Donovan A.

I posted a defense of my test on RoR.

Some of the answers are questionable.

Could you list the other questions/answers you regard as questionable and why? I welcome the feedback and discussion.

Randall,

I admire your initiative, in this effort and in other offerings through your organization. But, with this exam, I think that you have stepped-out onto thin ice. Your selected answers for your questions will be challenged. Continually. This could be avoided, or at least muted, by adding literature references for the correct answers. Ultimately, such challenges (which are already occurring, judging from responses here on OL) will require that your selection and justification for the correct answer be published. Avoid the deluge and fix this now.

Secondly, requiring test takers to submit their completed exam for scoring (rather than providing a method for self-scoring) will strike some as an attempt as a "loyalty test." It does not matter that your intent was for no such thing. The fact that you are not using it for this purpose does not mean that it could not be used in this manner. And that will be the accusation.

Critics of the Objectivist movement have often accused its advocates as spouting individualism, yet demanding conformity. Unfortunately, the critics have been able to find ample examples that appear to support their accusations. It has not enhanced the image of Objectivism as a philosophy that advocates reason, individualsm, and independent thought.

Some here on OL may accuse me of exaggerating that your exam will be so interpreted. My answer: watch.

Hi Jerry,

From time to time, I think it is okay to test the ice, no pun intended. So far, I have received only minimal criticism in regard to the questions and the answers. To some extent, I don't mind debating the criticisms, because if I'm wrong, I'll learn something, and the test can certainly be modified. An Objectivist philosopher that I very much admire has taken the test, and I have asked for his feedback. Nobody is obligated to take the test, and if someone thinks a question is unfair, they are free to email me. As I said, I'm working on additional tests, and I plan on offering references on those tests so that the test takers can look up the answers and decide for themselves if they agree with the arguments given by Rand, Branden or Peikoff, etc. The vast majority of the feedback has been positive. Some people have described taking the test as a "wakeup call." Other people have expressed that they are too intimidated to take it and there are people taking the test without giving their real name. Overall, I'm happy with the test as it is. It has increased traffic to my website and I think will encourage people to purchase products that will help them understand Objectivism more clearly.

On facebook, a person wrote the following objection:

"Existence is identity. I get that a corollary is an implication of established knowledge, and that it is a self-evident implication, but not that the established knowledge is automatic or perceptual so as to make a claim that causality is self-evident. It's self-evident once a man has grasped identity, i.e., self-evident to Objectivists, but it is not self-evident in the absence of such a recognition.

"It is self-evident that an entity must act in accordance with its nature." is false. True would be "It is a self evident implication (i.e, a corollary) of identity that an entity must act in accordance with its nature". Not the same thing."

I responded with quotes from OPAR that deal with the issue more in depth, but ultimately the discussion ended with this comment by me:

The function of this test is not to only test one's knowledge of works by Rand or endorsed by Rand. Branden's lectures were endorsed by Rand, so they would fall into the category of "official Objectivism." Peikoff's OPAR is based on his 1976 lectures, which I have listened to. As far as I can tell, OPAR is generally consistent with that material (material which Rand endorsed). I have worked pretty hard to make sure that the test questions fairly represent the philosophy. Rand clearly cannot endorse this test, so I have to use my best judgement in forming the questions. However, I do expect disagreement and debate with some of the questions and answers. Many people simply do not understand or agree with ideas put forth by Rand or her intellectual successors. I urge anyone taking the test to judge for themselves whether they think the test is fair, and to offer candid feedback regarding its philosophical accuracy (which I very much welcome). The current average score is 72.8 (after 32 submissions). The highest score so far is a 95, closely followed by a 92. I do plan on making more tests, some of which will be exclusively focused on works by Ayn Rand. I hope to find encouragement from my Objectivist friends as I struggle forward to produce more tests, which is a time consuming process.

Another person wrote:

Educators are always lamenting the use of tests as somehow being destructive to the learning process. But you know what? I learned A LOT from taking this test. I scored 80. The process of taking the test made me think, and examining the results increased my understanding further. Thank you!

