The "Closed System" Impossibility

[Mike Renzulli]

The "Closed System" Impossibility

by Mike Renzulli

There has been a long standing debate in the Objectivist movement regarding the approach to Ayn Rand's philosophy. No single issue divides the Objectivist community more than this internal debate[1].

The two schools of thought are from the minds of 2 men: Dr. David Kelley head of The Atlas Society (TAS) and Dr. Leonard Peikoff head of the Ayn Rand Insitute (ARI).

According to David Kelley, Objectivism is an open system subject to revision and addition.

While studying Objectivism, I had concerns about TAS's approach since many Objectivists associated with ARI whose posts I read online allege that Kelley wants to change the philosophy or do things that aren't in accordance with Objectivism.

They further state that the approach The Atlas Society takes doesn't work.

After having read Dr. Kelley's book The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (a.k.a. Truth and Toleration), I do not get the sense that Kelley wants to change anything about Objectivism at all. He just leaves open the possibility of change while looking to other scholars and ideas that compliment or build upon Ms. Rand's.

I talked to Edward Hudgins who is Director of Advocacy at The Atlas Society last week at a conference recently held in Phoenix in which Ed, essentially, confirmed this.

The key to Kelley's approach is in Chapter V of his book. He states:

If Objectivism is to survive and flourish as a system of thought, it must attract philosophers who will build on Ayn Rand's discoveries, using them as a base for an assault on specific problems in philosophy and drawing out their implications for other disciplines such as economics, psychology, or literary theory. And Objectivism is more than a theoretical structure; it is a philosophy to live by.

Dr. Peikoff disagrees. He says in his essay Fact and Value which was done in response to Kelley's Truth and Toleration:

Kelley states that Ayn Rand’s philosophy, though magnificent, “is not a closed system.” Yes, it is. Philosophy, as Ayn Rand often observed, deals only with the kinds of issues available to men in any era; it does not change with the growth of human knowledge, since it is the base and precondition of that growth. Every philosophy, by the nature of the subject, is immutable. New implications, applications, integrations can always be discovered; but the essence of the system—its fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch—is laid down once and for all by the philosophy’s author. If this applies to any philosophy, think how much more obviously it applies to Objectivism. Objectivism holds that every truth is an absolute, and that a proper philosophy is an integrated whole, any change in any element of which would destroy the entire system.

However, after some research regarding Dr Peikoff, as it turns out, he has modified the very philosophy he opposes making changes to.

For example, when she was alive Ms. Rand had a dislike[2] of homosexuality. Though she felt consenting adults had the right to conduct their sexual activities in the manner they chose and opposed laws outlawing or regulating them as such, Ms. Rand did state that in terms of homosexuality that there is a psychological immorality at it's root.

Upon Ms. Rand's death, Dr. Peikoff publicly stated he disagreed with some of her views and declared that homosexuality is not open to moral judgement.

Down the line Objectivists have supported and expanded upon Peikoff's view (which is also my own) that government-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians is wrong but (consistent with recognizing the natural right of association and private property) believe private groups and individuals should be free to choose on the matter.

Some Objectivists (like myself) even support the legalization of gay marriage, respectfully.

If, as Dr. Peikoff contends, that Objectivism does not change with the growth of human knowledge and follows Ms. Rand's philosophy by opposing any change in any element then he should have held to Ms. Rand's original view of homosexuality by still condemning it.

Furthermore, with Dr. Peikoff's statement in the above quoted paragraph that the essence of [Objectivism]—its fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch—is laid down once and for all by the philosophy’s author is logically impossible.

One person who had a truly closed system was a gentleman named Andrew Galambos who developed a philosophical system called Volitional Science. Former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Harry Browne knew Galambos personally and refered to him as the unknown libertarian.

According to Browne[3], Galambos never wrote books or appeared on television or radio. To spread his philosophy he relied on word-of-mouth advertising and was a mutual fund investor on the side.

