Why Being Denounced by Objectivists May be a GOOD Thing (2006)

[Roger Bissell]

I thought I would share some thoughts about the intense, personal nature of the condemnations that Objectivists dish out, especially toward certain prominent people. But a warning – there will be a good amount of psychologizing as well as judgementalness in what follows, so if that is not acceptable to you, you are hereby warned: don’t read on!

[Now: re-read the preceding paragraph before reading further.]

OK, who are the two people most roundly denounced by Objectivists, and what do they have in common? My best guess is: Immanuel Kant and, of course, Nathaniel Branden – and they both have been enormously prolific. Whatever errors they made, or might have made (Fred Seddon's book on the history of philosophy in relation to Rand and Objectivism is pretty eye-opening with respect to Kant), you have to admit that they didn't let a lot of grass grow under their feet. In other words, they have been intellectually productive to a high degree. (The only Objectivist or Libertarian I know who has been more prolific than Nathaniel is Tibor Machan, and he is NOT one of NB's critics, certainly not one of the bashers.)

Now, we could try to rest content with the idea that this is all a matter of “movement dynamics.” Every intellectual movement has to have an enemy to demonize, in order to stir up and rally the troops in support of their values (aka the projects of the leaders). It’s just archetypical of movements that they need a devil to hate and to denounce, as an example of what is absolutely evil and wrong. Whether you label Kant as the original “nihilist” or a “moral cannibal,” and whether you label Branden as an “Existentialist” or a “spiritual rapist,” it is clear that the point is: you do not want to be like these guys, but instead you want to do all you can to marginalize and diminish their influence in the world. The health and success of your movement demands no less.

Surely there is some of this factor present in the current animus toward the Brandens and David Kelley et al. But I think it would be a big mistake to say that is all there is to it. Instead, I think it would be instructive to compare Kant and Branden to their Objectivist critics. In particular, I think the most revealing question to ask is: who among them (the critics) has produced more than a tiny fraction of IK's or NB's intellectual output?

Ayn Rand wrote numerous essays, but she couldn’t hold a candle in sheer volume and systematic rigor to Kant. He was wrong as hell, but he cranked out a system and offered it to public scrutiny. Rand by contrast wrote a couple of overviews (of her system in Galt’s speech and of the history of philosophy in “For the New Intellectual”), but nothing on a large scale. Branden’s and Peikoff’s lectures on Objectivism were good first and second attempts to systematize Objectivism, but Rand herself did philosophy more like an author of short stories than a novelist! Yet, she took it upon herself to scathingly denounce Kant as "the most evil man in history." Surely it takes a bit more to support this claim than a swipe here and there in her epistemology and ethics writings, yet that is all she gave us. Even Peikoff, a historian of philosophy, focused more in his “Ominous Parallels” book on the (supposed) consequences of Kant (Nazism) than Kant himself.

Usually, it is pointed out that destruction can be done rather quickly and easily, but that creative, positive work and thought takes much more time and effort. Well, if there is a monumentally evil system out there that is destroying the world, shouldn’t Rand have put all most of her efforts into making sure that a monumentally good system was erected to oppose it? Perhaps it’s still “earlier than we think”…

As for Branden’s critics and enemies among the orthodox Objectivists, you could cite their lecture courses, but in my book, talk is cheap. Who among Branden’s critics has been willing and able to put himself on the line with book after book, putting his ideas out there so that the general public – and not just the devoted few who will shell out money for the lecture courses live or recorded – will be able to pore over and criticize those ideas and find them wanting? Objectivism's "aural tradition" is ideally designed to hide a "multitude of sins." Such as?

What I am suggesting is that "certain people" have an unwillingness to be vulnerable, to take chances, to expose their ideas to the public – and that this fear of being vulnerable, in turn, is due to the fear of being shown to be in error, the fear of being ridiculed, and the fear of losing face among those in one's relatively small, relatively private circle.

"Certain people" thus as a result feel so chagrined by their own relative lack of productivity and confidence at exposing their ideas to the public, that they distract themselves and others from this paucity of output by lashing out at those who have produced. A certain blog-mistress repeatedly begs her readers' indulgence, that she will soon, very soon, turn her focus back to positive, productive philosophy, as soon as she gets her condemnations of David Kelley, the Brandens, &c. off her chest. But her chest apparently keeps piling up with more and more to say about these evil, “anti-Objectivist” people! As a result, we are still waiting for the constructive stuff. And I think we will continue to wait, so long as the Brandens and Kelley refuse to dry up and blow away.

That, I think, is a key factor in all this. When the big Split happened in 1968, two important things were supposed to result, neither of which did.

