ObjectivismOnline's Objectivism Wiki

[Guyau]

. . .

In the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant countered a misunderstanding evidenced by critics of the first edition. They had treated his idealism as if it were the idealism of Berkeley, whose Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous had lately received a fresh translation into German. Kant replied in Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (1783) that in his Critique he had not argued skepticism of the objects of experience; he had argued that and how we have a priori cognition of the objects of experience. This Kant had done by arguing that space and time are not empirical representations, but are a priori forms necessary for any experience of objects. Space and time for Kant are ideal, but not because the material world is ideal (1783 4:374–75). Kant now prefers to call his type of idealism not simply transcendental. He calls his idealism formal, in contrast to Berkeley’s dogmatic or material idealism, and he calls his idealism critical, in contrast to Descartes’ skeptical idealism (also B519fn). All three adjectives are accurate for Kant’s idealism: critical, transcendental, and formal.

. . .

Andrew,

Kant would have thrown up at what came after him in theoretical philosophy in Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Schelling and Hegel rejected partition of reality into phenomena and noumena. (Nietzsche rejected that as well.) All three rejected Kant’s “rational” limits on what is knowable to humans. All three found big use for various forms of a human cognitive power that Kant had systematically and emphatically denied: intellectual intuition.

Beginning with the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Kant was active in trying to get his critical philosophy accepted, taught, and made more accessible to the educated public. It was slow, but significant converts came, such as Reinhold and Fichte. At first Reinhold was an acceptable spokesperson, but he soon developed some significant ideas extended from, then opposed to, Kant’s. Fichte soon got into drafting a “Critical Philosophy” that supposedly fathomed and defined Kant’s Critical philosophy better than Kant himself had done (ha!). Kant publicly exposed Fichte’s ideas as at odds with his own (1799).

Kant died in 1804. In 1800, Schelling had published his System of Transcendental Idealism.* It was not Kant’s Transcendental Idealism, though it was influenced by Kant (and Fichte) in some ways. Schelling kept on developing and revising his philosophy year after year thereafter, and in the long balance (including the Transcendental movement in America), the name Transcendental Idealism has rested with Kant.

I don’t see anything wrong with what Kant did to try to get his philosophy accurately understood and promulgated. Nor with what Rand did. Trying for an intellectual heir, a proponent in whom one had tremendous confidence, was not beyond reasonable possibility. As it has worked out there have emerged a number of intellectuals who are competent in Rand’s philosophy and able to represent it accurately and able to tie their representation to Rand’s texts. Pretty lovely, really.

A word about the “open” and “closed” system attitudes: I never really gave much time to follow those debates. I knew what I was doing with Rand’s philosophy in practice and in theoretical work, from which I have never paused over open-or-closed from those days to these. I know those discussions get into some important issues, so maybe I’ll dig into them someday. There is another, perhaps related, difference of attitude I have noticed. I remember David Kelley remarking (informal oral remark as I recall, perhaps imperfectly recalled) a couple of decades ago that as a young intellectual he had expected to make, and had since worked on making, contributions to Objectivism, contributions to the defining of the philosophy. That “definition” part struck me. I had long known that I was capable making refinements and extensions to Rand’s philosophy. I have. But I did not think of my work as a further defining of the philosophy. (Nor less important on that account.)

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

Between Kant and Hegel

The Fate of Reason

The Reception of Kant’s Critical Philosophy

German Idealism

American Transcendentalism

Edited May 26, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[Greybird]

Hmmm ... so according to Greybird's philosophy, one can't have a philosophy? Velly intellesting ...

I hold to certain philosophic ideas. But I don't have "a philosophy" sitting there in my head, as a distinct and integrated entity, identifiable even if not written down as yet. Neither do you. Neither did Rand.

Not one that encompasses all of existence.

We humans reify. It's far less complex and far more convenient to talk about "a philosophy" as one entity, rather than ten thousand individual observations or thoughts — some succeeding in being integrated into broader structures, many only partially succeeding, most not at all. Yet labeling or talking about "a philosophy" as an entity does not create one.

One can claim to do that, and Rand certainly did, but establishing this to be so? That vastly increases in its complexity and in the necessary standard of proof as the philosophic scope increases. That Rand claimed universal applicability and validity didn't make it happen.