Thank you so much for your input,

Randall

Hi Brant,

I suppose that depends on what one regards as a passing grade. The test isn't intended to determine who is an Objectivist, but to asess one's basic understanding and familiarity with Objectivist ideas. A person's score might indicate a lack of knowledge, or gaps, or outright disagreement with Objectivism. As a self-assessment, it can help a person learn that they might want to review some of Ayn Rand's works. As a study group organizer, the test can help me discover which lecture courses to offer. I agree with you that an essay test would provide even more information, but it would also be impossible for me to implement.

Thanks so much,

Randall

I think the letter is authentic and I even think Peikoff probably heard those same ideas espoused by Rand at some point. Here is my evidence. This is from Peikoff's radio-show on terrorism (I do not have the exact date of broadcast available).

“Kant we can agree is total evil, on the intellectual level. Adolph Hitler, total evil on the level of carrying out in action, but Jesus is certainly not evil. I think that as a person he was largely innocent. He was obviously mistaken, in my viewpoint. But, I think he was largely innocent, that he honestly believed what he said, or most of it. And on top of that, some of the things he said were not only true; they were vital to the future development of civilization, including the discovery of Objectivism. It has been said, and as far as I know, it’s correct, Jesus was the first person to stress the importance of the individual soul, not of the collective group, not of whether you are a Greek or a Roman or a Babylonian, but that you are an individual, a unique soul and that that matters to God. And this was the first evidence of individualism in the world. That’s often been said, and if it’s true, I take my hat off to Jesus, he was a moral leader, he took moral issues seriously, he did not compromise, he had a philosophy that I disagreed with, but he had good ideas too and the last thing I’d ever call him is evil. The Pope, all he was trying to do was give a philosophic answer, when there was no answer. He’s not a great man, I don’t admire him; I even heard that he has read Atlas Shrugged, so that makes him better and worse, more of an evader, but he’s not an originator of evil, or a killer. Evil is too strong a word for the Pope.”

- Leonard Peikoff on Terrorism Tape 13, Side B, at 4:51.

I am happy I came across this thread today, because I have recently been giving some thought to the relationship of faith to altruism. Rand held that altruism could not be defended in reason, but that the foundation and justification of altruism was faith. However, I've been contemplating if faith, by its nature must logically lead a person to altruism. I'm leaning toward no, as my answer. Although there are clearly many fundamental problems with faith, I don't think it logically and necessarily leads to any particular set of moral conclusions. Part of the reason why I find this topic interesting is because I don't know of any religions that do not preach altruism, but I'm beginning to think that it has more to do with the intentions or goals of the leaders of religious movements. The strong correlation between faith and altruism raised the issue for me. For example, in a recent article posted on dallasnews.com, a panel of religious experts contributed their various views (everything that I read was negative) on Ayn Rand. I haven't finished reading it, but I read enough that I think it should demonstrate my point.

Some of the answers are questionable.

Could you list the other questions/answers you regard as questionable and why? I welcome the feedback and discussion.

Michael,

What is the name of the Peikoff NBI study guide you are referring to? Is it called An Examination Study-Guide to the Ethics of Objectivism?

When I made this test I didn't think to keep track of all of my sources and references. Some of the questions are directly from (or combined from) Rand, Branden or Peikoff. The majority of the questions come from OPAR. I have worked pretty hard to make sure that the test questions fairly represent the philosophy. I had to invent wrong multiple choice answers and sometimes tweak definitions to make them false instead of true (or vice versa). I developed many of the wrong answers based on my experiences in talking about Objectivism with people. However, if a particular question were to be contested by someone, I'd be happy to review my resources (time permitting). The next test I am developing will include references as to where the question came from and the correct answer. I wanted the questions to reflect degrees of knowledge and familiarity with Objectivism. Additionally, I had to collaborate with my IT adviser in order to find a suitable plugin for my website. While I am fairly happy with the software, it's not as functional as I wish it were.

70 people have taken the test so far.

The current average score is 73.71%

6 people have scored 90+.

17 people have scored 80-89.

20 people have scored 70-79.

21 people have scored 60-69.

6 people have scored below 60.

Hi Mike,

The Culture of Reason Center has not offered any public study-classes since December 2011. As the organizer, I haven't had the time to offer meetings since then. I am hoping to be able to run some short audio-lecture events this fall, but that hasn't been decided yet. We hosted over 100 study-classes between January 2008 and December 2011.

