Dennis Hardin

Branden’s "Vision of Ayn Rand" as “Official Objectivism”

Recommended Posts

On another thread, I made some comments about the following statement by a former student at ARI’s Objectivist Graduate Center:

Objectivism, as both a systematized philosophy and a movement, exists because of Dr. [Leonard] Peikoff.”

According to Stephen Boydstun, Yaron Brook, ARI’s executive director, recently made a similar claim. Stephen says: "The proposition that without Peikoff’s efforts Objectivism as a systematized philosophy would not exist was a proposition put forward by Brook last summer."

I consider this evidence of an attempt by the teachers at the OGC to completely rewrite Objectivist history. It is an effort to erase any and all contributions by Nathaniel Branden to Objectivism.

In 1958, Nathaniel Branden began offering a lecture course on “The Basic Principles of Objectivism” at Nathaniel Branden Institute. This was the first detailed, systematic presentation of Objectivism. NBI, as an institution founded for the purpose of teaching and propagating the Objectivist philosophy, launched the Objectivist movement.

Having corrected that obvious bit of ARI foolishness, it suddenly dawns on me that this fact of history has a rather interesting implication.

Leonard Peikoff is well known for arguing, in his essay “Fact and Value,” that Objectivism became a “closed” system at the time of Ayn Rand’s death. “Official Objectivism”--according to Peikoff--is limited to the corpus of works on the Objectivist philosophy approved by Ayn Rand prior to her death. Although I disagree with such nonsense—Ayn Rand made clear that no single person could fully work out a philosophical system in their lifetime—Peikoff’s position regarding “closed Objectivism” leads to a fascinating logical consequence—a consequence Peikoff will not like and for which he may well need his tap-dancing shoes.

During the many years of their association, Ayn Rand considered Nathaniel Branden much more of an authority on Objectivism than Leonard Peikoff. Prior to repudiating him, she elevated Branden to a status equal to herself and designated him as her intellectual heir. She never gave Peikoff (or anyone else) similar status. Peikoff claims to be Rand’s new “intellectual heir,” but this has been shown to be a pretense with no factual basis. (Peikoff: The Great Pretender) In addition, it is an historical fact that Ayn Rand repeatedly banished Peikoff to 'Objectivist Siberia' for making statements that she found utterly contemptible and contrary to Objectivism. We have every reason to question whether she ever felt Peikoff truly qualified as an expert on her philosophy.

Ayn Rand gave her explicit, unqualified approval to the content of Branden’s “Basic Principles” course at NBI. The original ‘Basic Principles of Objectivism’ course now exists in book form: The Vision of Ayn Rand. The book is a literal transcript of the original lectures. Therefore, according to Peikoff’s “closed Objectivism” criteria, The Vision of Ayn Rand is a reliable and accurate systematic presentation of Objectivism.

In fact, of the two comprehensive, systematic presentations of Objectivism in book form, only one meets Peikoff’s criteria of “official Objectivism.” Rand fully and unqualifiedly approved every word of Branden’s “Basic Principles” course, and—to repeat--VOAR is a literal transcript of those recorded lectures. In contrast, by Peikoff’s own admission, Rand had to correct multiple errors in his original course on “The Philosophy of Objectivism.” OPAR was largely based on Peikoff’s own Objectivism lectures, but is not a literal transcript, so we have no basis to conclude that she gave official approval to one word of it.

With the exception of Branden’s later essay, “The Benefits and Hazards of The Philosophy of Ayn Rand,” all of the philosophical material in VOAR was officially approved by Ayn Rand as consistent with Objectivism. Because it was written after her death and is not a literal transcript, exactly none of the material in OPAR was ever officially endorsed by Ayn Rand.

According to Peikoff’s criterion of material approved by Ayn Rand before her philosophy became “closed,” VOAR is “official” Objectivism.

OPAR is not. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BPO was somewhat rewritten and redone for sale by Academic Associates and the transcriptions were done from those recordings Thus The Vision of Ayn Rand is only unofficially an official part of the Obectivist corpus sanctioned by Ayn Rand

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post, Dennis.

As you may know, I've never been able to get excited about the open/closed debate. It is of interest to historians who want to know what Rand thought about certain issues, just as historians might want to know what John Locke or Herbert Spencer thought about certain issues, but the controversy has never made sense to me as a philosophical issue. People should take from Rand whatever they consider to be of value, just as they would from any other philosopher.

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post, Dennis.

