Rand's Epistemology In A Nutshell

[Daniel Barnes]

On another thread, Guard, who I'm assuming is an Objectivist, wrote:

"As I see it, our senses give us absolute, immutable truth. Everything else is conclusion drawn from that. If those conclusions are drawn logically, they are true. When we perceive things that "contradict" those conclusions, we alter our conclusions accordingly. But does it mean that the conclusions we drew earlier from what we had perceived were wrong? I don't think so."

This to me usefully summarises what many Objectivists think Rand's theory is.

Do other people think it is

a) a reasonably accurate summary of Rand?

B) a reasonably accurate summary of what people think Rand said?

Ba'al also points out another a common meme that I often find accompanies the above, despite obviously contradicting it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just saw this in the Articles section. Since I don't look there often, it is only seeing the light of day today.

It's not really an article, so I am moving it to the Epistemology section.

Michael

[merjet]

Reply to post #1.

At least based on ITOE, it is not a reasonably accurate summary of what Rand wrote.

For the purposes of this series, the validity of the senses must be taken for granted (ITOE2, 3)

On the other hand, Rand did not jump on Prof. E. saying the senses can't be wrong in the Appendix:

Prof. E: In the case of extrospective knowledge, we are fallible, we can make errors. But we know that we can, in principle, arrive at the correct answer to any question given two facts: the use of a rational method combined with certain incontestable data on which we base all of our reasoning—namely, the direct evidence of the senses, about which we can't be wrong, as apart from errors in conceptualizing it or reasoning about it.

AR: Right.

I wouldn't rely on this very much. It was extemporaneous and the main topic was conceptual knowledge, especially introspective.

[Robert Campbell]

Merlin,

It's pretty clear that "Prof E." was Leonard Peikoff.

There's remarkably little about perception in Rand's published work; nearly everything we have on the Objectivist theory of perception is Peikoff's or David Kelley's.

Robert Campbell

[dan2100]

Merlin,

It's pretty clear that "Prof E." was Leonard Peikoff.

There's remarkably little about perception in Rand's published work; nearly everything we have on the Objectivist theory of perception is Peikoff's or David Kelley's.

Robert Campbell

A sad fact, too, is that few so called Objectivists seem interested in reading Kelley's rather excellent (in my opinion) book on the subject, The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception.

[Robert Campbell]

A sad fact, too, is that few so called Objectivists seem interested in reading Kelley's rather excellent (in my opinion) book on the subject, The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception.

Dan,

They were before David Kelley was excommunicated.

Since then, the Orthos have gradually "discovered" that perception isn't all that interesting.

Robert Campbell

[dan2100]

A sad fact, too, is that few so called Objectivists seem interested in reading Kelley's rather excellent (in my opinion) book on the subject, The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception.

Dan,

They were before David Kelley was excommunicated.

Since then, the Orthos have gradually "discovered" that perception isn't all that interesting.

Robert Campbell

Do you think that, eventually, after the current "Ortho" leadership is gone, that this will change?

Or, rather than continue in pessimism, how do you think this could be changed now?

[Robert Campbell]

Dan,

A few years ago, I thought that the worst aspects of the Orthodoxy would gradually recede.

I am no longer so optimistic.

So much depends on Leonard Peikoff, even now that he is largely retired and some of his recent gestures have gone over poorly with his followers, that I see little room for improvement until he is gone from the scene and the Estate of Ayn Rand is in different hands.

Robert Mayhew, for instance, defends his rewriting of Ayn Rand's unpublished material on the grounds that Leonard Peikoff wanted it done that way. Without Peikoff's direction, would Mayhew have done that kind of shoddy job?

Greg Salmieri actually commented, during the brouhaha at Amazon over Mayhew's book of essays on Atlas Shrugged, that the Mayhew volume was short on economic analyses of the novel. And why would there be a shortage of economists in the ARI orbit? This couldn't have anything to do with the expulsion of George Reisman, could it? Yet instead of trying to draw in more good economists, the ARIans are busy inventing terrible philosophical derelictions for Reisman to be guilty of. (Diana Hsieh wants us all to know what a dreadful rationalist he is.)

I can think of a couple of ways that the Orthodoxy could be shocked into dropping some of its worst attitudes, but they would require boldness and independent thinking of a sort rarely encountered among the Ayn Rand Institute crowd. The taboo against public criticism of other ARIans is too strong; the taboo against public criticism of Leonard Peikoff even stronger.

