Peikoff: The Great Pretender


Recommended Posts

Barbara,

You write:

And she had told me in 1968 that never again would she name anyone as her intellectual heir. It was the same conversation in which she said she never wanted anyone to form on organization that used her name in its title, and, in fact, wanted no formal organization to be created that was dedicated to teaching her philosophy. You will note that during her lifetime, no such organizations were created.

But wasn't the NBI dedicate to teaching "her [Rand's] philosophy"?

Although I don't know, I think it's possible that Rand's mind may have changed as the years went by. Even after '68 there was a lecture service. Rand also served as "philosophical consultant" to "The Objectivist Forum." It's hard to imagine a movement getting traction in society without some formal organization behind it.

I think it's highly unlikely that she called anyone her "intellectual heir" again.

-Neil Parille

Yes, NBI was dedicated to teaching Rand's philosophy. She was comfortable with that because she trusted Nathaniel completely, But after their break she no longer was willing to trust anyone to speak for her. (You will notice that NBI did not use her name as its title; even then, she was opposed to that.)

After the closing of NBI, Rand did not object to their being various lecture series, so long as they were not formally a part of an official organization backed by her and to which she had given a blank check . For the same reason , she was willing to be a philosophical consultant.

It's true that she came perilously close to violating her own decision about endorsing organizations and people.. And I'm happy for her that there remained enough benevolence in her to make that possible.

The fact of the matter is that she always would have been content to have her ideas spread only through her novels, and to achieve as much as those ideas could achieve solely through that means. I for one, am not prepared to say that she was wrong.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ellen wrote: "Well...whether 'genuine Ayn Rand heroes or not,' both Schwartz and Binswanger are reported to have had their disagreements with Leonard Peikoff. Indeed, the joke back at the time of the Reisman split was that Leonard was in danger of being excommunicated by Peter. Harry and Leonard had some sort of falling out, the reason for which I do not know. They haven't for a number of years been exactly 'friends.'"

When I read, on the internet, Peikoff's exchanges with Reisman, Binswanger, and Schwartz, I had a very different impression of the distribution of power -- an impression that fits my prior and subsequent understanding of Peikoff. It seemed evident to me that Peikoff did not want to excommunicate Reismam , and would not have done so if Binswanger and Schwartz had not made it an issue of morality that he do so, and of loyalty to them -- which was again, so they informed Peikoff, a moral issue. Leonard, who has always had deep-seated self-doubts about his ability to judge moral issues, and had always needed someone to tell him what to think and how to act in such matters, was extremely vulnerable and was rather easily intimidated, as presumably the other two were well aware of, and he unhappily caved in.

Barbara

Something got lost in translation there -- small wonder, since my post was hasty, and jumped a decade or two in the middle.

What I was saying about the Reisman/Packer issue is just what Barbara reports as her impression. The distribution of power was such that it was Schwartz and Binswanger who were pressuring and Peikoff who was capitulating. It was probably especially Peter who was putting on the moral screws, hence the joke to which I referred -- a joke which made the rounds at that time. It went thus: "If things keep on like this, soon there will only be two Objectivists left, Leonard Peikoff and Peter Schwartz. And then Peter will excommunicate Leonard."

Among the early emails leading up to Reisman and Packer being kicked out was one I recall in which Leonard Peikoff said that the whole thing was trying on his health, and couldn't Harry just get along with Edith, who, Leonard said, could be difficult to get along with.

That, btw, I believe to be an accurate assessment of Edith (not that Harry or Peter would be easy to get along with either). Also, I know there'd been at least one earlier occasion, back in '71, of dissension between Edith and Harry. As it happened, I'd had a dinner engagement with Edith and George and Ralph Epstein, who had arranged the dinner, and Harry and another person, I think named Jerry Lewis [*]. Edith and Harry were in process of patching something up at the time. Also, though I don't have any independent verification on this score, I've heard tell that Edith was either the or a prime instigator in complaining about David Kelley's talking to libertarians, with the eventual result of the Peikoff/Kelley split.

