The Intellectuals Are Dead--Long Live the Intellectuals!

[thomtg]

"The intellectuals are dead—long live the intellectuals!"

That is the parting line in Ayn Rand's article "For the New Intellectual" in FTNI (1961, p. 57). She wishes to inspire the "new" intellectuals to transmit true ideas, to become the transmission belt from the ivory tower of philosophy to the man on the factory floor or in the office cubicle.

I have always liked this rousing dedication to the future. It captures a double judgment. I see in this line Rand's great respect for knowledge, art, truth, and seekers of such things—all in the service of man's living on earth. She has great respect for knowledge of the past, history; for knowledge of existence and its relations to man, philosophy (PWNI 2); for knowledge of physical phenomena, physics (ITOE 35); for knowledge of standards and measurements, math (Ibid. 7); for art of identification, logic (FTNI "GS" 126). There is honor implied in the disciplines, in the trades.

But Rand's line also shows great disdain for the purveyors of errors, vices, and falsehoods. These are the "old" intellectuals: the clueless logicians, the Platonic mathematicians, the transcendental physicists, the evil philosophers. They have caused, through their words and actions, loss and corruption to mankind's store of wisdom, which entails a degradation to the culture, contributing to the slow disintegration of society, down to the private lives of individual men. This is all true, and the disdain is rightly deserved.

So, let us heed Rand's call, and make the proper, distinct judgments about any profession versus its professionals. Be the "new" professionals and assume the honorable responsibility of the profession. The world depends on us. The professionals are dead—long live the professionals!

Edited May 8, 2009 by Thom T G

[Dragonfly]

But Rand's line also shows great disdain for the purveyers of errors, vices, and falsehoods. These are the "old" intellectuals: the clueless logicians, the Platonic mathematicians, the transcendental physicists, the evil philosophers. They have caused, through their words and actions, loss and corruption to mankind's store of wisdom, which entails a degradation to the culture, contributing to the slow disintegration of society, down to the private lives of individual men. This is all true, and the disdain is rightly deserved.

Bullshit.

[BaalChatzaf]

But Rand's line also shows great disdain for the purveyers of errors, vices, and falsehoods. These are the "old" intellectuals: the clueless logicians, the Platonic mathematicians, the transcendental physicists, the evil philosophers. They have caused, through their words and actions, loss and corruption to mankind's store of wisdom, which entails a degradation to the culture, contributing to the slow disintegration of society, down to the private lives of individual men. This is all true, and the disdain is rightly deserved.

A perfect example of what I was talking about. FTNI was published in 1963. In the 46 years since it was published consider the advance in technology the world over. The Standard Model of Particles and Fields has been nearly perfected. Advance in molecular chemistry and biology. Breakthroughs in astrophysics. The GPS system which can locate anyone to within ten meters anywhere on the planet. All this from a degraded and corrupt science.

To all this technological advance there have been contributions from no noted Objectivists. The majority of publications are put out in the professional journals by evil Kantians and Platonists. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Is there any surprise in that no one in the scientific or engineering professions takes Objectivism seriously?

Thom, when you wrote this were you serious or were you satirizing the Objectivist position?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Reidy]

I've mentioned before on this very list that one of Rand's most unfortunate predictions is at the beginning of "What is Capitalism?" (1965) where she says that the philosophy of science is so corrupt that technogical progress is about to grind to a halt.

[Roger Bissell]

I've mentioned before on this very list that one of Rand's most unfortunate predictions is at the beginning of "What is Capitalism?" (1965) where she says that the philosophy of science is so corrupt that technogical progress is about to grind to a halt.

Yes, her timing was way off--about 45 years or so premature. "Technogical" progress appears to be about to go in the dumper, not coincidentally coincident with our perhaps irreversible descent into smiley-faced fascism. When the feds start running businesses, the businesses, like the government schools, will turn to crap, and inventors and innovators will be hauled into court to make them stop inventing or to "share" their inventions. We are now LIVING "Atlas Shrugged." God save us.

REB

[ginny]

I think Mr. Bissell is being pessimistic. At least I hope he is. Hard times come and go. But I believe we'll survive. We always have. Let me say, though, that I'm in one hundred percent agreement with Ba'al for a change. It's bothered me for a long time that no objectivist has stood out and done something great and innovative. Please forgive me for saying so, but I believe the philosophy (and its major proponents) is partially to blame. You can't be innovative while constantly worrying about making some fatal moral error or whether what you're doing is good enough. Such thinking is like binders on the mind. I honestly believe that Objectivism has so much to offer. But we must turn from the abstract and embrace the concretes more. In other words, instead of nitpicking over every word and concept, JUST DO SOMETHING.

