John Ridpath: What's He Up To?

[Paul Mawdsley]

I didn't want to interrupt the Lepers of Objectivism thread with this tangent so I thought I'd put this in the living room.

I have studied under John Ridpath at York University

It was John Ridpath who introduced Ayn Rand's work to me about 20 years ago. I assume he is very involved with A.R.I. but know nothing about what he is doing or what sort of status he has. He struck me as a very intelligent man who was ambitious to climb the Objectivist ladder. I asked him once if he thought he could have, given the time and the right circumstances, created Rand's worldview himself. The pure awe and worship for Rand that came over his face has been with me ever since. With the reverence of a disciple, his eyes glanced upward as he said, "She was a genius." In that moment he lost some esteem in my eyes because his words and his expression conveyed the view that, in his mind, Rand's judgement had greater authority than his own. I have always believed there should be no higher authority in my life than my own judgement. I have generalized this to conclude that the highest authority in anyone's life should be his or her own judgement. It struck me that Ridpath's response to my question suggested there was a limit beyond which he would defer his own judgement to that of Rand because he could not see the world as he did without her guidance. I still respected his intelligence and found him to be a great lecturer who was first rate at identifying and categorizing the underlying principles of philosophical perspectives. While he is a good evaluator of ideas, he is not an inventor of ideas. I'm sure he makes a good technician but he is no visionary. He will not participate in the evolution of Objectivism.

Can anyone give me a quick update on what Ridpath is up to?

Victor, did you take his Social Science 1010 in Curtis?

Paul

[Barbara Branden]

Paul: "Can anyone give me a quick update on what Ridpath is up to?"

I looked at Google, and there are a number of entries for him. They shold give you the information you want. And yes, he is affiliated with ARI; I believe he's on the Board of Directors.

You wrote: "It struck me that Ridpath's response to my question suggested there was a limit beyond which he would defer his own judgement to that of Rand because he could not see the world as he did without her guidance." A very interesting and astute observation.

Barbara

[Victor Pross]

Paul,

Yes, I took Ridpath’s “intellectual history” class in 1995 at York University. He was my fave teacher. Among a few other students, we became friendly and talked about Ayn Rand and philosophy outside of class. I don’t recall ever having the impression that he was a blind follower regurgitating Rand’s ideas—above adopting and applying those ideas in such a way to live his life. He could properly be called an “Objectivist” and for a reason: He is well studied in her ideas and takes those ideas seriously. He advocates those ideas and lives them. With perhaps a few exceptions, I think we are all indebted to Ayn Rand for that.

As aside, let me say this: I have to disagree with those who hold the view that being awe struck by the sheer brilliance of anther human being makes one a “blind follower” or a “Randroid.” Paul, I’m saying that this is your position, but it comes to mind and I want to get out there. Yes, Ridpath worships Rand—as do I. Listen, I feel I can say that now because everybody should know that I am an atheist, for the love of God. Speaking of which, Judith’s use of the word “God” on some other thread was meant to communicate something beautiful and poetic--and so why not 'worship' as in “I worship Ayn Rand.” Let’s redeem the word “worship” from a banshee drenched supernaturalism. I say this now because I have a very different interpretation of Ridpath’s respect and love for Rand. I don't see it as cult like. I have been moved by his love for both her and her accomplishments. Rand earned it and Ridpath knows it.

See, I have nothing but respect for John Ridpath. His knowledge and passion as a teacher was a rare treat to behold. I have never met a professor who had a greater passion for ideas and the manner in which he imparted them was engaging and exciting. He always managed to hold his student’s attention. Those who remember his class recall his booming voice and lighthearted manner. He is also a very emotional man, and I mean that in the best way. He is easily moved by great works of art and this shows a great love of life.

Further more, his contributions to the intellectual world are plentiful. For example, his lectures on Nietzsche are far more penetrating and insightful than any alleged authority on the subject and the same can be said for his lectures on Hegel and Kant. Has anybody here ever heard them? For me, he is an intellectual historian of the first order. His works on Kant and Nietzsche is only scratching the service. What's more, I defy anybody to find other works that are more inspired than Ridpath’s understanding of the American Revolution, its history and meaning.

I didn’t always agree with him, and I did challenge things he said that didn’t sit well with me. Such as his negative views of Beethoven. But in the end, it does not matter. His impact on my life has been nothing but positive and is still felt today. I admire him greatly. He's a good man.

-Victor-

Edited October 8, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are a few links on John Ridpath.

Wikipedia article

Page on ARI site

Blurb on Capitalism Magazine site

The Wikipedia article says he lives in Toronto.