As you may know, I've never been able to get excited about the open/closed debate. It is of interest to historians who want to know what Rand thought about certain issues, just as historians might want to know what John Locke or Herbert Spencer thought about certain issues, but the controversy has never made sense to me as a philosophical issue. People should take from Rand whatever they consider to be of value, just as they would from any other philosopher.

Ghs

Ah, but somebody has to inherit the Academy, the library, the extensive grounds.

-Pseusippos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BPO was somewhat rewritten and redone for sale by Academic Associates and the transcriptions were done from those recordings Thus The Vision of Ayn Rand is only unofficially an official part of the Obectivist corpus sanctioned by Ayn Rand

--Brant

Some of the lectures were re-recorded by Branden for Academic Associates to improve the sound quality. I'm not aware that there were any significant changes in content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BPO was somewhat rewritten and redone for sale by Academic Associates and the transcriptions were done from those recordings Thus The Vision of Ayn Rand is only unofficially an official part of the Obectivist corpus sanctioned by Ayn Rand

--Brant

Some of the lectures were re-recorded by Branden for Academic Associates to improve the sound quality. I'm not aware that there were any significant changes in content.

I agree. I used to know people who listened to both the original taped NBI lectures and to the Academic Associates LP versions, and they never noticed any differences. Changes, if there were any, were probably very minor and had to do with style rather than substance.

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the current print version is not the original systematization, the lectures were, and the claim at hand is false.

(Come to think of it, I don't see why the radio speech wouldn't qualify.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post, Dennis.

As you may know, I've never been able to get excited about the open/closed debate. It is of interest to historians who want to know what Rand thought about certain issues, just as historians might want to know what John Locke or Herbert Spencer thought about certain issues, but the controversy has never made sense to me as a philosophical issue. People should take from Rand whatever they consider to be of value, just as they would from any other philosopher.

Ghs

Ah, but somebody has to inherit the Academy, the library, the extensive grounds.

-Pseusippos

Peikoff was Rand's legal heir, so he inherited enough money to do anything he wanted. As I have said many times before, Objectivism was originally a hybrid of a good philosophy and personal charisma, and, after Rand's death, I never thought that Peikoff would be able to sustain the charismatic element. But he did, to a certain extent, and the results were very unfortunate.

I decided to get drunk tonight, for the first time in months, so if anyone would like to make me write things I will later regret, now is the time. I estimate that I will be sober in around 3 hours, so don't miss this rare opportunity.

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BPO was somewhat rewritten and redone for sale by Academic Associates and the transcriptions were done from those recordings Thus The Vision of Ayn Rand is only unofficially an official part of the Obectivist corpus sanctioned by Ayn Rand

--Brant

"Somewhat rewritten?" Which lecture? What part?

I attended NBI lectures in both New York and Washington in 1967 and early 1968. It would be difficult for me to say that after a spread of 50 years, that the VOAR lectures are verbatim from the original "live" lectures. (Contrary to the opinions of some of its detracters, NBI was not a madrassa).

But, "photographic memory" over that time expanse is not required. The recorded lectures from Academic Associates were issued within less than 6 months of NBI's closing, so the time of actual comparison was not that long. I did not notice ny difference.

I think it is safe to say that, if Ayn Rand or her lawyers, had found a discrepancy between the two versions, they most likely would have threatened legal action for copyright violation against the Brandens and Academic Associates.

The only lecture(s) in The Vision of Ayn Rand that were "changed" (actually, they are replacements for two lectures, one by Rand on "The Nature and Purpose of Art," and the other, "Esthetics of the Visual Arts, by Mary Ann Rukavina)" are "Romanticism, Naturalism and the Novels of Ayn Rand" Which were adopted from Chapter III, "The Literary Method of Ayn Rand"l in Who Is Ayn Rand?(1962) (which of course, was approved by Ayn Rand, and would be considered as part of "official" Objectivism.

So, I think the VOAR lectures meets the qualifications that Rand made as to what, or is not, Official" Objectivism. Obviously, the Introduction and "Afterword" were added later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to get drunk tonight, for the first time in months, so if anyone would like to make me write things I will later regret, now is the time. I estimate that I will be sober in around 3 hours, so don't miss this rare opportunity.

