Recommended Posts

Posted

I'm glad you are not that acquainted with my philosophy, because if you were, you would know that I haven't nearly said everything yet. I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done.

Dennis,

In 1976, Rand had gone as far as she was going to go with Objectivism. Leonard Peikoff's 1976 lectures (which later became the basis for OPAR) are a pretty reliable indicator of what was there. She had often said that epistemology was of paramount importance but hadn't produced her treatise on Objectivism and was probably no longer working on it.

She knew that her system was not complete; she had acknowledged earlier (in her 1969-1971 workshops) and would admit later (see The Rewrite Squad) that she needed a philosophy of science and hadn't developed one. Some of what's missing from her epistemology (such as an account of skills and their acquisition) she would have insisted she did not need, even though many others would expect it. Philosophy of science is something she openly acknowledged that she needed but still didn't produce.

By picking Leonard Peikoff as her heir, whether she knew that this would be the effect or not, she helped to ensure that no significant elaboration would be taking place after she was gone.

If you go back through the Randian corpus, you can find statements that indicate that Objectivism is closed and statements that indicate that it is open. She was inconsistent on that score.

Peikoff went with the declarations of closure. I see no point in arguing with him on that—I just expect him and his acolytes to adhere to the closed-system model with complete consistency. Let him keep an unfinished system to which no one has been able to add since 1982. If he is consistent, he has no authorization to hex the Pentateuch; no matter how badly he wants it, he can't pretend that his latter-day productions, or those of a protégé like David Harriman, are part of Objectivism.

Robert Campbell

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

1. In the forward of The Objectivist Forum, she insultingly denigrated anyone who might think for themselves. Why should I grant her the massive compliment it is for me to use *her* word to refer to what *I* think when the word comes with a slap in the face?

Oh, yes: "Objectivism is my philosophy." You hodgepodgers stay away. While she was old, ill and irritable and entitled to her vanity at the end of her life, this was the logical extension of how puffed up she had gotten about herself writing Atlas Shrugged. This was worse than her introduction to Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels. I can't know but do think that the latter wasn't so sour because she thought she was addressing a more general audience than her ostensible followers.

--Brant

Posted

If you go back through the Randian corpus, you can find statements that indicate that Objectivism is closed and statements that indicate that it is open. She was inconsistent on that score.

This is absolutely true! I've been keeping my eyes and ears open on the issue for the past two years of studying Rand and the open/closed debate. In some places Rand presents Objectivism as a science, in other places she argues that it is her philosophy which can be claimed as property.

Posted

1. In the forward of The Objectivist Forum, she insultingly denigrated anyone who might think for themselves. Why should I grant her the massive compliment it is for me to use *her* word to refer to what *I* think when the word comes with a slap in the face?

Oh, yes: "Objectivism is my philosophy." You hodgepodgers stay away. While she was old, ill and irritable and entitled to her vanity at the end of her life, this was the logical extension of how puffed up she had gotten about herself writing Atlas Shrugged. This was worse than her introduction to Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels. I can't know but do think that the latter wasn't so sour because she thought she was addressing a more general audience than her ostensible followers.

--Brant

Perhaps that statement was her Cortlandt. Perhaps she was disgusted by the lack of intellectual independence of her followers and decided to blow the whole thing up.

Shayne

Posted

1. In the forward of The Objectivist Forum, she insultingly denigrated anyone who might think for themselves. Why should I grant her the massive compliment it is for me to use *her* word to refer to what *I* think when the word comes with a slap in the face?

Oh, yes: "Objectivism is my philosophy." You hodgepodgers stay away. While she was old, ill and irritable and entitled to her vanity at the end of her life, this was the logical extension of how puffed up she had gotten about herself writing Atlas Shrugged. This was worse than her introduction to Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels. I can't know but do think that the latter wasn't so sour because she thought she was addressing a more general audience than her ostensible followers.

--Brant

Perhaps that statement was her Cortlandt. Perhaps she was disgusted by the lack of intellectual independence of her followers and decided to blow the whole thing up.

Only if by "Cortlandt" you mean Objectivism as a movement, not Objectivism per se. I wouldn't think I'd agree with that either, however.

