New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Robert Campbell]

Nothing better illustrates applied epistemology that rational rules of evidence. A jury is supposed to deliberate and make determinations of fact based on evidence. The judge's role is to exclude from consideration irrelevant matters such as prejudicial appeals to emotion and bald speculation—precisely because there is no way to weigh them objectively. The honus of proof principle, as you call it, does not enforce itself. It is upon precisely the criterion of arbitrariness (lawyers call it lack of evidence) which such judgments are made.

Ted,

Legal rules of evidence are indeed a fine thing.

I wouldn't therefore conclude that they should be accorded a privileged status in applied epistemology. Errors that protect innocent defendants at the cost of sometimes letting guilty defendants go free are preferable to errors that guarantee the conviction of guilty defendants while leading to the wrongful convictions of some innocent defendants.

For instance, Ayn Rand made an exception when it came to the death penalty. Her epistemological objection to the death penalty says, in effect, that here contextual certainty isn't always enough. To my knowledge, she did not expect such an objection to apply to conclusions about the truth of a scientific theory.

Besides, you refer to "the criterion of arbitrariness."

Which criterion is that?

Isn't the whole point to identify what constitutes adequate evidence, or adequate reasons, for taking various classes of claims seriously?

By referring to the criterion of arbitrariness, you make it appear that all of these criteria of evidence are already known.

But if you knew what they all were, presumably you would go right ahead and identify them.

And if Leonard Peikoff knew what they all were, so would he.

Robert Campbell

PS. Why do you keep sticking an "h" in front of "onus"? Onus is the Latin word for burden, is it not? Did it have an "h" in front of it back when the Praenestine Fibula was being engraved, or something?

[kiaer.ts]

Well, I am not particularly interested in either understanding or defending Peikoff. I thought that was obvious when I said I inscribed my copy of OPAR with the subtitle "Rand's Last Laugh" and gave it away without buying myself a replacement copy.

Peikoff misapplies the doctrine all the time, as he did in the case of Barbara's biography. But this is an indictment of him, not the doctrine in a valid form.

No, I know that some rules of evidence are procedural, I do not derive my epistemology from what is done in courts. But I do think that the success of Objective law is a fine practical proof of the value of rational rules of evidence, and I do think that rational epistemology validates the traditionally evolved practices of the law in return. I think that the fact that Aristotelian epistemology and English common law converge speaks volumes for each.

As for the Keeric doctrine of the arbitrary, again, I would simply add that connotation and denotation are two separate things, and that we can (if only somewhat) understand the connotation of certain arbitrary assertions for which morally it would be epistemologically negligent to assign a denotation.

[Robert Campbell]

Ted,

What is the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion that Peikoff is misapplying? If it's not what Peikoff says it is, then what is it instead?

Ayn Rand published no statement of the doctrine.

Nathaniel Branden published a treatment of arbitrary assertions in 1963, and enlarged on the matter somewhat in Basic Principles of Objectivism. Do you consider his version to be a fair statement?

In the meantime, let's hear more of the Keeric doctrine:

What's the connotation of a proposition or an assertion?

What's a denotation of a proposition or assertion?

How do you identify the connotation of a (purportedly) arbitrary assertion?

How do you conclude that it lacks a denotation?

Do you believe that the same proposition can be asserted arbitrarily by me and nonarbitrarily by you (or vice versa)?

Can an arbitrary assertion be redeemed from its arbitrariness, or once afflicted does it forever remain arbitrary?

Robert Campbell

PS. If you consider yourself an Objectivist, or just somewhere in the ballpark, I don't see how you can avoid dealing with Peikoff one way or the other. Tibor Machan says that he's never read anything by Peikoff post-1968, but I can't recommend that procedure more generally, even though I understand why many would prefer to follow it.

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

What is the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion that Peikoff is misapplying? If it's not what Peikoff says it is, then what is it instead?

Ayn Rand published no statement of the doctrine.

Nathaniel Branden published a treatment of arbitrary assertions in 1963, and enlarged on the matter somewhat in Basic Principles of Objectivism. Do you consider his version to be a fair statement?

In the meantime, let's hear more of the Keeric doctrine:

What's the connotation of a proposition or an assertion?

What's a denotation of a proposition or assertion?

How do you identify the connotation of a (purportedly) arbitrary assertion?

How do you conclude that it lacks a denotation?

Do you believe that the same proposition can be asserted arbitrarily by me and nonarbitrarily by you (or vice versa)?

Can an arbitrary assertion be redeemed from its arbitrariness, or once afflicted does it forever remain arbitrary?

Robert Campbell

PS. If you consider yourself an Objectivist, or just somewhere in the ballpark, I don't see how you can avoid dealing with Peikoff one way or the other. Tibor Machan says that he's never read anything by Peikoff post-1968, but I can't recommend that procedure more generally, even though I understand why many would prefer to follow it.

God, you guys have me stretched thin. I will answer the above. I request that in the meantime you read my longer posts on the Patents Violate Natural Rights thread and let me know what you think.

[kiaer.ts]

Re denotation versus connotation and the arbitrary:

Thomas Sowell http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/14/the_money_of_fools_107138.html

Warm, fuzzy words and phrases have an enormous advantage in politics. None has had such a long run of political success as "social justice."

The idea cannot be refuted because it has no specific meaning. Fighting it would be like trying to punch the fog. No wonder "social justice" has been such a political success for more than a century-- and counting.

While the term has no defined meaning, it has emotionally powerful connotations. There is a strong sense that it is simply not right-- that it is unjust-- that some people are so much better off than others.