One would be for an ARIan to issue a negative review of Jim Valliant's book. But Valliant's book was personally sponsored by Peikoff.

Another would be for an ARIan who is established in academia to start putting distance between him or herself and ARI, the way Robert Tracinski did a few years ago. But Tracinski wasn't in academia and wasn't being funded by the Anthem Foundation.

I would like to think that the publication of Jennifer Burns' book would set a positive example, but the forces of reaction against it are too strong. More likely the Ayn Rand Archives will once again be closed to anyone who is considered a potential rival to ARI's hand-picked intellectuals.

Robert Campbell

[Rich Engle]

Bob "There Can Only Be One Dark Lord" C. makes a cool funny:

Since then, the Orthos have gradually "discovered" that perception isn't all that interesting.

Heh. I remember years ago when I was still deep into being an O-prick. I was taking a Sandler Sales Training class, which is extremely powerful, manipulative stuff, and I mentioned something about reality. The trainer smiled at me and said "Reality is overrated--at least if you're setting out to get something from someone."

[dan2100]

Bob "There Can Only Be One Dark Lord" C. makes a cool funny:

Since then, the Orthos have gradually "discovered" that perception isn't all that interesting.

Heh. I remember years ago when I was still deep into being an O-prick. I was taking a Sandler Sales Training class, which is extremely powerful, manipulative stuff, and I mentioned something about reality. The trainer smiled at me and said "Reality is overrated--at least if you're setting out to get something from someone."

I've actually met some people like this -- Objectivists (I won't call O-ps) who seem incurious about anything that might call their views into question. I always find it funny because my usual reaction if someone says that there's a very written book or essay refuting one of my cherished beliefs is to want to read and understand it. (Of course, since I have other things to read and do and cherish sleep, I don't bother following up every lead here.) I've always thought my initial reaction was the healthy one and anyone who didn't feel the same way, whether she managed to stifle it for practical reasons, is somehow broken -- or at least denying some part of herself.

[tjohnson]

I've actually met some people like this -- Objectivists (I won't call O-ps) who seem incurious about anything that might call their views into question. I always find it funny because my usual reaction if someone says that there's a very written book or essay refuting one of my cherished beliefs is to want to read and understand it. (Of course, since I have other things to read and do and cherish sleep, I don't bother following up every lead here.) I've always thought my initial reaction was the healthy one and anyone who didn't feel the same way, whether she managed to stifle it for practical reasons, is somehow broken -- or at least denying some part of herself.

Unfortunately everyone is not as open-minded as you Dan.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Dan,

A few years ago, I thought that the worst aspects of the Orthodoxy would gradually recede.

I am no longer so optimistic.

So much depends on Leonard Peikoff, even now that he is largely retired and some of his recent gestures have gone over poorly with his followers, that I see little room for improvement until he is gone from the scene and the Estate of Ayn Rand is in different hands.

Robert Mayhew, for instance, defends his rewriting of Ayn Rand's unpublished material on the grounds that Leonard Peikoff wanted it done that way. Without Peikoff's direction, would Mayhew have done that kind of shoddy job?

Greg Salmieri actually commented, during the brouhaha at Amazon over Mayhew's book of essays on Atlas Shrugged, that the Mayhew volume was short on economic analyses of the novel. And why would there be a shortage of economists in the ARI orbit? This couldn't have anything to do with the expulsion of George Reisman, could it? Yet instead of trying to draw in more good economists, the ARIans are busy inventing terrible philosophical derelictions for Reisman to be guilty of. (Diana Hsieh wants us all to know what a dreadful rationalist he is.)

I can think of a couple of ways that the Orthodoxy could be shocked into dropping some of its worst attitudes, but they would require boldness and independent thinking of a sort rarely encountered among the Ayn Rand Institute crowd. The taboo against public criticism of other ARIans is too strong; the taboo against public criticism of Leonard Peikoff even stronger.

One would be for an ARIan to issue a negative review of Jim Valliant's book. But Valliant's book was personally sponsored by Peikoff.

Another would be for an ARIan who is established in academia to start putting distance between him or herself and ARI, the way Robert Tracinski did a few years ago. But Tracinski wasn't in academia and wasn't being funded by the Anthem Foundation.

