New Developments re Harriman Induction book


9thdoctor

Recommended Posts

Meanwhile, over in the Orthodoxy, there are a lot of folks trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

At FARF, the discussion was remarkably tentative, and has now been temporarily closed:

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=12236

And the usually highly opinionated Diana Hsieh has yet to refer to John McCaskey's departure on her blog.

She hasn't mentioned him in a blog entry since 2006.

Robert Campbell

There's also this: http://www.solopassion.com/node/7961

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

there's some quote from Hegel, "The whole is...," I'm drawing a blank, which he's used time and again in lectures.

"The truth is the whole" from the '76 course.
I believe the quote from Hegel is "The truth is the whole." It is associated with the coherence theory of truth.

I vaguely recall Peikoff approvingly saying it more than once, but can't say where. He alludes to it at least twice in OPAR:

Yes, that's it (or "The true is the whole," whichever way he said it). I heard him say that a number of times, even at a seminar I sat in on which he gave at Brooklyn Poly on the philosophy of science. He'd say it with a sort of laughing at himself flavor, ha ha, wink, I'm quoting Hegel. It's a viewpoint which clearly appealed to him.

I think he talked outright in public lectures about his Hegelian rationalist streak in the first course he gave after Ayn Rand's death. I was hardly paying attention to Objectivist goings-on by then and only heard a few reports from friends about the material in the course. I believe Phil Coates has talked praisingly about it, and how it seemed then as if a new direction was going to be set.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re John McCaskey's departure, I'd like to correct a misleading impression I might have given in an earlier post where I said I'd rather see him set up a separate organization. I meant, rather than join with TAS. If he's intending to go off on his own doing his own work and not become involved with any O'ist organization, bravo for him.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a deeper problem, however.

During her lifetime, Rand farmed portions of her epistemology out to Leonard Peikoff.

I am reasonably sure that he is responsible for:

— Much of what she said about Kant (she didn't read Kant, Peikoff did)

— The critique of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy

— The doctrine of contextual certainty

— The doctrine of the arbitrary assertion (actually originated by Nathaniel Branden, but in a much more modest form than Peikoff's rendition)

If no one in Rand-land took his "intellectual heir" proclamations seriously, such latter-day interpretations as the premoral choice to live and latter-day projects as DIM and the Harriman book would no longer be counted as part of Objectivism (despite his protestations, Peikoff obviously wants the DIM book and The Logical Leap to be treated as canonical).

But that would leave the stuff he contributed while Rand was still around, and that she ended up endorsing.

The Peikovian parts of Objectivism tend to be problematic (the problematicity increases, IMHO, as one goes down the list of four).

But even if one were to peel them all away (and not start worrying about Objectivism being even less complete on account of their removal), there would still be problems with what remained (e.g., Rand's tendency to assume that logical notions, such as "premise," are also psychological notions).

Robert Campbell

Robert,

I think you’re giving the little pipsqueak far too much credit. From what I understand, Rand never stopped berating him for his inability to fully grasp Objectivism, even during her very last years. She may have taken his word for much of what Kant wrote, but I don’t think she let Peikoff offer any new ideas as “Objectivist” without thoroughly examining them first. She never trusted him enough for that.

“The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy” was written prior to the break with Branden, and undoubtedly well scrutinized by him. Rand practically wrote The Ominous Parallels, word for word. And I am confident that many of Peikoff’s cockeyed theories, including his (Randian posthumous) explication of the ‘premoral choice to live’ were totally off base.

The point is, Objectivism is far too precious to let him get away with hijacking it and calling it his own. And she definitely did not intend to bequeath to him any such authority. We need to do everything we can to keep it alive as an open system, preserving the prerogative of future scholars to work out the details regarding which new contributions are both correct and consistent with Rand’s essential principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just getting around to reading the comments about Travis Norsen's review of The Logical Leap.

Here's a mini-gem of Objectivist rhetoric:

Posted on Aug. 1, 2010 3:24 PM PDT

CBC says:

At first gance, this "review" appears to be a comprehensive analysis of David Harriman's book. Yet closer examination reveals that this really isn't a review; it's a confession: Travis Norsen begins by discussing the simple points that he refuses to understand, and then moves on to discuss the more advanced points that he refuses to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice the psychologizing and attributing of conscious evasion in CBC's formulation "refuses" to understand rather than "does not" understand.