She admitted, in a massive understatement, to not fleshing it out fully herself. It hasn't happened yet, and it almost certainly never will. Not to defend "her philosophy." Attention will eventually be paid, no longer primarily to "Objectivism," but to what is objectively valid.

At a mere 30 years after Rand's passing, with her legal heir still abusing her written legacy, and his opponents not deeply challenging but primarily reacting to that, including David Kelley? We're not past the cult-of-personality stage yet. Until we stop talking about "a philosophy," we never will be.

[Greybird]

After posting the above, I saw that Brant had revived the entire previous "Open"/"Closed" thread, which had my more detailed discussion of these points about reification and brand names, reposted from over a decade ago on the Atlantis (I) list.

[Xray]

Rationalist Randroid Centr... I mean Objectivism Online, apparently has an Objectivism Wiki. Under their "Common Misconceptions About Objectivism" page, they attack the "Open System" argument;

Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand used for her philosophical achievement. As such, the term "Objectivism" may only be applied to the ideas by Rand or by those she explicitly endorsed. This is not to say that there are not other philosophical truths that rational thought can illuminate, but that passing these ideas as the work of Ayn Rand is misleading.

SOURCE: http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/Common_Misconceptions_about_Objectivism

Note that "Objectivism" is now being turned into a name for a system of ideas.

Objectivism is a term referring to the philosphy of Ayn Rand. She herself chose to call it like that (actually she would have preferred the term 'Existentialism' but this was already used by Sartre & Co for their own philosophy).

4) Epistemic Hypocrisy

The OO definition of "Objectivism" creates a situation where, if Rand is ever to be proven wrong on any specific issue, an Objectivist is forced to abandon Objectivism in order to practice Objectivism. Objectivism demands that an individual be rational, i.e. volitionally adhering to the facts of reality. If the facts of reality were, on any issue, to conflict with Rand, an Objectivist would have to immediately disagree with Rand on the issue. Because OO defines "Objectivism" in terms of what Ayn Rand argued, this would mean that, in the event of Rand being proven wrong on anything, an Objectivist would have to stop being an Objectivist in order to be an Objectivist. And to remain an Objectivist would be non-Objectivist. So much for "A is A."

Imo it is not epistemic hypocrisy, but more an epistemological error: orthodox Objectivists failing to apply Ayn Rand's "Check your premises" postulate to Objectivism's own premises.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

You're simply confusing Objectivism, the philosophy of AR with Objectivism the philosophy of Objectivism.

But Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Like Jennifer Burns wrote: "According to Rand and her followers, Objectivism sprung, Athena-like, fully formed from the brow of its creator." (JB, Goddess of the Market, p. 2.)

The first belongs to AR the second with people trying to make sense of things using reason.

In order to make sense of things using reason, one does not necessarily have to be an Objectivist.

Using reason may even lead one to reject certain Objectivist ideas as not consistent with reality.

Atheism is not any pillar of Objectivism. That's like saying atheism is a pillar of reason.

Rand's position was exactly that atheism is a pillar of reason, or better: that atheism is the logical consequence of her premise which regards the idea of a god as irrational.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

You're simply confusing Objectivism, the philosophy of AR with Objectivism the philosophy of Objectivism.

But Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Like Jennifer Burns wrote: "According to Rand and her followers, Objectivism sprung, Athena-like, fully formed from the brow of its creator." (JB, Goddess of the Market, p. 2.)

The first belongs to AR the second with people trying to make sense of things using reason.

In order to make sense of things using reason, one does not necessarily have to be an Objectivist.

Using reason may even lead one to reject certain Objectivist ideas as not consistent with reality.

Atheism is not any pillar of Objectivism. That's like saying atheism is a pillar of reason.

Rand's position was exactly that atheism is a pillar of reason, or better: that atheism is the logical consequence of her premise which regards the idea of a god as irrational.

You're being disingenuous with Burns.

Since I agree with the four basic principles of Objectivism I consider myself an Objectivist.

Your last statement contradicts itself. It's one or the other. Before you chose the former, now you claim the former and the latter, covering all, bases. I chose the latter.

--Brant

[Xray]

You're being disingenuous with Burns.

I quoted Burns verbatim. Do you agree with what she wrote?

Your last statement contradicts itself. It's one or the other. Before you chose the former, now you claim the former and the latter, covering all, bases. I chose the latter.