One, Nathaniel Branden, being utterly parasitic intellectual upon Ayn Rand, don’t you know, was supposed to wither away into intellectual impotence and disappear. Twenty books, many lectures, and a flourishing therapy practice later, he’s still going strong. (He and Tibor are neck and neck in competition for the title of Energizer Bunny of non-orthodox Objectivism )

Two, once the oh-so-pernicious, thought-deadening influence of the evil Brandens was removed from the daily lives of the Loyalist Randian Objectivists, their intellectual energies were supposed to have been liberated, with shelf-fulls of books to result. Yet, over 35 years later, Leonard Peikoff (now 72 years of age) has written two books, Harry Binswanger one, Peter Schwartz one, etc. (I’m not counting the edited volumes of Rand’s journals, letters, marginalia, Q&A, &c, nor the edited anthologies of other people’s essays. It’s all good stuff to have and read, but it’s not what we’re focusing on here.)

What is the net effect of these two factors? The relatively unproductive Randian Loyalists are faced with the spectacle of their (supposed) moral inferior, Nathaniel Branden, producing rings around them and not even breathing hard. This has to be maddening. It is almost as if the benevolent universe has slipped a cog, or something. But what has slipped a cog is their own intellectual self-confidence. They have been free from any evil, controlling, Brandenesque influences, and the evil Brandens have been excommunicated for nearly 40 years now, but the “good guys” continue to be relatively unproductive, and the “bad guys” still refuse to curl up and die. The on-going disconnect between what was supposed to happen and what really has happened – especially in terms of their own productivity – is such a threat to them, that it cannot be tolerated any longer. It must be wiped out. The world must be set to right, and this can only be done by eradicating the source of the “contradiction” – and especially the standing reproach to their own lack of productivity. Hence, the intense, personal nature of the hatred being shoveled at the Brandens and anyone who associates with them. Hence, the ongoing feverish efforts to shovel their and Kelley’s intellectual efforts down the Memory Hole.

Let’s try a thought experiment for a moment. Suppose we analogize between Howard Roark and the Loyalists on the one hand – and Ellsworth Toohey and Nathaniel Branden on the other. Let’s suppose that Branden and his “Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand” is the same kind of monstrous, anti-life stuff as the criticisms of Roark that emanated from Toohey and his crowd. How did Roark deal with Toohey’s antagonism? He ignored it! (“I don’t think of you.”) What did he do, instead? He produced! Is this what we see the Branden bashers doing? No, instead they claim to be incensed with Branden’s supposedly vicious criticisms of Rand, and they have taken it upon themselves to cut him down in any way they can. And not surprisingly, this significantly cuts into their available time for doing positive, constructive philosophy.

Since the parallel to Roark and Toohey doesn’t seem to fit too well in the direction that favors the Loyalists, suppose we reverse the analogy. Branden, like Roark, has been the target of bitter denunciation for decades, but has this distracted and slowed him down one bit? Not at all. He’s as productive as ever, having recently finished a novel and a screen play, on top of the 20 books he’s already written. Not bad for a 75 year old guy! Like Roark and his vision of architecture, Branden has stayed independent and true to his own vision of how psychology should be done. He has stayed open to new ideas and has continued to “think outside the box.”

This has to be all the more maddening to those who must live with the fact that, thanks to the dominant notion that Objectivism is a “closed system,” they may earn the title “Objectivist philosopher,” but none of their philosophizing (except what was approved of by Rand before she died in 1982) will ever be called part of Objectivism! Talk about intellectual emasculation!

Further, any intellectual creativity by an orthodox Objectivist (or by anyone offering it to them for consideration) has to be looked upon with suspicion, if not outright immediate rejection, since Rand is not around to officially endorse it. Instead, orthodox Objectivist intellectuals (of the closed school) are on safe ground only when they rehash (“chew”) Rand’s ideas. And after you’ve heard or read so much of that stuff, well…you want something new, creative, and original! But you won’t get it from the orthodox Objectivists. Or, if you do, it will only be in a lecture. They seem to cower in trepidation at the thought of actually putting original thoughts in print. (How I long for even one of them to prove me wrong!)

So far, I’ve concentrated on the relatively “pretty” side of the phenomenon of Branden bashing. (Oh, really? <shudder>) Now for the ugly side…

In order to gain (or retain) acceptance by the orthodox Objectivists, you have to bend over backwards to prove your acceptability. Especially if you once collaborated with the Brandens and/or TOC, you must furnish more than mere assurances that you have “seen the light.” Instead, as part of your rite of passage, you must “come out” as realizing just how evil and “anti-Objectivist” the Brandens and Kelley and their supporters are. And if you do it well enough, in gratitude the orthodox holders of the institutional moneybags just might grant you some scholarship or fellowship money to support your efforts in positive philosophy – if you can remember what they were supposed to be, or if you can pump up enough enthusiasm for something that just doesn’t generate the kind of adrenalin that Branden-bashing provides. (Scathing denunciation is kind of like Krispy Kreme donuts. It’s not a bit good for you, but it’s so hard to stop once you’ve started. If denunciation were donuts, some Objectivists would weigh 300 pounds!)

