"Anthemgate" Tracinski weighs in on McCaskey


kiaer.ts

Recommended Posts

I'm already unable to follow the link to Chip Joyce's Facebook page.

Blocked... in close to record time.

Robert Campbell

I blocked you too, Robert--just for the fun of it. Then I deleted my account getting you two ways.

--Brant

bs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The battle for liberty is unending. One can't put one's life and interests on indefinite hold until it's "safe" to resume them.

That is of course not what I meant and is a silly interpretation. If I take your interpretation literally we all starve to death.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to watch how the ARIans and their fellow-travelers react to Tracinski's article. My guess is that they will continue to go down the path well-trodden made by so many other failed ideological movements: attempt to close ranks to protect Leonard by denying that he has made any mistakes in his role of Defender of the Faith. In other words, they will just compound Peikoff's errors, throwing gas on the fire, and not realizing that the house that is burning down is their own.

What they won't do, of course, is give any credance to any of the points made by McCaskey or Tracinski; blame them instead, and hope it will all just blow over. It sort of reminds me of Jim Taggart's hysterical reaction after hearing Galt's speech, "We dont have to believe it! Nobody has ever said it before! We don't have to believe it!"

Another effect of all this, is that academics will tend to concentrate their attention on the Objectivist Movement's self-destructive schisms as its most important feature, and discount or ignore any positive contribution that Rand may have made in philosophy. So, 100 years from now, wil Rand be viewed as a major philosopher? Or will she be consigned to oblivion, in much the way that Herbert Spencer was?

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't say that we shouldn't debate and expand on physics, art, or epistemology, but liberty is the fundamental that makes these things possible. Observe the spectacle that ARI is putting on for us: years and years of effort writing a controversial book on physics, countless Objectivists worried about the future of the movement, spending countless hours debating various sides of a book on physics, while just outside the door, Obama is starting push legislation to censor and regulate the one last realm where we almost have complete liberty of expression, the Internet."

The post started out well, but I get lost here. The poster suggests that something is wrong with "writing a controversial book on physics" or "debating...a book on physics [and induction]" in light of the fact that Obama is out there wreaking his havoc (which he wasn't, presumably, when the book was started), but "I don't say that we shouldn't debate and expand on physics, art, or epistemology...."?

Could you please say exactly who you are quoting here, or provide a link, Starbuckle? I assume that quote must have been from that Chip Chalmers guy's thread? These people who identify Objectivism with politics, politics, mere politics and more politics are as depressing as Peikoff himself. Rand would be rolling over in her grave to hear such narrowminded idiocy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said "The battle for liberty is unending. One can't put one's life and interests on indefinite hold until it's 'safe' to resume them." Shayne said: "That is of course not what I meant and is a silly interpretation. If I take your interpretation literally we all starve to death."

I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying. The passage I responded to incorporated many separate claims, so I'll pick one that seemed to me wrongheaded as stated. What did you mean when you decried "years and years of effort writing a controversial book on physics," for example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said "The battle for liberty is unending. One can't put one's life and interests on indefinite hold until it's 'safe' to resume them." Shayne said: "That is of course not what I meant and is a silly interpretation. If I take your interpretation literally we all starve to death."

I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying. The passage I responded to incorporated many separate claims, so I'll pick one that seemed to me wrongheaded as stated. What did you mean when you decried "years and years of effort writing a controversial book on physics," for example?

I certainly don't mean that somebody shouldn't completely immerse themselves in physics. But this is ARI we're talking about. ARI's main purpose is to foster Rand's ideas in the culture. This book is an ARI-funded work, Harriman credits them for supporting him for something like 10 years using ARI donor money to do so (he does not list the precise extent of support). I don't think that fits with their charter and I think the book itself is a waste. Even if it weren't a waste, it's a pet interest of Peikoff/Harriman and has nothing to do with fostering Rand's ideas, on the contrary, if anything the book is a detriment because of this McCaskey fiasco.

If Harriman/Peikoff personally love the subject, then more power to them, they should go ahead and enjoy themselves. But that isn't what they did. They used ARI funds, and worse, they in some manner use Rand's name and authority to back the book, and they've undermined ARI's mission.

On a related issue, I am personally disappointed that there are no good options for liberty movements out there. I would like to donate to an organization that actually specializes in furthering reason and liberty and does it well and is something I can endorse. If ideas really have power, then why can't we have strong enough political ideas that we can get something big enough moving that we can at least have some hope in the future direction of our governments? I don't blame a physicist who has zero interest in politics, there's nothing really to get behind.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shayne wrote: "If Harriman/Peikoff personally love the subject, then more power to them, they should go ahead and enjoy themselves. But that isn't what they did. They used ARI funds, and worse, they in some manner use Rand's name and authority to back the book, and they've undermined ARI's mission."

