Serious Students vs. Degenerate Objectivists

[George H. Smith]

George:

Amazing life story. Grew up in a Jewish Orphanage home. Rode the rails. Boxer. Avowed Communist. He is quoted as saying that "When I tried to join the Communist Party, they called me an anarchist."

See article below...at 97, he has been panhandling for the last 17 years outside the Midtown Tunnel...

"And disregard that homeless appearance. Mr. Corey lives in a cozy 1840 carriage house on East 36th Street between Lexington and Third Avenues that he estimates he could sell for $3.5 million. He returns there each afternoon and empties half a dozen pockets bulging with small change and dollar bills. On a recent day, he spread the money on his dining room table and counted it slowly: $106.19. He wrote down the amount on a carefully kept list of his daily takes and then added the money to desk drawers loaded with hundreds of rolls of coins and long rows of bundled dollar bills.

Mr. Corey said he gathers his daily take — usually about $100, though there have been $250 days — every few months and donates the money to a charity that buys medical supplies for children in Cuba."

http://cityroom.blog...ot-for-himself/

I used to love watching Corey on the Johnny Carson Show and other programs, but I had pretty much forgotten about him until Rush Limbaugh talked about him recently. Rush said that Corey is his favorite comedian, so he was disappointed to learn that Corey is a "communist anarchist."

Rush quoted the following by Corey: "Why do people wear shoes? This is a two-part question."

Rush thought this is hilarious, and I agree.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

This is Corey's apartment in upscale Manhattan:

Not bad for a panhandler.

Anyone recognize any of the paintings?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Phil would stop representing O'ism is he wasn't responded to. It's all ad hominem representation--that is, him, but him isn't O'ism any more than anyone is and no one is for there is no is there. The other side of his coin, of course, is any one he engages, but they aren't O'ism either though they may be O'ists.

A study sometime back found that on the college level it wasn't teaching technique but teacher knowledge that made for effective teaching. These were not soft courses, but those that demanded serious technical mastery. Even when the teacher spoke with a hard to understand foreign accent it simply made no difference.

If you want to teach Objectivism well you need a high level of knowledge about Objectivism, a course I did not pursue because too much was cultural jargon of its own sort. Rand didn't pursue that either for she made it up--it was for her followers to figure it all out without contradicting or misrepresenting her or representing her philosophy at all except to say that it was while she and a few others would say what it was. That made sense for the ten years NBI existed, if NBI made any sense. It was all in Galt's speech, no? The problem with Galt's speech is the hectoring moralistic palaver permeates it like molasses making it hard to think about the philosophical content. That was the literary requirement since she was primarily a moralizer come Atlas Shrugged, much more than The Fountainhead, and that's the way she finished her life.

--Brant

orthodox O'ism is brain lock is human material for a cult

[George H. Smith]

Phil would stop representing O'ism is he wasn't responded to.

Perhaps, but I will respond to almost anyone. I like the sparks.

I also like easy targets, to a point. When I was a kid in Arizona, I would sometimes put a magnifying glass over ants and watch them burn up. Now I argue with Phil.

The problem with Galt's speech is the hectoring moralistic palaver [that] permeates it like molasses....

I had to look up "palaver" in the dictionary. Interesting metaphor. I'm impressed.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Subject: Slippery Little George, Dodging, Weaving, Playing Rope-A-Dope

I love Phil's subject headings. They are a barometer of his frustration.

But there is a problem with this one. Phil says that I am "Playing Rope-A-Dope." Uh, that makes Phil the Dope, does it not? True as this is, I doubt if it is what Phil wanted to say.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Or use a magnifying glass.

Ghs

[caroljane]

Oh, that speech. Brant, you are right about it. The "Your minds, your stupid, stupid minds!" speech as scholars have characterized it. In my view she was a novelist; why should she have to sit down and write a lot of dry boring philosophical treatise? Wisely she got Branden, and then Peikoff, to do the hard graft.

George, you didn't need to look up palaver, you already know how to do it.

