Forty Year Decline or Stagnation of Objectivism (1967-2007)

[Brendan Hutching]

A presentation of its abstract structure has to be as cognitively economical as possible, while still being complete and there has to be a rich empirical dataset at each node in the structure.

That sounds like a promising approach. Alternatively, you could just summarise the main ideas and provide some supporting examples.

Brendan

[Philip Coates]

I now think there is a deeper issue, one which should be fully understood prior to debating the two types of threads I've started on one or more boards recently: I. The current status or size or direction of growth or shrinkage of the Objectivist movement, II. The need for systematic training and educating of Objectivists, and how to do it.

This issue has to do with something often overlooked about the -nature- of Objectivism and I'd like to start a thread on this soon. My contention is that the deepest facts about Objectivism that affect I and II and all the problems we have in growing our movement, educating and developing Objectivists, changing the world, and avoiding internal acrimony has to do with THREE FACTS ABOUT OBJECTIVISM.

Can anyone guess what they might be? You will be graded on this :-)

"Objectivism is _____, ______, and _____."

[Chris Grieb]

Phil;

Something to throw into the discussion. I received a mailing from ARI about their conference in July. ARI claimed twice the attendance over their conference last year. I believe I saw a figure of 447 in the Objective Standard.

A quick of incomplete figures for the TOC conference suggest a lower attendance from last year

Is the possibility that ARI is doing well and TOC is in decline. That people are deciding that they want the real commodity.

I want to hear what people think.

Edited June 11, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Brant Gaede]

I now think there is a deeper issue, one which should be fully understood prior to debating the two types of threads I've started on one or more boards recently: I. The current status or size or direction of growth or shrinkage of the Objectivist movement, II. The need for systematic training and educating of Objectivists, and how to do it.

This issue has to do with something often overlooked about the -nature- of Objectivism and I'd like to start a thread on this soon. My contention is that the deepest facts about Objectivism that affect I and II and all the problems we have in growing our movement, educating and developing Objectivists, changing the world, and avoiding internal acrimony has to do with THREE FACTS ABOUT OBJECTIVISM.

Can anyone guess what they might be? You will be graded on this :-)

"Objectivism is _____, ______, and _____."

But Phil, you might be wrong about what those facts are. And about the world, too. Not to mention the desirability of acrimony and not to mention what I haven't mentioned.

--Brant

Edited June 12, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

I now think there is a deeper issue, one which should be fully understood prior to debating the two types of threads I've started on one or more boards recently: I. The current status or size or direction of growth or shrinkage of the Objectivist movement, II. The need for systematic training and educating of Objectivists, and how to do it.

This issue has to do with something often overlooked about the -nature- of Objectivism and I'd like to start a thread on this soon. My contention is that the deepest facts about Objectivism that affect I and II and all the problems we have in growing our movement, educating and developing Objectivists, changing the world, and avoiding internal acrimony has to do with THREE FACTS ABOUT OBJECTIVISM.

Can anyone guess what they might be? You will be graded on this :-)

"Objectivism is _____, ______, and _____."

Right, right, and right.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

I now think there is a deeper issue, one which should be fully understood prior to debating the two types of threads I've started on one or more boards recently: I. The current status or size or direction of growth or shrinkage of the Objectivist movement, II. The need for systematic training and educating of Objectivists, and how to do it.

This issue has to do with something often overlooked about the -nature- of Objectivism and I'd like to start a thread on this soon. My contention is that the deepest facts about Objectivism that affect I and II and all the problems we have in growing our movement, educating and developing Objectivists, changing the world, and avoiding internal acrimony has to do with THREE FACTS ABOUT OBJECTIVISM.

Can anyone guess what they might be? You will be graded on this :-)

"Objectivism is _____, ______, and _____."

It's obvious to me that ~one~ correct answer is: Objectivism is intrinsic, subjective, and objective, so I have already given myself an "A" for the quiz.

Progress for Objectivism is hampered, at least in part, because it is held in different ways in different people's minds. Some hold it as a set of rationalistically grasped generalities, while others hold it as a set of emotionally tinged perspectives on the world, while still others have done the heavy lifting necessary to derive it from and keep it anchored to reality.

