Jonathan David Leavitt

Sorry, I'm an amateur intellectual. Never made a dime from my ideas.

I suspect that Rand was responding to a Kantian idea rather than to the biological meaning of "instinct." I should explore this… My link But, frankly, I don't want to explore Kant today.

What I find rather fascinating, quite honestly, is why this problem gets all but glossed over. In my opinion, this is not a minor problem but rather a deal-breaker of the highest order. Although it's not just the instinct problem I speak of, but the whole evolution "problem". In fairness to Rand, while she should have known (and probably did) that her instinct assertions were "poppycock", newer evolutionary ideas (which she couldn't have known) nevertheless essentially obliterate the entire foundation of the philosophy. More recent (and some older) evolutionary science has uncovered inherent altruism in humans and other animals (confering a survival advantage to another person at a survival disadvantage to oneself) and differences in definitions are insufficient to overcome the problem. Humans, "by design" if you will, are inherently partially altruistic. "Qua Man" is not at all what she says it is (which was always a problem in itself anyway). EVERYTHING changes when a more scientific view of man is used as a foundation Precious little of her ideas remain standing. While I have more or less lost interest in the "Philosopy" I am certainly curious why others (especially science-focused people) continue to find value in spite of this??? Bob IMO instinctual altruism as described by biologists and philosophical altruism as described by Comte and Rand are completely different, but they share the same word. Example: if a human mother tries to save her baby from a wild beast at risk to her own life, she is more likely acting on the basis of instinct than an ethical desire to sacrifice herself. It seems to me the general public considers altruism to be a term for "being nice," which is why some folks automatically dismiss Ayn Rand once they hear the she opposed altruism.

Yup. The Anointed One was a Communist before Communism was cool. If in fact it is cool. A New Left nilhilist kind of Communist, of course. http://twitpic.com/3615ae

Welcome to OL Jonathan: Thanks for the new word. "'Last night Iris, reading a book on French linguistics, came upon the word 'tigritude.' She asked me what it meant, and I Googled it. I came upon several references to a 'Nigerian Proverb' stating that, 'Un tigre ne proclame pas sa tigritude.' (A tiger does not declare/proclaim/shout his tigritude.)' This stuck me as a useful saying, but something about it wasn't quite right. It took me until just now to remember. There are no tigers in Africa. Haven't been for at least a million years. Either that saying was handed down from before the time Homo sapiens existed, or it isn't a traditional saying from Nigeria. I looked it up again, in more detail, and it is actually a quote, from the Nigerian author Wole Soyinka, whom Iris of course has read but I had never heard of. It is funny how many people, including 'proverb dictionaries' have labeled various versions of it as traditional Nigerian wisdom. Is 'Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,' an ancient Russian proverb?" [http://blogofscience.blogspot.com/2009/01/tiger-does-not-declare-his-tigritude.html] Adam Thanks for your welcome, Adam. I couldn't resist inserting "paper tigritude" into this thread. It has another name, of course: "open society."

Welcome to OL Jonathan: Thanks for the new word. "'Last night Iris, reading a book on French linguistics, came upon the word 'tigritude.' She asked me what it meant, and I Googled it. I came upon several references to a 'Nigerian Proverb' stating that, 'Un tigre ne proclame pas sa tigritude.' (A tiger does not declare/proclaim/shout his tigritude.)' This stuck me as a useful saying, but something about it wasn't quite right. It took me until just now to remember. There are no tigers in Africa. Haven't been for at least a million years. Either that saying was handed down from before the time Homo sapiens existed, or it isn't a traditional saying from Nigeria. I looked it up again, in more detail, and it is actually a quote, from the Nigerian author Wole Soyinka, whom Iris of course has read but I had never heard of. It is funny how many people, including 'proverb dictionaries' have labeled various versions of it as traditional Nigerian wisdom. Is 'Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,' an ancient Russian proverb?" ["]http://blogofscience...tigritude.html] Adam Nor the cow its bovinity? As far as I know, Wole Soyinka it is, but I remember it in the context of the "Negritude" movement. It was the Chicoms who loved to call the USA a "paper tiger" back in Mao's time. Now they fear that the tiger is going to destroy the dollar.

