Peikoff’s latest howler


Recommended Posts

If we ever have an Objectivist trivia game, this question will have to be on one of the cards: What do Arnold Schwarzenburger, Jerry Seinfeld and Leonard Peikoff have in common?

Such extraordinary good fortune: finding the embodiment of all your most treasured values in the woman you hired to do your laundry. Talk about a benevolent universe!

I don’t get the reference. Did Peikoff get involved with his laundress?

My information--on excellent authority--is that Peikoff is now married to his former housekeeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[bolding mine]

I would be fascinated to know, however, how many people would rather see a movie sex scene between Angelina Jolie and either a youthful Clint Eastwood or Leonardo DiCaprio. I would be willing to bet that most people would much prefer to see the sexual fireworks when Dirty Harry was treating her like a helpless, wanton slut than when DiCaprio was smooching and giving her a nice, warm hug.

With the term "slut", I don't connote helplessness at all.

I think we are dealing with some highly charged words here which often connote very different things to different people. I think women who have rape fantasies find the aspect of helplessness to be exciting. And when we talk about a woman "surrendering" to a man sexually, I think a degree of 'helplessness' is implied.

On the other hand, there is a huge difference between feeling 'helpless' and actually being 'helpless.' Needless to say, a woman who 'surrenders' sexually is not truly helpless. A well-aimed kick can put a stop to the festivities at any moment. But I think a lot of women desire to feel 'helpless' in some sense--i.e., to totally let go and allow the man be in control of what is happening. Of course, a certain level of trust in her partner is required before she will likely allow herself to 'surrender' in that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't forget Dominique Strauss-Kahn (though he didn't marry her). I'm beginning to think it isn't such a cushy, glamorous job after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we ever have an Objectivist trivia game, this question will have to be on one of the cards: What do Arnold Schwarzenburger, Jerry Seinfeld and Leonard Peikoff have in common?

Such extraordinary good fortune: finding the embodiment of all your most treasured values in the woman you hired to do your laundry. Talk about a benevolent universe!

I don’t get the reference. Did Peikoff get involved with his laundress?

My information--on excellent authority--is that Peikoff is now married to his former housekeeper.

Ah, now I see the connection. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just let the woman be on top every now and then.

--Brant

toss her a crumb

Omigod! Now there's a flashback I will never forget! Nathaniel Branden, answering questions following a lecture on sex at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City. The year: 1967. Ayn Rand was sitting three rows in front of me.

Question: Can a male continue to take the dominant role if the woman is on top?

Branden (with a big grin on his face): Yes! The man is still in control of what is happening.

But is he really? Looks more like male wishful thinking to me. ;)

Actually, men are far more 'vulnerable' than women in that field. For as opposed to women, who are - technically - able to perform the sexual act at any time, a man without sexual excitement cannot carry out the act.

So suppose a man loses his erection while the woman is on top, he is definitely not in control of what is happening.

Even without the man losing his erection, to claim that he is in control over anything would be pure fiction. Just as it would be pure fiction to claim that the woman is in control over what is happening.

Men losing their erections? We live in the Age of Viagra, Cialis and Levitra. The problem is getting the damn thing to go down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Men losing their erections? We live in the Age of Viagra, Cialis and Levitra. The problem is getting the damn thing to go down.

If it does not go down after 4 hours, call 911.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Men losing their erections? We live in the Age of Viagra, Cialis and Levitra. The problem is getting the damn thing to go down.

If it does not go down after 4 hours, call 911.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And if she doesn't, call Escorts Go Out Service [EGOS]...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Men losing their erections? We live in the Age of Viagra, Cialis and Levitra. The problem is getting the damn thing to go down.

If it does not go down after 4 hours, call 911.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And if she doesn't, call Escorts Go Out Service [EGOS]...

Yeah, get out the metro white pages and start dialing as fast as you can.

rde

Any Port In A Storm

Link to post
Share on other sites

My information--on excellent authority--is that Peikoff is now married to his former housekeeper.

Then she’s not just a laundress. Housekeeping involves far more intelligence, and a much wider skill set. For instance, one must be able to clean a clock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My information--on excellent authority--is that Peikoff is now married to his former housekeeper.

