The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar


Ed Hudgins

Recommended Posts

The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar

I am writing in response to the controversy on several online discussion boards about The Atlas Society’s 2008 Summer Seminar, and the inclusion of Lindsay Perigo as a speaker on the program. I want to explain our Summer Seminar policies, to place the current controversy in context, and to address real concerns about the wisdom of that invitation.

Our Purpose

The purpose of The Atlas Society is to make Objectivism a recognized and respected perspective or view of life, culture, and politics. In the same way that Cato, Reason, and others have made “libertarianism” a political alternative distinct from liberalism and conservatism, we want to make Objectivism the positive philosophical alternative (using David Kelley’s categories) to the religious, pre-modern worldview and the value-relative, degenerate, postmodern worldview. We do this specifically by (1) calling attention to Objectivism and TAS, by (2) promoting understanding of Objectivism, and by (3) promoting a commitment both to Objectivism and to TAS.

We want to build a benevolent community of Objectivists and a benevolent culture and society based on reason and rational, responsible self-interest. Consistent with this goal, our approach to promoting Objectivism is to do so in an open, rational, and civil manner. Here’s what that approach entails.

Our Open Approach

We do not consider Objectivism to be some fragile, delicate flower-of-a-philosophy that must be protected from any questions, challenges, or engagement with other ideas. Rather, it is a robust philosophy that can withstand criticism and profit from open discussion about its implications and applications.

Thus, we use our events and other venues to explore deeper issues concerning the philosophy and its applications. Our open approach means that we wish to look at how Objectivism fits with new, cutting-edge thinking and discoveries in various disciplines. An excellent example is how Robert Campbell, Jay Friedenberg, Walter Donway, and others have addressed recent work on the brain, mind, and psychology. We believe that such insights strengthen Objectivism rather than undermine or dilute it.

“Open,” however, does not mean that we will engage in any debate over any issue—or that we do not approach issues from a settled, principled framework. We do come from an Objectivist perspective. Therefore we do not wish to squander our resources debating issues, arguments, or discussions that have already been heard and decided.

Our Civil Approach

Consistent with our open approach to discussion is civility in discussion.

A civil approach to discussion and debate entails treating others with respect, and it assumes that we have a common purpose—in our case, the understanding and promotion of Objectivism. It also assumes a community of generally well-intentioned and intellectually honest individuals. Thus, we recognize that many intellectual disagreements are honest ones and not an indication of moral failing, justifying anger and vilification.

We even recognize that critics who have fundamental disagreements with their interlocutors can be civil; I have seen Christopher Hitchens, one of the harshest critics of religion, having civil exchanges with religious right leaders at social gatherings.

Civility is not an end in and of itself out of all context; rather, it is an approach to dealing with others that facilitates goals that are in our rational self-interest.

We also believe that it is possible in particular cases for civil people to have strong personal differences yet agree about intellectual matters or acknowledge intellectual contributions; one might have personal issues with Nathaniel Branden while acknowledging his pioneering work on the psychology of self-esteem or with Leonard Peikoff while acknowledging his fine work in the taped series “Understanding Objectivism.”

I have tried to stay out of the personal infighting on the various discussion boards. And as an institution TAS has focused on the battle for ideas. This has meant that we are not neutral concerning the contributions that individuals have or might make to our institutional goals of promoting Objectivism. For example, I invited Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden to speak at our Atlas 50th event and we posted online a clip of Barbara’s moving remarks. I also have been an admirer the work of Chris Sciabarra, another target of a nasty personal smear campaign, and wish in the future there were some way for him to participate in our events.

TAS has also hosted at its public events speakers on the opposite side of these personal feuds. That’s because our aim has been to focus on the ideas that are of shared interest to all, and to stand above this infighting—even as some have tried their best to draw us into it as raging partisans.

Two Sources of Incivility

Sadly, there has been a propensity among too many Objectivists to reduce intellectual differences to the personal level and to bring the most intemperate forms of incivility to highly visible public arguments. That propensity has been evident largely from two quarters: from individuals prominently associated with the Ayn Rand Institute and also from online discussion boards, notably Lindsay Perigo’s SOLO-Passion.