--Brant

Posted

On the other hand, I was well-read in philosophy and literature and psychology. The area where I did study Rand to learn was literary. My initial interest in her more than anything else was because of how stupendous a writer she was. I recognized mastery from the first page of Atlas Shrugged.

That explains the difference. I was ignorant of those subjects when I started reading Rand.

Shayne

Posted

Only if by "Cortlandt" you mean Objectivism as a movement, not Objectivism per se. I wouldn't think I'd agree with that either, however.

--Brant

Yes I meant as a movement. And it's a speculation. I don't know why she said that, it doesn't fit in with her philosophy.

Shayne

Posted

1. In the forward of The Objectivist Forum, she insultingly denigrated anyone who might think for themselves. Why should I grant her the massive compliment it is for me to use *her* word to refer to what *I* think when the word comes with a slap in the face?

Oh, yes: "Objectivism is my philosophy." You hodgepodgers stay away. While she was old, ill and irritable and entitled to her vanity at the end of her life, this was the logical extension of how puffed up she had gotten about herself writing Atlas Shrugged. This was worse than her introduction to Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels. I can't know but do think that the latter wasn't so sour because she thought she was addressing a more general audience than her ostensible followers.

--Brant

Perhaps that statement was her Cortlandt. Perhaps she was disgusted by the lack of intellectual independence of her followers and decided to blow the whole thing up.

Only if by "Cortlandt" you mean Objectivism as a movement, not Objectivism per se. I wouldn't think I'd agree with that either, however.

--Brant

Yes, Rand's foisting Peikoff on the movement was her way of giving it what she thought it deserved, her final grand joke on us all.

Posted
Yes, Rand's foisting Peikoff on the movement was her way of giving it what she thought it deserved, her final grand joke on us all.

You've said something similar before, but I forget where. Do you mean those sorts of remarks seriously or tongue-in-cheek?

Ellen

Posted
Yes, Rand's foisting Peikoff on the movement was her way of giving it what she thought it deserved, her final grand joke on us all.

You've said something similar before, but I forget where. Do you mean those sorts of remarks seriously or tongue-in-cheek?

Ellen

To the extent that Rand consciously did it fully admitting it to herself? No, I don't believe it. But I do think it is a plausible subconscious motivation, to the effect that if she ever doubted the wisdom of it, she might have thought to herself, "well, I am entitled" without completing the thought, "that well, everyone else has disappointed me, so I am entitled . . . to put this man who couldn't write OP without my twelve years of supervision, and who was a Zelig who couldn't hold his premises in mind while arguing with philosophers at NYU, and so forth, in charge of "the movement."

Posted
[....] in charge of "the movement."

You put "the movement" in quotes. Maybe this indicates that you're aware of Rand's stated desire in 1968, following the Rand/Brandens split, that she wanted no formal movement and no school.

Thirteen and a half years elapsed between that 1968 statement and Rand's demise in March 1982, so maybe had some changes of opinion about the desirability of a "movement" and of a school. My feeling, however, is that she remained of the 1968 opinion, and trusted Leonard Peikoff to honor her desires, and that he did not do so.

Here, again, is a lengthy segment, originally posted as post #146 on the "Peikoff: The Great Pretender" thread, from:

Rand's post-split "A Statement of Policy"

"A Statement of Policy"

Part I--by Ayn Rand

June 1968 (published in October 1968)

The Objectivist

pg. 7-8

I regard the spread of Objectivism through today's culture as an intellectual movement--i.e., a trend among independent individuals who share the same ideas--but not as an organized movement. The existence (and the later policies) of NBI contributed to certain misconceptions among some of its students and the public at large, which tended to put Objectivism in an equivocal position in this respect. I want, therefore, to make it emphatically clear that Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone.

My role in regard to Objectivism is that of a theoretician. Since Objectivism is not a loose body of ideas, but a philosophical system originated by me and publicly associated with my name, it is my right and my responsibility to protect its intellectual integrity. I want, therefore, formally to state that the only authentic sources of information on Objectivism are: my own works (books, articles, lectures), the articles appearing in and the pamphlets reprinted by this magazine (The Objectivist, as well as The Objectivist Newsletter), books by other authors which will be endorsed in this magazine as specifically Objectivist literature, and such individual lectures or lecture courses as may be so endorsed. (This list includes also the book Who is Ayn Rand? by Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, as well as the articles by these two authors which have appeared in this magazine in the past, but does not include their future works.)