Many Oists learned to use language like refuses to understand, evades, and the like early on and never learned how inappropriate and insulting it is.

(At the end of his comment, CBC does indeed play the evasion card: "Norsen's capacity to evade what is so clearly explained in Harriman's book." )

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that quote (above, from "CBC") is a succinct statement illustrating why Objectivism (at least, in its "orthodox" ARI-approved version) is not taken seriously by most academics and other intellectuals. Unfolding its implicit meaning: critics of Objectivism, when confronted with its unequivocally-stated revealed TRUTH, willfully refuse to understand (note, not that they are stupid or incapable of understanding) and accept its revelations. The corollary: if they can understand, but refuse, what could possibly be their motivation for such obstinacy? Why, they must be evil.

Peikoff chose the following statement for the masthead of his website:

"To save the world is the simplest thing in the world. All one has to do is think."

Translation: If you think clearly, you will agree with me. And, if you do not,...."

Whittaker Chambers, in his infamous 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged, thought he saw a totalitarian theme running through the novel; that there can be no honest, principled disagreement with its revealed truth. I think that Chambers intentionally (but not evil, just a mischievous Quaker conservative who did not appreciate Rand's challenging of his core values!) overstated Rand's position. However, the continued authoritarian pronouncements, accusations, and behavior (e.g., the seemingly-endless Peikovian purges; the near-cloistered conferences with their "sanitized" presentations) make me wonder if deep within Objectivism, lies a "logic bomb," which will forever prevent it from "saving the world," (to use Peikoff's ludicrous motto).

Or, to clarify that last statement above in a somewhat more optimistic manner: Peikoff and his accomplices have taken all of the most self-destructive behavior from Rand and the earlier Objectivist movement and are now presenting that side as the "real" (or only) face of Objectivism, while minimizing or downplaying the best of Rand's philosophy. That strategy is the "logic-bomb" that I was referring to, that will keep Objectivism from becoming a major player on the world stage.

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whittaker Chambers, in his infamous 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged, thought he saw a totalitarian theme running through the novel; that there can be no honest, principled disagreement with its revealed truth. I think that Chambers intentionally (but not evil, just a mischievous Quaker conservative who did not appreciate Rand's challenging of his core values!) overstated Rand's position. However, the continued authoritarian pronouncements, accusations, and behavior (e.g., the seemingly-endless Peikovian purges; the near-cloistered conferences with their "sanitized" presentations) make me wonder if deep within Objectivism, lies a "logic bomb," which will forever prevent it from "saving the world," (to use Peikoff's ludicrous motto).

The review by Chambers was an old-fashioned conservative hatchet job, nothing more. I agree with much that Michael Berliner has to say about the review here.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whittaker Chambers, in his infamous 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged, thought he saw a totalitarian theme running through the novel; that there can be no honest, principled disagreement with its revealed truth. I think that Chambers intentionally (but not evil, just a mischievous Quaker conservative who did not appreciate Rand's challenging of his core values!) overstated Rand's position. However, the continued authoritarian pronouncements, accusations, and behavior (e.g., the seemingly-endless Peikovian purges; the near-cloistered conferences with their "sanitized" presentations) make me wonder if deep within Objectivism, lies a "logic bomb," which will forever prevent it from "saving the world," (to use Peikoff's ludicrous motto).

There are "logic bombs" in Objectivist politics. See Rand's tirade against anarchists for a sample, where she refuses to address the moral issue of consent (I am not an anarchist myself but I recognize the problem they raise). Or see her dismissal of the 2nd inventor in her discussion on patents, where she basically says "to hell with the 2nd inventors rights!"

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice the psychologizing and attributing of conscious evasion in CBC's formulation "refuses" to understand rather than "does not" understand.

Many Oists learned to use language like refuses to understand, evades, and the like early on and never learned how inappropriate and insulting it is.