He ran a school named the Free Enterprise Institute in Los Angeles, California in the 1960's which sponsored classes on Andrew Galambos's philosophical system.

His venture was enormously successful.

People came by the hundreds to take Andrew Galambos's classes in order to learn about his philosophical system and his investment methods. Like Ayn Rand, Galambos was very possessive of his ideas. So much so that he had his students sign contracts stating they would not tell anyone else about what they learned or use any of his ideas without Galambos's permission.

As a result, Andrew Galambos is relegated to the status of an unknown personality in and out of the libertarian movement and his philosophy is now a historical relic that can still be purchased at a website run by his wife Suzanne.

If, as Dr. Peikoff says that Objectivism is closed and not open to change, then he and Ms. Rand should have followed Andrew Galambos's model.

The manner in which Andrew Galambos spread his philosophy is the only way a philosophy can remain closed and systematic.

The difference between the approaches of Doctors Kelley and Peikoff is their method. Kelley prefers approaching Objectivism from a scientific, peer-reviewed approach while Peikoff prefers one based on authority.

Yet, Peikoff's authority-based approach may be in conflict with the philosophy as well. In John Galt's speech on page 1019 of Atlas Shrugged, Ms. Rand states:

The vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middlemen between your consciousness and your existence.

If this statement by Ms. Rand is any guide and taking into account what Dr. Peikoff says in Fact and Value, his approach from authority is right out of Plato's Theory of The Forms. It is an expectation that Dr. Peikoff and other heads or scholars of the Ayn Rand Institute will lecture ARI supporters of what is and is not Objectivism while Peikoff will have the final word on what they can say with Papal infallability.

Unfortunately, ARI's excommunications weren't just limited to David Kelley or Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. Other individuals were subject to ouster as well.

After David Kelley gave his speech at a Libertarian supper club in New York, the Ayn Rand Institute's founders and heads Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Henry Binswanger, and Peter Schwartz decided to give Kelley the axe. After he was kicked out, Kelley did what was consistent with Objectivism and started his own group.

When Kelley started the Institute for Objectivist Studies (now The Atlas Society), it attracted a number of scholars and philosophers. New communities of Objectivists sprouted up too along with new books and journals based on scholarly research. Websites were created by that commented on issues of a number of subjects from an Objectivist perspective.

Now the momentum that was present in the Institute for Objectivist Studies/The Atlas Society faction has obviously shifted to ARI.

Thankfully, tough they won't openly admit it, it seems that ARI has taken from of Dr. Kelley's approach.

Thanks to the leadership of Yaron Brook, the Ayn Rand Institute has opened up quite a bit. Brook has appeared on television and radio talk shows and ARI authors and scholars have gotten op-eds published in newspapers and magazines as well as other venues ARI's founders either wouldn't or couldn't consider.

When it began, the Ayn Rand Institute did follow Ayn Rand's logic to the letter when it came to their disassociation with Libertarians due to Ms. Rand's dislike of them.

For a time Dr. Kelley left as head of The Atlas Society to pursue other ventures. Unfortunately, after he left, the organization dwindled in size and, possibly, influence. Fortunately, Kelley is back at the helm and it is my hope that he can replicate the success he had when TAS first started.

I am impressed with the growth in the size and scope of the Ayn Rand Institute and am glad the mentality of Dr. Peikoff, Harry Binswanger and Peter Schwartz seems to have somewhat worn off.

Unfortunately, the culture of exclusion that existed when ARI first started does still exist in the orthodox community [4].

If this still continues and the orthodox Objectivists continue with excommunications, then they will set themselves up for another schism. If it happens they will have no one but themselves to blame.

As for me, I have headed an Objectivist club since 2006. While we use TAS's audio and video items for our meetings, I would have no problem using the Ayn Rand Institute's materials since I find much of their work to be very well done.

I also do not discriminate or make litmus tests as to who can and cannot attend my meetings and some ARI supporters have attended. I have told them up front that they are always welcome to attend and give lectures if they would like.