Most of us know the reaction of many associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, including its co-founder Leonard Peikoff, to David Kelley’s widely discussed address to a libertarian social group in the late 1980s. That group’s libertarian outlook alone was considered by Peikoff and other ARI spokesmen to be prima facie evidence of its intellectual dishonesty or evil; and they further claimed that Kelley was immorally “sanctioning” that dishonesty simply by addressing the group—even if only to tell its members why he believed they were wrong. For that bizarre reason, Kelley was banned from further involvement with ARI.

Ten years ago, U.S. News & World Report published a major article on why Objectivists can’t seem to get along, focusing on the Peikoff-Kelley split. While Rand and Kelley came off okay in the article, the cause of Objectivism was not helped by Peikoff’s comment, “I’d rather blow up the entire Objectivist movement than deal with this slime.”

A second source of this incivility—where juvenile name-calling and vulgar insults are characteristically equated with a commitment to “passion”—has been the website SOLO-Passion. The appalling childishness so often expressed by individuals on that website makes a mockery of the term “rational.” Yes, there are also intelligent comments and rational discussions mixed in with the vitriol, which makes it all the sadder as pearls are trampled beneath the swine. Even Lindsay Perigo, the principal of that website and, sadly, a chief practitioner of and tone-setter for that approach, admits that some of those who post on his site go too far.

The widespread perception that Objectivists are fanatical ideologues who speak of reason but do not practice it, and who are instead irrational, screaming loonies, continues to be fueled by such public statements and actions, which do incredible harm to the spread of the philosophy.

Fostering Openness and Civility

To further our objectives, I have been trying in recent times to bring more reason and civility to the Objectivist movement. This is a difficult, perhaps impossible task, but a pursuit worth continuing.

For example, last year I met with Yaron Brook of ARI at a meeting of the libertarian Atlas Economic Research Foundation. At the event, BB&T chairman and ARI supporter John Allison gave an excellent talk, and Brook stayed on and attended a meeting put on by the conservative Heritage Foundation. I congratulated Brook on this new openness and I pointed out to him that it was for this very sort of thing—addressing “enemy” conservative and libertarian groups—that ARI denounced David Kelley. I insisted that it is time to abandon such practices, which have been to the detriment of Objectivism as well as ARI.

Where my initiative will go, I don’t know, but I have tried. And I do believe that among more responsible organizations, the notion of civility is starting to gain currency.

While I have not, especially of late, been a regular poster on discussion boards, I have tried to remain on civil terms both in public and private with Lindsay Perigo and, as he says, without any pretenses, he has generally remained civil as well. I hope this mutually civil approach continues.

Using the Summer Seminar to Restore Civility

At the Summer Seminar, we seek to develop our understanding and application of Objectivism in an open and civil environment. This certainly influences the talks and speakers we choose.

Thus, we would not be averse to having an ARI speaker discuss why Objectivism should be considered a “closed” rather than “open system.” That is a topic about which honest Objectivists might differ, and one that should have been discussed in such a forum, and in a civil manner, nearly twenty years ago.

However, it would be more problematic to invite someone to speak against intellectual tolerance as such, on the premise that those like Kelley—who hold opinions different from those of Peikoff—are not merely wrong but dishonest or evil. Though such a speaker no doubt would not wish to “sanction” our “evil” by attending such a forum, in any case we would not provide them a platform to denounce us and the policies of openness and civility that we champion.

In fact, we have hosted presentations at the Summer Seminar about strife within the Objectivist movement that were both civil and constructive. Two years ago, I gave a talk on what I call “mature Objectivism.” I argued that the error of mistaking insults for passion or commitment comes, in part, from an intellectual error. Objectivists understand that all actions must have an aim, and that they must be rational, moral, and efficient within a particular context. Thus, if one decides to insult someone, one must ask, “What is the point?” For the most part, Objectivists who indulge in such behavior fail to ask themselves whether their aim is rational and moral and whether the action is actually effective.

To take another example, in 2006 Barbara Branden gave a Summer Seminar talk on “Objectivist Rage.” When she proposed the topic, I was skeptical. I did not want “flame wars” from online discussion boards to spill over into the Summer Seminar. I didn’t want Barbara to bash Lindsay any more than I would want Lindsay to bash Barbara at our events. But she explained to me her proposed approach and we let her go ahead. The result was a thoughtful, reasoned, impressive, and civil approach to the topic. We posted her remarks on our website and remain grateful for her intellectual contribution to the movement.