But I think there’s more at work here than simply compulsive negativity in the service of becoming accepted by one’s new gang. I think that there is actually a competition for “more moral than thou” among the orthodox, and that it amounts to a drive for status – perhaps even to be King (or Queen) of Objectivism some day. If you are not willing to pronounce moral judgment, you cannot hope to sit on the throne. But if you are willing to be very intense and personal in your denunciations, you just might have a shot at it.

These two motives – attacking those whose productivity is a reproach to your own lack of it, and attacking those whose enemies may reward you with money and/or power – may work separately in people. But there are probably some who operate by both motives. And it is those people who are the greatest ultimate threat to the health and longevity of Objectivism. We can weed out tinges of such motives in our own psyches, as well we should if we catch a whiff of them. But all we can do is “fix” ourselves. We cannot fix these wounded souls who are scrambling for power over Ayn Rand’s legacy, and who are trying to destroy those who “don’t think of them.”

I’ll close this piece by repeating something I learned from Branden recently. He was asked what future he sees in Objectivism. He said that the future is not in rehashing Rand’s ideas, but in creative, original application of what you learn from her to your own field. He said that if you have insights and discoveries to contribute, you must write books and get your ideas – your ideas – out there. Then, what you will have accomplished is not necessarily the furthering of the philosophy of Objectivism, but something far more important: your own fulfillment and happiness as a human being. I agree. If there is to be a future for the human race, that is what active intellectuals must do, not spend their time and energy in struggles for dominance over a miniscule group of people, in defense of a closed system of thought.

[Robert Campbell]

Roger,

I think you are on to something here.

So far, Tara Smith is the most prolific publisher among the orthodox Objectivists who are concentrating on philosophy (as opposed to Rand biography, lit crit, or editing unpublished works). In 10 years, she has produced three books, on the subjects of rights, the foundations of ethics, and the content of ethics.

And I've never heard a story about Tara Smith participating in the denunciation du jour. (Her observance of the Ayn Rand Institute shibboleths shows up only in relative subtleties, most notably her citation patterns.)

Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics lays out the content of the Objectivist ethics clearly, patiently, with a minimum of incendiary language. That's why I think it could have a significant impact on non-Randian academics.

But it is purposely not aimed at making any new points in ethics, even at laying out especially original arguments for the points that it makes. Dr. Smith is rather apologetic in her last chapter, on "some conventional virtues," because she can't rely much on Rand for anything she says there. But the chapter is just as good as any that preceded it.

Every idea of Rand's that Smith is drawing on was there by the early 1970s. Any fleshing out of arguments that she owes to Leonard Peikoff was in place by the middle of that decade.

So why did it take till 2006 for a book like Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics to appear? Leonard Peikoff couldn't write anything like that? Harry Binswanger couldn't?

Apparently not. Nor did they apparently have any students who could, for 25 years.

It does look as though going out to do something new and good is more motivating than setting out to re-present the same old system once again.

Robert

PS. You needn't apologize for speculating about motives, or call it psychologizing. Psychologizing is not an objective notion: it applies only to those inferences about motives that did not get Ayn Rand's approval.

[Roger Bissell]

Thanks for your insights and observations, Robert. They seem spot-on to me.

I had an interesting interchange with Tara Smith and Yaron Brook at a recent ARI event where TS presented her take on the virtue of justice. I'll share that sometime soon, since it relates to the ethics of emergencies, which we have discussed at some length here on OL and elsewhere.

What I want to add here is something I meant to say in the lead post to this topic, but it slipped my mind, because I was in a hurry, trying to do too many things at once. Anyway, here is the passage from my essay that I wanted to illustrate:

Objectivism's "aural tradition" is ideally designed to hide a "multitude of sins." Such as? What I am suggesting is that "certain people" have an unwillingness to be vulnerable, to take chances, to expose their ideas to the public – and that this fear of being vulnerable, in turn, is due to the fear of being shown to be in error, the fear of being ridiculed, and the fear of losing face among those in one's relatively small, relatively private circle.

My prime, choice illustration for this tendency or syndrome comes from a lecture given about 10 years ago by Leonard Peikoff. ("Two Definitions", one of a set of four lectures under the heading "Unity in Epistemology and Ethics.") Peikoff was trying to explain why there was a pitfall in taking his thesis too far, and he blurted out this comment, which I thought was extremely revealing:

...if I ever wrote on this topic, which I never will, because I haven’t thought it out properly; I mean, you know, it’s OK for a lecture, but to write it out, you do have to do that for eternity...

Got that? He's perfectly happy and willing to make thousands of dollars off of people who attend his lectures and/or buy the tapes and CDs to hear him babble on about stuff that he hasn't "thought out properly," and that he's not going to write about...and why? Because that will put him on record publicly as saying something that he may not be able to defend. But again, he's willing to rake the bucks in from people who are willing to listen to him blurt out things that he hasn't "thought out properly" and is not ready to defend in permanent, published form.

Jesus Frickin' H. Christ.

