Peikoff: The Great Pretender

[caroljane]

http://www.peikoff.com/2011/04/25/episode-161/

From today’s podcast, the last question, not available as a single question on the website:

You said that you have no plans to designate an intellectual heir, as Ms. Rand designated you as hers. You said it’s up for grabs. Why do you take this attitude? Well I can only answer by giving you a boastful, even a megalomaniacal 4 word answer: nobody I know qualifies.

Nobody qualifies to be the designated intellectual heir of a loopy lying non-designated intellectual heir?

Who would want to? David Harriman? The Ultimate Philosopher?

[Jerry Biggers]

http://www.peikoff.com/2011/04/25/episode-161/

From today’s podcast, the last question, not available as a single question on the website:

You said that you have no plans to designate an intellectual heir, as Ms. Rand designated you as hers. You said it’s up for grabs. Why do you take this attitude? Well I can only answer by giving you a boastful, even a megalomaniacal 4 word answer: nobody I know qualifies.

Well, for once he is right, in terming his own response to that question as "megalomaniacal." This must be sad news, indeed, for the string of sycophants who have trotted along lockstep, in Leonard's shadow (in particular, Harry Binswanger), but also, the rest of his long-suffering and loyal flock at ARI.

The older Leonard gets (now 76), the more crankier, embittered, and isolated he becomes. No doubt, the McCaskey purge was a harbinger of things to come. Too bad he could not have mellowed with age.

[9thdoctor]

Nobody qualifies to be the designated intellectual heir of a loopy lying non-designated intellectual heir?

You tell me, is there anyone as loopy as Lenny? That’s one high bar to jump over.

[IamBalSimon]

I don't know much about this kind of thing, so maybe someone can explain it to me.

Why would someone want to be someone else's intellectual "heir?" That seems downright bizarre to me! It seems doubly bizarre coming in the land of Galt, Rearden and Taggert.

- Bal

[caroljane]

Nobody qualifies to be the designated intellectual heir of a loopy lying non-designated intellectual heir?

You tell me, is there anyone as loopy as Lenny? That’s one high bar to jump over.

Having read the UP's blog I think he might be up to the challenge, and the intriguing new integration of Ninth Phil looks promising too.

Utterly bewildered,

Catol

[caroljane]

Obviously the only solution to this vexatious question of heirship is another contest. I've already put forward the only two (or three, or maybe four -how the hell am I supposed to tell?) possible candidates I can think of.

Perhaps the search committee should spread out wider than the narrow world of Objectivistorthodoxy to find the perfect fit.

And before 9th Phil or any similar nimblewits haul over the photo from the caption thread: Barack, Michelle, Sasha, Malia, Jesus and Statue of Jesus are NOT eligible.

[Selene]

Obviously the only solution to this vexatious question of heirship is another contest. I've already put forward the only two (or three, or maybe four -how the hell am I supposed to tell?) possible candidates I can think of.

Perhaps the search committee should spread out wider than the narrow world of Objectivistorthodoxy to find the perfect fit.

And before 9th Phil or any similar nimblewits haul over the photo from the caption thread: Barack, Michelle, Sasha, Malia, Jesus and Statue of Jesus are NOT eligible.

Damn...and O'biwan was a perfect fit! I got it!

[caroljane]

I know! Isn't there a statue of Ayn Rand in South America somewhere? They could get it fitted with a speaker and play all of Peikoff's lectures through it! Sort of like they got the statues of the Virgin Mary to weep....

[Robert Campbell]

nobody I know qualifies

JIm Valliant will also be disappointed.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why would someone want to be someone else's intellectual "heir?"

Bal,

That's actually a good question. Unfortunately, Rand herself started it all by calling Nathaniel Branden her intellectual heir. Obviously, she later did not think that.

But to look at a similar example from her literature, Roark never said anything like that even though he was mentored by Henry Cameron. I think Rand would have been appalled at the thought of putting a line for Roark like, "I am the intellectual heir of Henry Cameron," in her book had someone suggested it to her.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

the intriguing new integration of Ninth Phil looks promising too.