Anyway, that's ~my~ response to Phil's question. I'm interested to see what Phil had in mind!

REB

[Philip Coates]

So far Brant has the only correct answer. He said "what I haven't mentioned", which is definitely correct.

I'll let the puzzle string out a little longer. Notice the clues I gave in the sentences prior to the puzzle....

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peikoff, Binswanger and Schwartz?

Nah... It can't be that. That would be too easy...

Michael

[Jonathan]

I now think there is a deeper issue, one which should be fully understood prior to debating the two types of threads I've started on one or more boards recently: I. The current status or size or direction of growth or shrinkage of the Objectivist movement, II. The need for systematic training and educating of Objectivists, and how to do it.

This issue has to do with something often overlooked about the -nature- of Objectivism and I'd like to start a thread on this soon. My contention is that the deepest facts about Objectivism that affect I and II and all the problems we have in growing our movement, educating and developing Objectivists, changing the world, and avoiding internal acrimony has to do with THREE FACTS ABOUT OBJECTIVISM.

Can anyone guess what they might be? You will be graded on this :-)

"Objectivism is _____, ______, and _____."

So, we are to guess which characteristics Phil thinks apply to Objectivism and are often overlooked? Hmmm. I'm going with "Objectivism is radical, complex, and systematic."

J

[Jerry Biggers]

You mean there's only THREE FACTS essential to Objectivism??? Just three?? Wow, maybe we're getting it down to mnemonics. Or, like "Father, Son & Holy Ghost," or some such! Is this in the sacred texts somewhere, like Rand sayeth, "REASON, PURPOSE, SELF-ESTEEM," or could it be "RATIONALITY, PRODUCTIVENESS, PRIDE?"

Maybe it's a DIALECTIC (where is Sciabarra when we need him)! I dunno, it's a mystery!

Seriously, (well, maybe not so seriously) Objectivism already had a handy little pamphlet that could be used as a test. It was originally published by NBI as "Examination - Study Guide To The Ethics of Objectivism" written by Leonard Peikoff, which had hundreds of detailed questions accompanied by hints - references - to where the correct answers could be found in the Objectivist canon - requiring essay-length responses. It was somewhat irreverantly called (- but not outloud), "The Objectivist Catechism.

Later, the Catechism was "revised" by Peikoff, with (ahem) David Kelley's assistance, and all reference to materials from the Brandens were excised. Still later, after Kelley's purge, it was reborn as a Study Guide to Peikoff's book, "OPAR." This final version simply referenced OPAR, no need to look at what Rand may have said on that subject.

[Jerry Biggers]

To continue...

I think that there are other reasons for the lack of significant growth in the Objectivist movement since the close of NBI. The following do not conflict with Phil Coates' incisive analysis, or those of other contributors to this thread.

Here are a few:

1) An examination of the content and the delivery style of Nathaniel Branden at the NBI presentations and as evidenced in his recorded version of his NBI course, Basic Principles of Objectivism, compared to Peikoff's Philosophy of Objectivism and his later innumerable revisions, reveals that the method of presentation utilized by Peikoff lacks a flair for the dramatic (and the relevant). He has a distinct problem presenting the material in a way that grips the listener. Branden is a psychologist and knows how to make the principles of Objectivism appear applicable and relevant to the listener's life. Peikoff, in contrast, has no clue how to do this. Years after the Philosophy of Objectivism course was presented, he gave a lecture at the Ford Hall Forum, entitled, "Why Should One Live By Principle?" A perfect subject to elucidate what Objectivism can offer to the individual. While an interesting lecture, he failed to make the material relevant to anyone that was not already familiar with Objectivism (and for those, he offered no new insights) I fear that the rest, leaving the lecture had the reaction of , "Well, yeah...So?". In other words, after explaining why man needs principles, he failed to show what Objectivism offers as an improvement over the current situation. A great opportunity, lost.

2) Maybe, you say, Peikoff offers Objectivism in a style that appeals to the professional philosopher. Not really. Instead, he starts OPAR by insulting academics with a gratuitous remark that implies that some may not qualify as human. Perhaps funny to those outside of academia, but hardly calculated to engender academic interest.

