SCORECARD! Can't tell the players without a scorecard!


Recommended Posts

Okay I have been visiting here for a number off months now, and it seems that quite a bit of the conversation here centers not on ideas or their applications, but on personalities and sleights by people who aren't even associated with this board.

I've tried to sort it out, but it's at the point that I don't know one group from another, and it's getting confusing.

Every modern edition of AR's books that I've seen Leonard Peikoff's name on has had the wording of critical texts changed from my that in my early 1970's signet paperbacks -- but he was supposed to be AR's "intellectual heir"? NBI, ARI, TOC, Atlas Society, who are all these people? Unreadable SOLO? Return of Reason? Stand to Reason? (Haha..a xian "intelligent design" group.) I see names like Peikoff, Valliant, Hsieh, Perigo, David Kelley. Who are these people and why should I care about them?

Can anyone recap what the different O'ist groups are, the people associated with them, their origins, their relationships, and accomplishments (if any), without turning it into a slamfest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Steve;

I hope that at least Objectivist Living is better than monks debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

It is worth noting that a great many people have looked at and commented on Neil Pariell's discussion of Valliant's book My hope is that Neil's comments have saved people from reading Valliant's book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

Here's an off the cuff guide to the 3 most prominent Objectivist organizations:

Nathaniel Branden Institute (NBI): Founded in 1958 and owned by Nathaniel Branden. Promoted Objectivism primarily via lecture series, both live and on tape. At its peak, NBI's series were a much bigger total draw than any of the activities of today's Objectivist organizations. Ceased to exist in 1968, after NB's affair with Ayn Rand broke down, he was expelled from the fold, and he gave up his 50% share in the Objectivist periodical (then called The Objectivist, previously The Objectivist Newsletter.) The NBI era is seen as the good old days by some, as the bad old days by others, and has been subject to motivated forgetting by still others.

Ayn Rand Institute (ARI): Founded in 1985. Initial financial supporters included Ed Snider (owner of the Philadelphia Flyers). Leonard Peikoff, philosopher and heir to Ayn Rand's estate, has been the dominant ideological figure since ARI's inception. (The Estate of Ayn Rand, wholly controlled by Dr. Peikoff, is a separate entity with a separate revenue stream; however, the Ayn Rand Archives, operated by the Estate, are primarily reserved to researchers affiliated with ARI.) Harry Binswanger, philosopher and junior disciple of Ayn Rand's, has been the secondary ideological figure; Peter Schwartz, journalist and junior disciple of Rand's, has been the chief disciplinarian of deviationists. During its last two years, The Objectivist Forum, a magazine published by Dr. Binswanger from 1980 to 1987, was affiliated with ARI; the Intellectual Activist, a newsletter long operated by Peter Schwartz, was affiliated with ARI from 1985 till recently. In 2006, ARI launched a new magazine called The Objective Standard. ARI currently maintains an ambitious training operation called the Objectivist Academic Center and an annual conference, which runs for more than a week, called OCON. An organization called the Anthem Foundation funds positions for Objectivist academics, relying on ARI to recommend candidates. OCON enrollment has been on an upswing during the last few years. ARI is known for considering itself the only Objectivist organization, and for taking the view that Objectivism is a closed system, fully presented in the published work of Ayn Rand and (some of) those writing under her supervision.

The Atlas Society (TAS): Founded in 1990 as the Institute for Objectivist Studies (from 1998 to 2005, it was called The Objectivist Center). The occasion for its creation was the expulsion of David Kelley, philosopher and junior disciple of Ayn Rand, from ARI in 1989. George Walsh, another philospher who had been associated with Rand, joined Kelley at the new organization, and Ed Snider withdrew his financial support from ARI and became a backer. IOS's decision to invite Nathaniel Branden to speak at its events (in 1996) was controversial enough to lead to the quiet departure of a few people who had been active in the organization during its early years. Training efforts are modest in scope; they presently include a yearly Graduate Seminar and a small scholarship program for Objectivist-leaning graduate students who want to go into academia. Known for considering Objectivism to be an open system, subject to expansion and (mild) reinterpretation; no official statement from the organization has ever claimed that some aspect of Objectivism is in error. TAS frequently hires non-Objectivist speakers for its Summer Seminars, and makes official statements about philosophical matters far less often than ARI does. Summer Seminar enrollment peaked in 1998 or 1999 and is currently a fraction of the enrollment at OCON.

Accomplishments later.

I hope this helps.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

Part of the whole problem with all this is inherent in one aspect of Objectivism. The philosophy was created as an attempt to substitute religion without being a religion. There are some aspects of religion where Objectivism is much weaker, like establishing a social structure where like-minded people gather for fellowship (and do picnics, dances, etc.). This provides a crack, so to speak, where almost anyone who steps up to the plate and says, "Let's do an Objectivist thing and hang out," will accumulate a small group around him. So this provides an opportunity for a host of different personalities to pop up. And with different personalities come different conflicts.

There is one point where traditional Objectivism does have in common with religion: It holds that the world is lost and must be saved. (The jargon always goes something like, "The world is perishing in an orgy of ...") So there is a strong appeal to missionary types.

This vision of doom and salvation was derived directly from Rand. Her manner of discourse was preachy and her stated intent was to save the world by morally defending the individual. Her enemies were collectivism, altruism, etc., and some of her rhetoric borders on being sermons.