Hmmm…: Trademark symbol. It seems that it can be used only if registered with a statist entity, no matter how minarchistically inclined. I wonder if ARI has registered Objectivism with the US government, in which case, it would be called Objectivism®. I would ask Leonard Peikoff to respond in a podcast, but I know how busy he his solving the Problem of Induction while finishing up the DIM Hypothesis book and fending off the likes of McCaskey. Since Objectivism is known to be the work of Ayn Rand, perhaps caution demands that I call it Objectivism™. Am I perhaps being unfair by taking you too seriously here? I do get the attempts at cuteness and irony. LOL. But while your complaint seems to have an underlying justification, your solution amounts to taking your opponents' position (that Peikoff gets to define what is Objectivism) for granted and then throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why not simply reject his claim out of hand and insist on defining Objectivism as "reality, reason, egoism, capitalism"? If one defines Objectivism as a philosophy based on the primacy of existence and the hierarchical nature of abstraction, do you consider yourself a post-Objectivist? If so, can you specify your actual disagreement with the doctrines, rather than your disdain for the disputants? Although my sense of irony is not lacking in my prior statements, I do think that there is a useful role for a "fly-in-amber" preservation of Ayn Rand's philosophical corpus. If that is what ARI purports to be, I support that goal. Since Rand named her philosophical work "Objectivism" I have no problem with that name being maintained as her contribution to the history of philosophy. That is the "closed system" view, which allows me to call myself a post-Randian. Since Karl Marx reportedly stated, "I am not a Marxist," and I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth would have called himself a Christian, Rand did not want to be called a Randian. She did, however, lay claim to the name of Objectivism. Be that as it may, ARI under its present leadership has not explicitly defended its "fly-in-amber" Objectivist mission. It seems to me that the solution to the problem of induction is a post-Randian endeavor, not an Objectivist one. Perhaps a role for ARI could be more clarification of the Objectivist doctrines, as distinguished from Ayn Rand's personal tastes. As for my own disagreement with the doctrines, there is relatively little, and most of it has to do with Rand's sweeping disparagement of whatever she disliked, especially in esthetics and her views about sex. Peikoff himself has said in his podcasts that there is room for disagreement, but then he appears to assume that an Objectivist must reject the work of Picasso. As for anyone else using the term "Objectivist" to describe their own ideas derived from or associated with Rand's, I have no problem with that. I do not support thought control and I do support freedom of speech. My decision to eschew labeling myself an Objectivist is strictly personal, and it may well be temporary. Addendum: in a reply to Baal-Chatzaf, I said that I disagree with Rand's assertion that man has no instincts. I believe that all members of the species of homo sapiens have instincts like any other vertebrate, although they also possess a rational faculty. In fact, I believe that it was Rand's own instincts, not her rational faculty, which led her into the disastrous covered-up love affair with Nathaniel Branden. However, in her "no instincts" assertion, she might have meant man qua man that has no instincts. In an essay she described second-handers as an evolutionary "missing link." However, as a biologist, I believe that all vertebrates have instincts, but the word "instinct" itself is problematic. Wikipedia discussion of instincts. Innate ideas? Are "kill!" or "eat!" or "have sex with!" innate ideas? IMO that is a very post-Randian question.

