Jennifer Burns a bridge or two

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

No one else knew Objectivism thoroughly.

Too bad for Nathaniel Branden.

Too bad for Harry Binswanger, even.

If only Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff knew her entire philosophy, in detail, then we'll just have to take Leonard Peikoff's word about those details. Won't we?

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

Nothing, as of yet, from Ms. Woodson.

Leonard Peikoff in His Own Words (DVD, 2004) includes this statement, immediately after the segment in which he recalls Ayn Rand's final illness and death:

I had known for some time that I was Ayn Rand’s heir and she was going to leave everything to me. She called me her intellectual heir and her legal heir, and I was going to carry on the movement. (1:01:01-1:01:15)

Peikoff follows up with:

She had several other people prior to me, but in various ways they went bad, they betrayed her, she broke with them, and I was loyal, to the very end—and I had two attributes, that I think was what prompted her choice.

On the one hand, I knew her philosophy thoroughly by that point, and she was the only other one who did. She had many admirers who understood her philosophy in general, but I was the only one who had a complete technical, uh, knowledge of her work—and was dedicated to it, I had dedicated my whole life to her philosophy.

Aehh, the other thing was, she knew I was completely honest: I would never compromise, and would keep it going as well as it could be.

There were other friends that she thought were completely honest also, so it wasn’t only the character issue. But I was the only one who combined honesty and integrity with the complete technical knowledge of her philosophy. And that was the combination on the basis of which she left it. (1:01:15-1:02:20)

Robert Campbell

Uh-huh....I see.

"So therefore, If anyone is so foolish as to question that some of my pronouncements seem to deviate from, or are inconsistent with Miss Rand's philosophy,..it is only because they are ignorant. After all, Ayn confided certain unpublished details of her philosophy only to me. So, when I speak, in addition to my referencing my incomparable and thorough knowledge of her works, I am basing my statements on issues she only confided in me. " - The Peikoff

How convenient. We are so lucky as to be able to listen and learn from such an unimpeachable source.

[Jerry Biggers]

Well, there are certain things that Rand did not confide in Leonard. By his own admission, he claims to have had no knowedge of the affair between her and Nathaniel. Even after details of the affair were brought to light in Barbara Branden's biography, Peikoff, reportedly, did not believe it was true. It was only after his wife later found proof of the affair in Rand's personal papers, did Leonard finally believe it.

So, if Rand withheld mention of that during the remaining 13 years of her life in which he was her confidant, how does he know that previously to their break, Rand did not discuss undisclosed details of her philosophy with Nathaniel ?.

And then, there's this from Nathaniel, himself:

(quoting a challenge from the True Believers, "'How can you call it dogmatic religion when we can prove every one of Ayn Rand's proposition?!' My answer to that is, 'The hell you can!' Prior to our break, Rand credited me with understanding her philosophy better than any other person alive - and not merely better, but far better. I know what we were in a position to prove, I know where the gaps are. And so can anyone else - by careful, critical reading." (pp.554-555, "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand," Epilogue to his The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism,

[Reidy]

Has either Peikoff or Branden presented new ideas that originated with Rand but which she never published - not simply different ways of putting her points or ideas original with themselves? As far as I know Rand, unlike Wittgenstein, did not leave any important unpublished philosophical writings when she died, in which case the definitive source on Rand would be Rand herself and not the oral tradition.

[Robert Campbell]

Has either Peikoff or Branden presented new ideas that originated with Rand but which she never published - not simply different ways of putting her points or ideas original with themselves? As far as I know Rand, unlike Wittgenstein, did not leave any important unpublished philosophical writings when she died, in which case the definitive source on Rand would be Rand herself and not the oral tradition.

Peter,

Since her death, neither has done so. A few phrases have emerged—"little stuff" for the ultimate constituents of the universe, "charity refutation" for a refutation of an assertion that could be left unredeemed in its arbitrariness—and that's about it.

The knottier problem is whether every aspect of the philosophical system that was published during Rand's lifetime, or that was included in an authorized lecture series (Branden's Basic Principles, Peikoff's Philosophy of Objectivism, etc.), actually originated with her.

I suspect not—why, for instance, would she have authorized Peikoff's 1976 preachments about arbitrary assertions, yet never used any of them in her own published work?—but the available documentation isn't the best.

