Thoughts On Tracinski's Anthemgate Article


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

Thoughts On Tracinski's Anthemgate Article

Robert Tracinski just wrote one hell of an article:

Anthemgate

We are discussing it here on OL ("Anthemgate" Tracinski weighs in on McCaskey) and my present article was to be a post on that thread. It grew, so now it is a thread-starter for later ease of reference.

I have a few comments about Tracinski's article and they involve some different themes than the ones Tracinski focused on. I have grouped some quotes from the article according to those themes. I believe Tracinski spoke to his own points well, so I prefer to look at the issues he raised through some other lenses. Let's start with the positive stuff.

Peikoff's positive contribution to Objectivism

Respect for an intellectual's past accomplishments is certainly appropriate, but all it properly earns him is a respectful hearing—not obedience.

. . .

Leonard Peikoff's greatest contribution to Objectivism, in my view, is his identification of the thinking error of "rationalism," which consists of putting into practice the philosophical theory that all knowledge is gained by deduction from abstractions, rather than by induction from observation of reality. Peikoff's identification of this erroneous view of reason, including detailed analysis of its symptoms, is an achievement that is experienced by many Objectivists—particularly young men of an intellectual disposition, who are most prone to rationalism—as a form of salvation from error. I regard it as his most important achievement because it is one that people can and do use on a daily basis as a corrective to their thinking.

. . .

I suspect that too much effort is devoted to taking truths that were stated with bold clarity by Ayn Rand in plain English and translating them into the arcane hieroglyphics of academic philosophy.

The first quote recognizes that Peikoff has some solid achievements we can point to, but it sets the limits to what we should grant him--"a respectful hearing—not obedience." And that goes for Rand, too. That's the best an independent thinker can and should ever do.

The last quote is actually a criticism I have of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Rand didn't need to write that book in "arcane hieroglyphics" after everything she had written in plain English. But she did and I struggled with it for years. I am sure others have, too. Nowadays I find the style pretentious.

Also, as I admire her enormously, I ended up imitating her ITOE style without realizing it in some of my own technical writing. That includes an overdose of the passive voice. I cringe when I read some of that older stuff of mine and I fight against the passive voice even today.

Since Rand did not write anything else (I know of) using anywhere near the academic highbrow style (although she did have a penchant for the passive voice in all of her nonfiction), I imagine she was under the influence of someone at the time of writing that work. Guess who I think it is, since Rand wrote this stuff near the time of the break with the Brandens? Hmmmm?...

I notice that Peikoff uses this very style in his essay in ITOE, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy."

Regardess, Tracinski buried an absolute gem in his article. In the second quote above, he summed up Peikoff's entire Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy essay in one paragraph and in plain English--it's a bit highfalutin, but still plain enough for a normal person to understand without a dictionary on hand.

Anyone interested in being fair to Peikoff should take this quote and put it in their notes. It is one of the fairest things I have ever read about Peikoff's actual value in philosophy.

Huh?

There has been vigorous discussion of this already on the Web, but what has been written so far only scratches the surface. No one wants to follow the implications as far as they go, because doing so would lead them in a direction that seems too horrible to contemplate. It is too horrible to contemplate the time and effort and the millions of dollars that have been wasted.

. . .

(In discussing David Kelley and supporters.)

In their view, the cause of dogmatism is excessive certainty, and the solution is a blanket "toleration" of any dissenting view. In practice, this wing of the movement went out of its way to show just how many disreputable figures they were willing to tolerate, which has turned away many people who might have been looking for a reasonable alternative to ARI.

You can tell from the topic title that I disagree with these quotes.

In the first quote, er... "no one wants to follow the implications"? Come again? No one? And the implications are too horrible to contemplate?

For whom?

I wonder if Tracinski has ever read what oodles of ARI critics have been complaining about over the years. It's not as if there is not a lot of stuff out there. It is not "too horrible to contemplate," either. The horror has been well contemplated--time and time again. I'm talking about people who love Rand's works, too, not her critics. In other words, I'm talking about ARI critics, not Ayn Rand critics.

In the second quote, Tracinski shows that he is still locked into some old battles. Anybody who has read the literature coming from TAS knows that blanket toleration is not--nor has it ever been--their policy. Also, some people with a more ortho view might have stayed away because they disagreed with some of the speakers--and of course there is the periodic participation of the Brandens in TAS events (which I believe Tracinski might be alluding to in an oblique manner)--but I don't think this has anything to do with TAS's growth with the general public.

I could cite several causes for TAS's lack of growth that have nothing to do with Tracinski's implied plethora of the many "disreputable figures they were willing to tolerate," but that is beyond the scope of what I am writing. Let's just say that his criticism of Kelley here shows that, in his case, you can take the dude out of ARI, but you can't take ARI out of the dude. Not completely.

And this leads to the next topic.

Tracinski's naiveté caused by looking at the world through the fundy lens--1

In the current context, therefore, it seems appropriate to return to this issue and take it head-on. Reluctantly, I have concluded that the error does go back to Ayn Rand...

. . .