When Rand finished Atlas Shrugged, she had no intention of writing nonfiction (and she could not even get herself to write fiction anymore—she was devastated with the reception of AS). But her young lover, Nathaniel Branden, and his wife who was one of her disciples, wanted to open the way to present a structured version of her philosophy, and thus save the world from its perishing orgy. They started a nonfiction enterprise (NBI) and this ultimately enticed her to start writing nonfiction. She had declared that Nathaniel was her intellectual heir.

However, the unstated condition on this title was that he continue to be her lover. Instead, his marriage to Barbara fell apart (there went the smokescreen) and he fell in love with a younger woman. He hid his affair from Rand for about 4 years and eventually it all came out and broke her heart. So she did what any broken-hearted person would do. She began to hate him. But she didn't tell anyone the real reason why she broke with the Brandens.

This created a few vacuums. There was the obvious one of a philosophy of reason suddenly being jolted at its foundation leadership-wise without any rational explanation. Another was that although NBI and Branden-related affairs were dismantled, the underlying structure of presenting lecture courses, nonfiction literature, etc., to save the world was continued. Even another vacuum was that Rand used to claim that Nathaniel and Barbara were heroes along the lines of those in her novels. So there was some space created with their departure and there were plenty of aspirants to fill the Brandens' shoes.

In the years after the break until Rand's death, a group of people accumulated around her to keep the flame of saving the world alive, but none of them had the flair of Nathaniel or Barbara and Rand was gun-shy anyway. There was some mighty scrambling and in-house intrigues that can compete with any Shakespearian tragedy in terms of betrayals and lies. The general frustration of the group was that Rand never appointed another person as her intellectual heir or pointed to this person or that and stated that they would take the philosophy on to new heights through their independent thinking. Instead, after she closed The Objectivist and The Ayn Rand Letter, she always qualified her involvement with those around her. The most she would say about anyone or any other writing was that it was correct according to her knowledge.

For people hell-bent on saving the world, this was deeply frustrating. Also, there was another side to it. Since Rand had been isolated as the only Randian heroine left (Frank doesn't really count on the level of leader-type hero), and the Brandens had admitted betrayal but nobody knew what that betrayal was, loyalty to her was used as a weapon to keep people in line or get rid of them. So there was a paradox. Those who wanted to become Randian heroes also had to claim that there was only one Randian heroine in existence in order to keep their hopes alive. This has persisted to the present.

David Kelley was one of the people around Rand near the end of her life. She apparently had high regard for him. He was the person who read "If" by Kipling at her funeral. He was never really close, however. His interaction with her was intellectual, not personal. At the end, Peikoff was the only one of the original Collective who stayed on and had a personal (and intellectual) relationship with her. Thus he ended up being her heir. She had no close family in the USA to speak of, not even Frank's family—and anyway they were distant from the universe of philosophy, polemics, saving the world, etc. Thus they were distant from her. (Frank's niece Mimi Sutton was somewhat close because of her memories of Frank.)

After Rand died, Peikoff tried to do two things: (1) do right by Rand and actually save the world according to Objectivism, and (2) fill in the hole of his frustration of not having been set up on a pedestal by Rand. This has created a terrible conflict that has persisted until today. On one hand, he tries to present her works and ideas with the utmost seriousness and surround himself with like-minded people (and often does a great job of it), but on the other, he engages in stretching the truth. For instance, he has openly claimed that he is Rand's intellectual heir, yet there are no words by her to confirm this. He is merely her legal heir and she endorsed a book of his and called him an "Objectivist philosopher" (in the Introduction to The Ominous Parallels). Then there is a sanitized version of Rand's life that he promotes where she has no substantial defects. There are some other issues like this where he stretches facts and severs them from reality. People with independent minds do not accept these things and they challenge them. The reaction has been excommunications and schisms.

Since Peikoff is now the owner of Rand's copyrights and all her unpublished papers, anyone who wishes access to this material must be on his good side. That means not only saving the world, but accepting him as the main living savior.

Then Barbara Branden busted matters wide open in 1986 when she published her biography of Rand. Until then, Peikoff had always denied that Rand had had an affair with Nathaniel. Suddenly he could not deny it anymore and once again, his position was threatened. How could he be Rand's intellectual heir and an Objectivist hero if she had denied such basic information to him? His response has been to sponsor a smear campaign against the Brandens that lasts up to today. The reasoning is that if the Brandens can be discredited, the information they provide can be re-presented to the world in terms that can both save the world and keep Peikoff on a pedestal. The real problem is that the Brandens are enormously talented and Peikoff (and the people around him) are modestly talented. So when the Brandens write something, they are successful with the public. When those from Peikoff's camp write something, they sell to the people in their organization and a few other interested parties and that's about it.

With all this in mind, here is a breakdown of the people you asked about.

Leonard Peikoff - Ayn Rand's legal heir and Rand-acknowledged Objectivist philosopher. He was introduced to Rand when he was young by his cousin, Barbara Branden. (They are now estranged.) He gathered some investors (like Ed Snider) after Rand's death and founded The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). (Snider has since migrated to TAS.) As time went on, he formally disconnected from ARI, but this is window dressing for the public. It is clear to anyone who follows Objectivist matters that he pulls the strings from backstage.

