Leonard Peikoff.

[Brant Gaede]

On March 28th I turned 80. I have considerable first hand experience with Objectivism and its adherents going back to 1963 when I read AS in paperback in my sister's home in Flagstaff, AZ. I moved to the vacinity of NYC in the spring of 1968 before the break of 1968. And I saw the NYC aftermath taking first Rand's side and then the Brandens' a few years later 

Looking now and looking back I suddenly realized Leonard was either 90yo or soon to be. I'm 80. Here's what I now think of him, but it has little to do with taking sides: Leonard Peikoff is a hero. And a productive one. He hung in there with Ayn Rand and he produced and produced. OPAR is a necessary text Rand had not the time of her life left to produce and it is necessary material for scholars to continue off on and beyond respecting her philosophy.

I wish him the best possible in health and general well being. And I have to say "Thank you, for your life, Leonard Peikoff.™

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I echo this sentiment.

21 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Leonard Peikoff is a hero. And a productive one. He hung in there with Ayn Rand and he produced and produced. OPAR is a necessary text Rand had not the time of her life left to produce and it is necessary material for scholars to continue off on and beyond respecting her philosophy.

I wish him the best possible in health and general well being.

I do not have the same evaluation of OPAR you have, but I do hold it in high esteem among Objectivist literature. It's an important book.

As to Leonard, I have differences and a few criticisms, but I agree with you. He stuck it out. And he produced while doing so.

Quitters are not winners.

Leonard Peikoff is a hero.

(Barbara just pinched me from the great beyond, but I told her to pipe down.  )

On a serious note, I mean it about Peikoff.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

I echo this sentiment.

I do not have the same evaluation of OPAR you have, but I do hold it in high esteem among Objectivist literature. It's an important book.

As to Leonard, I have differences and a few criticisms, but I agree with you. He stuck it out. And he produced while doing so.

Quitters are not winners.

Leonard Peikoff is a hero.

(Barbara just pinched me from the great beyond, but I told her to pipe down.  )

On a serious note, I mean it about Peikoff.

Michael

It's for scholarly evaluation considering its time and place and who wrote it. 

--Brant

[anthony]

Apart from his 'my way or the highway' authoritarianism, his denigration and banishment of "the Brandens" - and Nathaniel's early works and later psychology books are essential to Objectivists' full education (esp. their well-being)- his neo-con pronouncements - Peikoff is/was a good and productive  intellectual and teacher. ARI has done downhill since. For a O'ist "hero" I look no further than NB. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, anthony said:

For a O'ist "hero" I look no further than NB. 

Tony,

Hear, hear.

Don't forget Barbara.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

I want to add something else. Here in O-Land, the movement is not large. So we do not have a huge wealth of intellectuals and high-end achievers, not like certain other religions, ideologies, and philosophies do.

And there's this. As you detailed and implied, Peikoff was a real asshole at times.

But to use a common form of saying it, he is our asshole.

 

Peikoff lived a life of ups and downs, tragedies and triumphs, reason and folly, flashes of brilliance and sheer boneheadedness. He was a human being, not a perfect human being by far, but a good one. (Besides, I have issues with moral perfection as a standard of human anything--I use human nature and desire to be good.)

Even Rand, in one of her last Ayn Rand Letters talked about the folly of man as part of human nature. This struck me when I first read it because she always defended the greatness of man. (I'll dig up a quote if needed.)

Irrespective of all else, Peikoff hung in there and kept a form of Objectivism going. He did not let it die or let first place guru become taken over by a usurper. Rand stayed in first place under Peikoff's watch. Between what he did (including ARI) and the approach TAS uses, Objectivism actually has a foundation to build something social and political on top of. It's flawed, but it's there.

(I, myself, would like to see an O-Land where there was more emphasis on good character, and more rejection of bullying and things of this nature. This would provide a link between Objectivism and religions and other ideas where individual freedom in a society of good people is a top value. The main standard would not be the body of ideas and beliefs in their particular differences, but instead, common ground and the character of the people who associate with each other. But that's for another time.)

That is the lens I use when I align with Brant in calling Peikoff a hero.

He was no John Galt or Howard Roark or Ayn Rand.

He was Leonard Peikoff.

In final measure, not shabby...

 

Michael

[anthony]

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

I want to add something else. Here in O-Land, the movement is not large. So we do not have a huge wealth of intellectuals and high-end achievers, not like certain other religions, ideologies, and philosophies do.

And there's this. As you detailed and implied, Peikoff was a real asshole at times.

But to use a common form of saying it, he is our asshole.

 

Peikoff lived a life of ups and downs, tragedies and triumphs, reason and folly, flashes of brilliance and sheer boneheadedness. He was a human being, not a perfect human being by far, but a good one. (Besides, I have issues with moral perfection as a standard of human anything--I use human nature and desire to be good.)

