Fleming: proto-Peikoff

[Starbuckle]

Peikoff caught a lot of flak for opening his book on Objectivism by observing that it is addressed to human beings, not academics, but including "any academics who qualify." I suppose some academics are thin-skinned enough not to read the book in retaliation against this barb. Anyway, here's a very similar inaugural sally in Harold Fleming's 1951 title Ten Thousand Commandments, a book on antitrust laws (can be downloaded for free from Mises.org).

"This book is not for lawyers, but for people. Or, if that distinction sounds unfair to my legal friends, let's say it's for laymen. The lawyers may read it if they want to. I put the citations in for them."

I hope that Fleming did not have too many illegal friends.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Starbuckle

[Reidy]

Didn't know lawyer jokes were that old. Rand used to recommend this book, and NBI Book Service sold it. The Objectivist Newsletter may have reviewed it.

[Jerry Biggers]

Peikoff caught a lot of flak for opening his book on Objectivism by observing that it is addressed to human beings, not academics, but including "any academics who qualify." I suppose some academics are thin-skinned enough not to read the book in retaliation against this barb. Anyway, here's a very similar inaugural sally in Harold Fleming's 1951 title Ten Thousand Commandments, a book on antitrust laws (can be downloaded for free from Mises.org).

"This book is not for lawyers, but for people. Or, if that distinction sounds unfair to my legal friends, let's say it's for laymen. The lawyers may read it if they want to. I put the citations in for them."

I hope that Fleming did not have too many illegal friends.

What Peikoff wrote is qualitatively different from Harold Fleming's sentence: "This book is not for lawyers, but for people." Fleming's phrasing does not imply that lawyers are not people, but rather that lawyers are a subset of people (he does not say that lawyers are not people). Notice also, that he immediately makes that clear by stating that "it's for laymen" (that is, those people not trained to be lawyers). and that "lawyers can read it if they want to. I put the citations in for them."(by this time, it is clear that Fleming is , at most, just playing with them). There is no note of actual malice.

Unfortunately, this is not the case with Peikoff:

"this book is written not for academics, but for human beings (including any academics who qualify)." The phrasing was calculated to gratuitously slap in the face all academics, since it implies that there are academics who do not qualify to be considered as human beings (and presumably, do not therefore deserve to be treated as human). Unlike Fleming, Peikoff does not attempt to smooth ruffled feathers, and thereby leaves the reader to conclude that that is exactly what he meant: some academics are not human.

This is the sort of insult that people use when they have already concluded that their actions will be condemned by their listeners and therefore decide to symbolically kick them in the teeth. It is also the type of behavior that is exhibited when the perpetrator has no confidence that he can persuasively present a winning case.

[william.scherk]

"this book is written not for academics, but for human beings (including any academics who qualify)." The phrasing was calculated to gratuitously slap in the face all academics, since it implies that there are academics who do not qualify to be considered as human beings (and presumably, do not therefore deserve to be treated as human).

Sometimes the withering contempt for the target is apt, sometimes not. Consider the 'science studies' critical theorist Andrew Ross, who wrote in the acknowledgments to his gamey Strange Weather: Culture, Science and Technology in the Age of Limits, 'This book is dedicated to all of the science teachers I never had. It could only have been written without them.'

Since he didn't pay attention to any science but to rail again its practitioners in his 'critical texts,' he failed to catch the shit science of Alan Sokal's spoof, and published it in his journal Social Text, thus attracting much hilarity and ridicule of his pretensions . . .

As for the Peikoff, I think he made an honest offer; although Rand and he may hold that a coming revolution in human thought and society must proceed from proper philosophies and from an informed intelligentsia, he made it difficult for intelligent philosophers to take him seriously by pitching so low. Now he pitches even lower with his 40 watt podcasts to the anointed.

Ah, arrogance. Ah, humility.

Edited January 18, 2011 by william.scherk

[Jerry Biggers]

"this book is written not for academics, but for human beings (including any academics who qualify)." The phrasing was calculated to gratuitously slap in the face all academics, since it implies that there are academics who do not qualify to be considered as human beings (and presumably, do not therefore deserve to be treated as human).

Sometimes the withering contempt for the target is apt, sometimes not. Consider the 'science studies' critical theorist Andrew Ross, who wrote in the acknowledgments to his gamey Strange Weather: Culture, Science and Technology in the Age of Limits, 'This book is dedicated to all of the science teachers I never had. It could only have been written without them.'

Since he didn't pay attention to any science but to rail again its practitioners in his 'critical texts,' he failed to catch the shit science of Alan Sokal's spoof, and published it in his journal Social Text, thus attracting much hilarity and ridicule of his pretensions . . .

As for the Peikoff, I think he made an honest offer; although Rand and he may hold that a coming revolution in human thought and society must proceed from proper philosophies and from an informed intelligentsia, he made it difficult for intelligent philosophers to take him seriously by pitching so low. Now he pitches even lower with his 40 watt podcasts to the anointed.