So, if our Summer Seminar can be used to promote civility and end needless discord, I’m more than happy to use it as such. However, in light of the TAS commitment to the principles discussed above, I don’t intend to let the Summer Seminar be used to perpetuate the very incivility against which we have been fighting.

The Current Controversy

In the past Lindsay Perigo has given quality presentations at Summer Seminars that were well-received by attendees. With this in mind and hoping to promote greater harmony within the Objectivist movement, Will invited Lindsay Perigo to the Summer Seminar to speak on music and on “Objectivism's Greatest Enemy: Objectivists.” I have not seen the summary of this talk; however, Lindsay did write to Will that “I’ll speak about something non-fratricidal.”

In the aftermath that invitation, controversy has exploded—much of it fueled by Lindsay’s comments.

For example, about participants on the competing Objectivist Living discussion board, Lindsay writes that that “crowd … are, with barely an exception I could spot, irredeemably just plain rotten. Stinkingly, wilfully, cacklingly, conscientiously rotten.” About statements posted on that discussion board—which he always refers to as “Objectivist Lying”—he writes: “It makes my second talk on ‛Objectivism’s Worst Enemies’ as easy as my first on music. I just have to read out this stuff, say ‘I rest my case’ and get bundled off by my bodyguards.”

This propensity for incivility is alarming. Such remarks are clearly “fratricidal,” in my judgment, and they cause me to worry that his talk will not promote the civility that TAS seeks. Now, we face the very real prospect that the very sort of fratricidal conflict that we have been working hard to overcome will in fact be perpetuated at our Summer Seminar—ironically—by our very attempt to end it.

While some might argue that the posters on other discussion boards started the current controversy, those posters have also dredged up many of the past insults by Lindsay, many of which I and certainly Will Thomas probably missed. Thus, in hindsight, we at TAS should have expected such a storm of controversy.

More alarming, we also have been made aware of discussions on SOLO-Passion by some who have led personality-based jihads, who are proposing to host a participant-sponsored session at the seminar to ventilate their divisive views—and even to invite other outsiders who have expressed their contempt for TAS.

But to be clear, participant-sponsored sessions are open only to those who pay to attend the Summer Seminar. And while we leave the topics of those sessions open to almost any intellectual interest of the participants, we will not permit them to be used merely to perpetuate the personal ill-will they foment on discussion boards. Civility is the watchword at those sessions, as well.

Lindsay challenges those who oppose him to “come to my two presentations anyway. At the very least, you won’t be bored. My aim will be not merely not to bore you but to thought-provoke and uplift you also. Who knows, I might succeed? What have you to lose?” However, given the post-invitation discussions he’s led at SOLO-Passion, we now wonder whether we are about to be blind-sided. In that event, we would have plenty to lose.

Now I must ask Lindsay: Exactly what is your topic and what are your intentions? Is your aim truly to reduce “fratricide” within the movement, as we had hoped? Clearly TAS does not want to be the victim of some kind of “bait-and-switch.”

This, then, is a challenge. I want Lindsay Perigo to commit publicly to joining me in undoing the incivility in the movement that he himself has too frequently helped to foster. This, of course, means being civil in the content of any speech at TAS and in behavior at any TAS event.

But the challenge goes further. If all the energy and—yes—passion that has gone into internecine battles among Objectivists were expended instead on developing and promoting the philosophy in a constructive way, we would be much further along than we are today. Therefore I would like Lindsay to commit to this wider goal of building an open and civil Objectivist movement and to start it with SOLO-Passion, the forum for so much ill-will. I want to hear some proposals.

No, I do not expect him to withhold honest criticisms about ideas he considers mistaken. I do not expect him to become less of the colorful character that he is. I do not expect him to feign friendship with individuals with whom he has had personal fallings-out. I do not expect that he will make up with Nathaniel Branden and Barabara Branden, Sciabarra or others from whom he is estranged, nor is it my purpose to get in the middle of such relationships.

Rather, it is my purpose to influence the direction of the movement—and that is where Lindsay’s help, and everybody else’s, can be useful.

We at TAS have worked very hard both to promote an open, civil Objectivist movement. We have insisted on high-quality work. I hope our friends appreciate our past successes. We have future plans to make Objectivism a powerful philosophical force to be reckoned with. I hope our efforts can convert to friends from foes those who share our commitment to Objectivism.