There is no contradiction because my phrasing it more accurately did not change the gist of the issue.

But the latter phrasing is better because it is more precise.

To sum it up: Rand rejected the god idea as irrational from which it follows that atheism is the logical conclusion of this reasoning.

And since Rand's rejection of faith in the supernatural permeates her whole philosophy, calling atheism one of the pillars Objectivism rests on is appropriate imo.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

You're being disingenuous with Burns.

I quoted Burns verbatim. Do you agree with what she wrote?

Your last statement contradicts itself. It's one or the other. Before you chose the former, now you claim the former and the latter, covering all, bases. I chose the latter.

There is no contradiction because my phrasing it more accurately did not change the gist of the issue.

But the latter phrasing is better because it is more precise.

To sum it up: Rand rejected the god idea as irrational from which it follows that atheism is the logical conclusion of this reasoning.

And since Rand's rejection of faith in the supernatural permeates her whole philosophy, calling atheism one of the pillars Objectivism rests on is appropriate imo.

I appreciate how you don't consider what I said but just keep repeating yourself.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

You're simply confusing Objectivism, the philosophy of AR with Objectivism the philosophy of Objectivism.

But Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Like Jennifer Burns wrote: "According to Rand and her followers, Objectivism sprung, Athena-like, fully formed from the brow of its creator." (JB, Goddess of the Market, p. 2.)

The first belongs to AR the second with people trying to make sense of things using reason.

In order to make sense of things using reason, one does not necessarily have to be an Objectivist.

Using reason may even lead one to reject certain Objectivist ideas as not consistent with reality.

Atheism is not any pillar of Objectivism. That's like saying atheism is a pillar of reason.

Rand's position was exactly that atheism is a pillar of reason, or better: that atheism is the logical consequence of her premise which regards the idea of a god as irrational.

I agree with Xray on these issues. Will wonders never cease?

Ayn Rand said repeatedly that "Objectivism" is the name she gave to her philosophy, i.e., to her system of ideas and principles. "Objectivism" is a proper name, in effect, not a generic label for an overall approach to philosophy. (The latter would be "objectivism," with a lower-case "o.") To the extent one disagrees with Rand, especially on fundamental issues, one should not use the label "Objectivist." This is why I have not referred to myself as an "Objectivist" since my college years, after I became an anarchist. I regard this as a matter of respect.

Similarly, for (say) a Christian to refer to himself as an "Objectivist" would constitute a slap in the face of Rand.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

You're simply confusing Objectivism, the philosophy of AR with Objectivism the philosophy of Objectivism.

But Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Like Jennifer Burns wrote: "According to Rand and her followers, Objectivism sprung, Athena-like, fully formed from the brow of its creator." (JB, Goddess of the Market, p. 2.)

The first belongs to AR the second with people trying to make sense of things using reason.

In order to make sense of things using reason, one does not necessarily have to be an Objectivist.

Using reason may even lead one to reject certain Objectivist ideas as not consistent with reality.

Atheism is not any pillar of Objectivism. That's like saying atheism is a pillar of reason.

Rand's position was exactly that atheism is a pillar of reason, or better: that atheism is the logical consequence of her premise which regards the idea of a god as irrational.

I agree with Xray on these issues. Will wonders never cease?

Ayn Rand said repeatedly that "Objectivism" is the name she gave to her philosophy, i.e., to her system of ideas and principles. "Objectivism" is a proper name, in effect, not a generic label for an overall approach to philosophy. (The latter would be "objectivism," with a lower-case "o.") To the extent one disagrees with Rand, especially on fundamental issues, one should not use the label "Objectivist." This is why I have not referred to myself as an "Objectivist" since my college years, after I became an anarchist. I regard this as a matter of respect.

Similarly, for (say) a Christian to refer to himself as an "Objectivist" would constitute a slap in the face of Rand.

