Why criticize ARI for rewrites?

[Philip Coates]

Note from MSK: This thread was split off from another entitled "

The Rewrite Squad

." The quote that starts the post below comes from

this post by Robert Campbell in that thread

.

> It's the ARI scholars who need to be asked, repeatedly and in public, to explain these actions.

You mean when they are giving a lecture trying to make a point about or defend Objectivism, you want to change the subject back to who did what to whom in the movement?

Robert, all you can possibly accomplish by this is make Objectivism look bad in public, extend a generation long feud to the next generation. You don't get 'the last word' or win or expose or drive out people you don't agree with.

As I'm tiring of pointing out, the focus should be on spreading, defending, explaining *the ideas* in a very radical and not sufficiently grasped philsophy, not on the past history, the moral character, the mistakes of some of the practitioners.

All that does is perpetuate the idea that Oists are simply a cult of perpetually internally feuding 'backbiters'.

You have probably made a thousand posts on this. I think you are too angry, too personally involved, too close to this to ever let it go.

Do you not see that it is the same mistake as that of the people you dislike so much?

[9thdoctor]

You mean when they are giving a lecture trying to make a point about or defend Objectivism, you want to change the subject back to who did what to whom in the movement?

Hopefully it doesn’t need to be done too many times, but public shaming is probably the only way to get results. Imagine if someone had asked about it on the Stossel Atlas show. By “it” I don’t specifically mean the airbrushing, but a general exposing of the cultist behaviour, such as the rewriting of history on display here. It might have been better than the dumb questions that were actually asked, and sparked some needed changes in “the movement”.

[Robert Campbell]

> It's the ARI scholars who need to be asked, repeatedly and in public, to explain these actions.

You mean when they are giving a lecture trying to make a point about or defend Objectivism, you want to change the subject back to who did what to whom in the movement?

Robert, all you can possibly accomplish by this is make Objectivism look bad in public, extend a generation long feud to the next generation. You don't get 'the last word' or win or expose or drive out people you don't agree with.

Phil,

The ARIans are the ones who have package-dealt making a point about Objectivism with airbrushing away the contributions of anyone who no longer enjoys Leonard Peikoff's personal approval.

Do you not see that it is the same mistake as that of the people you dislike so much?

For many years, they've been highly proficient at making Objectivism look bad in public. They've needed no help from those who might be inclined to criticize their policies and practices.

They've managed to recruit into the "generation long feud" persons who never met Ayn Rand, even some who were not yet born when she died.

No one is going to have the last word about Ayn Rand's ideas, unless those ideas are no longer of interest to anyone but an isolated antiquarian. There is no last word in an ongoing conversation.

But unless I am grossly misreading your comments, you seem to be saying that to smooth the way for general cultural acceptance of Objectivism, everyone must defer to those who have received the ARI imprimatur and desist from criticizing anything they do, so they can put all of their energies into doing Rand's work.

I expect the ARIans will heartily endorse your recommendations; I doubt they will appeal to anyone else.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> everyone must defer to those who have received the ARI imprimatur and desist from criticizing anything they do, so they can put all of their energies into doing Rand's work [Robert]

No, that's not what I am saying.

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

Then what are you saying?

Robert Campbell

[Backlighting]

> It's the ARI scholars who need to be asked, repeatedly and in public, to explain these actions.

You mean when they are giving a lecture trying to make a point about or defend Objectivism, you want to change the subject back to who did what to whom in the movement?

Robert, all you can possibly accomplish by this is make Objectivism look bad in public, extend a generation long feud to the next generation. You don't get 'the last word' or win or expose or drive out people you don't agree with.

Phil,

The ARIans are the ones who have package-dealt making a point about Objectivism with airbrushing away the contributions of anyone who no longer enjoys Leonard Peikoff's personal approval.

Do you not see that it is the same mistake as that of the people you dislike so much?

For many years, they've been highly proficient at making Objectivism look bad in public. They've needed no help from those who might be inclined to criticize their policies and practices.

They've managed to recruit into the "generation long feud" persons who never met Ayn Rand, even some who were not yet born when she died.

No one is going to have the last word about Ayn Rand's ideas, unless those ideas are no longer of interest to anyone but an isolated antiquarian. There is no last word in an ongoing conversation.