If to achieve our goals we must make changes to any of our programs and activities, we will do so. We’re committed to ruthless self-examination, and open to constructive criticism.

To those ends, I await a constructive public response and commitment from Lindsay, which will help us determine whether his talk at the 2008 Summer Seminar will be consistent with our mission and purposes.

Sincerely,

Dr. Edward Hudgins,

Executive Director, The Atlas Society

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Ed

Thank you for your detailed discussion of the Perigo issue.

Could I perhaps ask you to comment on another point?

One contributor to this forum has reported having a potential session at the Summer Seminar turned down partly because he was not a "professional philosopher". Another (distinguished) contributor to OL has pointed out that, on conventional definitions, Rand wassn't a "professional philosopher" either.

I for one would like to know more about TAS's thinking and policy on this issue.

Best regards

Adrian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adrian -- I haven't followed the discussion on this topic and Will Thomas, who made up the schedule, is still out of town. But we have had non-professional philosophers speak on philosophical matters many times. To my knowledge that in and of itself does not disqualify a potential speaker.

I know that Will tries to offer a balance of talks covering politics and culture, philosophy, aesthetics and living as an Objectivist. We always have more potential speakers and topics than slots which means that some worthy talks get left out. That is also why we have participant-sponsored sessions. I hope you can attend and check the program out for yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed,

I can only applaud your goals. To this extent, I make of your words mine. (That's a Brazilian expression.) I mean it from the bottom of my heart and mind.

But I do have a problem. What I find difficult to grok is that you clearly identified Solo Passion as one of the two sources of incivility in the Objectivist world, stating "the appalling childishness so often expressed by individuals on that website makes a mockery of the term 'rational,'" you identified the source: "... Lindsay Perigo, the principal of that website and, sadly, a chief practitioner of and tone-setter for that approach...," yet I get the impression that the TAS administration thinks this will all go away just because Perigo was invited to give a couple of lectures.

Even after the invitation, you mentioned above Perigo's continued incivility:

For example, about participants on the competing Objectivist Living discussion board, Lindsay writes that that "crowd … are, with barely an exception I could spot, irredeemably just plain rotten. Stinkingly, wilfully, cacklingly, conscientiously rotten." About statements posted on that discussion board—which he always refers to as "Objectivist Lying"—he writes: "It makes my second talk on ‛Objectivism's Worst Enemies' as easy as my first on music. I just have to read out this stuff, say 'I rest my case' and get bundled off by my bodyguards."

(Puhleeze, OL is not "competing" with anyone... :) )

When do you think he is going to stop? One day before the event?

You also mentioned that you were worried previously that Barbara would use her "Rage" talk to bash Perigo, yet she did not. I don't think she would have done that even if no one had mentioned it. Barbara's focus is on the big picture in her formal writing, not the person. Look at all her past formal writing as proof.

Yet you left out one important part about Barbara's talk (the context being Perigo's invitation to speak at TAS). This man flew halfway around the world at that time for the specific purpose of bashing Barbara near the talk (both in time and location), trying to siphon off paying TAS members as his public, and after making a HUGE production out of refusing your invitation to speak at the TAS Seminar.

I don't know how that gesture could have been clearer. Maybe if he gave everyone the finger and kissed it before shoving it in the air?...

He was spitting on you and spitting on Barbara and spitting on all the wonderful values you mentioned above about injecting Objectivist ideas into the culture by at least Objectivists presenting a front of civility toward each other to the world.

What I don't get—and this is not offered in a sense of hostility, I am genuinely perplexed—what I don't get is what makes you think that this time will be any different?

As a child I learned that you judge a person by what he says and what he does. And if he keeps doing wrong, but saying each time, "This time I learned my lesson and I will be good," you soon stop believing him. How many times does it take and why does Perigo get a free pass, anyway? He's an adult, not a child.

I will bet you anything that Perigo has been given a far greater number of chances from a far greater number of people than any child I know of. As one simple example that is not mentioned often, just look at the roster of former authors of his magazine, The Free Radical. It's all online on the magazine's site. The vast majority of former authors are people who Perigo praised to the high heavens at one time (before publication), then called vile names not soon after publication and has since maintained hostilities. Check it out. Facts are facts.

I didn't learn to distinguish between what a man says and what he does from Objectivism. I was taught that this is common sense and as I said, I learned this as a child.