I shall not establish or endorse any type of school or organization purporting to represent or be a spokesman for Objectivism. I shall repudiate and take appropriate action against any attempt to use my name or my philosophy, explicitly or implicitly, in connection with any project of that kind or any organization not authorized by me.

If students, supporters or friends of Objectivism wish to form local groups of their own--for such purposes as the study, discussion and dissemination of Objectivist ideas--they are welcome to do so. They can be of great value and help to the spread of Objectivism, and will earn my sympathetic interest and sincere gratitude--provided they do not attempt to act as spokesmen for Objectivism and do not associate or collaborate with Objectivism's avowed enemies.

Posted
[....] in charge of "the movement."

You put "the movement" in quotes. Maybe this indicates that you're aware of Rand's stated desire in 1968, following the Rand/Brandens split, that she wanted no formal movement and no school.

Thirteen and a half years elapsed between that 1968 statement and Rand's demise in March 1982, so maybe had some changes of opinion about the desirability of a "movement" and of a school. My feeling, however, is that she remained of the 1968 opinion, and trusted Leonard Peikoff to honor her desires, and that he did not do so.

That is an interesting opinion, that Peikoff betrayed her intentions. But don't you have to admit that without a codicil to the will or a late published statement of intent, she gave him a free hand? Yes, I was aware of Rand's 1968 statement of policy. But I thought it was belied by the fact that lectures continued to be given, that there was still an inner circle of Objectivists, that the Ayn Rand Letter continued to be given, that she continued to give lectures with her entourage in tow....

I should state that I have never met Peikoff, that I was 14 when Rand died and would not be aware of her existence for another three years. But I am not unexperienced with affairs and betrayals and clique dynamics from my youth. The phrase that keeps running through my head is "I deserve this!"

Posted
But don't you have to admit that without a codicil to the will or a late published statement of intent, she gave him a free hand?

Yes, she did. But keep in mind that she left the estate jointly to Leonard Peikoff and Allan Blumenthal up through late 1977, after Allan Blumenthal split with her. It isn't even as if Peikoff had been slated as the sole legal heir. Frank was very ill. He died two years later. It's possible that she simply didn't think that she needed to spell out in any detail what she wanted done. Also there's something about the Library of Congress business. I think I've heard or read that Leonard said that she told him she'd changed her mind about that. (Does anyone else reading the thread remember such a remark from him?) The original deal, though, was that her papers were to be left to the Library of Congress.

Yes, I was aware of Rand's 1968 statement of policy. But I thought it was belied by the fact that lectures continued to be given, that there was still an inner circle of Objectivists, that the Ayn Rand Letter continued to be given, that she continued to give lectures with her entourage in tow....

Ted, it wasn't the same sort of thing after the split. It was just a handful of courses by Peikoff (and one slated by Hessen which had to be canceled). The "inner circle" wasn't the way it had been, with regular meetings. It was just some people who sometimes saw her at her apartment. And the business of "entourage in tow" is a misleading description. She didn't go around accompanied by an entourage. Most of the remaining "inner circle" attended Allan Blumenthal's 1974-75 music course. Some of them would attended Ford Hall Forum lectures, irregularly -- by which I mean, that none of them attended all of those lectures, except Leonard Peikoff and of course Frank, except for the one he missed because of illness.

Ellen

Posted (edited)

I have probably read, but did not recall, that Blumenthal was co-heir. That is telling, that she did not intend to have a sole heir until circumstances "forced her" into it.

What non-Objectivist and non-family friends did Rand have after 1968?

Sorry for the hijack!

Edited by Ted Keer
Posted

McCaskey says:

I have rarely spoken with Dr. Peikoff and never about this book. He did not seek me out for a first-hand discussion; he indicates here he is not interested in having one. I presume he formed his judgments based on whichever emails Mr. Harriman forwarded to him and conversations with participants of the July study group.