We offered the following materials:

Villainy - The Nature of Evil Andrew Bernstein

Reason & Emotion Edwin A. Locke

Principles of Efficient Thinking Barbara Branden

Ayn Rand Ford Hall Ayn Rand

The Art of Introspection Edith Packer

The Philosophy of Objectivism Vol.1,2,3 Leonard Peikoff

Objectivism & The Struggle for Liberty David Kelley

The Virtue of Selflessness (Audio book) Ayn Rand / Branden

Capitalism The Unknown Ideal (Audio book) Ayn Rand / Branden / etc.

Raymond Newman - Interview w Dr. Edith Packer Newman/Packer 1983

Understanding Objectivism (Part 1) Leonard Peikoff

Since our last public study group event, I have been studying alone, or in small private groups, and I am currently working on developing additional Objectivist tests.

Best regards,

Randall

This test has been designed to assess your basic knowledge of the philosophy of Objectivism. It is not intended to be an open book test. The first 50 questions focus on metaphysics and epistemology; 25 questions are on ethics, and 25 are on politics. Some of the questions have been taken directly from Nathaniel Branden’s Basic Principles of Objectivism lectures (also available as The Vision of Ayn Rand), and Leonard Peikoff’s book, entitled: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Only reading Ayn Rand’s fictional work will not be sufficient preparation to excel on this test. This general assessment can help students of Objectivism and study-group organizers determine the ideal study materials and is not intended to evaluate one’s agreement with Objectivism.

Test Score Range:

0-60: Minimal understanding (Low) – Basic study needed

61-69: Moderate understanding (Low-Mid) – Basic study needed

70-80: Good understanding (Intermediate) – Basic study review needed

81-90: Competent (High-Mid) – Proceed to more technical studies

91-100: Advanced (High) - Proceed to more technical studies

In order to receive your test score, you will be asked to provide your name and email address. Your test score will be emailed to you. Your name and email address will be added to our general contact mailing list. Your name and test scores will not be published. All marketing emails sent from The Culture of Reason Center include the option to unsubscribe.

Click here to be taken to the test

Hi Jerry (and others),

I've been communicating with Leigh Branden in regard to offering this series on my website. Do you have any flyers (an outline or description) or detailed information relating to the lecture series? It is a 20 lecture course that was given in the 70s, so I assume it is the New Lectures on the Psychology of Self-Esteem series. I am hoping to make the lectures available within the next few weeks, maybe sooner. Any information would be helpful, including pictures from the event.

Thanks so much,

Randall

P.S. I'm also curious if anyone has a cassette tape of Branden speaking on Anarchy. If you do, I'd like to obtain a copy. I can request written permission from Leigh Branden for you to provide me with the material.

Also seeking: Why Ancient Greece Is My Favorite Civilization

Someone contacted me, and I was able to purchase the Philosophy of Education series by LP from them. I'm also seeking to purchase or borrow: Eight Great Plays - As Literature and As Philosophy.

Noting how the Piekoff-Kelley split was precipitated by the issue of whether or not it was good or bad to merely speak with libertarian think tanks....

I think it is fair to say that Kelley has won.

But will ARI ever swallow the humble pie and admit it? No. They won't.

Even worse is how ARI and their associated goons manage to essentially accept the Open System, by separating Rand's statements into "philosophical" and "non-philosophical" categories (a categorization which was explicitly rejected by Rand herself), and THEN claiming that Open System refers to "modifying the essentials of Objectivism" (which it does not) before knocking down the Straw Man.

ARI will never publically retract their feud with Kelley and TAS because they are simply too wedded to the constant maintenance of a lofty, condemnatory, condescending posture of Relentless Moral Upstandingness. They will never admit their mistakes.

I would like to have a source for where Ayn Rand explicitly rejected the categorization that her ideas could not be separated into "philosophical" and "non-philosophical" categories. I would find that to be extremely interesting.

I'm seeking to borrow or purchase a series entitled: Philosophy of Education by Leonard Peikoff.

Contact me at cultureofreasoncenter@gmail.com

Thanks so much,

Randall

If such tapes exist, outside of any copies that may still be retained by Nathaniel Branden or Barbara Branden, I have never heard of anyone publicly admit to holding them. To have done so (and, to have made them commercially available without permission) would have been a copyright violation which most likely would have resulted in legal action being taken by the Brandens to prevent their distribution.

