Passing the torch!

[Victor Pross]

Anyone,

Wow, I have been carrying a very different idea in my head as to what an “Orthodox Objectivist” is: one who treats the philosophy as if were holy writ, to be accepted as one followed the canons of the church during the middle ages—not as a philosophy of intellectual independence and one based on principles, not faith. But now organizations are tossed into the mix! When I move to California, I plan to attend some lectures—ones that interest me. Would I be sleeping with the enemy?

Victor

Edited April 22, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Dodger]

Anyone,

Wow, I have been carrying a very different idea in my head as to what an “Orthodox Objectivist” is: one who treats the philosophy as if were holy writ, to be accepted as one followed the canons of the church during the middle ages—not a as philosophy of intellectual independence and principles. But now organizations being tossed into the mix! When I move to California, I plan to attend some lectures—ones that interest me. Would I be sleeping with the enemy?

Victor

I haven't been following this 'Orthodox Objectivist' arguement much. Victor, what do you think is the largest difference between the two views?

[galtgulch]

Hi Mr Campbell,

I am simply curious just what "fundamental" of Objectivism it is with which you, disagree? take issue?, have a beef?

You recall Rand once referred to the fact that the real struggle in the world was ideological or philosophical and that was understood by the leadership in Moscow, the Vatican and the Empire State Building where NBI was headquartered at the time.

I do think the ideological war is being waged perhaps unwittingly on the part of the contenders and that most people are totally unaware of it and participate with a degree of obliviousness to the role they play in perpetuating established dogma.

Either one 'has a dog in the fight' or is merely ballast in this war. Whether we like it or not it is going on and we are among those who are aware of it on a certain level, which is to say on the only level which is meaningful in this context, philosophical. Either we keep the perspective to ourselves, let the writings of a deceased writer/philosopher carry on the battle for us, or devote whatever time and whatever means we deem appropriate in the context of our own lives to the cause.

So the choice is Spear-carrier or Ballast! Where is the smilie of the guy beating his head against the wall when one needs him?

galt

Edited April 22, 2007 by galtgulch

[Robert Campbell]

Dragonfly,

Some of the critical literature on Rand should be included in a study of Objectivism. Other critical literature on Rand I think would be better left to gather dust.

I would expect to learn a lot more from Will Wilkinson's assessment of the Objectivist ethics than from, say, William F. O'Neill's or John Robbins'.

But I take your basic point. No one should expect to be handed answers on a plate. Learn the basic texts. Learn the various interpretations that come from those who are well informed and favorably inclined (such as Doug Rasmussen or Tibor Machan or Chris Sciabarra). Learn the various criticisms that come from those who are well informed and not so favorably inclined.

Beyond that, it's all up to the learner. Knowledge will keep growing, and the world will keep changing. The ARI strategy will guarantee nothing except inadequacy and irrelevance.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> what Will Thomas referred to as "canonical Objectivism," but mentioning where controversies have arisen (without adopting any party line). [Michael]

That's sort of vague. Just because something is controversial in someone's mind at a certain stage in learning a subject doesn't necessarily mean you include it in your curriculum for everyone to study. Doesn't mean it is objectively, or universally, or widely controversial.

(Or that it is -pedagogically- an appropriate technique to address anything and everything that someone labels as officially having achieved the formal status of 'a controversy'. That's sounds too much like the New York Times or what the weekly press cycle chooses to cover - this week Virginia Tech, last week Attorney General Gonzales...can easily become a bit subjectivist.)

For example, as I explained, I wouldn't include all the skeptic fallacies in an introductory course before the students are *trained* enough in basic Objectivist epistemology, in critical thinking, in logical fallacies to be able to untangle them. Else, it sounds like what Will and David are advocating (I didn't hear Will's particular talk) may well be a course which includes the very poison I've just been describing!! Which CREATES the very grad students who "bail" on Objectivism ... in the very way I've already discussed re the Wilkinsons, Registers, etc.

The very approach Will -seems- to be suggesting simply suggests they want to continue with the failed advanced courses they have been presenting for a decade with zero success and which have been actively harmful - I documented in what way they have been an abyssmal failure with the students enrolled. Almost every single one of them has "bailed out" from TOC.

You don't teach calculus till after algebra. Even if you as a teacher find algebra too elementary and like teaching calculus much more, have more to say on the subject.

Moreover, is it a "party line" to assert and demonstrate that A is A is axiomatic? Or that man should be a rational egoist and let's study the steps of the proof in "The Objectivist Ethics" and further examples from the novels - and have a test to make sure we completely understand the Objectivist position and defense before we address any conceivable objection or the whole arsenal of modern skepticism or every puzzle in ethics?

A well-designed course has to be **HIERARCHICAL**. Especially for Objectivism which is very different thinking method and kind of philsophy from what you have learned in schools throughout life. You don't jump to Advanced Seminar level material of advanced controversies until you have gone through the knowledge steps, the mastery of the philosophy first. And acquired the thinking precision that entails.

