Peikoff flip-flops

[Philip Coates]

> The term flip-flop is quite appropriate in Peikoff's case, because of the fanaticism of his earlier viewpoint...making it in effect a Papal Bull...[he] cuts a rather foolish figure when he comes a short time later with the opposite advice.

DF, That's not the connotation "flip-flop" has for Americans. It's not about foolishness or fanaticism, but about the implication of lack of conviction or principle of the change.

Fanatical? Foolish? You can make your argument. But unprincipled, shifting with any change in the political breeze or not having strong reasons in mind...No. That's not who he has been all these decades as anyone who has followed him all these years knows.

Or if you think he's just being expedient and has no firm conviction behind it, you'd have to offer an argument. Not just simply slap on a label like 'flip-flopper' and expect that to do your arguing for you.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Philip Coates

[merjet]

> flip-flop -- an abrupt change, as to an opposite opinion [MJ]

Merlin, if I called you a flip-flopper in regard to your views or Peikoff or something else, would you take offense at the implication or would you say, "Oh well, Phil, is just saying that my change was abrupt or opposed to my previous belief. No sweat." Or would you resent it feel you had to defend yourself against any implication?

We know how you feel. Give it a break. Why don't you live up to your claim here about hating to repeat yourself?

The nasty connotation of "flip-flopper" is yours.

Do you confirm or deny that Peikoff made an abrupt change to an opposite opinion?

Edited May 20, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[Dennis Hardin]

The term flip-flop is quite appropriate in Peikoff's case, because of the fanaticism of his earlier viewpoint. After all he claimed then that if you abstained from voting or voted Republican, you didn't understand Objectivism, making it in effect a Papal Bull. I don't think Rand ever gave political advice in such a fanatical manner, no matter how strongly she urged to vote a certain way. Therefore Peikoff cuts a rather foolish figure when he comes a short time later with the opposite advice. Flip-flop indeed!

Excellent point. And pithy, as Bill O'Reilly might say.

[Philip Coates]

> We know how you feel. Give it a break.

Merlin, you didn't answer the question: "Merlin, if I called you a flip-flopper in regard to your views or Peikoff or something else, would you take offense at the implication or would you say, "Oh well, Phil, is just saying that my change was abrupt or opposed to my previous belief. No sweat." Or would you resent it feel you had to defend yourself against any implication?"

Give it an answer.

And you didn't acknowledge the difference between a dictionary denotation and a connotation.

Give it an acknowledgment.

[merjet]

> We know how you feel. Give it a break.

Merlin, you didn't answer the question: "Merlin, if I called you a flip-flopper in regard to your views or Peikoff or something else, would you take offense at the implication or would you say, "Oh well, Phil, is just saying that my change was abrupt or opposed to my previous belief. No sweat." Or would you resent it feel you had to defend yourself against any implication?"

Give it an answer.

Coming from you I'd ignore it.

And you didn't acknowledge the difference between a dictionary denotation and a connotation.

Give it an acknowledgment.

Wrong. I acknowledged it in my first post on this thread.

You failed to answer my question. Do you confirm or deny that Peikoff made an abrupt change to an opposite opinion?

[9thdoctor]

I’m sick of discussing this flip-flops thing, but I’ve taken an informal poll of sorts, by skimming the posts on the thread so far.

Those seemingly or explicitly supportive of “Peikoff flip-flops”:

John Day

Dragonfly

Merlin Jetton

Reidy

Rich Engle

PDS

Ba’al Chatzaf

William Scherk

Those opposed while favoring “Peikoff continues to makes an ass of himself”:

Robert Campbell

Dennis Hardin

No indication:

George H. Smith

Brant Gaede

Those opposing qua “minor” issue worthy of numerous posts:

Philip Coates

There is so much else about Peikoff’s evolving political positions that could be a springboard for interesting discussion. Phil, just go away, or it’s going to be the salt mines for you.

[Dennis Hardin]

Those opposed [to “Peikoff flip-flops”] while favoring “Peikoff continues to makes an ass of himself”:

Robert Campbell

Dennis Hardin

I don't know about Robert, but my view is that "Peikoff flip-flops" does not go near far enough. In other words, I am not opposed to the conclusion that he "flip-flopped." I am opposed to the implication that the sight of a clown "flip-flopping" should be any surprise.

[9thdoctor]

If I'd been headlining this thread, I wouldn't have said that Peikoff has flip-flopped. I'd have said that he continues to make an ass of himself.

I thoroughly agree.

I allocated your vote based on what you wrote here, if we do a recount I suppose I should change your vote to explicitly supportive. It’s a pretty fair interpretation of “thoroughly agree”, at least you and RC didn’t harp on it.

