A Phoenix Rising! - the rebirth of IOS

[Jerry Biggers]

That's right, the INSTITUTE FOR OBJECTIVIST STUDIES has been reborn, but as a separate entity from The Atlas Society, and with its own agenda for re-invigorating the academic development of Objectivism as a philosophy and movement..

There was a link to this new IOS on The Atlas Society site, in a discussion of their upcoming "Summit" conference in June. I clicked on it and found not the former IOS (the original name of what is now The Atlas Society), [although several prominent TAS officers and frequent speakers or participants in their programs, are on its Advisory Board], what popped up was a rather extensive series of blog-style discussions of the history and current state of the Objectivist, "movement.".

Check the links below. Currently on the site is a discussion of what the new IOS is for and what it intends to accomplish. There are also discussions of Academic Mentoring and plans for seminars and/or conferences.

Accompanying these topics are extremely interesting presentations of many issues about Objectivism, as a philosophy and as a movement, that are discussed here on OL. OL readers will no doubt find Dr. Khawaja's observations stimulating - and he invites readers to comment. (Note: The blog entries are not identified by author, but I assume that Dr. Khawaja is the writer. However, these articles may also be from, or co-written by, the other co-founder, Professor Carrie-Anne Biondi).

As previously mentioned, this NEW incarnation of the Institute For Objectivist Studies is separate from The Atlas Society, and plans for seminars seem to be directed at Graduate students (similar to the "Advanced" seminars that are offered by the Atlas Society, separate from their Summit conference) and others who can demonstrate scholarly interest in Objectivism. Attendance for the next one this fall is limited to 20 students, but see the site for details..

http://instituteforobjectiviststudies.wordpress.com/

http://instituteforobjectiviststudies.wordpress.com/about/

http://instituteforobjectiviststudies.wordpress.com/reviews-of-current-scholarship/

http://instituteforobjectiviststudies.wordpress.com/ios-and-the-movement/

[Guyau]

Thanks, Jerry.

IOS 2013 Fall Seminar in Philosophy

IOS 2014 Spring Seminar in Philosophy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I finally got around to looking at this.

Where have I been?

I wish all the best luck to Irfan Khawaja and Carrie-Ann Biondi on their venture.

I saw that Robert Campbell is on the advisory board, too, in addition to David Kelley, Stephen Hicks, Fred Seddon and some other luminaries in the open-system Objectivism orbit.

I predict this is going to be a very good thing.

OL is a bit rougher than strict academic discipline since the purpose is for individuals to work through their ideas and thinking in a Socratic dialog manner instead of promoting a movement, and that always is a messy process, but I definitely feel kinship with these people.

Michael

[Guyau]

The seminar on the epistemology of concepts this fall was marvelous. The advance readings were very worthwhile.* The discussion was tremendous, with much cross-fertilization among professional philosophers and intellectuals from other disciplines, all serious students of philosophy. Irfan’s leadership in our seminar was very productive. Thanks to him and to Carrie-Ann for bringing this off and for the hospitality.

Return to this spot to find what definite shape develops for the Spring 2014 seminar from IOS. If it would be feasible for you to travel to Glen Ridge NJ, west of Manhattan, and if you would like to study David Kaspar’s Intuitionism for discussion next spring with others competent in and alive to Rand’s philosophy, contact IOS.

[merjet]

IOS is now defunct. It was a short life--about 7 months.

[Roger Bissell]

Here is Irfan's farewell statement, announcing the demise of IOS 2.0...

See especially, the bold/underscored comments, which I completely agree with, as the result of painful, frustrating personal experience.

REB

The last word (more or less)

I’ve decided to end the existence of the Institute for Objectivist Studies. In some ways, I suppose, it was a good idea, but I’ve come to learn that in most ways, it wasn’t.

I’ve greatly enjoyed meeting and conversing with many people here, and I’m conscious of the fact that in some cases (most notably that of commenter “djr” on moral luck), I’ve issued promissory notes on responses that I haven’t been able to deliver on. For now, all I can say is that I’ve learned a lot from those comments, and will incorporate them–with credit–into anything I publish on the subject, but simply lack the time to respond in this forum. I’m gradually closing down all of the comment boards, and will close down any that I’ve missed in the very near future. The site will stay up–if you wish to see its monument, click around–but only as an archive. I don’t intend to add to it, and don’t intend for others to do so, either.