I would like to think that the publication of Jennifer Burns' book would set a positive example, but the forces of reaction against it are too strong. More likely the Ayn Rand Archives will once again be closed to anyone who is considered a potential rival to ARI's hand-picked intellectuals.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

I think the best way ARI could be shocked into a different orbit is to actually grapple with some fundamentally new ideas which may or may not be fully consonant with Objectivism. I'd love to hear someone from ARI discuss Kahneman's ideas about bounded rationality or take on Nicholas Taleb about uncertainty.

The personality issues are not the problem, they are a symptom. The root problem is an unwillingness to tackle the protean new work that is already out there. Dealing with decision-making and behavioral economics shouldn't be too high a hurdle, it is reality-oriented and there are a vast number of academics working in these fields.

I'm not so much interested in an accounting of all this past revisionism. If they want to save face, they should just throw the floodgates open and do fundamentally new work. If they did that, the rest would follow.

Jim

[9thdoctor]

Do you think that, eventually, after the current "Ortho" leadership is gone, that this will change?

Some people are too invested in the Orthodox model. Valliant, Hsieh, Mayhew, and Binswanger for example. Best case they’ll become increasingly irrelevant, as the shenanigans keep coming to light, and original, more interesting work is produced by those outside the cloister.

[Roger Bissell]

A sad fact, too, is that few so called Objectivists seem interested in reading Kelley's rather excellent (in my opinion) book on the subject, The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception.

Dan,

They were before David Kelley was excommunicated.

Since then, the Orthos have gradually "discovered" that perception isn't all that interesting.

Robert Campbell

The crystal ball is speaking to me, Robert & Dan.

It is saying: "Don't be too surprised when Harry Binswanger's forthcoming book on the nature of consciousness contains a chapter of perception bearing a strange resemblance to David Kelley's pathbreaking ideas on perception -- just as Tara Smith's book on Rand's ethics cited Leonard Peikoff for the ground-breaking theoretical work on self-esteem actually done by Nathaniel Branden, and certified as part of Objectivism by Ayn Rand AFTER THE SPLIT."

These people are shameless intellectual looters. But you cannot be a looter, intellectual or material, without more fundamentally blanking out the recognition of reality, viz., that people deserve to have their individual rights and property respected, and their productive, virtuous actions acknowledged--and not physically violated or buried under a tidal wave of fraudulent citations in a supposedly scholarly work.

I am truly sick at heart to see what has become of the Objectivist movement in the past 40 years. And like Robert, I am not optimistic about the near-future. I think that not only does LP have to fade from the scene, but also Binswanger and Schwartz, for starters, before there will be much of an improvement.

Roger Bissell, Demi-Objectivist

(I will explain this self-label some other time.)

[dan2100]

Do you think that, eventually, after the current "Ortho" leadership is gone, that this will change?

Some people are too invested in the Orthodox model. Valliant, Hsieh, Mayhew, and Binswanger for example. Best case they'll become increasingly irrelevant, as the shenanigans keep coming to light, and original, more interesting work is produced by those outside the cloister.

I'm curious. Do you think much "interesting work" has been produced inside the "cloister"? I think the balance of that turned long ago -- with more of the work being done outside and with insiders mostly rehashing. Of course, I've not read everything that's been done, so I'm just giving my personal impression here.

[Robert Campbell]

Dan,

What the insiders have been pretty good at has been accounting for the historical background and the inner workings of Rand's novels. At least, that's the impression I'm getting from looking at the Mayhew volumes on We the Living, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged—I haven't picked up his volume on Anthem yet.

Of course, they have the advantage of an inside track with the Archives, and they haven't hesitated to use it. Further, I get the impression that a minority of the already small group of ARI scholars have been pulling the weight: ARI is short on historians, even shorter on Lit Crit types, and overstocked with philosophers who all bring variants of the house interpretation to bear on the novels.

I expect McConnell's 100 Voices to be worthwhile.

Otherwise, Tara Smith's books contain much patient explication and little scorching rhetoric, which is what makes them valuable. In terms of content, they are highly unoriginal.

In another three months, we'll know what David Harriman's book on induction brings. Harriman's closeness to Peikoff does not augur well for it, in my estimation.

There's a big volume on Objectivism under Allan Gotthelf's direction, due out next year from Blackwell (if the schedule doesn't slip again). I expect the presentation to be clear, the contents purposely unoriginal, but we shall see.