But it is also clear that the author of The Fountainhead would never have endorsed an interpretation of this division of labor that allows for appeals to authority or for the subordination of the individual's independent judgment. And I should note that while the top-down premise does appear in Ayn Rand's theory of history, it is not consistent throughout, and it is very clear that she held an opposite view implicitly.

. . .

The McCaskey debacle, and particularly the e-mail from Peikoff, reveals in stark form everything that has been wrong with the Objectivist movement for decades and which I have personally struggled with for about the past ten years.

. . .

The consequence is the increasing identification of the philosophy of Objectivism with his own theories and opinions, including on issues Ayn Rand never addressed. The message of this e-mail is: Objectivism, c'est moi.

This is the key for understanding what has gone wrong with the Objectivist movement, how it careened into the Anthemgate crack-up, and the historical roots of this crisis.

It was almost painful for me to read Tracinski attributing a fault in the Objectivist movement to Rand. I remember when my own bubble started bursting. I don't know much of Tracinski's writing, but I believe he has opened a door in his own mind that will now be impossible to shut. In the first quote, he is specifically addressing the Platonic philosopher king idea Rand presented in her title essay of For The New Intellectual. His view is that she set it up and Peikoff--as her heir--took her at her word and ascended to the throne. Wait until he starts thinking further along these lines, but no longer as a cause for Peikoff's weird behavior.

He has already started resisting this in the second quote. He says that Rand presented the theory, but held the opposite implicitly. How about getting that a little more precise? How about saying that she screwed up?

I'm not trying to be disrespectful of Rand by saying that. I admire creative geniuses, even when they screw up. In fact, you can often get a great deal of wisdom when you analyze a screw-up by a genius. You are forced to try to figure out what they were seeing. Just that vision alone is worth the effort.

But you can't get Rand's unfulfilled vision if you constantly pussyfoot around her errors and make excuses for her that (I believe) she would never have thought of.

Now back to the naiveté. Tracinski needs a scapegoat for the failure of the Objectivist movement. It can't be because blind obedience to authority is present in Rand's literature and history alongside her challenges to authority.

I recall things like Rand's intimidation of questioners during Q&A's, or her statements that she finds such-and-such unspeakable and will not address it, etc. How does that square with her heroes and her shining vision of achieving the best in life?

The fact is: it doesn't.

And all I can say to that is, "So what?"

Her vision is still beautiful. Her insights are still profound. Her life was still well worth living.

Sadly, for ortho people, the reality is--and has been shown over history--that you can use Rand's works to help make a movement, but you can't make a movement out of Rand's works.

This is far, far, far from what I believe Tracinski can accept right now. It can't be Rand's fault. It has to be someone else.

Enter the clunky scapegoat: Peikoff. He certainly sets himself up to be royally scapegoated, too. But I believe that crediting him and his adherence to the Platonic philosopher king idea as the main cause for the failure of the Objectivist movement to take off qua movement gives him far more credit than he deserves.

In my view, he did some good things and some bad things. But nothing he has done has really affected Rand's influence on the world one way or the other.

Think of this. If Rand's works were no longer selling on their own, where would Peikoff be right now? Not even the ARI high-school program would amount to much, and that's about the most effective thing they do.

So I think Tracinski is wrong to attribute Peikoff with so much effect on others.

However, I do understand why he does it. In the fundy mentality, you have to have a scapegoat and that scapegoat must be someone from the inside.

Tracinski's naiveté caused by looking at the world through the fundy lens--2

I took a lot of heat in my "What Went Right?" series for identifying this "top-down" approach to the influence of philosophy. Many thought I was misrepresenting Peikoff's views. But is there any better example of the top-down approach than Peikoff's conflict with McCaskey?

In my original presentation of my series, I chose not to spend a lot of time demonstrating the pervasiveness of this approach, largely because I wanted to focus attention on my own positive theory, rather than on my criticisms of other Objectivists. It turns out this attempt was somewhat naïve; I did not realize that in the authority-centered system of the Objectivist movement, the most important issue would not be the evidence I provided for my own theory, but rather my deviation from the accepted philosophical authorities.

. . .

I am surprised that so few people in the recent online discussions seem to remember this 2006 letter, because it is a direct parallel and precedent to the Anthemgate e-mail. It was also the incident that brought me out in direct, open opposition to Peikoff, for reasons that are now thoroughly vindicated by Anthemgate.

. . .

The left, which Peikoff described as weak, dispirited, and mostly harmless, has proven to be more committed and destructive than even I expected.

I split this into two topics so the comments on the quotes would be easier to follow.

Notice that I am using the word "naiveté" to describe Tracinski's view. The first quote in the block above shows clearly that this is his word, not mine. But I want to make something clear. Tracinski is anything but naive in looking at the world, especially politics. But it's like he's a different person when he looks at Rand and Objectivist matters, or when Objectivist subcommunity rumblings have clouded his view of the world.

In the first quote, he literally has to feel the whip of authoritarianism on his own hide to believe his own eyes. Quite frankly, where the hell has he been all these years? Now he says he has seen it all along. Actually, I believe him. But since he has started seeing this crap for what it is, maybe he should rethink some of his previous views that are easily found on the Internet.