Among the points of dissension behind the rift with Edith and George was Edith's objecting to Peter Schwartz's giving lectures on psychology -- he had no qualifications, she said. I think she was definitely right in looking askance on the very idea of Peter Schwartz advising about psychology.

The "falling out" between Leonard and Harry to which I referred was much more recent, though I don't know how far back it goes, whether within the last 6-10 years or farther back. No one I know who knows Harry knows any of the details -- just that at some point Leonard and Harry stopped appearing at the same events.

Ellen

[*] The dinner party was supposed to have been just Ralph and me and George and Edith (Ralph was a long-time friend of George's). The addition of the other two was at Edith's invite.

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....] How long do you think Lenny would be willing to tolerate any challenge to his authority? Too bad none of them had the courage, but then, genuine Ayn Rand heroes are few and far between.

Well...whether "genuine Ayn Rand heroes or not," both Schwartz and Binswanger are reported to have had their disagreements with Leonard Peikoff. Indeed, the joke back at the time of the Reisman split was that Leonard was in danger of being excommunicated by Peter. Harry and Leonard had some sort of falling out, the reason for which I do not know. They haven't for a number of years been exactly "friends."

Ellen

If Schwartz opposed Peikoff's decision to give Reisman the old Objectivist heave-ho, why did so few people hear about it? I certainly didn't. If it's true that Schwartz opposed the "condemnation"--and this is the first I have heard that he did--his failure to speak out about it just provides further confirmation that the imperial Lenny rules his little kingdom with an iron fist. [....]

See my reply above to Barbara. What I was saying is just the reverse -- Schwartz was the one pushing the break with Reisman and Packer, Peikoff was the one capitulating. This is counter to your idea that neither Bingswanger or Schwartz would dare to challenge Peikoff's authority. They've both challenged -- and in that case they won.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> couldn't Harry just get along with Edith, who, Leonard said, could be difficult to get along with. That, btw, I believe to be an accurate assessment of Edith (not that Harry or Peter would be easy to get along with either).

Ellen, the phrase 'difficult to get along with' can be a bit vague or subjective. Edith could be emphatic, emotional, logical, critical, pleasant, supportive at different times. This is a natural human spectrum of emotions and reactions. She might be bluntly critical of me on occasion. So what? As long as it's not snarky or mean-spirited. Not hard to take or difficult to relate to or respond to. Or bear a grudge about.

I was around the four of them with a certain amount of frequency over years. The only one of the four (L, Pk, Pe, H) who I often found irritating or hard to interact with was Harry. I would often find him off-putting. Not because of personality, but because his evaluations of things that happened in the everyday world (as opposed to philosophy, its applications) so often seemed to me to be reductionistic, narrow, shooting from the hip, apocalyptic. It wasn't that I couldn't talk to him but that I wouldn't have found much to talk about. When someone says in a tone that brooks no argument, "No really good movie has been made since Casablanca"...

Just like yourself, however, I was never personally close to any of the four, and so too much speculation or psychologically deep conclusions are somewhere between gossip and guesswork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably shouldn't say this -- but what the hell, when have I ever let that stop me? -- Edith Packer often seemed to me to be the only person of down to earth, common sense in the room. Sort of like adult supervision when surrounded by ivory tower, all too academic of theoretical or rationalistic pointy-headed "egghead" types who knew philosophy but little else -- too much whipped cream and not enough vegetables -- and were lacking a sophisticated understanding of people, practicality, or the everyday. And were constantly being tripped up by and pratfalling over the nitty-gritty little details of messy reality.

There I said it. So sue me.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There I said it. So sue me.

Phil,

I ain't got no problem with that. I do with this:

The only one of the four (L, Pk, Pe, H)...

Arrrgh...

This only gives me two choices, since I have to stop reading fast if I want to read this seriously.

1. Skim over it--or even stop reading--and say to myself, "To hell with it. It's not important anyway," or

2. Go back and try to connect the abbreviation to the person and reconstruct an inner image that was already constructed.