[Robert Campbell]

Ted,

What Tom Sowell is talking about is what Ayn Rand called an "anti-concept."

Again, nothing like the full-blown doctrine of the arbitrary is needed, and nothing like it is being implied.

Otherwise, we'd have to assume that claims to the effect that some law or enactment will enhance "social justice" cannot be cognitively processed, can't/needn't/mustn't be responded to, can't be true or false, and so on...

And we'd have to severely chastise Friedrich Hayek, for devoting Volume 2 of his big trilogy to "The Mirage of Social Justice." Think of all the sanctioning he was doing...

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The Orthodoxy continues to proceed cautiously in response to the sudden resignation of John McCaskey from the ARI Board of Directors.

Diana Hsieh has yet to post on the subject, for instance. On Monday September 13, she indicated in a reply to a comment that she was working on something. It will be interesting to see how Dr. Hsieh navigates between the Peikovian world and what, in a few more years, will surely be the post-Peikovian world.

Meanwhile, she cited this piece by Roderick Fitts, who actually talks sense on this issue. My impression of the guy had largely been based on a dreadful piece he wrote about Jim Valliant's book.

See http://inductiveques...-induction.html

For instance, Fitts doesn't grant Leonard Peikoff any special powers to hex the Pentateuch:

(As an aside, but something that needs to be noted: this issue technically isn't about Objectivism. Objectivism does not have a theory of induction; rather, Objectivists who specialize in epistemology figure out ways to apply the philosophy to the area of induction. From the content of the Dr. Peikoff's letter, he seems to be reacting to his judgment that Dr. McCaskey thinks that either the way Harriman and himself applied the philosophy (i.e. his theory) is wrong, or that Objectivism is wrong due to its inadequacies in this area. Either reason appears good enough for Dr. Peikoff to deem a person unqualified for a position on the Ayn Rand Institute's Board. It should grab one's attention that this applies to not only public assertions of such judgments, which I could understand for obvious reasons like public image, but also for private judgments, such as those of Dr. McCaskey's. The implication of this is that any leadership role at the ARI would demand not just a commitment to advancing Objectivism in the culture (and beyond), but to Dr. Peikoff's theories as well.)

Yup. If Objectivism is a closed system, and has been since 1982, no one gets to add to it. No one. Not even Pope Leonard the First and Only.

I also credit Fitts for going to a translation of Galileo and seeing for himself whether Galileo's presentation is consistent with McCaskey's account or with Harriman's.

Like many of the Orthodox commentators on this subject, Fitts appears not to have read Harriman's book before September 3. His blog post announces that he is in the midst of reading it. I take this to mean that few among the Orthodoxy are all that interested in philosophy of science.

Robert Campbell

[George H. Smith]

It will be interesting to see how Dr. Hsieh navigates between the Peikovian world and what, in a few more years, will surely be the post-Peikovian world.

A post-Peikovian world? Oh, the horror!

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

Ghs

[Roger Bissell]

The Orthodoxy continues to proceed cautiously in response to the sudden resignation of John McCaskey from the ARI Board of Directors.

Diana Hsieh has yet to post on the subject, for instance. On Monday September 13, she indicated in a reply to a comment that she was working on something. It will be interesting to see how Dr. Hsieh navigates between the Peikovian world and what, in a few more years, will surely be the post-Peikovian world.

Meanwhile, she cited this piece by Roderick Fitts, who actually talks sense on this issue. My impression of the guy had largely been based on a dreadful piece he wrote about Jim Valliant's book.[....]

Said piece by Mr. Fitts -- or a revised version of same -- is slated to appear in the fall issue of The Objective Standard, coming soon to a mailbox near you...uh, near me. :-)

REB

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

What Tom Sowell is talking about is what Ayn Rand called an "anti-concept."

Again, nothing like the full-blown doctrine of the arbitrary is needed, and nothing like it is being implied.

Otherwise, we'd have to assume that claims to the effect that some law or enactment will enhance "social justice" cannot be cognitively processed, can't/needn't/mustn't be responded to, can't be true or false, and so on...

And we'd have to severely chastise Friedrich Hayek, for devoting Volume 2 of his big trilogy to "The Mirage of Social Justice." Think of all the sanctioning he was doing...

Robert Campbell

I quoted Sowell because he serendipitously echoed my distinction of what I call arbitrary statements--ones that cannot ultimately be tied to perceptual referents--having connotations without denotations. That is the central point of my recent comments. Do you disagree with me that making that distinction is helpful?

Edited September 17, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Robert Campbell]

Ted,

I'm actually not convinced that "social justice" is wholly lacking in denotation. A key argument in Hayek's treatment is that putting "social" in front of "justice" pushes for procedures and outcomes that would be unjust by any reasonable standard. In other words, tacking on "social" inverts the meaning of "justice."

But, of course, any word that mainly functions to induce warm and fuzzy or cold and prickly feelings while pretending that it's doing something else is objectionable. Whatever functions as a purr-word or a snarl-word needs to treated with a great deal of skepticism, for pretty much the reasons that Rand sketched in her piece on "anti-concepts."

I am not an epistemological foundationalist, however, and therefore I do not believe that all concepts are subject to either Randian or Peikovian reduction. Consequently, I can't accept an account according to which any proposition that cannot successfully undergo Peikovian reduction is arbitrary.

As Bob Kolker pointed out, the notion of a neutrino was originally purely hypothetical. It has turned out, after long and arduous efforts to come up with measurement procedures, design observations and experiments, and collect data, that there are such things as neutrinos.