You're fee to disagree with any or all of Objectivism in a later course or free-wheeling seminar, or point to what you think is a hole. But first you have to show you already understand that which you are about to disagree with and can name its principles and arguments.

[Robert Campbell]

gg,

As far as the conflict between the Vatican, the Kremlin, and the Empire State Building is concerned, I would say:

It matters whether human beings put value on understanding the world as it is, and seek to solve their problems rationally.

It matters whether human beings recognize the value of living for one's own sake.

It matters whether human beings prefer capitalism and freedom, or socialism/fascism/Islamo-imperialism and subjection.

It matters whether human beings are able to get inspiration from art.

A lot depends on these things. If not life vs. death, then happiness vs. misery or fulfilled lives vs. unfulfilled lives.

But does it matter whether perception is error-proof, and illusions are invariably the product of a conceptual interpretation?

Does it matter whether philosophy never has to depend on the empirical findings of any science?

Does it matter whether living a fulfilled life means pursuing moral perfection?

Does it matter whether arbitrary assertions are neither true nor false?

Does it matter whether morality depends on a pre-moral choice to live?

The last five claims are part of Objectivism (according to Rand herself, for the first three, and at least to Peikoff, for the fourth and fifth). I think they're all wrong.

Consequently, I'm not an Objectivist.

I have little fear, however, that in rejecting such claims as these five, I've conceded victory to the Vatican and the Kremlin (or whatever its present-day counterpart would be).

Robert Campbell

[galtgulch]

gg,

As far as the conflict between the Vatican, the Kremlin, and the Empire State Building is concerned, I would say:

It matters whether human beings put value on understanding the world as it is, and seek to solve their problems rationally.

It matters whether human beings recognize the value of living for one's own sake.

It matters whether human beings prefer capitalism and freedom, or socialism/fascism/Islamo-imperialism and subjection.

It matters whether human beings are able to get inspiration from art.

A lot depends on these things. If not life vs. death, then happiness vs. misery or fulfilled lives vs. unfulfilled lives.

But does it matter whether perception is error-proof, and illusions are invariably the product of a conceptual interpretation?

Does it matter whether philosophy never has to depend on the empirical findings of any science?

Does it matter whether living a fulfilled life means pursuing moral perfection?

Does it matter whether arbitrary assertions are neither true nor false?

Does it matter whether morality depends on a pre-moral choice to live?

The last five claims are part of Objectivism (according to Rand herself, for the first three, and at least to Peikoff, for the fourth and fifth). I think they're all wrong.

Consequently, I'm not an Objectivist.

I have little fear, however, that in rejecting such claims as these five, I've conceded victory to the Vatican and the Kremlin (or whatever its present-day counterpart would be).

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

You've confused me Robert. Are the last five claims questions?

--Brant

[galtgulch]

RC, I agree with what you say about what matters:

<<<" I would say:

It matters whether human beings put value on understanding the world as it is, and seek to solve their problems rationally.

It matters whether human beings recognize the value of living for one's own sake.

It matters whether human beings prefer capitalism and freedom, or socialism/fascism/Islamo-imperialism and subjection.

It matters whether human beings are able to get inspiration from art.

A lot depends on these things. If not life vs. death, then happiness vs. misery or fulfilled lives vs. unfulfilled lives."<<<

However I do not understand what you mean by the following:

But does it matter whether perception is error-proof, and illusions are invariably the product of a conceptual interpretation?

Does it matter whether philosophy never has to depend on the empirical findings of any science?

Does it matter whether living a fulfilled life means pursuing moral perfection?

Does it matter whether arbitrary assertions are neither true nor false?

Does it matter whether morality depends on a pre-moral choice to live?

The last five claims are part of Objectivism (according to Rand herself, for the first three, and at least to Peikoff, for the fourth and fifth). I think they're all wrong."<<<

Maybe I am too tired after working my 13 hour day with an hour commute on each end on Fridays. Maybe i will grasp what you are saying above. But I guess I am simple minded and prefer declaratiive sentences when stating what Objectivism states, rather than in interrogatory form.

I don't know whether it is reasonable for me to expect you to take each question above and elaborate just what you mean by each so that one would be able to understand just what you think is presumably a "fundamental tenet" of Objectivism?

I am tempted to make explicit just what I understand to be fundamental tenets of Objectivism here now. It would pretty much be what Rand stated while "standing on one foot." You know the drill! Metaphysics: Objective reality, Existence exists, Nature to be commanded must be obeyed, the Law of Identity, A is A, ; Epistemology: Reason, Science, rational evidence; Ethics: Rational Self Interest, no unchosen obligations, Right to one's own life; Politics: Laissez Faire Capitalism, Separation of the State and the Church, the Economy, Education, etc, the Bill of Rights, limited government, non initiation of force.

<<<"Consequently, I'm not an Objectivist.">>>

<<<"I have little fear, however, that in rejecting such claims as these five, I've conceded victory to the Vatican and the Kremlin (or whatever its present-day counterpart would be).">>>

You state your questions in the form, Does it matter, rather than as "claims" so it is not clear to me what you see as the "claim" with which you disagee and with which you will not abide. To my way of thinking these "claims" are not fundamental tenets anyway.