People sure like to talk in code-speak, though.

And they will continue to like to talk in code-speak.

So I doubt this complaint will do anything other than make me feel better for doing it...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only one of the four (L, Pk, Pe, H)...

Arrrgh...

This only gives me two choices, since I have to stop reading fast if I want to read this seriously.

1. Skim over it--or even stop reading--and say to myself, "To hell with it. It's not important anyway," or

2. Go back and try to connect the abbreviation to the person and reconstruct an inner image that was already constructed.

So who’s Pk? I read L=Leonard Peikoff, Pe=Edith Packer, H=Harry Binswanger. It’s not consistent (Packer ID’d by last name), but it seems to be the best fit for the data. I think he also meant to include Peter Schwartz. I perceive two distinct possibilities: First, Phil has a clever code translation that I haven’t thought of; Second, Phil bungled it. I’m sure he’ll be letting us know which PDQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who’s Pk? I read L=Leonard Peikoff, Pe=Edith Packer, H=Harry Binswanger. It’s not consistent (Packer ID’d by last name), but it seems to be the best fit for the data. I think he also meant to include Peter Schwartz. I perceive two distinct possibilities: First, Phil has a clever code translation that I haven’t thought of; Second, Phil bungled it. I’m sure he’ll be letting us know which PDQ.

It is a confusing code. I think it is:

L = Leonard Peikoff

Pe = Leonard Peikoff

Pk = Leonard Peikoff

H = Harry Binswanger

Peikoff seems to be overrepresented in this scheme, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mea culpa: I meant Pe for Peter and Pk for Peikoff...so L is wrong and there should have been an E = Edith entirely, and no I have not been drinking while posting...I leave that to Brant :rolleyes:

Can't we all just get along...and agree who I meant for H? :P

I knew all I had to do was make an error and nineteen million people would post on that, if nothing else that was sai.

(See I just made another so six of you can post on that one???) :rolleyes:

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad this got straightened out. I was assuming "L" was for Jerry Lewis, which would have worked just as well anyway, if you think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mea culpa: I meant Pe for Peter and Pk for Peikoff...so L is wrong and there should have been an E = Edith entirely, and no I have not been drinking while posting...I leave that to Brant :rolleyes:

Can't we all just get along...and agree who I meant for H? :P

I knew all I had to do was make an error and nineteen million people would post on that, if nothing else that was sai.

(See I just made another so six of you can post on that one???) :rolleyes:

Phil acknowledges a mistake. This is behaviour we want to encourage. What to do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt4MSQQ8LPo

“Smuggle in” the "argument" that a miracle has occurred!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mea culpa: I meant Pe for Peter and Pk for Peikoff...so L is wrong and there should have been an E = Edith entirely, and no I have not been drinking while posting...I leave that to Brant rolleyes.gif

Coward!

--Brant

gots guts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably shouldn't say this -- but what the hell, when have I ever let that stop me? -- Edith Packer often seemed to me to be the only person of down to earth, common sense in the room. Sort of like adult supervision when surrounded by ivory tower, all too academic of theoretical or rationalistic pointy-headed "egghead" types who knew philosophy but little else -- too much whipped cream and not enough vegetables -- and were lacking a sophisticated understanding of people, practicality, or the everyday. And were constantly being tripped up by and pratfalling over the nitty-gritty little details of messy reality.

There I said it. So sue me.

Phil, I didn't know Edith well enough to say with certainty, but my impression is that you are correct in your assessment of her. As for the others -- Jeez, Phil, where have you been until; now?

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There I said it. So sue me.

Now, don't you feel SO much better? Of course! rolleyes.gif

Treat yourself to a warm glass of gin, with a human hair in it (<---blatant movie line lifting)--I wanna see what happens next.

rde

The Truth Has Set Phil Free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treat yourself to a warm glass of gin, with a human hair in it (<---blatant movie line lifting)--I wanna see what happens next.