Additionally, OPAR (and practically all ARI products, with the exception of Tara Smith) do not offer the annotations and footnotes expected by academics (i.e., compare and contrast with Sciabarra's works) in order to relate the work to other scholarly treatises. And offering allegedly new material only in the recorded lecture format (and not in print) guarantees that most of it will be ignored, except for the already converted few who are willing to put up with this egregious manner of presentation.

So we end up with Peikoff and the ARIans not attracting academic interest, being unable to excite the interest of non-academics, and then:

to fully pound the nails into the Objectivism coffin, they:

3) Alienate the only other significant source of potential allies, the libertarians, by distorting the libertarian philosophy beyond recognition. According to the ARIan line, before they are willing to cooperate to any significant extent, libertarians must accept 100% of the Objectivist philosophy (as narrowly interpreted by them) prior to any discussion. ARIans expediently ignore the remarkable extent to which Ayn Rand had a fruitful exchange of ideas with libertarians and conservatives such as Ludwig von Mises, Isabel Paterson, Leonard Read, Henry Hazlitt, and Rose Wilder Lane. Why this was not a compromise of Rand's principles, but it is of the ARIan contingent, is not explained.

4) ARI, therefore has chosen to isolate itself from any intellectual exchange of ideas. This is a course of action guaranteed to make them irrelevant as a fountainhead for intellectual and cultural impact.

And this helps explains a decline or stagnation in the spread of Objectivism over the last 30 years.

[Jerry Biggers]

Oh, and another thing:

Phil, Please elaborate or clarify on this statement from your very interesting post-

"8. Fast forward nearly twenty years to 2007: IOS->TOC->TAS has begun to shrink (it was never very large). ARI has been growing, but is still a fraction the size and impact of NBI from nearly forty years ago. The clearest evidence of that is the complaint by its executive director that there are not enough trained Objectivist intellectuals to fill a dozen or two opportunities for them to fill academic or activist slots. They have the good sense to have restarted education and training with the Objectivist Academic Center, but the many thousands of prospects who enter the essay contests or read the fiction in the schools are still producing only on the order of a hundred (or less) people a year, not all of whom will do anything....compared to the tens of thousands taking comparable courses under NBI."

How do you know that TOC/TAS is shrinking? And if it is shrinking, why do you think that is? What do you think needs to be changed in order to reverse this alleged attrition? "Inquiring minds want to know!"

ARI is growing? By how much? What figures are they quoting? Are the "new troops" really committed Objectivists, or are they just eager new readers of Rand who sent in the postcard? And what exactly is their attrition rate?

Re: the ARI "Objectivist Academic Center." Is this an accredited academic program? In what way is it different or superior to the "Graduate Seminars" that TOC/TAS holds separately from its regular summer seminar? Do prospective admittees to the ARI Objectivist Academic Center have to sign the equivalent of a loyalty oath to never read, talk to, or otherwise associate with non-approved academics that hold libertarian, conservative, or " Kelleyite tolerationist" views? Or, if they don't have to literally sign an oath, do they just have to keep their mouths shut? And what happens to them if they "slip up," and admit that Kelley or some other ARI "untouchable" may have had something useful to say? And what type of academician does agreement with that type of thought repression produce? And if ARI graduates acquiesce to that type of thought control, how will they survive in academia where association with many different points of view are required?

[Chris Grieb]

Jerry; One indication of shrinking on TOC-TAS is the numbers at the Summer Seminar. Ann Preston tells me they have been down every year since UCLA. I know that there was a big drop between Vancouver 2000 and Vancouver 2004.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jerry; One indication of shrinking on TOC-TAS is the numbers at the Summer Seminar. Ann Preston tells me they have been down every year since UCLA. I know that there was a big drop between Vancouver 2000 and Vancouver 2004.

Chris,

I think TOC has had problems after 9/11 defining a message. In a lot of ways that bespeaks their integrity. It would have been very easy for them to cave to either a nuke them all ARI-style foreign policy or a libertarian anti-first strike pacifism. Their reasoned approach leaves them in a precarious position in terms of numbers. Their expansionist strategy pre-2001 had also prioritized growth over student programs and 9/11 presented them with a huge adjustment problem.