I do enjoy your posts and you may treat my little post here as rhetorical. After i get a good nights sleep I will try to make sense out of your "Does it matter" questions to see if I can discern the claim alleged to be a tenet of O.

gg

[Philip Coates]

gg, robert and others,

Once again, would you PLEASE not turn this thread into a debate about a long list of philosophical conundrums and which is valid and which is part of Objectivism?

This is a thread called "Passing the Torch!" It's about the -spreading- of Objectivism. Not about debating the validity of every aspect of Objectivism at length, or whether you can find an omission or a 'hole' in Objectivism.

If you are going to mush together every thread into a discussion of the topics that most interest you, why have multiple threads at all? Anyone who wants to have a discussion on a particular topic will have it hijacked and steered in another direction within about ten posts.

If you do that then you have two people discussing one particular ethical issue, three more on an epistemological point or a definition, and another group trying to interleave postings about the issue of why objectivism isn't spreading so well and what kind of training program is needed. Complete epistemological chaos.

If that is going to happen I refuse to post here...I'll just go back to SoloP and trade insults with people who at least know how to keep their insults on one topic at a time: Robert raises many, many issues. And it's an excellent list of topics or differences he has with certain statements. Probably -each- deserves it's own thread...or at least separate the epistemological from the political, the ethical from the esthetic!

Here's the principle: The fact that one can draw a -relationship- between one topic and every other, that one can draw a relationship between whether every statement of Ayn Rand's is true or constitutes Oism -and- the SPREAD of Oism, does not mean THOSE TOPICS ARE IDENTICAL !!!

Read the title of the thread and the first post before you decide whether the instant thought you just had belongs here or somewhere else.

Dammit.

[Ellen Stuttle]

gg, Brant,

Here's the declarative form of the claims RC listed in question form:

1) Perception is error-proof, and illusions are invariably the product of a conceptual interpretation.

2) Philosophy never has to depend on the empirical findings of any science.

3) Living a fulfilled life means pursuing moral perfection.

Rand herself said that those three claims are part of Objectivism.

4) Arbitrary assertions are neither true nor false.

5) Morality depends on a pre-moral choice to live.

Peikoff says that in addition those two are part of Objectivism.

Robert C. disagrees with all five.

ES

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re your complaint, Phil:

Poor Phil. How frustrating for you not being able to get others to comply with the way you want things done. People are just so damned contrary. Sound of violins.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

Phil, you're off base. Michael will sometimes move posts to different threads if he thinks there is a problem. Just send him a private message. Or, to the contrary, just make a post on this thread that redirects the focus. Your complaint doesn't do that.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

This is a thread about spreading Objectivism. If Dragonfly believes that parts of Objectivism are false, or that it shouldn't be spread, or that training in Objectivism is mindless indoctrination in things which are false, start a thread *identifying them* and clearly explaining why. That would be a good example of what he calls "learning to think independently."

If you'd really read this forum you'd know that I've done that countless times. But you are not at all interested in such discussions, your only mission in life seems to be to pedantically criticize people for the way they hold discussions. Your very first post on OL was a rant about everything that was wrong in the way we were discussing things here, even while you hadn't contributed one iota yourself so far. If you don't like it here, go away. Or create your own forum with your own rules. But DON'T tell us how we should discuss, you are NOT the moderator here.

Edited April 22, 2007 by Dragonfly

[Brant Gaede]

Phil, I enjoy watching you drive Perigo up the wall on SOLOP, the same way I enjoyed Olivier drill on Hoffman's teeth in Marathon Man. Now you're doing it to some of us. I admit you got to me, but you're just being you. Maybe a little tired.

Now that I've had a (not) good night's sleep I've taken down my semi-nasty remarks about your posting (which I know you haven't read) and put up, relatively speaking, these words of flowers and reconciliation.

Dammit! Dammit all to hell!!!

--Brant

Edited April 22, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Dodger]

Phil;

There is absolutely no need for you to criticize how a topic flows. I believe as long as it is productive, valuable discussions that occur (even if they are digressions) then they can be left alone. Is it a crime to discuss, to have new thoughts triggered by a different topic?

Seems you just did what you wanted not to happen--derailed a post and steered it even further away from the original topic. At least the discussions happening before hand were relevant to the topic in some way.

Edited April 22, 2007 by Dodger

[galtgulch]

>>>"epistemological chaos.

Read the title of the thread and the first post before you decide whether the instant thought you just had belongs here or somewhere else. "<<<

Hi Phil,

Well, since I started this topic I have to agree with you to some extent. I fear for my Objectivist credentials because I enjoy the posts or parts of posts which stray off the topic of passing the torch at least as much as those which stay on topic altogether.

As a consequence of straying off topic I have become aware of perspectives of which I was unaware. Questions have been raised which are both on topic and off topic.

Where does one draw the line as to just what Objectivism is? Certainly that is part of the topic of "passing the torch."