It must be dinnertime, because this whole issue makes me think of the spicy wings at Hooters. Most people like them just fine, there’s often one or two people saying they’re not spicy enough, and then sometimes there’s that one jackass who tries spicy wings and then goes on and on about how they’re too spicy.

[Dennis Hardin]

If I'd been headlining this thread, I wouldn't have said that Peikoff has flip-flopped. I'd have said that he continues to make an ass of himself.

I thoroughly agree.

I allocated your vote based on what you wrote here, if we do a recount I suppose I should change your vote to explicitly supportive. It’s a pretty fair interpretation of “thoroughly agree”, at least you and RC didn’t harp on it.

It must be dinnertime, because this whole issue makes me think of the spicy wings at Hooters. Most people like them just fine, there’s often one or two people saying they’re not spicy enough, and then sometimes there’s that one jackass who tries spicy wings and then goes on and on about how they’re too spicy.

Robert said he wouldn’t headline it that way, because it was too mild. He didn’t say it wasn’t accurate. That sentiment is what I meant to agree with.

Hooters ain’t for people who don’t like spicy things. As for me, I like them just fine.

[Neil Parille]

Can anyone tell me what Peikoff has done to advance Objectivism? Maybe OPAR, but that's about it. Does anyone other than groupies purchase his overpriced tapes?

-Neil Parille

[Philip Coates]

Wide range of courses. Not just pure philosophy.

[Neil Parille]

While Peikoff has done some good things, I think he has made 2 disasterous decisions:

1. Allowing the bowlderized publication of Rand's materials.

2. Coming out in 1987 with an orthodox view of Rand that her only flaw was blowing her top (which he then went on to excuse). Since this is demonstrably untrue, combined with (1) it makes the ARI look like a cult.

Probably the reason we haven't seen an authorized biography of Rand is that no one with any credibility will spend years on a book that will ultimately be denounced by its target audience.

-Neil Parille

[Philip Coates]

Neil, sometimes he's rationalistic.

Which is odd, because he pretty much "beat it out of me" - in criticism after criticism, reading my papers over the course of years - when I took college courses, small private seminars, and then the public Objectivist courses from him (where I volunteered to present a paper or talk, as in the public UO course and many more times in small groups at his home). And because he was -absolutely brilliant- in dissecting the mistake in Understanding Objectivism, which was his best course...and perhaps most original.

Rationalism takes many forms and is not just the wrong level of abstraction (or lack of the appropriate concrete level), it can more specifically be armchair theorizing. Three biggest examples of thinking errors of his which have a strong element of rationalism==>

1. Recommending a vote for every Democrat several years ago, based on the theoretical view that the Republicans were vehicles for theocracy over the long run. And failing to get into the messy details of the short run. (Forgetting that famous quote from Lord Keynes.)

2. Armchair generalship: When he tried to recommend a particular war tactic(nuking Tehran and killing millions of Iranian civilians) without awareness of facts on the ground such as that most of the Iranian civilian public is anti-mullah and pro-western. (At least until you nuke their population centers.)

3. "Fact and Value": Armchair theorizing about a complex psychological issue - what degree of error someone can make innocently without getting into messy details about how different people's minds work and what they can be ignorant of. Or rationalistic about.

People on the ARI side, when they err, often tend to err in the direction of intrinsicism or rationalism; people on the TAS side, when they err, often tend to err in the direction of subjectivism or 'empiricism' [not the good kind of e'ism, but in the sense of being too focused on the concrete and not seeing the big picture or overall essentials or the big theory.]

Edited May 21, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Robert Campbell]

Seems to me that Leonard Peikoff has had ample rationalistic tendencies for many years.

Up through 1983, he had some success in detecting and exposing such propensities, drawing on his own rich experience.

Since then, he has pretty much yielded to them.

I've found it most peculiar how ARIans constantly charge critics and deviationists with precisely the bad habits that they and their spiritual leader most often exhibit.

Robert

[9thdoctor]

Finally there’s some discussion of the flip-flopcast on another O’ist site. The tenor of the discussion isn’t too different from what we have here, except they of course lack Phil, aka The Outlier. Pas un peep from Comrade Sonia, however she is offering to do a podcast on "finding romantic prospects" if enough people pay her. I’m confident the OL tribe will join me here in wishing her good luck with that.

[Dennis Hardin]

Can anyone tell me what Peikoff has done to advance Objectivism? Maybe OPAR, but that's about it. Does anyone other than groupies purchase his overpriced tapes?