I enjoy having a broad spectrum of people on most issues and interesting debate. I'm somewhat concerned about the level of understanding of Objectivism of many of the attendees (including myself sometimes). Their academic orientation leads them to be somewhat unresponsive to market pressures and people's concerns. These are all fixable things. I look forward to attending the Summer Seminar in 2008 and look forward to what TAS has in store in the future.

Jim

[Chris Grieb]

Jim;

I agree that their position does show an integrity. It much like my own which has great problems with the war in Iraq but recognizes that there are great problems with Islam in today's world.

I must also add that I am looking forward to the next Summer Seminar although sorry lovely people like you will not be there.

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

The number of Summer Seminar participants has been drifting slowly downward since it peaked in 1998.

I've never seen numbers on TAS's donor base, but it clearly took a hit after 9/11, for reasons that Jim and Chris explained very well. Some long-time supporters of the organization now give less than they used to.

I share your skepticism about the numbers proclaimed by ARI. I received a fund-raising letter from Irvine around three months ago. The letter tried to make it appear that every institute or other academic program on capitalism that is funded by BB&T is aligned with ARI. While most of them are, Stephen Hicks at Rockford College has gotten money from BB&T and has never been connected with ARI. The same holds for Ed Younkins at Wheeling Jesuit. There are other programs whose leaders have no Objectivist affiliations at all.

So far as I know, OAC is not an accredited institution. It's extremely difficult for outsiders to know what goes on inside there. Diana Hsieh, before she quit talking to all of her former companions in iniquity, reported being questioned extensively by Onkar Ghate about her past connection with David Kelley before being allowed in.

While OACers will defend their institution by claiming that challenging questions are encouraged, denying there is an Index Librorum Prohibitorum, etc., there is no way for outsiders to verify any of this. Some ARIans believe that lying to "enemies of Objectivism" is morally permissible, and many obviously think that criticisms of persons or practices at ARI should never be uttered within earshot of "the enemy." As far as I can tell from the limited observations I've been able to make, OAC training focuses narrowly on canonical Objectivism as defined by Leonard Peikoff. I've seen no evidence that taking courses at OAC prepares students for understanding or responding to other points of view.

So, to take the theme of another currently active thread, I would expect an OAC graduate to be able to tell me what Peikoff thinks the proof of a proposition is--and why anyone who disagrees with Peikoff on the matter is either in the grip of bad philosophy or flat-out depraved. But I really wonder whether any of them could provide a Peikovian proof of a major settled generalization in psychology or some other science.

Robert Campbell

PS. Whatever happens within OAC, academics who are sponsored by ARI are allowed some leeway not available to others. They may interact with non-Objectivist colleagues and even say positive things about them. Still, there are sharp limits. Citations of Nathaniel Branden or David Kelley or Chris Sciabarra are a definite no-no. Citations of Doug Rasmussen, Tibor Machan, et al., though permissible, must be sparse.

How precisely the limits are placed can be judged from a scene that I witnessed (I saw the book being passed but wasn't close enough to be able to read the title; David Kelley was able to spot it). At the Ayn Rand Society meeting in Washington, at the end of last December, a little exchange between two of the panelists took place as the session was wrapping up. (This was the session on Tara Smith's new book.) Christine Swanton, a philosopher from New Zealand who is an expert on eudaimonism, returned a monograph that Allan Gotthelf had loaned her. No big deal, you say. Except that the monograph (by Neera Badhwar) was published by TOC. There is no way that Gotthelf would have cited or publicly acknowledged this particular item, even though he obviously thought it was worth reading, and worth recommending to a non-Objectivist discussant. Meanwhile, Smith had quite daringly referred to David Kelley by name during the question and answer period, but it would be foolish to expect any of that to carry over into a publication.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

As evidence of some problems within the Objectivist movement, I would like to present the words of someone who saw this issue from an inside view very few of us will ever get to see. Not only did this guy take what he wanted from Objectivism (discarding the rest) and moved on, he is a huge success in his chosen career.

