Peikoff on the new biographies

[9thdoctor]

This applies to Burns and Heller, but I think ought to have its own thread. His comments are in today’s podcast, they start at 7 1/2 minutes in.

Q: Do you plan to read either of the new Ayn Rand biographies?

A: NO! I won’t read any of them, EVER!

Q: Do you have any advice in this regard for others?

A: Yes, do the same. I have had enough experience in my years of what these people write, uh, I’ve authorized one, um, biography, and its in the works and some day hopefully, uh, will be done, but my experience has been SO HORRENDOUS, with so many people interested in doing a biography that I just stay away from it entirely. Uh, the dishonesty of the people, you know they start with an interview and in the old days I interviewed then I quickly stopped. But now, this is the kind of thing I get, um, somebody wrote with one of these biographies, and we wrote back a form letter saying, hiss hiss, the Estate of Ayn Rand has no, uh you know what, dealings, er, or correspondence with any biographer. That’s it, a form letter, better worded than that. And the book came out, in the acknowledgements, thanked the Estate of Ayn Rand for its correspondence. So, ha ha. Here’s another one, the archives of the institute, I think this is one of the current ones, have, are, are open to anybody in the universe. They’re not restricted to Objectivists, eh, so anybody can get in. So somebody apparently, one of these biographers has in her blog, either thank you or I don’t know, Dr. Peikoff has approved my access to the archives. So, the whole thing is too disgusting to be imagined. That’s my view. This is not even to say, oh I’ll take it back, I don’t even want to start with it.

Ok this is a good jump from these biographies to the concept of disease. Cough Cough.

...

He goes on to the next question, which is on the morality of quarantines.

[anonrobt]

This applies to Burns and Heller, but I think ought to have its own thread. His comments are in today’s podcast, they start at 7 1/2 minutes in.

Q: Do you plan to read either of the new Ayn Rand biographies?

A: NO! I won’t read any of them, EVER!

Q: Do you have any advice in this regard for others?

A: Yes, do the same. I have had enough experience in my years of what these people write, uh, I’ve authorized one, um, biography, and its in the works and some day hopefully, uh, will be done, but my experience has been SO HORRENDOUS, with so many people interested in doing a biography that I just stay away from it entirely. Uh, the dishonesty of the people, you know they start with an interview and in the old days I interviewed then I quickly stopped. But now, this is the kind of thing I get, um, somebody wrote with one of these biographies, and we wrote back a form letter saying, hiss hiss, the Estate of Ayn Rand has no, uh you know what, dealings, er, or correspondence with any biographer. That’s it, a form letter, better worded than that. And the book came out, in the acknowledgements, thanked the Estate of Ayn Rand for its correspondence. So, ha ha. Here’s another one, the archives of the institute, I think this is one of the current ones, have, are, are open to anybody in the universe. They’re not restricted to Objectivists, eh, so anybody can get in. So somebody apparently, one of these biographers has in her blog, either thank you or I don’t know, Dr. Peikoff has approved my access to the archives. So, the whole thing is too disgusting to be imagined. That’s my view. This is not even to say, oh I’ll take it back, I don’t even want to start with it.

Ok this is a good jump from these biographies to the concept of disease. Cough Cough.

...

He goes on to the next question, which is on the morality of quarantines.

Obviously, the poor old soul has no sense of humor - that was a funny/ sarcastic remark in the book... ;-)

[9thdoctor]

Obviously, the poor old soul has no sense of humor - that was a funny/ sarcastic remark in the book... ;-)

I assume he meant Sciabarra’s Russian Radical here, I remember when it came out there was a review (LFB?) that indicated there had been cooperation from Leonard Peikoff and/or the Estate. Why do you think it was obviously a joke? I just pulled the book down, wow it’s a signed copy(!), and the offending acknowledgement reads:…to Leonard Peikoff, Diane LeMont, and the Estate of Ayn Rand for timely correspondence on several issues of historical and legal significance to the current project. If all he got was a “go away” letter, then Peikoff’s probably on solid ground here. I think this was explored in the Dialectical Dishonesty imbroglio and Sciabarra was vindicated on this point, I don’t remember though.

