Robert Campbell

My dosimeter has turned an ugly color, so it's time for me to finish my limited tour of duty over at SOLOPassion. Here are my two final entries: http://www.solopassion.com/node/881 and http://www.solopassion.com/node/882 Cognitive science is a far more rewarding subject to discuss than any of the matters I've been embroiled in for the last two weeks plus. I look forward to at least occasionally commenting on it here at OL. Robert Campbell

Kat, The passage you quoted makes the same point that Positive Psychologists frequently make, about the difference between optimism and pessimism and how they affect a person's overall happiness. I recently read Authentic Happiness by Marty Seligman, where this is a major theme. Robert

Phil, I published an article in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in 2002 that I think would serve as an entry point for people who are familiar with Rand: http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/goalsvalues.pdf There's a (fairly quick) analysis of what Aristotle was doing, when he developed his treatment of categorical syllogisms, in a book that I co-authored with Mark Bickhard back in 1986. It's titled Knowing Levels and Developmental Stages and was published by Karger. Robert

Roger, Thanks for the great quotes from Peikoff's lectures. I recall him being comparably laudatory of Aristotle, back in the 1970s. This is the Peikoff I admire. I would call what Aristotle used to develop his logic "reflective abstraction" (a term derived from Piaget) rather than "induction," but it's not a big deal in this context. ITOE includes the formation of concepts of consciousness under induction. Ellen, You took a course from Henry Veatch? I'm envious! I attended a talk that he gave in San Antonio, Texas, around 1980, and one he gave in Austin two years later. It was a small group in SA, so we all introduced ourselves, and I said I was a grad student in psychology. I remember his expression of mock horror, about having to defend his views in the presence of a "behavioral psychologist." And his answer to a question, about why he wasn't giving detailed instructions on how to live a good life--he said that living the good life is like fly fishing (i.e., it's a skill). I still recommend his book on ethics (Rational Man), and John Christopher and I used one of his late essays ("Is Kant the Gray Eminence of Contemporary Moral Philosophy?") in our critique of Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Wonderful guy. If only there were more like him. Robert