What constitutes passing the torch anyway? Does recommending Atlas Shrugged to someone fall in the category? I actually gave a copy of Atlas to a lady who has told me she has not read it and keeps it in her closet! I would not call her a "closet Objectivist!"

I am beginning to see Objectivism itself as a chess game in which the really, really basic tenets are similar to the positions of the chess pieces at the beginning of the game. What happens after that is some degree of divergence in opinions similar to the various named opening moves in chess. I suspect that someday in two thousand years they will look back and identify the main strands of followers of Ayn Rand's thought which will no doubt be similar to what has happened within Christianity, with Catholics and Protestants who differ over minutia.

I would still be happier to see the dialogue in this country move toward discussion of the application of Objectivist principles to the problems our society faces. I suppose if someone gets up at a town meeting and challenges an altruistic moral premise in public that might get some young person hearing it to ask where he might learn more would be another example of a way to "pass the torch!"

Letters to the editor are within the reach of each of us who have not found the time to write a book.

Have I stayed sufficiently on topic here i hope? (Considering that I started this wonderful topic!)

gg

Edited April 22, 2007 by galtgulch

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

I realize I've been long-winded, and have otherwise contributed to side conversations on this thread. But the last thing I want to see you doing is going back for another round of pig-rasslin'.

This is a thread called "Passing the Torch!" It's about the -spreading- of Objectivism. Not about debating the validity of every aspect of Objectivism at length, or whether you can find an omission or a 'hole' in Objectivism.

Here's what it all comes down to.

What's the goal of education in Objectivism?

Is it to enable people to attain a thorough understanding of Rand's ideas, for any legitimate purpose they might have in mind?

Or is it to produce Objectivists, who will in turn produce more Objectivists?

If our goal is the first one, then we will expect some non-Objectivists or ex-Objectivists to emerge from the process. If they are thinking for themselves and doing good work, we won't regard such outcomes as a tragedy.

If our goal is the second one, then we have failed any time someone emerges from our program of Objectivist education without enthusiastically endorsing and campaigning for Objectivism.

We won't be able to decide how to do it, unless we decide what it's all for.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

gg, Brant,

Here's the declarative form of the claims RC listed in question form:

1) Perception is error-proof, and illusions are invariably the product of a conceptual interpretation.

2) Philosophy never has to depend on the empirical findings of any science.

3) Living a fulfilled life means pursuing moral perfection.

Rand herself said that those three claims are part of Objectivism.

4) Arbitrary assertions are neither true nor false.

5) Morality depends on a pre-moral choice to live.

Peikoff says that in addition those two are part of Objectivism.

Robert C. disagrees with all five.

ES

___

Me too. I'm sure these claims can be referenced out because unless they are they aren't very valuable regarding criticism of Objectivism. I don't care too much, for I stopped being a "Student of Objectivism" in the classical sense in 1968-1973 when it slowly dawned on me it would not benefit my life. I wasn't a philosopher and wasn't going to be one. If I was I would examine it from that perspective, but not to learn a catechism. If there is something in there of personal value, then I'm interested. I don't like to think of myself as an Objectivist with a small "o", but I guess I am. I'd call myself a realist, but that sounds like pragmatism.

My criticisms of Objectivism are basically confined to negative impact and usage of the philosophy. I realize there is a lot of good there, but it is not my work to root it out and spread it around. I see Objectivism as a construction project that has barely gotten under way, even though the basic, axiomatic foundation seems properly established. I've gone from "Basic Principles of Objectivism" to basic objectivism, which is investigation, not so much Objectivism as people and reality.

Ethically I now see the great value of Objectivism in attacking forced and intimidated altruism as opposed to altruism as such. Self-interest is fine, but it seems incomplete. "Selfishness" is now obsolete polemical; the classical definition wins because Rand misrepresented it by cooking most of the juice out of the concept while keeping the power of the word. I certainly learned that altruism is the ethical base for collectivism. I don't think self-sacrifice is good for anybody.

"Rational self-interest" implies that there is room for human social existence on the psychological level, at least to delineate it. "Selfishness" and "self-interest" don't. "Selfishness" strongly implies cutting off other people and seems a philosophy for a psychopath albeit braked by that human rights thing. We still read about young Objectivists alienating themselves from family and friends, now alone in the world with the company of the philosophy and a few like-minded people who manage, over time, however, to betray the philosophy one way or another and depart or get departed.

--Brant

Edited April 22, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Kat]

This is an issue that has dogged Phil for years and he has been out there actively trying to promote and spread Objectivism, leading clubs, giving talks, etc. and not seeing the expected growth. I am fairly new to this and haven't done nearly as much study, leading, lecturing or writing and feel a tremendous amount of frustration myself.

Back to the topic.... according to Inky's calculations if the 20,000 people in 1968 had doubled every year until now (39 years), there would be 5,497,558,138,880,000 of us now. Since there are only about six and a half billion people in the world, that would be impossible.

People have brought up some very good points such as training, costs, leadership, being too revolutionary, lack of agreement as to what Objectivism really includes, and losing good people.