As I pointed out on another site (before I got banned for calling Peikoff an ass), a liberal like Ted Turner turned TV news on its head. An altruist like Bill Gates changed the world with his computer. These are innovators that affect our daily lives. And yet they have a lousy destructive philosophy.

I can't quite put it into words yet, but I think there's a serious problem in getting wrapped up in too much abstraction and morality (and in objectivism's case, too much bickering and fighting). I mean, is Turner moral? No way. But he's done important and significant things. So I guess even someone not-so-good can do terrific things. Objectivism sneers at that and get caught up in meaningless words. Peikoff can talk morality and rationality all he wants, the man has accomplished NOTHING (except for a book under Rand's guidance, another book summarizing Rand's ideas, and whatever his latest is). I think what we need is more action. And permission to make mistakes without infighting.

I do respect the importance of philosophy. We need more of that. But not living in an ivory tower of words and condemnation.

I'm having trouble putting this into words, but does any of this make sense?

Edited May 6, 2009 by ginny

[Reidy]

But she said this was going to come from the philosophy of science, not from political or economic conditions. 45 years off and from a different source does not count as a successful prediction.

[BaalChatzaf]

Yes, her timing was way off--about 45 years or so premature. "Technogical" progress appears to be about to go in the dumper, not coincidentally coincident with our perhaps irreversible descent into smiley-faced fascism. When the feds start running businesses, the businesses, like the government schools, will turn to crap, and inventors and innovators will be hauled into court to make them stop inventing or to "share" their inventions. We are now LIVING "Atlas Shrugged." God save us.

REB

If the government chokes off progress in science it is not the fault of the scientists or their methodologies. Rand inisisted it was the intellectual corruption of the scientists themselves that was halting progress in science (particularly physics). She was dead wrong. And which physicist is the Darling of the Objectivists? Dr. Lewis Little who is a crank. He has a PhD in physics and his theory, the theory of elementary waves is not even wrong, it is nonsense. A number of Objectivists support or have supported him because his -philosphical- prejudices match theirs, not because his science is any good (which it isn't). The late Stephen Speicher (who was a very smart guy) was taken in an believed Little was the Second Coming of Einstein.

In spite of government interference applied science has gone ahead a flank speed. We have fiber optic cable and GPS. With the development of spintronics (computing based on the quantum effects of spin) we will have computers small at the molecular level in due course. Our computers are smaller, cooler and faster than ever. In genetic chemistry the development of the polymerase chain reaction we are on the threshold of making designer genetic products. Is this intellectually corrupt science in action?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Barbara Branden]

Ba'al: "Is there any surprise in that no one in the scientific or engineering professions takes Objectivism seriously?"

You are very much mistaken. Even in the days of NBI, when we kept track of the professions of our students, more of them were in one branch or another of engineering than in any other profession, and many were scientists. But such people tend not to publicly discuss their philosophical allegiances.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

ginny: "I can't quite put it into words yet, but I think there's a serious problem in getting wrapped up in too much abstraction and morality (and in objectivism's case, too much bickering and fighting). I mean, is Turner moral? No way. But he's done important and significant things. So I guess even someone not-so-good can do terrific things. Objectivism sneers at that and get caught up in meaningless words."

Ginny, what you're saying makes perfect sense. And the error you're observing is called rationalism. That is, theory comes first, reality comes second. So that if one's philosophy tells one that a flawed person cannot create something worth while, then reality has a problem, not one's theory, and one blithely ignores or attempts to rationalize away the obvious fact that flawed people are doing great things every day. (Blame some Objectivists for this error, but in my experience by no means most Objectivists.)

Barbara

[thomtg]

[...] It's bothered me for a long time that no objectivist has stood out and done something great and innovative. Please forgive me for saying so, but I believe the philosophy (and its major proponents) is partially to blame. You can't be innovative while constantly worrying about making some fatal moral error or whether what you're doing is good enough. Such thinking is like binders on the mind. I honestly believe that Objectivism has so much to offer. But we must turn from the abstract and embrace the concretes more. In other words, instead of nitpicking over every word and concept, JUST DO SOMETHING.