I myself (I can’t speak for anyone else) find Dr. Peikoff’s weighing of my criticisms hardly objective, his remarks insultingly unjust—especially that part about Hell—and his ultimatum, as such, a threat to the Institute. I believe it would be damaging to the Institute if the Institute acted either way, either acceding to his demand or rejecting it.

I am shocked at Lenny’s behavior. :rolleyes:

Actually, I am shocked that McCaskey or anyone else at ARI would be the least bit surprised at Lenny's behavior.

Peikoff: “I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism.”

ROFALMAO! Why would he feel the need to say that? Is he completely nuts?

Dennis, here are a few more for your "Why-would-he-feel-the-need-to-say-that?" file.

In “My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand,” Peikoff wrote that one faced a dilemma in judging whether or nor Rand practiced what she preached.

“Ladies and gentlemen: in my judgment, Ayn Rand did live by her philosophy. Whatever her errors, she practiced what she preached, both epistemologically and morally. As a result, she did achieve in her life that which she set out to achieve; she achieved it intellectually, artistically, emotionally. But for you to judge these matters yourself and reach an objective view of Ayn Rand, you must be an unusually philosophical kind of person, because you are living in a Kantian, anti-value culture, and you are going to be offered some very opposite accounts of the facts of her life. So you have to know: what is objectivity? What sort of testimony qualifies as evidence in this context? What do YOU believe is possible to a man-or a woman? What kind of soul do YOU think it takes to write Atlas Shrugged? And what do you WANT to see in a historic figure?

“I am not a Kantian. I do not believe that we can know Ayn Rand only as she appeared to somebody or other. But if I were to grant that premise for a split second, if I were to agree that we all construe reality according to our own personal preferences, then I would still draw a fundamental moral distinction between two kinds of preferences: between those of the muckrakers and those of the hero-worshippers. It is the distinction between the people who, confronted by a genius, are seized with a passion to ferret out flaws, real or imaginary, i.e., to find feet of clay so as to justify their own blighted lives-as against the people who, desperate to feel admiration, want to dismiss any flaw as trivial because nothing matters to them in such a context but the sight of the human greatness that inspires and awes them. In this kind of clash, I am sure, you recognize where I stand.”

In his course on “The Art of Thinking,” Peikoff issued the moist shocking statement about the nature of learning - or at least about how he learns -- that I have ever encountered. Learning apparently consists of brain-washing oneself.

“You have to go through an interim period, after you know the proof of the right ideas, where you say, 'I'm not asking those questions, I am not voicing those doubts; I am turning off that whole context even though I want to pursue it. Even though I feel it is essential to my being clear about this issue. I am resisting this feeling - I look at it as neurotic or diseased or at minimum erroneous. In any event it is a part if my thought which is built in but which I am in process of repudiating.

“Now if you follow that process, ultimately you will automatize, stabilize, institutionalize the right context. And then when you return to the old questions, doubts and problems, you will undoubtedly have the experience that I did, because I went through this experience many times - had all these burning questions, but I said I am going to get Objectivism, to hell with all those questions, I just won't ask them, and it was almost like they were 'banned in Boston' and they couldn't come up. But then of course I was conscientious, I never forgot what they were, I just didn't think about them. When I finally did get Objectivism solid in my mind, I returned to those old questions you know with a certain degree if trepidation that well, now I am ready to take them on, and I found that the great majority seemed puerile to me pointless, silly, needless.”

In an ARI interview, Peikoff was asked:

“What do you like or dislike about being the spokesman of Objectivism?”

He answered: “I like having the power to make definitive statements on philosophical issues.”

When discussing the George Reisman episode, during which Binswanger and Schwartz bullied Peikoff into siding with them and denouncing George as immoral, Peikoff is widely reported to have said:

“”A rejection of Peter and Harry is a rejection of me, because I support them. A rejection of me is a rejection of Objectivism.”

Barbara

Posted

"You have to go through an interim period, after you know the proof of the right ideas, where you say, 'I'm not asking those questions, I am not voicing those doubts; I am turning off that whole context even though I want to pursue it. Even though I feel it is essential to my being clear about this issue. I am resisting this feeling - I look at it as neurotic or diseased or at minimum erroneous. In any event it is a part if my thought which is built in but which I am in process of repudiating.