The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) - With the blessing of Peikoff, this organization promotes what can be called the orthodox view of Objectivism. It also has the advantage of having total access to everything in the Estate of Ayn Rand, especially her papers. It owns its own publishing company and sells products like books and audio materials, but also receives donations from millionaires to keep the bills paid. This allows it to donate thousands of Rand's fiction books to high-schools and some other programs.

NBI (The Nathaniel Branden Institute) - This was the first, and by far the most successful, nonfiction-oriented Objectivist venture (with a mailing list of over 80,000 people). It was dismantled when the affair ended in 1968, but owing to its success, many former students are to be found all over the place.

David Kelley - As mentioned above, he was one of Rand's intellectual favorites at the end of her life. David is more academic-oriented than traditional Objectivists have been. His natural environment is the halls of universities, not necessarily fringe groups or popular literature. He and Peikoff had a rift over Peikoff's moralizing and Peikoff has waged a campaign against him ever since. (The issue also involved how to deal with libertarians.)

Instead of fighting, he set up his own Objectivist organization of nicer people, so to speak, who wanted to study Objectivism seriously. The success of his venture surprised him. The organization has gone through two name-changes - the original name was Institute for Objectivist Studies (IOS), then The Objectivist Center (TOC), and now it is called The Atlas Society (TAS). He has authored books like The Evidence of the Senses that is considered an Objectivist classic, despite being completely ignored by ARI. His book, The Art of Reasoning is a college textbook widely in use.

The Atlas Society (TAS) - This is considered as the competitor of ARI. Its focus, however, has not been on saving the world, but instead on studying and analyzing Objectivism from all sorts of technical angles. Objectivist preacher types who become involved with TAS sometimes become disillusioned since their efforts at forming a Church of Rand usually fall on deaf ears. Recently, TAS reorganized its magazine, The Navigator. It is now called The New Individualist and the editor is Robert Bidinotto. It is now focused on current affairs seen through the lens of Objectivism. This approach has been very successful. Also, TAS has some connection with some of the more pro-freedom pro-capitalism think-tanks like Cato. This has resulted in a small penetration into national politics, but mostly backstage. (It was also recently relocated to Washington, DC).

SOLO - This is actually three websites rolled up into one. The original website was called SoloHQ. This was where I "came out" in public so to speak as an Objectivist (and met my dear darling Kat). The owners at the time were Lindsay Perigo and Joseph Rowlands. They later had a rift. Rowlands made some cosmetic changes and renamed the site Rebirth of Reason (RoR), keeping the entire membership and archives operational as if RoR were merely a name-change. Perigo set up Solo Passion (SOLOP), placing the SoloHQ files and membership into a special closed archive (but available for public consultation), and started anew from scratch.

One thing that characterizes all three is the stated purpose of saving the world. The reason SoloHQ was founded was to be an alternative to what was called the dogmatism of ARI and the wishy-washiness of TAS (back then it was TOC). These two organizations were taking too long to save the world, so SoloHQ was stepping up. Both RoR and SOLOP have continued with this mission, but RoR has had a severe brain-drain due to heavy-handed intellectual moderation by Rowlands and SOLOP has lost most all of its Objectivist members (on all sides) due to Perigo's immature insulting manner (which he calls rational passion).

(On a side note, OL was founded at the time of the SoloHQ split, but OL is more of a think-tank than a crusade to save the world. Also, Kat and I had no formal ties to SoloHQ except as members.)

James Valliant - He is the author of a book called The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics (PARC). Valliant is a personal friend of Peikoff and avowed enemy of the Brandens. His book was an attempt to discredit the accounts of Rand's life by the Brandens, set them up as the cause of why Objectivism has not spread further, repackage the sanitized version of Rand and thus pave the way for putting Peikoff on a pedestal. It has only had success among the "save-the-world" Objectivists. These people have been quite vocal on free venues like the Internet, but book sales have been very small and it has garnered almost no attention from the professional media.

Valliant's importance on OL comes from the fact that Barbara Branden posts here and his book is an attempt to smear her. Barbara used to post on SoloHQ, but she strongly objected to Perigo's insulting excesses. She ended up rejecting him and he conveniently embraced PARC and "finally saw the light." He claims loudly that his conversion was due to Valliant's proofs, etc., but most everybody outside of Valliant's adherents thinks he did that just to get back at Barbara. He has since promoted a smear campaign against the Brandens on SOLOP and against others (like Chris Sciabarra, Tibor Machan, etc.) who refuse to embrace PARC. He tries to use the threat of smearing as a strong-arm method of winning over high-profile adherents to Branden-bashing.

So far, this method has not worked (those who like PARC are already Branden-haters and Rand-worshipers who need no convincing), but it has created a small group of essays and posts that will probably become classified as the low point of rationality in Objectivism. For instance, Peter Cresswell once authored an article blaming the Brandens for Rand never writing another novel after Atlas Shrugged, which is so silly it really needs no rebuttal, yet the essay was featured on the front page of SOLOP for months.

The reason Valliant and SOLOP are grouped is that Valliant posts there. He has a sycophantic side-kick, Casey Fahy, who also posts there and is often overly-emotional.