In reality Objectivism does not need to be changed since it is a defined system and is very clear and consistent. Ayn Rand designed her philosophy as a coherent, integrated, and unified system of thought. It has many clear, definite, undebatable principles and premises.

If given the choice, I would not make any modifications. I get the impression that, ultimately, Dr. Kelley is of the same mindset.

Though I will not wait for a note from him to admit I am right, Dr. Leonard Peikoff and other Objectivists that subscribe to his claim of a <em>closed system</em> can no longer legitimately justify their claims. Any more points made by orthodox Objectivists (such as Diana Mertz-Hsieh) that the philosophy is closed are nothing more than rationalizations.

[1] http://www.theobject...dependence.aspx

[2] http://www.noblesoul...faq.html#Q5.2.6

[3] http://www.harrybrow...es/Galambos.htm

[4] http://www.nw-object...g/nwo/join.html

Edited January 26, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[9thdoctor]

After David Kelley gave his speech at a Libertarian supper club in New York, the Ayn Rand Institute's founders and heads Dr. Leonard Piekoff, Henry Binswanger, and Peter Schwartz decided to give Kelley the axe. After he was canned, Kelley did what was consistent with Objectivism and started his own group.

You’re still misspelling Peikoff, you ought to edit your post to fix it. You say Kelley was “canned”, this implies he had a job with ARI or something like that. I don’t know what term I’d use, but it wouldn’t be that. He became persona non grata, or was excommunicated.

Now the momentum that was present in the Institute for Objectivist Studies/The Atlas Society faction has obviously shifted to ARI.

You should back this up better, all you seem to have is the fact that Brook is getting talking head gigs. John Stossel had him on recently, for instance. In the ‘90’s he had David Kelley on, see his ABC special “Greed”, I well remember the prime time promos where Kelley said Michael Milken was more moral than Mother Teresa…wow!

For example, when she was alive Ms. Rand had a dislike[2] of homosexuality. Though she felt consenting adults had the right to conduct their sexual activities in the manner they chose and opposed laws outlawing or regulating them as such, Ms. Rand did state that in terms of homosexuality that there is a psychological immorality at it's root.

Peikoff never addresses the argument Rand made, which is cowardly, he should come out and say she blew it that night. That she mispoke at best. Note however that he claims that it's not a philosophical issue, so to say that he's contradicting her philosophically on this issue is not quite right.

[Mike Renzulli]

I made the necessary corrections and thanks for your feedback. Overall, do you like what I have written? What do you think of it? I also agree with you re: Kelley on Stossel.

After David Kelley gave his speech at a Libertarian supper club in New York, the Ayn Rand Institute's founders and heads Dr. Leonard Piekoff, Henry Binswanger, and Peter Schwartz decided to give Kelley the axe. After he was canned, Kelley did what was consistent with Objectivism and started his own group.

You’re still misspelling Peikoff, you ought to edit your post to fix it. You say Kelley was “canned”, this implies he had a job with ARI or something like that. I don’t know what term I’d use, but it wouldn’t be that. He became persona non grata, or was excommunicated.

Now the momentum that was present in the Institute for Objectivist Studies/The Atlas Society faction has obviously shifted to ARI.

You should back this up better, all you seem to have is the fact that Brook is getting talking head gigs. John Stossel had him on recently, for instance. In the ‘90’s he had David Kelley on, see his ABC special “Greed”, I well remember the prime time promos where Kelley said Michael Milken was more moral than Mother Teresa…wow!

For example, when she was alive Ms. Rand had a dislike[2] of homosexuality. Though she felt consenting adults had the right to conduct their sexual activities in the manner they chose and opposed laws outlawing or regulating them as such, Ms. Rand did state that in terms of homosexuality that there is a psychological immorality at it's root.

Peikoff never addresses the argument Rand made, which is cowardly, he should come out and say she blew it that night. That she mispoke at best. Note however that he claims that it's not a philosophical issue, so to say that he's contradicting her philosophically on this issue is not quite right.