Ghs

If I were an anarchist I wouldn't call myself an Objectivist. If I believed in God I wouldn't either. But since I basically agree with the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics, I call myself an Objectivist. This is Objectivism. Now, the cultural add-ons are what make Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, period, and not anyone else's Objectivism, because no matter how many years and how hard you study her philosophy, you'll just come with a jejune and inaccurate representation of it, like Leonard Peikoff has done with what has become a queer form of dogmatism with him as top dog. Consider that Rand--and her philosophy--sees man as a rational and heroic being. Fine. I see man as a sometimes rational and sometimes heroic being. My empirical approach here doesn't disqualify me from being an Objectivist nor am I saying someone, anyone, should not strive to be rational and do the right thing(s) in difficult or worse than difficult situations. If I had created her philosophy--and let's give her her great credit for it was a great and heroic accomplishment--coming from her place I'd have said that man is a courageous being. Too many people in striving to be heroic end up posturing. You cannot posture courage. Living a good and proper life requires courage, for even when life seems easy--assuming you're not living in some tropical paradise and can't get off the island--it really isn't.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ayn Rand said repeatedly that "Objectivism" is the name she gave to her philosophy, i.e., to her system of ideas and principles. "Objectivism" is a proper name, in effect, not a generic label for an overall approach to philosophy.

George,

The way I understand Rand's writing, she also meant Objectivism to be "an overall approach to philosophy." She even talked about future Obejctivist scholars and so forth. Look at this quote from the Introduction to The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff:

It gives me great pleasure to introduce the first book by an Objectivist philosopher other than myself.

Any dictionary on earth will have more than one meaning for a word. Even trademarked words. For example, if you use the word Xerox, you might be mentioning a product of the Xerox corporation or you might be referring to a simple photocopy without any concern whatsoever about who the manufacturer is. Note that Objectivism is not trademarked.

In addition to the personal property thing, Rand obviously meant for her body of ideas to be "an overall approach to philosophy." When NB was with her, I remember reading stuff about future contributions by later Objectivist philosophers. So on one hand, she holds that this body of ideas is general and universal. On the other, it's her private property.

I thought I read somewhere that A is A. You can't have a conceptual classification system (like a philosophy) that is both universal and owned by a single person. It's either one or the other (i.e., universal or specific). For example, which botanist owns the classification of the different plants? Does Darwin own the theory or evolution? Does Sartre own existentialism? And does an "existentialist" mean that the person adheres solely to what is in Sartre's work and no other?

You can have a step-by-step process that is universal and owned by a single person. But the process has to involve some kind of action (like a self-help method). Or you can have a specific work that has universal ideas in it and is owned by a single person. (This kind of thinking is how I understand intellectual property.) But I no more consider the Objectivist philosophy to be Rand's sole property than I do deductive logic as Aristotle's.

Rand's works are her property (and now Peikoff's). Not the universal ideas within those works.

There is an objectivist philosophy that came way before Rand, anyway, and those ideas have nothing to do with hers.

I feel this whole debate about who owns the word "Objectivism" is a big honking bait and switch game to trap newbies with. You suck them in with promises of a good heroic life brilliantly protrayed in fiction, then once they are hooked, you tighten the screws on logical contradictions (according to one-sided definitions) to get them to start obeying the masters. It's a pure cult maneuver. I have always felt that way. It's BS.

(I'm not saying this is your intent. I am saying I disagree with your understanding and this is part of my reason.)

I'll give Rand herself some leeway since she did come up with and/or oversaw the initial Objectivist literature. Originaors are always protective of their work. I don't grant that leeway to those who came after her.

I refuse to play by those rules.

I know I have pissed off a lot of people by doing that.

Good.

Michael

[Xray]

Ayn Rand said repeatedly that "Objectivism" is the name she gave to her philosophy, i.e., to her system of ideas and principles. "Objectivism" is a proper name, in effect, not a generic label for an overall approach to philosophy.

George,

The way I understand Rand's writing, she also meant Objectivism to be "an overall approach to philosophy." She even talked about future Obejctivist scholars and so forth. Look at this quote from the Introduction to The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff:

It gives me great pleasure to introduce the first book by an Objectivist philosopher other than myself.

I think George's focus here was on maximum preciseness in order to avoid possible confusion.

"Objectivism" (understood here as the philosophy created by Ayn Rand) contains certain fundamentals and premises; in case a crucial part of one's own philosophy should go against these fundamental principles, one would abandon the Objectivist take on those issues.

Ghs illustrated this with the example of anarchism. Rand was very outspoken in her rejection of anarchism:

Ghs: To the extent one disagrees with Rand, especially on fundamental issues, one should not use the label "Objectivist." This is why I have not referred to myself as an "Objectivist" since my college years, after I became an anarchist. I regard this as a matter of respect.