Also, as an aside, I would love to read some insight his beautiful mind could bring to bear on why he was blinded. (And I mean "beautiful mind" as "beautiful mind," not as sarcasm. I admire Tracinski, even though I am a bit harsh on him right at the moment.)

Now look at his surprise that his previous letter--the one where he stood up to Peikoff--has been so easily forgotten. Well, I have news for him. It has not been forgotten. Not in this neck of the woods. Not at other Objectivist and Objectivism-friendly places I have read. Once again, I wonder how much of this alternative Objectivism stuff he is familiar with.

Since alternative Objectivism is his current target market, I believe he should brush up on it. How's that for an idea? Tracinski keeps making comments about the Objectivist subcommunity that do not align with what I have seen with my own eyes. The only way I can grok this is when I think he still sees O-Land through the fundy lens, and only reads fundy stuff.

Now, here's the kicker. I don't see the fundies--not even the young fundies--turning into a wave of new TIA subscribers. So where does Tracinski think his new subscribers are going to come from if not from independent places like OL? (I say "OL," but there are plenty of other places online and off.)

If he ever reads my post here, I hope he thinks about this.

I included the last quote to show what can happen to you when you get caught up in O-Land crap. Tracinski didn't realize how deeply the left had penetrated American society and politics. But he's a political writer! And Rand was about as anti-left as you can get. It's not as if she did not lay out one warning after another. Hell, she practically gave some lessons in propaganda in some of her stuff.

So it took a Glenn Beck to blow the lid off the Progressive movement.

You know what Glenn Beck had that Tracinski didn't? Beck decided to ask some simple questions like "How did we get here?" and "Who are we?" Then he sought out the answers.

Tracinski, being an Objectivist, thought he already knew. After all, he's an expert in Objectivism and Rand gave the causes. Who needs to look with fresh eyes anymore? But then Peikoff said something else. So while the world was spinning, the real issue for Tracinski was a competition over who knew what and who was right according to Rand, not over simply looking at the world and seeing.

Thus Tracinski can say, with wonder, that the left "... has proven to be more committed and destructive than even I expected." This is the danger of getting embroiled in O-Land crap. You take you mind off of reality and put it on vanity issues.

I don't want to discuss the topics Tracinski covered like Peikoff's view of just war, voting Dem across the board, etc., because I think he did a great job on them. And he did it concisely.

The sins of the fundy followers

Many people who agree with Peikoff about blocking the mosque have defended his position by inventing their own arguments for it.

. . .

Again, however, the problem is not just the error. It is the inability to correct the error.

. . .

,,, the worst damage is that the false idea spread through these methods prevents the discovery and acknowledgement of true conclusions.

. . .

All of this would be destructive enough even if it were done in defense of true ideas. It would be destructive because the commitment to judge the truth for oneself is far more important than the truth or falsehood of one's views on any particular issue. But this method of intellectual bullying has been used to inject a series of false ideas into the Objectivist debate, giving them the decisive weight of Peikoff's "intellectual status" and thereby cutting off valid thinking on these issues.

I know for a fact that Tracinski feels pain over these observations. It's not easy to see a group of people you have devoted your life to faking reality, saying they don't, and all the while demonizing you.

But A is A. I'm glad he has the integrity to name these shortcomings.

I think one of the biggest monuments to these errors (i.e., making up new reasons to defend something shady by the top person, not correcting errors once detected, and paralyzing the minds of students and readers from thinking independently) is The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. I won't go into this here, since it has been debated to weariness elsewhere, but I want to make this comment.

Valliant's methodology is not the worst shot by the fundies in propagating these sins. It is their best shot.

Whether I agree or disagree with Tracinski, if he stays around and becomes demonized by the fundies enough, something like PARC is waiting for him in the future. And that's the best the fundies will be able to do.

This should give him, and people who admire him, some food for thought. Spin it any way you want, what I just said is true and everyone knows it.

I am glad to see that Tracinski is looking at what the fundies are doing to stifle independent thinking in other folks. That is a sin if ever there were one. And it's evil.

What do you do now?

Take a long, hard look at these dishonest attacks and put yourself in the place of a young intellectual looking to make a career in the Objectivist movement. Imagine what it would be like to realize that this is what is awaiting you if you challenge any idea approved by Leonard Peikoff and supported by ARI.

And this is the right perspective to take, because those are the people who are watching this controversy most intently: the young Objectivist intellectual in their twenties, and particularly the graduate students. These are people who had been hoping to rely on the Ayn Rand Institute and the Anthem Foundation for dissertation grants, for teaching jobs, for help in obtaining an academic position. They are now deeply concerned that if they follow this career path, they will not be allowed to think independently, that they will constantly have to worry about having predetermined philosophical conclusions dictated down to them from above.

. . .

There is no way to keep ARI or its board of directors out of this, because the real conflict is not Peikoff vs. McCaskey. The conflict is ARI versus any thinker who is too independent.

. . .

