Understanding Objectivism Deleted Lecture


Donovan A.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Donovan -

It does say something about the "Closed System" viewpoint, in which certain annointed ones speak ex cathedra.

Bill P

Hi Bill,

How do you know this? Why would Peikoff delete the lecture if it's valid and representative of Objectivism? I can understand adding a bonus CD explaining the error, or deleting parts of the lecture (again with an explanation), but it seems like two CDs worth of content were removed. One can say a lot in 2 hours!

Edited by Donovan A.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donovan -

It does say something about the "Closed System" viewpoint, in which certain annointed ones speak ex cathedra.

Bill P

Hi Bill,

How do you know this? Why would Peikoff delete the lecture if it's valid and representative of Objectivism? I can understand adding a bonus CD explaining the error, or deleting parts of the lecture (again with an explanation), but it seems like two CDs worth of content were removed. One can say a lot in 2 hours!

I don't think you have understood my post.

My point was that Peikoff sees himself as speaking authoritatively ("ex cathedra"). He is apparently embarrassed by something in the old lecture (why else delete it without detailed discussion of the reason why, or better yet ADDING an explanation of what he views as being in error in the earlier lecture) but is not willing to admit to error. To admit to error would destroy the authority of other things he says - after all, he might be fallible there, also.

Bidinotto's material to which you posted the link gives a good hint about what was embarrassing. I don't recall having heard the original (now missing) lecture, so I can't speak from personal knowledge about the content. Bidinotto indicates he can, by what he says at that link.

Is this clear?

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that Peikoff sees himself as speaking authoritatively ("ex cathedra"). He is apparently embarrassed by something in the old lecture (why else delete it without detailed discussion of the reason why, or better yet ADDING an explanation of what he views as being in error in the earlier lecture) but is not willing to admit to error. To admit to error would destroy the authority of other things he says - after all, he might be fallible there, also.

ARI is essentially in a dead-end ossified authoritative intellectual model. This is kind of the opposite of argumentum ad hominem--to the man. Instead, it's from the man. Argument from authority. One of the biggest reasons Objectivism hasn't gone very far in academic respectability. Then ARI sullies AR whenever someone speaking for it makes irrational, hysterical, dubious and debatable statements about the state of the world and what needs and should be done about it, which in turn attenuates the strength of all its rational positions. Many strong voices for Objectivism we never hear from, I think, because ARI represents something they don't want to deal or associate with.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.

Good ole Aristotle

logos - argument from reason; pathos argument from emotion and ethos argument from character or authority.

Add modern audience analysis and you have all you need to change the world. Aristotle assumed that you knew your audience because all Greeks had common sense.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donovan,

There is no logical why. Peikoff changed his mind, found himself before a contradiction, so he eliminated evidence and dared anyone to question his decision. I call it the bully's stonewall.

And I predict that he (and ARI) will continue that policy. That has been the entire airbrushing approach toward the Brandens, or the reaction to Chris Sciabarra's work, or any number of examples.

There is an amazing feature of the human character. People look at enough examples of the behavior of a public person or group to identify a pattern, yet act as if that pattern does not exist because of some BS that the person or group puts out saying the opposite.

You judge a person firsthand by what he says and what he does. There are no other firsthand options. But if you look, you see clearly that people prefer to judge by what he says. They will doggedly hold to that until it becomes so obvious that they cannot ignore what he does if there is a contradiction. And even then, you will find nutcases who persist in preaching what he says.

Take the case of the Holocaust. It was not taken seriously while it was happening because of Nazi propaganda saying that it did not exist. Nowadays, despite tons of evidence presented to the entire world, there are still people who deny it existed.

All that is amazing to me. But there is something even more amazing. The same people who put out the propaganda will also state very clearly and very publicly what they are doing and give their reasons for it, with an implicit dare for anyone to yell, "Foul!" That's exactly what the Nazis did.

People simply back down when that happens with a strong belligerent attitude.

It takes moral courage and just plain old courage to stand up to bullies. I would expect that if you learn anything from Objectivism, it would be the rightness of standing up to bullies in the name of reason and the individual human mind. But that is not what has developed with the self-proclaimed bastion of Objectivism.

On the issue of rewriting history, deleting "official" lectures without giving reasons, excommunicating wayward insiders, etc., ARI is nothing more than a bully. There is no other word for it.

The only exception is that ARI does not bully prestigious but courteous outsiders who do not challenge its authority or consistency. These folks can disagree with ARI and that's OK.