The way I understand Rand's writing, she also meant Objectivism to be "an overall approach to philosophy."

This is correct, but it was Objectivism as she wanted it to be understood.

There is an objectivist philosophy that came way before Rand, anyway, and those ideas have nothing to do with hers.

Which philosophy is that?

Edited May 30, 2011 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is an objectivist philosophy that came way before Rand, anyway, and those ideas have nothing to do with hers.

Which philosophy is that?

Xray,

A dude named Frege started it. See here for an overview.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Ayn Rand said repeatedly that "Objectivism" is the name she gave to her philosophy, i.e., to her system of ideas and principles. "Objectivism" is a proper name, in effect, not a generic label for an overall approach to philosophy.

George,

The way I understand Rand's writing, she also meant Objectivism to be "an overall approach to philosophy." She even talked about future Objectivist scholars and so forth. Look at this quote from the Introduction to The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff:

It gives me great pleasure to introduce the first book by an Objectivist philosopher other than myself.

This passage doesn't back up your claim. By "Objectivist philosopher" Rand meant someone who agreed with her and someone she had sanctioned. Anyone who was involved in Randian college groups during the 1960s, as I was, knows first-hand how sensitive Rand was on this subject. We were warned not to call ourselves Objectivists, under the threat of a possible lawsuit. (If memory serves, Holzer actually initiated some lawsuits.) We had to settle for "Students of Objectivism." Rand obviously considered "Objectivism" to be a trade label for her ideas. I thought this was a silly policy at the time, and I still do, but that's the way it was.

I don't think this is an especially important controversy, but there is a simple way to settle it. If Rand were still alive, do you think she would approve of anyone who posts regularly on OL calling himself or herself an "Objectivist"? No, of course she wouldn't. She would be outraged.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think this is an especially important controversy, but there is a simple way to settle it. If Rand were still alive, do you think she would approve of anyone who posts regularly on OL calling himself or herself an "Objectivist"? No, of course she wouldn't. She would be outraged.

Ghs

That's nothing to what her reaction would be picking up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and seeing that Peikoff had slapped an Introduction onto it.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I don't think this is an especially important controversy, but there is a simple way to settle it. If Rand were still alive, do you think she would approve of anyone who posts regularly on OL calling himself or herself an "Objectivist"? No, of course she wouldn't. She would be outraged.

Ghs

That's nothing to what her reaction would be picking up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and seeing that Peikoff had slapped an Introduction onto it.

--Brant

I hate to say this, but I suspect that Rand would not have disagreed with or objected to virtually anything that Peikoff has done, said, or written since her death.

Ghs

[Selene]

I don't think this is an especially important controversy, but there is a simple way to settle it. If Rand were still alive, do you think she would approve of anyone who posts regularly on OL calling himself or herself an "Objectivist"? No, of course she wouldn't. She would be outraged.

Ghs

That's nothing to what her reaction would be picking up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and seeing that Peikoff had slapped an Introduction onto it.

--Brant

I hate to say this, but I suspect that Rand would not have disagreed with or objected to virtually anything that Peikoff has done, said, or written since her death.

Ghs

George:

Correct.

She was completely isolated and insulated by adoration by the mid '60's and even an idiot like me could see it from the audience.

Adam

[sjw]

I don't think this is an especially important controversy, but there is a simple way to settle it. If Rand were still alive, do you think she would approve of anyone who posts regularly on OL calling himself or herself an "Objectivist"? No, of course she wouldn't. She would be outraged.

Ghs

That's nothing to what her reaction would be picking up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and seeing that Peikoff had slapped an Introduction onto it.

--Brant

I hate to say this, but I suspect that Rand would not have disagreed with or objected to virtually anything that Peikoff has done, said, or written since her death.

Ghs

That's as damning an indictment of Rand as I've ever seen.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think this is an especially important controversy, but there is a simple way to settle it. If Rand were still alive, do you think she would approve of anyone who posts regularly on OL calling himself or herself an "Objectivist"? No, of course she wouldn't. She would be outraged.

Ghs

That's nothing to what her reaction would be picking up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and seeing that Peikoff had slapped an Introduction onto it.

--Brant

I hate to say this, but I suspect that Rand would not have disagreed with or objected to virtually anything that Peikoff has done, said, or written since her death.