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

Curiously, in light of this revelation by Leonard in the referenced video tape, he has not in any of his books mentioned again this secret knowledge imparted unto him by Rand.

This raises more questions: Does he plan to reveal this new knowledge, or is he willing to let it forever disappear at his death? Did he take notes, or is it "all in his head?" Has he since written it down? Is it included, but not so identified, in his The DIM Hypothesis (Probably not.)? Has he stashed this new knowledge, in some kind of format, oral or written, with the ARI Archives?

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

I have no idea whether Leonard Peikoff has sought to preserve any of this secret lore, in documents or interviews that he has personally retained, or deposited with the Ayn Rand Archives.

I'm not inclined to count on either.

Nothing in the DIM volume seems to qualify. For there Peikoff doesn't claim to be presenting any hitherto unpublicized ideas of Rand's, and he gives Objectivist epistemology a much pared-down presentation by comparison with OPAR, or with his 1980s and 1990s lecture series.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

Nothing, as of yet, from Ms. Woodson.

Sounds like Jeff Britting sent you a courtesy note to inform you that henceforth you’ll be being systematically ignored by someone else.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

Leonard Peikoff in His Own Words (DVD, 2004) includes this statement, immediately after the segment in which he recalls Ayn Rand's final illness and death:

I had known for some time that I was Ayn Rand’s heir and she was going to leave everything to me. She called me her intellectual heir and her legal heir, and I was going to carry on the movement. (1:01:01-1:01:15)

.

Has there been any claim made by anyone other than Peikoff to hearing Rand call Peikoff "her intellectual heir"?

Peikoff follows up with:

She had several other people prior to me, but in various ways they went bad, they betrayed her, she broke with them, and I was loyal, to the very end [...].

.

Rand had several other people prior to Peikoff? I wonder who all he means. The context sounds as if he's talking about the time period after his meeting with her, thus Nathaniel and, briefly, Barbara -- whom Rand considered as legal heir prior to Rand's breaking with both Brandens -- would be two people. But is Peikoff including Allan Blumenthal, who was co-(legal) heir with Peikoff until Blumenthal broke with Rand?

Aehh, the other thing was, she knew I was completely honest: I would never compromise, and would keep it going as well as it could be.

.

Did Rand know that Peikoff's complete honesty would lead him to authorize changes to material she'd written and to answers she'd given in Q and A's?

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

"They went bad" means Rand stayed ~good~ means Rand (Peikoff?) was and is the human moral-intellectual constant. And even if someone else broke with her she actually was the breaker.

--Brant

what happened to Frank?

[Robert Campbell]

Has there been any claim made by anyone other than Peikoff to hearing Rand call Peikoff "her intellectual heir"?

No witnesses have stepped forward.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Has there been any claim made by anyone other than Peikoff to hearing Rand call Peikoff "her intellectual heir"?

No witnesses have stepped forward.

Robert Campbell

But he's "completely honest."

--Brant

the basic fallacy of the philosophy of Ayn Rand is the "hierarchy of value" which subjectivity contradicts objectivity, but puts people like Rand, Branden and Peikoff at the top of the heap leading a cult sans critical thinking and true individualism

[william.scherk]

As far as I know Rand, unlike Wittgenstein, did not leave any important unpublished philosophical writings when she died

A few phrases have emerged—"little stuff" for the ultimate constituents of the universe, "charity refutation"

Grrrrr. I had wondered where Dr Mrs Doctor Diana ("did I mention I have a doctorate?") Hsieh came up with that term Charity Refutation. She uses it like a small cudgel.

Edited January 22, 2013 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Does [Peikoff] plan to reveal this new knowledge, or is he willing to let it forever disappear at his death?

Some wag on the internets (Twitter) prematurely announced the death of Peikoff. I include here the epitaph I expect to be chiseled out of the white marble of his sarcophagus (perhaps translated to Esperanto it would sound less, er, kooky):

THE ONE, THE ONLY, ME

I was the only one

I had dedicated my whole life

I was completely honest

I would never compromise

I was the only one who combined honesty and integrity with the complete technical knowledge of her philosophy

[T]hey went bad, they betrayed her, she broke with them

I was loyal, to the very end

I was going to carry on the movement.