[john42t]

Okay, Phil, I give up. You belong with the worst of the ARI crowd.

I can't see much common ground there.

Orthos don't whine about fascism and corporations.

[George H. Smith]

Oh, that speech. Brant, you are right about it. The "Your minds, your stupid, stupid minds!" speech as scholars have characterized it. In my view she was a novelist; why should she have to sit down and write a lot of dry boring philosophical treatise? Wisely she got Branden, and then Peikoff, to do the hard graft.

George, you didn't need to look up palaver, you already know how to do it.

No words can describe what I know how to do.

After discovering Rand in the late 1960s, and after reading virtually all of her nonfiction, I waited a couple years before diving into AS. I got myself interested as I might interest myself in a steamy novel, i.e., by skipping to the good parts. For me, the good parts in AS were the speeches, so I read those first. I liked them immensely, and I still do.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I do abhor people like Timothy Leary (and Steve Jobs: his last words as reported by his sister were, “Oh Wow. Oh Wow. Oh wow.”) who advocate taking LSD trips to leave reason and reality behind. That is just not right, especially if young people pick up on it.

You "abhor" Steve Jobs because of his last words? What should he have said? Should he have recited Edith Efron's old poem? --A is A. How gay. I like it that way!

As for LSD, you have no need for such things. You manage to leave reason and reality behind without drugs. The difference is that the effects of LSD eventually wear off.

Ghs

[Selene]

Okay, Phil, I give up. You belong with the worst of the ARI crowd.

I can't see much common ground there.

Orthos don't whine about fascism and corporations.

John:

You may be confusing Shayne with Phil.

Adam

[john42t]

You may be confusing Shayne with Phil.

Embarrassing. I'm going to bed now...

[George H. Smith]

I do abhor people like Timothy Leary (and Steve Jobs: his last words as reported by his sister were, “Oh Wow. Oh Wow. Oh wow.”) who advocate taking LSD trips to leave reason and reality behind. That is just not right, especially if young people pick up on it.

You "abhor" Steve Jobs because of his last words? What should he have said? Should he have recited Edith Efron's old poem? --A is A. How gay. I like it that way!

As for LSD, you have no need for such things. You manage to leave reason and reality behind without drugs. The difference is that the effects of LSD eventually wear off.

Ghs

Let us not forget the effects of marijuana!

As this preview illustrates, people become highly energetic and crazed when they smoke weed -- not to mention the bug eyes. I can't count the number of times that I smoked a joint and then felt an irresistible impulse to jitterbug.

Btw, LSD affects the senses, especially vision. It does not impair your ability to reason. Alcohol is the worst drug by far in this regard.

Ghs

[Selene]

I do abhor people like Timothy Leary (and Steve Jobs: his last words as reported by his sister were, “Oh Wow. Oh Wow. Oh wow.”) who advocate taking LSD trips to leave reason and reality behind. That is just not right, especially if young people pick up on it.

You "abhor" Steve Jobs because of his last words? What should he have said? Should he have recited Edith Efron's old poem? --A is A. How gay. I like it that way!

As for LSD, you have no need for such things. You manage to leave reason and reality behind without drugs. The difference is that the effects of LSD eventually wear off.

Ghs

Let us not forget the effects of marijuana!

As this preview illustrates, people become highly energetic and crazed when they smoke weed -- not to mention the bug eyes. I can't count the number of times that I smoked a joint and then felt an irresistible impulse to jitterbug.

Btw, LSD affects the senses, especially vision. It does not impair your ability to reason.

Ghs

Ganja effects me as an up which is not SOP effects.

No LSD personal experience, but talked a friend or two out of some "bad" trips.

[George H. Smith]

Ganja effects me as an up which is not SOP effects. No LSD personal experience, but talked a friend or two out of some "bad" trips.

I dropped quite a bit of acid in earlier years, and I never had a "bad trip." Whenever a novice friend expressed interest in the drug, I would advise him to do it the first time or so with an experienced friend.