How would a strict Peikovian be able to avoid treating the original positing of neutrinos as arbitrary? How could it be handled any differently from Peikoff's example of Harry Binswanger's bachelor party?

Robert Campbell

[Roger Bissell]

3. Rand is more wrong on more issues than I had originally thought. And these are not minor issues, they are of fundamental import.

I've sort of had the opposite development. I've come to think she was more right in ways I hadn't realized on issues which weren't that much of interest to me until recent years. Specifically her seeing to the core of the nature of statism and its consequences, and her delineation of motives of those who seek power. I've come to have a much greater appreciation of the importance of her political philosophy.

Mostly, issues on which I thought she was wrong, I still think she was wrong -- and with much more knowledge of why -- mostly issues pertaining to epistemology and science, and to psychology (I include the specifics of her theory of volition).

Ellen

If one wants to learn, it is best to adopt a stance of regarding the teacher as superior until such time as one has learned what one can learn from them. Perhaps in your youth you were more arrogant and dismissive than you should have been.

Her political philosophy is precisely the area where I have come to have the most disagreement, in spite of my agreement with the spirit behind it. Take her position on patents, and unwind it to the premises behind it, or her arguments against anarchism (note: I am not an anarchist, but do I disagree with her arguments against it).

Five senses of Objectivism

Objectivism in various senses, from most abstract to least, can be defined as:

• The primacy of existence and the invalidity of the stolen concept.......................essential Objectivism

• Reality - Reason - Egoism - Capitalism............................................................core Objectivism

• Rand's broad published philosophical doctrines................................................ canonical Objectivism

• Everything Rand held, opined, or authorized and did not repudiate before death...Randian Objectivism, or "Randianism"

• Whatever Leonard Peikoff judges to be Objectivism.........................................."Official" Objectivism

I consider myself to be in agreement with essential and core Objectivism, and to disagree with certain aspects in the ethics or canonical Objectivism. Obviously I find the fifth sense to be a red light to induction.

I have a somewhat similar, somewhat different perspective on all this, but I appreciate Ted's thoughtful comments about this issue. Here are my thoughts on "senses of Objectivism":

If I were defining (different senses of) Objectivism without respect to what Peikoff or Rand said it was, I would make a basic distinction between the foundation (fundamental principle, the driving insight, method) of Objectivism and the essence (system, necessarily connected components, what cannot logically be removed, crucial content) of Objectivism, and I would say that:

1. Fundamental distinguishing characteristic of Objectivism -- as a method, it advocates the consistent application of the Primacy of Existence principle to the basic issues of all the branches of philosophy, including the basic facts of reality (identity, causality), the nature of knowledge, and the choices one makes in life -- as well as to application of philosophical reasoning to the various sciences (e.g., philosophy of science, philosophy of law, aesthetics = philosophy of art) -- as well as to one's living one's life in general.

2. Essential components of Objectivism -- as a philosophical system, it must include "Reality," "Reason," "Egoism," "Capitalism" (shorthand for: there is a real world out there, existing independent of consciousness -- reason is valid for knowing reality and is man's means of survival -- rational self-interest is man's proper morality -- individual rights and free market economics are the appropriate way for humans to organize society) which are all consistent with the Primacy of Existence and the facts of reality. (I would not include aesthetics in Objectivism, any more than I would include psychology, for instance. Consider the parallel between the psychological principle that one sees one's self-image embodied in the person of another and the aesthetic principle that one sees one's image of the world embodied in an artwork. If the former does not belong in philosophy, neither does the latter, imo.)

I would also give a tip of the hat to the ~emotional~ source of or impetus for Objectivism 1 and 2, and that is:

3. Vision of Objectivism -- man as a heroic being, with reality as his only absolute, reason as his only tool of survival, and happiness as his purpose (or something like that). By the nature of the sense-of-life, subconsciousness metaphysics this vision encompasses, it logically requires Objectivism 1 and 2 for its fullest, philosophical expression. I think there are a lot of more-or-less sense-of-life Objectivists who are not capable of and/or not willing to exercise Objectivism 1, and thus end up with something short of Objectivism 2, especially in the area of applications.

As I said, I am answering as if Rand and Peikoff did not exist any more or their objections didn't matter to me.

As for the rest of Ted's definitions, I suppose they are OK. I particularly like the term "Randian Objectivism" to apply to pre-1982 "Official Objectivism," but I would use "ARI Objectivism" to apply to post-1982 "Official Objectivism."

"Canonical Objectivism" is a flawed, incomplete system, Objectivism-2-in-progress, with unresolved contradictions and unfilled gaps. To the extent it cleaves to Objectivism-1, it ~approaches~ (or seeks to approach) Objectivism 2, but needs revision here and there, and needs extension here and there. Unlike the "closed system" people, I think that anyone who consistently practices the Objectivist method (Objectivism 1) can legitimately add to or correct Objectivism 2 (the system). Whether or not one's additions or corrections are officially recognized and approved is ultimately irrelevant, if one's adoption of the philosophy is for the purpose of using it as a tool for living a better life -- rather than a weapon with which to bash one's enemies or a means of psychologically controlling one's rivals and presumed "inferiors."