I switched it back to Christopher Eccleston, though not with the original picture that scared poor Peter Taylor.

[IamBalSimon]

Why would someone want to be someone else's intellectual "heir?"

Bal,

That's actually a good question. Unfortunately, Rand herself started it all by calling Nathaniel Branden her intellectual heir. Obviously, she later did not think that.

But to look at a similar example from her literature, Roark never said anything like that even though he was mentored by Henry Cameron. I think Rand would have been appalled at the thought of putting a line for Roark like, "I am the intellectual heir of Henry Cameron," in her book had someone suggested it to her.

Michael

I don't know Rand like most of those on this board, but just from my reading of Atlas, I would imagine she would be both appalled and derisively amused at the pretentiousness of someone thinking that they are carrying someone else's intellectual torch. Unless of course, one is interested in pretentiousness or the affectations of it. But if that's the case, then that makes the "intellectual" aspect of it somewhat hollow. It's all well and good to acknowledge one's intellectual debt to another person. It is important to cite other people when quoting them. But to feel like one needs a public mantel of their achievement as a kind of trophy? I just can't fathom it.

I am just an egg. I have much to learn.

- Bal

[Greybird]

[...] I think Rand would have been appalled at the thought of putting a line for Roark like, "I am the intellectual heir of Henry Cameron," in her book had someone suggested it to her.

Well, she didn't do so in her book — but she did, somewhat, in her screenplay:

Roark brings the drunken Cameron from the street into his office, who then rants, "You took over when I gave it up. My — my heir, eh?" (His emphasis.) He then points to Roark's mere four buildings thus far, pictured on the walls of the office; predicts that the world will defeat Roark; waxes wroth about a world ruled by "Gail Wynand's Banner, the foulest newspaper on Earth," and then collapses.

So Rand wasn't quite "appalled" enough to forego using that formulation, or something close to it, though she put it in Cameron's mouth, and Roark doesn't at all contradict him.

Edit: I checked the DVD to be sure I quoted and described this correctly. The post below quotes my original post, which had my recollection of it. I didn't want to misrepresent anything.

In context (about three minutes into the film), the "heir"-ship referred to here is that of ideas and principles, of an "intellectual" sort, at least in relation to the theory and practice of architecture, and not merely that of Cameron's papers and records. Clearly, Rand was warming to such a formulation.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Greybird

[IamBalSimon]

[...] I think Rand would have been appalled at the thought of putting a line for Roark like, "I am the intellectual heir of Henry Cameron," in her book had someone suggested it to her.

Well, she didn't do so in her book — but she did, somewhat, in her screenplay:

Roark brings the drunken Cameron from the street into his office, who then rants, "You were going to take over when I gave up. My heir, eh?" (His emphasis.) He then points to Roark's mere half-dozen buildings thus far, pictured on the walls of the office, predicts that the world will defeat Roark, waxes wroth about a world ruled by "Gail Wynand's Banner, the foulest newspaper on Earth," and then collapses.

So Rand wasn't quite "appalled" enough to forego using that formulation, or something close to it, though she put it in Cameron's mouth, and Roark doesn't at all contradict him.

Still - that was fiction, and I didn't really see it as Rand explicitly legitimizing the notion of an "intellectual heir" in The Fountainhead. Also - might there be a difference between an "heir" in a commercial realm versus an "heir" in one that involves an individual's personal intellect? I can understand wanting the torch if there is an economic benefit. I can see wanting the torch if there is something to be passed on, like a secret. This is how master who own a dojo and a particular style of fighting transfer his/her (hir) imprimatur to a student. It might be how a "master" carpenter passes on hir knowledge to a favored apprentice. I can see someone being the "successor" (akin to an "heir?") in a business.

But is Objectivism like a martial art or a craft like carpentry or something with a line of succession as in a business? How can a philosophy be treated in that way? I can no more come to grips with someone wanting to be "The Poo-Bah of Objectivism" than I can with someone saying that s/he's the Lord of Godelism or Einsteinism. The mere idea of it makes me wonder about the intellectual makeup of the person who covets such a title.