"Now if you follow that process, ultimately you will automatize, stabilize, institutionalize the right context. And then when you return to the old questions, doubts and problems, you will undoubtedly have the experience that I did, because I went through this experience many times - had all these burning questions, but I said I am going to get Objectivism, to hell with all those questions, I just won't ask them, and it was almost like they were 'banned in Boston' and they couldn't come up. But then of course I was conscientious, I never forgot what they were, I just didn't think about them. When I finally did get Objectivism solid in my mind, I returned to those old questions you know with a certain degree if trepidation that well, now I am ready to take them on, and I found that the great majority seemed puerile to me pointless, silly, needless."

This is an actual, published statement?

Does anyone have the page number?

Posted
What non-Objectivist and non-family friends did Rand have after 1968?

Some authors and people in publishing. Capuletti, of course. I forget when Pinkus Berner died, the lawyer who'd been friends of hers a long time. She's said to have remained friendly with his successor. Nor am I sure when Weybright of Weybright and Talley died. (I might be misspelling names. I'm tired and have to sign off and don't want to go searching for the spellings.) I think she didn't see a lot of people, but it isn't that she didn't see anyone except O'ists. There are scattered references to contacts with others in the various sources on her life.

Ellen

Posted

"You have to go through an interim period, after you know the proof of the right ideas, where you say, 'I'm not asking those questions, I am not voicing those doubts; I am turning off that whole context even though I want to pursue it. Even though I feel it is essential to my being clear about this issue. I am resisting this feeling - I look at it as neurotic or diseased or at minimum erroneous. In any event it is a part if my thought which is built in but which I am in process of repudiating.

"Now if you follow that process, ultimately you will automatize, stabilize, institutionalize the right context. And then when you return to the old questions, doubts and problems, you will undoubtedly have the experience that I did, because I went through this experience many times - had all these burning questions, but I said I am going to get Objectivism, to hell with all those questions, I just won't ask them, and it was almost like they were 'banned in Boston' and they couldn't come up. But then of course I was conscientious, I never forgot what they were, I just didn't think about them. When I finally did get Objectivism solid in my mind, I returned to those old questions you know with a certain degree if trepidation that well, now I am ready to take them on, and I found that the great majority seemed puerile to me pointless, silly, needless."

This is an actual, published statement?

Does anyone have the page number?

It's from one of his taped courses, I don't remember which one. I've heard the tape. He talks about how you have to suppress your doubts. I've remembered his voice tones emphasizing the "suppress," which word he used a number of times. If you searched on "suppress" in my posts here, you might find more. I think I was the one who first told Barbara what Leonard had said, and then she got further info.

Ellen

Posted

In his course on “The Art of Thinking,” Peikoff issued the moist shocking statement about the nature of learning - or at least about how he learns -- that I have ever encountered. Learning apparently consists of brain-washing oneself.

Out of context, I might have tended to give Peikoff benefit of the doubt in that he might have meant that he had already thought through some idea before, was already aware of the reasons why some ideas were wrong, and so it was pointless to retrace them. But that isn't really what he's describing here. He's describing a state of confusion. He doesn't know what's right or wrong, he has *decided*, by fiat, what he will consider right and is running with it and to hell with his mind -- which is precisely where his mind has gone to.

Shayne

Posted

In an ARI interview, Peikoff was asked:

“What do you like or dislike about being the spokesman of Objectivism?”

He answered: “I like having the power to make definitive statements on philosophical issues.”

When discussing the George Reisman episode, during which Binswanger and Schwartz bullied Peikoff into siding with them and denouncing George as immoral, Peikoff is widely reported to have said:

“”A rejection of Peter and Harry is a rejection of me, because I support them. A rejection of me is a rejection of Objectivism.”

It must be nice to be the Sun King of Objectivism. L'etat c'est moi.