With all due respect, maybe some common sense should be incorporated into the deeply held values like the beautiful vision of a ratioinal productive world that you are fighting for. I want to adhere to that vision with you, but I simply see some paths leading to the destruction of it.

You have stated that you disapprove of Perigo's acts. I say that excusing those acts, giving him a platform and pretending that he will not continue doing them before he changes his behavior and proves it—just because he says this time will be different—is one such path.

Perigo's behavior reminds me of the chiche line that pops up for villains in movies and TV programs at times. When a villain is asked why he kills or robs or whatever, he answers: "Because I can." Well, Perigo can. People let him and excuse him and swallow his line that this time will be different time and time again. But it is never different. And it is time to stop allowing BS to pass for "difference of opinion" or "different approach."

I never want to disagree with you, especially about TAS policy since that is your gig and not mine, and mostly because I share your values and hold them dear. But on the value of inviting Perigo to discuss Objectivism at a formal gathering of Objectivists at this point in time, I disagree with you.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TAS talks about "civility", but juxtaposes a symbol of death with a picture of Ron Paul on the front cover of their magazine while inviting the Grand Master of incivility to be a lecturer.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I must ask Lindsay: Exactly what is your topic and what are your intentions? Is your aim truly to reduce “fratricide” within the movement, as we had hoped? Clearly TAS does not want to be the victim of some kind of “bait-and-switch.”

Considering that he has announced that the title of one of his presentations will be "Why Romantic Music is Objectively Superior (and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron)," I'd think that you'd want him to "bait-and-switch" on that one. See, if he doesn't "switch" to a topic that is more civil than that which he is currently promoting as "bait," he'll be using his appearance at your seminar as an opportunity to call others morons based on their musical tastes and evaluations.

This, then, is a challenge. I want Lindsay Perigo to commit publicly to joining me in undoing the incivility in the movement that he himself has too frequently helped to foster. This, of course, means being civil in the content of any speech at TAS and in behavior at any TAS event.

Instead of asking him to behave like a rational adult, I think you should accept the consequences of having invited an emotional toddler who thinks that his behavior is virtuous, not by asking him to tone it down, but by asking him to do what he neglected to do in his speech at James Valliant's book signing event: publicly quote from his own angriest SOLO posts as examples of Objectivist virtue, including the parts which he later edited out, since they represent the type of behavior that Barbara was talking about in her speech on Objectivist rage. I think you should encourage him to publicly quote his own virtuous "passion" as examples of what's right with the Objectivist movement, and let the audience decide for themselves.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and after making a HUGE production out of refusing your invitation to speak at the TAS Seminar.

That can't be right. In his speech at Valliant's book signing, Pigero said about the TAS seminar, "Now for some obscure reason I was not invited to attend..." And Pigero wouldn't lie.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times does it take and why does Perigo get a free pass, anyway? He's an adult, not a child.

I will bet you anything that Perigo has been given a far greater number of chances from a far greater number of people than any child I know of.

What I fail to understand is what anyone sees in him to begin with, how it can happen that he keeps attracting people. If any of you who at one point were favorably impressed by him and then became disenchanted would be willing to talk about what you saw in him, I'd be interested to read about it.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I fail to understand is what anyone sees in him to begin with, how it can happen that he keeps attracting people. If any of you who at one point were favorably impressed by him and then became disenchanted would be willing to talk about what you saw in him, I'd be interested to read about it.

There seems to be two Lindsays. There's the one you meet in person and the online Lindsay. I met him a few years ago at a Summer Seminar and had dinner with him and some other people. He was quite charming and entertaining. I was really surprised by his online presence after meeting him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I fail to understand is what anyone sees in him to begin with, how it can happen that he keeps attracting people. If any of you who at one point were favorably impressed by him and then became disenchanted would be willing to talk about what you saw in him, I'd be interested to read about it.

To me it's not a question of what people see that attract them to Linz, but why they don't see the glaringly obvious danger signs that should repel them. I can understand that people see good things in him. He is capable of being charming, humorous and inspirational when he's remaining positive. I'd say the same of many Objectivist types, including Cresswell, Newberry and Rowlands. They've all said things that I've thought were beautiful. But how anyone misses the overriding contempt for humanity, including for friends and allies, is what puzzles me.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TAS talks about "civility", but juxtaposes a symbol of death with a picture of Ron Paul on the front cover of their magazine while inviting the Grand Master of incivility to be a lecturer.