Bad trips can be caused by several things. One is the poor quality of some street drugs, which can be mixed with all kinds of shit. Another is the frame of mind of the user. If you are under a lot of stress or having other serious problems, I would not advise doing acid, because it can intensify what you were feeling before dropping a tab.

Given decent acid, a trip will typically last 12 hours or more. This length of time can be a problem if you haven't planned properly. I have known people who can drop a tab or two and function very well. You would never know they are on anything. But these are people who are experienced with the effects of LSD and know how to compensate for its effects. The best advice for beginners is to rent some good movies, load up on snacks, maybe invite some friends over, and then not worry about anything for that day except having fun.

During the late 1980s I lived in Franklin West Towers in Hollywood. It so happens that the LP held meetings in the same building, so I would usually pop in after business was over and hang out with friends. After one meeting, a guy brought out a bag of psychedelic mushrooms. I had never done mushrooms before, but I knew their effects were similar to acid (more mild, actually), so I gave some a try. So did around 10 other people. We then walked to the Mann Chinese Theater (a block away) to see the 1986 re-release of Disney's "Song of the South."

The theater was pretty crowded, but we managed to find seats in the same row. I have never seen a group of people laugh so hard, especially during the animated Br'er Rabbit scenes. I almost busted a gut laughing. We all had a wonderful time, and no one went insane.

Ghs

[Xray]

Another example of misapplying a valid principle is Peikoff's condemnation of Kelley for abandoning valid principles of Objectivism when 'he should have known better' (or does know better.) In both cases, Aquinas and Peikoff are condemning someone on the wrong grounds -- because the doctrine they are defending is not true.

Phil,

Two questions for clarification:

1) Do you think Kelley was correct in trying to open up Objectivism?

1) What precisely do you think is 'not true' about the doctrine Peikoff is defending?

[Philip Coates]

Subject: (1) Honest Error, (2) Evasion, (3) Laziness, (4) Self-Inflicted Blindness, (5) Lack of Sufficient Study or Attentive Focus --- Five Different Things

Xray,

I don't want to revisit the whole Peikoff vs. Kelley thing. I've posted a lot on it - including, if I recall, on more than one thread here.

Short version: Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value" is riddled with mistakes and bad analogies. Until he started advocating "nuking Teheran" (or claiming that if you didn't vote for the Democrats in one election, you failed to fully be Objectivist), it's probably the worst, most irrational, most destructive thing he ever wrote**. What he calls tolerating evil by Kelley was nothing of the kind. He missrepresents Kelley: Kelley was not abandoning Objectivism in any manner whatsoever. He was in fact defending it. Kelley's essay in response "Truth and Toleration" was excellent and, unlike Peikoff, a valid and important application of Objectivism.

Peikoff used to know this sort of thing (how to apply and integrate Objectivism in a manner less redolent of Savonarola or Jonathan Edwards -- sinners in the hands of an angry Rand) when he did his Understanding Objectivism course.

The initial point (from Schwartz) that one shouldn't 'sanction' libertarians, shouldn't speak at their supper clubs was not only ridiculous but stupid. Libertarianism is "subjectivism"?? Give me a fucking break! Has he not heard of the fact that there are all kinds of libertarians with all kinds of views? Has he not heard of the classical liberals - many of whom were (and are) religious with strong convictions, the very opposite of subjectivists?

How on earth are you going to find people to convince when you can't talk to, go to speak to those who are closest to you in philosophy or politics? Would Peikoff and Schwartz argue that you can't talk to Aristotelians because they are close enough to Objectivism that they ought to know better and therefore can't be reasoned with because they are evaders, for chrissake??? Or with mathematicians and engineers because they are so experienced in using reason, that they could only disagree with Objectivism falsely???

[Bottom line: The point here is there are lots of ways to make mistakes. Not every misstatement or misapprehension on large issues is evasion. In fact, very little is. It's possible to "know better" when you deny something, but you need evidence for that. It's not the -first- thing to presume.]