Correcting the system does ~not~ entail or require blotting out the historical record of Rand's own (and officially approved) ideas. It just means that Objectivism as Rand (and cohorts) framed it is not completely correct, and that corrections have been made. This is in stark contrast to insiders trying to blot out Rand's unacknowledged errors (such as Binswanger in the Lexicon omitting an entry on architecture, because Rand included it as an artform, but defined art so that architecture seemed not to be included). Unacknowledged errors in Objectivism apparently can legitimately be ~stricken~ from Objectivism in the dead of night, but proven errors cannot be stricken out in the light of day! (According to the "closed system" people.)

A modest predication: in the not too distant future, the grafting of ARI Objectivism (post-1982 "Official Objectivism") onto Randian Objectivism will be a fait accompli, and a generous mound of the writings of the ARI folk (and perhaps others? well, probably not) will be dubbed "Official Objectivism," and this debate will no longer matter. As I see it, what really matters, then and now, is: are people making their lives better by applying the Primacy of Existence principle as consistently as possible to their lives? (Deriving rational self-interest from ~this~ foundation pretty much rules out the "kumbaya," "do what you feel like" smear attacks engaged in by some critics.)

To the extent ARI and others pervert and warp this aspiration and ideal, they are subverting Rand's own vision and intention for her philosophy. I'd like to think that I am being truer to the spirit and foundation of her philosophy than those people. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that there are no power-seeking or pseudo-self-esteem issues at stake in ~my~ working with it. (Nothing personal, y'all, but if the shoe fits, wear it!)

REB

[Jerry Biggers]

I wonder if Harriman had any idea of the storm that his book on induction in physics would cause? My guess, based on his astoundingly bad decision to include Rand's unpublished musings about Hickman (which she almost certainly did not want to see the light of day) in his editing of her Journals, he had no clue.

And, judging from Peikoff's rather alarming (over)reaction in his letter to The Anthem Foundation Board of Directors about McCaskey, he also certainly had no clue.

This brings up another issue, which probably should be discussed elsewhere than this thread: Is there any substantial evidence that the adoption of Objectivism by persons result in a significant increase in their happiness or degree of success in life. In other words, does Objectivism have any practical benefit over other philosophies in this regard? It may be heresy to ask that question (or is it blasphemy?), but is there really any evidence about its usefulness in everyday life? Is it really a philosophy that, if adopted and applied, will lead the adherent to be more successful in business or other field of endeavor? It seems to me that there should be lots of evidence by now... of people willing to proclaim how useful that Objectivism has been in achieving their success.

Note: I am not asking whether it is more elegant as a system of thought, or whether it is a useful framework for explaining the course of history, etc. That can be demonstrated.

Yeah, I know: "The moral is the practical." Proof?- In the real world? Or, to be more explicit, "proof that the Objectivist ethics is practical to apply consistently in the real world and that doing so will increase your chances (but not guarantee) of leading a successful and happy life."

While you are gasping, or are just annoyed that I bring this up, or think the question is just naive or stupid - I will be happy (actually, unhappy) to provide many examples of very successful people (scientists, academics, inventors, computer professionals, etc.) and in business who are NOT Objectivists. In fact, with the exception of the Koch Brothers, there are very few people among the super-rich and the nouveau-rich that publicly support Objectivism or who are willing to state that Objectivism substantially aided them in their success or wealth-creation.

So, does anyone have any empirical evidence supporting Objectivism as a philosophy of success and happiness? Not anecdotal testimony, please.

EDITED!

err...heh, heh, NOT really a Freudian slip - I really meant to say publicly, not "pubically"

Edited September 19, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[sjw]

So does anyone have any empirical evidence supporting Objectivism as a philosophy of success and happiness? Not anecdotal, please.

A somewhat but not totally unfair question. Imagine a person in Communist Russia one day becoming convinced of Capitalism.

Shayne

[Robert Campbell]

I wonder if Harriman had any idea of the storm that his book on induction in physics would cause? My guess, based on his astoundingly bad decision to include Rand's unpublished musings about Hickman (which she almost certainly did not want to see the light of day) in his editing of her Journals, he had no clue.

And, judging from Peikoff's rather alarming (over)reaction in his letter to The Anthem Foundation Board of Directors about McCaskey, he also certainly had no clue.

Jerry,

I don't think David Harriman had the slightest idea that The Logical Leap would be a source of trouble, even among Orthodox Objectivists.

For how many years now has Harriman been a full-time or close to full-time employee of ARI? He says in the preface that ARI supported him during all the years it took to write the book. This must mean for more than a decade, if the book project was launched soon after the completion of Peikoff's lecture course on induction.

Harriman has enjoyed Peikoff's personal sponsorship for even longer. His decision to include the stuff about Hickman when he rewrote Rand's journals must have been OKed by Peikoff.

Leonard Peikoff and his protégés have lived in a highly sheltered environment for a long time. If they ever thought that someone nearby might find fault with anything they'd done, they reassured themselves with the expectation that Peikoff's personal authority would sweep all significant opposition away.

They should have realized how far out on the limb they were going by 2003, when Peikoff authorized Valliant's project, despite opposition from at least one of his top lieutenants. More have subsequently lost their enthusiasm for Valliant's book.

Some of this can be seen in Mayhew's reaction to the Rewrite Squad thread, even though Mayhew is a full-time academic and some of his work goes unprotected by the ARI bubble. I don't think he imagined his work for the Estate ever being criticized by anyone who couldn't be instantly written off as a "commentator hostile to Ayn Rand and Objectivism." Jennifer Burns' book and the Rewrite Squad took him by surprise.

