"Intellectual Heir to Objectivism"

[Alfonso Jones]

I was browsing to "Objectivism Online" at http://www.objectivismonline.net/component...id,69/Itemid,4/

and found the following in their listing of websites for "Objectivist Intellectuals":

"The homepage of intellectual heir to Objectivism: Leonard Peikoff."

Read it twice if you don't break out laughing. Consider what it means to be an heir TO something.

You'll also find the usual suspects to be absent...

Laugh? Cry? Be my guest.

Alfonso

[Mike11]

I blame ObjectivismOnline.net for 87% of the troll I am today.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't read OO much. Once in a while I take a peek. I have seen some heavy-handed snarkiness, but overall, I see a bunch of kids—good kids—trying to get it right. I imagine many will become highly productive individuals. I also think some of the snarky posters will end up being nice people—good solid people. I know I used to say a bunch of crap when I was college age.

I did notice that a huge number of posters (the ones I saw) do not give their real name, not even in their profile. I personally believe disclosure of one's name on an intellectual forum is a value. If someone wants to be taken seriously in a discussion of ideas, it is good to start out by letting people know to whom they are talking. That gives the image of fair and honest with nothing to hide.

Posters sometimes mention that Ayn Rand is a pen name to justify theirs, but there is a critical difference between Rand's use and most of the pen names I have seen on forums—Rand appeared personally to people and in public under her pen name. She did not use it for anonymity. She used it as a new name. Even her intimates called her "Ayn." It was a brand she created and she wore it proudly.

(There are also commercial reasons for using pseudonyms, but that is usually not an issue on intellectual forums.)

btw - I was once given my own thread on OO: Michael Stuart Kelly.

That must mean something, but damned if I know what it is.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bill (Alfonso),

I have always wondered how a body of ideas can be property.

Can there be thought trespass? For instance, do you go to jail if you think the ideas without permission from the owner—or if deceased, the heir to the ideas?

The ultimate control game is to tell someone, "You can think my ideas, but you can't say in public you do so unless I let you."

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill (Alfonso),

I have always wondered how a body of ideas can be property.

Can there be thought trespass? For instance, do you go to jail if you think the ideas without permission from the owner—or if deceased, the heir to the ideas?

The ultimate control game is to tell someone, "You can think my ideas, but you can't say in public you do so unless I let you."

Michael

What gets me about this is to claim to be the "intellectual heir to Objectivism." Now, Peikoff is clearly the heir of Rand's estate. The notion of an intellectual heir is at best a little strange. But to be the intellectual heir TO A would seem to imply that A is DEAD. And that is WAY BEYOND STRANGE.

Alfonso

[Kat]

Leonard Peikoff inherited Ayn Rand's intellectual property rights, her copyrights and such. He has the keys to the vault. I see intellectual heir in his case as being legal jargon, although it sounds like some would like it to mean that there was a brain transplant involved there somewhere. He certainly did not inherit her intellect. What he knows he learned for himself. I am still waiting to see if anyone ever produced anything from Ayn Rand calling him her intellectual heir as she did with Nathaniel Branden.

Kat

[Alfonso Jones]

Leonard Peikoff inherited Ayn Rand's intellectual property rights, her copyrights and such. He has the keys to the vault. I see intellectual heir in his case as being legal jargon, although it sounds like some would like it to mean that there was a brain transplant involved there somewhere. He certainly did not inherit her intellect. What he knows he learned for himself. I am still waiting to see if anyone ever produced anything from Ayn Rand calling him her intellectual heir as she did with Nathaniel Branden.

Kat

Exactly:

1) Everybody raise their hand who believes that if Peikoff or the ARI had a recording or journal entry validing the "intellectual heir" designation for Peikoff it would not have been long ago released with great fanfare. Oh, I didn't think so...

2) And the point is that you could be a financial heir to or of Ayn Rand. Which would imply inheriting something when Rand died. To be an heir to "Objectivism," on the other hand, would imply that one had inherited or would inherit something from Objectivism when "it died."

Alfonso

(Edited - left out wording in original)

Edited February 9, 2008 by Alfonso

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Alfonso,

LOLOLOLOL...

I am really slow from being up all night writing. I finally got it.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Alfonso,

Many of the religionists think that Ayn Rand was Objectivism.

So how can one be dead and the other still alive?

Robert Campbell

[Kat]

Many of the religionists think that Ayn Rand was Objectivism. So how can one be dead and the other still alive?

How? Because Objectivism is an OPEN system, a school of thought, a philosophy for living on earth. I'm sure many of us were Objectivists before we ever heard the word or heard of Ayn Rand. Many of us don't even call ourselves Objectivists. Objectivism didn't die with Ayn Rand, it just hasn't evolved much due to constraints imposed by the orthodoxy who want to keep it just how she left it.

Kat

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think I have definitive proof that Leonard Peikoff is the Intellectual Hair of Ayn Rand. See below:

Philosopher and Disciple:

and

Intellectual Hair:

It's not a great fit, but I hope that's finally settled and now we can move on.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

It's not a great fit, but I hope that's finally settled and now we can move on.

Michael

Extremely funny. But have a care. Remember what happened to Trotsky?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

I don't read OO much.