And why is it ok to go and talk to conservatives, to CPAC, to the Tea Parties? Don't want to sanction 'subjectivists', but it's okay to sanction religious 'intrinsicists'?

Almost criminal stupidity!!

(Yikes. I thought I was going to give a short answer...)

**Leonard Peikoff used to be a brilliant thinker when he created all those courses in the old days. Like water in a long, dry desert, he was the best teacher I ever had. I feel the loss of that man - and how he inspired me - enormously and painfully. I'm not familiar with his most recent courses.

[Brant Gaede]

I like Rand's novels' speeches, even Galt's even the problems I find with it. Considering its context it belonged there the way it is, length, style and all. The predominant consideration had to be literary. I have no ideas to improve it. Never did. When my personal situation gets stabilized next year and I have the time I'm going to distill out the philosophical content without rearranging it. Not a precis.

The most fascinating character is d'Anconia. He said some things I didn't like and I had to get a little more sensitive to what was going on, namely he was two characters and the public one was an act. This held true even--maybe most especially--in his interactions with Dagny while on strike, as in the hotel room when he played with marbles, and he commented on his Mexican project falling to pieces with the church left standing. (Economically the idea that his properties could be looted for generations and that he needed to actively destroy them under the radar was nonsensical. If one one's building no one's going to mine, but Rand had to give him something to do.) Regardless he was and wasn't an irresponsible playboy. Both Characters needed to get laid a lot more often. In fact, most of her characters needed to get laid a lot more often. A man would have written Atlas a lot differently that way--a lot of ways differently--and ruin it, of course, for the essential passivity of the strike is basically female-stay-at-home-make-babies while the man is out in the world making money bringing home the bacon. Wife: "How's the strike going, honey?" "Horrible. I want to get back to work or they're gonna repossess the Porsche."

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Subject: (1) Honest Error, (2) Evasion, (3) Laziness, (4) Self-Inflicted Blindness, (5) Lack of Sufficient Study or Attentive Focus --- Five Different Things

Xray,

I don't want to revisit the whole Peikoff vs. Kelley thing. I've posted a lot on it - including, if I recall, on more than one thread here.

Short version: Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value" is riddled with mistakes and bad analogies. Until he started advocating "nuking Teheran" (or claiming that if you didn't vote for the Democrats in one election, you failed to fully be Objectivist), it's probably the worst, most irrational, most destructive thing he ever wrote**. What he calls tolerating evil by Kelley was nothing of the kind. He missrepresents Kelley: Kelley was not abandoning Objectivism in any manner whatsoever. He was in fact defending it. Kelley's essay in response "Truth and Toleration" was excellent and, unlike Peikoff, a valid and important application of Objectivism.

Peikoff used to know this sort of thing (how to apply and integrate Objectivism in a manner less redolent of Savonarola or Jonathan Edwards -- sinners in the hands of an angry Rand) when he did his Understanding Objectivism course.

The initial point (from Schwartz) that one shouldn't 'sanction' libertarians, shouldn't speak at their supper clubs was not only ridiculous but stupid. Libertarianism is "subjectivism"?? Give me a fucking break! Has he not heard of the fact that there are all kinds of libertarians with all kinds of views? Has he not heard of the classical liberals - many of whom were (and are) religious with strong convictions, the very opposite of subjectivists?

How on earth are you going to find people to convince when you can't talk to, go to speak to those who are closest to you in philosophy or politics? Would Peikoff and Schwartz argue that you can't talk to Aristotelians because they are close enough to Objectivism that they ought to know better and therefore can't be reasoned with because they are evaders, for chrissake??? Or with mathematicians and engineers because they are so experienced in using reason, that they could only disagree with Objectivism falsely???

[Bottom line: The point here is there are lots of ways to make mistakes. Not every misstatement or misapprehension on large issues is evasion. In fact, very little is. It's possible to "know better" when you deny something, but you need evidence for that. It's not the -first- thing to presume.]