Diana Hsieh - She has a blog named Noodlefood. She is a "save-the-world" type who likes to wage schism-like campaigns within the Objectivist community. She is very intelligent, however, and does her research. If one were to compare her to Perigo, one would call her the intellectual of the two. She used to be a member of TAS (when it was TOC and I believe even in the IOS days) for about 10 years, but eventually became frustrated with too much analyzing and not enough preaching. She migrated to the ARI orbit and to show her sincerity, came out guns blazing against any and all who had been her friends before. During her TOC days, she was Nathaniel Branden's webmaster. She later turned on him and called him a "prick" on Noodlefood. She has written whole essays condemning this person or that within the Objectivist movement.

During a few months, she also posted on SOLOP because of the Branden-bashing that is promoted there. Once Perigo started insulting her (and Peikoff), she left. There is a small group of ARI students (and some older ARI sympathizers) who go with her, so when she posted on SOLOP, they did, too. When she stopped, they stopped.

There are other people we discuss, but that is a basic overview. You asked, "... why should I care about them?"

The only reasons I can see is that if you happen to like any of them, or if you want to understand why some obvious Objectivist projects do not progress.

A lot of this is obviously personality cult problems, but the more I learn, the more I am of the opinion that there is a divide between the "save-the-world" religious types and those who seek principles for practical living.

(Incidentally, I do not think the world is perishing. Mankind is one of the most biologically successful species on earth. I think he has done wonders and the only real danger is that he has developed means of mass destruction. Now that is a real danger, but certainly has nothing to do with orgies of perishing.)

I hope this has helped some.

Michael

PS - My post crossed with the ones above.

EDIT: I have made some later factual corrections suggested by Ellen Stuttle (see here and here for notes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... just a comment from the Peanut Gallery...

Can anyone recap what the different O'ist groups are, the people associated with them, their origins, their relationships, and accomplishments (if any), without turning it into a slamfest?

... Robert Campbell can, MSK can't!! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laure,

You know, I did refer to Peter Schwartz as a disciplinarian of deviationists. I didn't know how else to describe his function at ARI.

Otherwise, you can either credit me for being more dispassionate... or for being a slower typist :)

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laure,

You know, I did refer to Peter Schwartz as a disciplinarian of deviationists. I didn't know how else to describe his function at ARI.

Otherwise, you can either credit me for being more dispassionate... or for being a slower typist :)

Sounds like sadomasochism.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anyone out there in OL land who went to TOC's Summer Seminar in the past but doesn't. What it anything turned you off.

I liked both Michael and Robert's pieces.

Chris,

I think many people come for a time, learn a lot and then realize a limit to what philosophy can do for them. I've gone through a period '94-'99 where I attended almost every year. Then 2000-2003 where I was newly married and doing semiconductor startups when I didn't attend and I've attended 2004-2006 because of the prevalence of philosophy of science, cognitive science and psychology offerings.

I've talked to my brother a lot about what the fertile areas of Objectivism are. I'm concentrating on cognitive science and neurology. My brother is looking at applying system dynamics to Objectivist-related topics.

Sometimes I get frustrated with TAS, but I've never felt they owed me any progress. They've got their own charter. besides our own Arizona Objectivists club is a neat outlet for my interests.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think Peter Schwartz was recruited by cointelpro to help neutralize what little threat Objectivism could have represented. I say help because it never needed much help in sabotaging itself.

That's a sad picture of Peikoff, Michael. In a way, he is Rand's heir: I sometimes think of Barbara's comment on Ayn Rand, that she partly spent her life waiting for recognition from elders, in the way that Catherine the Great was recognized by a seer who once came to court. When von Mises called her the bravest man he had ever met, that was a high point. But she received no spiritual recognition, it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael and Robert,

This background was quite good. But I get the impression that TOC/IOS/AS just doesn't believe in Objectivism in the way or to the extent that the ARI does.

If I were an Objectivist and believed that Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle, I don't think I'd support TOC/IOS/AS given that the material it publishes doesn't seem to be consistently pro-Objectivist. (At least that's my impression, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

The ARI is pro-Rand w/o apology. Sure they look a bit silly at times (for example pimping Valliant's book), but at least you know where they stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael and Robert,

This background was quite good. But I get the impression that TOC/IOS/AS just doesn't believe in Objectivism in the way or to the extent that the ARI does.

If I were an Objectivist and believed that Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle, I don't think I'd support TOC/IOS/AS given that the material it publishes doesn't seem to be consistently pro-Objectivist. (At least that's my impression, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

The ARI is pro-Rand w/o apology. Sure they look a bit silly at times (for example pimping Valliant's book), but at least you know where they stand.

Neil,

I think TAS tries to honor the true hallmark of an Objectivist which is not necessarily pro-Rand in all things, but correspondence to reality.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

TAS doesn't have a party line on most questions. It doesn't insist on ideological conformity from its membership, or from the speakers at its events.

I've spoken at 5 Summer Seminars and published two articles in The Navigator, but I didn't identify myself as an Objectivist back in 1996 and now actively reject the label. In 1996, I hadn't been in front of an Objectivist audience for years and didn't realize how my avoidance of the standard rhetoric would come across. I got a couple of comment cards that said "Why is he here? He's not an Objectivist at all!" But David Kelley liked what I wss doing well enough to invite me back the next year. Mike Huemer has spoken on 3 occasions (I think), generally to good reviews from the attendees, and he sharply rejects the Objectivist ethics. The important thing is having something to say to an Objectivist audience about matters of common interest.