Then she's not just a laundress. Housekeeping involves far more intelligence, and a much wider skill set. For instance, one must be able to clean a clock.

Or, if uncircumcised, she would have to know how to clean a ....oops wrong thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My information--on excellent authority--is that Peikoff is now married to his former housekeeper.

Then she's not just a laundress. Housekeeping involves far more intelligence, and a much wider skill set. For instance, one must be able to clean a clock.

Or, if uncircumcised, she would have to know how to clean a ....oops wrong thread.

Uh boy, this subject is pretty distasteful, it can only be a springboard for cheap shots. There’s a natural assumption that his wife is not an intellectual, or an accomplished person in any sense. Should this be fair game? Hmm, well, Peikoff supports (sponsored?) PARC, which, as I recall, contains derisive material about Nathaniel Branden’s second wife. I gather she also wasn’t an intellectual, though anyone who chooses to spend their free time (and cash) attending non-accredited philosophy lectures must have something going on upstairs. So, we’ll put this under the heading of “sauce for the goose”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ND:

I think his relationship with his wife should not be commented upon. I just quickly posted the pun without thinking.

My apologies.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies.

No, no, my post set the stage. “Clean a clock” means hit someone in the face, and sounds like it might mean something else. I don’t want to carry on with it, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies.

No, no, my post set the stage. "Clean a clock" means hit someone in the face, and sounds like it might mean something else. I don't want to carry on with it, though.

Agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh boy, this subject is pretty distasteful, it can only be a springboard for cheap shots. There’s a natural assumption that his wife is not an intellectual, or an accomplished person in any sense. Should this be fair game?

Absolutely, it's fair game. Don't forget that the Official Closed System of Objectivism's theory of sex and romantic love demands that we judge a man's entire philosophy and view of existence after being informed of the type of woman he chooses as a romantic partner. It's the Objectivist litmus test. Has Rand's heir and the world's leading authority on the world's greatest philosophy chosen a lowly "shop girl" whose chatter would bore much lesser minds in minutes? If so, I think we'd need to consider the possibility that Peikoff has always been a fraud, that he never really accepted True Objectivism into his life, and that he only posed as an Objectivist in order to take financial advantage of Rand and her followers.

Then again, there is one possible loophole, which is that the housekeeper makes up for lack of intellect or towering achievement by having one of the world's greatest "senses of life" (as Frank O'Connor is said to have had). If the greatness of her "sense of life" were officially certified by an Objectivist Authority, like, say, Leonard Peikoff, then we would be required to base our estimate of her (and by extension, of Peikoff) on her glorious "sense of life" while completely disregarding her lack of accomplishments (we might even buy into the idea that she has been heroically "on strike" for decades).

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh boy, this subject is pretty distasteful, it can only be a springboard for cheap shots. There’s a natural assumption that his wife is not an intellectual, or an accomplished person in any sense. Should this be fair game?

Absolutely, it's fair game. Don't forget that the Official Closed System of Objectivism's theory of sex and romantic love demands that we judge a man's entire philosophy and view of existence after being informed of the type of woman he chooses as a romantic partner. It's the Objectivist litmus test. Has Rand's heir and the world's leading authority on the world's greatest philosophy chosen a lowly "shop girl" whose chatter would bore much lesser minds in minutes? If so, I think we'd need to consider the possibility that Peikoff has always been a fraud, that he never really accepted True Objectivism into his life, and that he only posed as an Objectivist in order to take financial advantage of Rand and her followers.

Then again, there is one possible loophole, which is that the housekeeper makes up for lack of intellect or towering achievement by having one of the world's greatest "senses of life" (as Frank O'Connor is said to have had). If the greatness of her "sense of life" were officially certified by an Objectivist Authority, like, say, Leonard Peikoff, then we would be required to base our estimate of her (and by extension, of Peikoff) on her glorious "sense of life" while completely disregarding her lack of accomplishments (we might even buy into the idea that she has been heroically "on strike" for decades).