Thanks for the pointer. I went over there and registered. It looks sort of amateurish, not a lot of thought, mostly chatty people, but I did not spend a lot of time digging, either.

Mike M.

[Mike11]

I don't read OO much.

Thanks for the pointer. I went over there and registered. It looks sort of amateurish, not a lot of thought, mostly chatty people, but I did not spend a lot of time digging, either.

Mike M.

Its a hive of "Yes Men", fanaticism and "I'm more of a cultist than you" contests. "Philosophical Detection" runs rampant, even in the most trivial issues.

Actual conversation in the OO.net chat:

Me: Just be yourself Kane.

Kane: I hate how I'm so nervous around girls, I'll ask her out tonight though.

Me: Just Roark her then.

Kane: You think I should?

Me: ...

Me: You think someone could actually say "Roark her" with a straight face?

Kane: Yes, I do believe the proper romantic relationship, found beautifully in the relationship between Howard and Dominique, is one I would be proud to conform to. Why do you spread your Rand hating vitriol?

The posters only go downhill from there.

I read it for the laughs every week or so now.

[Mike11]

Speaking of these guys, MSK is featured, he has his own thread -

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=10305

Looks like one of the Roids just posted to -

"Now I know why I shouldn't add Objectivistliving to my bookmarks, but, originally, what caused the split between Kelly and Peikoff? I never heard of this man until after the separation and only in the context of the split. Was is just due to his inability to learn, or unwillingness to understand?"

Love these guys. Has no idea what the split was about but assures us of his ideological conformity nonetheless. Typical post in that regard.

[Mike11]

No offense, but I give Michael E. Marotta 3 posts, 4 tops before being banned for the religious reference in his signature on OO.net and the `sanction` it implies.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike11,

There never was a split between Dr. Peikoff and me. We never met, although we have corresponded cordially by email. Obviously, my close relationship with his cousin, Barbara Branden, makes me keep a distance, although I probably would anyway given some differences about philosophy and history we have (and I have no doubt the feeling is mutual). Still, our communications have been nothing but respectful.

People always get Kelly and Kelley mixed up. There was a Kelley-Peikoff split, where the person involved was David Kelley. We are not related—we are friends only (distant friends but friends). I hold him in very high esteem and I believe the feeling is mutual. He autographed my copy of his book, The Art of Reasoning as follows:

For my friend, colleague and namesake, Michael Kelly, with best wishes.

He did not date it, but it was signed October 6, 2007 at TAS’s 50th Anniversary Celebration of Atlas Shrugged in Washington DC. (I just now wrote that in my copy so I won't have to look it up in the future if I ever need to.)

Michael

[Mike11]

Mike11,

There never was a split between Dr. Peikoff and me. We never met, although we have corresponded cordially by email. Obviously, my close relationship with his cousin, Barbara Branden, makes me keep a distance, although I probably would anyway given some differences about philosophy and history we have (and I have no doubt the feeling is mutual). Still, our communications have been nothing but respectful.

People always get Kelly and Kelley mixed up. There was a Kelley-Peikoff split, where the person involved was David Kelley. We are not related—we are friends only (distant friends but friends). I hold him in very high esteem and I believe the feeling is mutual. He autographed my copy of his book, The Art of Reasoning as follows:

For my friend, colleague and namesake, Michael Kelly, with best wishes.

He did not date it, but it was signed October 6, 2007 at TAS’s 50th Anniversary Celebration of Atlas Shrugged in Washington DC. (I just now wrote that in my copy so I won't have to look it up in the future if I ever need to.)

Michael

I should have given more of the context there I guess. He was referring to the ARI/TOC split, just spelled David's name wrong.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike11,

I was not referring to you. I was referring to the guy you quoted. Here is the OO post (his posting name is Benpercent and real name Ben Skipper):

I was about to start another thread asking this very question, but I'll pose another question here for the sake of non-clutter.

Now I know why I shouldn't add Objectivistliving to my bookmarks, but, originally, what caused the split between Kelly and Peikoff? I never heard of this man until after the separation and only in the context of the split. Was is just due to his inability to learn, or unwillingness to understand? He doesn't sound as if he would be equal to the Brandens concerning negativity against Objectivism.

From the tenor of his post, he obviously thinks David Kelley and I are the same person.

I find it strange that this thread was unlocked for this post in particular, but maybe it was never locked in the first place.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike11,

I once researched and compiled information on the Kelley-Peikoff split. If you are interested in this matter, most of the essential information is given in the post below. You will find a very good discussion and some text in that thread.

Selective timeline and links of the Kelley-Peikoff schism

You can also find another good discussion on the thread giving David Kelley's article:

A Question of Sanction

This should keep you busy for a while (if you are interested and read all the links).

Michael

[Mike11]

Mike11,

I once researched and compiled information on the Kelley-Peikoff split. If you are interested in this matter, most of the essential information is given in the post below. You will find a very good discussion and some text in that thread.

Selective timeline and links of the Kelley-Peikoff schism

You can also find another good discussion on the thread giving David Kelley's article:

A Question of Sanction

This should keep you busy for a while (if you are interested and read all the links).

Michael

Read it a few times actually.

:-)