Hmmm…: Trademark symbol. It seems that it can be used only if registered with a statist entity, no matter how minarchistically inclined. I wonder if ARI has registered Objectivism with the US government, in which case, it would be called Objectivism®. I would ask Leonard Peikoff to respond in a podcast, but I know how busy he his solving the Problem of Induction while finishing up the DIM Hypothesis book and fending off the likes of McCaskey. Since Objectivism is known to be the work of Ayn Rand, perhaps caution demands that I call it Objectivism™. Am I perhaps being unfair by taking you too seriously here? I do get the attempts at cuteness and irony. LOL. But while your complaint seems to have an underlying justification, your solution amounts to taking your opponents' position (that Peikoff gets to define what is Objectivism) for granted and then throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why not simply reject his claim out of hand and insist on defining Objectivism as "reality, reason, egoism, capitalism"? If one defines Objectivism as a philosophy based on the primacy of existence and the hierarchical nature of abstraction, do you consider yourself a post-Objectivist? If so, can you specify your actual disagreement with the doctrines, rather than your disdain for the disputants? Although my sense of irony is not lacking in my prior statements, I do think that there is a useful role for a "fly-in-amber" preservation of Ayn Rand's philosophical corpus. If that is what ARI purports to be, I support that goal. Since Rand named her philosophical work "Objectivism" I have no problem with that name being maintained as her contribution to the history of philosophy. That is the "closed system" view, which allows me to call myself a post-Randian. Since Karl Marx reportedly stated, "I am not a Marxist," and I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth would have called himself a Christian, Rand did not want to be called a Randian. She did, however, lay claim to the name of Objectivism. Be that as it may, ARI under its present leadership has not explicitly defended its "fly-in-amber" Objectivist mission. It seems to me that the solution to the problem of induction is a post-Randian endeavor, not an Objectivist one. Perhaps a role for ARI could be more clarification of the Objectivist doctrines, as distinguished from Ayn Rand's personal tastes. As for my own disagreement with the doctrines, there is relatively little, and most of it has to do with Rand's sweeping disparagement of whatever she disliked, especially in esthetics and her views about sex. Peikoff himself has said in his podcasts that there is room for disagreement, but then he appears to assume that an Objectivist must reject the work of Picasso. As for anyone else using the term "Objectivist" to describe their own ideas derived from or associated with Rand's, I have no problem with that. I do not support thought control and I do support freedom of speech. My decision to eschew labeling myself an Objectivist is strictly personal, and it may well be temporary.

Who mentioned Rand? The harridan comment came just after your having said that you had let Comrade Sonia drive you away with her loyalty oaths. So many harridans, so little time. However, I'm glad to hear that you were not referring to Miss Rand when you used the word. [A virago, shrew or a vicious and scolding woman, especially an older one en.wiktionary.org/wiki/harridan ]

Indeed! Ayn Rand, her ideas, and the United States of America and their admirers all deserve better. —Jonathan

I am liking it here already, and thank you for your warm welcome and those of your posts which I have read. —Jonathan

Excellent question. The Post begins with my refusal to take Comrade Sonia's Disloyalty Oath so I could become an OBlogger. I'd rather rot in Libertarian Hell with the likes of "isolationist" Rothbard. Hovever, there were many antecedent rejections of OPopery which led to the long vacation I mentioned. Now, where does the Randian end? I am pretty much still a Randian, even considering art to be useful as emotional fuel. However, I actually like Picasso. That's the kind of guy you're dealing with. I also think a woman could be President as long as she engages in manly endeavors such as shooting bears. Why would you grant to that harridan the privilege of defining who is and who is not an Objectivist? You grant her far too much power and you denigrate Objectivism by pretending it has anything to do with her and her social dysfunction. For the same reason that I grant Walt Disney's estate the privilege of defining who Mickey Mouse® is. Forgive me for omitting the ® whenever I write "Objectivism®" Bad habit. —Jonathan So which is Mickey Mouse in your analogy, Objectivism, or Ayn Rand? Neither. Mickey Mouse® is a selective recreation of reality according to Walt Disney's metaphysical value-judgments. (That doesn't necessarily make it art, however.) If forced at gunpoint to choose an analogy, I would pick Atlas Shrugged. However, personally I have found that novel to be much more inspiring than Mickey Mouse. Others, of course, including Whitaker Chambers, would disagree. As for Miss Rand (sic) being a harridan, if that's what it takes to stand up to Rockefeller Republicanism, more power to her.