Obviously, I can be totally misunderstanding what is involved in being someone's "intellectual heir." I'm open to being shown the error in my understanding. Indeed, I welcome it! But from where I sit, right now, it just seems pompous, puerile and silly.

No offense intended... just looking for clarification.

- Bal

[Reidy]

I didn't remember that scene from the movie. It's interesting in that Rand's biographers report that in the late 40s, around the time she wrote that script, she auditioned a number of young men for the role that eventually went to Branden. The creation of an heir seems to have been on her mind.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In context (about three minutes into the film), the "heir"-ship referred to here is that of ideas and principles, of an "intellectual" sort, at least in relation to the theory and practice of architecture, and not merely that of Cameron's papers and records. Clearly, Rand was warming to such a formulation.

Steve,

That's a very interesting nuance.

But there is a difference in concept of "heir" although both concepts carry the same word.

Intellectual heir in one meaning is as you said, and in my words, it means carrying on a basic school of ideas or approach from having been a student, but making one's own unique creative works.

The other also means having been a student (disciple is a better term), but devoting one's creative efforts to preserving the master's own work.

In art, it is common for a brilliant artist to be called the heir of a master he studied with. The mark of this kind of heir is that he develops the original ideas/approach in new directions as his work grows until he becomes an unmistakable source of a school in his own right.

The other kind of heir reminds me of religious movements where the founder dies and a disciple gains control of the organization. (Miscavige as the heir of L. Ron Hubbard in Scientology, Rutherford as the heir of Russell in Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.). This kind of heir almost always comes with a dispute among admirers of the master.

I put Peikoff in this category. Sure there are some variations, since he is also the legal heir. But the fundament is the same as the religious movement type heir.

I didn't remember that scene from the movie. It's interesting in that Rand's biographers report that in the late 40s, around the time she wrote that script, she auditioned a number of young men for the role that eventually went to Branden. The creation of an heir seems to have been on her mind.

Pete.

LOL...

I have always thought she was not interested in forming an heir so much as a forging a perfect person out of her ideas--one she could fall in love with.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Roark brings the drunken Cameron from the street into his office, who then rants, "You took over when I gave it up. My — my heir, eh?" (His emphasis.) He then points to Roark's mere four buildings thus far, pictured on the walls of the office; predicts that the world will defeat Roark; waxes wroth about a world ruled by "Gail Wynand's Banner, the foulest newspaper on Earth," and then collapses.

Steve,

I didn't remember that line from the movie (which I've never much liked).

It looks as though something changed between 1943 and 1949.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

nobody I know qualifies

JIm Valliant will also be disappointed.

Robert Campbell

I'd bet money--lotsa money--that Ayn Rand would never have considered L.P. for such an appellation, especially after Branden. But it wasn't really a compliment to Branden when he was in her good graces. Even the dedication to him in Atlas Shrugged along with her husband wasn't quite right. Nothing was quite right back then when you take the situation in toto and look at it from different perspectives: social, psychological, personal, cultural, intellectual. After The Break it was Peikoff amongst the ruins sitting on Branden's broken throne. There is a tremendous wealth of material in all this. It's primarily because of Barbara Branden's biography of Ayn Rand that it's available for consideration as opposed to sundry myths.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Roark brings the drunken Cameron from the street into his office, who then rants, "You took over when I gave it up. My — my heir, eh?" (His emphasis.) He then points to Roark's mere four buildings thus far, pictured on the walls of the office; predicts that the world will defeat Roark; waxes wroth about a world ruled by "Gail Wynand's Banner, the foulest newspaper on Earth," and then collapses.

Steve,

I didn't remember that line from the movie (which I've never much liked).

It looks as though something changed between 1943 and 1949.