(At the end of his comment, CBC does indeed play the evasion card: "Norsen's capacity to evade what is so clearly explained in Harriman's book." )

The rhetorical flourishes of some orthodox O'ists notwithstanding, people do sometimes refuse to understand things.

Evasion, moreover, is common. I should know.

The problem is not with these notions per se. The problem is that they should play little if any role in public discourse. There are two reasons for this: First, in most cases we don't know the motives of other people. Second, even if we do know the motives, they are irrelevant to the cognitive value of an argument. Sound arguments can be given for insincere reasons.

As for insults, I prefer explicit and clever insults over the veiled insults that are often found in the writings of people who claim to abhor insults. I have immersed myself for many years in 17th and 18th century controversies. The insults found throughout that literature make contemporary insults (and polemicism generally) seem like conversations in a monastery.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is not with these notions per se. The problem is that they should play little if any role in public discourse. There are two reasons for this: First, in most cases we don't know the motives of other people. Second, even if we do know the motives, they are irrelevant to the cognitive value of an argument. Sound arguments can be given for insincere reasons.

As for insults, I prefer explicit and clever insults over the veiled insults that are often found in the writings of people who claim to abhor insults. I have immersed myself for many years in 17th and 18th century controversies. The insults found throughout that literature make contemporary insults (and polemicism generally) seem like conversations in a monastery.

Ghs

I realize many will call my little work useless; these people, as far as I'm concerned, are like those whom Demetrius was talking about when he said that he cared no more for the wind that issued from their mouths than the wind the issued from their lower extremities. These men desire only material wealth and are utterly lacking in wisdom, which is the only true food and wealth for the mind. The soul is so much greater than the body, its possessions so much nobler than those of the body. So, whenever a person of this sort picks up any of my works to read, I half expect him to put it to his nose the way a monkey does, or ask me if its good to eat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following passage is from my article "Ayn Rand: Philosophy and Controversy" (Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, pp. 195):

Another problem haunts Ayn Rand's philosophy. Rand was a sharp polemicist who gave no quarter to her adversaries. Many philosophers have retaliated by exiling her beyond the pale of respectable discussion. This is a mistake. Whether you like the woman or not, her brilliance and influence cannot be gainsaid. If Rand is to be excluded from serious consideration because of her polemicism, then why not exclude other polemical philosophers as well?

Nietzsche was an ardent polemicist, as was Marx, but both are taken seriously. The same is true of Arthur Schopenhauer, whose caustic attack on Hegel (the most respected philosopher of his day) was more vindictive than anything ever written by Rand. Consider these remarks by Schopenhauer:

If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece if mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.

Further, if I were to say that this summus philosophus...scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal before him, so that whoever could read his most eulogized work, the so-called Phenomenology of Mind, without feeling as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less right.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whittaker Chambers, in his infamous 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged, thought he saw a totalitarian theme running through the novel; that there can be no honest, principled disagreement with its revealed truth. I think that Chambers intentionally (but not evil, just a mischievous Quaker conservative who did not appreciate Rand's challenging of his core values!) overstated Rand's position. However, the continued authoritarian pronouncements, accusations, and behavior (e.g., the seemingly-endless Peikovian purges; the near-cloistered conferences with their "sanitized" presentations) make me wonder if deep within Objectivism, lies a "logic bomb," which will forever prevent it from "saving the world," (to use Peikoff's ludicrous motto).

The review by Chambers was an old-fashioned conservative hatchet job, nothing more. I agree with much that Michael Berliner has to say about the review here.

Ghs

Note that I said "infamous," when referring to the Chambers piece. It is indeed a hit-job. It was designed to do maximum damage. To a certain extent, it succeeded: it is quoted over and over again in criticism of Rand, whether from the left, right, or middle.

On a larger and long-term scale, Chambers' article failed because of the methods used: to exaggerate and misrepresent what Rand said. This method of "overkill," likely has a paradoxical effect on the reader: he recognizes the stridency and emotionalism in the article and wonders, "What really brought on that level of attack? I think I'll go read it for myself." And, discovering that Chambers' accusations were without foundation, the reader decides to read Rand's other works and to recommend her to his friends.