Paul, Aren't you curious about how they'd react? Robert

Here's a cross-posting from SOLOPassion that I thought might be of interest here. It's as response to Casey Fahy, who was defending the contention that any suggestion that Ayn Rand was uncomfortable with evolutionary issues must be dismissed out of hand, because it is arbitrary assertion. To see it all in context, visit http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-6059. Casey, Here's the big problem I have with the notion of the arbitrary assertion, as Peikoff and subsequently the ARI crowd have come to use it. An arbitrary assertion is one for which no evidence or rational argument has been provided. (And the standard here is not whether the evidence or argument is sufficient to prove the assertion true, just whether's there's enough to regard it as plausible, to take it seriously as an assertion about a possibility). Fine and dandy, so far. Against radical forms of doubt (say, Descartes' procedure), the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion is effective without much further elaboration. But most of what Objectivists complain is arbitrary is not part of some brief for skepticism. The real question becomes: What are the standards of evidence or argument that apply to some kind of assertion? What are the relevant classes of assertions, for that matter? Objectivism as Rand left it includes old-fashioned deductive logic, a theory of concept-formation, and some distinctive tools for detecting and rejecting bad arguments, e.g., the fallacy of the stolen concept. (The stolen concept fallacy makes some nontrivial presuppositions, but I'll assume for purposes of the present argument that they are correct. I'll assume that the other tools are appropriate as well--with one exception that I'll single out below.) What closed-system Objectivism does not include is a theory of induction or a philosophy of science. In other words, many, if not most of the standards of evidence or argument that would be needed to apply to particular assertions are missing. So far as I know, there isn't even a clear treatment of hypothesis testing. In his 1970s logic course, Peikoff acknowledged that scientific thinking (and sometimes more ordinary thinking) involve testing hypotheses--and that generating such hypotheses involves creativity. So where do you draw the line between creative hypothesis generation and what Rand derided as a "flight of fancy"? (I don't know what Peikoff's current views on the subject are, but if he tries to account for induction entirely without hypothesis testing, he won't get very far.) What's more, the Objectivist literature includes an essay by Rand titled "The Psychology of Psychologizing." Ellen Stuttle proposed an interesting test a while back. Can you recall Rand's precise definition of psychologizing? (I couldn't. I had to look it up.) And if you can recall her definition--do you think that Rand successfully refrains from psychologizing. as she defines it, in the very article in which she declares that it's wrong to do it? In defense of Mr. Watkins, and of others who find his arguments against Mr. Parille's essay persuasive, you say: What criteria of evidence apply to analyses of any thinker's motives, or procedures for approaching problems? (Not just to Ayn Rand's--to Isaac Newton's, Michael Faraday's, Charles Darwin's, or whoever's.) Is what the thinker says about his or her ways of doing things sufficient? Or are there aspects of his or her thinking that are inaccessible to introspection and will need to be gotten at some other way? Indeed, contemporary psychology says that much of what happens in problem-solving and decision making, let alone in remembering or recognizing, is subconscious. What's more, Rand made many statements about the role of subconscious processes (and of emotions) in her own work--these come through very clearly even in the bowdlerized published versions of her workshops on writing. So, I'm sorry, unless you have clear criteria for judgments about a thinker's operating procedures and motives--criteria that Rand's own statements about herself invariably meet, and that Mr. Parille's suggestions about Rand's dealings with evolution invariably do not meet--you lack a basis for ruling out Mr. Parille's suggestions. Instead, you and the others who agree with Mr. Watkins are declaring them to be arbitrary because they fail to meet criteria of evidence that you have not yet established. If you don't believe me on this issue, ask some people who do good quality intellectual history or intellectual biography, and find out how many of them would reject Mr. Parille's suggestions out of hand. (For that's what must be done, if they're truly arbitrary.) And if you say that Mr. Parille has to be wrong, because he is psychologizing, you have your work cut out for you. I am prepared to argue that "psychologizing" is what Rand called an "anti-concept." In particular, I believe it's easy to show that Rand's advice for avoiding psychologizing is completely bogus--not to mention unreflective of her own ways of judging people's motives. But that will take at least another post. If you say that Mr. Parille has to be wrong, because this is Ayn Rand we're talking about, and not some other thinker--then, I would submit, you are appealing to the supposed perfection of Ayn Rand. Which you insist that you are not doing. To summarize: You can't judge an assertion or hypothesis to be arbitrary, without clear criteria for the evidence or argument that would be required to establish its plausibility. If you combine the doctrine that an arbitrary assertion must be dismissed (and, by the way, I agree that it must) with inadequately developed standards of evidence or argument, you're going to end up with gross unclarity about when an assertion is arbitrary. Consequently, nonobjective assessments of arbitrariness are going to proliferate. And this, so far as I can determine, is precisely what the Peikovians have ended up doing. They reject a wide range of hypotheses or assertions as arbitrary, even though in many (most?) cases they haven't a bloody clue whether they're really arbitrary or not. They end up substituting their dislike for the assertions, or their judment that they are inconsistent with Objectivism as they understand it, for proper assessments of arbitrariness. If the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion were in wider use, what we would see is dueling proclamations of arbitrariness: the Objectivists dismissing a wide array of non-Objectivist theses as arbitrary, and vice versa. But since Objectivists are far more inclined than others to talk about arbitrary assertions, they may form the illusion that because only they are dismissing a wide range of assertions in this fashion, and their opponents aren't throwing judgments of arbitrariness back at them, they must be right. Problem is, no one outside the Peikovian camp will ever accept many of these judgments of arbitrariness. Everyone else would sooner take wooden nickels. In the absence of clearer criteria for evidence and argument, I would say that they are right to reject the poor quality judgments and the poor imitations of coinage. Robert Campbell PS. For Ayn Rand, "charity" was at best a two-edged word, and "charitable" had a negative connotation that "benevolent" did not. (Recall the way that Rand portrayed social workers, in both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.) So calling something a "charity refutation" connotes inferiority on the part of the person who really shouldn't need it but evidently does. IF you don't know whether some assertion is really arbitrary or not, calling an argument against it a "charity refutation" is a pure show of arrogance-- if not an argument from intimidation.