Ah, arrogance. Ah, humility.

Agreed on most of your points, but with a few qualifications.

The example that you cite: from Andrew Ross, at least shows some attempt at humor and was less likely to raise the hackles of academics (since practically everyone has had teachers that were inept) than Peikoff's malicious jibe.

I'm not sure what you mean when you referred to Peikoff's "honest" offer, unless you mean that he didn't let such concepts as professional decorum and respect for one's projected audience get in the way of expressing his contempt. This was a monumental tactical error on his part.

Consider the opportunity that he had to present the first comprehensive statement of Objectivism as a philosophic system to a key segment of the audience that Rand wanted to influence, intellectuals and academics. If you would like to get a chance at a fair hearing, you don't start out by implying that some of them may not qualify as human.

And judging by his recent statements about McCaskey, he has learned nothing. In fact, he is worse.

Thanks, Leonard.

[Reidy]

I don't see any interesting difference between the contents of the Peikoff and Fleming statements. Both are likely to offend the excluded groups, and both authors realize this. The main difference, which is not a matter of content, is that Fleming wasn't trying to get the excluded group to take him seriously but Peikoff, as #5 mentions, was.

[william.scherk]

I'm not sure what you mean when you referred to Peikoff's "honest" offer, unless you mean that he didn't let such concepts as professional decorum and respect for one's projected audience get in the way of expressing his contempt. This was a monumental tactical error on his part.

I figure the Peikoff was honest in his pitch -- the book ain't for academics.

Ross wrote/writes very much for the academics, or that part of academia growing out of kookpants sociology. His contempt for 'truth seeking' in science was complete, and it blew back and made him seem like a fool. I figure if you want to crush the folks you wish to crush, you need to be very familiar with the arguments on the other side. You need to take an honest evaluation of the other side, and if you don't engage with the other side, you run the risk of sealing yourself up in an echo chamber.

What I didn't like in the Peikoff book in question was the utter lack of pointed references and examples. He would make a charge -- in the form of "X says Y," but leave out the the means by which a reader could check his argument. Who was X and where did X say Y? -- that was the question that pounded away in my mind reading OPAR until the book finally hit the wall . . .

[Jerry Biggers]

I'm not sure what you mean when you referred to Peikoff's "honest" offer, unless you mean that he didn't let such concepts as professional decorum and respect for one's projected audience get in the way of expressing his contempt. This was a monumental tactical error on his part.

I figure the Peikoff was honest in his pitch -- the book ain't for academics.

Ross wrote/writes very much for the academics, or that part of academia growing out of kookpants sociology. His contempt for 'truth seeking' in science was complete, and it blew back and made him seem like a fool. I figure if you want to crush the folks you wish to crush, you need to be very familiar with the arguments on the other side. You need to take an honest evaluation of the other side, and if you don't engage with the other side, you run the risk of sealing yourself up in an echo chamber.

What I didn't like in the Peikoff book in question was the utter lack of pointed references and examples. He would make a charge -- in the form of "X says Y," but leave out the the means by which a reader could check his argument. Who was X and where did X say Y? -- that was the question that pounded away in my mind reading OPAR until the book finally hit the wall . . .

Yes, in that sense, Peikoff was not writing in a format or style that would appeal to most academics. Quite often he attempts to contrast Objectivism with rival philososophies but states the opponents' positions in a sarcastic or distorted manner. The already converted may enjoy this, but that tact is bound to alienate others.

Contrast Peikoff's method of presentation with that of Chris Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, which is heavily footnoted and annotated, has an extensive bibliography and comprehensive indices. Peikoff's entries in these categories are inadequate and superficial. This is just speculation on my part, but I think he may have had a number of unpleasant experiences with his peers when he was an academic and had concluded that he would rather have his say in OPAR and preface it with the insulting aside directed at his former academic associates. Sort of a "I don't need your approval, so kiss my ass!" The sentiment is understandable, but as a tactic it was counterproductive to getting Objectivism some respect in academic circles.

[Reidy]

Don't say "academic associates" in connection with Peikoff! It was the name of an LA-based company some forty years ago whose primary business was to sell Nathaniel Branden's post-exile NBI and Seminar audios. Holzer duly kiboshed them in The Objectivist.

[Greybird]

[...] What I didn't like in the Peikoff book in question was the utter lack of pointed references and examples. He would make a charge -- in the form of "X says Y," but leave out the the means by which a reader could check his argument. Who was X and where did X say Y? -- that was the question that pounded away in my mind reading OPAR until the book finally hit the wall ...

You physically tossed OPAR away in frustration? I don't blame you, for I had the same anger point, but I found a more worthwhile method of disposal.

I sold my hardback copy to Brad Linaweaver for $5 through my whittle-down-the-library table at the Karl Hess Club. Bought me an extra couple of beers after the meeting. Best deal I ever made. Haven't missed it.