[...]

Ginny, to paraphrase Barbara Branden (in the context of charity in a free society): If you want to do it, you will not be stopped.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Thom T G

[Rich Engle]

I think, Thom, that you are in a great time and place. Barbara, tell me if I miswrite...

You are in a place that is very familiar. People `explode` when they read, say, Atlas, or the Fountainhead. It is clearly a positive thing (given her stance, which was unprecedented).

But, and that's "but," 9 for 10 Vegas odds it typically turns into some kind of strange fever; it is zealous, for sure.

This is the wonderous effect of the writings of Ayn Rand--talk about starting oil fires...heh.

What happens, after said process, that can wind a person up in many states of mind. Often, this involves proclaiming behavior, as MSK names it.

I was a very intolerant man for many years after I read that stuff; I was a judgmental prick (this is my case, not to accuse). It made me very rigid. Oh, my words were sharply-honed blades, and I took down many prey.

End-sum-net: not so much: I hurt more than I helped.

It took me years to get over that fever, fervor.

You will not, probably, find yourself in a position where you request advice, but I will give it anyway: maybe a bit will stick.

Take the good things, throw out the bad ones, but above all, don't think for a minute you will benefit from laying down lightning bolts.

You'll get over it, it's sort of like malaria or something. But I will tell you this: careful about your bridge-burning.

Everybody loves you when you're on top. Don't slip and fall: because you'll find out.

Namaste,

rde

[Barbara Branden]

ginny: "It's bothered me for a long time that no objectivist has stood out and done something great and innovative."

Ginny, the jury is still out on whether or not this is correct. Some years ago, I had the great privilege of attending two of the week-long annual conferences of an organization called The American Academy of Achievement. These events were among ithe great experiences of my life. Present, and available to talk with, were many of the greatest achievers in America, in felds from literature to physics to medicine to industry to politics to jurisprudence to aviation to acting, etc., etc. I met and spoke with Chuck Yaeger and Michael Malkin and Francis Crick and Olivia de Havilland and Barry Goldwater and Reuben Mattus (creator of Haagen-Dazs ice cream) and Jane Goodall and Suzanne Farrell of the New York City Ballet and mountain climber Reinhold Messner and Sandra Day O'Connor and Dick Rutan and Tom Clancy and the presidents of Barnum & Bailey and Coca Cola and Hallmark Cards and Federal Express, and historian Stephen Ambrose and the President of Duke university and the founder of America Online and and George Tenet and wildlife artist Robert Bateman and biographer Robert K Massie -- and literally dozens of winners of Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry and medicine. I felt as if I had died and gone to heaven -- and I didn't want to be born again.

I tell you this because, out of curiosity, whenever possible I brought the subject around to books-- and to Atlas Shrugged. To my very pleased surprise, more often than not I immediately found myself listening to enthusiastic statements about the importance of Atlas in the life and career of the person I was talking with. This was universally the case among the industrialists I met, and very often the case with the scientists. It's important to remember that we simply do not know the philosophical influences on, say, most Nobel Prize winners or presidents of corporations or pioneers in aviation or inventors or mountain climbers or biologists or painters. And today, with the remarkable resurgence of interest in and sales of Atlas, I suspect that my experience ten and fifteen years ago would be even more widely replicated.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Rich: "Take the good things, throw out the bad ones, but above all, don't think for a minute you will benefit from laying down lightning bolts.

"You'll get over it, it's sort of like malaria or something."

Rich, it is indeed a highly contagious disease. And while it's true that most people recover, unfortunately not everyone does.

Barbara

[Rich Engle]

There, she said it, she was there. Thanks BB.

I could cage it, be PC, but I try to cut-to-chase and be preventive. I draw from my own experience, and observation: that should be enough.

Bluntly (sorry, Barbara):

A lot of times when people get exposed to it, they turn into judgmental dickheads. I am not saying you are one, but merely that the danger is extant.

What happens is both good, and bad. It is sort of like rehab. You know, "there are friends, then there are people you do drugs with."

So, there is a cleansing ritual of some kind, and mostly, this is good: it requalifies how one quantifies the value of relationships. Often, you cut people out of your life. But, those decisions are often ill-tempered. Cut once, measure twice.

But mostly from what I have seen, you get a lot of people that do this conversion, and they are very similar to any run-of-the-mill Fundamentalist.