[Mike Renzulli]

One other thing. When you say I should back up my point about the momentum shift from TAS To ARI, do you mean I should give examples other than Brook's appearances as evidence?

After David Kelley gave his speech at a Libertarian supper club in New York, the Ayn Rand Institute's founders and heads Dr. Leonard Piekoff, Henry Binswanger, and Peter Schwartz decided to give Kelley the axe. After he was canned, Kelley did what was consistent with Objectivism and started his own group.

You’re still misspelling Peikoff, you ought to edit your post to fix it. You say Kelley was “canned”, this implies he had a job with ARI or something like that. I don’t know what term I’d use, but it wouldn’t be that. He became persona non grata, or was excommunicated.

Now the momentum that was present in the Institute for Objectivist Studies/The Atlas Society faction has obviously shifted to ARI.

You should back this up better, all you seem to have is the fact that Brook is getting talking head gigs. John Stossel had him on recently, for instance. In the ‘90’s he had David Kelley on, see his ABC special “Greed”, I well remember the prime time promos where Kelley said Michael Milken was more moral than Mother Teresa…wow!

For example, when she was alive Ms. Rand had a dislike[2] of homosexuality. Though she felt consenting adults had the right to conduct their sexual activities in the manner they chose and opposed laws outlawing or regulating them as such, Ms. Rand did state that in terms of homosexuality that there is a psychological immorality at it's root.

Peikoff never addresses the argument Rand made, which is cowardly, he should come out and say she blew it that night. That she mispoke at best. Note however that he claims that it's not a philosophical issue, so to say that he's contradicting her philosophically on this issue is not quite right.

[Robert Campbell]

Mike,

As ND notes, Leonard Peikoff has claimed that Ayn Rand's moral judgment about homosexuality was not about a philosophical issue.

I think Ms. Rand would have been surprised, at the very least, to find that judgment being excluded from the philosophical sphere. There is nothing in her original statement (Ford Hall Forum 1971) to indicate that she had any such qualification in mind.

Over the past decade, the Ayn Rand Institute folks have shown greater openness on some occasions. For instance, Jennifer Burns was allowed access to the Ayn Rand Papers, even though she was not affiliated with ARI and was not planning to write an authorized treatment of parts of Rand's life and career, and eventually received permission from the Estate of Ayn Rand to quote a lot of unpublished material.

On other occasions, they've kept the lid tightly shut. When Andrew Bernstein published a brief reply in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, it looked as though the door might be opening to contributions to the journal from ARI-affiilated scholars. Instead, he was pressured by peers within ARI (and almost certainly by some of the leaders in the organization) and issued a public mea culpa for his decision to publish in JARS, which will probably remain off-limits to ARIans for years.

It is clear that at the present time ARI has some internal divisions over the openness issue. (For instance, some folks affiliated with the Archives disapprove of rewriting Ayn Rand's unpbulished material for publication, whereas others within the ARI orbit continue to do such rewriting with the sponsorship and blessing of some of the top figures in the organization.) Only an insider could have a clear understanding of what is going on, and even the insiders may not be able to make reliable predictions about the future.

Robert Campbell

PS. Your analogy to Galambos is terrific. He was so successful at keeping the Galambosian system closed and keeping everyone else from "plagiarizing his ideas" that it is now just a historical relic. If they are lucky, younger libertarians might learn a little about it from reading Brian Doherty's book.

[9thdoctor]

I made the necessary corrections and thanks for your feedback. Overall, do you like what I have written? What do you think of it? I also agree with you re: Kelley on Stossel.

I didn’t find it groundbreaking, but I’ve been around the scene for about 20 years, so that’s no surprise. Good effort on well traveled terrain. BTW, there's still a Piekoff or two in your post. Sixth line from the bottom.

One other thing. When you say I should back up my point about the momentum shift from TAS To ARI, do you mean I should give examples other than Brook's appearances as evidence?