And exactly what kind of drink do you indulge in on such an occasion? In PG Wodehouse's Mulliner stories the bar patrons are only identified by the drinks in their hands. So, a Whiskey and Splash will chime in, then a Pint of Bitter will retort, and finally a Hot Scotch and Lemon will restore peace.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Mr_Mulliner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff gave the lecture on god and atheism in the taped series I heard. He presumably wasn't on the AA audios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to get drunk tonight, for the first time in months, so if anyone would like to make me write things I will later regret, now is the time. I estimate that I will be sober in around 3 hours, so don't miss this rare opportunity.

And exactly what kind of drink do you indulge in on such an occasion? In PG Wodehouse's Mulliner stories the bar patrons are only identified by the drinks in their hands. So, a Whiskey and Splash will chime in, then a Pint of Bitter will retort, and finally a Hot Scotch and Lemon will restore peace.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Mr_Mulliner

I'm guessing Jack Daniels or Wild Turkey maybe? Or, Tequila?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I decided to get drunk tonight, for the first time in months, so if anyone would like to make me write things I will later regret, now is the time. I estimate that I will be sober in around 3 hours, so don't miss this rare opportunity.
And exactly what kind of drink do you indulge in on such an occasion? In PG Wodehouse's Mulliner stories the bar patrons are only identified by the drinks in their hands. So, a Whiskey and Splash will chime in, then a Pint of Bitter will retort, and finally a Hot Scotch and Lemon will restore peace. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Mr_Mulliner

I've never cared much for the taste of liquor, but when I decide to get seriously drunk I usually drink Tanqueray gin. I had four drinks this evening at a nearby bar called "Winners" -- an oxymoron if ever there was one -- and I am now nursing a six pack of Samuel Adams beer.

Liquor, for me, is just another drug, so I use it with the same purposeful intent that I used other drugs years ago. My purpose tonight was to indulge in an orgy of self-pity. Five months ago the IRS began confiscating nearly half my income from the source (Cato), and I have been living on fumes ever since. Not even fumes, really, since I cannot pay all my bills. This afternoon I got a call from my landlady demanding $1200 in back rent or face eviction proceedings. So I did what any rational person would do: I got drunk and figured I would worry about things tomorrow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUT6mTq5ekM

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I think that this whole discussion of what is, and is not, "official" Objectivism is only necessary because of the unforunate efforts of some ARIans to attempt to rewrite the history of the development of this philosophy. This is an endeavor that will be a source of continual embarassment, because the ruse is easily discovered by anyone willing to investigate, and has already been exposed both here on OL, by Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, and in the two recent biographies of Rand.

2) Outside of that, why does anyone care about what has, or does not have, Peikoff's imprimatur? This is very odd behavior for exponents of a philosophy that emphasizes reason, independence, self-esteem, integrity, individualism. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to get drunk tonight, for the first time in months, so if anyone would like to make me write things I will later regret, now is the time. I estimate that I will be sober in around 3 hours, so don't miss this rare opportunity.

And exactly what kind of drink do you indulge in on such an occasion? In PG Wodehouse's Mulliner stories the bar patrons are only identified by the drinks in their hands. So, a Whiskey and Splash will chime in, then a Pint of Bitter will retort, and finally a Hot Scotch and Lemon will restore peace.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Mr_Mulliner

I'm guessing Jack Daniels or Wild Turkey maybe? Or, Tequila?

Who cares? We haven't got much time here guys!

I can't imagine George writing something he would later regret, as his writing is ruthlessly honest, but maybe we can get him to write about stuff he would not normally write about.

George, are you really a fan of Rush Limbaugh? See my comment on his being installed with Truman and Twain in the state capitol. Truman said: "Fame is a vapor; popularity is an accident; money takes wings; those who cheer today may curse tomorrow; only one thing endures - character."

Sam Adams is good, for an American beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff gave the lecture on god and atheism in the taped series I heard. He presumably wasn't on the AA audios.

This issue was discussed extensively some years ago on OL (and is probably archived somewhere on this site). If I recall, Barbara Branden weighed-in as reiterating that the original NBI lecture of "The Concept of God" was done by Nathaniel, not Peikoff. She did add that occasionally, guest lecturers would subsititute for certain of the lectures, so Leonard was likely recruited to fill-in on certain occasions and on certain topics..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although this is somewhat off topic, but since George makes reference to his essay on this issue,...

"The literature of nineteenth-century Voluntaryism is virtually unknown today, even among many libertarians. I can think of no argument against state education by modern libertarians that was not formulated, and often with more force and clarity, by the Voluntaryists" - George H. Smith, from his essay linked in his replies in this thread.