Replaced its space on my shelf with yet another collection of potent essays from a man who actually knew how to sling invective at worthy targets, and had a sense of wit — H.L. Mencken.

[pippi]

What book on Objectivism of Piekoff's is this? I would like to take a look.

Thanks.

Jethro

[Jerry Biggers]

Don't say "academic associates" in connection with Peikoff! It was the name of an LA-based company some forty years ago whose primary business was to sell Nathaniel Branden's post-exile NBI and Seminar audios. Holzer duly kiboshed them in The Objectivist.

Indeed!

I'm sure that both of those words are anathema to Leonard : "Academic" evokes memories of rejection and scorn from academicians, not so much for what they would term his "politically incorrect views," but for his unwillingness or inability to explain Randian Revealed Truth in "academese" (translation: properly documenting assertions with the requisite references, footnotes, annotations, etc. How annoying).

"Associates," reminds him of the tiresome tasks of policing those who have previously expressed fealty for any signs of "psycho-epistemological deviationism," and meting out the required excommunications to any not sufficiently subservient to his rule .

Oh. And then there were those excommunicants and reprobates who refused to shut-up after they had been exiled from Paradise and had the temerity to continue publishing their blasphemous views (Academic Associates, Inc. of Los Angeles; which issued recorded sets of Nathaniel Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism, The Psychology of Romantic Love, Seminar, and Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking, and sent out notices to everyone who was on the mailing list of Babylon. Oops!, NBI.). And they continued to do this even after Rand's lawyer, Henry Holzer, warned subscribers of The Objectivist of their loathsome deeds, placing their offerings on the list of the Prohibited and Untouchable {Alas! Poor Hank was soon to find himself exiled. The role of Enforcer was a thankless task).

[Jerry Biggers]

What book on Objectivism of Piekoff's is this? I would like to take a look.

Thanks.

Jethro

"OPAR" is the acronym often used for Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand(1991) by His Eminence, Leonard Peikoff. A re-write of his 1976 lecture series, The Philosophy of Objectivism (which Ayn assisted in the "preparation" of all 12 lectures and was present at their initial presentation to be sure that Leonard got it right - and that he did not express any "unapproved" comments).

Leonard notes in his Preface that Ayn was deceased before the final transcript for the book was published and therefore one cannot take it for granted that an independent thought of his own might have crept in. Yet, he hastens to add that his book is (still) "the definitive statement of Ayn Rand's philosophy - as interpreted by her best student and chosen heir."

Setting aside his imprecise self-designation as her "chosen heir" (actually, legal heir to her estate. she did not designate him as her "intellectual heir," as she had for Nathaniel Branden prior to their break), the book is definitely worth reading. Compare to the earlier lecture series by Branden (now in print as The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism) and Chris Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. Also, the "beta" version of The Logical Structure of Objectivism by David Kelley and William Thomas, available online at The Atlas Society's website.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[william.scherk]

[...] What I didn't like in the Peikoff book in question was the utter lack of pointed references and examples. He would make a charge -- in the form of "X says Y," but leave out the the means by which a reader could check his argument. Who was X and where did X say Y? -- that was the question that pounded away in my mind reading OPAR until the book finally hit the wall ...

You physically tossed OPAR away in frustration?

I enjoy a rousing polemic. I enjoy reading Rand for the full-on roaring excoriations in her best material, as in my favourite The Comprachicos. She could pull off withering contempt and lack of explicit references when novelist or columnist or Nietzschean prophetess.

Dorothy Parker might have said of OPAR, "This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."

Edited January 19, 2011 by william.scherk

[PDS]

[...] What I didn't like in the Peikoff book in question was the utter lack of pointed references and examples. He would make a charge -- in the form of "X says Y," but leave out the the means by which a reader could check his argument. Who was X and where did X say Y? -- that was the question that pounded away in my mind reading OPAR until the book finally hit the wall ...

You physically tossed OPAR away in frustration?

I enjoy a rousing polemic. I enjoy reading Rand for the full-on roaring excoriations in her best material, as in my favourite The Comprachicos. She could pull off withering contempt and lack of explicit references when novelist or columnist or Nietzschean prophetess.

Dorothy Parker might have said of OPAR, "This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."

Many of us will recall waiting for OPAR with baited breath, back in the mid 80's before the O World became a splintered group of people yapping at each other about Ayn Rand's sex life and the metaphysical significance of "libertarians"--you know, those outrageous people who generally advocate less government, more capitalism, and a Randian notion of individual rights.

OPAR landed with what can only be described as a dull thud, unfortunately.

Edited January 19, 2011 by PDS

[Reidy]

Actually the sectarianism you describe started not later than 1968. Anarchists (most notably Hess and Rothbard) and island-colony people had come and gone among Objectivists before that, but either they faded away or they stopped calling themselves Objectivists. Things split irrevocably wide open after 68. In a similar manner, heresies had come and gone in the middle ages, but the church of Rome lost its monopoly once and for all with the Reformation.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Reidy