I don't get the movie line reference. Bring up gin, I think of Bogie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Jeez, Phil, where have you been until; now?

Barbara, I began noticing this sort of thing long before the Kelley excommunication. Again, I was the one who stood up in Peikoff's Logic course when he made the announcement, in a white hot fury, that anyone who bought NB's tapes should leave the course and get their money back and it's crystal clear to any sentient creature [i'm paraphrasing from memory] from the principles of logic what are the massive flaws are in his response to who it may concern and that he would take no questions on the "Branden issue" for the whole rest of the course.

A third or a half the room walked out and got their refunds. Of those who remained (I hadn't bought any tapes), I was the only one who was not too intimidated to ask a question. And I got around his proscription, because my question was [paraphrasing again] couched as a question in logic:

"Would you kindly tell us exactly which principles of logic make it so transparent to us who is right and wrong in this dispute?" I think I worded it rather skeptically or hostilely and I saw two bouncers move toward me as he became very red in the fact. But he answered.

I was allowed to remain, but he knew who I was and it took him a year or so to get over looking with an expression of disgust whenever I showed up at one of his courses at Broolyn Poly. I always felt I was on 'probation' with him - even when he let me closer to the circle of bright students.

I felt like I was there viewed as if on an Athletic Scholarship: Phil is sort of a Junior League Moron who somehow, freakishly, was able to occasionally come up with really good questions. So we let him stay and attend workshops at our apartments and the occasional social event. Sort of like a trained seal.

,,,,,

After the Logic course, which I commuted a hundred miles for, I moved to NYC and had enough contact and enough further inklings of the kinds of thing I mentioned with regard to L, P, H and others, but not enough to draw the broader conclusions about rationalism, being out of touch, and eggheadism with certainty yet. With the very important exception of him going batshit on anyone who associated with you or NB, Leonard was usually far the more reasoned and less rationalistic compared to Peter and Harry, who simply struck me as perhaps lesser minds with less understanding, and less ability to think things through independently. With regard to "applications".

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A third or a half the room walked out and got their refunds. Of those who remained (I hadn't bought any tapes), I was the only one who was not too intimidated to ask a question.

Didn’t they make you sign something to the effect that you would never purchase a Branden book in order to take these courses? How exactly did that work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they didn't.

Is that really the only thing in my post and my experiences you'd find interesting to observe, to remark, to find important?

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that really the only thing in my post and my experiences you'd find interesting to observe, to remark, to find important?

Your post was pretty well self-contained, you weren’t raising questions but reporting on your experiences. Is there something more you’re holding back? Are you waiting for feedback before you spill the primo beans?

Not a lot of people are posting, they're at the conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[He's quoting me.]

> couldn't Harry just get along with Edith, who, Leonard said, could be difficult to get along with. That, btw, I believe to be an accurate assessment of Edith (not that Harry or Peter would be easy to get along with either).

Providing the quoted material with the little link thingy -- so a person can find the original post and context easily if a person wants to...

Among the early emails leading up to Reisman and Packer being kicked out was one I recall in which Leonard Peikoff said that the whole thing was trying on his health, and couldn't Harry just get along with Edith, who, Leonard said, could be difficult to get along with.

That, btw, I believe to be an accurate assessment of Edith (not that Harry or Peter would be easy to get along with either). [....]

First, a correction and an explication I was going to make anyway:

The correspondence to which I was referring wasn't "emails". That's anachronistic, since people weren't using email communication then -- in '93 -- to near the extent they use it now. It was memos and notes. I'm not sure if the remarks were in something BY Leonard or if they were reported in a note by someone else, probably Harry. Unfortunately, I can't check, since I no longer have the thick folder of stuff I did have tracking the history of the Reisman/Packer issue. I threw that folder out several months ago in one of my never-successful attempts to keep the paper proliferation problem in this household under control. The only part of the material which I still have is 17 pages distributed September 7, 1996, with permission to quote, by Richard and Gen LaGreca Sanford.