J

This says it all, really. It continually surprises me how much of what Rand said about her philosophy was based on what she felt about sex and love. Maybe that's why we continue to be so interested in her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff has, on the record, distanced himself from the classic Randian account of sexual attraction. His formulation was something to the effect of "if I disagreed with Rand about anything, this would be it." So he's not contradicting himself directly. Indirectly, though, he's inconsistent is if he revises away some part of the theory he doesn't like and continutes to insist on "closed Objectivism."

Link to post
Share on other sites

His insistence on the closed system is that not everything Rand wrote on or discussed is part of the Objectivist system. I know he's stated before he thinks that Rand's convictions on sex were ones based in psychology, that had philosophic consequences, much like her view of homosexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

His insistence on the closed system is that not everything Rand wrote on or discussed is part of the Objectivist system.

I know he's stated before he thinks that Rand's convictions on sex were ones based in psychology, that had philosophic consequences, much like her view of homosexuality.

I'm interested in studying the primary source. Could you (or others) please provide a link to Peikoff's precise statements on that. TIA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

His insistence on the closed system is that not everything Rand wrote on or discussed is part of the Objectivist system. I know he's stated before he thinks that Rand's convictions on sex were ones based in psychology, that had philosophic consequences, much like her view of homosexuality.

I’m not clear on what you are suggesting here. Are you contending that Peikoff is not being inconsistent on this issue because sex is “based on psychology?” Are you implying that it’s okay for him to exclude anything that’s heavily psychological in nature from the arbitrary intellectual shelter he calls “closed Objectivism?” So we can now extend the exception given to Rand’s views on homosexuality to her views on sex in general?

Why stop there? Since we cannot read minds, all ethical evaluation necessarily entails drawing psychological conclusions about when people are actually evading and when they are not. There is obviously a huge component of psychology involved. So let’s open the debate on Rand’s approach to moral evaluation as well. In fact, the fields of philosophy and psychology are so closely related that this would open a huge Pandora’s box that could never be closed.

I regard the whole notion of “closed Objectivism” to be ridiculous. Giving Peikoff this kind of pass on psychology-related issues helps him make this “closed Objectivism” silliness look plausible.

Ayn Rand clearly intended Francisco’s speech on “The Meaning of Sex” to be part of Objectivism or she would not have included it in her first nonfiction work, For The New Intellectual. As I have said many times before on this forum, I think Francisco’s speech is terribly oversimplified and psychologically naive and could only have been written by a woman. No reasonable male would ever argue that he could only be sexually attracted to a woman who shared his sense of life or philosophy of life. It’s utterly absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh boy, this subject is pretty distasteful, it can only be a springboard for cheap shots. There’s a natural assumption that his wife is not an intellectual, or an accomplished person in any sense. Should this be fair game? Hmm, well, Peikoff supports (sponsored?) PARC, which, as I recall, contains derisive material about Nathaniel Branden’s second wife. I gather she also wasn’t an intellectual, though anyone who chooses to spend their free time (and cash) attending non-accredited philosophy lectures must have something going on upstairs. So, we’ll put this under the heading of “sauce for the goose”.

Peikoff gave his sanction to Valliant's book, which published Ayn Rand's private diaries attacking Branden for having a "filthy soul" because he was attracted to a "chorus girl." Rand stated that Branden had proven himself a "traitor to his convictions" and that she would feel the need to wash her hands if she should ever touch his. Rand disparaged Branden's lover as "the girl next door." Makes you wonder what words she would have used if he had been caught sleeping with a scrubwoman.

Sure. Let's refrain from saying anything negative about Peikoff for his choice of a mate. Let's be benevolent and give him every benefit of the doubt. He surely deserves it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh boy, this subject is pretty distasteful, it can only be a springboard for cheap shots. There's a natural assumption that his wife is not an intellectual, or an accomplished person in any sense. Should this be fair game? Hmm, well, Peikoff supports (sponsored?) PARC, which, as I recall, contains derisive material about Nathaniel Branden's second wife. I gather she also wasn't an intellectual, though anyone who chooses to spend their free time (and cash) attending non-accredited philosophy lectures must have something going on upstairs. So, we'll put this under the heading of "sauce for the goose".