If you look the work done by the principal scholars at TAS, David Kelley and Will Thomas, you'll get a different picture. Kelley's philosophy is definitely Objectivist. In metaphysics and epistemology, he is still close to being a down-the-line Peikovian. In meta-ethics, he believes in the "choice to live." He worries that being an Aristotelian in ethics requires you to endorse the doctrine of the golden mean. Around a decade ago, Kelley reviewed Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand for the old IOS Newsletter. Allowances made for his avoidance of fire-breathing polemics, his criticisms of the book were few and mild. Kelley still accepts Rand's later view of the relation between philosophy and other disciplines (one-way traffic only), though Thomas, whose training was in economics, disagrees with him on that.

The faculty at this year's Graduate Seminar (topic: moral knowledge) was David Kelley, Will Thomas, and Shawn Klein. All Objectivists. All out of step, on issues of method as well as issues of substance, with the analytic philosophy that prevails in American academia.

Does any of them think that Ayn Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle? They're more likely to think so than, say, Doug Rasmussen, who rejects the proposition that Rand's philosophy was revolutionary. I can't be sure, though, 'cause I haven't asked, and none of them is in the habit of making grand public proclamations.

The reader of Rand who recognizes the Leonard Peikoff Institute as Objectivist, but wonders what the hell TAS is, is noticing real differences:

-- ARI thinks itself uniquely charged with saving the world, and TAS doesn't (at TAS, other Enlightenment worldviews are considered natural allies of Objectivism, instead of false friends and Satanic deluders).

-- The leading scholars at TAS have a well-worked out point of view, just as the intellectual leaderhip of ARI does, and they are interested in imparting it to junior scholars, but at TAS there is no insistence on conformity and those who have gone through its training don't always stay with Objectivism.

-- There is a party line at ARI on virtually every subject, from the reality of empty space to the alleged moral imperative to carpet-nuke Iran. At TAS there is just what Kelley writes about the golden mean, or what Ed Hudgins writes about private space exploration. TAS members frequently disagree with what the organization's spokespeople say. Not everyone likes this, and some leave the organization because they disapprove of some of these public statements; others are perfectly content to stick around and occasionally voice their disagreement.

-- At TAS, there's relatively little attempt to mix up Rand's mythos (her god-heroes and archetypal characters, her apparent conception of herself as a goddess-heroine) with her logos (the actual statements and arguments of her philosophy). I won't say there's zero--the Summer Seminar is still marketed as "a week in Atlantis." But at ARI, mythos and logos are largely run together, while the mere suggestion that Rand had a mythos will be greeted with outrage.

Does all of this mean TAS isn't Objectivist?

Since I'm not an Objectivist, it's not a pressing concern of mine.

Where are people being encouraged to make positive use of Ayn Rand's ideas? TAS is doing a much better job than ARI.

Where are people being encouraged to limit their intellectual horizons, summon down fire and brimstone on outsiders, and practice revolutionary morality lite (because it's 5 minutes to midnight, and they're surrounded by enemies on all sides)? ARI is doing a much better job than TAS.

Which job do you want done?

Robert Campbell

PS. Even Will Thomas has conceded (in a 2006 talk) that ARI provides more systematic instruction in Objectivism than TAS does. I've had to think about this issue lately, because I've been closely studying Dr. Peikoff's conception of the arbitrary assertion. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff did not in fact produce a complete system; there are huge holes, most notably in their epistemology. What gives the appearance of completeness is unfulfilled promises (we don't have a philosophy of science, but of course we'll be able to produce one that meets all of our specifications) and fnords (don't even go there, because anyone who does is mystical/ subjectivistic/ emotionalistic/ arbitrary/ Platonic/ Kantian /psychologizing/ Dionysian/ consequentialist/ pragmatist/ rationalistic--or something else you'd never want mentioned in front of your mother.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Robert for that terrific summary! I think TAS brings together individualistic people who tend to progress in Rand's philosophy largely on their own. One of TAS's big strengths is bringing new thinkers to bear on intellectual issues in or connected to Objectivism.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

Here are my thoughts about the accomplishments of a couple of major players (other than Ayn Rand herself).

Nathaniel Branden: Started NBI, and encouraged Ayn Rand to write nonfiction. Taught the first lecture course on Objectivism. A major contributor to The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, not just on self-esteem issues, but also on parents and children, free will, the "stolen concept," atheism, and arbitrary assertions. Post-1968, published a long series of books, starting with The Psychology of Self-Esteem in 1969, that have reached a general audience. Several of these are classics in the clinical literature. All are much better written than is the norm in the self-help or pop psych or motivational market. The biggest obstacle for NB has been bridging the gap between practicing clinicians and academic researchers, but there has been some progress there in recent years (for instance, he contributed two chapters to Michael Kernis's major anthology on current issues in self-esteem research).

Leonard Peikoff: Published several important articles in The Objectivist. "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" is, for good or ill, a major contribution to Objectivist epistemology. Some of the articles that were meant as previews of The Ominous Parallels are still worth reading, e.g., "Dogmatism, pragmatism, and Nazism." Codified Objectivist lore into two courses on the history of philosophy and a course on logic, and codified or recycled it into a course on Objectivism (all done in the 1970s, though there are precursors on epistemology and on the history of philosophy from the NBI period.)