(The permission line reads: "Please feel free to make copies of these documents and to distribute them to interested parties.")

I'm re-reading those 17 pages and will type in some stuff from them later.

Ellen, the phrase 'difficult to get along with' can be a bit vague or subjective. Edith could be emphatic, emotional, logical, critical, pleasant, supportive at different times. This is a natural human spectrum of emotions and reactions. She might be bluntly critical of me on occasion. So what? As long as it's not snarky or mean-spirited. Not hard to take or difficult to relate to or respond to. Or bear a grudge about.

I assumed that what was meant was "difficult to get along with" in a Jewish-mother nagging sort of way. Edith could be that (I witnessed some other occasions, along with the one I mentioned). She could also be all the other modes you name. What's "snarky or mean-spirited," "hard to take or difficult to relate to or respond to" might depend on the recipient -- what bothers one person might not bother another. And people vary in their ease of bearing grudges. The particular concerns starting the conflicts pertained to Edith's wanting the ARI Board of Advisors expanded, her worry about possible loss of non-profit status because of conflicts of interest, and objections to other aspects of the plans for the OGC -- Objectivist Graduate Center -- in which Harry and Peter were intending to be major instructors.

I probably shouldn't say this -- but what the hell, when have I ever let that stop me? -- Edith Packer often seemed to me to be the only person of down to earth, common sense in the room. Sort of like adult supervision when surrounded by ivory tower, all too academic of theoretical or rationalistic pointy-headed "egghead" types who knew philosophy but little else -- too much whipped cream and not enough vegetables -- and were lacking a sophisticated understanding of people, practicality, or the everyday. And were constantly being tripped up by and pratfalling over the nitty-gritty little details of messy reality.

There I said it. So sue me.

I readily believe that Edith Packer often seemed to you as described. I think she'd have seemed that way to me too amongst the persons at the sort of gatherings you were attending. I was always impressed by her level-headed good sense. But level-headed good sense maybe wasn't what Harry and Peter were wanting to hear about their plans.

Ellen

Edited 8:02 pm, EST, 7/8/10, to correct mistyped date for the Sanfords material: 1996, not 1966, as I originally wrote.

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Jeez, Phil, where have you been until; now?

Barbara, I began noticing this sort of thing long before the Kelley excommunication. Again, I was the one who stood up in Peikoff's Logic course when he made the announcement, in a white hot fury, that anyone who bought NB's tapes should leave the course and get their money back and it's crystal clear to any sentient creature [i'm paraphrasing from memory] from the principles of logic what are the massive flaws are in his response to who it may concern and that he would take no questions on the "Branden issue" for the whole rest of the course.

A third or a half the room walked out and got their refunds. Of those who remained (I hadn't bought any tapes), I was the only one who was not too intimidated to ask a question. And I got around his proscription, because my question was [paraphrasing again] couched as a question in logic:

"Would you kindly tell us exactly which principles of logic make it so transparent to us who is right and wrong in this dispute?" I think I worded it rather skeptically or hostilely and I saw two bouncers move toward me as he became very red in the fact. But he answered.

I was allowed to remain, but he knew who I was and it took him a year or so to get over looking with an expression of disgust whenever I showed up at one of his courses at Broolyn Poly. I always felt I was on 'probation' with him - even when he let me closer to the circle of bright students.

Well...interesting to learn that you were at that lecture.

The way you describe it doesn't quite agree with my memory of it, or I think with Brant's either. Brant, too, was there. He and I did some notes comparing on one or another SOLO thread.

I don't recall getting any feeling of "white hot fury" from Leonard's remarks. Or the comment about it's being clear from the principles of logic. Or for that matter, your question, but I might easily have just not been attending to a question asked. What I've recalled him saying was that he requested anyone who had any dealings with the Brandens not to attend the course and to ask for a refund if they'd paid for the whole thing. (The first lecture could be taken by people who hadn't signed for the whole course. Fortunately, I hadn't, or I'd have been honor-bound to ask for a refund.)