[Chris Grieb]

Lenny seems to be suggesting that he making no decisions about access to the archives. I have to say that I think he should not make comments about people being ill.

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

Thank you for transcribing and posting this.

Leonard Peikoff's comments are a complete muddle. Of course, it's difficult to make fine differentiations among several books that you have refused to read...

Anne Heller's book does not contain any acknowledgements to the Estate of Ayn Rand. It merely states that Ms. Heller was denied access to the Ayn Rand Papers in the Ayn Rand Archives. In her endnotes, she also says that Leonard Peikoff would not allow her access to the the archives of Curtis Brown, the company that Ayn Rand's literary agent worked for.

Jennifer Burns stated on her blog that she received a letter of permission from the Estate of Ayn Rand, signed by Leonard Peikoff, to quote material from the Archives. Is there any reason to doubt that she (1) needed this permission or (2) actually got it?

And is he lying, or completely out of it, when he declares that the Ayn Rand Archives are "open to anybody in the universe"?

It is fairly unlikely, in any event, that Dr. Peikoff is referring to the acknowledgements in The Russian Radical, because that book was not a biography of Ayn Rand.

At least he does mention that he authorized one biography—presumably, Shoshana Milgram's.

Are his other statements on recent podcasts any better organized or less confused than this one?

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

Are his other statements on recent podcasts any better organized or less confused than this one?

I don’t know, I really don’t listen that carefully, they aren’t conducted on a very high level, I’ll say that. He definitely has a doddering quality now, that wasn’t present in the ’76 course. One other thing I’ve noticed is that he has a nasty cough, every podcast has a coughing fit at some point.

It is fairly unlikely, in any event, that Dr. Peikoff is referring to the acknowledgements in The Russian Radical, because that book was not a biography of Ayn Rand.

I do think he’s referring to Russian Radical in the middle, the part about the form letter. It’s fair to say his definition of “biography” is pretty loose, Burns isn’t really a biography either. What other book could he be talking about?

And is he lying, or completely out of it, when he declares that the Ayn Rand Archives are "open to anybody in the universe"?

How about a test case, Anne Heller and Barbara Branden show up at the archives, with a cameraman of course, and we'll find out (and document) whether “anybody in the universe” can get in.

[nskinsella]

<p>Yes, it was bizarre. And it was right after his discussion of the proper philosophical response to premature ejaculation. </p>

<p>For more Peikoffiana, see my posts <a href="http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/10/05/peikoff-on-curing-the-gay/">Peikoff on Curing The Gay</a> (oddly, in the latest podcast if I heard him right one of the questions he responded to was from a gay man, about whether he should tell his ex-lover/now-friend that he had once cheated on him); <a href="http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/14/the-westerner-rands-favorite-poem/">The Westerner: Rand’s Favorite Poem</a>; <a href="http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/09/28/objectivism-on-patients-versus-fetuses/">Objectivism on Patients versus Fetuses</a>; <a href="http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/11/09/peikoff-on-the-right-to-act-irrationally/">Peikoff on the Right to Act Irrationally</a>; <a href="http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/14/peikoff-on-copyright-michael-jackson/">Peikoff on Copyright, Michael Jackson</a>.</p>

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

On listening to the podcast, I find your transcription accurate.

Except, in the answer to the first part of the question, I hear:

Q: Do you plan to read either of the new Ayn Rand biographies?

A: NO! I don’t read any of them. NEVER!

Not much effect on the meaning.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Stephan,

It's thoroughly weird listening to an Objectivist taking questions of Talmudic interpretation, or doing casuistry, or issuing rulings on what is haram or najis.

On the same podcast (number 82) where Leonard Peikoff declares sexual orientation to be the product of premises acquired in early childhood, he rejects the distinction between introversion and extraversion on the grounds that one cannot get by orienting toward consciousness but not existence, or toward existence but not consciousness.

A psychologist he definitely isn't...