Anyway, that's my theory of the ultimate and ironic effect of all the articles that have attacked Rand since the Chambers article. Almost all of these critics followed Chambers' style, and in many cases outdid him, in the level of their indictment of Rand. And stiil her readership continues to grow (no doubt to the extreme frustration and irritation of her conservative and liberal critics).

BUT,...just because Chambers wrote a "hatchet-job" does not mean that buried in his invective, there cannot lie an occasional element of truth. For a long time (oh,...about fifty years), I thought that nothing Chambers said had any value. But if there is not an element of truth in the charges of authoritarianism, of "cultism," how do you explain the continued (mis)behavior of the guardians of the Objectivist orthodoxy? The purges did not stop with the dissolution of NBI in 1968, they got worse. Besides the countless expulsions that have occurred in local Objectivist groups, there have been the widely publicized expulsions of prominent Objectivist scholars (e.g., Kelley, Walsh, Reisman, and now McCaskey), the exclusion of Objectivist-oriented academics who do not tow the Peikovian line, the unwillingness to have a dialogue with those with whom they share many ideas (libertarians) or to cooperate in efforts to politically oppose collectivism.

Are the continued antics of the ARIans merely misunderstandings of Objectivism? Is Peikoff merely mimicking some of the less attractive behavior that Rand occasionally exhibited toward others? If adherents to the ARI continue to support it despite its authoritarianism, are they just missing Rand's emphasis on individualism and the virtue of independence - don't see what should be a glaring conflict? Or are we missing something that they view as central to her message?

Maybe the ARIans have much more in common with the "True Believer" (a la Eric Hoffer). What they value is a total integrated worldview that seems to explain everything and that will tell them what they should do in life? They don't want to think independently. They don't want their Leader challenged. If this is what attracted them to Objectivism, than they have a lot more in common with other ideologies that seeminglyare opposed by Objectvism: Comteanism, Marxism, religions such as scientology, and certain versions of Christianity or Islam.

I think these people would be just as happy esconced in those other systems and organizations. They are not individualists. They don't want to think for themselves. To the extent that they get their needs met by "closed" Objectivism (and I bet they love that term!), they view the less convenient ideas of Rand as just so much baggage. And that's where they keep it. Closed-up in their baggage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be really useful in regard to Peikoff would be an ad hoc circular letter of non-Aligned Objectivists such as Kelley, Reisman, McCaskey, the Brandens, et al., briefly expressing the invalidity of the idea of purges within the Objectivist community in general, and the harm done by Leonard Peikoff's behavior specifically. It would be difficult, but I believe a statement could be crafted that would garner the support of dozens of notable yet otherwise unherdable cats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....]

During her lifetime, Rand farmed portions of her epistemology out to Leonard Peikoff.

I am reasonably sure that he is responsible for:

— Much of what she said about Kant (she didn't read Kant, Peikoff did)

— The critique of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy

— The doctrine of contextual certainty

— The doctrine of the arbitrary assertion (actually originated by Nathaniel Branden, but in a much more modest form than Peikoff's rendition)

[....]

I think we all wish for verbatim quotes on the issue of contextual certainty from Peikoff's 1965 (at Denver) / 1966 (first given in NYC) course on "Objectivism's Theory of Knowledge."

In one of the comments about Norsen's Amazon review of The Logical Leap a poster named "R. Schwarz" provides a few snippets from Peikoff's 1976 course "The Philosophy of Objectivism." Rand was in attendance at that course.

link

"True" and "false" are assessments within the field of human cognition: they designate a relationship [of] correspondence or contradiction between an idea and reality. . . . The false is established as false by reference to a body of evidence and within a context, and is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence.

Leonard Peikoff, "The Philosophy of Objectivism"

lecture series (1976), Lecture 6

"Certain" represents an assessment of the evidence for a conclusion; it is usually contrasted with two other broad types of assessment: "possible" and "probable." . . .

Idea X is "certain" if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence for X is conclusive. In such a context, all the evidence supports X and there is no evidence to support any alternative . . . .

You cannot challenge a claim to certainty by means of an arbitrary declaration of a counter-possibility, . . . you cannot manufacture possibilities without evidence . . . .