But unless I am grossly misreading your comments, you seem to be saying that to smooth the way for general cultural acceptance of Objectivism, everyone must defer to those who have received the ARI imprimatur and desist from criticizing anything they do, so they can put all of their energies into doing Rand's work.

I expect the ARIans will heartily endorse your recommendations; I doubt they will appeal to anyone else.

Robert Campbell

I can't stand more than 2 minutes of Peikoff's podcasts.

His voice is annoying and preacher-like.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Then what are you saying?

Robert,

Phil's mission with Objectivism is different than what you and I do. We are interested in a body of ideas because it interests us.

Phil is engaged in trying to save the world in the name of Objectivism. He's a movement junkie. This means, to him, we are supposed to sweep the cult crap under the carpet, even--and especially--when it exists, because it looks bad to the fresh meat out there.

From his perspective, you are supposed to sacrifice your integrity, if it is not too much, for the greater good of the movement. In my perspective (and I believe in yours), it is unacceptable to claim to be objective and go about rewriting history or excusing those who do. When people look at me, and then look at the history bowdlerizers at ARI and elsewhere like SLOP, I don't want them to confuse me with that crap. (It's a selfishness thing...)

Although I do not consider myself as part of any kind of formal movement to save the world, qua movement, I can issue an informed opinion. I think Phil makes a fundamental mistake in terms of saving the world. You can't trick people into the philosophical salvation of their souls by blank-out. People will not mend their evil ways by faking reality. It just can't be done.

So I think his project is doomed on the premise level.

I know my words sound different than what he says, but I believe it is conceptually accurate. Different words, same meaning. I express myself like that because I dislike euphemistic rhetoric.

btw - Are you operating out of being "too angry, too personally involved, too close to this to ever let it go," or do you just dislike sanctimonious hypocrites and creeps who try to damage the reputations of good people--and rewrite history--in an area you are interested in? Are you just being childish, or do you detest cult-like scapegoating and mind control?

My money is on the second in both cases...

(btw - Keep up the good work. People complain about what you are doing because it is making a difference. Truth is a bitch to those who fear it.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

As I'm tiring of pointing out, the focus should be on spreading, defending, explaining *the ideas* in a very radical and not sufficiently grasped philsophy, not on the past history, the moral character, the mistakes of some of the practitioners.

The philosophy itself has problems. The "mistakes" highlight some of these. A philosophy for brainiacs doesn't travel well into any mass culture nor does it make significant displacements of religious moralities; especially, for this discussion, Judeo-Christian. The lack of moral gravitas is acute; too boot: Rand cannot displace God. Just as the morality of collectivism was destroyed by bloody totalitarian socialism, practical socialism in which government gets bigger by feeding the parasitical classes will crash economies generally discrediting its economic-political legitimacy. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean Objectivism will be there to pick up the pieces. There is too much hardwired into the human brain which is great for hunter-gatherers, but keeps humanity from progressing beyond tribalism and envy. The implicit Objectivist political model is antiquated. It actually consists of leviathan controlled by people with the right ideas. All that came of that was Alan Greenspan. That model is the working conservative model which Rand had more in common with in her old age than she ever imagined. It was not the radical vision of Atlas Shrugged, but you could see the corruption with that judge at the end tweaking the constitution as if it had been significantly responsible for the world being supplanted. It was and is, but it didn't need fiddling with: it needed a trash can.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Anti-Effort and Excuse-Making

> The philosophy itself has problems. [brant]

No, the problem is not in the theory but in the practice.

It takes at least ten years of thorough study - including taking most of the basic courses - then, even harder, you have to integrate it with your life, integrate it with other subjects of study (history, psychology, life skills, communication skills, etc.) There is a lot of dropping out or being lazy at each step along the way. I'm always amazed at this, with the model of the productive, hard-striving characters in the novels...or Rand herself, how lazy and non-productive so many Oists are ... at least in the realm of ideas. (Often they can't even make the effort to write a disciplined post, one of the easier intellectual skills.) Anti-effort, as Rand would put it.