And for further, eye-opening, and startling (for me, anyway) evidence on how most (all?) of the positions that libertarians and Objectivists have argued for so eloquently,... were also made with equal force by Herbert Spencer, Auberon Herbert, and other British voluntaryists, and then were virtually forgotten!, see Men versus the State: Herbert Spencer and Late Victorian Individualism, by Michael W. Taylor (Claredon Press - Oxford, 1992).

The fact that most of these writers are now unknown, and their works forgotten (with the sole exception of Spencer, whose views are continually distorted), is, actually, rather scary!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine George writing something he would later regret, as his writing is ruthlessly honest, but maybe we can get him to write about stuff he would not normally write about.

Have I ever explained my theory about why it is good to be an on-again, off-again Objectivist?

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine George writing something he would later regret, as his writing is ruthlessly honest, but maybe we can get him to write about stuff he would not normally write about.

Have I ever explained my theory about why it is good to be an on-again, off-again Objectivist?

Ghs

Dodging bullets?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I have had too much to drink it is always fun to post on the Yahoo group JazzWestCoast (JWC). It is not unusual, to say the least, for jazz buffs to drink a lot during evening hours, as frequently witnessed by the erratic typing.

Shortly after I posted the video of Peggy Lee on this thread, I posted the following to JWC:

Rarely if ever have I seen anyone ask a question on JWC that

someone could not answer. So here is another trivia

question: Can anyone identify the guitarist in this old

video with Peggy Lee?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUT6mTq5ekM

Given Lee's stature at the time this clip was filmed, I

assume she worked with top-notch sidemen. But I have no idea

who this guitarist may be.

Ghs

Within five minutes I got the following response:

That could be Dave Barbour;pje of her husbands...(just a guess...but I'm

sure it is not Wes Montgomery.

For those of you jazz ignoramuses out there, Wes Montgomery was a black guy -- so I responded by mentioning a famous black guitarist who played for years with the Count Basie Orchestra.

Thanks, Bob. I think we can eliminate Grant Green as well.

8-)

Then another post appeared:

Definitely Dave Barbour!

Then, within a minute, the original responder said:

In a message dated 3/13/2012 10:12:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

smikro@comcast.net writes:

Thanks, Bob. I think we can eliminate Grant Green as well.

8-)

Ghs

------------

As well as Wan Hung, bass guitarist Lo of the Shaghaiwaiian Aloha

Serenaders and Aaron Shtupstein of the Israeli Guitar Quartet, The Four Skins,

Looking at the video again I'm fairly sure it's the Barbour of Seville.

All this happened within ten minutes.

Now, I have been a jazz buff since 1964, but I have not so much as heard of Dave Barbour. Have you even been around people, thinking you know a lot about a subject, only to learn that you are nothing more than a novice? That is me on JWC, a lesson in humility.

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another thread, I made some comments about the following statement by a former student at ARI’s Objectivist Graduate Center:

Objectivism, as both a systematized philosophy and a movement, exists because of Dr. [Leonard] Peikoff.”

According to Stephen Boydstun, Yaron Brook, ARI’s executive director, recently made a similar claim. Stephen says: "The proposition that without Peikoff’s efforts Objectivism as a systematized philosophy would not exist was a proposition put forward by Brook last summer."

I consider this evidence of an attempt by the teachers at the OGC to completely rewrite Objectivist history. It is an effort to erase any and all contributions by Nathaniel Branden to Objectivism.

In 1958, Nathaniel Branden began offering a lecture course on “The Basic Principles of Objectivism” at Nathaniel Branden Institute. This was the first detailed, systematic presentation of Objectivism. NBI, as an institution founded for the purpose of teaching and propagating the Objectivist philosophy, launched the Objectivist movement.

Having corrected that obvious bit of ARI foolishness, it suddenly dawns on me that this fact of history has a rather interesting implication.

Leonard Peikoff is well known for arguing, in his essay “Fact and Value,” that Objectivism became a “closed” system at the time of Ayn Rand’s death. “Official Objectivism”--according to Peikoff--is limited to the corpus of works on the Objectivist philosophy approved by Ayn Rand prior to her death. Although I disagree with such nonsense—Ayn Rand made clear that no single person could fully work out a philosophical system in their lifetime—Peikoff’s position regarding “closed Objectivism” leads to a fascinating logical consequence—a consequence Peikoff will not like and for which he may well need his tap-dancing shoes.