All the main attacks on certainty depend on evading its contextual character . . . .

The alternative is not to feign omniscience, erecting every discovery into an out-of-context absolute, or to embrace skepticism and claim that knowledge is impossible. Both these policies accept omniscience as the standard: the dogmatists pretend to have it, the skeptics bemoan their lack of it. The rational policy is to discard the very notion of omniscience. Knowledge is contextual-it is knowledge, it is valid, contextually.

Leonard Peikoff, "The Philosophy of Objectivism"

lecture series (1976), Lecture 6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the exchange on Amazon between Norsen and the poster "R. Schwarz," from a post of whose I quoted above, intriguing re interpretations of "contextual certainty."

Norsen concludes after some lengthy back and forth that Schwarz is rejecting the correspondence theory of truth.

link

Last edited by the author on Aug. 26, 2010 2:20 PM PDT

[i've used a quote box for a quote from Norsen.]

[Emphasis added.]

...but surely a proper theory of induction won't advocate forming all kinds of wrong generalizations and justify this on the grounds that their wrongness will be identified in due course. That's just absurd.

Is it? AR would respond with a "check your premises" here. On what grounds are you estimating that a child's generalization that "all balls sing" was improper? There are two distinct (not different) estimations here, one for "process" and one for "content". You are confusing the second for the first. There is a valid distinction between estimating the validity of the "process" of the generalization and estimating the validity of the "content" of the generalization. You are using an out of context estimation that the generalization "all balls sing" is false, which is an estimation of the "content" given your adult context of knowledge, and applying it to your estimation of the "process" itself and then throwing the baby out with the bathwater because you cannot separate the package deal you have made for yourself.

Certainly "all balls sing" would be a valid and proper generalization under the contextual conditions that I have described. You know it's content is factually wrong because your range of knowledge is larger than a child's. You have observed more balls and are therefore able to qualify the generalization as something like "only *electronic* balls can sing" but since the child's experience only encompasses singing balls, to him the content of his generalization is true, he made a completely proper generalization that is true within his limited context, which, given some time and experience he would be forced by the facts of reality to self-correct. This is the essence of Peikoff's and Harriman's theory of the "process" of induction.

[...] the contextual nature of knowledge which is a cornerstone of objectivist epistemology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT,...just because Chambers wrote a "hatchet-job" does not mean that buried in his invective, there cannot lie an occasional element of truth. For a long time (oh,...about fifty years), I thought that nothing Chambers said had any value. But if there is not an element of truth in the charges of authoritarianism, of "cultism," how do you explain the continued (mis)behavior of the guardians of the Objectivist orthodoxy? The purges did not stop with the dissolution of NBI in 1968, they got worse. Besides the countless expulsions that have occurred in local Objectivist groups, there have been the widely publicized expulsions of prominent Objectivist scholars (e.g., Kelley, Walsh, Reisman, and now McCaskey), the exclusion of Objectivist-oriented academics who do not tow the Peikovian line, the unwillingness to have a dialogue with those with whom they share many ideas (libertarians) or to cooperate in efforts to politically oppose collectivism.

Are the continued antics of the ARIans merely misunderstandings of Objectivism?

Yes. Misunderstandings by assholes and second-handers, in part, who would be assholes and second-handers no matter what philosophy they adopted.

Here is what I said about this problem in "Objectivism as a Religion," pp. 214-15. (First published in 1972, a shorter, revised version appears in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies).

Ayn Rand is a passionate writer, and passionate writers tend to attract passionate readers, both rational and irrational. If some of Rand's readers, confusing style with substance, revere her as a secular pope, then she cannot be held accountable. Rand repeatedly stresses the value of independent judgment -- the "sovereign consciousness," as she calls it. This passage is typical: "Truth or falsehood must be one's sole concern and sole criterion of judgment -- not anyone's approval or disapproval...." The virtue of rationality, the centerpiece of Rand's moral theory, entails "that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one's perception....It means that one must never sacrifice one's convictions to the opinions and wishes of others...."

...