I recall that *I* felt "white hot fury" AT the remarks. Also that while I was standing around after the lecture, seething, staring into "space," I then realized that someone was staring back at me, apparently reading my expression and attempting to stare me down. The woman, I found out upon inquiring of the friend with whom I'd attended the lecture, was Joan Blumenthal. First time I ever saw her.

Seems to me, from this memory -- and I think Brant thought the same -- that the announcement by Peikoff was made at the *end* of his talk, not at the beginning, as you seem to be indicating it was from the description of a third to a half of the class walking out. I have no recollection whatsoever of a walkout, which I think I would have remembered if the announcement had come at the start of the lecture.

A question you might be able to answer is whether or not Ayn Rand was attending the lecture. I don't remember seeing her there, and I think Brant said that he didn't remember her being there either.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn’t they make you sign something to the effect that you would never purchase a Branden book in order to take these courses? How exactly did that work?

No, they didn't.

That's an important point, correcting a frequently repeated myth that there was some sort of signed loyalty oath required for attendance at Peikoff's courses after the Rand/Brandens split.

I wasn't able to remember for sure if Peikoff had asked for something in writing at the Logic course, which was the first course he gave after the end of NBI, or if it had just been on-your-honor. I thought the latter but wasn't positive from recall.

As to some subsequent Peikoff courses, however, I'm sure that there was no requirement of signing anything, and not even a request pertaining to the Brandens. I took both of the history-of-philosophy courses live in NYC, and as much of the one in '76 on Objectivism as I could attend around a crisis-situation workload due to our department's being very short-staffed. (I'm not sure of the exact name of the '76 course).

Ellen

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same signed-statements story got abroad about NBI several years earlier. Its origin seems to be the brochure statement that the lectures were addressed to the already-converted and were "not given to convert antagonists." Either Burns or Heller wrote about this.

Edited by Reidy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, my memory of events surrounding what I asked and how he replied is accurate. It happened to me and shocked me, which is why I remember the details...and my memory about situations where I have an interaction, am personally involved tends to be pretty accurate. As for white hot fury, that was very clear from his face and that he was holding it in, trying to control himself. I must have been close enough to see that.

As for 1/3 to 1/2 leaving, yes they did: He asked them to go to the back of the room and get their refunds -now-. And I watched those people get up and go. Wouldn't have made a lot of sense if nobody moved -- these are principled people. (I said NB's tapes, but I actually recall him saying his records, as if they were LP's, which seemed odd to me...I don't recall what the records were on, as I never saw them or was interested in them...probably one of his NBI courses...the Objectivism series, would be my guess.)

As for whether his statement about please leave and get a refund was at the beginning or the end and your recollection of the end, that's the only point I could be mistaken about. But I do remember it as at the beginning. And, if he wanted people who had given money to NB to leave, don't you think he would not have wanted them in front of him sitting through the entire first lecture? You're going to boot somebody out in outrage and anger, don' you do it right away, right up front?

Another reason I think it was at the beginning is because I remember being distracted during the lecture by this whole issue. But, on the other hand, having time to formulate my question in such a way as to say 'the principles of logic you are teaching us' and to not be a question directly about the split.

Admittedly, this is half a lifetime ago, but I can almost see the events in front of me, as they played out. I even remember him contain his anger at my question, and the two bouncers moving up the rows, waiting for his go ahead. I recall my question having been at or near the very start of the Q&A period, although -that- I am less sure of.

(By the way, if anyone wants to post an exact transcript of my two rather skeptically-worded questions - and his answer - about the Branden issue & years later, about the George and Edith issue during the first lecture of the Logic course or during his '93-'94 moral judgment lecture, I'm sure they are both on tape or disc and for sale by the Aynrandbookstore at the end, the Q&A periods...if you own those. . . . I'd certainly be interested. . . and it might be of general interest, because he didn't get other challenges on these two charged issues.)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now