Case Study - Mark Riebling

To see who this guy is, see his personal website. He has excelled at national security and analysis of terrorism. He is not on some Internet forum talking about nuking all Arabs. He is actually in the midst of the war on terror—doing something about it. Not only is he a familiar writer in mainstream news, he is involved in prominent government policy think tanks and wrote an influential book on national security, Wedge: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11—How the Secret War between the FBI and CIA Has Endangered National Security.

On September 16, 2002 he wrote a small blog article called Atlas Shagged. This deals with sex, but there are some other issues that are far more important that he mentioned. Here are some selective quotes. Some of them touch on sex, but the issue behind the sex in light of the Objectivist movement is why I am presenting them:

My good friends James Valliant and Aaron Haspel are in a blogwar about Ayn Rand's theory of sex. I worked for the Estate of Ayn Rand during graduate school, cataloging her papers and her art-deco jewelry, so naturally I have been called upon to take sides.

. . .

1. The foundation of Miss Rand's view -- the idea that one's physical and one's spiritual lives are not split -- is but one among the ideas (e.g., the evil of altruism) which she could have credited Nietzsche with anticipating. We know that she read Nietzsche voraciously, that he was the principal influence on her prose style, that she took from him certain terms and concepts (e.g., "sacrificial animal"). It would have been at least good intellectual manners for her to have cited his aphorism: "The degree and kind of one's sexuality reaches to the very pinnacle of one's spirit."

. . .

5. Why should the biological aspects of human sexuality be short-shrifted by objectivism? I suspect it’s because Miss Rand held, as indeed Jim Valliant also asserts, that humans do not have instincts. Whether man is the only animal who is so blessed, or cursed, we are not told; but her student Harry Binswanger once confided to me his belief that no animals have any instincts, that the whole concept is invalid.

Yet the objectivist definition of instincts differs -- conveniently, blithely, I daresay capriciously -- from that which is offered in dictionaries. An instinct, objectivists contend, is "automatic, inborn knowledge." Thus, since we cannot be born with knowledge, we cannot be born with instincts. But “instinct" does not mean automatic knowledge to anyone but an objectivist.

. . .

How we should manage our appetites is of course an ancient question in ethics. It has been of great concern to the Greeks, the Jews, the Romans, the Christians, the Moslems, and in fact to most everyone except objectivists.

. . . (There is no break in the text, but the following issue is a separate one.)

This raises another weakness in official objectivism: its tepid participation in the Great Western Conversation, its tacky and in sometimes counterfactual insistence on its own revolutionary newness, and its marked aversion to the finding of continuities with any pre-Randians but Aristotle.

Take, for instance, Emerson’s statement: “Wealth is mental, wealth is moral” (“Wealth," 1861). This strophe encapsulates, and anticipates, a key theme of Atlas Shrugged. Yet rather than positioning herself as the corrector and reviser of a pre-existent, uniquely American, individualist tradition -- rather than citing Emerson to buttress the very point she tries to make in her Cosmo piece -- Miss Rand dismisses him as “a very little mind.”

So, too, objectivists fail to align themselves with Stoics like Marcus Aurelius -- who espoused self-mastery, defined as the harnessing of appetites by reason. Objectivists thus unmoor themselves from two-plus millennia of answers to uniquely human problems: e.g., how to get over on a Saturday night without feeling bad about it on Sunday morning.

Note that Riebling worked at cataloging Rand's papers for the Estate of Ayn Rand (i.e. Peikoff) and he is friends with James Valliant, of all people. This means that he has had access to much material that is denied to the public. His familiarity with Objectivism cannot be questioned, yet he did not "convert." One can only imagine the pressure he resisted, too.