During the many years of their association, Ayn Rand considered Nathaniel Branden much more of an authority on Objectivism than Leonard Peikoff. Prior to repudiating him, she elevated Branden to a status equal to herself and designated him as her intellectual heir. She never gave Peikoff (or anyone else) similar status. Peikoff claims to be Rand’s new “intellectual heir,” but this has been shown to be a pretense with no factual basis. (Peikoff: The Great Pretender) In addition, it is an historical fact that Ayn Rand repeatedly banished Peikoff to 'Objectivist Siberia' for making statements that she found utterly contemptible and contrary to Objectivism. We have every reason to question whether she ever felt Peikoff truly qualified as an expert on her philosophy.

Ayn Rand gave her explicit, unqualified approval to the content of Branden’s “Basic Principles” course at NBI. The original ‘Basic Principles of Objectivism’ course now exists in book form: The Vision of Ayn Rand. The book is a literal transcript of the original lectures. Therefore, according to Peikoff’s “closed Objectivism” criteria, The Vision of Ayn Rand is a reliable and accurate systematic presentation of Objectivism.

In fact, of the two comprehensive, systematic presentations of Objectivism in book form, only one meets Peikoff’s criteria of “official Objectivism.” Rand fully and unqualifiedly approved every word of Branden’s “Basic Principles” course, and—to repeat--VOAR is a literal transcript of those recorded lectures. In contrast, by Peikoff’s own admission, Rand had to correct multiple errors in his original course on “The Philosophy of Objectivism.” OPAR was largely based on Peikoff’s own Objectivism lectures, but is not a literal transcript, so we have no basis to conclude that she gave official approval to one word of it.

With the exception of Branden’s later essay, “The Benefits and Hazards of The Philosophy of Ayn Rand,” all of the philosophical material in VOAR was officially approved by Ayn Rand as consistent with Objectivism. Because it was written after her death and is not a literal transcript, exactly none of the material in OPAR was ever officially endorsed by Ayn Rand.

According to Peikoff’s criterion of material approved by Ayn Rand before her philosophy became “closed,” VOAR is “official” Objectivism.

OPAR is not. :smile:

What you say about Branden's lectures is true. I attended Barbara Branden's first series of lectures in Philadelphia in 1960. I retook it in 1961-62, took Kures course in art of which I remember little except she hated abstract expressionism. I went to NY for Peikoff's introd course in philosophy in the summer of 1962 intending to take the second part in the fall, but graduate studies pulled me away and then I was gone from the fold except for what remained in my mind and still does to this day. Sciabarra's book is excellent and he is clear on the fact that Rand wanted it to be a closed system. Peikoff is merely continuing her wishes. See Sciabarra if you doubt me. He is complimentary to Peikoff and Branden both.

What I absolutely agree with in what you said is that I know there would never have been Objectivism without Branden and NBI. At that time my education required a systematic presentation and BP was definitely exactly that. I could not have absorbed objectivism from Rand's fiction without the BP course. And no one taking it with me would have been able to either.

Peikoff was a fine lecturer, but he simply did not have the sexual charisma Branden had, and underestimate that in a teacher and you will lose. Teacher's have always known that seduction, acted out or not, is an emotional part of learning since the Greeks. It was Branden that brought Rand's objectivism mainstream.

It just would never have happened otherwise and to deny him credit for this because of integrity issues is just plain stupid. Who cares now and who cares about Monica's blue dress now. Utter silliness.

The way he writes about Patrecia in his book is really very intuitive and insightful. She must have been an amazing young woman. I don't mean the fact of her beauty, just the simple but wonderful things she said to him, Really lovely. He would have been a fool not to have loved her.

Her statements about acting alone were beautiful. About being totally in the now, the present, where each little gesture you made required absolute consciousness. Perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I think the VOAR lectures meets the qualifications that Rand made as to what, or is not, Official" Objectivism.

Jerry,

Thanks very much for your important contributions to this thread. I wanted to comment on a few issues you brought up.

I think it is safe to say that, if Ayn Rand or her lawyers, had found a discrepancy between the two versions, they most likely would have threatened legal action for copyright violation against the Brandens and Academic Associates.