Even Rand, in one of her last Ayn Rand Letters talked about the folly of man as part of human nature.

Michael, I am in general agreement.

Most recently I heard (here) LP's talk about his personal experiences with Rand.

Excellent, moving, and with a poignant ending. ("...and I loved her").

What I can't forget was his uncalled for, I thought, public denouncement of the Brandens, who were portrayed to have been capitalizing upon AR's accomplishments, or some-such language. No recognition that NB played some formative part in O'ism in collaboration with her. Their 'exploitation' of her explained, he implied, why she broke with NB and BB so suddenly.

Apparently, heedless (or in denial) of The Affair. 

He then took Branden strongly to task for writing/saying that her anger "showed Rand was human". Well of course she was. Who denies it? The fact she was indeed human elevates her, does not reduce her. Unless one wishes to revere her irrationally and intrinsically.

As well as putting off many of a generation of O'ists from taking Branden's important later work seriously, to their benefit (he's a fraud, he used Rand, etc.) and not admitting the moral justice the work deserves, it is this enduring "human-ness" of the reasoning, "rational animal"  that is sorely missing.  Where Branden's corrective writing is most invaluable. 

But is still makes for contention in O'ist circles tending some to rationalism, idealization contra reality.

It seems to me there was a little intellectual jealousy from her admirers surrounding Rand with Nathaniel known to be at the top of her regard. The way things played out after the Split and the subsequent schisms affirms this for me. The air still lingers, as if - another intellectual is a threat to me and my knowledge rather than a boon. Or. at least challenging one to rethink. But other thinkers must be guarded against to keep one's thoughts pure. 

I saw this in LP and later ARI members. I admit to being peeved about such authoritarianism.

Who would admit to professional, scholarly or sexual jealousy? That would be all too "human".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Who would admit to professional, scholarly or sexual jealousy? That would be all too "human".

Tony,

I'll go you one further (but, puhleeze, not in a competitive manner--more in the sense of sharing a thought), think about Peikoff and Branden, then think about the ancient story in Genesis of Cain and Able.

 

When you leave out the sex and romantic triangle stuff (or quadrangle so to speak  ), God loved Able more, so Cain killed him.

Equate Able with NB and Cain with Peikoff and the pattern is pretty clear.

By telescoping things and working them through on a symbolic level even to the point of changing timelines, you can say Rand banished Peikoff the way God did Cain by not telling him about her affair with NB. Peikoff did not have her full confidence. And even though Peikoff did not physically kill Branden, well, you know...  

 

A person once told me something years ago that stuck with me. This was back when I was going to AA meetings. A new person appeared expressing shock that he had been on a binge, made a royal ass out of himself and couldn't remember most of it. After hearing this, the person said, "It's always a new story, but it's always the same old story."

I find many stories surrounding Objectivism super-in-line with the Judeo-Christian set of stories: the good, the bad, the ugly and the beautiful.

The details change, but the underlying patterns stay the same.

 

Michael

[tmj]

Listening to Jordan Peterson gave me some different insights into all things biblical , Cain killed Abel because his sacrifices were seen by God to be not as worthy. Cain knew he didn't give up enough and he was jealous of Abel's efforts and the resultant rewards.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, tmj said:

Listening to Jordan Peterson gave me some different insights into all things biblical , Cain killed Abel because his sacrifices were seen by God to be not as worthy. Cain knew he didn't give up enough and he was jealous of Abel's efforts and the resultant rewards.

T,

OK.

To stay with my metaphor and translate it, Peikoff knew he didn't give up enough and he was jealous of Nathaniel Branden's efforts and the resultant rewards.

 

(Sorry, I couldn't resist...  )

Michael

[tmj]

See now I thought I was the first to do that

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

T,

Don't worry.

That just shows you are poetically and metaphorically more nimble than I am.

But I'm in good company.

Rand often spelled out what her metaphors meant soon after using them.

 

Michael

[sjw]

Reading OPAR was valuable to me; it helped me leave the intellectual box I'd be put in as a child. The promises it makes about Objectivism being "rational" are woefully false, but the idea it gives of judging things by a rational standard helps you see that for yourself.

The lack of integrity of Objectivism and of Objectivists (like Peikoff) is a major stain on the whole enterprise, however. The promise of a "rational philosophy" has been completely undercut.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Yo.

Great to see you.

 

 

btw - You just gave words to a thought I've always felt, but never had words for. The real appeal of Objectivism is the promise that a rational philosophy is possible. Let me add that there is enormous relief in that, and excitement. From what I have observed, this appeal is universal to all who come in contact with Rand's work for the first time (or OPAR as in your case). Then, when the bait and switch later happens, that initial emotional imprint about reason is so strong, it keeps people coming back for more. They keep hoping the bad shit will go away or they can somehow purge it or something.