This brings up another issue, which probably should be discussed elsewhere than this thread: Is there any substantial evidence that the adoption of Objectivism by persons result in a significant increase in their happiness or degree of success in life. In other words, does Objectivism have any practical benefit over other philosophies in this regard? It may be heresy to ask that question (or is it blasphemy?), but is there really any evidence about its usefulness in everyday life? Is it really a philosophy that, if adopted and applied, will lead the adherent to be more successful in business or other field of endeavor? It seems to me that there should be lots of evidence by now... of people willing to proclaim how useful that Objectivism has been in achieving their success.

These are all good questions. Empirical studies of career success and life satisfaction pose the usual measurement problems, but social science is full of those and we still do figure some things out from time to time.

My suggestion would be to start a new thread under Ethics or Psychology for this topic.

Robert

[George H. Smith]

I don't think David Harriman had the slightest idea that The Logical Leap would be a source of trouble, even among Orthodox Objectivists.

I rarely visit Toon Town, so I didn't know that The Logical Leap has generated any trouble at all. Can you give me a summary?

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

Five senses of Objectivism

Objectivism in various senses, from most abstract to least, can be defined as:

• The primacy of existence and the invalidity of the stolen concept.......................essential Objectivism

• Reality - Reason - Egoism - Capitalism............................................................core Objectivism

• Rand's broad published philosophical doctrines................................................ canonical Objectivism

• Everything Rand held, opined, or authorized and did not repudiate before death...Randian Objectivism, or "Randianism"

• Whatever Leonard Peikoff judges to be Objectivism.........................................."Official" Objectivism

I consider myself to be in agreement with essential and core Objectivism, and to disagree with certain aspects in the ethics or canonical Objectivism. Obviously I find the fifth sense to be a red light to induction.

I have a somewhat similar, somewhat different perspective on all this, but I appreciate Ted's thoughtful comments about this issue. Here are my thoughts on "senses of Objectivism":

If I were defining (different senses of) Objectivism without respect to what Peikoff or Rand said it was, I would make a basic distinction between the foundation (fundamental principle, the driving insight, method) of Objectivism and the essence (system, necessarily connected components, what cannot logically be removed, crucial content) of Objectivism, and I would say that:

1. Fundamental distinguishing characteristic of Objectivism -- as a method, it advocates the consistent application of the Primacy of Existence principle to the basic issues of all the branches of philosophy, including the basic facts of reality (identity, causality), the nature of knowledge, and the choices one makes in life -- as well as to application of philosophical reasoning to the various sciences (e.g., philosophy of science, philosophy of law, aesthetics = philosophy of art) -- as well as to one's living one's life in general.

2. Essential components of Objectivism -- as a philosophical system, it must include "Reality," "Reason," "Egoism," "Capitalism" (shorthand for: there is a real world out there, existing independent of consciousness -- reason is valid for knowing reality and is man's means of survival -- rational self-interest is man's proper morality -- individual rights and free market economics are the appropriate way for humans to organize society) which are all consistent with the Primacy of Existence and the facts of reality. (I would not include aesthetics in Objectivism, any more than I would include psychology, for instance. Consider the parallel between the psychological principle that one sees one's self-image embodied in the person of another and the aesthetic principle that one sees one's image of the world embodied in an artwork. If the former does not belong in philosophy, neither does the latter, imo.)

I would also give a tip of the hat to the ~emotional~ source of or impetus for Objectivism 1 and 2, and that is:

3. Vision of Objectivism -- man as a heroic being, with reality as his only absolute, reason as his only tool of survival, and happiness as his purpose (or something like that). By the nature of the sense-of-life, subconsciousness metaphysics this vision encompasses, it logically requires Objectivism 1 and 2 for its fullest, philosophical expression. I think there are a lot of more-or-less sense-of-life Objectivists who are not capable of and/or not willing to exercise Objectivism 1, and thus end up with something short of Objectivism 2, especially in the area of applications.

As I said, I am answering as if Rand and Peikoff did not exist any more or their objections didn't matter to me.

As for the rest of Ted's definitions, I suppose they are OK. I particularly like the term "Randian Objectivism" to apply to pre-1982 "Official Objectivism," but I would use "ARI Objectivism" to apply to post-1982 "Official Objectivism."

"Canonical Objectivism" is a flawed, incomplete system, Objectivism-2-in-progress, with unresolved contradictions and unfilled gaps. To the extent it cleaves to Objectivism-1, it ~approaches~ (or seeks to approach) Objectivism 2, but needs revision here and there, and needs extension here and there. Unlike the "closed system" people, I think that anyone who consistently practices the Objectivist method (Objectivism 1) can legitimately add to or correct Objectivism 2 (the system). Whether or not one's additions or corrections are officially recognized and approved is ultimately irrelevant, if one's adoption of the philosophy is for the purpose of using it as a tool for living a better life -- rather than a weapon with which to bash one's enemies or a means of psychologically controlling one's rivals and presumed "inferiors."

Correcting the system does ~not~ entail or require blotting out the historical record of Rand's own (and officially approved) ideas. It just means that Objectivism as Rand (and cohorts) framed it is not completely correct, and that corrections have been made. This is in stark contrast to insiders trying to blot out Rand's unacknowledged errors (such as Binswanger in the Lexicon omitting an entry on architecture, because Rand included it as an artform, but defined art so that architecture seemed not to be included). Unacknowledged errors in Objectivism apparently can legitimately be ~stricken~ from Objectivism in the dead of night, but proven errors cannot be stricken out in the light of day! (According to the "closed system" people.)