If you re-read Peikoff's e-mail to ARI's board, and ask yourself, "What would Howard Roark do?"—the answer is obvious: he would immediately conclude that he wanted nothing to do with these people. He would walk away and (this is the hard part) give them hardly another moment's thought. I suggest you do the same. Do not abandon Objectivism—far from it! But decide to fight for the cause of reason through your own independent action backed by your own judgment.

. . .

The real alternative, in my view, is not toleration but independence. The answer is not to loosen one's standards, but to use one's own independent standards.

, , ,

But perhaps Objectivism will be better off remaining unorganized—or at least, remaining without a single, central, dominant institution. So do not mourn too much the suicide of ARI and the crackup of "movement" Objectivism. I think the Objectivist movement will be more vibrant and effective if it is the product of the independent efforts of entrepreneurial intellectuals, with all of us competing for attention and dollars based on nothing but the intellectual value we have to offer.

. . .

I can't resist pointing out that we are seeing, with the Tea Party movement, the model for a very different—and much more effective—way of changing the culture.

To round off with a call to action, Tracinski is spot on the money.

The only thing I take issue with him in the first quote is that he is talking about "young intellectual(s) looking to make a career in the Objectivist movement." There's another way to say that: young people wanting to become Objectivist preachers.

I say, "Thank God this is not a real market." I can't think of anything that would distort Rand's impact on the world more than pumping out professional preachers.

The best and the brightest always fall away from dogmatism on their own, so I believe Rand's ideas will enrich the world in ways nobody has yet dreamed of. The best and the brightest will make sure of that as they pursue their own selfish interests.

I am in full agreement with Tracinski about keeping distance from ARI folks. I do. They have some resources I am interested in at times and I try to keep things cordial, but I don't want to belong to their club. I'm on my own independent direction by my own choice. After all the crap I have been through in life, once I became involved with the Objectivist subcommunity, I decided that I set my own values. Nobody else does.

In other words, I'm not in a position where shunning by fundies would ever affect me. Objectivists don't like to admit it ever, but rejection hurts. This is a normal human emotion. And the fundies try to use this hurt as a weapon. But how much could it hurt to be rejected by people you don't like and don't want to be around? That's exactly where I am at.

I wish fundies well as I do any human being. But they are complicated and I have enough problems in my life. So I wish them long life, happiness, prosperity, etc., but not next to me. I don't have any place in my life for them.

This is a little different than what Tracinski wrote. He wants people to shun ARI while still promoting Objectivism. There's no need to do that. Within the context of building your life, ARI doesn't deserve the effort.

If you interact with ARI, OK. If not, OK. It's just not a high priority ticket. At least not to me. And I believe that's how it should be.

As to promoting Objectivism, OK, too. But not as a vision. My vision, which used to be Objectivism, has changed drastically. And I still promote Objectivism. But now it is a tool for another vision. Now I fight for a better world of independent thinking and good character in myself and others. I no longer see myself as a crusader for a set of predigested principles and pre-approved heroes.

And that's good enough. Really. Even if the world becomes overrun with independent thinkers of good character who want to go to church.

Anything more always results in bullying over time. That has been my experience. And if there's anything I despise, it is bullying. Now here's a kicker that no fundy Objectivist I know of would ever say: I especially despise bullying when I do it.

So my vision and struggle is not just to change the world. It is to make myself a better and better person. That came from my own independent thinking.

Now, what do you do if you want to spread Objectivism and have become disenchanted with the Objectivist movement? Tracinski gave a big hint in the very last quote.

Take the ideas to the Tea Party!

Take them anywhere you see people doing good things that you believe in and succeeding. Make friends at those places. Take part and provide value. Then expose them to Rand's ideas (and your ideas) as you go along. Give people time to digest. And let them come to their own conclusions in a spirit of fellowship.

If you are at a place where there are good people, they will continue to be good people even if they end up disagreeing with you about Objectivism. Meanwhile, you are still making the world a better place and yourself a better person.

How cool is that?

Anyway, despite my criticisms, let me congratulate Robert Tracinski on a very good job. I believe he is making the world a better place. And I also believe that he is going to be an important top-notch American intellectual once he totally takes off his fundy lenses and becomes, not an Objectivist, but a Tracinski-ite who sometimes discusses Objectivism.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, Michael, excellent post!

It is a crying shame that Objectivists wasted forty-two (42) years with this belligerently anti-intellectual dictatorship of the anointed messengers paradigm.

But Michael, it is a new day with sunlight shining into the ruins of miss built cathedrals to orthodoxy.

A lot of fresh air blowing the little fresh heir kneeling in Ayn's throne room out with all that dust.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael -

It will be painful. But it is long time past time for "Objectivism" to become more Objectivist.

Ironically, "faith and force" must be banished.

Bill Parr

Edited by Bill P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracinski's article wasn't like his recent animadversions on Kipling's poem — those were excruciatingly painful to read in their ham-handedness — but it was a belaboring of what's long been obvious. Maybe the ARIans need it from someone who'd been in the Charmed Collective Circle.