Paul, Exactly. I was on my way out of being a Randroid when I began to realize that the first was what mattered, and the second too often got in the way. I dare you to put your post on SOLOPassion as a quote. Robert

Ellen and Mike, Just last Friday I was giving my Experimental Psych students some tips on how to present the results of their studies (giving a 10-minute talk in class is one of the assignments). I told them how psychologists usually speak extemporaneously while using PowerPoints, and how philosophers usually read their papers word for word. (In fact, philosophers will often say that what they did at the conference was... read a paper.) I warned them that most audiences would find reading deadly dull, but also explained how they could write their presentations out and still deliver them with some degree of spontaneity. Jenna, Steven Pinker is genuinely hilarious. IMHO, though, he is guilty of some degree of overreach in How the Mind Works. I hope you will tell us your impressions here after you finish the book. Robert

Jenna, Great quotes from Feynman and Gould. Once when I taught Infant and Child Development, I got back a written comment on one of my students' evaluations. It went, "The professor talks too much about ignorant psychologists and not enough about babies and children." Could be that I overdid it that semester, but I always try to emphasize how much psychologists still don't know about human development. I always present at least two major unresolved controversies in the field (such as whether newborn babies imitate facial expressions or not). Even if they have no interest in becoming researchers, students need to realize that they are learning the results of ongoing inquiry, some of which is really difficult to conduct, and involves researchers in genuinely contentious issues. They can't just read an article or a newspaper account and get the final answers handed to them on a plate. In my recent exchanges on SOLOPassion, I've really wondered whether some of the people who have been taking vehement exception to what I'm saying would be even mildly comfortable with ongoing inquiry. At best they seem to want an upfront guarantee that the range of acceptable results will be tightly bounded and contain no surprises--otherwise they won't get involved in any kind of research. I thought Objectivism put a high value on firsthand knowledge, a high value on competence, and an even higher value on creativity. Surely all of those involve being able to cope with unexpected results. What have I missed? Robert

Kat, Some time ago, I quit calling myself an Objectivist, and made my decision public. But what I quickly discovered is that if you criticize the orthodox interpretation of Rand, or agree with Rand on X while deviating on Y, you're still regarded as a heretic. How you label yourself doesn't matter, unless you entirely vacate the turf that the orthodoxy claims for itself. Chris Sciabarra has had the same experience. I'm sure others have, too. Besides, the ARIans now distinguish between Objectivism (closed) and Objectivist philosophy (open, but somehow in the spirit of the closed stuff), which means they're a lot closer to those slack Kelleyites than they want to admit. Paul, I'm a realist about status--it will never cease to be a force in human social dynamics. I just don't think that it has to rule us, the way many sociologists would claim (or that Tom Wolfe would). Still, Objectivism is about valuing individual achievement and devaluing "competitive social comparison" (as self-esteem researchers call it). It's amazing how oblivious some people can be about all of this. Robert Campbell