This is the leader of the Objectivist Movement -- the Pope of the West Coast Church of Objectivism -- the Grand Poobah of Rand's Philosophy speaking.

It's a wonder that we've had even TWO books from him in 40 years.

But LP is only the most obvious of a whole raft of people with this approach to doing Objectivist philosophy. Is it any wonder that Rand's philosophy hasn't made any more headway than it has the past 50 years since Atlas Shrugged? And why the people who have done the most to spread word of it are disowned -- hell, TRASHED -- by the powers-that-be?

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Good, good article. I agree fully with your conclusions.

This is what happens when one treats an intellectual activity - any intellectual activity - as a museum instead of a group of living ideas.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Roger; Good comment! In the Objectivist shortly after the split it was reported the Omnious Paralells would be out within a year. It took 13 years before it appeared. I must say that I don't remember much new material from Peikoff's course he gave in 1968. Peikoff has stopped lecturing and will only write but one wonders if it might be too late.

[Jerry Biggers]

Well, it would have been great if Ayn Rand had written a thorough-going analysis of Kant's philosophy. Even a set of annotations and critical commentaries on Kant's Critiques would have been extraordinarily useful. (I am assuming that, at some point in her formal university education, or later, that she actually read Kant, and not just some critical summaries written by other philosophers). If one was out to refute the Kantian system, (and is expecting to be taken seriously by scholars) this is exactly what would be needed, not just brief potshots, no matter how accurate they may be.

Secondly, a detailed presentation of Objectivism was needed, but for some reason, Rand did not complete that project. I am sorry to say that I think the reason that that was not done was not that she was involved in other projects, such as her essays in The Objectivist and later, The Ayn Rand Letter. I think that she came to realize what a monumental (and, perhaps, overwheming) project the systematic explication of Objectivism would be and that it would require answering complex philosophical issues that she had not yet fully addressed (or not addressed at all). If you are taking on issues that have been dealt with at great length by Plato, Aristotle, Acquinas, Spinoza, Hume, Hegel, Kant, and their successors - and planning to not only show the errors of their ways, but to detail the True and Correct Answers, you had better be ready to write some very long and detailed technical philosophical essays. And be prepared to defend them at length.

Many philosophic luminaries had tried to develop full systems, and some wrote literally thousands of pages to detail and defend their theories (e.g., Spencer, Comte). These presentations, impressive as they appeared when first published, have not stood up well over time. Rand may have decided that she did not want to commit the time and effort to such a project. It is reported that, late in her years, when asked about it, she replied, "Oh, can't Leonard do that?"

Regretfully, the answer to that question appears to be, "No, he can't." (OPAR notwithstanding).

And it is now apparent that the ARIan scholars, can't/won't either. They do issue recorded "courses" and lectures at great length, but almost all of these have never appeared in print, even after many years, even decades. And why not? Wouldn't published books advance the cause of Objectivism? Don't they want to show the world how penetrating and devastating Objectivist philosophy can be to the prevailing orthodoxies?? Don't they want to see the fear, awe, and admiration of their colleagues as their newly-published treatises wreak intellectual devastation of intrinsicist and subjectivist shibboleths? The answers to this puzzling dearth of published ARI Objectivist scholarship are most likely: 1) that they do not want to do the work necessary to transform their lectures into a presentable book (such as grammatical corrections, attributing quotes from other authors, footnoting, etc.). 2) you can get away with alot more intellectual sloppiness, exaggerations, misattributions, and other "cheap shots" when you are "preaching to the choir." Not only is the audience less critical, they also do not have the time to "chew" over what was just said when they are feverishly taking notes on what they "know" is already revealed truth. 3) they fear that their ARI courses will not stand up to the critical scrutiny of their academic peers. Not because it is Objectivism, but because it is poorly documented Objectivism and fails other tests for scholarship (see point 2, above).

So, alas, we may never see these ARI "courses" make their way to the beleagured Philosophy shelves of your local Barnes & Noble or Borders. And, you know, maybe that's just as well.

[Roger Bissell]

Jeez, Jerry, you write your ass off, man! Great post!

In addition to feeling very excited at your hard-hitting and accurate analysis, I also found myself feeling a definite sense of sadness -- both at what could have been and wasn't, and at what could but probably will not be.

This doesn't mean that there won't be more Objectivist books written, especially by the ARI faction. I fully expect to see, before long, the book on consciousness that Harry Binswanger is reportedly working on. I also expect to see a book on philosophy of physics by David Harriman (perhaps co-authored by Leonard Peikoff), and a book by Peikoff on his "DIM Hypothesis." (I think that a more important book than any of these would be one by Peikoff compactly presenting his views on induction that he developed through two recent series of lectures. Perhaps this, too, is forthcoming.)

But even if these books do appear in the next several years, two things bother me about them. One, it has been so damned long for so little to have appeared from the ARI contingent -- and two, most of it will be "chewing," rather than any new, original, substantive philosophizing.