-Neil Parille

One important contribution LP has made has been to dispel certain Randian/Objectivist stereotypes. Lots of male readers used to feel completely inadequate to the pressure of living up to the exalted standard of the Ayn Rand hero. They felt utterly incapable of emulating the heroism of Howard Roark, John Galt or Francisco D’anconia. The imposing figure of a real-life Nathaniel Branden further reinforced their fears. (I would guess this was less of an issue for female readers inspired by Dominique or Dagny.) Countless pointy headed intellectuals may have been attracted to the philosophy but felt intimidated and often took refuge in existentialism (or worse). And then along came Lenny (and, while we’re on the subject, Harry). One glance at either of them and all anxiety was instantly relieved.

Let’s just say that together they did a stellar job of separating fact from fiction.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Dennis Hardin

[Philip Coates]

RC: Seems to me that Leonard Peikoff has had ample rationalistic tendencies for many years. Up through 1983, he had some success in detecting and exposing such propensities...

Robert, I hadn't noticed but, yes, my three examples were all after Rand's death. What would you say would be three examples of rationalistic error prior to '83? (Not just an error in your view like the status of the arbitrary, but rationalism.)

Edited May 21, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Neil Parille]

Dennis,

You mentioned something about Peikoff approving of an Objectivist confirmation service.

I listened to a podcast of his about a year ago where he was asked about an Objectivist liturgy ("And Dagney Said, Amem to Dagney") and he said it was a horrible idea.

Maybe he mispoke about the confirmation business.

-Neil Parille

[9thdoctor]

And then along came Lenny (and, while we’re on the subject, Harry). One glance at either of them and all anxiety was instantly relieved.

Jesus, man! Even I’d say you’re crossing the line to puerile abuse. One glance? How would that standard apply to Stephen Hawking?

What would you say would be three examples of rationalistic error prior to '83? (Not just an error in your view like the status of the arbitrary, but rationalism.)

We just had a discussion of The Ominous Parallels, I think you’ll find examples there.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Philip Coates]

> We just had a discussion of The Ominous Parallels, I think you’ll find examples there.

Well, then, type another whole sentence or three and NAME THEM, lazybones -- in particular saying why they are rationalism as opposed to another form of error.

(sick of you, snarky laughingboy.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just caught this thread.

Come on, folks. Peikoff didn't flip-flop.

If you look at the underlying principles objectively instead of surface concretes from an intrinsicist or subjectivist manner, it will become absolutely clear that the contextual nature of the floating abstraction called political choice defines itself perfectly with identical genus and differentia, but in metaphysical and epistemological terms.

When you understand Objectivism properly, as I do, there is no doubt about this. In other words, Democrat and Republican is a false dichotomy, with the exception of when it is a correct dichotomy. In that case, either category can become the Conceptual Common Denominator, depending on the context.

Here is the principle: Then was then and now is now.

That is not a flip-flop. That is perfectly and rationally consistent...

So there...

Nyah!

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Well, then, type another whole sentence or three and NAME THEM, lazybones -- in particular saying why they are rationalism as opposed to another form of error.

(sick of you, snarky laughingboy.)

What, do I owe you an essay? Laughingboy? As in “Howard Roark laughed.”? After reading enough of your drivel it’s more like this:

Weeping like Richard Dawkins would if they found rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian strata. The example of Phil makes me seriously doubt the definition of man as “rational animal”, and boy it hurts.

That is not a flip-flop. That is perfectly and rationally consistent...

Channeling Comrade Sonia? Great job, though the dichotomy sentence needs a rewrite if you’re not going to break cover. So do I put you down as a vote against the title “Peikoff flip-flops”?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

You are aware that what I wrote is a lampoon, aren't you?

Objectivist gobbledygook in a somewhat ordered fashion to justify the unjustifiable.

(Most of the concepts are sound qua concepts, but the way I used them, which is what I have seen others do, is gobbledygook.)

Michael

[9thdoctor]

You are aware that what I wrote is a lampoon, aren't you?

Indeed. How else to interpret “Channeling Comrade Sonia”? Nevertheless, we need to record your vote, this thread title issue is very contentious, and a hanging chad or two could tip the balance.

[Philip Coates]

> If you look at the underlying principles objectively instead of surface concretes from an intrinsicist or subjectivist manner, it will become absolutely clear that the contextual nature of the floating abstraction called political choice defines itself perfectly with identical genus and differentia, but in metaphysical and epistemological terms. [MSK]

You are obviously inebriated by the imbibing of a proscribed and anti-psychoepistemological substance which is not benzedrine or tobacco. Shame on your gin-soaked metaphysico-catatonious ramblings from a trichotomous lobotomized non-contextual and anti-integrative genus and differentia-evading and -abusing perspective which you should have known better than to shameslessly indulge yourself in.

Self-mental-abuse is sin. Bad dude.