I don't think I have it all fully integrated myself. But at least I'm willing to admit that, as opposed to the arrogant, self-righteous, quick to take mortal offense when you criticize them for these lapses.

Probably ninety percent of the Oists I meet are great 'talkers'. They have a high IQ and can recite ideas from the philosophy, but only a single digit percent have fully understood - in terms of application, if not theory- the ideas.

Also, there is a lot of reversion to intrinsicism among the ARIans and a lot of reversion to subjectivism among the TASSians.

It's not a moral problem. Most Oists are decent, moral people. But they are lazy and/or "coasting" and/or don't realize how hard they have to work still, how much they still have to learn.

And there are all kinds of excuses and evasions and turning away from one's shortcomings. **The hardest thing of all is to admit you still have work to do.** (Easier to shoot the messenger.)

Edited May 6, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I think the problem is in the theory--at the premise level. And this causes the difficulty in application.

The main problem I have detected is Rand's incomplete view of human nature. The part she got right was right (and often extremely insightful), but she devised a philosophy for only that part and claimed it applied to the entire human being.

In other words, the parts of human nature that do not fit must be eliminated or ignored if you want to be consistent in living strictly according to Objectivism.

But reality speaks louder. You do not derive human nature (and reality) from principles. You derive principles from human nature (and reality).

Objectivism is great when applied to certain contexts (mostly, but not exclusively. to areas of the adult phase of healthy human beings). It is lacking in others. And there are some things that are flat-out wrong (tabula rasa, etc.)

I believe one of the reasons so many practitioners of Objectivism lead such conflicted, underachieving (and at times boneheaded) lives is that the parts of their nature they need addressed is not addressed, so they try to squeeze the parts of themselves that don't fit into the philosophy. It doesn't work. Some of them even remind me of Rand's people in the form of pots from growing into pots (see "The Comprachicos" by Rand).

I believe this human nature problem was part of the reason for the emphasis on therapy in the early years and why it was so widespread.

I also believe that part of Nathaniel's and Barbara's respective quests since that time has been to explore what got left out.

It's a good quest. It is mine, also.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: Anti-Effort and Excuse-Making

> The philosophy itself has problems. [brant]

No, the problem is not in the theory but in the practice.

It takes at least ten years of thorough study - including taking most of the basic courses - then, even harder, you have to integrate it with your life, integrate it with other subjects of study (history, psychology, life skills, communication skills, etc.) There is a lot of dropping out or being lazy at each step along the way. I'm always amazed at this, with the model of the productive, hard-striving characters in the novels...or Rand herself, how lazy and non-productive so many Oists are ... at least in the realm of ideas. (Often they can't even make the effort to write a disciplined post, one of the easier intellectual skills.) Anti-effort, as Rand would put it.

This is really sad. This is how one studies a catechism. A lifetime of religious studies, perhaps. If something cannot be fitted with the philosophy then toss it out. Friends and family too. One day you'll wake up screaming and alone. All Objectivism really is is reality and reason, which it shares with science. That's the hard core. The rest isn't fit to travel for we don't know enough--i.e., the basic principles are one thing but the house you build on them--the life you build on them--cannot be allowed to be displaced by a philosophy laced with the eccentricities of its genius founder. A philosophy of individualism doesn't suck you in and eat you up. It does justify rational self interest and people seeking more freedom through their own efforts and the society they live in.

Imagine Einstein as a young man studying Objectivism according to the above quoted scenario. We'd have never heard from him.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> The main problem I have detected is Rand's incomplete view of human nature. [Michael]

Michael and Brant, I certainly agree with you that Rand was wrong on many of her conclusions about people. As are many Oists. But when I said the 'theory' was correct, I was talking about philosophy not psychology.

Take a famous statement by Rand in John Galt's speech: "Errors of this magnitude are not made innocently". This statement is either true or false.

But it has -nothing- to do with Objectivism, which is a school of philosophy. Rand's and Peikoff's ...and your... conclusions about how much scope there is for honest error or evasion when someone draws a horribly false conclusion false within psychology [psychoepistemolgy, basically].

Philosophy is not permitted to expand to cover that.

Psychological doctrines, observations about the mental state of the masses of men throughout history are either true or false, useful or destructive. And you have to think carefully about them, as they are important issues.