A modest predication: in the not too distant future, the grafting of ARI Objectivism (post-1982 "Official Objectivism") onto Randian Objectivism will be a fait accompli, and a generous mound of the writings of the ARI folk (and perhaps others? well, probably not) will be dubbed "Official Objectivism," and this debate will no longer matter. As I see it, what really matters, then and now, is: are people making their lives better by applying the Primacy of Existence principle as consistently as possible to their lives? (Deriving rational self-interest from ~this~ foundation pretty much rules out the "kumbaya," "do what you feel like" smear attacks engaged in by some critics.)

To the extent ARI and others pervert and warp this aspiration and ideal, they are subverting Rand's own vision and intention for her philosophy. I'd like to think that I am being truer to the spirit and foundation of her philosophy than those people. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that there are no power-seeking or pseudo-self-esteem issues at stake in ~my~ working with it. (Nothing personal, y'all, but if the shoe fits, wear it!)

REB

I intentionally chose the phrase Essentiai Objectivism to parallel Rand's usage of essential; that characteristic which best explains the other characteristics. Specifically, I would say that the axiomatic and hierarchical method is the essence of Objectivism. No idea can be accepted which contradicts the foundation upon which it stands. No idea can be rejected which must be assumed in its own denial. This method underlies her metaphysicl realism, her rejection of skepticism in epistemology and of relativism in ethics.

The "four pillars" of Core Objectivism—reality, reason, egoism and laissez faire—are fundamental beliefs within their areas. I called them the core beliefs only to avoid the negative connotation of fundamentalism. But the four pillars depend on or benefit from her methodology for their validation.

As for what I've called Canonical Objectivism, defined as her published, philosophical doctrines, I wouldn't exactly want to call it flawed or incomplete due to the connotations. Flawed implies a fatal defect. Incomplete implies a lack of integration. I would say that there are errors, such as with some of her views on human nature. But these are self correcting if we adhere to the proper epistemology. And the outlines of the system are largely correct, so that it is largely clear as to what are the areaes that need to be filled in, and how to go about it. I don't hold such nonsense as the woman president argument to be philosophical, but psychological or aesthetic, or what have you.

Note, of course, the scare quotes around "Official" Objectivism.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Mamma, that Mean Schoolmarm is Insulting the Poor Objectivists Again!!

> Peikoff's rather alarming (over)reaction in his letter to The Anthem Foundation Board of Directors about McCaskey

Jerry, what letter? McCaskey put Peikofff's email to Arline Mann on his website. Has there been something else since?

> does Objectivism have any practical benefit over other philosophies in this regard? It may be heresy to ask that question (or is it blasphemy?), but is there really any evidence about its usefulness in everyday life?

I've probably seen at least a couple dozen different wealthy or successful or famous men in business, investing, writing, sports, etc. testify to the influence Rand's ideas have had in their lives.

> Is it really a philosophy that, if adopted and applied, will lead the adherent to be more successful in business or other field of endeavor?

Well, obviously that would depend if it's actually followed. Does anyone think that productiveness and self-esteem and hard work and integrity and independence would -not- have practical benefits? The problem is the failure to spend the years needed to integrate and -become- an Oist instead of a talker: it's just not adopted by many, even though they would angrily deny that (Phil is just being 'insulting' again). Being Howard Roark isn't easy. Too hard. Easier to pay lip service and condemn others for not being true or good Oists. So much for 'success'. What would you take as proof that the honest, virtuous person is -happier- than the scoundrel or the evader?

> with the exception of the Koch Brothers, there are very few people among the super-rich and the nouveau-rich that publicly support Objectivism or who are willing to state that Objectivism substantially aided them in their success or wealth-creation.

Did either of the Koch's actually say that or offer public support? Where did either of those -- the position or the support -- appear?

Edited September 19, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Jerry Biggers]

Subject: Mamma, that Mean Schoolmarm is Insulting the Poor Objectivists Again!!

> Peikoff's rather alarming (over)reaction in his letter to The Anthem Foundation Board of Directors about McCaskey

Jerry, what letter? McCaskey put Peikofff's email to Arline Mann on his website. Has there been something else since?

> does Objectivism have any practical benefit over other philosophies in this regard? It may be heresy to ask that question (or is it blasphemy?), but is there really any evidence about its usefulness in everyday life?

I've probably seen at least a couple dozen different wealthy or successful or famous men in business, investing, writing, sports, etc. testify to the influence Rand's ideas have had in their lives.

> Is it really a philosophy that, if adopted and applied, will lead the adherent to be more successful in business or other field of endeavor?

Well, obviously that would depend if it's actually followed. Does anyone think that productiveness and self-esteem and hard work and integrity and independence would -not- have practical benefits? The problem is the failure to spend the years needed to integrate and -become- an Oist instead of a talker: it's just not adopted by many, even though they would angrily deny that (Phil is just being 'insulting' again). Being Howard Roark isn't easy. Too hard. Easier to pay lip service and condemn others for not being true or good Oists. So much for 'success'. What would you take as proof that the honest, virtuous person is -happier- than the scoundrel or the evader?

> with the exception of the Koch Brothers, there are very few people among the super-rich and the nouveau-rich that publicly support Objectivism or who are willing to state that Objectivism substantially aided them in their success or wealth-creation.

Did either of the Koch's actually say that or offer public support? Where did either of those -- the position or the support -- appear?

Phil,

I intend to bring this whole issue (whether there is evidence re the personal usefulness of Objectivism as applied to enhancing personal success, achievement, and/or happiness) up in a thread elsewhere, as Robert Campbell suggested.