Peikoff gave his sanction to Valliant's book, which published Ayn Rand's private diaries attacking Branden for having a "filthy soul" because he was attracted to a "chorus girl." Rand stated that Branden had proven himself a "traitor to his convictions" and that she would feel the need to wash her hands if she should ever touch his. Rand disparaged Branden's lover as "the girl next door." Makes you wonder what words she would have used if he had been caught sleeping with a scrubwoman.

Sure. Let's refrain from saying anything negative about Peikoff for his choice of a mate. Let's be benevolent and give him every benefit of the doubt. He surely deserves it.

Dennis:

I believe that we are better than what we condemn. I am no fan of Peikoff, I never liked him when we traveled in the same educational circles in the 60's. However, his wife should not be part of this.

And, believe me, I can be guilty of this excess as much as anyone, but this is just not necessary.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh boy, this subject is pretty distasteful, it can only be a springboard for cheap shots. There's a natural assumption that his wife is not an intellectual, or an accomplished person in any sense. Should this be fair game? Hmm, well, Peikoff supports (sponsored?) PARC, which, as I recall, contains derisive material about Nathaniel Branden's second wife. I gather she also wasn't an intellectual, though anyone who chooses to spend their free time (and cash) attending non-accredited philosophy lectures must have something going on upstairs. So, we'll put this under the heading of "sauce for the goose".

Peikoff gave his sanction to Valliant's book, which published Ayn Rand's private diaries attacking Branden for having a "filthy soul" because he was attracted to a "chorus girl." Rand stated that Branden had proven himself a "traitor to his convictions" and that she would feel the need to wash her hands if she should ever touch his. Rand disparaged Branden's lover as "the girl next door." Makes you wonder what words she would have used if he had been caught sleeping with a scrubwoman.

Sure. Let's refrain from saying anything negative about Peikoff for his choice of a mate. Let's be benevolent and give him every benefit of the doubt. He surely deserves it.

Dennis:

I believe that we are better than what we condemn. I am no fan of Peikoff, I never liked him when we traveled in the same educational circles in the 60's. However, his wife should not be part of this.

And, believe me, I can be guilty of this excess as much as anyone, but this is just not necessary.

Adam

Adam,

You're no fun at all.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh boy, this subject is pretty distasteful, it can only be a springboard for cheap shots. There's a natural assumption that his wife is not an intellectual, or an accomplished person in any sense. Should this be fair game? Hmm, well, Peikoff supports (sponsored?) PARC, which, as I recall, contains derisive material about Nathaniel Branden's second wife. I gather she also wasn't an intellectual, though anyone who chooses to spend their free time (and cash) attending non-accredited philosophy lectures must have something going on upstairs. So, we'll put this under the heading of "sauce for the goose".

Peikoff gave his sanction to Valliant's book, which published Ayn Rand's private diaries attacking Branden for having a "filthy soul" because he was attracted to a "chorus girl." Rand stated that Branden had proven himself a "traitor to his convictions" and that she would feel the need to wash her hands if she should ever touch his. Rand disparaged Branden's lover as "the girl next door." Makes you wonder what words she would have used if he had been caught sleeping with a scrubwoman.

Sure. Let's refrain from saying anything negative about Peikoff for his choice of a mate. Let's be benevolent and give him every benefit of the doubt. He surely deserves it.

Dennis:

I believe that we are better than what we condemn. I am no fan of Peikoff, I never liked him when we traveled in the same educational circles in the 60's. However, his wife should not be part of this.

And, believe me, I can be guilty of this excess as much as anyone, but this is just not necessary.

Adam

Adam,

You're no fun at all.

Dennis

Dennis:

Lol...you have no idea how difficult that was for me to write.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis:

I believe that we are better than what we condemn. I am no fan of Peikoff, I never liked him when we traveled in the same educational circles in the 60's. However, his wife should not be part of this.

And, believe me, I can be guilty of this excess as much as anyone, but this is just not necessary.

Adam

Adam,

You're no fun at all.

Dennis

Dennis:

Lol...you have no idea how difficult that was for me to write.

Adam

Truth be told: He's almost 78. I'm guessing she's probably less than half his age. She may not be gorgeous enough to get a pictorial lay-out in Playboy, but I'll bet she has plenty of "deep spiritual values" to offer. He probably couldn't care less what anyone says. I sure wouldn't, if I were him.

Link to post
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