This latter point is important. Rand enjoined us to avoid the pitfall of "thinking inside the square." (Nowadays, this is called "thinking inside the box.") Yet, what is all this "chewing," if not exactly what she warned against? The timidity at taking risks and exploring new ideas is depressingly apparent.

The irony is that for all the care that Peikoff et al take for their published work to be consistent with Objectivism, none of their work actually is Objectivism, if the "closed system" criterion is to be taken seriously. Everything written after Rand died is, at most, inspired by or "in the tradition of" Rand's philosophy, as she herself defined it.

That being so, why not take some chances and go out on a limb? What is the worst that can happen? If you're speaking for yourself, as someone inspired and taught by Rand, even if you're a self-proclaimed Objectivist philosopher, not disagreeing with a single word Rand wrote on philosophy, your own writings are not Objectivism, so who cares if you make a mistake here or there?

The answer is obvious. It is more important to cling to one's precarious little perch in the ARI hierarchy than to bravely go where no man has gone before. (I came up with that phrase myself. :-)

Gene Roddenberry

[Bidinotto]

Just a word about the proper use of the term "psychologizing."

Rand's definition: "Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence."

Several things stand out here. First, note that Rand says "specific individuals." That is not what Roger has done here. Generalizations about a group or category of people who manifest certain behavioral traits are not pretended diagnoses of "specific individuals." Second, Roger didn't either condemn or exonerate "specific individuals" for their psychological problems; he cited actual bad behaviors, which ARE subject to moral judgment, then simply offered hypotheses about a few possible psychological sources for such behaviors -- which is a very different thing. Third, Roger didn't offer even these generalized psychological speculations in the absence of "factual evidence": quite the contrary.

It would have been psychologizing had he said, "Ms. X denounces people at the drop of a hat; clearly, she is motivated by some deep-seated guilt complex; and a person so motivated is to be condemned." He didn't do that. He said, in effect: "What kinds of things could possibly account for the injustices and excesses we are witnessing, repeatedly, coming from a group of people? Here are a couple of possibilities; there may be others, but these seem plausible to me."

Rand herself did exactly these things, frequently. Consider her famous dissections of the psychology of mystics in Galt's Speech -- or Francisco's soliloquy on the psychology of sex -- or her discussion of the duty-bound personality in "Causality Vs. Duty." Etc. In none of these cases did Rand specify the names of particular individuals who allegedly manifested such psychologies; and in none of them did she condemn the individual for his inner psychology. All of them are psychological generalizations drawn from empirical observation, but none pretend to be a diagnosis -- let alone a condemnation -- of any given individual.

So in suggesting that his post amounts to psychologizing, I think Roger is being too tough on himself. I nowhere see in his post that we should condemn certain people because of their psychologies. I see him saying that we should repudiate them for their unconscionable ACTIONS -- but also try to fathom why the hell they would so abuse a philosophy of rational individualism.

I found his observations and speculations valuable, and generally consonant with my own. Why valuable? Because the potential value of these speculative exercises for any of us is chiefly self-awareness: they sensitize us to the kinds of motivations that could cause us to behave badly, too. And forewarned is fore-armed.

[Robert Campbell]

Robert B,

This is an issue that Ellen Stuttle and I, among others, discussed a few months ago, partly here and partly on SOLOP.

Rand's definition: "Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence."

Here are several problems with the definition:

(1) Rand appeared much more strongly opposed to the use of psychological explanations to excuse individuals than the use of psychological explanations to condemn them.

(2) Rand never specified what constitutes adequate evidence for concluding that a person has a particular psychological problem--indeed, what constitutes adequate evidence that a person acted from a particular motive.

(3) Virtually the entire remainder of the article in which Rand presented this definition makes claims that appear to violate her own prohibition against "psychologizing," as defined above.

What's more, her psychological assessment of, say, mystics as a class could be challenged on account of insufficient evidence for the state of mind or the motives that she attributes to them.

I've concluded that "psychologizing," as employed by Rand and others following in her wake, is such a confused and loaded notion that it's best rejected as an anti-concept.

Robert C

[Robert Campbell]

Roger,

In a post that may have been lost when the site was hacked, I quoted a wise colleague in psychology, who says, "You publish, and you take your lumps."

When you put your views in print, you inevitably run the risk that other smart people will notice how they have implications that you were unaware of. Perhaps implications that you really didn't intend, or that weaken your case. But if you don't publish, what are your chances of noticing all such implications all by yourself?

I've made one decision recently.

For years, I made excuses for Leonard Peikoff. Someone would criticize The Ominous Parallels, or OPAR, and I'd say, "His lectures on Issue X are so much better." I even did this after becoming active in IOS. When I read OPAR, in 1999, I made lots of critical notes in the margins, but decided not to write any extended analysis of it, because... his lectures were so much better.

Well, Dr. Peikoff's lectures often are better. Even the ARIans tacitly concede this, when they extol Understanding Objectivism as the be-all and the end-all.