The movement lacks leadership and momentum. We don't have anything close to the powerful force of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden together at the top like in the NBI days. I sometimes wonder how it would be had they not had the break and the momentum had continued, or had there not been so many breaks in general. If Branden continued as the intellectual heir.... I also wonder how it would be if everything were put on paper rather than so much only available in lecture form.

Unfortunately, we don't have have that type of inspirational leadership anymore and the two main contenders, Peikoff and Kelley simply don't have enough ooooomph to sell the philosophy to the world, nor should the task of outreach fall only on their shoulders. They are philosophers and teachers who need a sales force. Both ARI and TAS/TOC are doing a tremendous job with the outreach through OP-Eds and other avenues. ARI is getting books into the hands of students and TOC is working to make The New Individualist a mainstream publication available in newstands. The rest of us are the sales force. By each living and sharing our philosophy with others, passing it down to our children, leading by example, learning Objectivism more in depth and building/participating in communities like Objectivist Living and local community groups we are growing it and keeping it strong.

Kat

[Philip Coates]

> What's the goal of education in Objectivism? Is it to enable people to attain a thorough understanding of Rand's ideas, for any legitimate purpose they might have in mind? Or is it to produce Objectivists, who will in turn produce more Objectivists? [Robert]

Clearly it's both. Why would one think it had to be either-or?

But if you believe that Objectivism can save the world and needs to spread, certainly #2 is -very- important. And the problem with TOC's "education" in Objectivism is that it hasn't been producing more Objectivists, it hasn't been consistent or systematic or hierarchical. And, surely as the night follows the day on an issue of this nature, it has been producing *fewer*.

[Philip Coates]

> This is an issue that has dogged Phil for years and he has been out there actively trying to promote and spread Objectivism, leading clubs, giving talks, etc. and not seeing the expected growth.

Kat, thanks for your understanding and supportive response (as opposed to, for example, Ellen's sarcastic one). I don't see Objectivism growing, but stagnating (with the bickering causing if anything negative momentum) and becoming a public laughingtock, so, yes, I'm feeling -enormously- frustrated: sorry if that sometimes comes out too much in some of my posts.

And for your other points which summarize well or list a number of key issues, let me comment on a few:

> The movement lacks leadership and momentum. We don't have anything close to the powerful force of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden together at the top like in the NBI days.

We could debate which is more important, charismatic leaders, or systematic education or training. But the first is not in our control or predictable as to when they arise. The "trial run" for the second was set by the NBI and Peikoff courses and it showed that there was an eager and growing market for courses, as long as they were of high quality.

> Peikoff and Kelley simply don't have enough ooooomph to sell the philosophy to the world,

I think both Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley are enormously intelligent, conscientious men who, despite their bitter hostility to each other, both mean well and, in their own minds, intend to advance Objectivism and see it spread. But the problem with brilliant people is that they often do not see their own blind spots. As the Great Philosopher Dirty Harry once said, "A man's GOTTA know his own limitations."

One of Peikoff's major limitations as a leader is sometimes emotionalism and his admiration for Ayn Rand prevents him from seeing the mistakes in her psychological views. In particular her too negative or too sweeping assessments about the culture, about libertarians, about tolerance for (or acceptance of innocent error in) many people who don't grasp or agree with Objectivism.

One of Kelley's major limitations as a leader is (seemingly, he is not as clear or on the record on these issues as Peikoff) that he is much more an intellectual interested in advanced topics than he is a practical businessman or movement leader. And his interest in being a mentor or spending time with or teaching people in the -basics- of Objectivism is about the same as an ivory tower professor would have in teaching an elementary class for freshman as opposed to working with graduate students on advanced or "cutting edge" or controversial topics.

Here is an important leadership issue that I've observed in the running of, first ARI where I worked for a while in their offices, and then TOC where I've observed from a distance:

Peikoff tended to withdraw from running ARI and from intervening in all kinds of day to day decisions. Which is wise since running a think tank, organizing, managing programs in detail are highly difficult skills that one needs to have thought about, one needs work experience relevant to. Yaron Brook has the professional background as a go-getter, entrepreneur, business school teacher to do that. **Neither Peikoff nor Kelley has the slightest qualification to run an organization**. Eggheads, ivory tower types are the worst possible people to run things. Their speciality is timeless reflection, careful perfecting of their writing.

Kelley was the executive director, something Peikoff never attempted. He has been much more of a micro-manager, ready to make all the decisions and veto things or run things on a daily basis. (I don't know if that changed when he kicked himself upstairs to be Chairman of the Board while Ed H. is now the executive director.)

> nor should the task of outreach fall only on their shoulders. They are philosophers and teachers who need a sales force.

I agree. One way of getting around the problem of having an academically-inclined intellectual, or philosopher in charge or running an outreach or think tank organization is division of labor. If they stay in their areas of strength and produce good intellectual material (and are not so perfectionist that they take twelve years to do it!), then others can promote, discuss, "sell" their ideas and courses. And they hire people whose specialty is business or event planning or administration or strategizing about outreach. And they delegate to them without minute micro-managing (like Jimmy Carter writing up lists of the hours of the tennis courts).