Yes, though it could be an impossible assignment. If you got their tax returns, for instance, and saw that ARI had a bigger budget (I bet they do), that would be evidence. If you count the books published over some recent time frame, and could convincingly say this one’s ARI, this one’s TOC, that would also count. But Burns and Heller wouldn’t properly belong in either slot, and they’re certainly the best selling books on Rand/Objectivism in the last few years, so it’s a weaker indicator. Ed Hudgins gets on TV also, though Brook's certainly had more recent appearances.

I’ll say this, when I was running a campus club, ARI was Hobson’s choice (it was that or nothing). I don’t know what it’s like now, though I bet you have to accept support from ARI to the exclusion of TOC, the link you provided looks like that situation. They would provide pamphlets of Rand essays: Philosophy Who Needs It, Man’s Rights and the Nature of Government, a few others. There were videos they’d provide by mail, and there were speakers you could schedule if you could get funding. They wanted to see your schedule for the semester, and it went without saying that you weren’t going to be showing videos of Nathaniel Branden (which I did, BTW, my last semester, plus a audiotape of David Kelley). I’m sure no one reported me, if ARI heard, they’d have called and told me off. I didn’t start posting to MDOP until after graduating, so that never came up either. I take it that you can’t get support from ARI because you have a TOC connection, is that the case? Are you running a campus club or a community group?

[Christopher]

I've taken my shots at Yaron Brook, but on the whole the guy has charisma and I think he's taking ARI in the right direction from the little exposure I have. He's in touch with society in a way that is relatable to people who live in the socialized world.

Seems to me that there is a possibility ARI has historically been led by the psychology of those up top, meaning: the degree of "closedness" that ARI has typically exemplified might be the degree of identity security experienced by the top leaders. This point of view has to be taken with humor and grain of salt, but it seems to me that rigidity and inflexibility are the natural product of people with insecurities. To the degree that insecure people base their identities (Peikoff-cough) on the philosophy is the degree to which those people will protect the system from outside change. Think of a rigid Christian, for example. Change represents threat to those who cling, and clinging is usually a response to fear. Doesn't NB's description of Peikoff from Judgment Day seem to fit this perspective?

[Chris Grieb]

One other thing. When you say I should back up my point about the momentum shift from TAS To ARI, do you mean I should give examples other than Brook's appearances as evidence?

After David Kelley gave his speech at a Libertarian supper club in New York, the Ayn Rand Institute's founders and heads Dr. Leonard Piekoff, Henry Binswanger, and Peter Schwartz decided to give Kelley the axe. After he was canned, Kelley did what was consistent with Objectivism and started his own group.

You’re still misspelling Peikoff, you ought to edit your post to fix it. You say Kelley was “canned”, this implies he had a job with ARI or something like that. I don’t know what term I’d use, but it wouldn’t be that. He became persona non grata, or was excommunicated.

Now the momentum that was present in the Institute for Objectivist Studies/The Atlas Society faction has obviously shifted to ARI.

You should back this up better, all you seem to have is the fact that Brook is getting talking head gigs. John Stossel had him on recently, for instance. In the ‘90’s he had David Kelley on, see his ABC special “Greed”, I well remember the prime time promos where Kelley said Michael Milken was more moral than Mother Teresa…wow!

For example, when she was alive Ms. Rand had a dislike[2] of homosexuality. Though she felt consenting adults had the right to conduct their sexual activities in the manner they chose and opposed laws outlawing or regulating them as such, Ms. Rand did state that in terms of homosexuality that there is a psychological immorality at it's root.

Peikoff never addresses the argument Rand made, which is cowardly, he should come out and say she blew it that night. That she mispoke at best. Note however that he claims that it's not a philosophical issue, so to say that he's contradicting her philosophically on this issue is not quite right.