I'm not sure how Dr. Hsieh obtained these tapes, but I will theorize a few possibilities.

1. Some NBI Business Representatives made copies.

2. Some NBI Business Representatives did not return the originals.

3. The Estate of Ayn Rand has given some original copies away to close friends.

​It sounds like someone who had the original tapes, decided to either give or sell them to Dr. Hsieh. Selling or giving away an original is not a violation of copyright, that I am aware of.

Currently, The Atlas Society holds the copyright to the AA version of The Basic Principles Lectures, and I am an authorized distributor (in MP3 format). My interest in obtaining a set of the original NBI lectures is: 1. Preservation. 2. Scholarly examination. 3. To work toward the possibility of making them legally available to the public.

Additionally, if anyone has any NBI materials they are willing to part with, those materials may be of interest to me. Again, I am seeking such materials for preservation, study, and possible public resurrection if and when legally permissible.

I was reading a post by Diana Hsieh where she states that she recently was able to obtain tape recordings of the original Basic Principles of Objectivism Lectures which were offered at NBI. Because part of the mission of The Culture of Reason Center is to collect and archive historical Objectivist materials, a copy of these lectures would be of interest. If anyone has recordings of the original NBI lectures and is willing to part with them, please contact me at: cultureofreasoncenter@gmail.com

Hello everyone,

Some time ago I purchased almost all the Nathaniel Branden materials I could find from audioforum.com. They had a cassette tape by Branden on the topic of Anarchy, but now, I don't see it available on their website. Does anyone own a copy? I'd very much like to purchase the tape.

Best regards,

Randall

You can contact me at: cultureofreasoncenter@gmail.com

Hi Stephen,

When I looked up "animal" on my Apple computer dictionary I was given the following definition:

"noun: living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidlyto stimuli"

and..

Animals are generally distinguished from plants by being unable to synthesize organic molecules from inorganic ones, so that they have to feed on plants or on other animals. They are typically able to move about, although this ability is sometimes restricted to a particular stage in the life cycle. The great majority of animals are invertebrates, of which there are some thirty phyla; the vertebrates constitute but a single subphylum. See also higher animals, lower animals.

Regarding Rand's comment in the Epistemology Seminar. I think her point was that the concept "animal" is understandable to a generally educated adult based on his context of knowledge. The question I have is, why is "rational animal" an appropriate definition for a person with a generally literate adult context? Even a person with an American high school education has fairly advanced knowledge. What is the principle for determining the proper genus? How would you generally define "man" and why?

As we see in Rand’s discussion with Gotthelf, Peikoff, and Binswanger, Rand thought philosophic concepts should be understandable to people not possessing specialized scientific knowledge (but isn’t one who is able to understand her ethical theory informed by some knowledge of biology?) She also thought correctly formulated philosophic concepts will not need to change with advances in scientific knowledge. Do you concur with Rand on those two points?

I'd like to give further thought to your two questions, but I'll attempt a short answer.

In order to understand Rand's ethics, one needs to know that all living entities face the alternative of life or death, that each life form must act in accordance with its nature in order to survive and that the concept value is derived from the concept of life. Practical philosophy is typically understandable to 13 year olds, and I don't think those basic biological truths would qualify as specialized scientific knowledge.

Regarding the influence of science on philosophical concepts, I think Rand is right. Correctly formulated philosophical concepts are typically very simple and are necessary for science to even get off the ground. I'm talking about concepts such as axiom, certainty, good and evil, volition, justice, etc. It's not the function of sciences like biology, chemistry, geology, physics, etc, to deal with such concepts. Can you give me an example of how you think scientific advancements have given rise for a need to change some correctly formulated philosophical concept? I can see how new developments in technology mean that new applications of already established philosophical concepts will have to be formulated, but I can't think of anything else.

I think the idea that animals are conscious is a general truth. There are certain lifeforms that are transitional. In the case of mammals the platypus is an exception to the general rule. Generally speaking, when I think of animals, I think of conscious lifeforms such as mammals, birds, reptiles, fish. If we define man as the rational primate, we wouldn't be showing the scope of how unique rationality is. Last night Spencer and I talked more about the definitions of animal and rational separately.

I defined rationality as follows:

Genus: a faculty of consciousness

differentia: that integrates sensory data and conceptualizes.