ARI will continue to do what it does (especially bullying individuals who get close to Rand but do not adopt its party line), state that it is doing it for reasons X, Y and Z, but also say that it is not actually bullying, and people will continue to believe that it is not bullying. They see it, they hear it from the horse's mouth, but they will believe the BS almost everytime. And when they don't believe the BS because of some controversy or other, they will go back to believing it after the dust settles.

Well... not all people...

If you want to know what Peikoff did with Lecture 11 of Understanding Objectivism, that's what he did.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

Dead on.

When I ran into Piekoff in the late 60's early 70's at non-Rand oriented events, I did not feel trusting of him, so I tolerated him socially.

Never got close enough to him to really "know" him though.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So perhaps Peikoff isn't the brightest of person. Not exactly a shocking headline to anyone but Diana Hsieh. Might I humbly suggest that posters who invariably demand the "objectivist" view on this and that think about this. Is Rand the "objectivist view" What exactly is that? Can't we just agree that it's okay to make a mistake (if it's an honest error) rather than looking to authority for all the answers. Might I even suggest (HORROR ALERT) that perhaps even Rand could have been mistaken about stuff.

Whatever Peikoff wants to keep out of sight regarding this lecture probably doesn't matter all that much. If he can't admit he was wrong/uninformed has rethought an issue, what sort of a person is he. Not my kind, that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope someone has a copy of the missing lecture.

I am reminded of the Soviet Encyclopedia when it came during purges in the Soviet Union. The encyclopedia owner would get instructions to razor out an article and you would get substitute article to put in place of the offending article. Usually the article was about some who had just been shot for crimes against the state.

I must add that this does look like the advocates of serious ideas.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that makes me laugh!

I can remember very well her imperiousness on stage, haughtily looking out over the assembled multitude of wide eyed acolytes.

I always would be there early and be standing stage left against the wall so that I had a good view of the audiences faces and a great view of the stage.

She would have a cigarette in her hands and I remember a young man, who looked like he just came from a Mormon family asked her tremblingly how she could justify smoking and her own self interest.

After she finished eviscerating the poor little creature with her stare, I saw those amazing eyes look almost dreamily into some vision she was creating and gave her famous response, I see the tip of the cigarette as man taming fire at his fingertips.

I looking at the woman that I was seeing and said "This bitch is crazy, but she sure has the ideas!" We chuckled. One of the NBI storm troopers looked at me like I should be dragged off in chains and I knew that the movement was going to be in for years of internal turmoil.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh lord, how well I remember those days in New York. Warm and fuzzy, weren't they? Even worse (in my mind) than Rand's imperiousness was Peikoff's cowardness. Once, he had people up on stage to demonstrate the art of debating. The topics would be stuff like "Capitalism v. Communism." (Wow, I think everyone in that particular audience waited breathlessly for an answer, right?). Anyway, a young woman (braver than I was) raised her hand and asked why there couldn't be a real, actual debate (I believe she suggested the topic of what would happen if someone honestly tried to save someone from an accident and caused harm instead). Peikie went beserk. Said his topic was a genuine debate for this audience and what she suggested had no relevance. It seems he ABSOLUTELY HAD to know the answer before he even brooched the question. Kind of in reverse, I think. Anyway, I lost all respect for him at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep Ginny:

Since I taught debate at a real university, I was amazed at the question begging topics that passed for searching for "THE TRUTH".

The repression of questions by ridicule, dismissiveness and other authoritarian tactics made me truly sad and I had to walk away.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep Ginny:

Since I taught debate at a real university, I was amazed at the question begging topics that passed for searching for "THE TRUTH".

The repression of questions by ridicule, dismissiveness and other authoritarian tactics made me truly sad and I had to walk away.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I too walked. It bothered me, because I thought/think objectivism has so much to offer. Maybe if different people were involved. I don't see it going anywhere under Peikoff. The man hasn't done one frigging thing for the philosophy (except to live the good life with the money he inherited). He had, however, driven so many good people away. As for Schwartz or Bingswanger - OMG!! Just imagine!!

Edited by ginny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginny:

What years did you attend?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the first year was the '76 lecture. Then I attended for the next couple of years (I must admit, the course on grammar Peikoff taught in his apartment was excellent). I pretty much stopped associating with the people after the first lecture, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK -- not to name names, but I think some folks have gone way off the reservation in their speculations about the missing lecture in Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" course.

First of all, the missing lecture is a guest lecture by Edith Packer.

My best guess, judging from the misleading list of contents to lectures 7-12, of which there are only 7-11 now contained in the set, is that Packer's lecture was #10 and that it dealt with introspection and emotions.