Since we are talking about Yuron Brook's appearance I think it should be mentioned that Ed Hudgins will be on next Thursday on Stossell.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Chris Grieb

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

I preempted you and changed the incorrect spelling of Peikoff in your essay.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

Thanks, ND. I run a community group. I will certainly consider your input and perspective too and I appreciate it.

I made the necessary corrections and thanks for your feedback. Overall, do you like what I have written? What do you think of it? I also agree with you re: Kelley on Stossel.

I didn’t find it groundbreaking, but I’ve been around the scene for about 20 years, so that’s no surprise. Good effort on well traveled terrain. BTW, there's still a Piekoff or two in your post. Sixth line from the bottom.

One other thing. When you say I should back up my point about the momentum shift from TAS To ARI, do you mean I should give examples other than Brook's appearances as evidence?

Yes, though it could be an impossible assignment. If you got their tax returns, for instance, and saw that ARI had a bigger budget (I bet they do), that would be evidence. If you count the books published over some recent time frame, and could convincingly say this one’s ARI, this one’s TOC, that would also count. But Burns and Heller wouldn’t properly belong in either slot, and they’re certainly the best selling books on Rand/Objectivism in the last few years, so it’s a weaker indicator. Ed Hudgins gets on TV also, though Brook's certainly had more recent appearances.

I’ll say this, when I was running a campus club, ARI was Hobson’s choice (it was that or nothing). I don’t know what it’s like now, though I bet you have to accept support from ARI to the exclusion of TOC, the link you provided looks like that situation. They would provide pamphlets of Rand essays: Philosophy Who Needs It, Man’s Rights and the Nature of Government, a few others. There were videos they’d provide by mail, and there were speakers you could schedule if you could get funding. They wanted to see your schedule for the semester, and it went without saying that you weren’t going to be showing videos of Nathaniel Branden (which I did, BTW, my last semester, plus a audiotape of David Kelley). I’m sure no one reported me, if ARI heard, they’d have called and told me off. I didn’t start posting to MDOP until after graduating, so that never came up either. I take it that you can’t get support from ARI because you have a TOC connection, is that the case? Are you running a campus club or a community group?

[Mike Renzulli]

Okay so are you saying my point about his disagreement and alleged change is incorrect? Thanks for the information about ARI's internal debate.

Mike,

As ND notes, Leonard Peikoff has claimed that Ayn Rand's moral judgment about homosexuality was not about a philosophical issue.

I think Ms. Rand would have been surprised, at the very least, to find that judgment being excluded from the philosophical sphere. There is nothing in her original statement (Ford Hall Forum 1971) to indicate that she had any such qualification in mind.

Over the past decade, the Ayn Rand Institute folks have shown greater openness on some occasions. For instance, Jennifer Burns was allowed access to the Ayn Rand Papers, even though she was not affiliated with ARI and was not planning to write an authorized treatment of parts of Rand's life and career, and eventually received permission from the Estate of Ayn Rand to quote a lot of unpublished material.

On other occasions, they've kept the lid tightly shut. When Andrew Bernstein published a brief reply in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, it looked as though the door might be opening to contributions to the journal from ARI-affiilated scholars. Instead, he was pressured by peers within ARI (and almost certainly by some of the leaders in the organization) and issued a public mea culpa for his decision to publish in JARS, which will probably remain off-limits to ARIans for years.

It is clear that at the present time ARI has some internal divisions over the openness issue. (For instance, some folks affiliated with the Archives disapprove of rewriting Ayn Rand's unpbulished material for publication, whereas others within the ARI orbit continue to do such rewriting with the sponsorship and blessing of some of the top figures in the organization.) Only an insider could have a clear understanding of what is going on, and even the insiders may not be able to make reliable predictions about the future.

Robert Campbell

PS. Your analogy to Galambos is terrific. He was so successful at keeping the Galambosian system closed and keeping everyone else from "plagiarizing his ideas" that it is now just a historical relic. If they are lucky, younger libertarians might learn a little about it from reading Brian Doherty's book.

[Mike Renzulli]

Thank you, sir!