Harry Binswanger's book? I ain't holdin' my breath.

Leonard Peikoff's DIM volume? I ain't holdin' my breath, neither.

And where to go after these?

Four volumes, one for each novel, will in the near term satiate the ARIan appetite for Randnovelology.

The interesting unpublished scraps of Rand that remain are things like her 1968 comments about her relationship with Frank O'Connor—the Estate's in no hurry to release them.

And new philosophy? It's a closed system, don't you know?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

I think the best way ARI could be shocked into a different orbit is to actually grapple with some fundamentally new ideas which may or may not be fully consonant with Objectivism. I'd love to hear someone from ARI discuss Kahneman's ideas about bounded rationality or take on Nicholas Taleb about uncertainty.

The personality issues are not the problem, they are a symptom. The root problem is an unwillingness to tackle the protean new work that is already out there. Dealing with decision-making and behavioral economics shouldn't be too high a hurdle, it is reality-oriented and there are a vast number of academics working in these fields.

I'm not so much interested in an accounting of all this past revisionism. If they want to save face, they should just throw the floodgates open and do fundamentally new work. If they did that, the rest would follow.

Jim H-N,

You're right that if anyone at ARI took on Kahneman or Taleb, interesting results would follow with near-inevitability. And the practical relevance of decision making and behavioral economics, as well as the potential for reaching a wider audience, shouldn't be hard for the ARIans to perceive.

But what's the reward, within ARIan circles, for doing any of this? When Karl Popper is written off as an apostle of the arbitrary, or as Tom Kuhn in sheep's clothing, they have their excuses ready-made for ignoring Taleb. When psychology has been historically risky for the Orthodoxy (only Ed Locke has remained in the fold), why recruit more psychologists who might be interested in Kahneman?

Personalities matter in this context, because initial recruitment into the ARI orbit and subsequent advancement within it both depend on them. Do you think any junior ARIan can afford to draw the adverse attention of Leonard Peikoff?

It's one thing for Yaron Brook to give a talk to an organization with "Libertarian" in its name, as he recently did in Britain. It's quite a different thing for the ARI intellectuals and academics to venture into new territory. It'll require a break with their peers, and almost certainly with Peikoff himself.

Robert C

[George H. Smith]

But what's the reward, within ARIan circles, for doing any of this? When Karl Popper is written off as an apostle of the arbitrary, or as Tom Kuhn in sheep's clothing, they have their excuses ready-made for ignoring Taleb.

Speaking of Kuhn, a far better approach to the history of science (and ideas generally) is Stephen Toulmin's Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts (Princeton, 1972).

I first purchased a copy of this magnificent book in 1974, and it had a huge influence on the way I view the historical development of "intellectual disciplines," as Toulmin calls them. (Here, perhaps, I should add the usual proviso that I don't agree with everything that Toulmin says, such as his dismissal of the social sciences as pseudo-disciplines.)

It would be impossible to summarize the book here, but a list of some of the chapter titles should be enough to whet the appetite of some OL members:

Intellectual Disciplines: Their Goals and Problems

Intellectual Disciplines: Their Historical Development

Intellectual Professions: Their Organization and Evolution

Interlude: Evolution and the Human Sciences

The Variety of Rational Enterprises

Etc.

I checked on Amazon, and it looks as if this book is out of print. Only used copies are available, and the cheapest sells for $137.00. I occasionally see used paperbacks for sale, however, so if you spot one you should definitely pick it up. Of the hundreds of books that I have read on the history of ideas, it is the most suggestive and stimulating, and is therefore my favorite in that sense. The reviewer for The Journal of Modern History, the historian of science Robert Westfall, was correct to call the book "a work conceived on a heroic scale."

Here is an amusing anecdote about the book:

During the 15 years or so that I lectured at summer conferences with Randy Barnett (for both IHS and Cato), I kept pushing Toulmin's book, especially on Randy, telling him that he absolutely had to read it. For around the first 12 years my enthusiastic recommendations fell on deaf ears. Then, at the first conference one summer, Randy showed up with a copy, singing its praises to the skies and telling everyone within earshot, faculty members and students alike, that they absolutely had to read this brilliant book. My response was, "Randy, what took you so fucking long? I've been pushing Toulmin's book at you for over a decade." 8-)

Anyway, Randy was so impressed that he visited Toulmin at his home and had a long discussion with him.