I know a bit about him because of his harsh treatment of Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical by Chris Sciabarra. Here is a part of the blurb about it from Chris's site (the review of RR came out in The Intellectual Activist, 10, no. 1 - January 1996):

"THE ACADEMIC DECONSTRUCTION OF AYN RAND"

Ridpath sees Russian Radical as a "truly grotesque example" of how contemporary academics, using current academic methods, have attempted to impress their peers with analyses of Ayn Rand. He sees "postmodern" and "deconstructionist" themes "on open display" in Sciabarra's book, "a book that is preposterous in its thesis, destructive in its purpose, and tortuously numbing in its content." Ridpath views Sciabarra as "a neo-Hegelian" trying to force Rand into that mold in his exposition. He argues that Sciabarra's thesis is "undeserving of serious attention," that it "offers us nothing of significance" about Rand, and that it is symptomatic of contemporary academia and "the worthless products flowing from it."

Here are a couple of responses from Chris:

RESPONSE TO JOHN B. RIDPATH

A POST TO THE ALT.PHILOSOPHY.OBJECTIVISM NEWSGROUP.

Chris's particular opinion of Ridpath's review is in the newsgroup link:

The reviewer who called me a "deconstructionist" -- and we shant hide that fact here -- was Dr. John Ridpath, in one of the most venomous pieces of theatrical hyperbole that I've ever seen written about my book. It was filled with such hostility, and such blatant fear of alternative viewpoints that it was simply not worth responding to.

A big stink arose about Ridpath accusing Chris of trying to cash in on Peikoff's name, accusing Chris of claiming that the book benefited from the "cooperation" of Peikoff. What really happened is that in the middle of a gazillion "thank-you acknowledgments" at the start of RR, Chris wrote, after a paragraph of oodles of folks:

My acknowledgments also to... [ARI and some others for letting him purchase and rent tapes] ... and to Leonard Peikoff, Diane LeMont, and the Estate of Ayn Rand for timely correspondence on several issues of historical and legal significance to the current project.

Ridpath had fit and orthodoxy hotheads debated this for years, up to today actually, as proof of Chris's dishonesty. (I personally have seen highly sarcastic and obnoxious comments on other websites hotly debating the evil nuances of the word "timely" and so forth.)

Chris mentioned that Laissez Faire Books ran an ad for RR right at the start giving Peikoff's name, but then discontinued, so this could have been part of the trouble. However, this is not the issue alleged in print by his attackers.

Paul, I don't want to disillusion you, but I get the impression that Ridpath is third or fourth string ARI orthodoxy and that's about it. His claim to fame was trying to slay the Sciabarra dragon and that didn't go anywhere outside the Objectivist subculture. Even then, the controversy stayed within the ARI sympathizer orbit. The rest is sort of mid-level college teacher stuff.

(Well... now there's you and Victor and that other dude... but I certainly wouldn't brag about that! )

Edit - My post just crossed with Victor's. That was quite a tribute. He seems to have been an inspiring teacher, even if hostilely sensitive about views of Rand that fall outside of ARI-type views.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

I discovered in some of the historical material a brouchure from the conference on Objectivism in Charlottesville Virginia in 1967. The material included a list of the members of the Ayn Rand Society of University of Virginia. One of the members listed was John Ridpath. The conference primary orgranizer was an Earl Good who I am told later became a Morman. The conference was a huge success and the fee was only $10. You had to provide your own room. I don't remember John Ridpath from the conference.

[Robert Campbell]

Chris G,

Was this same conference where Leonard Peikoff presented "Certainty without Omniscience"?

Robert C

[Robert Campbell]

Human beings are complicated. John Ridpath could be both an inspiring classroom teacher--and the perpetrator of an ignorant, ugly hatchet job on another scholar's work.

I have no data of my own about the former, but I also have no particular reason to doubt Victor's account.

I do have data about the latter. Ridpath's review of Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical has left a lasting negative impression on me.

In fact, it's truly striking to what extent the adepts of the Ayn Rand Institute keep drawing their talking points that one review.

As for acknowledging genius, there's no confession of second-handedness in that. The second-handedness comes in when the admirer assumes that the genius was right about everything, hence, is immune to critical examination.

For instance: Noam Chomsky is a genius. It does not follow that he is right about everything, or that he ought to enjoy immunity from critical examination.

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

Interesting comments Paul. I'd say there's two bad tendencies possible here: Those of the blind worshipper, who sees Ayn Rand as a prophet; and those of an impertinent subjectivist, the rebel without a cause, who appreciates Ayn Rand's conclusions on some level but doesn't pay her the proper respect nor comprehend that he owes much of what he unjustly regards as purely his own thinking to her.