Nathaniel and Bill, Happy Birthday! Robert Campbell

The quotation that Barbara provided from David Kelley's monograph reminded me that I'd been planning to recommend a fascinating book called The Origin of Satan, by Elaine Pagels. Her topic is how Satan became a major figure in sectarian Jewish thinking, starting a little after 200 BC, and how such apocalyptic beliefs (about heaven, hell, and the Day of Judgment) then passed into early Christianity. Here's an excerpt from a talk I gave about The Origin of Satan at our local UU Fellowship a few years ago. Note in particular the sentence I put in bold. ********* Jewish apocalyptic books began to be written during the Maccabean period (around 160 BC), a time of protracted struggles to overthrow Greek domination and re-establish the Jewish religion—and a time of significant dissension within the Jewish community. During the century and a half before the time of Jesus, there appeared such highly influential books as 1st and 2nd Enoch, Jubilees, and The Life of Adam and Eve. Jubilees and the books of Enoch both forecast a Day of Judgment and the eternal rewards and torments to follow. All four tell a tale of fallen angels, whose leader becomes the Chief Bad Guy. "The Book of the Watchers" describes a schism within the heavenly ranks that results in Semihazah and his angels mating with earthwomen to produce bloodthirsty giants and Azazyel teaching human beings all manner of forbidden knowledge. Jubilees tells another version of the giants story. The Life of Adam and Eve, in which Adam and Eve, moping after being expelled from Eden, run into Satan again and get the inside story from him, introduces an element of sibling rivalry. [satan tricked Eve and got them expelled from the Garden as an act of revenge; he had been ordered to bow down and worship God's new creations, and was cast out of heaven when he refused.] According to Pagels, "these stories of Satan… agree on one thing… This greatest and most dangerous enemy did not originate, as one might expect, as an outsider, an alien, or a stranger. Satan is not the distant enemy but the intimate enemy—one’s trusted colleague, close associate, brother. [This is] the attribute that qualifies him so well to express conflict among Jewish groups. Those who asked, "How could God’s angel become his enemy?" were thus asking, in effect, "How could one of us become one of them?" (p. 49) An extreme Jewish group known as the Essenes, whose most devout members removed to a monastery in the wilderness near the Dead Sea, collected all of these apocalyptic works and more. They had a wide range of names for the Chief Bad Guy—Belial, Beliar, Mastema (which means "hatred"), Melkiresha (which literally means "my king is wickedness"), Beelzebub ("lord of dung" or "lord of the flies")—and would curse him during their services. In the so-called War Scroll, an Essenic author described in obsessive detail the final combat between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. (So obsessively that he even specifies how far away the latrines in the Good Guys’ camp will be placed from the tents.) The Sons of Darkness were meant to include the Kittim (a code word for the Roman oppressors)—but they also included any Jews who didn’t interpret the Jewish law as the Essenes did. ******* Seems relevant in the present context. Robert Campbell

Here's my last reply to Mr. Mazza's defense of Don Watkins: http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5844 Robert

Kat, The spectacle continues... When Neil Parille directly asked Mike Mazza what he thought of Rand's speculations on "prehumans" and "missing links" living among us, Mr. Mazza declared that he wasn't interested in rereading Parille's SOLO HQ essay, Watkins' critique of it, and Hsieh's blog entry endorsing Watkins. Check it out right here: http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5798 None of these pieces are long. And I announced that I wouldn't take objections seriously unless the commenters actually read all 3. Mr. Mazza could have read, or reread, all of these items in the time that it took him to write 4 or 5 of his voluminous posts. Unbelievable! Can tomorrow's exchanges get any worse? Robert Campbell

Roger, Thanks for bugging me about this issue. I'm still learning the unfamiliar interface over at SOLOPassion. There was a technoglitch with my blog entry at first because I hadn't mastered their baby HTML. And I was wondering how to link to individual comments--just now figured it out (you click on the title in black at the top left). The one comment (out of the first 45!!!) that briefly defends Mr. Watkins-- http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5606 Mr. Parille's comment about what he intended in writing "Ayn Rand and Evolution"--http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5631 My response to all the "cut and run" talk: http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5715 My reply to Mr. Mazza's defense of Mr. Watkins: http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5771 Mr. Mazza's rebuttal: http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5782 Mr. Parille's challenge to Mr. Mazza to address Rand's speculations about "missing links" and "pre-humans" living among us: http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5788 Robert

Jenna, Thank you for your support. Chris Sciabarra has worked incredibly hard to get JARS listed by all of the relevant citation services. The biggest breakthrough took place this year when, after several years of pressing the case for the journal, Chris secured us a listing with Social Sciences Citation Index and the Humanities Index. Dragonfly, Your remark is priceless. The ARIans hate it when anyone describes their behavior in religious language--they make sour remarks about going to Laguna Beach to kiss Pope Lenny's ring--but all too often it's the only language that could apply. Michael, I've just put up my first substantive reply on SOLOPassion--an examination of Mike Mazza's defense of Don Watkins. I don't think Mr. Mazza's defense is particularly good--but the amazing thing is that amongst 40 or so posts complaining about my blog entry, Mr. Mazza's is the only one to defend Mr. Watkins. And he gives Watkins half of one paragraph in one post! Robert