Posted

"You have to go through an interim period, after you know the proof of the right ideas, where you say, 'I'm not asking those questions, I am not voicing those doubts; I am turning off that whole context even though I want to pursue it. Even though I feel it is essential to my being clear about this issue. I am resisting this feeling - I look at it as neurotic or diseased or at minimum erroneous. In any event it is a part if my thought which is built in but which I am in process of repudiating.

"Now if you follow that process, ultimately you will automatize, stabilize, institutionalize the right context. And then when you return to the old questions, doubts and problems, you will undoubtedly have the experience that I did, because I went through this experience many times - had all these burning questions, but I said I am going to get Objectivism, to hell with all those questions, I just won't ask them, and it was almost like they were 'banned in Boston' and they couldn't come up. But then of course I was conscientious, I never forgot what they were, I just didn't think about them. When I finally did get Objectivism solid in my mind, I returned to those old questions you know with a certain degree if trepidation that well, now I am ready to take them on, and I found that the great majority seemed puerile to me pointless, silly, needless."

This is an actual, published statement?

Does anyone have the page number?

Ted -

As Barbara said, it's in Peikoff's course on The Art of Thinking. I have the CDs, and remember that. I'm not saying it is a verbatim quote, but it agrees in meaning with my memory from listening to the CD.

Regards,

Bill P

Posted

It would seem Leonard Peikoff isn't an Objectivist: irrational, self-sacrificing, authoritarian--there goes the foundation and everything else.

--Brant

Posted

Dennis, here are a few more for your "Why-would-he-feel-the-need-to-say-that?" file.

Thank you, Barbara. I had seen some of these quotes before, and always found them confusing, so I submitted them to an on-line Bullsh*t Translator.

In “My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand,” Peikoff wrote that one faced a dilemma in judging whether or nor Rand practiced what she preached.

WHAT HE SAID: “Ladies and gentlemen: in my judgment, Ayn Rand did live by her philosophy. Whatever her errors, she practiced what she preached, both epistemologically and morally. As a result, she did achieve in her life that which she set out to achieve; she achieved it intellectually, artistically, emotionally. But for you to judge these matters yourself and reach an objective view of Ayn Rand, you must be an unusually philosophical kind of person, because you are living in a Kantian, anti-value culture, and you are going to be offered some very opposite accounts of the facts of her life. So you have to know: what is objectivity? What sort of testimony qualifies as evidence in this context? What do YOU believe is possible to a man-or a woman? What kind of soul do YOU think it takes to write Atlas Shrugged? And what do you WANT to see in a historic figure?

“I am not a Kantian. I do not believe that we can know Ayn Rand only as she appeared to somebody or other. But if I were to grant that premise for a split second, if I were to agree that we all construe reality according to our own personal preferences, then I would still draw a fundamental moral distinction between two kinds of preferences: between those of the muckrakers and those of the hero-worshippers. It is the distinction between the people who, confronted by a genius, are seized with a passion to ferret out flaws, real or imaginary, i.e., to find feet of clay so as to justify their own blighted lives-as against the people who, desperate to feel admiration, want to dismiss any flaw as trivial because nothing matters to them in such a context but the sight of the human greatness that inspires and awes them. In this kind of clash, I am sure, you recognize where I stand.”

WHAT HE MEANT: “It’s okay to be a Kantian with respect to Ayn Rand—i.e., to allow your admiration for Ayn Rand to obliterate your knowledge of any flaws she had, even though you know that view of her is very far removed from the reality.”

In his course on “The Art of Thinking,” Peikoff issued the moist shocking statement about the nature of learning - or at least about how he learns -- that I have ever encountered. Learning apparently consists of brain-washing oneself.

WHAT HE SAID: “You have to go through an interim period, after you know the proof of the right ideas, where you say, 'I'm not asking those questions, I am not voicing those doubts; I am turning off that whole context even though I want to pursue it. Even though I feel it is essential to my being clear about this issue. I am resisting this feeling - I look at it as neurotic or diseased or at minimum erroneous. In any event it is a part if my thought which is built in but which I am in process of repudiating.