Despite her fondness for pronouncements from on high, Rand's philosophy is just that -- a philosophy, not a religion. She labored hard on her theories; and if they sometimes become entangled in rhetoric and prejudice, then surely the reader can exert a little labor to untangle them. Critics who fail to do this call her dogmatic; admirers who fail to do this succumb to religiosity.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] the widely publicized expulsions of prominent Objectivist scholars (e.g., Kelley, Walsh, Reisman, and now McCaskey), [...]. [emphasis added]

Did you included Walsh by mistake? He wasn't expelled; he went when Kelley was.

[....]

Are the continued antics of the ARIans merely misunderstandings of Objectivism?

Yes. Misunderstandings by assholes and second-handers, in part, who would be assholes and second-handers no matter what philosophy they adopted.

Here is what I said about this problem in "Objectivism as a Religion," pp. 214-15. (First published in 1972, a shorter, revised version appears in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies).

Ayn Rand is a passionate writer, and passionate writers tend to attract passionate readers, both rational and irrational. If some of Rand's readers, confusing style with substance, revere her as a secular pope, then she cannot be held accountable. Rand repeatedly stresses the value of independent judgment -- the "sovereign consciousness," as she calls it. This passage is typical: "Truth or falsehood must be one's sole concern and sole criterion of judgment -- not anyone's approval or disapproval...." The virtue of rationality, the centerpiece of Rand's moral theory, entails "that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one's perception....It means that one must never sacrifice one's convictions to the opinions and wishes of others...."

...

Despite her fondness for pronouncements from on high, Rand's philosophy is just that -- a philosophy, not a religion. She labored hard on her theories; and if they sometimes become entangled in rhetoric and prejudice, then surely the reader can exert a little labor to untangle them. Critics who fail to do this call her dogmatic; admirers who fail to do this succumb to religiosity.

Ghs

I strongly agree with the quote from Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following passage is from my article "Ayn Rand: Philosophy and Controversy" (Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, pp. 195):

Another problem haunts Ayn Rand's philosophy. Rand was a sharp polemicist who gave no quarter to her adversaries. Many philosophers have retaliated by exiling her beyond the pale of respectable discussion. This is a mistake. Whether you like the woman or not, her brilliance and influence cannot be gainsaid. If Rand is to be excluded from serious consideration because of her polemicism, then why not exclude other polemical philosophers as well?

Because the others were lambasting people no longer alive. Rand gave no quarter to living folk, along with historic figures. :D

I love that quote from Schopenhauer about Hegel.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] the widely publicized expulsions of prominent Objectivist scholars (e.g., Kelley, Walsh, Reisman, and now McCaskey), [...]. [emphasis added]

Did you included Walsh by mistake? He wasn't expelled; he went when Kelley was.

[....]

Are the continued antics of the ARIans merely misunderstandings of Objectivism?

Yes. Misunderstandings by assholes and second-handers, in part, who would be assholes and second-handers no matter what philosophy they adopted.

Here is what I said about this problem in "Objectivism as a Religion," pp. 214-15. (First published in 1972, a shorter, revised version appears in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies).

Ayn Rand is a passionate writer, and passionate writers tend to attract passionate readers, both rational and irrational. If some of Rand's readers, confusing style with substance, revere her as a secular pope, then she cannot be held accountable. Rand repeatedly stresses the value of independent judgment -- the "sovereign consciousness," as she calls it. This passage is typical: "Truth or falsehood must be one's sole concern and sole criterion of judgment -- not anyone's approval or disapproval...." The virtue of rationality, the centerpiece of Rand's moral theory, entails "that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one's perception....It means that one must never sacrifice one's convictions to the opinions and wishes of others...."

...

Despite her fondness for pronouncements from on high, Rand's philosophy is just that -- a philosophy, not a religion. She labored hard on her theories; and if they sometimes become entangled in rhetoric and prejudice, then surely the reader can exert a little labor to untangle them. Critics who fail to do this call her dogmatic; admirers who fail to do this succumb to religiosity.

Ghs

I strongly agree with the quote from Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies).

Ellen:

You are correct. George Walsh voluntarily joined with Kelley. However, I think that he knew that that was a one-way door. To my recollection (possibly defective), his name was removed from the masthead of Peter Schwartz's The Intellectual Activist and he longer appeared at ARI-backed summer conferences. Whether he initiated these actions or he was not asked, I do not know.