But to reply here to some of your questions:

1) I meant to say the copy of Peikoff's letter to The Anthem Foundation that McCaskey displayed on his website.

2) The reference to the Koch brothers should have been to their support of libertarianism.

I'll reply to your other observations in a new thread, probably in the psychology section. But not till much later today, or tomorrow.

Thanks for your comments!

-Jerry

Edited September 19, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Philip Coates]

Thanks, Jerry....I'll look forward to your reply.

[9thdoctor]

I intend to bring this whole issue (whether there is evidence re the personal usefulness of Objectivism as applied to enhancing personal success, achievement, and/or happiness) up in a thread elsewhere

Hate to champ at the bit, but what evidence would suffice? Has any philosophy been tested empirically, as in double blind with a control group etc.? Of course not. Even to speak of Ancient Greece vs. Modern America vs. Soviet Russia becomes too problematic.

[Robert Campbell]

I rarely visit Toon Town, so I didn't know that The Logical Leap has generated any trouble at all. Can you give me a summary?

George,

A brief summary goes like this:

After The Logical Leap was published, in mid-July, an in-house workshop was held on the topic, with entirely ARIan personnel, so far as I know.

The book was criticized.

John McCsskey, founder of The Anthem Foundation, and thus a major player in getting academic jobs and building academic cred for ARI-affiliated scholars, took issue with Harriman's historical accounts, and very possibly went further.

On July 25, Travis Norsen, one of the very few ARIans with expertise in physics, sharply criticized the book on Amazon. (The participant list for the workshop hasn't been disclosed, so I don't know whether Norsen was at it.)

Harriman, it is reasonable to conclude, was pissed and complained to his sponsor, Peikoff.

Word must have been going out to senior ARIans to chime in in support of Harriman, because during August Harry Binswanger and Alan Gotthelf both put perfunctory, kiss-ass reviews on amazon.

When word of McCaskey's criticisms reached Peikoff's ears, he started rumbling, then pulled rank and sent the "him or me" email on August 30.

McCaskey resigned from the ARI Board in advance of being booted. Only then did he publish some of his criticisms (in an amazon review that focused on Galileo).

Since McCaskey packed his trunk and roamed, on September 3, the ARIans have been trying to figure out how to react.

Diana Hsieh is keeping quiet while working on a statement. She already broke ranks with Peikoff when he called for bombing Cordoba House, so her position is a little precarious. No doubt she is busily making political calculations.

OO and FARF have run fitful discussions revealing a good deal of consternation at Peikoff's move, and little knowledge of the book (most ARIans seem uninterested in philosophy of science). Even a robotic acolyte like Roderick Fitts has noticed that Peikoff is effectively claiming that his and Harriman's philosophy of science is part of Objectivism, in violation of the closed-system doctrine.

The Objective Standard published an interview with Harriman over the summer, to promote his book. Meanwhile, TOS decided not to carry Ed Cline's review of Anne Heller's book; ran a piece by Craig Biddle trying to sidestep away from "bomb the mosque"; and decided to carry Roderick Fitts' review of a five-year old book; i.e., Jim Valliant's opus.

It could be they're going through tough times in Toon Town.

Harriman's been a full-time resident of Toon Town for something like a decade; Peikoff for more than two decades.

Looks like they're increasingly out of touch with those ARIans who are not full-time residents.

Robert Campbell

[Dennis Hardin]

I rarely visit Toon Town, so I didn't know that The Logical Leap has generated any trouble at all. Can you give me a summary?

George,

A brief summary goes like this:

After The Logical Leap was published, in mid-July, an in-house workshop was held on the topic, with entirely ARIan personnel, so far as I know.

The book was criticized.

John McCsskey, founder of The Anthem Foundation, and thus a major player in getting academic jobs and building academic cred for ARI-affiliated scholars, took issue with Harriman's historical accounts, and very possibly went further.

On July 25, Travis Norsen, one of the very few ARIans with expertise in physics, sharply criticized the book on Amazon. (The participant list for the workshop hasn't been disclosed, so I don't know whether Norsen was at it.)

Harriman, it is reasonable to conclude, was pissed and complained to his sponsor, Peikoff.

Word must have been going out to senior ARIans to chime in in support of Harriman, because during August Harry Binswanger and Alan Gotthelf both put perfunctory, kiss-ass reviews on amazon.

When word of McCaskey's criticisms reached Peikoff's ears, he started rumbling, then pulled rank and sent the "him or me" email on August 30.

McCaskey resigned from the ARI Board in advance of being booted. Only then did he publish some of his criticisms (in an amazon review that focused on Galileo).

Since McCaskey packed his trunk and roamed, on September 3, the ARIans have been trying to figure out how to react.

Diana Hsieh is keeping quiet while working on a statement. She already broke ranks with Peikoff when he called for bombing Cordoba House, so her position is a little precarious. No doubt she is busily making political calculations.

OO and FARF have run fitful discussions revealing a good deal of consternation at Peikoff's move, and little knowledge of the book (most ARIans seem uninterested in philosophy of science). Even a robotic acolyte like Roderick Fitts has noticed that Peikoff is effectively claiming that his and Harriman's philosophy of science is part of Objectivism, in violation of the closed-system doctrine.

The Objective Standard published an interview with Harriman over the summer, to promote his book. Meanwhile, TOS decided not to carry Ed Cline's review of Anne Heller's book; ran a piece by Craig Biddle trying to sidestep away from "bomb the mosque"; and decided to carry Roderick Fitts' review of a five-year old book; i.e., Jim Valliant's opus.