Shayne

That magazine cover really bummed me out. That kind of visual short circuits my brain. As far as I'm concerned it's not Ron Paul on the cover, but TAS itself. The fact that I strongly dislike Ron Paul makes not the slightest difference. The fact that I may strongly agree with anything inside the magazine, which I have not read, doesn't either. It's indelible.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I fail to understand is what anyone sees in him to begin with, how it can happen that he keeps attracting people. If any of you who at one point were favorably impressed by him and then became disenchanted would be willing to talk about what you saw in him, I'd be interested to read about it.

I think it's more about being attracted to the ideas he seems to stand for rather than about the person. See his credo. It's not all bad. Unfortunately, when he says "rational passion" he means only "passion." It can take a little while to figure that out. Of course, nowadays its easier to see through him.

http://www.solopassion.com/credo

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of asking him to behave like a rational adult, I think you should accept the consequences of having invited an emotional toddler who thinks that his behavior is virtuous, not by asking him to tone it down, but by asking him to do what he neglected to do in his speech at James Valliant's book signing event: publicly quote from his own angriest SOLO posts as examples of Objectivist virtue, including the parts which he later edited out, since they represent the type of behavior that Barbara was talking about in her speech on Objectivist rage. I think you should encourage him to publicly quote his own virtuous "passion" as examples of what's right with the Objectivist movement, and let the audience decide for themselves.

J

As of last night, there were several responses to Ed's "challenge" posted on SOLOP. One was a long post using the most convoluted tortured "logic" about why it is morally permissible to talk to groups that represent themselves as "conservatives," but it is immoral to talk to "libertarian" groups. I found this most amusing. Let's see, does that mean that representatives from the SOLOP will be setting up a booth at the next CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), perhaps to educate and instruct them on the proper Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics (because, according to the SOLOP poster, conservatives do not have any epistemology or metaphysics)? I can just see this confrontation, the Christian Conservative gives the SOLOPian a Bible and asks him to Accept Jesus. In response, the SOLOPian asks the conservative to buy and read Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology or Atlas Shrugged. or several hundred dollars' worth of ARI'S persuasive "oral tradition" multi-CD sets.

Now what would happen if the SOLOPians attended (incognito, of course) a conference run by the libertarian CATO Insitute? Now this might cause a real moral crisis, or even an anxiety attack, when they find that the libertarian presentations sound uncomfortably close to what Rand said in Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, or even some ARI materials ("Now was that point also made on CD #28 or #31, and on which set")? Does this mean that the CATOists STOLE these ideas? Well, what can you expect from people who have no proper epistemological base! Oh, wait a minute, it turns out that the CATO lecturer was quoting from Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Rose Wilder Lane, and Isabel Paterson. Hmmm, weren't these NON-Objectivists friends and associates of Ayn Rand? Didn't she realize that they suffered from a improper Kantian epistemological base? And yet she CONTINUED to socialize with them and even RECOMMENDED their books!!! Maybe it was the EVIL BRANDENS who corrupted her to consort with these Kantian libertarians! Oh, she was socializing with Rose and Isabel before she met the EVIL BRANDENS. Well, if only Leonard had been there....Oh, he was, and didn't say a word in protest? Maybe he was too busy educating his academic adviser, the Deweyite "democratic socialist," Sidney Hook. Hmmm, didn't that same Sidney Hook write an excoriating review of For The New Intellectual for the New York Times?

The point of all this is that the "true believer" (in Eric Hoffer's sense) cannot handle anything less then total moral perfection (that is, total agreement with their particular dogma). Any deviations cannot be the result of honest questioning or analysis, they must be branded as EVIL. In many cases (perhaps, all) they have a rigid personality structure that responds to any questioning of their cherished beliefs as a threat to their self-esteem, and not as a chance to learn something new or to reexamine their beliefs (or even to teach others). This a sad case, but such people that are so blinded with their own illogic are best left to themselves.

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really can't respect TAS's attempt to get out from under its Linz invite by insulting him enough to get him to tell them to shove it any more than I can respect the original invite. But regardless, TAS doesn't mean anything to me anymore and hasn't meant much to me for decades.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry; Small correction. Sidney Hook wrote a bad review of "For the New Intellectual". NBI had to purchase a full page ad in the NYT book review section because the Times would not grant NBI the right of reply. Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry; Small correction. Sidney Hook wrote a bad review of "For the New Intellectual". NBI had to purchase a full page ad in the NYT book review section because the Times would not grant NBI the right of reply. Chris

What a memory! You are quite right, and I have made the correction.