As you say, where has he been all these years? Not reading what Kelley wrote nearly two decades ago in Truth and Toleration. Or deliberately misinterpreting it. Or taking Peikoff's (and, sadly, Rand's) frequent tack of denouncing the arguments of a book he hasn't read. Or, most likely, some of each of the above.

Amazing, isn't it, the inertia of passive agreement that can come from defending one's grant or advancement prospects? This describes nearly everyone at or affiliated with ARI. I'm especially disappointed in Tara Smith, who'd shown a glimmer of academic and personal independence.

I'm far more cynical than MSK is: Tracinski didn't happen to detach from ARIanism and Peikoff-worship until he realized, cue Kris Kristofferson, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." As Peikoff slowly slides into philosophic (or, maybe, other forms of) dementia, nothing was available from him any more for anyone less than a 200-percent sycophant ... hell-loooo, Diana!

Oh, one more thing. Those who so readily dismiss libertarians who are questioning the soundness of the monopolies-by-law called "intellectual property" should think a few times about what deadening effects will continue to result from Rand's copyrights remaining in the Peikoff family. For most of the rest of this century, by the way.

Yes, decrying the abuses Peikoff makes with them is a consequentialist argument. Nonetheless, he wouldn't have that position to abuse Rand's legacy if copyrights were even reined back to less outrageous proportions, let alone questioned in full.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, Michael, excellent post!

It is a crying shame that Objectivists wasted forty-two (42) years with this belligerently anti-intellectual dictatorship of the anointed messengers paradigm.

I second this, great post Michael. In spite of the fact that I have a more cynical take you've got a lot of great insights in there.

And I like how you sum up the last 42 years Adam, but what's next? I don't see a sign of change, I just see rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic possibly taking place.

This is how it always works in big organizations, even if some at the top are removed, the rest -- who were selected by those at the top -- remain. Most who are malcontented are pacified and basic character of the organization doesn't change. This happens throughout history and on all scales of human organizations, businesses, governments, and ARI. Why should Objectivists be so easily fooled? They were of a nature that they were fooled before, I don't see that their nature will be changed through all this. Oh a few people will wake up and smell the coffee. That always happens. A very tiny few. Who are then ignored. This is how it works.

I'm not trying to be grim. Barring another factor, human beings react to scandal in the above manner. Why? Perhaps primarily because it is not a negative that changes anything, but a positive. A negative is detected and removed, returning things to approximately the natural equilibrium that was presumed to have been there before. Most of these people were happy before, so they will want to return to that.

Further, that is what these people will do, because, speaking broadly and not to every individual, that is who these people are. They were selected for this kind of behavior -- most of the good people who went to ARI up and left soon after coming. The better people never showed up. This is broadly true of the Objectivist movement as a whole. Sane people smell trouble and want no part of it. Even Robert Tracinski was selected for this kind of behavior. At some point way back, he was selected over somebody who was more independent than he is. He may have reformed to some degree, but the very fact that he made it through the loyalty tests indicates that it will be difficult for him to truly reclaim his independence. (He may yet do it and I hope he does.)

This is the insidious nature of long-standing corruption at the top. The entire organization from top to bottom is in question, including the mental contents of everyone in it, from Peikoff (and in some respects Rand) at the top, down to everyone who sanctioned his behavior at the very bottom.

So what is to be done? As I've said elsewhere, what I'd like to see is ARI becoming a pure marketing engine for Rand's work, and for all of their intellectuals to stop intellectualizing including commenting on current events. They should stop interpreting Rand or pretending to stand for her. I want no physical representation of Rand but that which is in her books and tapes. Further, they should open up their archives, throw works like Harriman's JAR that bastardizes Rand into the trash heap, and offer to the world what she actually said. They should not sell anything that was not personally authorized by Ayn Rand in her lifetime. They should become a museum.

Regarding the cultural activism they did, it needs to be done by others who are not associated with either Objectivism or Ayn Rand. Objectivism qua movement needs to go into the dust bin of history. I do think we need a movement for reason, individualism, and liberty, but it should not be connected to Rand except as one of the important authors put forth by such a movement as having valuable ideas. The whole notion of Objectivist "intellectual" needs to vanish because really they are and have been preachers and nothing more.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Great response to Tracinski's piece.

One learns in stages. When I read Tracinski's article I was surprised to learn how recently he left Harry Binswanger's list. You'd think the loyalty oath would have put him off well before then, or that some of the other contributors would have gotten under his skin.

All in due time...

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the fact that it is over a topic that is near and dear to my heart, how is the McCaskey/Peikoff split different than than Reisman and Packer/ARI split in the mid '90's? The relevant e-mails were on the internet. If what Tracinski is saying is true, ARI didn't really change that much over time. In any case, how can someone participate with integrity in an intellectual forum or group when they are effectively gagged?

Jim

Edited by James Heaps-Nelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the fact that it is over a topic that is near and dear to my heart, how is the McCaskey/Peikoff split different than than Reisman and Packer/ARI split in the mid '90's? The relevant e-mails were on the internet. If what Tracinski is saying is true, ARI didn't really change that much over time. In any case, how can someone participate with integrity in an intellectual forum or group when they are effectively gagged?