She called me her intellectual heir

She was going to leave everything to me

I was Ayn Rand’s heir

[william.scherk]

But is Peikoff including Allan Blumenthal, who was co-(legal) heir with Peikoff until Blumenthal broke with Rand? [...] Did Rand know that Peikoff's complete honesty would lead him to authorize changes to material she'd written and to answers she'd given in Q and A's?

Good call on Blumenthal, I think that is who Peikoff meant (gawd forbid he should name them) -- and I also think you found the final nail in the coffin of honesty ... 'revision' by the Curia/minions/acolytes.

Edited January 22, 2013 by william.scherk

[Jonathan]

Grrrrr. I had wondered where Dr Mrs Doctor Diana ("did I mention I have a doctorate?") Hsieh came up with that term Charity Refutation. She uses it like a small cudgel.

Speaking of Comrade Sonia and her doctorate, here she gripes about how badly Facebook has failed to properly target her with appropriately individualized advertising, especially given how much they know about her status of having earned a Ph.D in philosophy. Facebook fed her an ad from Prince Institute Stenography School, a profession which Comrade Sonia says is outside of her range of interests. She says that with all that Facebook knows about her, she expects better.

Well, perhaps Facebook knows more than she thinks? Perhaps they know that she really hasn't done anything with her Ph.D in philosophy, other than play on the internet, and that her behavior and lack of professional ambition perhaps suggests to them that she is indeed "trying to decide what interests" her? Maybe they've analyzed her situation and have come to the conclusion that since she wasn't able to make a career for herself in philosophy, court reporting might be something to think about as another option for a productive career which pays well?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, from what I know of Facebook's algorithm for feeding ads, their main source of knowledge about a person is what the person posts--on Facebook.

This includes: (1) Profile entries (the strongest), (2) Media, including images, and (3) General activity on Facebook (the weakest).

Hsieh only has herself to blame. The unfolding of the "Dear Abby of philosophy" schtick counts as information to Facebook.

Ms. Hsieh should count her blessings that Facebook doesn't look outside, say at her blog. "Steak and blowjob day" could trigger some interesting ads. (If I remember correclty, there was an entry with that title, too. I didn't find it on my brief Google search, though. If my memory is correct, and if she took it down, I can only imagine that she didn't like the resulting search engine luv. )

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

WSS,

Dr. Mrs. Dr. Hsieh apparently got "charity refutation" from someone at the Objectivist Academic Center.

As with so many of her contacts since she converted to ARIanism, her direct source has not been named.

If "charity refutation" isn't a pure latter-day invention, it's a phrase that Leonard Peikoff heard from Ayn Rand. (Peikoff doesn't use it in his 1997 lecture on "the arbitrary," which leads me to wonder whether someone else came up with it.)

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

WSS,

Dr. Mrs. Dr. Hsieh apparently got "charity refutation" from someone at the Objectivist Academic Center.

As with so many of her contacts since she converted to ARIanism, her direct source has not been named.

Robert Campbell

Possibly a Binswanger coinage. I think I've seen that term in posts of his forwarded to me from HBL, but I don't remember for sure.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

Maybe "charity refutation" is a Binswanger coinage.

If so, did Binswanger coin it during Rand's lifetime—and did she ever use it herself?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Although it doesn't get into the origins of the term "charity refutation," parts of my old reply to Diana Hsieh may still be apposite here. (Thanks to WSS for reminding me of it.)

http://www.solopassion.com/node/798

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe "charity refutation" is a Binswanger coinage.

If so, did Binswanger coin it during Rand's lifetimeand did she ever use it herself?

Robert Campbell

If he did she probably gave him one.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All right, all right. I'm throwing in the towel. I just don't have the time (or the enthusiasm) to do the research.

So I'm going to put on the dunce cap and just ask rather than wade through old discussion threads of fundy-like rationalizations.

What does "charity refutation" mean, especially in ARI-speak? Is it anything related to the principle of charity?

Michael

[Reidy]

It means doing somebody the favor of talking him out of fallacious beliefs that don't really deserve the explainer's attentions. See the link in #96. It was new to me, too.

[9thdoctor]

What does "charity refutation" mean, especially in ARI-speak?

It means that a view is so plainly false it doesn’t even rise to the level of being worthy of discussion. In fact, oftentimes, one sanctions evul by debating it. Think religion, libertarianism, Kant, or TheBrandens™. Sometimes, however, one may provide a good faith noob some level of explanation: this is a charity refutation.