I would say that the denouement ended up undermining the mission, or ARI's characteristic modus operandi ended up undermining its mission (if we assume that the authoritarian m.o. is not an inextirpable ingredient of the mission). But I don't know how it can be argued that the project per se of exploring the implications of Rand's (or Rand-influenced) epistemology for scientific work can be regarded as inconsistent with the mission. The worthiness of pursuing such a project for those interested in the spread, development and extension of Rand's ideas is a separate question from that of whether the book achieves its goals.

ARI never constituted or represented itself as a narrowly political organization, just as Rand never focused solely on political questions but was concerned to deal with more fundamental philosophical questions. I doubt that anybody contributing major funds to ARI is upset that Peikoff pursued an epistemological inquiry through the collaboration on a book about how scientific work has been conducted, just as I doubt that subscribers to The Objectivist were confounded when suddenly confronted with a lengthy series of articles elaborating Rand's understanding of how valid concepts are formulated. ARI donors certainly should be VERY concerned over the lunatic, goonish way Peikoff has responded to civil criticism of the book. In your post you seem to be suggesting that any funded project involving a sustained non-political focus, not merely any irrationally dogmatic non-political focus, is wasteful on ARI's part, or destructively distracting from necessary political efforts to defend against attacks on liberty.

Edited by Starbuckle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your post you seem to be suggesting that any non-political focus, not merely any irrationally dogmatic non-political focus, is wasteful on ARI's part, or destructively distracting from necessary political efforts to defend against attacks on liberty.

To clarify let me just state my position here.

My position is that ARI should stop trying to be any kind of thing other than a museum and authentic source of Rand's positions, rather than a distorter or interpreter of her positions. They have no business telling us what they think Rand thought or would have thought, or using her as a source of authority to back their own personal and deranged political-cultural (or epistemological/scientific) positions. They have less right to speak for her, or to appear to speak for her, than I do. And I say less right because *I* haven't gone around misrepresenting Rand's viewpoints for my own personal benefit. They are abusing her name and her works when they go a hair's breadth from literally quoting her.

Further I suggest that something is wrong with the fact that rational individualists have not been able to muster an organized intellectual-political force against Statism. We think we're smarter than the statists but evidently, we're not. They're smart enough to organize. We just argue.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good observation Shayne:

They're smart enough to organize. We just argue

This is one of the fundamental problems that was raised by Goddess of the Market.

You[collective you] have to step out of the philosophical ivory tower and get your hands dirty in the harsh and difficult world of street politics.

Rand specifically enjoyed coming out on stage at the end of a film in a movie theater and publicly debate with the common man, who she found out, was smarter than the elite educator!

Additionally, she was a propagandist and a pamphleteer.

How many Objectivists do you know who get up at four A.M. on election day and man a poll, or go door to door in their election district, their neighborhood and are politically active?

How many go to their local town counsel meeting, or their local school board?

You have to get your hands dirty to organize.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further I suggest that something is wrong with the fact that rational individualists have not been able to muster an organized intellectual-political force against Statism. We think we're smarter than the statists but evidently, we're not. They're smart enough to organize. We just argue.

Wouldn't an "individualist organization" be an oxymoron?

Individualism--Not Objectivism

Regi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not an oxymoron to join together in common cause. That kind of silliness just lets the statists run all over you.

There's the answer to your wonder--"Further I suggest that something is wrong with the fact that rational individualists have not been able to muster an organized intellectual-political force against Statism."

You'r looking for a collectivist solution to collectivism, which is what statism is. Collectivism will always only result in that which cancels individualism. Lots of luck with your belief--hope the disillusionment will not be too painful. If you were a true individualist you would not need to join with anyone else, you would throw off the statist oppression yourself. If you did that, you might find there are others who have also done that, and they join with each other for their mutual benefit--not to save each other from statism. They've aleady done that.

when you are ready for freedom, you will find you need no one else's approval, agreement, or help--ever.

Regi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not an oxymoron to join together in common cause. That kind of silliness just lets the statists run all over you.

There's the answer to your wonder--"Further I suggest that something is wrong with the fact that rational individualists have not been able to muster an organized intellectual-political force against Statism."

You'r looking for a collectivist solution to collectivism, which is what statism is. Collectivism will always only result in that which cancels individualism. Lots of luck with your belief--hope the disillusionment will not be too painful. If you were a true individualist you would not need to join with anyone else, you would throw off the statist oppression yourself. If you did that, you might find there are others who have also done that, and they join with each other for their mutual benefit--not to save each other from statism. They've aleady done that.

when you are ready for freedom, you will find you need no one else's approval, agreement, or help--ever.