But TOP and OPAR are what he chose to publish. They're what he thinks he adequately thought through.

All Peikoff scholarship and Peikoff criticism should proceed on the same assumption. If he presents a weak case in OPAR, or goes over the top, we all need to quit excusing it on the grounds that he did a better job elsewhere. Our readership has little or no access to elsewhere, and Dr. Peikoff apparently isn't sufficiently confident in the stuff he did there to afford them access to it.

Robert Campbell

[william.scherk]

[ . . . ]

They [ARI scholars] do issue recorded "courses" and lectures at great length, but almost all of these have never appeared in print, even after many years, even decades. And why not?

[ . . . ]

The answers to this puzzling dearth of published ARI Objectivist scholarship are most likely: 1) that they do not want to do the work necessary to transform their lectures into a presentable book (such as grammatical corrections, attributing quotes from other authors, footnoting, etc.). 2) you can get away with alot more intellectual sloppiness, exaggerations, misattributions, and other "cheap shots" when you are "preaching to the choir." Not only is the audience less critical, they also do not have the time to "chew" over what was just said when they are feverishly taking notes on what they "know" is already revealed truth. 3) they fear that their ARI courses will not stand up to the critical scrutiny of their academic peers.

I'd not wanted to reveal my staggering ignorance, but Jerry has asked and answered a question that has been nagging my rear brain for a while: why haven't the aural materials been made into articles, collections and books?

I had thought it was most likely a kind of tradition, growing out of the vinyl recordings made at the time of NBI. At the time, if not revolutionary or fresh, the recording and distribution of lectures passed on the value of those lectures widely, in a form that reflected the original.

These days, it just seems a bit odd that such a wealth of material is only available on tape or CD. I don't quite get it. If the Estate of Ayn Rand receives the royalties for the half-million Rand books sold each year, then what happens to that money? Where is it? What is it doing?

I imagine that the idea of putting the best of the thousands of hours of material into printed/book form has been discussed by the ARI . . . has there ever been some discussion that OLers are familiar with?

Hoping someone can give a quote from an ARI-inflected type on this issue.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

WSS,

I have asked a part of this question of several people (starting with Barbara).

As I understand it, ARI is supported by private donations, not the copyrights from Rand's works. I believe ARI receives some income as a normal book retailer for what it sells, but this has nothing to do with copyrights.

Apparently the money from Rand's works goes into the pocket of her heir, Peikoff, for his own private use. And that is what he does with it.

Of course, there is nothing wrong at all with that aspect. It's his property. He can do with it what he will.

I do not know the financial arrangements for the taped courses. I imagine the gross of the money goes to the author/lecturer and a sales markup goes to ARI.

All that is proper. What is not proper is making money for years off of products touted by the acolytes as better than the books, but considered by the authors as not as good as the books - and not writing the books. Apparently a flawed product is being sold. That's their choice and right. But is is kind of tacky.

Here is a timeline on the publication of The Ominous Parallels that had not occurred to me until I put together the schism timeline in the David Kelley Corner. Peikoff had written revisions to this book for years and years under the strict guidance of Ayn Rand. She died in March 1982. The book finally came out in May 1982. There was an advance review published in The Intellectual Activist in April 1982.

Hmmmmmmm...

I wonder if she had lived, if the book would not have been delayed even longer.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

I don't know what contractual agreements may. or may not, have been made between the ARI lecturers and their audio publisher (originally, Second Renaissance Books, which I believe was owned by Peter Schwartz, and then, the ARI Ayn Rand Bookstore). It may be that audio publisher has veto power over the issuance of any printed material based on the recorded lectures. But I don't think that is the case. For example, it appears to me that some of the materials originally in Tara Smith's ARI audio lectures later made it into her last two books.

I am sure that the ARIans must have been asked many times, "When is this stuff going to be in print?" I don't know what answers are given, but I strongly doubt that the ARI reply to these inquiries has ever been, "NEVER!" More likely, the responses are along the lines of: "Well, we're working on it," "Lectures have to be re-worked before they are suitable for printing," or "You know, people just love listening to tapes!"

For college students attempting to defend some aspect or application of Objectivism to his professors or to other students, this must pose some rather awkward responses (e.g., "Well, Leonard Peikoff had a particularly interesting answer to the philosophical problem you just brought up. No, it's not his books, but you can find it in his recorded tape set, "Understanding Objectivism," Tape 17, Side B, about 23 minutes in. Or maybe it was Tapes 18 or 19...Anyway, you can find his answer for yourself by purchasing the entire set for only $300 from ARI. It's only 27 hours long. They accept Visa or MasterCard.)"

So, what is the primary reason that these lecture courses never reach the printed format? I am betting that the ARIans are correct on at least one key issue: their courses are not ready to be published. The authors of these lectures probably know something here that we don't know. The materials are not ready to face the critical scrutiny that awaits the printed word. And if the authors do not feel that their courses are worthy of print, then they are probably correct. Let's take them at their word. Or lack of it.

