The Split in a Nutshell

[Charles R. Anderson]

On the split between Peikoff and other ARI persons with David Kelley, David has written a short book on the important differences between them. The book is The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand: Truth and Toleration in Objectivism. David's viewpoint on the differences and on how one should approach the issues of:

1) Moral Judgment

2) Sanction

3) Error and Evil

4) Toleration

5) Objectivism, an Open or a Closed System?

is in strong accord with my own. These are important issues and they beg for a great deal of thought by Objectivists or simply by anyone who lives in a society. Kelley's book is very thoughtful and very enlightening. He gives references to the writings of Peikoff and the ARI people which he takes to task, so you can also read them.

Basically, I see a tendency on the part of many ARI folks toward dogmatism, over-simplification, excessive moral condemnations, a failure to appreciate the value of discussions with those who disagree with you, a lack of reasonable benevolence, a failure to appreciate the need to explore new ideas, and too little emphasis upon the role of Objectivism as a guide to living well and achieving happiness. Given these limitations, some of the people with these faults still have value. There are also some writers from ARI who are usually very good. Of course, I am a tolerant and benevolent man who sees value in many people who are not even Objectivists, much to the chagrin of some ARI people.

I also do not think one really is an Objectivist if one does not examine one's own experience, carefully evaluate the arguments others have made, and try hard to formulate your own philosophy while using your independent reasoning faculty as fully as you can. Then, if you wind up agreeing with the essential principles of the Objectivist philosophy, you are an Objectivist. If you take on Objectivism as a dogma or a religion, then you are not an Objectivist, because you will not have the independent thinking skills to apply the principles well to living your life.

[Charles R. Anderson]

PARC is Jim Valliant's book The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. Principally, he calls Barbara and Nathaniel Branden her critics. This is strange in that most of our society is more at variance with Ayn Rand's ideas than either of them is. In fact, I do not know of any valid principle of Objectivism that Barbara disagrees with. There is no question that she agrees with just about everything philosophically, though she has some strong reservations about some of Ayn Rand's pyschological ideas. Nathaniel is a bit more reasonably viewed as having some significant disagreements, but still the greater part of his ideas are consistent with Objectivism.

PARC requires careful reading to unmask the faulty arguments, to keep track of the events which are frequently not taken in chronological order, to avoid taking a false conclusion as true simply because it repeated over and over, and generally to avoid undue influence of many rhetorical tricks and obfuscations. This book is rich in examples of failures of logic and would be very useful for teaching a course in logic.

Personally, I would simply advise you to read such books as The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, The New Left and the Anti-Industrial Revolution, and David Kelley's books The Contested Legacy and Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence before spending time on PARC. Peikoff's books are more derivative, but are useful. You should also read PAR before PARC.

[Victor Pross]

Charles,

I’m not without my own criticism of PARC, one of them being the constant “bunny ears” such as in the “following way”: “”””””” :cry: After a while, it simply grated the nerves. Mine anyway. Take a second look and you'll see what I mean. Anyway, a more substantive criticism would be the all too devout smashing of Branden skulls--Valliant even going so far as citing a surprise birthday party for Rand as an example of deception! Why? Because the Brandens [get this] lied to Rand about the nature of that night’s activities! I put the book down at that stage [and I do admit being caught up in it] and laughed. Okay, cool the jets, Valliant. Jesus Christ, bloody ridiculous. Can you imagine bashing your friends for arranging a surprise party for you? Man!

-Victor-

Edited December 10, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger has a very funny essay on bunny-ears:

Objectivist Punctuation--Two Schools, One Method

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Addicted; I said this before the worst thing about the Split was going through it. 1968 was not a great year. The Split was one of the worst things that happened Oaths were required. Friendships, marriages and families broke up. They broke not because of support for Ayn Rand or Nathaniel Branden. They broke because you asked for more of an explanation. It was a disgusting periold. I suspect Miss Rand was never able to do any further great work. The quality of her further work was down. I don't think anything good came out of it.

[Robert Campbell]

Addicted,

Leonard Peikoff has written some things that need looking at, but only after you've read most of Rand's own work. "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" is an important article, and some of Peikoff's other articles in The Objectivist are worthwhile. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and "Fact and Value" are less important for the ideas they contain than for the clues they provide about Peikoff's religious orientation, and his insistence that other Randians must share it.