Division of labor, and the attention to detail that this allows. That way you don't have people sending out conference photos with all the names under the pictures arrayed in reverse order, or announce events at the very last minute, or have summer conference clases start at 8 AM and continue to 10 PM. Or mess up and misfile the material on the website. Or put out press releases and op eds full of typos.

Or a dozen other administrative and organizational "attentiion to detail" things which TOC seems to manage to screw up on an almost monthly basis. And the anal-retentives at ARI :-) do better or they are better funded or have more volunteers so they are not "spread so thin".... as I strongly suspect is the case at TOC. It's not that they don't -care- about details.

They seem enormously hard-working and conscientious, but they are probably juggling too many balls in the air at once.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Before getting into the meat, I suppose we should set the proper tone for discussion. Notice your post below.

Once again, would you PLEASE not turn this thread into a debate about a long list of philosophical conundrums and which is valid and which is part of Objectivism?

. . .

If that is going to happen I refuse to post here...I'll just go back to SoloP and trade insults with people who at least know how to keep their insults on one topic at a time...

. . .

Dammit.

The call to get back on topic was good and intelligent people sometimes need nudging. How you continued the post was not a nudge, however. In fact is calls for a reminder of policy.

You are free to come and go as you please. The tone I have set for OL is that whatever is good for Phil in this respect is good for OL. If you post that is good. If you do not post that is good.

This being the case, added to your interest in getting the thread back on topic, when you stated your intent to stop posting as some kind of threat, even including an expletive at the end, I found an amusing irony in the result:

People did not return to discussing the topic. They discussed you instead.

You did not set a very good example, did you?

Now on to the issue. Robert beat me to the punch.

Here's what it all comes down to.

What's the goal of education in Objectivism?

Is it to enable people to attain a thorough understanding of Rand's ideas, for any legitimate purpose they might have in mind?

Or is it to produce Objectivists, who will in turn produce more Objectivists?

The stated purpose of Objectivism in the more rhetorical places, and echoed throughout several websites and organizations, is to save the world. If education in Objectivism is in this direction, then we really need indoctrination as the goal, not independent thinking. I personally don't think the world needs saving. As Michael Crichton said in State of Fear (see a fuller quote here):

Has it ever occurred to you how astonishing the culture of Western society really is? Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Average life spans increased fifty percent in the last century.

Crichton did not mention population increase, but the world's population has increased due to the blessings of human knowledge and productivity. So what really needs to be saved?

Probably the most compelling issue is the destructive range of hi-tech weapons, so we want to make sure the people with the means to have and operate them are objective and respect the right to life in their daily thinking. I don't think you need to indoctrinate the whole world for this purpose. On the contrary, I think encouraging people to think for themselves drastically increases the possibility that power mongers and evil bastards are contained.

This brings us to education. What has been the main point of many, many, many Objectivist books and lectures? Has it been to offer a set of ideas for a person to use as he pleases, or has it been to control the thinking of people? I contend that control has been the chief factor in derailing the spread of formal Objectivism. The orthodoxy (in my sense, meaning ARI-related), is a perfect example. The other end, the TAS end, has been more of a groping to perfect Objectivism than to educate.

Still, I cannot deny basic logic when it hits me in the face. The fact is that Rand's books have shown no sign of going away. They still sell, year after year. This led me to write a small essay on this in February of last year:

The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth

The simple fact is that education in Objectivism is continuing daily on about the best basis it can, given the emotional environment of the Objectivist subculture. If you accept my extremely generous number of 1% of the people who read Rand love her enough to become involved in the Objectivist subculture (and I don't see how that fact can be denied), then the issue is not how to educate people in Objectivism. This is already happening without our efforts. This issue is how can we, the 1%, offer a more structured education in Objectivism that will be accepted by the public (the same public that accepts Rand's works).

My own answer is to get out of the way of people's minds and simply offer the facts. Let them take it from there. Judging by the sale of Rand's works, I have no doubt there is a huge market for this.

Presenting a warts-and-all Objectivism course with elementary, intermediate and advanced levels, with focus on the student thinking for himself, would make a good project.

> what Will Thomas referred to as "canonical Objectivism," but mentioning where controversies have arisen (without adopting any party line). [Michael]

1. That's sort of vague. Just because something is controversial in someone's mind at a certain stage in learning a subject doesn't necessarily mean you include it in your curriculum for everyone to study.

. . .

2. For example, as I explained, I wouldn't include all the skeptic fallacies in an introductory course before the students are *trained* enough in basic Objectivist epistemology, in critical thinking, in logical fallacies to be able to untangle them.

. . .

3. The very approach Will -seems- to be suggesting...

. . .

4. You don't teach calculus till after algebra.

. . .

5. Moreover, is it a "party line" to assert and demonstrate that A is A is axiomatic?

. . .

6. A well-designed course has to be **HIERARCHICAL**.

. . .