For my part I recognize that I probably would not have learned how to think without Ayn Rand, I would have stayed in the quagmire of uncertainty about the vast range of issues she opened up for me without her help. On the other hand I actually believe that she helped me! (Imagine that!) I do feel confident now that I can tackle almost any intellectual problem, probably not at her speed, but I can still do it.

[Chris Grieb]

Chris G,

Was this same conference where Leonard Peikoff presented "Certainty without Omniscience"?

Robert C

Robert; Yes; LP got a standing ovation and deserved it.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I've found this discussion of admiration of genius to be very interesting. I think that some of the awe at the feats of many geniuses of which Rand is one come from a misunderstanding of how the human thinking process really works. If people think that geniuses like Rand or Einstein came to their creative discoveries by powering through all of the work necessary to make a profound inductive generalization step by step that could indeed breed an awe bordering on reverence for the supernatural.

The human neocortex is a pattern recognition machine and some human beings are better at it in certain contexts than others. An understanding of how our brains actually process information would give better insight into the phenomenon of genius. Our brains perform amazing feats every day that we don't notice because they are commonplace. The act of getting up and going to the refrigerator to get a cold beer cannot be explained in enough detail to say it is understood. I think we have almost as little understanding of how we accomplish everyday tasks as we do about how a genius comes up with a creative discovery.

Jim

[sjw]

Jim: I won't pretend to know exactly what you're getting at, but I will say that those of us who have done creative work know it's a painstaking, step by step process (leaving aside modern art, which is trash not creation). You don't need psychology or neuroscience to know what it takes to create, and to admire it.

But you don't need me to tell you about Rand's efforts, there's her journals and books on fiction/non-fiction writing that make it clear that she was not merely a genius but had a god-like work ethic and integrity.

Shayne

[Barbara Branden]

sjw: "For my part I recognize that I probably would not have learned how to think without Ayn Rand, I would have stayed in the quagmire of uncertainty about the vast range of issues she opened up for me without her help. On the other hand I actually believe that she helped me! (Imagine that!) I do feel confident now that I can tackle almost any intellectual problem, probably not at her speed, but I can still do it."

A very intersting observation, and very similar to one I often have made. I've been asked if I would have preferred never to have met Rand, and thus have been spared a great deal of pain. My answer was no, I would not want never to have met her -- most of all because I learned from her to think with a clarity that I might never have fully achieved on my own. And that is the gift of life.

Barbara

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim: I won't pretend to know exactly what you're getting at, but I will say that those of us who have done creative work know it's a painstaking, step by step process (leaving aside modern art, which is trash not creation). You don't need psychology or neuroscience to know what it takes to create, and to admire it.

But you don't need me to tell you about Rand's efforts, there's her journals and books on fiction/non-fiction writing that make it clear that she was not merely a genius but had a god-like work ethic and integrity.

Shayne

Shayne,

Sure. People understand others' creative work by analogy to how they do it. And the most brilliant geniuses won't get very far without the work ethic to go along with it. However, the path to discovery is often very different than how that discovery is ultimately proven and validated. It took Freeman Dyson five years of painstaking mathematical work to prove the validity of Richard Feynman's diagrams representing electron-electron interactions.

Ultimately, Rand's readers take a much different route to understanding Objectivism than she did. I will agree that creative work is painstaking and for some people it is step by step and for some people it occurs in leaps, starts, ahas and Eurekas. This doesn't take away from the admiration. It simply means that you understand that creative discovery is often a qualitatively different mental operation than learning and validation.

As for god-like, I think Rand was a genius and takes her place among Newton, Einstein, Gauss, Maxwell, Von Neumann and others. That should be enough.

Jim

[sjw]

Sure. People understand others' creative work by analogy to how they do it.

Do you mean by this what you appear to mean? Namely, that you believe I have a simplistic understanding of how creative work is done, but your understanding is full and enlightened? Or maybe it's worse. Maybe you think that your enlightenment consists the fact that you recognize your ignorance, while you think I am oblivious to my own?

Shayne

[Dragonfly]

As for god-like, I think Rand was a genius and takes her place among Newton, Einstein, Gauss, Maxwell, Von Neumann and others. That should be enough.

Whatever Rand's merits, she wasn't a genius, at least not like those people. She may have been a genial writer and an astute commentator on political matters, but in the thinking department she certainly couldn't hold a candle to the giants you mention, they are in a quite different league.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Sure. People understand others' creative work by analogy to how they do it.

Do you mean by this what you appear to mean? Namely, that you believe I have a simplistic understanding of how creative work is done, but your understanding is full and enlightened? Or maybe it's worse. Maybe you think that your enlightenment consists the fact that you recognize your ignorance, while you think I am oblivious to my own?