And why is it ok to go and talk to conservatives, to CPAC, to the Tea Parties? Don't want to sanction 'subjectivists', but it's okay to sanction religious 'intrinsicists'?

Almost criminal stupidity!!

(Yikes. I thought I was going to give a short answer...)

**Leonard Peikoff used to be a brilliant thinker when he created all those courses in the old days. Like water in a long, dry desert, he was the best teacher I ever had. I feel the loss of that man - and how he inspired me - enormously and painfully. I'm not familiar with his most recent courses.

Excellent post, Phil. I never thought I would say this. Maybe I've gone insane.

Ghs

[caroljane]

Subject: (1) Honest Error, (2) Evasion, (3) Laziness, (4) Self-Inflicted Blindness, (5) Lack of Sufficient Study or Attentive Focus --- Five Different Things

Xray,

I don't want to revisit the whole Peikoff vs. Kelley thing. I've posted a lot on it - including, if I recall, on more than one thread here.

Short version: Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value" is riddled with mistakes and bad analogies. Until he started advocating "nuking Teheran" (or claiming that if you didn't vote for the Democrats in one election, you failed to fully be Objectivist), it's probably the worst, most irrational, most destructive thing he ever wrote**. What he calls tolerating evil by Kelley was nothing of the kind. He missrepresents Kelley: Kelley was not abandoning Objectivism in any manner whatsoever. He was in fact defending it. Kelley's essay in response "Truth and Toleration" was excellent and, unlike Peikoff, a valid and important application of Objectivism.

Peikoff used to know this sort of thing (how to apply and integrate Objectivism in a manner less redolent of Savonarola or Jonathan Edwards -- sinners in the hands of an angry Rand) when he did his Understanding Objectivism course.

The initial point (from Schwartz) that one shouldn't 'sanction' libertarians, shouldn't speak at their supper clubs was not only ridiculous but stupid. Libertarianism is "subjectivism"?? Give me a fucking break! Has he not heard of the fact that there are all kinds of libertarians with all kinds of views? Has he not heard of the classical liberals - many of whom were (and are) religious with strong convictions, the very opposite of subjectivists?

How on earth are you going to find people to convince when you can't talk to, go to speak to those who are closest to you in philosophy or politics? Would Peikoff and Schwartz argue that you can't talk to Aristotelians because they are close enough to Objectivism that they ought to know better and therefore can't be reasoned with because they are evaders, for chrissake??? Or with mathematicians and engineers because they are so experienced in using reason, that they could only disagree with Objectivism falsely???

[Bottom line: The point here is there are lots of ways to make mistakes. Not every misstatement or misapprehension on large issues is evasion. In fact, very little is. It's possible to "know better" when you deny something, but you need evidence for that. It's not the -first- thing to presume.]

And why is it ok to go and talk to conservatives, to CPAC, to the Tea Parties? Don't want to sanction 'subjectivists', but it's okay to sanction religious 'intrinsicists'?

Almost criminal stupidity!!

(Yikes. I thought I was going to give a short answer...)

**Leonard Peikoff used to be a brilliant thinker when he created all those courses in the old days. Like water in a long, dry desert, he was the best teacher I ever had. I feel the loss of that man - and how he inspired me - enormously and painfully. I'm not familiar with his most recent courses.

Excellent post, Phil. I never thought I would say this. Maybe I've gone insane.

Ghs

Welcome to the asylum then. I learned real things from that post , and not just about Schwartz etc.

Well said Phil.

[George H. Smith]

Excellent post, Phil. I never thought I would say this. Maybe I've gone insane. Ghs

Welcome to the asylum then. I learned real things from that post , and not just about Schwartz etc. Well said Phil.

Note that I said nothing about a broken clock. I was serious.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

Peikoff used to know this sort of thing (how to apply and integrate Objectivism in a manner less redolent of Savonarola or Jonathan Edwards -- sinners in the hands of an angry Rand) when he did his Understanding Objectivism course.