Mike,

I preempted you and changed the incorrect spelling of Peikoff in your essay.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Mike,

This is a good introductory summary. I would say that Objectivism is most open in areas where philosophy intersects with other subjects such as psychology, biology, economics,complex systems and complexity theory, history, law and physics. There is also a lot to do yet in epistemology.

ARI has shown more openness and great organizational competence since Yaron Brook took over. I also think they have benefitted from a clear-cut approach to foreign policy, although I have disagreed with some of their statements on the use of nuclear weapons. Yaron also has benefitted ARI by his expertise and eloquence relating to the current financial crisis.

I've always thought TAS would be most effective as a research and academic organization. I've always thought it's important to have a venue for new topics related to Objectivism to be presented. TAS has provided that platform. I think TAS ran into practical problems post-9/11 with disagreements among its libertarian allies concerning foreign policy.

I'm hopeful about the future of the Objectivist movement despite some of the recent skirmishes. Objectivism is an extremely young philosophy and its best days are ahead.

Jim

Edited January 26, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Mike Renzulli]

I could not agree more, James. However, in terms of the internal debate between Kelley and Peikoff (aside from being childish), it is an issue that needed to be addressed.

I suppose I can take bragging rights since my point about Andrew Galambos demolishes Peikoff's assertion.

Though I will not wait for a note from him admitting I am right, he and the others that subscribe to his interpretation can no longer legitimately make their claims. Any more points made by them that the philosophy is closed are nothing more than rationalizations.

I will put this into the second to last paragraph of my essay though, aside from making some other alterations:

Ayn Rand designed her philosophy as a coherent, integrated, and unified system of thought. It has many clear, definite, undebatable principles and premises. Objectivism does not need to be changed since it is a defined system and is very clear and consistent.

Mike,

This is a good introductory summary. I would say that Objectivism is most open in areas where philosophy intersects with other subjects such as psychology, biology, economics,complex systems and complexity theory, history, law and physics. There is also a lot to do yet in epistemology.

ARI has shown more openness and great organizational competence since Yaron Brook took over. I also think they have benefitted from a clear-cut approach to foreign policy, although I have disagreed with some of their statements on the use of nuclear weapons. Yaron also has benefitted ARI by his expertise and eloquence relating to the current financial crisis.

I've always thought TAS would be most effective as a research and academic organization. I've always thought it's important to have a venue for new topics related to Objectivism to be presented. TAS has provided that platform. I think TAS ran into practical problems post-9/11 with disagreements among its libertarian allies concerning foreign policy.

I'm hopeful about the future of the Objectivist movement despite some of the recent skirmishes. Objectivism is an extremely young philosophy and its best days are ahead.

Jim

[9thdoctor]

Thankfully, tough they won't openly admit it, it seems that ARI has taken from of Dr. Kelley's approach.

I think you mean: Thankfully, though they won't openly admit it, it seems that ARI has taken inspiration from Dr. Kelley's approach.

You might still be able to edit it.

I bet you have to accept support from ARI to the exclusion of TOC

I wonder if campus club leaders are screened to assure there are enough true believers in place, or if loyalty oaths are now demanded. When I was doing it the internet wasn’t as ubiquitous as now, and I learned about the Kelley split while “in office”. Nowadays you can’t help but know about it, and with Truth and Toleration (Contested Legacy…) available free online, there’s no excuse for ignorance of the issues anymore. If ARI is demanding loyalty at the campus club level, it bodes ill. It means the true believers are the public face of “the movement” where it counts most.

he and the others that subscribe to his interpretation can no longer legitimately make their claims.

They've never replied coherently to Truth and Toleration, and it's never stopped them.

[Chris Grieb]

One other thing. When you say I should back up my point about the momentum shift from TAS To ARI, do you mean I should give examples other than Brook's appearances as evidence?