You gotta watch for that in yourself. Man, ask Barbara, even: she used to know me when I was a prick.

Finest Kind,

rde

[ginny]

Wow, Barbarba, I'm pleasantly surprised. Great to hear about those people. They are doers. I think it proves my point, though. These are people who ACT (yes, perhaps fueled by objectivism) and don't go around prozelatizing (sp?) and making a big deal of the philosophy. They LIVE the philosophy. Hey - that's it. I've got it. We need people who live the philosophy instead of talking it.

Ginny

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al: "Is there any surprise in that no one in the scientific or engineering professions takes Objectivism seriously?"

You are very much mistaken. Even in the days of NBI, when we kept track of the professions of our students, more of them were in one branch or another of engineering than in any other profession, and many were scientists. But such people tend not to publicly discuss their philosophical allegiances.

Barbara

Could it be that these admirable folk would have been good engineers and scientists even if they were not O'ists?

Think about it. Isaac Newton was a God Phreak and he invented mathematical physics as we know it.

Michael Faraday was a Christian Gentleman and he invented the electromagnetic field concept. Maxwell mathematized it, but Faraday created the concept.

And so on and so on.

Here is the plain truth. The greatest minds in natural science, especially physics carried out the Pythagorean-Platonic program (by and large). They were not even Aristotelians. Percentage-wise Objectivism has has little or no effect on the progress of natural science in the 20th century. If Ayn Rand never existed the outcome would be the same.

The greatest contribution that Objectivists made to the culture of the U.S. was in the area of politics showing that Liberalism was and is intellectually bankrupt. Unfortunately for the country, the Conservatives were ill equipped to go into the breach. Instead of Barry Goldwater, we got Richard Nixon and later on the Bushes, father and son. Pretty thin gruel, that.

Now that the crunch is on we see a renewal of interest in Ayn Rand and her political and economic ideas. That is where the strength is, not in the area of natural science. Objectivism, as a philosophic system has little to offer to natural science or mathematics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Barbara Branden]

Ba'al:"Could it be that these admirable folk would have been good engineers and scientists even if they were not O'ists?"

I've never suggested otherwise.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

Come to think of it, no one I know of has ever suggested that.

Michael

[Ross Barlow]

...Some years ago, I had the great privilege of attending two of the week-long annual conferences of an organization called The American Academy of Achievement. These events were among ithe great experiences of my life. Present, and available to talk with, were many of the greatest achievers in America, in felds from literature to physics to medicine to industry to politics to jurisprudence to aviation to acting, etc., etc. I met and spoke with ... mountain climber Reinhold Messner....

Barbara,

This sounds like an incredible experience – a chance to mingle with gods.

Did you get to speak at any length with my hero Reinhold Messner? He was my greatest exemplar in my early climbing days in the 1970s, a total inspiration of individualism and bold vision.

Messner is an atheist and a rabid individualist. He steers by his own stars and cares very little for the opinions of others. I have always wondered how he would assess Ayn Rand’s writings. Perhaps his “Euro” sensibilities would turn him off to much of the politics, but ethically and epistemologically he seems to be a fellow traveler.

Mountain climbing is an individualistic and maverick sport to begin with, but Messner challenged all the mountaineering orthodoxies of the day about the limits of climbing difficulty. These orthodox “authorities” claimed that traditional standards could not be surpassed and that the highest levels of (the then current) difficulty were forever the fixed standard.

In his early book, *The Seventh Grade: Most Extreme Climbing,* Messner first listed pages and pages of quotes from some of the world’s greatest past climbers claiming that the most difficult and bold levels of climbing had already been attained – measured then as the “6th grade,” the absolute limit. Then Messner states that any of humanity’s highest standards can be surpassed, and the rest of the book is his documented proof of this by telling very honestly of his own personal achievements far surpassing any mountaineering feats yet known. He insolently proclaims that the “7th Grade” of difficulty (and beyond) is possible to those who dare. He despises artificial limitations.

Messner stated that a climb of the highest currently rated difficulty – the “6th Grade – might be surpassed by, say, climbing it solo, or climbing it in winter, at night, in an extremely fast time, or in extreme weather. A very difficult new route’s first ascent may be designated as surpassing the 6th Grade. He did all of these things and pushed the envelope of what was considered to be the limits of human endeavor in the world of alpinism. He took the mentality of light-weight and fast day-climbs in the Alps to the gigantic Himalayas.

