Peikoff Podcast Discussions Thread

[Mike11]

Yo,

As much as this guy is on the way out it may be worth following his decline.

Here is a link to his latest podcast. http://www.peikoff.com/2010/12/27/episode-144/

I think his statement about how a philosophy grows is interesting. I always thought philosophy spreads by a group of people working on a problem, its nature and solution are debated, ideas are abandoned, new ones emerge and over time we get closer to 'truth'. According to Peikoff a Master proclaims the truth, his Disciples spread it and it gains Followers.

[william.scherk]

According to Peikoff a Master proclaims the truth, his Disciples spread it and it gains Followers.

It's more like Philosophical Homeopathy from my perspective. In this instance, Kant is dropped in the water and the full potency of his evul gets stronger with dilution, ultimately powering the Nazi machinery at Belsen . . .

But what can we expect -- Peikoff's biggest homeopathic remedy for the philosophical ailments of the ages was the crankish Ominous Parallels.

What always strikes me as funny/deranged about orthodox Objectivism is that its head doesn't write, but instead plays the part of a low-wattage Ham Radio enthusiast, broadcasting his maunderings every Thursday from the bunker. How in heck he expects that dose to even penetrate discourse is utterly puzzling to me.

[Robert Campbell]

Here's a transcript of Peikoff's statement. He's developed a habit of letting his answers trail off as he moves to the next question, hence the apparently incomplete ending.

*******

Leonard Peikoff's Podcast, December 27, 2010, 10:00 through 13:09

Q: Who would you like to see fill your shoes when you are gone? Do you think it necessary to have someone like that for Objectivism, in these…?

A: No, I'm not naming anyone, and I don't think it's necessary.

A religion depends on a succession of popes to claim the revelation.

A philosophy has to spread by individual, uhh, understanding. And in most cases historically, whether it's Aristotle, Plato, or Kant, and there's been a process where a few disciples—a few intellectuals close to the master—and then it's passed on, contributions are made, ehh, etcetera, and, ehh, finally it becomes a, uh, historical force.

And in that whole progression, the, ehh, influential ones are not, uhh, the ones picked by hand by Plato or Aristotle, but the ones who are able by what they do, by what they say, by what they write, are able to gain ascendancy and, and influence. And that is the ones who are, continue to be the spokesmen, like Plotinus for Plato, Augustine for Plato. He didn't have to pick anybody. He picked Speusippus, that doesn't mean a thing, uh, because that did not carry over, so, the, the, eh, eh… it doesn't do anything if you pick anybody.

So do you say, why, then, did, uh, she name you as her heir?

And there's really only one reason. I got to own her copyrights, which have to be managed, and that is a, uh, a, uh, big-time, consuming affair, dealing with the publishers and the graphic artists and the movie contracts and all the rest of it. Uhh, she trusted me to do what she wanted in that regard.

But of course those copyrights are going to lapse, and, uh, when that happens, that reason will be, will be inapplicable.

Now you might say, but why did she choose you for the copyrights—to watch the copyrights—rather than other people? And, uh, you know, I don't like to be put in a position, boasting, but basically there was no one in her life near the end who had been a thirty year student, voracious, ehh, to her philosophy, so I was the logical choice.

Now in saying that I don't want to name leaders, I don't want to derogate the huge and great work that Yaron Brook is doing. He is, uh, the leader of the, uh, uh, Ayn Rand Institute. I was talking about "leader" in the sense of what you call intellectual heir, who would write books and carry on… all right…

*******

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

Robert, thanking you for transcribing it for those of us who prefer to read than to listen to a lecture or answer.

But, if I could quibble, I wish you wouldn't put in all the eh's and uh's -> it makes it, eh, hard to em,..uh, follow.

[caroljane]

Here's a transcript of Peikoff's statement. He's developed a habit of letting his answers trail off as he moves to the next question, hence the apparently incomplete ending.

*******

Leonard Peikoff's Podcast, December 27, 2010, 10:00 through 13:09

Q: Who would you like to see fill your shoes when you are gone? Do you think it necessary to have someone like that for Objectivism, in these…?

A: No, I'm not naming anyone, and I don't think it's necessary.

A religion depends on a succession of popes to claim the revelation.

A philosophy has to spread by individual, uhh, understanding. And in most cases historically, whether it's Aristotle, Plato, or Kant, and there's been a process where a few disciples—a few intellectuals close to the master—and then it's passed on, contributions are made, ehh, etcetera, and, ehh, finally it becomes a, uh, historical force.

And in that whole progression, the, ehh, influential ones are not, uhh, the ones picked by hand by Plato or Aristotle, but the ones who are able by what they do, by what they say, by what they write, are able to gain ascendancy and, and influence. And that is the ones who are, continue to be the spokesmen, like Plotinus for Plato, Augustine for Plato. He didn't have to pick anybody. He picked Speusippus, that doesn't mean a thing, uh, because that did not carry over, so, the, the, eh, eh… it doesn't do anything if you pick anybody.

So do you say, why, then, did, uh, she name you as her heir?