But even when held by Objectivists --- including the originator of the philosophy --- they simply aren't Objectivism.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> A philosophy of individualism doesn't suck you in and eat you up. [brant]

Brant, a lot of the problems with people who have been made unhappy by their use of Oism is package dealing the philosophy with every psychological - historical - sociological view of Rand's. Or Peikoff's. Or Braden's. Or some other authority figure. Laziness is only one problem. Over-conscientious but not critical and independent-minded enough, not knowing things for yourself is another.

A good philosophy can be used in a bad way.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

Phil, the psychology/philosophy divide is artificial and essentially academic. In a person it's a mixed up if not properly integrated whole. The basic philosophical conceit, shared by Objectivism, is that this not only isn't true but completely off the radar.

-- Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Philosophy is not permitted to expand to cover that.

Phil,

Really?

Says who?

How about epistemology? Especially concept formation?

We humans are pattern completers, and pattern completion is the basis of concepts. Rand called it "integration, but the concept is the same. Now here's the kicker. How this mostly works is that we make up information where there is none in reality to complete our patterns (i.e., to integrate).

The tr ck is to be, at first, functional.

Stop.

After a small jolt, did you just read, "the trick is to be, at first, functional"? Why not "the track is to be, at first, functional" or "the truck is to be, at first, functional," or even plain old "the tr ck is to be, at first, functional" as I wrote it?

The "i" certainly was not there in reality. Yet the pattern "trick" is so easy to see when first reading the passage instead of the reality "tr ck."

We humans (including Rand) happen to complete patterns in this same manner with broad concepts in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics, and all of the other fundamental categories of philosophy that Rand left out.

This pattern completion of gaps is just one aspect of our nature as humans that Rand did not consider in her epistemology. Not even in percepts. (She actually excluded patterns from sensation for some odd reason--and I believe it's wrong to do that, but that's another can of worms.) Notice that this part of human nature has elements that are even threatening to the Objectivist theory of concepts--that is, unless the scope is reduced, as I suggest.

Rand wrote little about induction and I think that's where pattern completion of gaps would have fallen had she expanded on it. As far as I can discern, though, had Rand tackled this subject, she would have had a huge problem with the gap that doesn't exist.

When you get to patterns of causality and these gaps of non-existence (to use a clunky term), things can get really complicated. There goes certainty shot all to hell. Not all certainty, of course, but certainly some of the certainty that has been proclaimed by Rand, Peikoff, etc., to be certain.

So it's not as simple as philosophy versus psychology.

They are not mutually exclusive, anyway. Not even according to Objectivist classifications.

For example, try divorcing normative abstractions and emotions from philosophy or psychology.

You can't.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Maybe we could move Phil's complaint and the responses to it to a different thread?

Robert

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

Maybe we could move Phil's complaint and the responses to it to a different thread?

Robert

Please.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

Michael,

Maybe we could move Phil's complaint and the responses to it to a different thread?

Robert

Please.

--Brant

I concur.

I’d say snip it from Chris’s post #467 and call the thread Appropriate Public Shaming?, or, perhaps, Phil Instructs The Brethren.

[Prometheus]

> It's the ARI scholars who need to be asked, repeatedly and in public, to explain these actions.

You mean when they are giving a lecture trying to make a point about or defend Objectivism, you want to change the subject back to who did what to whom in the movement?

Robert, all you can possibly accomplish by this is make Objectivism look bad in public, extend a generation long feud to the next generation. You don't get 'the last word' or win or expose or drive out people you don't agree with.

Phil,

The ARIans are the ones who have package-dealt making a point about Objectivism with airbrushing away the contributions of anyone who no longer enjoys Leonard Peikoff's personal approval.

Do you not see that it is the same mistake as that of the people you dislike so much?

For many years, they've been highly proficient at making Objectivism look bad in public. They've needed no help from those who might be inclined to criticize their policies and practices.

They've managed to recruit into the "generation long feud" persons who never met Ayn Rand, even some who were not yet born when she died.

No one is going to have the last word about Ayn Rand's ideas, unless those ideas are no longer of interest to anyone but an isolated antiquarian. There is no last word in an ongoing conversation.