[Philip Coates]

On the concept and practice of "psychologizing":

From several posts ago, I agree with Robert Bidinotto that it is more legitimate to talk about psychological tendencies or motives among a whole group than to speculate on the psychology of a specific individual at a distance. And I agree with Robert Campbell that even in the case of a group or a tendency in a group (e.g., mystics), one still has to offer good evidence.

I would add a couple more points:

1. Factual: I am sometimes less sanguine than Robert B that Rand always (or even most of the time) had sufficient evidence to make negative psychological or moral diagnoses of the majority of the people in "anti-reason" groups she condemned. (To discuss this in detail would require discussing the groups one at at time - environmentalists, mystics, etc.)

2. A Broader Definition: I disagree with Robert C that psychologizing is an invalid or contradictory or not useful concept. If one changes Rand's definition (i) from the negative one of merely excusing people from moral judgement -and- (ii) includes groups as well as individuals -and- (iii) extends it to the contents of the minds of others more generally, you would get Coates's definition:

"Psychologizing is the error of presuming a false certainty about something one does not have direct access to: the internal processes and content of another person's mind (as opposed to their manifest behavior) of either individuals or whole groups, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence and in ignorance or dismissal of alternative explanations."

This is actually consonant with things Rand said in other contexts, for example in Robert B's very useful researching of her exchange with Raymond Newman. And it doesn't mean you can never know the psychology of another person. Just that, for example (as Rand also said elsewhere and I think it was Robert who pointed this out as well), there can often be many kinds of possible motivations for the same mistaken idea or approach. And you'd have to rule out the alternative explanations.

And we very much need a single word for what one could colloquially call: the fallacy or common mistake of "mind reading". Psychologizing = Mind reading is okay for the popular or "shorthand" definition, to call up, to distinguish the concept quickly. But we still need a more technical or precise or scientific definition.

[Philip Coates]

Concretizing my definition:

If someone does a single good action and you effusively praise their virtuous psychoepistemology that would be an example of psychologizing under my definition, not under Rand's. Similarly if you broadly condemn environmentalists or Democrats as evaders (her definition only included individuals).

[Dragonfly]

For college students attempting to defend some aspect or application of Objectivism to his professors or to other students, this must pose some rather awkward responses (e.g., "Well, Leonard Peikoff had a particularly interesting answer to the philosophical problem you just brought up. No, it's not his books, but you can find it in his recorded tape set, "Understanding Objectivism," Tape 17, Side B, about 23 minutes in. Or maybe it was Tapes 18 or 19...Anyway, you can find his answer for yourself by purchasing the entire set for only $300 from ARI. It's only 27 hours long. They accept Visa or MasterCard.)"

Allegedly putting the real knowledge and information in such expensive tape recordings is typically sectarian behavior. People who are willing to spend some 300 bucks to listen for hours to that horrible voice of Peikoff will already be fairly committed to accept uncritically Objectivism, and they'll probably also be less inclined to admit afterwards that this was probably not such a good investment. On the other hand, a more critical and skeptical outsider will think twice before he spends so much money on such a dubious product, especially when he has seen how bad Peikoff's arguments can be in his written texts like The Ominous Parallels and The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy. The method reminds me of the courses of Scientology (although these are still much more expensive, ARI can still learn a thing or two from them!).

Peikoff is playing here the role of theologian or scribe to explain the Holy Writ. It is suggested that Rand's own writings are not sufficient to understand her philosophy, and that you need an expert guide to initiate the novice into its mysteries. Well, I don't see why that would be necessary. The total amount of Rand's writings, in particular the non-fiction, is fairly small and can be studied in a rather short time, it isn't really that difficult. Of course her writings may raise a lot of questions, especially as they are far from a consistent and logical whole as is often suggested. But intelligent people don't need Peikoff to unravel her arguments and to answer those questions, unless their only motivation is to get guidance how to avoid nagging doubts and to accept Objectivism lock, stock and barrel. So the whole exercise is meant to avoid any open discussions and to preserve a closed system. This is typically cultish behavior, no matter how much lip service is paid to "rational arguments".

[Robert Campbell]

Dragonfly,

In my undergraduate days I once tried the maneuver that Jerry Biggers describes. I told Robert Nozick that Leonard Peikoff was way more explicit about the foundations of the Objectivist ethics in one of his lectures than Ayn Rand had been in print.

Dr. Nozick's rejoinder is still valid: "Peikoff needs to get his stuff out of the oral tradition."

I don't recall Peikoff's voice sounding horrible on tape. But then I may be the wrong person to ask--I listen to old records of bluesmen with what my wife calls "sore throat voices."

I'd be careful with the comparisons to Scientology. The Ayn Rand Institute has yet to adopt the equivalent of "auditing" the acolytes with "E-meters." Don't encourage them...