Hi folks, I just posted an essay on SOLOPassion, analyzing a nasty critique of Chris Sciabarra's work by a particularly zealous recent convert to the Ayn Rand Institute's point of view. You can see it here: http://www.solopassion.com/node/798 Particularly galling to me was the way that Ms. Hsieh's blog entry was intended to signal that Chris Sciabarra, and the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, are guilty of "pseudo-scholarship" and misrepresentation of Ayn Rand's ideas--without naming either party. I will admit to having a vested interest, as Associate Editor of JARS. But I've gotten fed up with this crap. If any of the ARIans want to take an article from JARS and dissect it, more power to them. If they want to start their own journal to compete with JARS, hey, bring it on. Competition is good. But they apparently don't want to be caught reading JARS, or making specific criticisms of its contents and taking responsibility for them. Robert

Ellen, I don't know who amongst the senior leadership of ARI had doubts about Valliant's project. I'm not privy to that kind of stuff. I've assumed for the sake of argument that Valliant, who is more plugged in at ARI than he likes to admit, is being truthful about it. In fact, I would have expected some of the ARIans to have doubts about his project, if they had any notion of the long-term impact on Rand's reputation that could ensue from releasing her private journal entries. Robert

Ciro, I agree with Ellen that Leonard Peikoff was never set free. His conduct as leader of the Ayn Rand Institute certainly doesn't make it appear that he was. My impression is that learning of The Affair and then seeing it publically revealed in Barbara Branden's book had the opposite effect--Peikoff became more rigid, sclerotic, and authoritarian than he had been in the late 1970s. I don't think he's ever recovered. Ellen, I don't know whether Peikoff expected Valliant to praise Rand's acumen when she made those diagnoses of "big shot premise" and so on. (I don't have any idea whether Peikoff thought they were worth much.) But I do think that Peikoff knew he could count on Jim Valliant to portray Rand in the best possible light and Nathaniel and Barbara Branden (and let's not forget Patrecia Scott) in the worst. I suspect Peikoff also liked the fact that Valliant never knew Rand himself and, being the child of a very different time and place, wouldn't have a clue about AR's sexual psychology. Robert Campbell

Michael, Yes, please go for it! All of the airbrushing needs to be systematically and mercilessly exposed. I considered myself fairly well informed about this kind of stuff, but I was naive enough, before I saw some of the examples on this thread, to think that Rand would not have tampered with the text of her own articles when it came time to republish them. Taking out NB's definition of stolen concepts and the reference to his article on the subject actually left a hole in the Foreword to ITOE. Rand apparently didn't care. Robert Campbell

Dennis, I really appreciate your essay. I am somewhat more optimistic than you are, in that I see more positive effects of Rand's ideas in our general culture than you do. A reason for this may be that I first encountered organized Objectivism in the 1970s, when sourness and siege mentality prevailed over hope for the future, and I went through my own Randroid phase. But your points about the self-isolating, self-limiting Objectivist movement are well taken. Robert

tqk, ARI - Ayn Rand Institute IOS - Institute of Objectivist Studies (now TOC) ITOE - Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology PAR - Passion of Ayn Rand PARC - Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics RoR - Joe Rowlands' Rebirth of Reason site (rebirthofreason.com) SOLO - Sense of Life Objectivists (now fractionated into RoR and Lindsay Perigo's SOLOPassion) TOC - The Objectivist Center TIA - The Intellectual Activist Robert