“Now if you follow that process, ultimately you will automatize, stabilize, institutionalize the right context. And then when you return to the old questions, doubts and problems, you will undoubtedly have the experience that I did, because I went through this experience many times - had all these burning questions, but I said I am going to get Objectivism, to hell with all those questions, I just won't ask them, and it was almost like they were 'banned in Boston' and they couldn't come up. But then of course I was conscientious, I never forgot what they were, I just didn't think about them. When I finally did get Objectivism solid in my mind, I returned to those old questions you know with a certain degree if trepidation that well, now I am ready to take them on, and I found that the great majority seemed puerile to me pointless, silly, needless.”

WHAT HE MEANT: “Evasion is a tool of integration. The best way to handle troublesome questions is to evade them until they seem unworthy of further attention. True philosophcal integration requires temporary evasion of any confusing stuff in the hope that it will eventually go away.”

In an ARI interview, Peikoff was asked:

“What do you like or dislike about being the spokesman of Objectivism?”

WHAT HE SAID: “I like having the power to make definitive statements on philosophical issues.”

WHAT HE MEANT: “Since I am severely lacking in self-esteem, I appointed myself Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir so I could pretend that authority equals clarity.”

When discussing the George Reisman episode, during which Binswanger and Schwartz bullied Peikoff into siding with them and denouncing George as immoral, Peikoff is widely reported to have said:

WHAT HE SAID: “”A rejection of Peter and Harry is a rejection of me, because I support them. A rejection of me is a rejection of Objectivism.”

WHAT HE MEANT: “Paraphrasing Louis XIV: Objectivism, C’est moi!”

You are exactly right, Barbara. My question has already been answered, multiple times. Peikoff definitely is completely nuts!

Posted

It must be nice to be the Sun King of Objectivism. L'etat c'est moi.

George,

You posted this as I was composing my response to Barbara. However, since you beat me to it, you deserve all the credit.

I wouldn't want to be accused of plagiarism.

Posted

I'm glad you are not that acquainted with my philosophy, because if you were, you would know that I haven't nearly said everything yet. I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done.

Dennis,

In 1976, Rand had gone as far as she was going to go with Objectivism. Leonard Peikoff's 1976 lectures (which later became the basis for OPAR) are a pretty reliable indicator of what was there. She had often said that epistemology was of paramount importance but hadn't produced her treatise on Objectivism and was probably no longer working on it.

She knew that her system was not complete; she had acknowledged earlier (in her 1969-1971 workshops) and would admit later (see The Rewrite Squad) that she needed a philosophy of science and hadn't developed one. Some of what's missing from her epistemology (such as an account of skills and their acquisition) she would have insisted she did not need, even though many others would expect it. Philosophy of science is something she openly acknowledged that she needed but still didn't produce.

By picking Leonard Peikoff as her heir, whether she knew that this would be the effect or not, she helped to ensure that no significant elaboration would be taking place after she was gone.

If you go back through the Randian corpus, you can find statements that indicate that Objectivism is closed and statements that indicate that it is open. She was inconsistent on that score.

Peikoff went with the declarations of closure. I see no point in arguing with him on that—I just expect him and his acolytes to adhere to the closed-system model with complete consistency. Let him keep an unfinished system to which no one has been able to add since 1982. If he is consistent, he has not authority to hex the Pentateuch; no matter how badly he wants it, he can't pretend that his latter-day productions, or those of a protégé like David Harriman, are part of Objectivism.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

I think it's a mistake to grant Peikoff any authority over Objectivism. In my opinion, letting him close her system and thus undermine its' greatness would be a grievous error. Did you see this thread:

Peikoff: The Great Pretender

Here is the key source for the thread, which seems to have been reasonably well authenticated:

I came across this passage in Anne Heller’s Ayn Rand and the World She Made:

“She [Rand] kept him [Peikoff] off balance by favoring him as her ‘number one man’ without designating him her official philosophical successor or ‘intellectual heir.’ After Branden, it is unlikely that she would again invest a follower with so much trust and power. Yet he must have wanted the validation that came with the title ‘intellectual heir,’ for he claimed it after her death, even posting it on his Web site, implying to others that she had bestowed it on him in her will (there is no such reference)…” (p. 387)

One comment I made down thread was that, if this turned out to be true, the first thing to go would be Peikoff's authority to close her system. I have seen nothing to indicate that Heller was mistaken.

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now