Hmmm…: Trademark symbol. It seems that it can be used only if registered with a statist entity, no matter how minarchistically inclined. I wonder if ARI has registered Objectivism with the US government, in which case, it would be called Objectivism®. I would ask Leonard Peikoff to respond in a podcast, but I know how busy he his solving the Problem of Induction while finishing up the DIM Hypothesis book and fending off the likes of McCaskey. Since Objectivism is known to be the work of Ayn Rand, perhaps caution demands that I call it Objectivism™.

Excellent question. The Post begins with my refusal to take Comrade Sonia's Disloyalty Oath so I could become an OBlogger. I'd rather rot in Libertarian Hell with the likes of "isolationist" Rothbard. Hovever, there were many antecedent rejections of OPopery which led to the long vacation I mentioned. Now, where does the Randian end? I am pretty much still a Randian, even considering art to be useful as emotional fuel. However, I actually like Picasso. That's the kind of guy you're dealing with. I also think a woman could be President as long as she engages in manly endeavors such as shooting bears. Why would you grant to that harridan the privilege of defining who is and who is not an Objectivist? You grant her far too much power and you denigrate Objectivism by pretending it has anything to do with her and her social dysfunction. For the same reason that I grant Walt Disney's estate the privilege of defining who Mickey Mouse® is. Forgive me for omitting the ® whenever I write "Objectivism®" Bad habit. —Jonathan

It sounds like you are now in a good place Jonathan. My own journey was somewhat like yours. Rand made an impression on me but I never bought into the Objectivist movement nor felt myself part of an elite cohort. My main reservation with the Objectivists is their erroneous and incorrect rejection of moder physics. Many of the Movement Creatures damn modern physics without understand (barely) a word or equation of it. The second smartest Movement Objectivist I ever encountered was the late Stephen Speicher who bought into Louis Little's crackpot theory, the theory of elementary waves which is nonsense on stilts. Also the attitude toward mathematics exhibited by the Movement Objectivists was raw bigotry. I resented that since I am a mathematician by trade. The leading anti-mathematical bigot that I met what Leonard Peikoff himself. I as apalled by his ignorance of mathematics which I encountered in a one on one encounter with Pope Leonard. But even so, the Objectivists have uncovered the rot in the moral infrastructure of the nation. Unfortunately they have rejected the collaboration of their natural allies, the small "l" libertarians. An unfortunate thing. Anyhow I am glad to run into a fellow traveler (sic!) who has made a journey similar to mine. Ba'al Chatzaf (that means the Lord of Chutzpah, by the way). Nice to hear from you. I've been reading some of your posts. I wondered what Chatzaf meant. My work in psychiatry has been inspired by Rand's metaphysics and ethics, but not by the psychologists in the movement, least of all by Nathaniel. Reason, Purpose, and rational egoism are the goals of treatment, to the extent that patients are willing. Valliant's account of Ayn and Nathaniel "psychoanalyzing" each other during their secret sexual affair, on the other hand, is blood-curdling. IMO Rand's superficial knowledge of psychology and her eagerness to be shtupped by her "therapist" are part of what led to today's ARI mess. (Sorry, Dr. Branden, if you're reading this. However, I will start reading some of your books now that I can think of you as a colleague rather than either a cult leader or spawn of the devil.) I majored in biology in college, and evolution, IMO, is the cornerstone of that science. Rand's assertion than man has no instincts is poppycock. However, I believe that she used the term in a different context than a biologist would. I am starting to take Sciabarra's work on methodological orientation very seriously. Being a lord of chutzpah is one thing that you, I, and Ayn Rand have in common. Nice meeting you.