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

LOLOLOLOLOL...

Would an "E-Meter" be an evasion meter?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Don’t be too hard on grating voices. I’m a Bob Dylan fan and have tickets for his November appearance in Toronto. I wish he was singing harmony with Peikoff. That would be surreal.

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; The quote from Nozick is brillant. Thank You. I agree with Michael about the E-meters. Murray Rothbard once argued that Objectivist psychoteraphy was the equilivant of an E-meter.

[william.scherk]

For college students attempting to defend some aspect or application of Objectivism to his professors or to other students, this must pose some rather awkward responses (e.g., "Well, Leonard Peikoff had a particularly interesting answer to the philosophical problem you just brought up. No, it's not his books, but you can find it in his recorded tape set, "Understanding Objectivism," Tape 17, Side B, about 23 minutes in.

Nice one, Jerry . . .

Still on this topic, and granting the few answers given here already, I understand why the courses from yesteryear shall be preserved and distributed in this manner . . . but does anyone think they may change their delivery systems? -- once the hoped-for Objectivist Academic Center accreditation arrives (this was, I thought, the best use of ARI money by far, see "Is the OAC accredited?" at aynrand.org )? Will it soon be time for ARI to produce more texts?

On the matter of money and budgets, La Mertz has lately bragged that ARI's budget will soon be ten million big ones a year, up from six million right now. That's pretty good, I'd say. Is all the moolah coming in from the donations of benevolent Randites?

As for Jerry's observation that ARI's oral tradition is awkward, surely this is acknowledged in the ruptious bowels of the Institute? -- what are their long-term plans? It seems that the press attached to ARI is quite weak these days, few titles, few projects.

I like the idea of a fully accredited OAC, but can't see how this will happen without a textual rendering of its corpus. Will the present LP and CD/Internet Pay Per View model work as weill for the future fully-accredited University of Ayn Rand?

[Jerry Biggers]

Sorry, I cannot share enthusiasm over the thought of accreditation of OAC or any version of an "Ayn Rand University." Although the idea initially sounds tempting, I am afraid that, in practice, any such academic institution run or controlled by the ARI crowd would be disastrous. This would not be an advance toward the cultural acceptance of Objectivism. Instead, it would be a setback.

Based on past and current ARI policies, try to imagine if you can what kind of courses, instructors, and textbooks would be selected (Note: I do not recommend creating this mental fantasy before going to bed!). What you would probably end up with would not be a real academic institution that encourages the free expression and discussion of ideas. For example, I cannot imagine ARI-approved instructors being allowed (or even wanting) to teach courses that would use and discuss texts by Mises, Rothbard, Nozick, the Brandens, or other libertarians, conservatives or liberals. Instead, the institutionalizing of ARI policies would more closely resemble some of the extreme fundamentalist bible colleges, or other religio-ideological institutions, such as Maharishi International University.

And, of course, utilizing the ARI audio-only courses would be awkward and cumbersome, if not completely unworkable. At minimum, their use would require that printed transcripts be made available, which they have been unwilling to do in the past. Such transcripts would probably also have severe restrictions imposed on the students reading them, regarding their distribution. And since such restrictions would not prove to be practical or workable, it is unlikely that transcripts of the unpublished ARI lectures would even be allowed at all.

Finally, on another issue: it is not important whether ARI has a budget over eight million. What is more important is what they are doing with it. Sponsoring Ayn Rand essay contests and providing thousands of free copies of her books to the high schools may be a worthwhile project (although giving the books away as "free" may not promote the idea that their content is very valuable as an intellectual experience).

Other ARI projects, such as carpet-bombing editorial desks with letters and Op-Ed pieces may also have limited appeal. The great majority of these ARI-generated pieces seem to be primarily concerned with supporting Israel and demanding military action against Iran. These may be worthy goals, but the sheer volume of these fusillades on these issues makes ARI almost appear as if it is a lobbying agent of the Israeli government, rather than an organization whose main goal was to promote Ayn Rand's philosophy.

[Kat]

Very well stated, Jerry. Thank you.

Kat

[Ellen Stuttle]

Based on past and current ARI policies, try to imagine if you can what kind of courses, instructors, and textbooks would be selected (Note: I do not recommend creating this mental fantasy before going to bed!). What you would probably end up with would not be a real academic institution [...]. Instead, the institutionalizing of ARI policies would more closely resemble some of the extreme fundamentalist bible colleges, or other religio-ideological institutions, such as Maharishi International University.

I think they'd be more like the Jesuits in style. But I agree in finding the thought of "any version of an 'Ayn Rand University'" nightmarish.

Ellen

__

[Chris Grieb]

I agree with all the comments above. Let me also add that when in the early days the idea was of Objectivists teaching at universities and colleges. Harry Binswanger I think in an issue of IREC Review talked about asingle university becoming the center. The example he used was Oxford for the Logical Posivists. This was a regular university. Not something like the Graduate Center.