In his blog article, he mentions some of the parts of Objectivism he rejects. By following the quotes above in order, these parts are:

a.) Rand's lack of "intellectual manners" in citing sources from where she obtained some of her fundamental ideas and influences. Riebling cites Nietzsche for "sacrificial animal," and Rand's prose style, but it is obvious that he is able to cite much more. (My comment: To an intelligent outsider, this habit of Rand's, and its continuance as an Objectivist tradition by followers, is extremely irritating and a complete turn-off.)

b.) Objectivism has meanings for words (like instinct) that are not common. (My comment: Since these words are used by Objectivists in arguments to reject the ideas and work of other thinkers where the words obviously have the standard meanings, intelligent outsiders think that Objectivists do not properly understand these ideas. In many cases I have observed, they are correct, too.)

c. One of the fundamental issues of ethics, how to manage appetites, is hardly covered in Objectivism. (My comment: When it is covered, a person who satisfies an appetite to his detriment is called "evil" because he did not subject it to reason, yet no technique or method is provided on how to discipline it when it is strong and insistent. Intelligent outsiders are aware of this lack and many judge Objectivism to be impractical because of it.)

d. By cutting itself off from the past and preaching worldwide conversion, Riebling sees fundamental parts of Objectivism as "tepid," "tacky" and "counterfactual" (i.e., false). (My comment: I cannot blame intelligent outsiders for the errors, omissions and exaggerations they detect. Facts are facts. The stubborn denial of these observations—when such have merit—mainly by the orthodoxy is precisely what leads outsiders to judge the philosophy so harshly.)

For the record, there is one comment Riebling made about sex that I believe bears repeating here since it has practical consequences on attracting people to Objectivism. People gravitate to success in love and Objectivism does not have a good track record for love.

3. I would distinguish between (a.) the sex scenes in Miss Rand's fiction; (b.) the objectivist view on sex as given in her philosophical passages; and (c.) the strange behavior of some of her admirers.

(a.) I don't understand why sex in her fiction is generally violent, masochistic, sometimes involves the drawing of blood, and is never, as far as I can tell, made to seem the expression of tenderness.

(b.) I don't see what there is about sex which should make it the topic for separate inquiry in ethics, unless it is the natural, animal intensity of our sexual drives -- a factor not considered by official objectivism (see point 5 below). In other words, unless there is something particularly problematic about sex, and objectivists do not seem to believe that there is, it would seem to me that, as in any other arena, one should just act honestly, etc., etc.

(c.) Many objectivists make the mistake of "holding out for an objectivist." This is just as misguided and destructive as the pressure within Judaism to marry, date, or socialize only "within the tribe." Yes, it's important that romantic partners look at the world in similar, or not totally incompatible ways; and for that there can be little tests: e.g. whether you like the same art (I thank Aaron Haspel for that insight). And of course, you have to sense that the person is your partner, that they "get you." But that goes more to how they think than what they think. I think.

I do not know what Riebling's education on Objectivism was, but working for Peikoff in the archives (I suspect at ARI), being friends with Valliant and personally handling Rand's papers, I imagine that it was fairly thorough. So I do not see his objections (and rejections) as an attack by a Rand-hater. He is very familiar with the material and obviously gave it his honest best thinking.

If the purpose of this thread is to analyze the Objectivist movement and educational approaches, it would be extremely unwise to ignore observations like these.

Michael

[Greybird]

[...] It would have been very easy for [The Objectivist Center] to cave to either a nuke them all ARI-style foreign policy or a libertarian anti-first strike pacifism. Their reasoned approach leaves them in a precarious position in terms of numbers.

Your either-or here ends up, unfortunately, misrepresenting realities on both sides.

On ARI's part, the "nuke them all" position is more extreme than what their own op-ed writers take up. Leonard Peikoff has called for doing this (on Fox News). Peter Schwartz did so in regard to the Soviets (full-page New York Times ad from The Intellectual Activist after the Flight 007 shoot-down).

The administrators of ARI, though, probably out of fundraising prudence, haven't taken up the nuclear-armed consequences of pursuing Empire. And that, in turn, comes from their refusing, as Rand refused, to consider the United States government to even be capable of pursuing Empire.

That State, however, isn't exempt from those pressures of ambition, especially when the Constitution has been swept away by Congress, from abandoning war powers to abolishing habeas corpus.