If you go back through The Objectivist Newsletter (1962-1965) and The Objectivist (1966-1968), you'll see why Peikoff and his followers are still eager to discredit Nathaniel and Barbara Branden after all these years. (You'll also see why The Psychology of Self-Esteem, which grew out of the self-esteem articles in these magazines, is as significant a contribution to Objectivism as anything that Peikoff has written.) NB and BB's names are all over those publications; indeed, Nathaniel published far more often in those periodicals than anyone but Rand herself. Peikoff needed the Break and the divisive passions that it provoked; he's never forgotten that without them he could never have become Rand's chief apostle.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; You are exactly right. The airbrushing of the Brandens, the lies and misrepresentations that have continued for almost forty years. One suspects there is an Objectivist Ministry of Truth or Peikoff wishes he had one.

Edited December 11, 2006 by Chris Grieb

[Danneskjold]

Objectivist minitruth (minitrue?). Man, thats a good one.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Victor,

I fully agree with you that friends should be able to throw a surprise party without having that fact blown up into claims that one is dishonest and deceitful by nature. Where is an understanding of friendship in Valiant's analysis? If love is exception-making, then doesn't friendship have enough love in it to make it a bit exception-making? Doesn't the broad context of a friendship matter? Of course it does.

It became quite funny, though disgusting, that Valliant tortured so many interpretations of ambiguous events, and even many that were benign, into major criticisms of the Brandens. These tortured interpretations necessarily showed little understanding of many concepts, of living life, of ambiguities, of the need to judge without bias, and oft times of simple logic. There was almost no fact that could not be twisted, often with the addition of many assumptions, into another condemnation of the Brandens. Valiant would often make a great show of proving one part of an argument, then smuggle in an assumption, which together with the proven fact led to a conclusion which was always damning of the Brandens. In a broad way, this is an assault upon logic, since he constantly made a great show of making very logical deductions from something sound coupled with some nonsense. The great build-up on logically establishing the sound observation makes his process appear logical. But, a logic deduction follows from a complete set of sound observations, not a mix of sound ones and nonsensical ones.

Sorry, but I have found the book utterly beneath contempt. This is not to say that it is uninteresting. It does reveal many of the problems that dogmatic Objectivists have. It reveals a great naivety of life, a severe tendency to look at one tree and then proclaim great truths about the forest, a desire for simplicity and certainty which denies the existence of complexity and uncertainty, and a failure to appreciate the value of individuality in the individual. This is just to name a few complaints I have with this book.

This book should never have been written by an adult. It should not be the work of anything but a somewhat precocious child.

Charles

[Guyau]

Addicted2Learn,

The most important book to read concerning Rand's philosophy, after you finish her own essays, is Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It is a systematic exposition of Rand's philosophy, it is well referenced to her own writings, and it is beautifully organized.

There is a second book on Objectivism on the horizon, which will also be a comprehensive coverage and which promises to be very worthwhile. This new book is by David Kelley, it is nearing completion, and its title is The Logical Structure of Objectivism.

I have been studying philosophy over the last forty years. The photo of me was back at that beginning. I like philosophy very much.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Stephen Boydstun

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Addicted2Learn,

The most important book to read concerning Rand's philosophy, after you finish her own essays, is Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It is a systematic exposition of Rand's philosophy, it is well referenced to her own writings, and it is beautifully organized.

There is a second book on Objectivism on the horizon, which will also be a comprehensive coverage and which promises to be very worthwhile. This new book is by David Kelley, it is nearing completion, and its title is The Logical Structure of Objectivism.

I have been studying philosophy over the last forty years. The photo of me was back at that beginning. I like philosophy very much.

I would like to second Stephen's recommendation. This is not to say there aren't definite problems with OPAR. The important thing about OPAR is that it is an integrated approach to Objectivism. Rand was a system builder and the architecture of her system is important to grasp as a whole. I also would like to second Stephen's observation that the intellectual journey is worth it. Rand's sunlit universe is an experience not to be missed and the splits and squabbles are a side issue at best.

Jim