It's the absolute end of Leonard Peikoff as King-of-the-Objectivist-Hill. He tried to do with philosophy--rule philosophy--what Rand tried to do with morality--rule philosophy. Came a cropper for both. He will now be treated with silence or as a joke. Even I never wished that or could have imagined that email he wrote in spite of the inexorable logic of it all. Considering the slight evidence Diana Hseih used to slam the Brandens, especially Nathaniel, one wonders at the hypocrisy she will now live in for not slamming Peikoff, albeit four years kinda late.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the fact that it is over a topic that is near and dear to my heart, how is the McCaskey/Peikoff split different than than Reisman and Packer/ARI split in the mid '90's?

I think the difference is the extent of the penetration of the story. It is pumped up a lot larger than the earlier expulsion -- the meme has legs. Plus this one is easier to understand for the ARI-infected. The apparent injustice is more stark, and easier to grasp. The Reisman/Packer expulsions were more involved.

This one is hugely public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the fact that it is over a topic that is near and dear to my heart, how is the McCaskey/Peikoff split different than than Reisman and Packer/ARI split in the mid '90's? The relevant e-mails were on the internet. If what Tracinski is saying is true, ARI didn't really change that much over time. In any case, how can someone participate with integrity in an intellectual forum or group when they are effectively gagged?

It's the absolute end of Leonard Peikoff as King-of-the-Objectivist-Hill. He tried to do with philosophy--rule philosophy--what Rand tried to do with morality--rule philosophy. Came a cropper for both. He will now be treated with silence or as a joke. Even I never wished that or could have imagined that email he wrote in spite of the inexorable logic of it all. Considering the slight evidence Diana Hseih used to slam the Brandens, especially Nathaniel, one wonders at the hypocrisy she will now live in for not slamming Peikoff, albeit four years kinda late.

--Brant

Brant,

Diana has criticized Peikoff for his role in the McCaskey debacle. How has Peikoff been King-of-the Objectivist-Hill? I think Yaron Brook and David Kelley have been more prominent recently. I think there will still be a fair-to-middling Ortho Objectivist group with or without Peikoff. It will change a lot less than people think. A new crop of very intelligent, Children of the Corn, Objectivist Sonnenkinder will show up waiting for marching orders...

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You know what Glenn Beck had that Tracinski didn't? Beck decided to ask some simple questions like 'How did we get here?' and 'Who are we?' Then he sought out the answers.

"Tracinski, being an Objectivist, thought he already knew. After all, he's an expert in Objectivism and Rand gave the causes. Who needs to look with fresh eyes anymore?... Thus Tracinski can say, with wonder, that the left '... has proven to be more committed and destructive than even I expected.' This is the danger of getting embroiled in O-Land crap. You take you mind off of reality and put it on vanity issues."

This is absurd. I fault Tracinski for failure to admit cleanly his earlier obtuseness with regard to Objectivist orthodoxy, especially his treatment of David Kelley. But how can you admit you haven't read much of Tracinski and then claim he's wearing blinders journalistically, mired in Ob-rationalism? I've read many of his newsletter installments over the past few years, and find him very grounded and observant. His day-to-day blogging and grappling with current events is what has helped pull him away from the orthodoxy.

As for being shocked anew at the viciousness of the left and determination/ability of the left to destroy--gee, there's a sin. Looking even very closely at the Clinton years, one might be excused for thinking that there were political limits to what the left could do. But Obama's fuck-the-political-consequences approach to socializing health care has proven again that the wrong man at the right moment can be very effective in assailing our rights. The Tea Party movement may still pull the fat out of the fire, of course, and Tracinski has written plenty about that too.

Perhaps the author of the post, before assuming that Tracinski has not "looked with fresh eyes" at any of what's going on around him, should "look with fresh eyes" at Tracinski's actual work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: "...her ITOE style...includes an overdose of the passive voice."

For example?

Starbuckle,

First, welcome to OL.

Your question is not precise, but that might be my fault for lack of clarity. I was referring to my own writing with the "overdoes of passive voice" comment, but I actually do believe that Rand overdosed on it herself.

As to an example of the passive voice in ITOE, you can start with the very first sentence of Rand's Introduction:

This series of articles is presented "by popular demand."

OK, That's a common statement, so no great sin. Still, the sentence contains an implied actor who is doing the acting, but is not the subject of the sentence. The "series of articles" is definitely not the one doing the presenting.

Here's the same thing in active voice: I have presented this series of articles "by popular demand."

But want another? How about the third sentence?

These articles may be regarded as a preview of my future book on Objectivism, and are offered here for the guidance of philosophy students.

There is an implied actor again that is not the subject of the sentence--actually, Rand does it twice in this sentence with two different implied actors--so this is double-trouble passive voice.

Active voice: You may regard these articles as a preview of my future book on Objectivism, and I have offered them here for the guidance of philosophy students.

Not all passive voice is bad, but an overdose of this gets boring. Anyway, I can do this all day with ITOE.