But unless I am grossly misreading your comments, you seem to be saying that to smooth the way for general cultural acceptance of Objectivism, everyone must defer to those who have received the ARI imprimatur and desist from criticizing anything they do, so they can put all of their energies into doing Rand's work.

I expect the ARIans will heartily endorse your recommendations; I doubt they will appeal to anyone else.

Robert Campbell

I can't stand more than 2 minutes of Peikoff's podcasts.

His voice is annoying and preacher-like.

While i agree his voice is rather grating, I find the content of Peikoff's podcasts to be very interesting, and they are a nice companion as I set about my work.

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

Here's how I see the underlying issue.

Is Objectivism a set of ideas to live by?

Or is it a set of ideas to live for?

Except in rare and unusual circumstances, no one should should ever need to live for Objectivism.

Yet that is what you seem to be urging us all to do.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> Except in rare and unusual circumstances, no one should should ever need to live for Objectivism. Yet that is what you seem to be urging us all to do. [Robert]

Nope.

You're distorting the meaning of my post and erecting a straw man. Go back and reread, paying attention to context, exact wording, and qualifications.

Don't rephrase or extrapolate.

[Brant Gaede]

> Except in rare and unusual circumstances, no one should should ever need to live for Objectivism. Yet that is what you seem to be urging us all to do. [Robert]

Nope.

You're distorting the meaning of my post and erecting a straw man. Go back and reread, paying attention to context, exact wording, and qualifications.

Don't rephrase or extrapolate.

I agree with Phil here. However, my extrapolation is he favors living in Objectivism and I do think that would require a hell of a lot of work. Not for me. I am not that kind of Objectivist. I've got enough on the table.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Note from MSK: This thread was split off from another entitled "

The Rewrite Squad

." The quote that starts the post below comes from

this post by Robert Campbell in that thread

.

> It's the ARI scholars who need to be asked, repeatedly and in public, to explain these actions.

You mean when they are giving a lecture trying to make a point about or defend Objectivism, you want to change the subject back to who did what to whom in the movement?

Robert, all you can possibly accomplish by this is make Objectivism look bad in public, extend a generation long feud to the next generation. You don't get 'the last word' or win or expose or drive out people you don't agree with.

As I'm tiring of pointing out, the focus should be on spreading, defending, explaining *the ideas* in a very radical and not sufficiently grasped philosophy, not on the past history, the moral character, the mistakes of some of the practitioners.

The interest that historians and other scholars may have Rand's ideas differs from the interest of Objectivists and neo-Objectivists. No scholar worth his salt would accept heavily redacted transcripts of Rand's own words. And when such misleading transcripts are presented as "authorized" versions, the entire enterprise of scholarly investigation is undercut at its root.

Prior to reading Robert's contributions, I was aware of some problems with Ayn Rand Answers, but I had no idea of their extent and significance. A few months ago, I probably would not have hesitated to quote from ARA if I were publishing an article on Rand. But that is no longer the case. The book is so vitiated with unacknowledged editing that it has become useless for scholarly purposes. I will still consult the book for private purposes, in order to get an overall sense of Rand's opinions on certain issues, but I would never rely on it, or cite it, in a scholarly article.

Once an editor takes the liberties that Mayhew did with ARA, you can never trust him. Even if many of his transcriptions are reasonably accurate, you can never be sure which ones those are.

Ghs

[Reidy]

Current indicators are that Objectivism is doing a pretty good job of selling itself, internal debates notwithstanding. Setting the record straight and getting the word out as to who is reliable and who isn't, are worthwhile undertakings. If Objectivism couldn't take this it would have fallen into obscurity decades ago, as so many wished, predicted and tried to convince themselves had already happened. On with the catfights!

[dan2100]

Current indicators are that Objectivism is doing a pretty good job of selling itself, internal debates notwithstanding. Setting the record straight and getting the word out as to who is reliable and who isn't, are worthwhile undertakings. If Objectivism couldn't take this it would have fallen into obscurity decades ago, as so many wished, predicted and tried to convince themselves had already happened. On with the catfights!

I think infighting is often a sign of movement health. And while it might look bad to some, I'd personally be a little creeped out if everyone got along.