Incidentally, too bad some of the SOLOPians (and ARIans) seem to have "amnesia" for Ayn Rand's friendships with von Mises, Hazlitt, et al.

By the way, she continued to socialize with Henry Hazlitt, a frequent contributor to Buckley's National Review, even after Whittaker Chambers' notorious review of Atlas Shrugged had appeared. I guess some of these SOLOPian self-appointed "defenders" of Rand must view themselves as evenly more morally perfect than Ayn! Wait a minute, you mean the most morally perfect philosopher in history thought it was appropriate to associate with those advocating MIXED PREMISES?? And even those still writing for "the most dangerous magazine in America" (her words), National Review?

I am shocked! Shocked! SOLOPians, please save us from this moral conundrum (- but without rewriting history)!

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really can't respect TAS's attempt to get out from under its Linz invite by insulting him enough to get him to tell them to shove it any more than I can respect the original invite. But regardless, TAS doesn't mean anything to me anymore and hasn't meant much to me for decades.

--Brant

I agree with the first part, Brant. It doesn't speak well of Will Thomas as Program Director that he didn't do enough researching of what goes on in listland to know what he'd get into to begin with. And now the attempt to put the ball in Linz's court instead of just admitting to error and rescinding the invitation.

Unlike you, however, I care what becomes of TAS, even though I've never considered myself an Objectivist.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of last night, there were several resonses to Ed's "challenge" posted on SOLOP. One was a long post using the most convoluted tortured "logic" about why it is morally permissible to talk to groups that represent themselves as "conservatives," but it is immoral to talk to "libertarian" groups.

The poster who wrote that isn't one of the SOLO regulars -- I think he's a newcomer; I don't recall seeing him post there before. Linz himself is prominent in a NZ political party called LibertarianZ (if I've spelled that right).

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perigo responded:

Response to Ed

To be absolutely blunt, Perigo doesn't "get it" and I don't think he ever will. He has no idea what Objectivism is about (productivity, self-esteem, rationality, goodwill, egoism as opposed to vanity, etc.).

When he is leading a lynch mob, and he has done this on too many documented times to need citing, he calls it some kind of moral crusade. When a HUGE number of independent Objectivists and Objectivism-friendly people (both on the ARI side who left him and the present TAS side) express the same view of his irrational outbursts and disgustingly vulgar behavior, they somehow morph into a "lynch mob" and the "baying of hyenas" in his own mind.

People know I have serious criticisms of Perigo, but I don't think they are aware of how deeply connected with conscious principles and my deepest dearest values these criticisms are.

I am a recovered alcoholic and drug addict. I arrived at a point in life where I literally looked death in the face several times and felt apathetic about it. I know this on an emotional level few people know. One of the things that jarred me out of my apathy and back to the land of the living was The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden. All the things I had closed my eyes to in Objectivism that didn't make any sense suddenly made sense. The world was knowable! I wasn't an inherently damaged freak feeling the wrong things and unable to stop feeling them. Rand herself had to deal with her demons. And despite this, she choose to do good things and build magnificent works.

Having psychological problems is no sin. On the contrary, these problems are simply another aspect of reality, just like earthquakes, the common cold and bad weather. Never before in my life did the meaning of "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed" have such impact and efficacy as when I realized that human psychology was "nature."

Coming from that angle, I can assure you that productive heroism never felt so good. It is attainable. I cannot describe what learning that simple message means on the deepest level. It is the one of the most life-enhancing experiences of my existence up to now.

I think about this when I turn and look at Perigo's vision of Objectivism. I see everything I had ever closed my eyes to that didn't make sense in Objectivism being held up as the good. This means:

- Subjecting one's judgment to the proclamations of a guru when so instructed;

- Scapegoating and persecuting people because a guru says so;

- Accepting a guru's reasons for hating another person without examination;

- Having to accept verbal abuse and humiliation from a guru and not only remain quiet, but having to say it was a learning experience;

- Never being able to point out a guru's moral errors;

- Accepting the artistic tastes and opinions of political candidates of a guru;

I could keep going, but I think you get the picture. This is a big honking SANCTION OF THE VICTIM taken to the metaphysical level. When I look at Perigo's world, I see this the guru-wannabe (or Swami Perigonanda, as Robert Campbell so colorfully calls him) demands all this from his followers, often making contradictory statement to doctor it up and make it sound not so bad.