So, then I take it that Peikoff is a "degenerate Objectivist." But how could that be? Phil's theory is that the cause of Objectivist degeneracy is that the degenerates have not taken all of the Objectivist courses that Phil has taken, haven't properly taken notes like Phil and Stephen Boydstun have, and haven't put in the effort of "getting 100% mastery of every issue, application and wrinkle." Is Phil therefore saying that Peikoff, who is Rand's heir and the leading authority on Objectivism, has "slipped away or distanced himself from the true aspects of this philosophy or from making the effort to continually rigorously apply it" because he didn't take enough notes while teaching his own material, and he didn't study and master every aspect of the philosophy? If so, holy shit! If the cause of Peikoff's degeneracy is that he hasn't put in enough effort toward mastering Objectivism 100%, then how can anyone else be expected to put in enough effort?

J

[Peter]

Jonathan whose avatar is a fox, wrote:

If the cause of Peikoff's degeneracy is that he hasn't put in enough effort toward mastering Objectivism 100%, then how can anyone else be expected to put in enough effort?

end quote

I don’t like the name of this thread or its bitterness. It’s reminiscent of the insane wickedness in “The Wizard of Oz.” “Follow the yellow brick road . . . .”

“Atlas Shrugged” the movie will be out on blue-ray tomorrow. Is it a stepping stone down a path to a brighter tomorrow? Where do we go from here? We have never been closer to the hellish political system depicted in Rand’s epic novel while we have simultaneously never been closer to redemption through the Tea Party, and the continuing elections of heroes like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul.

2012 is a pivotal year politically which is the forth basic tenet of Rand’s Objectivism. Can the same revolution be brought to the first three tenets of Objectivism?

The first one, Reality exists as an objective absolute is standard fare now. We don’t hear too much about those who deny Reality’s existence and primacy. The World Wide Web’s home pages like Yahoo! don’t have major topic headings like “Ghosts” or “The Unreal,” but they do have “Science,” and “Finance.”

The second one, Reason as man's only means of perceiving reality, (his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival) has a few challenger’s among Religious zealots and the “less than sober,” but they are a minor irritation to Western Civilization.

The third one is closely tied to political theory. Man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. “He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own *rational* self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

So everyone, where do we go from here? Politics is the logical choice. I have heard several people on Objectivist Living say they do not vote but that is not the way to fight for our rights. Get involved.

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I'm almost afraid to comment on your post because I agree with George.

I hope this lasts, but I don't expect it to.

That's why I fear. I don't want to be the one who breaks the fragile moment.

Still, that was a very good post. And not just because I agree with you. (I've asked myself if this was the reason for my positive opinion. It certainly helped, but the main reason is deeper and goes to the quality of the exposition and the way the argument developed.)

Michael

[George H. Smith]

So everyone, where do we go from here? Politics is the logical choice. I have heard several people on Objectivist Living say they do not vote but that is not the way to fight for our rights. Get involved.

Peter Taylor

Too bad Ayn Rand didn't spend her time getting petitions signed and campaigning for political candidates instead of wasting all those years writing Atlas Shrugged. If Rand had truly gotten involved, as you so wisely recommend, she might have actually had some influence.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

So everyone, where do we go from here? Politics is the logical choice. I have heard several people on Objectivist Living say they do not vote but that is not the way to fight for our rights. Get involved.

Peter Taylor

Too bad Ayn Rand didn't spend her time getting petitions signed and campaigning for political candidates instead of wasting all those years writing Atlas Shrugged. If Rand had truly gotten involved, as you so wisely recommend, she might have actually had some influence.

Ghs

Rand got involved politically two or three different ways, at least, in the 1940s. She did it again with Goldwater in 64, Nixon in 68 and 72, and by helping Greenspan go to Washington in order to accelerate history into the big smash down comparable to what happened in her great novel. The last was her most brilliant and effective touch: faux free markets via the socialism of central banking and then collectivism drowns in the contradiction.

--Brant

what next?--we draw up a better constitution without the flaws