Regi

Are you an anarchist? Anarcho-capitalist?

--Shayne

Wishes he could just "throw off the statist oppression."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you have to do is shrug.

Seems like not too far away from: All you have to do is die. It's a very Buddhist viewpoint. Might be a fine plot device, but there's no Galt's Gulch waiting for us in the real world, and if we tried to create one -- well just look what happened at Ruby Ridge or Waco (the Feds would view us in the same light regardless of the difference in philosophy).

I really don't think Rand intended that plot device as a strategy for dealing with tyranny.

Shayne

Shayne:

First of all, you do not know that there is no Galt's Gulch, do you?

If you remember, at first it was only for one month a year, correct?

Secondly, I could be on strike right in front of you, couldn't I?

Finally, all I would have to do is hold down my abilities and stay under the Federal Poverty Guidelines, depriving the State of my productive labor, except for sales taxes and other use taxes, correct?

Just shrug, like I said.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think Rand intended that plot device as a strategy for dealing with tyranny.

Yes she did.

Atlas Shrugged: A Model for Individualist Revolution

It is the only possible way to deal with tryanny, but most do not have the courage to do it.

Regi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shayne:

First of all, you do not know that there is no Galt's Gulch, do you?

If you remember, at first it was only for one month a year, correct?

Secondly, I could be on strike right in front of you, couldn't I?

Finally, all I would have to do is hold down my abilities and stay under the Federal Poverty Guidelines, depriving the State of my productive labor, except for sales taxes and other use taxes, correct?

Just shrug, like I said.

Adam

In the realm of fiction, Galt is right. In the real world, I think Dagny has it right. You stay and you fight. What you fight for is the question.

Yes you're right, you can shrug in the manner you're saying, but all it leads to is leaving the whole world to them to do with as they please. It does not lead to a new vision for mankind. And if you were able to cause collapse by shrugging, all that would lead to is Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. Statists are quite happy with letting the peasants starve, particularly when it also means that they'll be too dumb to question anything.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shayne wrote: "If Harriman/Peikoff personally love the subject, then more power to them, they should go ahead and enjoy themselves. But that isn't what they did. They used ARI funds, and worse, they in some manner use Rand's name and authority to back the book, and they've undermined ARI's mission."

I would say that the denouement ended up undermining the mission, or ARI's characteristic modus operandi ended up undermining its mission (if we assume that the authoritarian m.o. is not an inextirpable ingredient of the mission). But I don't know how it can be argued that the project per se of exploring the implications of Rand's (or Rand-influenced) epistemology for scientific work can be regarded as inconsistent with the mission. The worthiness of pursuing such a project for those interested in the spread, development and extension of Rand's ideas is a separate question from that of whether the book achieves its goals.

ARI never constituted or represented itself as a narrowly political organization, just as Rand never focused solely on political questions but was concerned to deal with more fundamental philosophical questions. I doubt that anybody contributing major funds to ARI is upset that Peikoff pursued an epistemological inquiry through the collaboration on a book about how scientific work has been conducted, just as I doubt that subscribers to The Objectivist were confounded when suddenly confronted with a lengthy series of articles elaborating Rand's understanding of how valid concepts are formulated. ARI donors certainly should be VERY concerned over the lunatic, goonish way Peikoff has responded to civil criticism of the book. In your post you seem to be suggesting that any funded project involving a sustained non-political focus, not merely any irrationally dogmatic non-political focus, is wasteful on ARI's part, or destructively distracting from necessary political efforts to defend against attacks on liberty.

Fostering scholarly expansion of Objectivism, along the lines of providing grants to foster such works as David Kelley's Evidence of the Senses, would be a perfectly legitimate function of the Ayn Rand Institute or a similar institution. The failure of the ARI has been moral and intellectual. Unfortunately, the real intellectuals have been driven out of the fold by the moral midgets. This need not have been the case, although that is the way it has turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the realm of fiction, Galt is right. In the real world, I think Dagny has it right. You stay and you fight. What you fight for is the question.

Yes you're right, you can shrug in the manner you're saying, but all it leads to is leaving the whole world to them to do with as they please. It does not lead to a new vision for mankind. And if you were able to cause collapse by shrugging, all that would lead to is Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. Statists are quite happy with letting the peasants starve, particularly when it also means that they'll be too dumb to question anything.

Shayne

Besides Selene, you didn't shrug, right? You seem active in the Tea Party and with equal parenting rights. That's not shrugging that's reforming. You're still working in society and trying to shift it toward the good.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did read Atlas, correct?

You do see the rapidly similar patterns to today, correct?

If you remember, all of Europe, South America and one would assume Asia had collapsed into a statist cesspool.