I’ve been skeptical for a long time of the Objectivist movement, but have until recently thought there was some way to work “within” it and “reform” it. I no longer think so. Putting aside how I characterize my own philosophical views, I see no value whatsoever in operating “within” anything that calls itself Objectivist–or libertarian–or anything but philosophical. My advice to anyone who sees himself or herself as operating “within” Objectivism would be to get out. But that is a claim I can’t explain here, and I suppose it’s a discovery that has to be made, in each case, on one’s own.

I certainly have a deep and abiding respect for many of the people, Objectivist and otherwise, who have commented here, so please don’t take the preceding comments as a blanket condemnation. And I don’t mean to imply that I will henceforth not deal with Objectivists. That’s just silly. Nor am I repudiating some specific Objectivist doctrine. I’m simply saying: organized Objectivism in every form I’ve ever encountered is a harmful waste of time–including the form of it that I’ve tried to lead.

Please accept my apologies for any disappointed expectations–some of them, I’ll readily admit, justifiable. But I am a professor, a department chair, a pre-law advisor, the director of an ethics institute, and the co-editor of an academic journal. It’s not as though I have nothing else to do with my life. I certainly have no shortage of thoughts on Objectivist topics, but I don’t think a blog is the forum for them. In fact, I know that it isn’t.

The truth is that–on the whole–the Objectivist “milieu” is not worth the time I’ve given it. To coin a phrase, I have better things to do than deal with it. There are more worthwhile audiences and interlocutors elsewhere. If you disagree, feel free to create your own Objectivist institute, and run it as you please. If you agree…well, I’m sure our paths will cross soon. Not that they won’t cross in the first case. They just won’t cross at some specifically Objectivist function. Because I won’t be there.

In any case, I’m done. And since IOS depends on my work, it’s done. Of course, I can’t end with the cliche “It was good while it lasted.” If that were true, after all, I wouldn’t be ending it. I can only say that I tried to make it good while it lasted. If I failed, surely part of the failure is mine. But part of it, I’m quite sure, was the nature of the enterprise as such. I don’t think that an Institute for Objectivist Studies of the sort described on the main page could have succeeded. But others can debate the relevant counterfactual conditionals. For now, I tip my hat to the critics behind the scenes who told me at the outset that the task was itself quixotic: I was wrong, and they were right. The great thing about thought, however, is that you get to learn from your mistakes. I’ve certainly learned from mine–and frankly, that’s all I’ve ever really asked of them. You get what you pay for, and I’m gratified to say that I’ve done both.

Irfan Khawaja

P.S.: I wrote the preceding note on my own, and made the decision to close IOS on my own, but I’ve cleared the decision with Carrie-Ann Biondi, its Founding Director, who–in acknowledgement of the work I’ve put into IOS–put the power of decision in my hands.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thanks, Roger.

The tone of Irfan's closing message sounds like there is quite a backstory there.

I could make several observations about the nature of our subculture, but I don't know anything about what went on. So I'll just say this:

Sorry to see it didn't work out for him.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If you have a product you cannot sell or sell at a profit it subsists on charity even if it's the charity of your own money. Academia is mostly charity feeding directly on taxpayers and indirectly on taxpayers through the ripped off, ignorant students getting crap for debt enslavement. The IOS and the ARI are built on the not for profit academic model. The quality of the material put forth or the environment created is secondary. The ARI has succeeded so far because it has a property hold on a great name and an effective fund raiser pretend to be an Objectivist* running the place.

--Brant

*most "Objectivists" are not Objectivists and don't even know it and that "the philosophy of Ayn Rand" is not Objectivism, but an intellectual-cultural mishmash from the head of one person's self-referencing rigor--any real scientist qua science, for instance, is an Objectivist; ironically, most of them haven't a clue about that much less that if they reject the Randian ethics and/or politics the philosophy will "destroy" them, it's so damned dangerous