Or should I say, "This can be done all day with ITOE"?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how can you admit you haven't read much of Tracinski and then claim he's wearing blinders journalistically, mired in Ob-rationalism?

Starbuckle,

That's a fair question stated in a very unfair way. I did not say he wears "blinders journalistically, mired in Ob-rationalism." On the contrary, I said he is not naive when he deals with politics. (I do believe he has recovering eyesight with respect to the fundy "Objectivist movement" mindset, but only as pertains to the traditional scapegoats, Objectivism saving the world, and things like that.)

The gist of my message is that when he takes his eye off the ball because he is distracted with O-Land crap, he misses something important, like the depth of the left's penetration into American politics. Don't forget, he's the one who said it's worse than he thought.

I want to be clear that I have not read much of Tracinski, but I am not completely unfamiliar with his work. So I do have some referents I am going on, not just blind opinion.

Still, I am willing to revise that opinion--especially about the left--if you can point me to articles where he deals with things like the pervasiveness in Obama's administration of the now-grown-up New Left, i.e., the SDS and Weather Underground leftovers, their hook-up with Soros, the Tides Foundation, the Apollo Alliance, how these folks gave up a formal movement and infiltrated the educational establishment to lay the groundwork for a later power-grab, etc.

Since you are bent on taking me to task about Tracinski, I presume you also disagree with my observation: "I believe he is making the world a better place."

And this: "And I also believe that he is going to be an important top-notch American intellectual once he totally takes off his fundy lenses and becomes, not an Objectivist, but a Tracinski-ite who sometimes discusses Objectivism."

I don't mind if you disagree. But I stand by what I wrote until I come across facts that prove me otherwise. Then, in that case, I actually don't mind revising.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diana has criticized Peikoff for his role in the McCaskey debacle.

Where do I go to read her criticism? I haven't yet seen it on her blog.

--Brant

Brant,

See here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9169&view=findpost&p=109843

I think ARI will survive this the same way they survived Kelley/Peikoff and ARI/Reismans: teach a whole new crop of youngsters who have no stake in the current split.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diana Hsieh also posted three or four comments on Chip Joyce's Facebook page, after he put up that exhortation to all "students of Objectivism" to grovel and refrain from criticizing Pope Leonard.

I didn't save any of the other folks' comments before Joyce booted me, on account of my comment, but hers were posted a little over a week after the two that came off Roderick Fitts' page at FB. (Mr. Joyce was booting people left and right, including Robert Tracinski. Tore Boeckmann was on the attack in the comment thread, confirming Tracinki's description of him as an "enforcer," and Bob Mayhew was temporizing up a storm.)

She defended her previous position on Peikoff vs. McCaskey (she was also under fire from Joyce for opposing "bomb the mosque"), but further said (in impeccable I-know-something-you-don't mode) that she had asked Yaron Brook some questions about the schism and his answers (unspecified, of course) had "reassured" her.

Her public statement about the schism is supposed to appear on NoodleFood after she finishes serializing her critique of the anti-abortion movement and its legislative initiatives in Colorado.

Which may be a while. Unlike Tracinski, who decided to go public with his thoughts earlier than planned, I think she is stalling for time.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think ARI will survive this the same way they survived Kelley/Peikoff and ARI/Reismans: teach a whole new crop of youngsters who have no stake in the current split.

Jim,

I'm sure that's what many ARI insiders will be trying to do.

Problem is, ARI is entering a crisis of succession now.

In 1989 and 1994 Leonard Peikoff was actively speaking and lecturing and firmly in charge, and everyone anticipated that he would be firmly in charge for many more years. Now he still has weight to throw around, but he is officially retired, his health is declining, and he is (by all public indications) starting to lose his marbles.

Keeping Orthodoxy alive while Leonard Peikoff is still around, but in an impaired state, is very different from keeping it alive when he is gone, copyright revenue is still flowing, and the Estate has passed into different hands.

The remaining insiders are likely to be at odds over tactics, when not in denial over their need to choose one set or another.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have another little thought on this whole affair.

I have been doing some reading on John McCaskey.

That dude rocks, just for being in on Epiphany (a pioneer marketing software company that was eventually bought out for megabucks by a bigger company). There's a ton load on this guy's achievements once you start digging. He's part of Silicon Valley history.

In other words, he's a high-end successful productive achiever in the finest sense of the word.

Now here's a suspicion that has been growing in my mind. I keep seeing hints of it between the lines in the different discussions. I suspect he was one of the deep pockets of ARI donors. And it seems like he funded the Anthem Foundation, too.

So I suspect that ARI insiders are also bothered by watching a lot of money walk right out the door over BS.

In other words, money talks and BS walks, even in fundy-land. And when that becomes inverted, everyone gets a bellyache.

What's worse, McCaskey ain't complainin' about having ponied up all that dough before. So, on top of being abut as close to a Randian hero as you can get, he's a class act.

Can anyone imagine what feathers would fly if he came out with something like the following?

If you guys think I'm evil all of a sudden, why not give me my money back?