This makes Walsh's "walkaway" similar to McCaskey's resignation from Anthem Foundation and ARI, They were not kicked-out, they walked out. The effect, however, is the same: the breaking of ties.

Ted:

A joint letter by the principals that you named would be nice, but I doubt that many of them are on speaking terms with the others. So whether they could cooperate on even this seems questionable. This may not end until all of the original participants from the nineteen sixties are no longer active (or are decesed). But as Anne Heller pointed out in the epilogue to her Rand biography, "whole new generations are being taught to keep-up the schismatic prejudices" (my paraphrase). :wacko::rolleyes:

George:

As usual you were (are) right! Unfortunately, the True Believers :wacko: probably did not even pick up your books, given your past "heretical" views and associations :o:rolleyes: . To your credit. And their loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following passage is from my article "Ayn Rand: Philosophy and Controversy" (Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, pp. 195):

Another problem haunts Ayn Rand's philosophy. Rand was a sharp polemicist who gave no quarter to her adversaries. Many philosophers have retaliated by exiling her beyond the pale of respectable discussion. This is a mistake. Whether you like the woman or not, her brilliance and influence cannot be gainsaid. If Rand is to be excluded from serious consideration because of her polemicism, then why not exclude other polemical philosophers as well?

Because the others were lambasting people no longer alive. Rand gave no quarter to living folk, along with historic figures. :D

I love that quote from Schopenhauer about Hegel.

Ellen

Yes, and I am actually developing a crush on George.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT,...just because Chambers wrote a "hatchet-job" does not mean that buried in his invective, there cannot lie an occasional element of truth. For a long time (oh,...about fifty years), I thought that nothing Chambers said had any value. But if there is not an element of truth in the charges of authoritarianism, of "cultism," how do you explain the continued (mis)behavior of the guardians of the Objectivist orthodoxy? The purges did not stop with the dissolution of NBI in 1968, they got worse. Besides the countless expulsions that have occurred in local Objectivist groups, there have been the widely publicized expulsions of prominent Objectivist scholars (e.g., Kelley, Walsh, Reisman, and now McCaskey), the exclusion of Objectivist-oriented academics who do not tow the Peikovian line, the unwillingness to have a dialogue with those with whom they share many ideas (libertarians) or to cooperate in efforts to politically oppose collectivism.

Are the continued antics of the ARIans merely misunderstandings of Objectivism?

Yes. Misunderstandings by assholes and second-handers, in part, who would be assholes and second-handers no matter what philosophy they adopted.

Here is what I said about this problem in "Objectivism as a Religion," pp. 214-15. (First published in 1972, a shorter, revised version appears in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies).

Ayn Rand is a passionate writer, and passionate writers tend to attract passionate readers, both rational and irrational. If some of Rand's readers, confusing style with substance, revere her as a secular pope, then she cannot be held accountable. Rand repeatedly stresses the value of independent judgment -- the "sovereign consciousness," as she calls it. This passage is typical: "Truth or falsehood must be one's sole concern and sole criterion of judgment -- not anyone's approval or disapproval...." The virtue of rationality, the centerpiece of Rand's moral theory, entails "that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one's perception....It means that one must never sacrifice one's convictions to the opinions and wishes of others...."

...

Despite her fondness for pronouncements from on high, Rand's philosophy is just that -- a philosophy, not a religion. She labored hard on her theories; and if they sometimes become entangled in rhetoric and prejudice, then surely the reader can exert a little labor to untangle them. Critics who fail to do this call her dogmatic; admirers who fail to do this succumb to religiosity.

Ghs

George,

re: Objectivist "assholes and second-handers:"

Is that a clinical diagnosis? Is it treatable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: Objectivist "assholes and second-handers:"

Is that a clinical diagnosis? Is it treatable?

Character is prior to philosophy. Good men who adopt Objectivism find it validates their virtues. Others find its forms useful in rationalizing their peccadilloes. No vicious fool has been made good by reading Rand.

Edited by Ted Keer
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