7. Especially for Objectivism which is very different thinking method and kind of philosophy from what you have learned in schools throughout life.

. . .

8. You're fee to disagree with any or all of Objectivism in a later course or free-wheeling seminar, or point to what you think is a hole. But first you have to show you already understand that which you are about to disagree with and can name its principles and arguments.

I have numbered some points in your post above, and eliminated text, in order to answer them more easily.

1. My point in referring to controversies is not in a debunking sense. I have the feeling that you have been so deeply involved with only two approaches to Objectivism (love or hate), or to education in Objectivism (indoctrinate or perfect), that seeing another approach has not entered your thinking. I am going by what I have read of what you have written, so I may be wrong about what you think. I am merely giving my impression.

The fact is that Objectivism should be taught just like any other subject is taught. For a very simple example, when you study Aristotle's works, I seriously doubt whether there are teachers trying to airbrush the ideas in order to somehow protect the philosophy, or trying to find converts in order to save a world which is "perishing in an orgy of" anti-Aristotlianism, or excommunicating people with moral condemnations because they do not accept their authority, or (from the other end), on learning the basics, whether there are teachers taking a subtle and dubious point and elaborating on it to the exclusion of all else.

However, in presenting the basics, the message is: (a.) Aristotle believed X, Y, Z, etc., (b.) Point A, B and/or C (being very obvious points) have been disproved over time but that's the way Aristotle (or people) thought back then.

What is wrong with saying that?

Here is how this would play out with Rand. In a fundamental essay that has to be studied in a course on Objectivist basics, "The Objectivist Ethics" from The Virtue of Selfishness, we come across the following quote (p. 30):

But while the standard of value operating the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is automatic and innate, determined by the nature of his body—the standard of value operating his emotional mechanism, is not. Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa." It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man's emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.

I see nothing wrong at all in pointing this out along the way (in the middle of presenting ideas) and saying something like the following:

"As we see, Rand derived her theory of emotions from the pain-pleasure mechanism. This led her to the "tabula rasa" theory she mentioned in the quote. There has been some controversy on this and you will encounter it when discussing Objectivism or reading about it. Science has shown that this theory, as stated, is false, but we need to keep in mind two things. The first is this is the premise Rand used to develop some of her thinking and we will see it come up time and time again as we go along. The second is that there is an element of truth to it once volition is included. It is true that man comes prewired at birth with many emotions and behavior patterns that develop on their own with growth, but there are many emotions that are learned and can be programmed and disciplined volitionally using reason. Since the focus of Objectivism is a defense of reason and volition, the emotions that can be dealt with in this manner are the ones where we shall see some of Rand's greatest insights."

This is precisely how the work of other thinkers is given. This could even be supplemented with the following in order to drive home the point about thinking for oneself.

"It is important to keep this in mind when we come to more subtle issues. Rand was constantly telling people to 'Check your premises,' so in effect, we need to listen to her on this even as we learn her philosophy. In final analysis, nobody can check the premises of our thinking but us. So in learning a rational philosophy, we should especially check Rand's own premises."

Ellen and Robert gave a few more points that could be dealt with.

Here's the declarative form of the claims RC listed in question form:

1) Perception is error-proof, and illusions are invariably the product of a conceptual interpretation.

2) Philosophy never has to depend on the empirical findings of any science.

3) Living a fulfilled life means pursuing moral perfection.

Rand herself said that those three claims are part of Objectivism.

4) Arbitrary assertions are neither true nor false.

5) Morality depends on a pre-moral choice to live.

Peikoff says that in addition those two are part of Objectivism.

Robert C. disagrees with all five.

NB's Benefits and Hazards present a few more. Note that in teaching a class, you don't concentrate the bulk of the lesson on these points, just like you don't with any other subject. But you don't evade them either. There is a balance point where a good teacher will encourage independent thinking while successfully teaching the proper basics of Objectivism and one where a bad teacher will mess it all up. But that holds true without the teacher mentioning the controversies and dubious points. Getting back to the numbered points:

2. You wrote: "For example, as I explained, I wouldn't include all the skeptic fallacies in an introductory course before the students are *trained* enough in basic Objectivist epistemology, in critical thinking, in logical fallacies to be able to untangle them."

This is an important point. The controversies would have to be presented according to the level of knowledge. This holds in two areas: qualitative and quantitative.

Let's start with quantitative. Some controversies are so subtle that they should only be presented after a certain level of understanding has been achieved. Otherwise, the student will be tempted to think he knows more than Rand before he even learns what she wrote. A book like Without a Prayer by John Robbins (if you can get around some of the arguing for the sake of disagreement) presents some issues of this nature in epistemology, for instance. As you are an old-timer, I am sure you know more than I do about the critical literature out there.

On a qualitative level, the "tabula rasa" concept is a good example. The statement I gave above would be an excellent remark for the elementary level. As time goes on and the intermediate and advance levels are reached, more information could be provided and/or alluded to, like Steve Shmurak's work mentioned here on OL and presented in JARS, or some places where Rand seems to contradict herself.