Heh...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracinski wrote a good article, but he really doesn't address the bigger problem Objectivism has and not just ARI. In order to stay cutting edge, Objectivists will have to wade back into biology, neurology and psychology. There is no clear and easy way to separate philosophy from other branches of knowledge. Also, a lot of what Rand had to say about psychology was hokum, so it presents a real thorny set of problems. I think this is the real meaning of Anthemgate. The fact that Harriman tried to take on induction in physics and failed miserably. Peikoff wanted all Objectivist hands on deck for what was supposed to be the blueprint for extending Objectivism into other fields.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Tracinski is not a scientist, nor is he all that oriented toward natural science issues. He pays attention to climate science because of the political uses it's been put to. He's shown some liking for evolutionary biology, but his other science coverage is fitful at best.

Harriman's book represented the Last Best Hope for a strict Peikovian philosophy of science. Yet there were knowledgeable ARIan insiders from whom it could not gain approval. So the rift between science and Rand's philosophy (plus Peikoff's attempts to extend it) is already wide and can only grow wider over time.

There are plenty of rank and file ARIans for whom the particular issues under dispute mean little. I keep seeing contributions on Ortho forum threads or Facebook pages from people who say they haven't read Harriman's book (which isn't hard to read, and, with just 4 equations, isn't as mathematical as it ought to be). I should think the lack of interest in the issues is also characteristic, albeit to a lesser degree, of self-labeled Objectivists who are not with the Orthodoxy.

They may not see the problem, but people with strong backgrounds in science can't help seeing it.

Robert Campbell

PS. In Tracinski's defense, I would say that he covers the areas of greatest interest to him quite thoroughly in his article. I hadn't been paying nearly enough attention to the political articles in The Objective Standard to notice the full extent of warpage and pretzel-twisting that he describes. Meanwhile, Tracinski also overlooks the Peikoff-mandated rewrites of Rand's unpublished work (in which Harriman was one of the participants) and the miserable Peikovian mishandling of Rand biography (the most egregious exhibit being Peikoff's sponsorship of Valliant's book).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Tracinski is not a scientist, nor is he all that oriented toward natural science issues. He pays attention to climate science because of the political uses it's been put to. He's shown some liking for evolutionary biology, but his other science coverage is fitful at best.

Harriman's book represented the Last Best Hope for a strict Peikovian philosophy of science. Yet there were knowledgeable ARIan insiders from whom it could not gain approval. So the rift between science and Rand's philosophy (plus Peikoff's attempts to extend it) is already wide and can only grow wider over time.

There are plenty of rank and file ARIans for whom the particular issues under dispute mean little. I keep seeing contributions on Ortho forum threads or Facebook pages from people who say they haven't read Harriman's book (which isn't hard to read, and, with just 4 equations, isn't as mathematical as it ought to be). I should think the lack of interest in the issues is also characteristic, albeit to a lesser degree, of self-labeled Objectivists who are not with the Orthodoxy.

They may not see the problem, but people with strong backgrounds in science can't help seeing it.

Robert Campbell

PS. In Tracinski's defense, I would say that he covers the areas of greatest interest to him quite thoroughly in his article. I hadn't been paying nearly enough attention to the political articles in The Objective Standard to notice the full extent of warpage and pretzel-twisting that he describes. Meanwhile, Tracinski also overlooks the Peikoff-mandated rewrites of Rand's unpublished work (in which Harriman was one of the participants) and the miserable Peikovian mishandling of Rand biography (the most egregious exhibit being Peikoff's sponsorship of Valliant's book).

Robert, I think what is doubly damning about Anthemgate with respect to Peikoff is that it is an appeal to authority in a field which he is not an authority. I contrast that with the almost apologetic tone from Erwin Schrodinger in the introduction to his book What is Life? in taking on a field in which he was not expert.

What is valuable about Tracinski's account is that it is an insider perspective, but it is a perspective also littered with hubris. It is a mistake to think that you can bargain with authorities that wield arbitrary power. It is a mistake to put yourself in the position of depending on them, it is a mistake to think that you can appease or placate them. There will come a time when their caprice will sweep over you unbidden.

Jim

Edited by James Heaps-Nelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....] It is a mistake to think that you can bargain with authorities that wield arbitrary power. It is a mistake to put yourself in the position of depending on them, it is a mistake to think that you can appease or placate them. There will come a time when their caprice will sweep over you unbidden.

"Mephisto" - the 1981 movie.

Not meaning to compare Tracinski to the featured character in the movie, but your description so well matches the story of that superb work.

Ellen

ADD: Here's the plot description from the imdb link:

A German stage actor finds unexpected success and mixed blessings in the popularity of his performance in a Faustian play as the Nazis take power in pre-WWII Germany. As his associates and friends flee or are ground under by the Nazi terror, the popularity of his character supercedes his own existence until he finds that his best performance is keeping up appearances for his Nazi patrons.

Director:

István Szabó

Writers:

Péter Dobai, Klaus Mann (novel), and 1 more credit »

Release Date:

22 March 1982 (USA)

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
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