I then defined animal as follows:

Genus: a life form (ogranism)

differentia: processing consciousness

I was talking to my mom about the issue (she was an NBI student and is a long time Objectivist). She made made a point that made me think the following. The essential characteristic of being an animal is consciousness. Mammals, reptiles, fish, birds, etc. are all conscious beings, as opposed to life forms that are non conscious. Out of all the conscious life forms, only man processes the attribute of rationality. That makes sense to me.

Hello everyone,

I was recently listening to The Efficient Thinking Lecture from The Basic Principles of Objectivism with my partner (Spencer) and Barbara Branden spent a quite bit of time explaining the process of definitions. Miss Branden defined man as "the rational animal" and Sepncer asked me why isn't man defined as "the rational mammal," since the genus mammal would give more information than the genus animal? He also asked me why couldn't man be defined as the rational entity/being, since he is the only entity that we know of that has the characteristic of rationality?

We talked for awhile and I explained that I did not think man could properly be defined as "the rational entity" since the concept entity is too broad and does not provide any essential information about the genus. We took a look at David Kelley's The Art of Reasoning as well, and Kelley explains that both the genus and the differentia have to adhere to the law of fundamentality, but why is the genus animal more fundamental than the more narrow concept mammal, or the broader concept life form?

Would anyone like to help us think this through?

Thanks so much,

Randall

Objectivism and The Struggle for Liberty by David Kelley Ph.D. (Remastered MP3 Download)

Our Price: $1.99

Originally recorded on November 10th, 1988

Est. 52 minutes

This provocative lecture was given at the Laissez Faire Supper Club in New York City on November 10th, 1988 by David Kelley, the noted Objectivist philosopher, author of The Evidence of the Senses, The Art of Reasoning, former contributor to The Objectivist Forum and frequent editorial writer for Barron's.

Kelley defends Objectivism's role in helping to form the intellectual foundations for a free society in a twofold sense: its necessity for what he sees as a rigorous intellectual defense of the free society, and its role in defending and promoting those cultural values that must be widely accepted for a free society to be stable.

Kelley demonstrates the indispensable role of individual rights as a defining characteristic of a free society, and then proceeds to launch a devastating attack on any form of ethical subjectivism as a basis for defending individual liberty. He examines three broad principles that he argues are absolutely essential in defending and sustaining individual freedom: the primacy of reason; egoism or the doctrine that every individual is an end in himself; and a rejection of the mind/body dichotomy. Finally, Kelley eloquently summarizes some of Ayn Rand's major contributions in defending these principles.

This concise and persuasive talk is followed by a freewheeling question and answer period that is sure to be controversial, as David Kelley fields questions from Libertarians and Objectivists alike, showing once again why his is a mind to be reckoned with and why any thoughts of Objectivism's demise is premature to say the least.

Permission to provide this product has been granted by David Kelley and The Atlas Society.

It is available on the TNI website for free, but I'm not sure about viewing it on the Nook. http://www.atlassociety.org/tni

The Evidence of The Senses PDF Download

Our Price: $9.99

The Evidence of The Senses PDF Download

David Kelley - Author

PDF Download (Zip)

ISBN 978-0807114766 | 262 pages | March 1988 |18 - AND UP

In this highly original defense of realism, David Kelley argues that perception is the discrimination of objects as entities, that the awareness of these objects is direct, and that perception is a reliable foundation for empirical knowledge. His argument relies on the basic principle of the "primacy of existence," in opposition to Cartesian representationalism and Kantian idealism.

Permission to provide this product has been granted by David Kelley and The Atlas Society.

If you would like to support the endeavors of The Culture of Reason Center, you may make a financial donation through PayPal. Donations are not tax-deductible.

http://thecultureofreasoncenter.com/make-a-donation/

We will also gladly accept any Objectivist related materials, e.g. books, tapes, CDs, videos, etc. These materials will either become part of our educational archive project* or may be distributed to other students of Objectivism. Please email us if you have materials that you wish to donate. In some cases we may be able to reimburse your shipping expenses. Email: cultureofreasoncenter@gmail.com

*The Culture of Reason Center Archive is in the process of cataloging and preserving materials that relate to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. In the future, we hope to make these materials available to independent research scholars.