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

ND,

On listening to the podcast, I find your transcription accurate.

Except, in the answer to the first part of the question, I hear:

Q: Do you plan to read either of the new Ayn Rand biographies?

A: NO! I don’t read any of them. NEVER!

Not much effect on the meaning.

Robert Campbell

Don’t vs. Won’t, Never vs. Ever, fair enough, I’m not going back to listen to it again. I know there was also an indistinct stutter somewhere that I skipped. His statement was so disjointed that I knew that to comment on it I couldn’t paraphrase it, so I aimed to transcribe it as is. By the time I was done I didn’t feel like commenting, it speaks for itself. I find the “hiss hiss” part the funniest, that’s just how it sounded.

[Brant Gaede]

I find dodderism sad. It started in Peikoff's case over 40 years ago and started to get out of hand in 1986. "The Break" left him on a foundation of sand, "The Passion of Ayn Rand" left him standing low and probable physical brain deterioration has disintegrated the edifice. I really liked the guy, way back when. Now he's the Peter Keating of Objectivism, the end product, and Ayn Rand's ultimate personal and professional irony.

--Brant

Edited December 8, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Brant:

"Ayn Rand's ultimate personal and professional irony."

Excellent. Perfectly phrased.

Adam

[Greybird]

[...] probable physical brain deterioration has disintegrated the edifice.

As much as I utterly despise Peikoff — so much so that any comments I could make on the posted and linked absurdities would degenerate quickly — this kind of comment about him, to me, is not at all appropriate.

No one should make long-distance diagnoses, of either psychological health — as Rand herself once decried in print about Barry Goldwater — or physical health. It's immaterial whether one is a trained physician or not. Such matters cannot be discerned accurately from a distance.

Peikoff's health is a matter between him and his doctors. It's not our province. We can already judge the idiocy he speaks and practices in public, and that's already more than enough to condemn him.

[Chris Grieb]

[...] probable physical brain deterioration has disintegrated the edifice.

As much as I utterly despise Peikoff — so much so that any comments I could make on the posted and linked absurdities would degenerate quickly — this kind of comment about him, to me, is not at all appropriate.

No one should make long-distance diagnoses, of either psychological health — as Rand herself once decried in print about Barry Goldwater — or physical health. It's immaterial whether one is a trained physician or not. Such matters cannot be discerned accurately from a distance.

Peikoff's health is a matter between him and his doctors. It's not our province. We can already judge the idiocy he speaks and practices in public, and that's already more than enough to condemn him.

Greybird; You are absolutly correct! It's fun to diagnose from afar but very wrong.

[BaalChatzaf]

Peikoff's health is a matter between him and his doctors. It's not our province. We can already judge the idiocy he speaks and practices in public, and that's already more than enough to condemn him.

You have that right. L.P. is not even a first rate second rate man. He is a third rate second rate man.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

Peikoff's health is a matter between him and his doctors. It's not our province. We can already judge the idiocy he speaks and practices in public, and that's already more than enough to condemn him.

You have that right. L.P. is not even a first rate second rate man. He is a third rate second rate man.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob -

I think that's a bit broad and harsh.

My assessment: LP's best days, intellectually speaking, were over by sometime in the 1970s. In fact, his 1976 The Philosophy of Objectivism is, in my judgment, inferior to BPOE as developed by Nathaniel Branden. NB's course is so much better targeted, I think, for the beginner interested in Objectivism as a philosophy FOR LIVING. But the two "history of philosophy" courses are quite good. The course naturally has many items which will inspire debate - as is to be expected in such a brief survey of the history of philosophy.

DIM - leaves me completely unimpressed.

My impression is that LP began to decline as soon as he saw himself as the "defender" of AR (who surely needs no defenders of his calibre!), after the great schism of 1968. When he began to focus on protection of orthodoxy and on the closed Objectivism concept, things were bad. "Fact and Value" - - - give me a break!

