieh. I think all Aspergers/moralists/absolutists/dogmateers/bannathoners should be barred from the Objectivish papacy.