There was a “legal notice” written by Rand’s attorney, Henry Mark Holzer, published in the May, 1969 issue of The Objectivist, challenging the legitimacy of Branden’s recordings as offered by Academic Associates. Rand claimed to have “no knowledge” of the content of the lectures and contested Branden’s authority to act as a “spokesman” for Objectivism. There seemed to be an implied threat of legal action. Academic Associates responded by reporting the history of the lectures as having been presented at NBI for ten years with Ayn Rand’s full knowledge and endorsement. The response also cited Branden’s history as a spokesman for Objectivism during the years he was associated with Rand.

Of course, Rand had also threatened to deny Branden the copyrights to all of the material he had contributed to The Objectivist over the years, which was clearly immoral. At that time, she was apparently willing to do or say just about anything in her campaign to destroy him professionally. Since Rand was already claiming to have “no knowledge” of the content of the lectures, any changes Branden might have made in the content of the BPO lectures would not have mattered. Needless to say, since Holzer and his openly vindictive client had no case, there never was any lawsuit.

Here's an earlier discussion of this: Who Owns Objectivism?

The only lecture(s) in The Vision of Ayn Rand that were "changed" (actually, they are replacements for two lectures, one by Rand on "The Nature and Purpose of Art," and the other, "Esthetics of the Visual Arts, by Mary Ann Rukavina)" are "Romanticism, Naturalism and the Novels of Ayn Rand" Which were adopted from Chapter III, "The Literary Method of Ayn Rand"l in Who Is Ayn Rand?(1962) (which of course, was approved by Ayn Rand, and would be considered as part of "official" Objectivism.

One additional Branden lecture originally offered as a part of NBI's BPO course--"The Neurosis of the Intellectual"--is not in VOAR. It was also omitted from the recordings sold by Academic Associates, for reasons Branden has never explained. (I created a reasonably accurate transcript of the lecture from the notes I took, and I have shared it with other Objectivists--e.g., Roger Bissell. Everyone who has read my unofficial transcript agrees it's fantastic. I've never understood why it was omitted.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I think that this whole discussion of what is, and is not, "official" Objectivism is only necessary because of the unforunate efforts of some ARIans to attempt to rewrite the history of the development of this philosophy. This is an endeavor that will be a source of continual embarassment, because the ruse is easily discovered by anyone willing to investigate, and has already been exposed both here on OL, by Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, and in the two recent biographies of Rand.

2) Outside of that, why does anyone care about what has, or does not have, Peikoff's imprimatur? This is very odd behavior for exponents of a philosophy that emphasizes reason, independence, self-esteem, integrity, individualism. .

One more comment on the question of "why does anyone care?"

There are two very separate concerns here. From the standpoint of my personal perspective on what does or does not constitute Objectivism, I agree that this whole business about “official” Objectivism is a load of steaming crap. However, there is a fairly sizable contingent of people representing themselves as spokesmen for Objectivism—I won’t say who, but their initials are ARI-- who are trying to sell the public a totally bogus view of Objectivism and Objectivist history. They are trying to marginalize or erase the crucially important contributions made by others they don’t happen to like—and I want to do my part to help insure that they don’t get away with it.

I believe it is a question not only of scholarship and academic integrity, but of honoring a great man whom I happen to admire--a man who has made an invaluable contribution to my life and happiness.

And beyond that very important consideration, there is also the enormous satisfaction of hoisting the perpetrators of this unmitigated fraud on their own petard. Petard.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BPO was somewhat rewritten and redone for sale by Academic Associates and the transcriptions were done from those recordings Thus The Vision of Ayn Rand is only unofficially an official part of the Obectivist corpus sanctioned by Ayn Rand

--Brant

Some of the lectures were re-recorded by Branden for Academic Associates to improve the sound quality. I'm not aware that there were any significant changes in content.

I agree. I used to know people who listened to both the original taped NBI lectures and to the Academic Associates LP versions, and they never noticed any differences. Changes, if there were any, were probably very minor and had to do with style rather than substance.

Ghs

George,

Thanks very much for your feedback on this thread.

In view of the dire situation you described, I thought you might find this video helpful. It explains how Jack Daniels can help you get a better perspective on things. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding when the lectures transcribed in The Vision of Ayn Rand were recorded, it looks to me as if the book includes sections from unrevised early presentations combined with sections which were revised later.

For instance, the definition of "reason" given on pg. 1 is the original, Galt's Speech version ("the faculty that perceives, identifies, and integrates the material provided by man's senses"), whereas Chapter 2 references (pg. 40) and draws on "Miss Rand's monograph entitled Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology," a work published in installments in 1966-67.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...