And there's really only one reason. I got to own her copyrights, which have to be managed, and that is a, uh, a, uh, big-time, consuming affair, dealing with the publishers and the graphic artists and the movie contracts and all the rest of it. Uhh, she trusted me to do what she wanted in that regard.

But of course those copyrights are going to lapse, and, uh, when that happens, that reason will be, will be inapplicable.

Now you might say, but why did she choose you for the copyrights—to watch the copyrights—rather than other people? And, uh, you know, I don't like to be put in a position, boasting, but basically there was no one in her life near the end who had been a thirty year student, voracious, ehh, to her philosophy, so I was the logical choice.

Now in saying that I don't want to name leaders, I don't want to derogate the huge and great work that Yaron Brook is doing. He is, uh, the leader of the, uh, uh, Ayn Rand Institute. I was talking about "leader" in the sense of what you call intellectual heir, who would write books and carry on… all right…

*******

Robert Campbell

"Apres moi, la deluge!"

[Fred Cole]

I agree with that minor quibble. I know that you guys don't like him here, but it's not especially fair to him to include the disfluencies in a transcription. He answers these questions extemporaneously, possibly with notes, and he's going to have some disfluencies.

I want to say, I like the podcast and I look forward to it each Monday. Peikoff needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but I used to listen to these podcasts in three hour blocks, and I learned a lot about Objectivism that way.

Some of the questions (including my own submission) are very interesting and useful to me. He also has interesting personal anecdotes about Ayn Rand, which I really enjoy.

[Brant Gaede]

I agree with that minor quibble. I know that you guys don't like him here, but it's not especially fair to him to include the disfluencies in a transcription. He answers these questions extemporaneously, possibly with notes, and he's going to have some disfluencies.

I want to say, I like the podcast and I look forward to it each Monday. Peikoff needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but I used to listen to these podcasts in three hour blocks, and I learned a lot about Objectivism that way.

Some of the questions (including my own submission) are very interesting and useful to me. He also has interesting personal anecdotes about Ayn Rand, which I really enjoy.

Nothing wrong to listening to Peikoff, Fred. All that matters is your brain doing something with it and that won't be a problem, I'm sure.

--Brant

[Guyau]

I know that you guys don't like him here, . . .

Welcome to OL, Mr. Cole.

I do not listen to podcasts, but I do admire and like Dr. Peikoff, as exhibited in his writings and lectures. Ditto for Dr. Kelley.* The viewpoints at OL are fairly diverse.

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

Bob Kolker* had a run-in with Peikoff, concerning the nature of formal logic, on a radio program a long time ago (cf.). So we have to suffer ad nauseam Bob’s self-puffing mantra that Leonard is Bob’s intellectual inferior and that Leonard “is not even a first rate second rate man. He is a third rate second rate man.”* *

Edited June 20, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[BaalChatzaf]

Yo,

As much as this guy is on the way out it may be worth following his decline.

Here is a link to his latest podcast. http://www.peikoff.c...27/episode-144/

I think his statement about how a philosophy grows is interesting. I always thought philosophy spreads by a group of people working on a problem, its nature and solution are debated, ideas are abandoned, new ones emerge and over time we get closer to 'truth'. According to Peikoff a Master proclaims the truth, his Disciples spread it and it gains Followers.

That implies no possibility of growth, deepening and improvement. It is, implicitly, the same kind of nonsense as having a Golden Age in the past.

False, false, false. The better is yet to come.

L.P. is not even a first rate second rate man. He is a third rate second rate man.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

"Notoriously, disciples tend to narrow their minds, admitting as meaningful questions, legitimate interpretations, and acceptable patterns of thought only those which they regard---rightly or wrongly---as sanctioned by the example of the master within whose 'school' they are working."

- Stephen Edelston Toulmin, Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts (p. 110, pb).

[Brant Gaede]

I know that you guys don't like him here, . . .

Welcome to OL, Mr. Cole.

I do not listen to podcasts, but I do admire and like Dr. Peikoff, as exhibited in his writings and lectures. Ditto for Dr. Kelley.* The viewpoints at OL are fairly diverse.

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

Bob Kolker* had a run-in with Peikoff, concerning the nature of formal logic, on a radio program a long time ago (cf.). So we have to suffer ad nauseam Bob’s self-puffing mantra that Leonard is Bob’s intellectual inferior and that Leonard “is not even a first rate second rate man. He is a third rate second rate man.”* *

Peikoff put out much better stuff when he was younger. OPAR needs to be seriously read. Etc.

It makes no sense to "rate" his mind. He filled it full of Objectivism more than anyone else I know of, including Branden and Rand herself. Respecting Rand, it was inside out and N.B. was something of a hybrid that way. We'll never know how much of the philosophy matured in their discussions in the early to mid-1950s. One thing I'd like to do if I get the time is to compare the BPO transcriptions just published with Galt's speech.

I attended two or three Peikoff courses four decades ago, one just before NBI folded, and he was a very, very smart man then.

--Brant

[Reidy]

To the extent that Peikoff is right about how ideas get around, he is renouncing the closed-Objectivism thesis. Plotinus and Augustine took some cues from Plato, the scholastics from Aristotle and the idealists and romantics from Kant, but in all cases they came up with theories that would be unrecognizable to their acknowledged sources.