Robert Campbell

I think what changed was Rand's need to telescope the plot into a compressed form for a 90 minute screenplay. In that she did a great job. Nathaniel Branden once said she wished she had room to expand it in the middle for the sake of character development. She was an expert screenwriter--of someone else's work. See Love Letters. What The Fountainhead needed was also such expert treatment, but it was beyond her. It did need to run for two hours, for sure, but the story needed refreshment for the screen, not that kind of honoring of the novel. Another kind of genius that didn't distort and destroy the story and its characters. It was all beyond Hollywood, then and now. My only real regret about that movie was the line that Jack Warner ordered cut. It seemed to be an exercise in machismo or bosshood--having the last word with Rand after she had the last word with everyone else making the movie.

--Brant

[Greybird]

[...] My only real regret about that movie was the line that Jack Warner ordered cut. It seemed to be an exercise in machismo or bosshood — having the last word with Rand after she had the last word with everyone else making the movie.

Yeah, it clearly was machismo. If not toward Rand herself, then at her being a screenwriting employee of Hal Wallis, whom Warner had run out of the studio six years earlier, after two decades of collaboration.

Barbara Branden wrote about the cutting of that line from Roark's courtroom speech — "I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others" — that Rand felt at the premiere:

All the work and struggle of months, all the arguing and persuading, all the dealings with irrationality and mediocrity — she felt in that moment — had been for nothing. She had lost her battle.

Within a few days, she was able to remind herself that she had not lost, that the rest of her script and her ideas were untouched, that the novel's theme and meaning had been preserved. But whatever personal value there had been for her in the movie was destroyed.

(Chapter 18, pp. 212-213)

And I remember, in the moment of reading this, that I wanted to reach back to 1949, grab Rand on both her shoulders, shake her vigorously, and say (to this effect):

Destroyed? You have no reason to believe that. You dealt with Woods's trashing of your play. You've seen Hollywood from the inside for twenty years. You knew what mediocrities do to nastily assert their prerogatives when they can't win an argument. And yet you got your ideas onto the screen. Why are you letting this affect your own appraisal of your own written creation? And its depiction through the work of other talented creators? You got more, in this culture, than you had any right to expect. Far more.

Then I might have, a la Cher with Nicolas Cage in "Moonstruck," slapped her and said, Snap out of it!

(But, no, I don't believe in initiating force {rueful smile} ... still, I wish Nathaniel, who actually was in a position to do something similar, had done that by mid-1958, about another creation.)

Anyway, I remember that being the first time (of several) in reading Barbara's Passion "plot" / narrative — and it often reads like a work of fiction, with the tropes of fiction — that I wanted Rand to drop what was, especially in her, an unbecoming and worthless attitude, that of self-pity. If ever a writer existed who had no excuse for it, it was Ayn Rand.

[Barbara Branden]

Dennis, Anne Heller is correct. There is no reference in Rand's will to Peikoff being her intellectual heir.

Barbara

[9thdoctor]

Y’all ought to have a look at this discussion:

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=22197&view=findpost&p=279517

I’m rather surprised my posts have been allowed to stand, it’s a good sign.

[Reidy]

This reminds me of what went on in China after Mao died and the Gang of Four were forced out. There were just too many of his favorable remarks about these people (one of them being his own wife) on record. So the ruling faction told the country that the Gang had hypnotized him in later years and he wasn't really himself. Come to think of it, that is almost exactly what the Paxton documentary says about Nathaniel Branden.

[9thdoctor]

This reminds me of what went on in China after Mao died and the Gang of Four were forced out. There were just too many of his favorable remarks about these people (one of them being his own wife) on record. So the ruling faction told the country that the Gang had hypnotized him in later years and he wasn't really himself. Come to think of it, that is almost exactly what the Paxton documentary says about Nathaniel Branden.

I don’t quite get your point, maybe because I’m not familiar with the Mao reference. Are you likening Rand, or Peikoff, to the aged Mao?

[Reidy]

In my decidedly limited analogy, Rand would correspond to Mao, NB, BB, Kelley and rest to the Gang of Four and Peikoff and his circle the faction that eventually got the upper hand. Alternatively, Rand-Lenin, Peikoff-Stalin, Branden et al-Trotsky.