After David Kelley gave his speech at a Libertarian supper club in New York, the Ayn Rand Institute's founders and heads Dr. Leonard Piekoff, Henry Binswanger, and Peter Schwartz decided to give Kelley the axe. After he was canned, Kelley did what was consistent with Objectivism and started his own group.

You’re still misspelling Peikoff, you ought to edit your post to fix it. You say Kelley was “canned”, this implies he had a job with ARI or something like that. I don’t know what term I’d use, but it wouldn’t be that. He became persona non grata, or was excommunicated.

Now the momentum that was present in the Institute for Objectivist Studies/The Atlas Society faction has obviously shifted to ARI.

You should back this up better, all you seem to have is the fact that Brook is getting talking head gigs. John Stossel had him on recently, for instance. In the ‘90’s he had David Kelley on, see his ABC special “Greed”, I well remember the prime time promos where Kelley said Michael Milken was more moral than Mother Teresa…wow!

For example, when she was alive Ms. Rand had a dislike[2] of homosexuality. Though she felt consenting adults had the right to conduct their sexual activities in the manner they chose and opposed laws outlawing or regulating them as such, Ms. Rand did state that in terms of homosexuality that there is a psychological immorality at it's root.

Peikoff never addresses the argument Rand made, which is cowardly, he should come out and say she blew it that night. That she mispoke at best. Note however that he claims that it's not a philosophical issue, so to say that he's contradicting her philosophically on this issue is not quite right.

Since we are talking about Yuron Brook's appearance I think it should be mentioned that Ed Hudgins will be on next Thursday on Stossell.

Ed has corrected that he will be on Stossell the 28th.

[Mike Renzulli]

ND,

I tried to make the correction you point out last night but it was too late. Thanks for the feedback though.

Thankfully, tough they won't openly admit it, it seems that ARI has taken from of Dr. Kelley's approach.

I think you mean: Thankfully, though they won't openly admit it, it seems that ARI has taken inspiration from Dr. Kelley's approach.

You might still be able to edit it.

I bet you have to accept support from ARI to the exclusion of TOC

I wonder if campus club leaders are screened to assure there are enough true believers in place, or if loyalty oaths are now demanded. When I was doing it the internet wasn’t as ubiquitous as now, and I learned about the Kelley split while “in office”. Nowadays you can’t help but know about it, and with Truth and Toleration (Contested Legacy…) available free online, there’s no excuse for ignorance of the issues anymore. If ARI is demanding loyalty at the campus club level, it bodes ill. It means the true believers are the public face of “the movement” where it counts most.

he and the others that subscribe to his interpretation can no longer legitimately make their claims.

They've never replied coherently to Truth and Toleration, and it's never stopped them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

Post the corrections you want to make here on the thread in Before Correction and Corrected format and I will make them for you. In other words:

BEFORE CORRECTION:

Yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada.

CORRECTED:

Yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada woooooooooooooooooo hoooooooooooooo yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada.

Do one set for each correction. That way all I have to do is copy/paste.

Doing this publicly is also great as a historical referece of changing thought that will be valuable to you later in life.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

Oh okay. I will, Michael. Thanks! I have made corrections to the essay already when I had the chance to edit it. I was unable to change the paragraph/sentence ND recommended in his last suggestion.

FWIW, I am going to submit this article for publication too as I think it hits upon some obvious points many Objectivists may not have considered.

I am glad I was able to compliment Dr. Kelley's work in 1600 or so words and am surprised (as far as I know) that the points I brought up hadn't been considered before as a rebuttal to Peikoff.

Mike,

Post the corrections you want to make here on the thread in Before Correction and Corrected format and I will make them for you. In other words:

BEFORE CORRECTION:

Yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada.

CORRECTED:

Yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada woooooooooooooooooo hoooooooooooooo yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada yada.

Do one set for each correction. That way all I have to do is copy/paste.

Doing this publicly is also great as a historical referece of changing thought that will be valuable to you later in life.

Michael

Edited January 27, 2010 by Mike Renzulli