As for libertarians, the "anti-first-strike" viewpoint is common and well-justified in terms of its being a matter of aggressive war, but this does not at all equate to "pacifism." It signifies non-intervention beyond any proper limits of this government's action, and withdrawing from provoking conflicts abroad — but that in no way rules out genuine defense of what, these days, is called the "homeland."

Pulling back "our" military from being based in over 130 countries would result in international relations becoming far more pacific. Private interactions (especially oil production) would no longer be using that military as, in effect, a mercenary force and a trip-wire for deeper political involvement in other States. Yet that cannot at all be seen as pacifism, unless one wants to deepen and expand Empire.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Well put, sir.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is off topic, but do not forget dollarizing the world after WWII in terms of international payments. (Before WWII, they were made in English pounds and French francs.)

That's a fundamental part of it.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

By some serendip, Greg Nyquist put up a post on this topic a couple of days ago on our blog. He argues that given Objectivism's emphasis on the importance of philosophy's influence on human history, if they want to change the world the Objectivist orthodoxy is acting irrationally:

"If Objectivists were logical, they would seek to make every effort to present their philosophy in as favorable a light to as many people as possible. They would also seek to answer all serious objections made to their doctrines. Yet we don't find orthodox Objectivists doing this. Instead, we find them intentionally limiting exposure of their doctrines (e.g., they won't talk to libertarians, for instance) and refusing to engage with their critics...In brief, the behavior of Objectivists, particularly when it comes to their attempts to spread the Randian philosophy, are not terribly rational nor do they make any sense when judged in relation to Rand's philosophy of history."

He then asks what, for the faithful, this folly accomplishes.

[Wolf DeVoon]

If Objectivists were logical, they would seek to make every effort to present their philosophy in as favorable a light to as many people as possible.

Dude. Objectivism is not a public service or common carrier. What ARI does is more or less an old woman's last wish (and why not? - it was her choice to make, fair and square). Folks who have divergent scholarly views of Rand's work are admirers with talent of their own (again, why not? - we each choose our path).

However and it's a big one -- consider it possible that I'm temporarily speaking for 7 or 8 million Objectivists who live the philosophy as best we can, often in bizarre situations like Dagny and Hank. Novel reading, it turns out, is life changing. We also read the nonfiction and some of the latter day saints on occasion. But few Objectivists are writing or proselytizing. As secret initiates of a mad, highly individualistic cult, of necessity we never discuss Objectivism at work or family gatherings. We intermarry other Objectivists. Also secret. Some have codenames, like me. Some have been to the Gulch.

Whether in a big way or in quietly personal conduct, sir, we are on strike.

Wolf DeVoon

Edited June 15, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Daniel Barnes]

Wolf DeVoon:

>Whether in a big way or in quietly personal conduct, sir, we are on strike.

Does this mean our crumbling civilisation will not be saved by the DeVoon Perpetual Motion Machine until it learns to mend its ways?

[Wolf DeVoon]

Among the 7 or 8 million, there are some very bright people who have withheld their skills, abilities and, yes, their inventions from the outside world. But you knew this about Atlas Shrugged, didn't you? It is history inspired by fiction and it explains why the Chinese are manufacturing almost everything you buy in the US, except Japanese cars and Malaysian computer parts.

I'm a lightning rod, a recruiter. Go ahead. Make jokes. I don't care. I wasn't addressing an adversary. I was speaking to the young people on this board who need to know they are not alone.

W.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Greybird]

What ARI does is more or less an old woman's last wish (and why not? - it was her choice to make, fair and square). [...]

Actually, no, it's not. After the break between her and the Brandens, and the dissolution of NBI, Rand wrote that she would not endorse any educational or advocacy organization. (I believe it was in "To Whom It May Concern," or one of its accompanying policy statements, but I don't have those volumes readily at hand.)

At other times, including in the question period of one of Peikoff's 1976 lectures, she said that she empathized with Karl Marx, in that he supposedly once said, "I am not a Marxist." She disliked having anyone glom onto her name, which is one reason why she chose "Objectivism" for her ideas.

The last kind of entity she would have wanted was an "Ayn Rand Institute." That nomenclature, essentially, is Peikoff's form of posthumous idolatry, begun and sustained with the money and archives he inherited from her.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Greybird