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

I apologize for the remark. I don't know why he says what he does the way he does putting on the appearance of someone who has mentally deteriorated.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Peikoff's health is a matter between him and his doctors. It's not our province. We can already judge the idiocy he speaks and practices in public, and that's already more than enough to condemn him.

You have that right. L.P. is not even a first rate second rate man. He is a third rate second rate man.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob -

I think that's a bit broad and harsh.

My assessment: LP's best days, intellectually speaking, were over by sometime in the 1970s. In fact, his 1976 The Philosophy of Objectivism is, in my judgment, inferior to BPOE as developed by Nathaniel Branden. NB's course is so much better targeted, I think, for the beginner interested in Objectivism as a philosophy FOR LIVING. But the two "history of philosophy" courses are quite good. The course naturally has many items which will inspire debate - as is to be expected in such a brief survey of the history of philosophy.

DIM - leaves me completely unimpressed.

My impression is that LP began to decline as soon as he saw himself as the "defender" of AR (who surely needs no defenders of his calibre!), after the great schism of 1968. When he began to focus on protection of orthodoxy and on the closed Objectivism concept, things were bad. "Fact and Value" - - - give me a break!

Bill P

Of course, BPOE should be BPOO above.

That's not the first time I've done that typo!

Bill P

[Greybird]

Of course, BPOE should be BPOO above. That's not the first time I've done that typo!

Perhaps that "E" could simply be transferred to Peikoff to make it useful.

After all, he's long been well-versed, apropos of schisms, in the Basic Principles of EJECTivism.

{grins, ducks, runs}

[nskinsella]

Peikoff's health is a matter between him and his doctors.

This seems to be a trivial truism.

It's not our province.

this seems to be an (ambiguous) normative statement masquerading as a factual one. What is our "province," exactly?

[tjohnson]

Peikoff's health is a matter between him and his doctors. It's not our province. We can already judge the idiocy he speaks and practices in public, and that's already more than enough to condemn him.

Some would say that publicly speaking in certain ways is a symptom of mental illness, which implies an underlying physical condition.

[anonrobt]

Peikoff's health is a matter between him and his doctors. It's not our province. We can already judge the idiocy he speaks and practices in public, and that's already more than enough to condemn him.

Some would say that publicly speaking in certain ways is a symptom of mental illness, which implies an underlying physical condition.

As, for instance, with Obama?? ;-)

[Greybird]

[...] Peikoff's health is a matter between him and his doctors.

This seems to be a trivial truism.

It's true, but as to Peikoff, it's neither trivial nor a "truism." Not when he, in his absurd jeremiad "Fact and Value," and the rest of the Orthodoxy alleges a point about some Objectivist obligation to make constant, searching moral judgments, even from a distance.

Making valid "normative statements" about an individual generally involves a context of knowledge that, I'd say, is at least an order of magnitude greater than for making physiological ones. And even the latter are not possible without broad, specialized knowledge, and gaining Peikoff's (or anyone's) permission to enter an intimate sphere of privacy.

Peikoff, in other words, already presumes far too much omniscience for himself. We shouldn't return the "favor."

It's not our province.

This seems to be an (ambiguous) normative statement masquerading as a factual one. What is our "province," exactly?

To not make our assessments exceed our knowledge. And to not make them bypass reasonable standards for peaceful behavior.

Until he speaks about it, genuine knowledge as to whether Peikoff has Alzheimer's or any other malady involves invasion of his legitimate sphere of privacy. We here aren't about to do that, and we shouldn't do that (I seriously doubt that ethical point is in dispute). So we have no proper business animadverting, from this forum's distance, on his physical and mental states.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What is our "province," exactly?

Stephen,

LOL...

That's actually a good question in any intercourse in human affairs.

(Egad, that sounded terrible!)

Not to sound provincial, but my hope is for each of us to think for himself or herself...

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Obviously, I don't know anything about Leonard Peikoff's medical condition.

But he is doing himself no favors with these recent podcasts, where some of his answers border on the incoherent.

Someone he will listen to needs to draw him aside and encourage him to discontinue the podcasts, at least for now.

Robert Campbell