Ghs

That's as damning an indictment of Rand as I've ever seen.

Shayne

Peikoff's book The Ominous Parallels was essentially done in 1968 when I attended some of his lectures based on it. It may have needed two more years of serious attention. I understand Rand helped delay its publication for over a decade with her editorial criticisms. It was not a very good book. The writing style was awful. There was too much emphasis on ideas and not enough on people using ideas. As Nathaniel Branden once said, what if Hitler had been run over by a horse cart and killed when a child?

The only thing I think she would have seriously agreed with a la Peikoff is his continuation of Randian adulation and top-dogism presiding over her philosophy. If Rand was the top dog and N.B. the next down, then L.P. was no more than third in that hierarchy. Whatever was ever right about that setup died in the 1960s when NBI died. I currently think of Peikoff as a philosophical zombie.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I don't think this is an especially important controversy, but there is a simple way to settle it. If Rand were still alive, do you think she would approve of anyone who posts regularly on OL calling himself or herself an "Objectivist"? No, of course she wouldn't. She would be outraged.

Ghs

That's nothing to what her reaction would be picking up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and seeing that Peikoff had slapped an Introduction onto it.

--Brant

I hate to say this, but I suspect that Rand would not have disagreed with or objected to virtually anything that Peikoff has done, said, or written since her death.

Ghs

That's as damning an indictment of Rand as I've ever seen.

Shayne

I don't regard my remark as much of an "indictment" at all. Rand was an authentic genius, and what is genius, in the final analysis, except a type of intellectual eccentricity? Rare is the genius who is "normal" in other respects.

The intolerance and dogmatism that Rand sometimes exhibited are perfectly understandable to me, given the years of struggle she had to endure in a hostile culture. The problem arises when her true-believing disciples, who lack the intelligence and creativity to produce anything original, emulate Rand's eccentricities. Second-hand eccentricities typically come across as ridiculous.

Does this mean I think we should judge Rand by different standards than we judge her orthodox followers? In a word, yes.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

A well-balanced genius I've read about was one of the greatest mathematicians--if not the absolute greatest--named Euler. He would dictate his work while playing with his children.

--Brant

[sjw]

I don't regard my remark as much of an "indictment" at all.

Yes, I was aware of that. But I do.

I would like to believe that Rand would have ostracized Peikoff by now. But that's just what I'd like to believe. What I actually believe is another matter.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I don't regard my remark as much of an "indictment" at all.

Yes, I was aware of that. But I do.

I would like to believe that Rand would have ostracized Peikoff by now. But that's just what I'd like to believe. What I actually believe is another matter.

Shayne

What do you think Rand should have ostracized Peikoff for?

Ghs

[Selene]

Being Barbara's cousin?

[caroljane]

I don't think this is an especially important controversy, but there is a simple way to settle it. If Rand were still alive, do you think she would approve of anyone who posts regularly on OL calling himself or herself an "Objectivist"? No, of course she wouldn't. She would be outraged.

Ghs

That's nothing to what her reaction would be picking up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and seeing that Peikoff had slapped an Introduction onto it.

--Brant

I hate to say this, but I suspect that Rand would not have disagreed with or objected to virtually anything that Peikoff has done, said, or written since her death.

Ghs

That's as damning an indictment of Rand as I've ever seen.

Shayne

I don't regard my remark as much of an "indictment" at all. Rand was an authentic genius, and what is genius, in the final analysis, except a type of intellectual eccentricity? Rare is the genius who is "normal" in other respects.

You choose your words carefully here. Yes, genius can be described as a type of intellectual eccentricity. Or, a genius is a human being , some aspect of whose humanity is distorted. Yet regular non-geniuses all have our eccentricities and distortions, and contrive to conceal or adapt them to be "normal." Or to exaggerate them to flout the "normal"-- or we just think we are normal, since they are our own characteristics, and everybody else is weird.

Your second sentence also is dubious. History abounds with geniuses who were otherwise normal - Mozart and Austen come to mind; though I believe it is true that extreme eccentricity and outright mental illness are more common in geniuses and their families than in the general population.

Still, I don't think your conclusion that we should judge Rand by different standards bears out.In her normal interactions with other people,except maybe the geniuses, we should judge her by normal standards.

Edited May 31, 2011 by daunce lynam