Published The Ominous Parallels in 1982. Delayed by over a decade, the book was spotty in quality and overly invested in hell-in-a-handbasketude (it came out just 7 years before the Berlin Wall came down). Published a few articles after the first book. Again these were variable in quality; some of them were embarrassing ("My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand," the first draft of his chapter on arbitrary assertions, and "Fact and Value" all belong in the latter category).

Published his second book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, in 1991. Again variable in quality; it leaves out some of the best ideas from his 1970s lectures, while expanding on some of the worst ones, and carrying the sermonizing, denouncing, and reifying to new lengths. Despite being the only published source for some aspects of Objectivism--therefore, an unavoidable read for anyone who wants to write about Objectivism--it hasn't reached nearly as big an audience as Rand did. Nor has it reached nearly the audience that Nathaniel Branden's books have.

Since OPAR, Dr. Peikoff has returned to producing lecture series. If the 1997 lecture on "the arbitrary" that I've been reviewing lately is indicative, some of these lectures are weird and sloppy and will not stand up to philosophical scrutiny. Meanwhile, Dr. Peikoff has at various times been reported working on a book on induction and a book on the degeneration of physics under the influence of bad philosophy (the latter with David Harriman); neither has materialized. At present, he is working on a book on his DIM hypothesis.

One has to ask whether Dr. Peikoff would have produced better work in an environment where other intellectuals critiqued his efforts and he felt some need to pay attention to what they said. I'm not sure that anyone at ARI would dare to point out a blatant contradiction, if it appeared in one of Dr. Peikoff's manuscripts.

More later about the accomplishments of some other players.

I've been learning, in my research on the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion, how hard it is to tell who originated what Objectivist notion, and who first presented it in the way that is now familar to us.

By not writing a treatise on Objectivism--in fact, never really trying to write one, and leaving just a few sketches behind her--Ayn Rand left the work of systematizing to others. Initially, Nathaniel Branden carried most of the load; later, Leonard Peikoff took up more of it; and after 1968, it became nearly all Dr. Peikoff's task.

This is richly ironic. Ayn Rand made Objectivism an appellation contrôlée. But the work she didn't do herself had to be filled in by others... and her endorsement of a presentation, especially in her declining years, couldn't make it 100% Randian.

Parts of Objectivism, as it's come down to us, are Brandenite or Peikovian. We may never fully know which parts, because when someone else wrote about an idea, it may or may not have already been worked out in roughly those terms by Rand herself. After other contributors were driven out, or left of their own accord, Leonard Peikoff had no incentive to acknowledge his borrowings from them, and lots of incentives to deny there had been any. And of course he didn't dare claim any of his own original contributions. What a mess.

Think how strange it is to have to rely on oral traditions, some of them of questionable authenticity, concerning the ideas... not of some itinerant rabbi who got himself into trouble with the imperial authorities nearly 2000 years ago, or a prophet who died nearly 1400 years ago when there wasn't even a decent writing system for his language ... but of a great, much-published writer who died a quarter-century ago.

Only in Rand-land.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael and Robert, very good comments overall -- but a couple of inaccuracies and one omission I would like to mention.

Michael, you somewhat exaggerate or mischaracterize Diana Hsieh's actions and motivies in leaving the Kelley orbit. (Not that she deserves defending, but just for the sake of accuracy...) She did not object to the analytical emphasis at TOC; indeed, she lamented the fact that the training of up and coming Objectivist intellectuals was not as rigorous and plentiful as she would have liked. As for the evangelical side of TOC, she didn't object so much to its lack of preaching as to the tepidness of that preaching; she roundly reamed our friend Ed Hudgins for being too touchy-feely in his news releases. I'm sure she's much more comfortable with ARI, since they have a vigorous training program, as well as frequent outpourings of fire and brimstone from their public relations department.

Bob, I think that Peikoff's recent and current book projects are a bit different than you described them. Ten years ago (or so), he was working on a book entitled (something like) "The One and the Many." Since then, he has folded that material into one or two of the first lectures in his DIM series, which is the book he is currently working on. As for the other two books you mentioned, they are being written by David Harriman. One is "The Anti-Copernican Revolution," which is on the influence of philosophy on modern physics, and the other is "Induction in Physics and Philosophy," which presents Peikoff's theory of induction. (Harriman has been publishing on this in "The Objective Standard," which is a quarterly journal, not a magazine, as Bob characterized it.) Some reports indicate that Peikoff is working with Harriman on the latter book, whether as an advisor or co-writer is not clear. I get the impression that Ellen Stuttle (and her physicist husband) don't think much of Harriman's writing on the history of physics, but I have yet to find anything remotely objectionable about it.

Neither of you mentioned "The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies," which is in its 8th (or 9th?) big year of semiannual publication or its prolific editor, Chris Sciabarra, whose "Ayn Rand, the Russian Radical" caused quite a stir about 12 years ago. Chris was also the target of not only a number of scurrilous reviews of ARRR, but also a totally vicious and unjustified personal attack by the aforementioned Ms. Hsieh, Mr. Perigo, Mr. Valliant, and their respective minions. (Form a mental image of the Wicked Witch of the West's ape allies in "The Wizard of Oz," and you will savor the approximate mental and moral nature of these folks.) Like Bob, Chris has held himself at arms-length from the label of "Objectivist," but that has not prevented these people from treating them as five-alarm "Enemies of Objectivism." They have each done more of a positive nature to promote interest in Ayn Rand and Objectivism than any of their critics, which only goes to prove that, in the Objectivist movement, no good deed goes unpunished!