Having just rejoined SOLO Passion after an extended period of not reading it, I was struck by Peter Cresswell's review of James Valliant's book (http://www.solopassion.com/node/342). Here's what I had to say (http://www.solopassion.com/node/342#comment-5223). I expect it may stir up a hornet or two. Robert Campbell ************ The Likely Impact of Mr. Valliant's Book Peter Cresswell’s essay of February 1 helps to clarify what James Valliant’s book, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, is truly accomplishing. Mr. Valliant will never succeed in convincing the wider world that Ayn Rand was a moral paragon before whom they should get on their knees. To the extent that non-Randians accept Mr. Valliant’s equation of respect for Ayn Rand’s ideas with worship of her person, they are unlikely to respond with either. Nor will non-Randians be much impressed by Mr. Valliant’s efforts to tie every last sin, real or alleged, of Rand and her movement onto the backs of "the Brandens." As some observers have already pointed out, what Mr. Valliant has actually produced is the latest test of loyalty for orthodox Objectivists. What Peikoff’s "Fact and value" was during the 1990s, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics will be for the next decade, maybe longer. Until some further way is found to ensure that there are "fewer, but better" Objectivists... Mr. Valliant’s true relationship with the Ayn Rand Institute and its principals has been much debated (so far, the only decision of theirs that he has dared to criticize has been their refusal to sell George Reisman’s magnum opus). Not subject to debate is the fact that his book has convinced some Randians to align with ARI. Indeed, it will continue to be a recruiting tool for some time to come. But only among existing Randians who have been insecure in their convictions so long as they doubted that Ayn Rand was morally perfect. Some other Randians have come away from the book with a more negative view of Nathaniel Branden than they previously held. But any response short of outright Rand-worship will prove disappointing to the ARI crowd. I am far less worried than I was a few months ago that Mr. Valliant’s book will make large numbers of converts for ARI. I now think that it will achieve the desired effect only with those who already identify themselves as Objectivists and already harbor worshipful tendencies. (I’m reminded of those Lubavitcher missionaries I used to encounter on the streets of New York City, whose first question was always, "Are you Jewish?" As soon as I told them I wasn’t, I was spared the rest of the pitch.) I think two features of Peter Cresswell’s review deserve special notice. One is his effort to out-Valliant Mr. Valliant, by accusing "the Brandens" of preventing Rand from completing To Lorne Dieterling. Isn’t it just possible that Ms. Rand was written out, fiction-wise, after completing Atlas Shrugged? Next I expect to hear that Rand wasn’t really depressed from 1958 to 1960. After all, "the Brandens" have said that she was. And neither Howard Roark nor Dagny Taggart would get depressed. The second is his (and Mr. Valliant’s) casual acceptance of Rand’s role of psychological counselor to various of her followers, including her estranged lover: It is highly doubtful that any psychologist will be converted to ARIanism or Rand-worship by reading The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics. Clinicians and counselors are taught that amateurs should not be doing psychological counseling, and professionals should not be offering therapy to friends, lovers, or disciples. What’s more, while psychologically informed readers will empathize with Rand’s pain at being betrayed, those who read her journal entries are not going to be bowled over by her ad hoc philosophicopsychological diagnoses of Nathaniel Branden—the "big shot premise," "the Kantian goddess premise," and all of the rest. Mr. Valliant would have done much better by Ayn Rand had he excused these purported diagnoses as the judgments of a woman who was in over her head and being fed a steady diet of bullshit. Instead, he missed no opportunity to praise her psychological acumen. So although PARC has galvanized many of the Rand-worshippers, it will not raise Rand’s reputation in the eyes of the wider public. Over time, Mr. Valliant’s book may actually lower it. As long as the Rand-worshippers continue to stand in the way of objective assessments of Ayn Rand’s ideas, I will continue to recommend PARC to those who are curious about these matters. Robert Campbell

Michael, While I was laid up after my accident, I read most of the material in Ayn Rand's Journals (the 1997 book). (I'd dipped in before, but decided that I would be a good idea to read them all after that discussion on the old SOLOHQ, about Rand's brief fascination, in the late 1920s, with a killer named Hickman.) I think you are onto something with your comments about "high-end" vs. "low-end." The bulk of the material in the 1997 book comes from when Rand was working on The Fountainhead, then on her abandoned treatise on individualism, then on the script for Top Secret, and finally on Atlas Shrugged. It struck me that for her the most important opposition during that period wasn't reason vs. mysticism, or even egoism vs. altruism, but the Creator vs. the Parasite. More later... Robert

Kat, I didn't ask Larry the exact date, but it was in the early 1970s. Maybe Rand changed her mind on this issue. Robert