It's not just one thing that happens. It's a two-part thing.

I like it.  

Michael

[tmj]

Rand was my first actual or serious consideration of philosophy. Reading her fiction made me have to understand philosophy as a subject , my intellectual box or crib was of all things Rand. Youth and enthusiasm certainly ended with a fair degree of rationalism with dashes of not so great discrimination bordering on the dogmatic, lol.

Integration as a principle is probably what I judge to be one of the most positive takeaways along with of course the appreciation of rationality.

I consider myself now to be a materialist in recovery. I was too long diligent in ignoring the ‘right’ things , I left the box and things I’ve seen !

[nskinsella]

On 9/5/2024 at 11:54 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

"I do not have the same evaluation of OPAR you have, but I do hold it in high esteem among Objectivist literature. It's an important book."

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hi Stephan.

Michael

[Peter]

edit. My "pet peeve" is that objectivism is not "always' scientific or . . .  it must be scientific. I vote for scientific, but can you only prove it on . . . . Paper or an email? Is there a scientific way to prove Objectivism is scientific?

[Peter]

On 9/6/2024 at 12:26 AM, Brant Gaede said:

I wish him the best possible in health and general well being. And I have to say "Thank you, for your life, Leonard Peikoff.™

Well said, Brant.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

God help me, I am posting another video with Valliant.

 

Here he is interviewing Leonard Peikoff about Donald Trump.

 

Peikoff is 1000% in Trump's corner election-wise although there are some things about Trump he said he doesn't like. But he also said they are trivial by comparison to the danger we face in this election.

I don't agree with all of Peikoff's observations in this interview, but I do agree with about 90% of them.

And reelecting Trump is so important, I don't even want to go into the differences. 

Let people watch the video and think for themselves.

Peikoff makes an excellent case for Trump.

 

I do want to correct an impression about one point, though, for accuracy.

Valliant asked Peikoff what he thought of Trump having lunch with antisemite, Nick Fuentes. And when asked in this way, it sounded like Trump was the one who invited Fuentes and they had lunch one-on-one. 

Neither case is the case. Trump did not know who Fuentes was at the time.

I don't believe Valliant knew the whole story, though, so I have no criticism of him on that score. It sounded like he asked based on mainstream talking points and just didn't look into it.

Here's the real story and anyone can look it up if they want to.

 

The lunch happened as a result of Ye (the mega-rapper and Trump supporter) asking Trump for lunch and if it was OK to bring a couple of friends. Trump agreed. Fuentes was a tag-along, as was Milo. 

Ye had just come out with some controversial remarks against Jews in the music industry, and to ramp up the impact, he said a few good things about Hitler. The mainstream press melted and was going apeshit at the time. There was a mass press movement to cancel Ye.

I don't think any of this got to Trump's orbit at that time simply because there had not been enough time. So Trump and the three had lunch and, from what I can tell, none of the three discussed Jews or white power (which is a Fuentes position, or at least segregation is) or anything like that. When the lunch was over, Trump told Ye that this Fuentes guy was smart.

Then the mainstream press went elephant shit. Their heads exploded.

Essentially what happened was a publicity stunt by Ye, who took advantage of Trump's cordiality toward celebrity supporters. Ye kept Trump in the dark about all the antisemitism stuff until Trump later learned on his own what had happened. Obviously, everyone at the lunch kept close reins on what they said to Trump to avoid him knowing.

Notice that none of the three, Ye, Milo or Fuentes, have been with Trump since.  

So the charge that Trump had lunch with rabid antisemite Nick Fuentes, insinuating that Trump invited him and was appeasing people who think like that, is bullshit.

 

But even with that impression, Peikoff's answer was good and reasonable. He said even if the event was as bad as it appeared (in the form he understood from Valliant), it was not important to the grand scheme of things. Trump has not adopted any positions held by antisemites, has not furthered such causes, etc. So, to him, this was likely a misguided attempt at outreach by one of his accessors, maybe with the misguided idea that Trump could convert the person or whatever.

That's an OK response on my end.

And a response from a very lucid person at that (to tie this to the recent attempt to label Peikoff as a mental incompetent during the conservatorship lawsuit).

 

Watch the video and see what you think.

I hope Peikoff gets votes for Trump in O-Land and clips the wings of those with TDS.

He certainly made a good enough case to move some people.

 

Michael

[tmj]

I enjoyed the video and it reflected all the positive things in LP I have always admired.

If all goes well maybe he'd like one of my t-shirts to premiere on Nov 6 th "I'm Deplorable, and you're welcome"