It sounds like you are now in a good place Jonathan. My own journey was somewhat like yours. Rand made an impression on me but I never bought into the Objectivist movement nor felt myself part of an elite cohort. My main reservation with the Objectivists is their erroneous and incorrect rejection of moder physics. Many of the Movement Creatures damn modern physics without understand (barely) a word or equation of it. The second smartest Movement Objectivist I ever encountered was the late Stephen Speicher who bought into Louis Little's crackpot theory, the theory of elementary waves which is nonsense on stilts. Also the attitude toward mathematics exhibited by the Movement Objectivists was raw bigotry. I resented that since I am a mathematician by trade. The leading anti-mathematical bigot that I met what Leonard Peikoff himself. I as apalled by his ignorance of mathematics which I encountered in a one on one encounter with Pope Leonard. But even so, the Objectivists have uncovered the rot in the moral infrastructure of the nation. Unfortunately they have rejected the collaboration of their natural allies, the small "l" libertarians. An unfortunate thing. Anyhow I am glad to run into a fellow traveler (sic!) who has made a journey similar to mine. Ba'al Chatzaf (that means the Lord of Chutzpah, by the way).

Glad you read 'em, and glad you think I'll fit in. I have a hunch I wouldn't have lasted ten minutes in the early days of the old NBI.

It's a well-known fact that Chimpy McHitler is not only a Nazi child-killer but a moron too, so if course, everything he writes must have been plagiarized. On the other hand, Plugs "Bite-me" Biden, being an elder statesman, could never plagiarize. But why is it a well-known fact? You'd have to ask George Soros. Something about the opening up of society. I think it was originally Karl Popper's idea.

Excellent question. The Post begins with my refusal to take Comrade Sonia's Disloyalty Oath so I could become an OBlogger. I'd rather rot in Libertarian Hell with the likes of "isolationist" Rothbard. Hovever, there were many antecedent rejections of OPopery which led to the long vacation I mentioned. Now, where does the Randian end? I am pretty much still a Randian, even considering art to be useful as emotional fuel. However, I actually like Picasso. That's the kind of guy you're dealing with. I also think a woman could be President as long as she engages in manly endeavors such as shooting bears.

All right. So Iran gets nukes and the advocates of paper tigritude end up looking like the rational ones on YouTube. At least, with McCaskey out of the way, the Problem of Induction gets solved. Win a few, lose a few.

My Name My real name is Jonathan David Leavitt. I am a practicing psychiatrist living west of the Continental Divide. I am writing this during the 68th year of my life. I consider myself a post-Randian thinker, but not an Objectivist, because the only Objectivist who ever existed, by her definition of the term, was Ayn Rand. My Internet Presence On the Internet I have used my real name, but also, in the interest of protecting my patients, my religious friends, and my family members, pseudonyms including Liberty Rant, Curious Yellow, and Ayn Rand Fan. Recognizing that the world is full of "Liberals," God-fearing conservatives, and concrete-bound Ayn Rand impersonators, I wish to maintain friendly communication with such people, and therefore, avoid offending them. Ergo, my separate online identities. Here, on the other hand, I believe I can be myself. Ayn Rand And Me I never met her. I tried reading Atlas in college, freaked out, and put it down until the year I voted for Ronald Reagan to replace the execrable Jimmy Carter. For my liberal Jewish family, a vote for Reagan was apostasy, but I told them anyway. Encouraged by some Libertarians, I began reading the Rand opus, and I was hooked. This happened well after the split with Branden. I once attended a Thomas Jefferson University event and was put off by the pretentious Edith Packer, but I liked her husband George Reisman and others I met there. I also attended a monthly Objectivist meeting locally for years and loved it. On Vacation I took a long vacation from Objectivism which began with the David Kelley schism, and ended with the election of Barack Hussein Obama. No, I did not follow Leonard Peikoff's 2004 advice to vote for the blackguard, poltroon, and mountebank John Kerry. I am, after all, a Vietnam Veteran (1970-1971.) It Did Happen Here I returned to Rand's works when the Boy Bolshevik from Kenya via Indonesia assumed occupancy of the White House. I re-read Atlas and many of her essays, and started reading books by others, including Chris Matthew Sciabarra, who impressed me as a kindred soul. I started looking at Objectivism-inspired forums, and here I am. Much kudos to Michael Stuart Kelly and Kat. I hope I have finally found my post-Randian home on the Internet. Jonathan