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a scholar problem. We others only have to be concerned with the (objective) truth regarding philosophy. As for Rand herself, merely look at her original, published works and slough off the rest. What is Objectivism? 1)The philosophy of Ayn Rand. 2)The philosophy of truth--of what is and, since we be humans, what might if not should be. The basic problem with OPAR is it isn't a work of scholarship hence it should have been entitled, "Objectivism, the Philosophy of Leonard Peikoff." It is, isn't it? Or is it something other?

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parts of Objectivism, as it's come down to us, are Brandenite or Peikovian. We may never fully know which parts, because when someone else wrote about an idea, it may or may not have already been worked out in roughly those terms by Rand herself.

Very good point -- and it also applies to parts of Objectivism as it hasn't come down to us. By which I mean, parts of Rand's thinking, to which Branden and Peikoff were privy, but which have to this day not made it into print.

Not to fear, however, for the roving tattler sees all and tells all! The tale I spin today might best be titled “Little Stuff:” Notes on the Curious Timing of the Revelation of an Unpublished Notion Shared by Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, and Leonard Peikoff

Exhibit A comes from a private email from Nathaniel Branden to William Dwyer, September 25, 1997, written as a reply by Branden to a post by Dwyer on the Objectivism-L internet discussion group, under the title "More on Branden's 'Underlying Reality." The discussion had focused on Branden's recently published book Living Consciously, in which he talked about matter and consciousness being “manifestations” of an “underlying reality.” When Dwyer and others (including myself) objected to this notion, Branden replied:

Rand shared my view, as expressed in the brief passage in "Living Consciously," and she called that "underlying reality" by the name of "little stuff."… We regarded consciousness as radically different from matter. The problem is not solved by calling consciousness "an attribute of matter." For more on this, see chapter 1 of "The Psychology of Self-Esteem."…

Exhibit B comes from a passage in a 1996 Leonard Peikoff lecture entitled “Knowledge as a Unity.” He said:

[T]hose of you who know [Parmenides] know he denied that there was any void, any vacuum, no little cluster of what-is-not, because, he said, what is not, is not. Nothing is not something. So, what’s between my hands? If there’s nothing between my hands, they are touching. The universe, he said, was a plenum, p-l-e-n-u-m – in other words, it was full, solidly packed.

Ayn Rand and I used to speculate, you know, just armchair, knowing we were speculating: what is it that’s in all the places where nothing isn’t? And we gave it the name “little stuff.” The “little stuff” was the ultimate ingredient that was…filled all the things that today are called “vacuum.” Now, you don’t have to believe in that. It’s beyond philosophy to go any further, to discuss the type of ultimate constituent. But I think you can say there’s one total. Parmenides is right, there can’t be a slab of what-is-not separating the total into two separate worlds. All aspects are part of one, and all interact; and in that sense, the universe is One.

Got that? Fifteen years or so after Rand has passed away, with not a whiff of such ideas in her journals and letters, let alone her public Q&A comments, essays, speeches, etc., both Branden and Peikoff are revealing that she indulged in armchair cosmologizing with them over the same weird idea! "Little stuff" is everywhere -- it's the fundamental reality underlying matter, consciousness, and apparently empty space!

Now, think about the anti-Objectivist implications of this notion.

Throughout the history of philosophy, there have been two distinct approaches to deciding how much or how little should be included within philosophy as a whole, and within each of the branches of philosophy, such as metaphysics and ethics.

One approach, the “minimalist” approach, sees philosophy as providing only the most general outlines of a worldview and way of living. The other, the “robust” approach, more or less allows philosophy to expand into every nook and cranny of human intellectual concern, including philosophy of education, cosmology, philosophy of law, etc.

In metaphysics, the minimalist approach is exemplified by Aristotle’s definition of metaphysics as the science of being qua being, and by Rand’s and Peikoff’s insistence that metaphysics should be limited to the Law of Identity and its immediate implications, such as the Law of Contradiction, the Law of Causality, etc. On this view, such topics as the nature of the ultimate constituents of the universe would be off limits to metaphysics – even though many metaphysical theories in the past have dealt with this very subject. Instead, the basic nature of matter is the proper subject matter of physics.

Metaphysics has nothing positive to say about the content of physical theories. It only has what Rand calls a “metaphysical veto” over any scientific theories that involve a contradiction, since nothing that exists (and thus is studyable by science) can be contradictory. By the same token, metaphysics should have nothing positive to say about the content of psychological theories, such as the nature of consciousness. In particular, metaphysics should have nothing to say about whether man’s senses are valid or whether man possesses volition. These are empirical matters that require investigation and study by the science of psychology, just as the nature of matter should be dealt with by the science of physics. Whether one wishes to call the wielding of this metaphysical veto “philosophy of science” or “applied metaphysics” is probably optional. What is not optional is the fact that the subjects over which one applies this veto are not properly the subject matter of theoretical metaphysics, but instead of the sciences of physics and psychology.