You see the world in rigid dichotomies, that, my friend, is an observation, not a criticism. It is not either fascism or communism that the world will decay into. It will slowly ease into a paralysis of parasitic complacency wherein the few producers left will struggle until they are brought down.

We are rapidly approaching that fatal fifty percent [50%] tipping point as we speak.

Believe me, I do not want to admit it, but you know it is building rapidly.

Remember, they can chain your body, but never your mind.

And I am a cynic, which is a humanist with experience.

I am also an optimist because I am free and they can kill me, but they can't eat me, that's illegal [<just an old joke].

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the realm of fiction, Galt is right. In the real world, I think Dagny has it right. You stay and you fight. What you fight for is the question.

Yes you're right, you can shrug in the manner you're saying, but all it leads to is leaving the whole world to them to do with as they please. It does not lead to a new vision for mankind. And if you were able to cause collapse by shrugging, all that would lead to is Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. Statists are quite happy with letting the peasants starve, particularly when it also means that they'll be too dumb to question anything.

Shayne

Besides Selene, you didn't shrug, right? You seem active in the Tea Party and with equal parenting rights. That's not shrugging that's reforming. You're still working in society and trying to shift it toward the good.

Shayne

Yes as to being active in attempting to reform the system. However, I produce nothing that they can tax or take from me. This is not an easy path to take and I do not suggest it for anyone who is raising a family. Mine are raised and out and about in the world with trust funds. The state gets as little as possible from me. I refuse to fund the production of my own chains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I eagerly turned to this thread, interested to see the reactions to Robert Tracinski's very important and courageous article. Instead, I've predominantly had to wade though an orgy of ridiculous and embarrassing name-calling. Do most of you -- who post to a forum called Objectivist Living -- not think that what Tracinski rightly calls "the suicide of the Objectivist movement" is important enough to comment on? I wonder what you would think important. Is this an intellectual forum or a home for delinquent children -- or perhaps a franchise of Solo?

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Selene, I see the patterns. The worst thing I see is that in the face of every crisis, they do exactly the wrong thing to cure it. All by itself, this practice can only lead in one direction.

I don't agree that I see the world in rigid dichotomies, and I don't know that we are even talking about the same things here. I mean I wasn't originally talking about trying to maximize production, I'm talking about trying to maximize political awareness of the proper solutions. Again, tell me how your activism is "shrugging."

Rand said she wrote Atlas not as a prophesy of what would happen but to try to prevent it from happening. She didn't shrug, we shouldn't shrug.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I eagerly turned to this thread, interested to see the reactions to Robert Tracinski's very important and courageous article. Instead, I've predominantly had to wade though an orgy of ridiculous and embarrassing name-calling. Do most of you -- who post to a forum called Objectivist Living -- not think that what Tracinski rightly calls "the suicide of the Objectivist movement" is important enough to comment on? I wonder what you would think important. Is this an intellectual forum or a home for delinquent children -- or perhaps a franchise of Solo?

Barbara

Barbara,

I think I managed to get all the flame stuff. I peeled it off the thread and threw it in the Garbage Pile under a new thread (here).

Any more flaming here will go there.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I eagerly turned to this thread, interested to see the reactions to Robert Tracinski's very important and courageous article. Instead, I've predominantly had to wade though an orgy of ridiculous and embarrassing name-calling. Do most of you -- who post to a forum called Objectivist Living -- not think that what Tracinski rightly calls "the suicide of the Objectivist movement" is important enough to comment on? I wonder what you would think important. Is this an intellectual forum or a home for delinquent children -- or perhaps a franchise of Solo?

Barbara

Barbara,

I think I managed to get all the flame stuff. I peeled it off the thread and threw it in the Garbage Pile under a new thread (here).

Any more flaming here will go there.

Thank you, Jesus!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a contradiction in the ARI in that the idea of getting your professional worth by associating with a name whose reputation is not your reputation would somehow bolster your own. Quite the contrary. If you have something valuable to sell you don't need the insulting subsidy. People there are going to figure that out. Peikoff has given them no choice and no out except to get out.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy Speicher disagrees with Tracinski, and isn’t going to allow discussion of this on her site. I suppose that’s her prerogative. She doesn’t give her reasons for disagreement, but promises to do so later. Stay tuned, I expect it to be a good one. I thought Betsy and Comrade Sonia fell out over criticisms of Peikoff being allowed on Betsy's site. A change of policy?

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=12337&pid=108140&st=0entry108140

Is Speicher's Forum now only available for reading by members?

Upon clicking the above link, any of the links to Forum pieces from Tracinski's article, or simply http://forums.4aynrandfans.com, I get a page saying one has to log in to see posts.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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