Ghs

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Robert,

Thanks for that detailed and point by point response. It is indeed ARI's inflexibility when it comes to acknowledging Popper and their insistence on an almost diaphanous model of causality that limits their horizons almost absolutely. In the ARI universe things either deal with intentionality-related concepts having to do with free will or deterministic properties that, in principle, should be able to be apprehended absolutely. Exceptions to and meeting places of these categories are rarely dealt with.

It is a sealed off ecosystem that seems impervious to significant change from outside influences. The culture is a self-selecting one and maybe I've naive to think that they could cut the Gordian knot and transcend their current intellectual pattern.

Jim

[merjet]

Speaking of Kuhn, a far better approach to the history of science (and ideas generally) is Stephen Toulmin's Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts (Princeton, 1972)

....

I checked on Amazon, and it looks as if this book is out of print. Only used copies are available, and the cheapest sells for $137.00. I occasionally see used paperbacks for sale, however, so if you spot one you should definitely pick it up.

It sounds like you own a rare book. I checked Abe Books and Alibrus Used Books. Each had one copy. I checked the Northern Illinois University catalog and the I-Share catalog, which covers many other Illinois colleges and universities, including the University of Illinois (all campuses) and Illinois State University. No copies.

[9thdoctor]

I'm curious. Do you think much "interesting work" has been produced inside the "cloister"?

I have the book of essays on Atlas Shrugged, there’s plenty in there that’s interesting, though the range is limited by the absence of any critical voices. The upcoming Harriman book is positioned as interesting and original material. I expect it not to be, but we’ll have to wait and see.

Capitalism by George Reisman and The Evidence of the Senses by David Kelley could be seen as coming from the cloister, if you define it broadly enough. When did the cloister open? And what does the metaphor apply to concretely, to a journal, book service and speakers bureau? In the 80's that's all there was.

At least there’s little question about who has been the Abbot since 1982, at the earliest.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I'm curious. Do you think much "interesting work" has been produced inside the "cloister"?

I have the book of essays on Atlas Shrugged, there’s plenty in there that’s interesting, though the range is limited by the absence of any critical voices. The upcoming Harriman book is positioned as interesting and original material. I expect it not to be, but we’ll have to wait and see.

Capitalism by George Reisman and The Evidence of the Senses by David Kelley could be seen as coming from the cloister, if you define it broadly enough. When did the cloister open? And what does the metaphor apply to concretely, to a journal, book service and speakers bureau? In the 80's that's all there was.

At least there’s little question about who has been the Abbot since 1982, at the earliest.

Dennis,

I don't think Reisman's Capitalism ever appeared in a Second Renaissance or ARI catalog. What became of Evidence of the Senses appeared in installments in an ARI-linked periodical. I can't remember whether that was in The Intellectual Activist or The Objectivist Forum.

Jim

[9thdoctor]

I don't think Reisman's Capitalism ever appeared in a Second Renaissance or ARI catalog.

Indeed, because it came out after that split. But it was discussed as an exciting upcoming book in Ortho circles before the split, I think even in the Second Renaissance catalog. In the early nineties ARI provided an essay called Education and the Racist Road to Barbarism as part of the material for campus clubs to give out. There may have been some other Reisman material too, I don’t remember for sure. Maybe another piece on Environmentalism.

I had a conversation with the ARI club coordinator when the split was in its early stages, I wish I could remember whether I was called specifically to discuss it, or if it came up in the course of an unrelated conversation, probably coordinating a speaker. The gist of it was that it was a strictly personal dispute, and that it was ok to keep giving out the Reisman material I had. They must have discovered his “rationalism” later. Maybe Comrade Sonia pointed it out, she’s the only one I’ve ever seen make such a charge.

[George H. Smith]

I started reading George Reisman's Capitalism five years ago and hope to finish it in the afterlife. It should be read with caution, however, because it might cause a hernia when you pick it up. And even if you don't like parts of it, I can guarantee that you will never throw the book across a room.

Seriously, it is an excellent book.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

What became [The] Evidence of the Senses appeared in installments in an ARI-linked periodical. I can't remember whether that was in The Intellectual Activist or The Objectivist Forum.

Jim,

It was The Objectivist Forum. One chapter, on "The Primacy of Existence," appeared in 1981.

Robert Campbell