So, what in the hell was Rand doing with Branden and Peikoff?? To me, this is far more scandalous than "The Affair." Rand et al have made such a huge doctrinal point of keeping metaphysics lean and mean, and leaving the details to science. And now we find that one of their guilty pleasures was...armchair scientific speculation!

One of the most curious aspects of this flight of fancy, however, is the fact that even if it's true, it doesn't seem to make any difference in Objectivism or in how we would go about living our lives. "Little stuff" has about the same relevance as the hypothetical "energy puffs" that Peikoff lectured about and wrote about in OPAR. If it makes no difference, then what's the point?

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

I think what is telling is the fact that Diana sought and received mentorship from the folks she bashed. I thought she was going to be able to keep an arms-length friendship with Chris and Robert. Honestly, it's like she's gone through all of her prior intellectual relationships with a wrecking ball designed to inflict maximum damage.

Well, being a 30-something graduate student in philosophy slogging through teaching assignments is punishment enough. As Robert has said: only in Rand-land.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a scholar problem. We others only have to be concerned with the (objective) truth regarding philosophy. As for Rand herself, merely look at her original, published works and slough off the rest. What is Objectivism? 1)The philosophy of Ayn Rand. 2)The philosophy of truth--of what is and, since we be humans, what might if not should be. The basic problem with OPAR is it isn't a work of scholarship hence it should have been entitled, "Objectivism, the Philosophy of Leonard Peikoff." It is, isn't it? Or is it something other?

--Brant

If what Roger relays via Branden is accurate and it definitely sounds genuine, maybe we're better off remaining in the dark about what Rand didn't write down. Perhaps part of her precision was in what was left on the cutting room floor.

Jim

Edited by James Heaps-Nelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no empty space, even within atomic structure one part influences another thru otherwise "empty" space. There isn't even "nothing." "Nothing" is only an epistemological construct which "exists" juxtaposed to a metaphysical something. That is why something has always existed and always will.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, you somewhat exaggerate or mischaracterize Diana Hsieh's actions and motivies in leaving the Kelley orbit. (Not that she deserves defending, but just for the sake of accuracy...) She did not object to the analytical emphasis at TOC; indeed, she lamented the fact that the training of up and coming Objectivist intellectuals was not as rigorous and plentiful as she would have liked. As for the evangelical side of TOC, she didn't object so much to its lack of preaching as to the tepidness of that preaching; she roundly reamed our friend Ed Hudgins for being too touchy-feely in his news releases. I'm sure she's much more comfortable with ARI, since they have a vigorous training program, as well as frequent outpourings of fire and brimstone from their public relations department.

Roger,

Interestingly, you gave the nuances of what I meant. Here is my original statement:

She used to be a member of TAS (when it was TOC and I believe even in the IOS days) for about 10 years, but eventually became frustrated with too much analyzing and not enough preaching.

When I mentioned too much analyzing, I was referring to questioning Objectivism. Here are Hsieh's own words from A Public Statement that was circulated to several venues in 2004 announcing her departure from the Kelley orbit:

But I regard the last, that Objectivism is an "open system," as the most widely misunderstood, deeply flawed, and practically dangerous of the lot -- and as the basic source of my own unhappiness at TOC.

In the open system view, Objectivism is only limited by the principles Kelley cites as fundamental to the system. All the rest may be debated, refined, altered, reorganized, and even outright rejected within the bounds of Objectivism so long as a person "defends his view by reference to the basic principles" (T&T 69). The open system thus minimizes the importance of the wide range of insights, applications, principles, methods, arguments, and logical connections found in the full and rich system of philosophy developed by Ayn Rand. It downplays the necessity of a deep and thorough study of that system, promotes casual and superficial criticisms of it, and trivializes Rand's tremendous philosophic achievement. Such is why I do not regard the persistent problems at TOC as fundamentally due to poor management, insufficient funds, meager talent pool, or whatnot. Instead, I see them as the natural, practical consequences of TOC's view of Objectivism as an open system.

This is the sense I meant by "analyzing." She wanted more absorption of Objectivism as undisputed knowledge, like learning math, and not any questioning. I probably could have been clearer. (Incidentally, I do agree with one aspect of this. Learning the system properly before criticizing or questioning it is more than an excellent idea. It is fundamental.) Also, tepidness of preaching is exactly the sense I meant by "not enough preaching."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Despite being an open system advocate and liking Kelley's list, there is one sense in which I agree with part of Diana's criticism. Objectivism is not equally open in all areas. An open system that works and is coherent is one that treats areas where new information is flooding in at a faster rate to be more in need of augmentation than those areas that are static. An open system that treats all areas of the philosophy that are peripheral to the main line aspects that Kelley mentions as equally open will spend lots of time on areas that are not fertile and will as a consequence open the main line to endless argument.

When IOE came out in article form, Rand was accessing the forefront of cognitive science. She was collaborating somewhat with Robert Efron and her measurement omission theory of abstraction dovetailed nicely with Efron's work on invariant forms in cognitive science. Now, most Objectivists, especially at ARI are behind the curve in cognitive science.

There is a reason many people want philosophy to be like math with a few axioms and a complex abstract structure. Empirical data introduces sources of error and must be integrated. Rand tried to keep man qua man extremely essentialized to avoid introducing sources or error and contradiction into her system.

Jim

Edited by James Heaps-Nelson
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