The reason her lecture is no longer in the set is, undoubtedly, because of the breakup between ARI and Packer and her husband, George Reisman. As is nearly always the case with evictees from the ARIan heartland and those former Objectivist authorities demonized by the ARIan principals, Packer and Reisman have been consigned to the Memory Hole.

It's true that the deletion of Packer's material from the UO set may actually instead be due to legal issues. Packer may even have objected to Peikoff continuing to include her lecture with his set. However, I think that both reasons most likely coincide in this case. Peikoff legally ~can't~ include her lecture, and he ~doesn't want to~ include her lecture.

Thankfully, her excellent lectures are still available -- probably including the one now deleted from UO -- from the Thomas Jefferson School. There is a lot of good material there, some free -- including a "protected" PDF file of Reisman's mammoth book on capitalism -- and some for purchase. You will ~not~ run out of material there to educate yourself with. I recommend it highly.

I also recommend ARI's book service highly. There is a huge amount of valuable material to study. Some of it will soon be out in book form. Don't deny yourself the value of this material by falling into the same narrow, pinched, spiteful attitude that all too many of the ARIan folk have wrapped themselves in. (Sadly, some of the principals at TAS have turned up their noses at some of the more recent offerings from Peikoff & Co. Their loss, IMO.)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

Thank you for the correction.

I probably should redo my post on bullying, but I'll let it stand and be corrected here. I admit I was sloppy in my own checking of facts before sounding off, so let me now say that I do not see Peikoff eliminating his own lecture because he changed his mind.

I still see him as a bully, though, and the essence of my criticism stands.

Also, there is no reason on earth a better explanation of the missing lecture could not have been given. As reported by Donovan on the CD, "Dr. Peikoff has requested that lecture 11 be withdrawn from this program," it appears like it was his own lecture that was withdrawn, seeing as how he does the other eleven. Merely a mention that a guest lecture had been omitted would have been enough to avoid any incorrect insinuation.

btw - I second your recommendations for the Jeffereson School and the more recent offerings of the orthodoxy. I do that despite many disagreements with some of the stuff I have read and even if it includes "The Dim Hypothesis," which, despite many serious flaws, induces people to think along a different standard. To be honest, that part's kinda cool.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK -- not to name names, but I think some folks have gone way off the reservation in their speculations about the missing lecture in Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" course.

First of all, the missing lecture is a guest lecture by Edith Packer.

My best guess, judging from the misleading list of contents to lectures 7-12, of which there are only 7-11 now contained in the set, is that Packer's lecture was #10 and that it dealt with introspection and emotions.

The reason her lecture is no longer in the set is, undoubtedly, because of the breakup between ARI and Packer and her husband, George Reisman. As is nearly always the case with evictees from the ARIan heartland and those former Objectivist authorities demonized by the ARIan principals, Packer and Reisman have been consigned to the Memory Hole.

It's true that the deletion of Packer's material from the UO set may actually instead be due to legal issues. Packer may even have objected to Peikoff continuing to include her lecture with his set. However, I think that both reasons most likely coincide in this case. Peikoff legally ~can't~ include her lecture, and he ~doesn't want to~ include her lecture.

Thankfully, her excellent lectures are still available -- probably including the one now deleted from UO -- from the Thomas Jefferson School. There is a lot of good material there, some free -- including a "protected" PDF file of Reisman's mammoth book on capitalism -- and some for purchase. You will ~not~ run out of material there to educate yourself with. I recommend it highly.

I also recommend ARI's book service highly. There is a huge amount of valuable material to study. Some of it will soon be out in book form. Don't deny yourself the value of this material by falling into the same narrow, pinched, spiteful attitude that all too many of the ARIan folk have wrapped themselves in. (Sadly, some of the principals at TAS have turned up their noses at some of the more recent offerings from Peikoff & Co. Their loss, IMO.)

REB

Roger,

Thank you for this post. If the Objectivist school of thought is to get back on track, scholars should have a freeranging, expansive attitude and cast a wide net for materials in their areas of interest. The amount of real lecture material is staggering.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing many young people may not understand was how potent this kind of memory hole politics was before the internet. If you were a beginning Objectivist, there was very little effective means to gather information about Objectivism except from official sources. Now it's merely an annoyance. In 1989, it was like being cut off from scholarly oxygen. That's why I think ostracism is a terrible idea. Within reason people should avoid the I don't get along with A, so B who gets along with A can't be my friend or the you can't associate with David Kelley if you wan't to associate with us nonsense. It subverts the individual's firsthand evaluation process and inculcates conformity. People should not make the same mistake with ARI either. If you find their Summer Conferences add value, attend them. They should be encouraged in their efforts to open up.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now