Shayne

Shayne,

I mean no insult by what I've written. I simply take a different approach to understanding it than you do. I think there are important differences both in how geniuses' brains work and in how they volitionally apply them to their craft. Both are important. You probably place more emphasis on the latter and I probably place more emphasis on the former.

Jim

[sjw]

I mean no insult by what I've written. I simply take a different approach to understanding it than you do. I think there are important differences both in how geniuses' brains work and in how they volitionally apply them to their craft. Both are important. You probably place more emphasis on the latter and I probably place more emphasis on the former.

I didn't ask for clarification because I was insulted; I asked because I don't know what point you're trying to make. I still don't know.

In any case, the reason I admire Rand isn't for her inborn traits, it's how she chose to use them, and yes I'd argue that what people volitionally do is what's important when it comes to admiration. So if by "I simply take a different approach" you mean that yours is equally valid here, I totally disagree. And I don't think Rand was a born genius, I think she was self-made, starting from a very young age. She was born with a good brain, but what is important is how she chose to employ it. I think your emphasis on "how geniuses' brains work" is to turn genius into something mystical, when really it's more of a heroic ongoing devotion to some endeavor that makes a genius. Yes there's a basic genetic requirement, but there's no evidence that that's the important factor, and plenty of evidence that it isn't.

Shayne

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Shayne,

I have no big problem with what you said above, but I do have differences. I'm interested is how human beings are hard-wired neurologically, not from a standpoint of making genius mystical, but exploring all of the possible evidence of how great achievements are accomplished. Perhaps it is too early to say much about what our physical brains contribute to the process beyond what we can introspect about.

However, I disagree with you that people can't take credit for genetic endowment as well as those improvements that they undertook volitionally. It's who they are. I admire Rand for her accomplishments as a novelist and philosopher. Whether she achieved them sweating bullets or effortlessly in her spare time is immaterial to the nature of the achievement.

To say that the effort required is part of the measuring stick is looking at achievements in terms of costs rather than results. There is something viscerally satisfying about someone succeeding against all odds, but it really isn't any better from an Objectivist standpoint than someone simply succeeding.

Jim

[sjw]

To say that the effort required is part of the measuring stick is looking at achievements in terms of costs rather than results. There is something viscerally satisfying about someone succeeding against all odds, but it really isn't any better from an Objectivist standpoint than someone simply succeeding.

That's a valid point. Of course, no one who succeeded primarily because of genetics would properly earn the designation "hero". But that's academic; there's no evidence that Rand (or any other genius) was successful primarily because of genetics. On the contrary, the evidence points more to nurturing parents than it does to genetics (often, though not always, one finds that the genius was highly educated starting from a young age).

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John Ridpath wrote an essay entitled "Nietzsche and Individualism" in Vol. 7, No. 1 and 2 of the The Objectivist Forum (February and April 1986) - print version available in the bound compilation of The Objectivist Forum and audio CD version here.

Fred Seddon wrote an article in Reason Papers: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Normative Studies (No. 22, Fall 1997) called:

Nietzsche: The Myth and Its Method

Seddon is extremely critical of just about everything of substance in Ridpath's article.

Michael

[Ross Barlow]

Thank you, Michael, for the link to Fred Seddon’s *Reason Papers* review, “Nietzsche: The Myth and Its Method,” in which he reviewed Ridpath’s article on Nietzsche. Seddon did a good job, and I generally agree with his assessment. Ridpath was way off-base about Nietzsche.

Here I just want to say that I very briefly met John Ridpath once at a conference before I had read his article, and I found him to be a very agreeable person to talk with. I remarked to him that I had heard of his practice of going to his camp in rural Canada to just relax and enjoy the peaceful natural setting. This appeals to my own nature-aesthetic, and we shared a few experiences of the wild Canadian “bush.” It impressed me as rare and refreshing that a well-noted Objectivist would be so amicably informal, as well as to even admit to liking aspects of “nature.” I also thought he was a very good speaker.

Re: Ridpath’s article on Nietzsche. I am not an accomplished Nietzsche scholar, but in younger days I did immerse myself in his works over a period of many years. I thoroughly read virtually all of his works that have been translated into English, including all of Walter Kaufmann’s translations (most of them numerous times) and his commentaries, as well as the work of several other translators such as Hollingdale. I think that I have a good sense of Nietzsche’s overall works and world-view.

I had to force myself to finish Ridpath’s article on Nietzsche in *The Objectivist Forum*. I was sure that he really never read Nietzsche’s actual works with any care – or never read enough of them or without preconceptions he was unwilling to abandon. The article seemed to be, in short, not very *objective*.

I was very disappointed by the article and I saw it as a very poor hatchet job and an injustice to a profound thinker. After that, I started to lose the last of my interest in *The Objectivist Forum* and in the official Objectivist elite.

-Ross Barlow.