The point is that presenting the level of the controversy should suit the level of understanding.

3. You wrote: "The very approach Will -seems- to be suggesting..."

This is one of those times where I have no idea how this crept in. I simply don't know what you are talking about. I did not mention any approach that Will was suggesting for education. I mentioned that he divided Objectivism as it has developed into 4 different categories with differing characteristics. If I remember correctly, they are:

Canonical (meaning what Rand wrote and endorsed in life).

Anything goes approach.

Open system.

Closed system, but with additions not called "Objectivism" but approved and sanctioned by ARI intellectuals.

I am going from memory, so I might be a bit off. Still, I don't know what you meant by Will's "approach" in the context you wrote it.

4. You wrote: "You don't teach calculus till after algebra."

This is precisely why I included a quote from myself above mentioning elementary, intermediate and advanced levels. We are on the same page here.

5. You wrote: "Moreover, is it a "party line" to assert and demonstrate that A is A is axiomatic?"

This kind of example is below your usual level of argument. You know quite well what the party line is:

(a.) From the ARI side: saying Rand was not perfect but attacking any and every attempt at a criticism of her, promoting a tribalist structure with a hierarchy of high priests and excommunications and so forth, freely exercising the right to viciously condemn others but having a very thin skin on being criticized even when wrong, and... need I go on?

(b.) From the Rand-hater side: saying Rand was a hypocrite over and over, making fun of Rand's actual mistakes, not attributing Rand with benefit of the doubt when she is vague, ignoring when Rand was right, misrepresenting her ideas and condemning her for them, attributing mental illness to Rand, and... need I go on?

When I mentioned party line in talking about controversy, I meant this. This kind of crap has no business in education—not serious education.

6. You wrote: "A well-designed course has to be **HIERARCHICAL**."

Here is where I think a real course needs to be thought through more carefully. For instance, is the proper introduction to Objectivism a discussion of metaphysics or a discussion of what philosophy is in general terms? Do you include the fiction or make a parallel course with it (which I think is best). Do you follow the basic categories of philosophy in order, or do you take core concepts from all of them and present them simplified, then increasingly complex? (Obviously, I think this last is best.)

Some good work can be done here. Where the hierarchy has been polluted from what I have seen so far is that some kind of party line or other is always included. As I stated, Objectivism should be studied just like any other subject.

Despite a mean streak, people are basically good and they love the rational almost by default. They just don't know how to discipline their rational faculties. I seriously think we can trust most of them to do the good thing with proper knowledge. They don't need to be induced to do or believe anything but think for themselves.

7. You wrote: "Especially for Objectivism which is very different thinking method and kind of philosophy from what you have learned in schools throughout life."

Here I take exception to the tone of presentation, and I have seen this over and over. Objectivism is a damn fine system of thought, but it is not so very different from other structured systems that it needs kid gloves. It is not "the one true way" or anything of that nature. It can be learned just as easily as counting, then algebra. This highlighting the difference reminds me a great deal of churches I have frequented as I was growing up. Each one claimed to be different.

We are dealing with knowledge, not religion. If we want to teach it, we should teach it as knowledge.

8. You wrote: "You're fee to disagree with any or all of Objectivism in a later course or free-wheeling seminar, or point to what you think is a hole. But first you have to show you already understand that which you are about to disagree with and can name its principles and arguments."

Here we are in full agreement. However, if I get the gist of what you are saying, you believe there is benefit to hiding the controversies during the learning. I personally don't think this is possible due to the noise anti-Rand people keep up and I hate the idea of strategic omission. It smacks of thought control to me.

This has been a long post, but I wanted to start touching base with a few of the premises of a proper educational method in light of the errors that are now being promoted.

To repeat, we don't need to save the world. It doesn't need saving. It's a good world already and the penetration of a few of Rand's ideas can claim partial credit. Most people who learn proper knowledge do good things with it. Approaching Objectivism as a religion will only polarize people into us/them camps and/or turn them off and make them ignore it. Approaching Objectivism as a sophisticated affair without an elementary base has low appeal. Objectivism should be taught just like any other subject.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> "reminds me a great deal of churches I have frequented as I was growing up. Each one claimed to be different."...."you believe there is benefit to hiding the controversies"..."It smacks of thought control"..."Approaching Objectivism as a religion" [MSK, responding to me]

Michael, this is kind of a major issue for me:

Sometimes when you seem to be paraphrasing my views and putting them in your own words, I don't recognize them as my views.

It's time-consuming to post on these lists - and there's not much point in debating or even repeating myself if you use words like "religion" and "hiding" which don't represent what I actually stated. Or Orwellian-sounding language like "thought control".

Words have power and can be unjust or can wound. A real good way to alienate a potential friend or ally is to be unfair to someone's arguments in this significant a way.

[Dodger]

My final words in this topic:

The original topic was of 'Passing The Torch,' spreading Objectivism, etc.

The BEST way to do this is to not waste your time in arguements and intellectual battles.

Sometimes the best choice is to simply not care one way or the other.

Please, stop wasting our god damn time with the silly bickering.