It could be they're going through tough times in Toon Town.

Harriman's been a full-time resident of Toon Town for something like a decade; Peikoff for more than two decades.

Looks like they're increasingly out of touch with those ARIans who are not full-time residents.

Robert Campbell

Another excellent overview of recent events from Neil Parille:

The McCaskey Schism

One of Parille's conclusions:

Peikoff, for whatever contributions he has made to Objectivism, has actually hurt Rand’s reputation. For example, in 2005 he sponsored James Valliant’s cracked The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, a book which, far from rescuing Rand, made her look worse. He has permitted people like Harriman to rewrite the published versions of Rand’s posthumous material in classic cult of personality fashion. Peikoff said in 1987 that Barbara Branden’s biography of Rand was “arbitrary” and would eventually be countered by an authorized biography. No such biography has appeared, but two independent biographies were published in 2009 both generally supportive of Branden’s. It must be increasingly obvious to younger Objectivists that the Peikoff line that Rand’s only character flaw was occasionally blowing her top was dishonest.

Yeah, Peikoff is misguided, but no doubt his black heart is in the right place.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Continuing/Expanding the Attack on Personal Motives

> Word must have been going out to senior ARIans to chime in in support of Harriman, because during August Harry Binswanger and Alan Gotthelf both put perfunctory, kiss-ass reviews on amazon.

> Diana Hsieh is keeping quiet ...No doubt she is busily making political calculations.

Robert, you keep making posts in which you accuse people of kowtowing or saying things they don't believe, which would be dishonest. Can you show us the CAT scans of HB's and AG's and DH's brains which constitute proof with regard to all three of them?

Is it possible you will make a post today in which you point out that some of the ARI people simply agree with something and that's why they said so? I know that that would be a really complicated and implausible hypothesis, but.........

[You will certainly find a lot of people on this list who agree with you that personal attack of this kind is okay, but (i) that's what attracts some people to this list, (ii) no matter how many people are comfortable with it, it's still not rationally justified - and distracts from the actual issues. ]

> most ARIans seem uninterested in philosophy of science

Because...? Based on only those few dudes who post a lot on websites? Based on the short period of time since H's book has been published?

Edited September 20, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Jerry Biggers]

Subject: Continuing/Expanding the Attack on Personal Motives

> Word must have been going out to senior ARIans to chime in in support of Harriman, because during August Harry Binswanger and Alan Gotthelf both put perfunctory, kiss-ass reviews on amazon.

> Diana Hsieh is keeping quiet ...No doubt she is busily making political calculations.

Robert, you keep making posts in which you accuse people of kowtowing or saying things they don't believe, which would be dishonest. Can you show us the CAT scans of HB's and AG's and DH's brains which constitute proof with regard to all three of them?

Is it possible you will make a post today in which you point out that some of the ARI people simply agree with something and that's why they said so? I know that that would be a really complicated and implausible hypothesis, but.........

[You will certainly find a lot of people on this list who agree with you that personal attack of this kind is okay, but (i) that's what attracts some people to this list, (ii) no matter how many people are comfortable with it, it's still not rationally justified - and distracts from the actual issues. ]

> most ARIans seem uninterested in philosophy of science

Because...? Based on only those few dudes who post a lot on websites? Based on the short period of time since H's book has been published?

Phil,

I think that, based on past patterns of conduct of certain ARIans (e.g., Binswanger, Hsieh, etc.), it is a reasonable conclusion that they are continuing their pattern of following, lockstep, behind statements by Peikoff or others closely associated with ARI. The fact that certain ARIan supporters occasionally show faint signs of disagreement with certain Peikovian statements does not change this basic pattern of circling the wagons around Peikoff.

I don't think that Robert was claiming that the people in question are necessarily making statements that they do not, in fact, believe. They do believe it, and/or they think that Peikoff must be supported because he is well, - Peikoff, the self-described "intellectual heir" of Ayn Rand. And that means, that all substantive criticisms must be dismissed, because to criticize him is to criticize Ayn Rand (who was perfect in all respects - except for that unforunate Branden episode).

You may have a different theory about this, but I think that what we are seeing is merely a repetition of behavior that Peikoff himself, has shown in his reactions to even mild dissension from Rand's past statements. That is, that he must defend every detail of everything or position that Rand ever said (with the exception of a few minor disagreements about some of Rand's derivative positions, for example, on homosexuality), because to allow credence to any criticism at all, will allow for the possibility that other valid criticisms could be made (and thus opening the floodgates that he fears will sweep Rand's acccomplisments away).

This over-sensitivity to any criticism leads some people to the conclusion that Peikoff, and other ARIans, do not think that they can mount a successful reply to criticism of Rand's philosophy. This is most unfortunate, because it makes Objectivism appear to be dogma, rather than a philosophy that can successfully counter criticisms of its positions. The corollary is that it makes it look like Rand, in contrast to all other philosophers, is above criticism. That characteristic, of course, is indicative of a deity,not a person; and it further encourages critics to view Objectivism as a religious cult, rather than a philosophy that should be taken seriously.

I said, "unfortunate," but I tend to view this policy of intolerance to dissent to be more accurately categorized as catastrophic. At minimum, this policy has severely stunted the growth and acceptance of Objectivism among academics in particular, and the culture in general. At maximun, it may turn out, historically, to be the "Achille's Heel" of Objectivism. a death-blow delivered by its own overzealous defenders. And that is more than "catastrophic," it is tragic.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Jerry Biggers