Of course there are some good parts to his world and those make sense. The entertainment is often good, and I am not being sarcastic. There is colorful jargon, spontaneous gushes, offbeat humor and so forth.

But all this other stuff has to be rejected qua philosophy. Soundly rejected. This is personality cult in the raw. It certainly is not the Objectivism or any philosophy/religion/manner of thinking or behaving I ever want in my life ever again. I have been there and almost lost it all. I loathe this metaphysical view of reality.

Here is a visual of my position. If, by some miraculous happening, I were put into a situation where I was given a gun and told that I had to do one of two things and had no other alternative:

1. Commit suicide; or

2. Accept a vision of the world akin to Perigo's vision of Objectivism, hold it up as the good, and know that this will be as good as it gets within my lifetime;

I would blow my brains out without hesitation. I would do so in the full knowledge that I had made the best choice possible for my life, that I had valued it. If that is all life had to offer me, I would not want it anymore.

I mean it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

That poster is Paul McKeever, a Canadian political activist. I have read some of his stuff and seen some of his videos. He seems like a nice enough guy, but his views are generally radical applications of Objectivist ideas to different issues that tend to ignore context. If there were such a thing as the "spirit of OPAR," but being even more in the direction of Peter Schwartz than that, this is how McKeever strikes me. He is not an example of the childish temper-tantrum spirit of SOLOP, but more a sporadic poster of the ultra-orthodox line of Objectivism. Recently he has made more posts over there.

My impression is that he tries to emulate Rand's polemics. Thus, if a person stands up to the government in the name of freedom and individual rights, like Ezra Levant just did magnificently, McKeever condemns him because he is a "traditionalist," "conservative" or "libertarian" (see here).

You can get a quick idea of his Objectivist views here on his YouTube account. (The Freedom Party Ontario also has a lot of videos with him on YouTube.) The Wikipedia article says that he usually gets a few hundred votes in the elections he participates in, so he is not a real politician, just a fringe element active on the political scene. For those interested, here are some links (but there are several more as he is very active on Internet promotion):

Wikipedia article: Paul McKeever

Mondo Politico

Paul McKeever (attorney site)

Paul McKeever (personal site)

That should be enough to get started for those who like these things. If you want more, do a Goggle search.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perigo responded:

Response to Ed

To be absolutely blunt, Perigo doesn't "get it" and I don't think he ever will. He has no idea what Objectivism is about (productivity, self-esteem, rationality, goodwill, egoism as opposed to vanity, etc.).

Here is a visual of my position. If, by some miraculous happening, I were put into a situation where I was given a gun and told that I had to do one of two things and had no other alternative:

1. Commit suicide; or

2. Accept a vision of the world akin to Perigo's vision of Objectivism, hold it up as the good, and know that this will be as good as it gets within my lifetime;

I would blow my brains out without hesitation. I would do so in the full knowledge that I had made the best choice possible for my life, that I had valued it. If that is all life had to offer me, I would not want it anymore.

I mean it.

Michael

Michael,

Relax. You will never have to face that choice. And Mr. Perigo will never have to face the opposite choice of accepting your vision (and mine, incidentally) of Objectivism, or of jumping into a New Zealand volcano. Ain't gonna happen in either case. (Although I think Mr. Perigo - and maybe the rest of us - could benefit from a nice long relaxing bath in one of New Zealand's hot springs....).

Nope. What we are going to have to face is Hillary's (or Obama's, or Romney's, or McCain's) vision of the future. In addition to fighting off Al Qaida's hellish plans for Western Civilization.

A world in which Objectivism has become a political contender? "Not in the cards, baby"! Not in the foreseeable future, anyway. Look, nobody in this squabble is going to drop their arms and "cry uncle." An offer is made for civility and the individual requesting it gets (symbolically) kicked in the teeth.

So, I say, take them at their word. Let them play in their own sandbox. This is very difficult to do when we are being attacked. But then, if we don't visit their website(s), we won't be exposed to their vitriol. Soon, they will just be talking to themselves (and it is hard to imagine a more deserving fate).

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