Messner’s climbing feats are extraordinary. E.g.: when he was a youth of 16 he climbed the huge dangerous North Face of Les Droites in the French Alps in one morning (while the first ascent party earlier had taken days) and he was back in Chamonix for lunch; he did the first ascent of Mt. Everest without supplementary oxygen tanks (with his oft-time partner Peter Habeler); the first ascent of all of the 14 highest peaks in the world (again, always without oxygen); and the first solo ascent of Everest (without oxygen in just a few days, base to summit and back). He trains fanatically like an Olympic athlete.

In the overall climbing community, Messner was viewed as an arrogant prick – a kind of mountaineering Howard Roark. But he still lives and goes on adventures. For me, his most valuable lesson was to turn back if you don’t feel up to it, to save it for another day. He knows his limits and his strengths. In sum, he was always rational about risk.

My greatest memories of mountaineering are my solo ascents. They mean more to me than team climbs. I share a profound aesthetic vision of the lone individual in the mountains, and Messner literally wrote the book on this. I think that Howard Roark would have completely understood Messner’s life.

-Ross Barlow.

[Dragonfly]

Ba'al: "Is there any surprise in that no one in the scientific or engineering professions takes Objectivism seriously?"

You are very much mistaken. Even in the days of NBI, when we kept track of the professions of our students, more of them were in one branch or another of engineering than in any other profession, and many were scientists. But such people tend not to publicly discuss their philosophical allegiances.

I think that is not the point. Many scientists no doubt felt attracted to the general ideas that are represented by Atlas Shrugged, the notion of individualism, the insistence on rational thinking instead of relying on mystical crap, the defense of capitalism (hey, I was one myself!). The Objectivist attacks on modern science came only later, and not so much by Rand, who as far as I can remember was rather vague on that point, as by Peikoff and his acolytes who made the most ridiculous statements in that regard, with their claim that modern science was corrupt and thereby doomed to fail. The point is that those scientists have been enormously successful in all the years that followed and that by using their "corrupt philosophies" and not thanks to Objectivist epistemology. What Bob meant is that no scientist takes the scientific viewpoints (especially those of Peikoff and Harriman) of Objectivism seriously, even if they may sympathize with its political and economic ideas. Objectivism hasn't brought any revolution in science, it only produced crackpots like Lewis Little.

[BaalChatzaf]

What Bob meant is that no scientist takes the scientific viewpoints (especially those of Peikoff and Harriman) of Objectivism seriously, even if they may sympathize with its political and economic ideas. Objectivism hasn't brought any revolution in science, it only produced crackpots like Lewis Little.

Bang on! Smarrrrttt as paint ye arrre, Dragonfly.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

But Rand's line also shows great disdain for the purveyers of errors, vices, and falsehoods. These are the "old" intellectuals: the clueless logicians, the Platonic mathematicians, the transcendental physicists, the evil philosophers. They have caused, through their words and actions, loss and corruption to mankind's store of wisdom, which entails a degradation to the culture, contributing to the slow disintegration of society, down to the private lives of individual men. This is all true, and the disdain is rightly deserved.

Bullshit.

The productive host is being consumed as government gets bigger and bigger and more intrusive. None of this is really caused by philosophy, but by human nature itself. We are headed for an inflationary collapse to be followed by overt dictatorship and generally lower standards of living. The emperor will still be called "Mr. President" and he (or she) might "save" us by slashing back some of the Federal overgrowth, but not with freedom. Oh, yes, more war--lots more war plus civil strife and many U.S. states acting uppity.

So, Panama, anyone?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

So, Panama, anyone?

--Brant

I prefer Costa Rica.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hell, I could say I know of no scientist who was a valid philosopher, only a sporadic crackpot.

So?

Is anything gained by that?

Want me to repeat it over and over and over like you guys do on your end? Will repeating it make it true when it isn't? I don't know why you guys use that form of rhetoric and distortion.

Did any of you even bother to read what Barbara wrote, or at least try to understand it if you did read it?

Science is not a religion, but you guys are sure acting like Science Shiites. Make a closed off group, excommunicate this one or that, scapegoat a demonized person, consistently misrepresent the scapegoat and mock the scapegoat, bow down before enshrined authorities, etc.

You certainly are not acting any better than the worst of the Objectivist movement.

If you live in a glass house throwing stones and all, someone is going to see you...

Michael