Thoughts On Tracinski's Anthemgate Article

[Barbara Branden]

Tracinski wrpte:

"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."

This was decidedly not Peikoff's contribution, except in so far as the error of rationalism was identified as the major source of his difficulties in understanding many of th tenets of Objectivism. The nature, symptoms, and consequences of rationalism were often discussed by Rand and her inner circle as early as the 1950's. (And. of course, it is an error Peikoff has never stopped making.)

Barbara

[Robert Campbell]

Barbara,

I groaned when I read that passage.

Robert Tracinski still has a lot to learn about the history of Objectivism.

I wouldn't know what spectrum of meanings "rationalism" had in the 1950s. But in Leonard Peikoff's rendition, the alleged error of rationalism is amorphous and far from clearly bounded—which is one reason why critics are so frequently charged with it today. "Rationalism" has become a favorite putdown amongst the Orthodoxy.

Meanwhile, Peikoff continues to exemplify rationalism, as the notion is more generally understood.

What a mess.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Barbara,

I groaned when I read that passage.

Robert Tracinski still has a lot to learn about the history of Objectivism.

I wouldn't know what spectrum of meanings "rationalism" had in the 1950s. But in Leonard Peikoff's rendition, the alleged error of rationalism is amorphous and far from clearly bounded—which is one reason why critics are so frequently charged with it today. "Rationalism" has become a favorite putdown amongst the Orthodoxy.

Meanwhile, Peikoff continues to exemplify rationalism, as the notion is more generally understood.

What a mess.

Robert Campbell

Well, he said his area of expertise was politics. He's in danger of destroying his entire Peikoff context, which he obviously enough doesn't want to do.

--Brant

Peikoff's destroyed his Rand context, for which he'll be in permanent denial

[James Heaps-Nelson]

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).

One of the reasons that advocates of Objectivism should make a real effort to adapt is that there are no real drawbacks and lots of benefits to becoming more current in emerging fields. People have free will, but their brains are fine-tuned, path-dependent, developing and changing, electrochemical systems. Objectivists shouldn't be threatened by quantum mechanics because its statistical nature is very predictable as its distribution is Gaussian. We should explore the intersection of philosophy, psychology and biology to come to a better understanding of human nature and to understand better how to spread our ideas and revise those that need to be revised. We should make no a priori assumptions about the behavior and predictability of complex and chaotic systems.

We should actively seek out economic insights that are not wedded to Austrian theory. We need to explain why Keynesian economics is wrong by exploring and explaining the corruption of statistics and applications of probability that are at the heart of current economics. I mean, I've never really seen an Objectivist try to take on Black-Scholes modeling a la Taleb or Gerard Debreu's general equilibrium analysis and you can get a standard treatment of the latter in a good intermediate microeconomics class.

None of this is really beyond what's in a local Borders bookstore. So people who insist on remaining completely in the dark about these matters and want to be professional intellectuals will be increasingly relegated to the sidelines of important new inquiry.

I am tremendously excited and subdued at the same time. Excited at all of the exciting new inquiry now taking place and subdued that the Objectivist movement seems to take a head in the sand approach to it. After all, all you really need for this is a good solid theory of induction, right :-)?

Jim

[william.scherk]

There is a bit of commentary on Anthemgate at Greg Nyquist's blog. He came up with an interesting phrase in a comment:

"Reason" is not a unifying force because, as mummified within the Objectivist philosophy, this faculty is largely mythical.

"Mummified Reason" Although glib and somewhat nasty, it has the tang of a useful metaphor. What is, by all measures, one of the most dynamic and useful of human attributes, and revered by all who are Objectivish -- pickled and swaddled and lodged under the temple at Mount ARI.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

[....] 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)

Ellen,

I haven't seen that one. I'll have to rent it sometime.

Jim

Edited October 4, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Peter]

Michael, that was a wonderful response to Tracinski's piece. Thank you. And thanks to Adam for leading me to the correct thread.

Trancinski wrote:

. . . everything that has been wrong with the Objectivist movement for decades and which I have personally struggled with for about the past ten years . . . .

End quote

Robert Campbell responded:

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...

End quote

I agree with Robert Campbell. One learns in stages. Robert Tracinski will come to the same conclusions we have come to. It will just take him a bit longer. He is still closer to the mindset of ARI than we. He was a moth not attracted to a flame but to a spider’s web. It’s intellectual stickiness needs to rub off. And he does recognize there was a problem, "for decades."

Tracinski writes in Anthemgate:

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

End quote

David Kelly will undoubtedly welcome Tracinski to a rationally tolerant world without blinders.

When I read Anthemgate I gave a six month gift subscription to TIA Daily to a friend and also contributed $25 to Trancinski personally. If anyone cares to support Robert, you just go to the “subscribe” area and there, it also has a “donate” site. His site is still one of my “must read” places that I go to each morning, and his regular column is back in business.

Robert wrote in Anthemgate about Peikoff saying:

"Don't you know who I am?" It is a caricature of the rank-pulling blowhard—more reminiscent of John Kerry than of John Galt. But the actual key phrase here is "intellectual status."

End quote

Leonard Peacock goes from doubtful “Philosopher King” to rank pulling “Blowhard.”

Well said Robert!

Robert Tracinski was my last link to ARI. Now, the world is a bit brighter. Let us move forward.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[nskinsella]

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.

Hear hear!

[Reidy]

I can't imagine what bad effects those would be. Rand's heirs have an incentive to sell books, and that is all that matters to anyone but a few hundred internet gossip-lovers. Somerset Maugham is usually credited with the observation that the reason academic politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small.

[Selene]

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.

Hear hear!

Sooo, are you guys arguing that Ayn should not have been able to direct her intellectual property in whatever way she wished?

[PDS]

I can't imagine what bad effects those would be. Rand's heirs have an incentive to sell books, and that is all that matters to anyone but a few hundred internet gossip-lovers. Somerset Maugham is usually credited with the observation that the reason academic politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small.

Hear hear to that!

[sjw]

Be careful with all this "hear hearing" -- wasn't it Ayn Rand who argued for copyrights to be limited roughly to the author's lifetime? And in a very principled way I might add (this is sarcasm).

Shayne

[Robert Campbell]

Be careful with all this "hear hearing" -- wasn't it Ayn Rand who argued for copyrights to be limited roughly to the author's lifetime? And in a very principled way I might add (this is sarcasm).

Shayne,

My recollection is that she once expressed a preference for what was then British copyright law (life of the author plus 50 years).

I doubt she envisioned the present-day product of lobbying by Disney (95 years after publication). But her answers to questions on intellectual property don't distinguish between ownership of copyrights and, say, ownership of land.

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

Be careful with all this "hear hearing" -- wasn't it Ayn Rand who argued for copyrights to be limited roughly to the author's lifetime? And in a very principled way I might add (this is sarcasm).

Shayne,

My recollection is that she once expressed a preference for what was then British copyright law (life of the author plus 50 years).

I doubt she envisioned the present-day product of lobbying by Disney (95 years after publication). But her answers to questions on intellectual property don't distinguish between ownership of copyrights and, say, ownership of land.

Robert Campbell

"If [intellectual property] were held in perpetuity, it would lead to the opposite of the very principle on which it is based: it would lead, not to the earned reward of achievement, but to the unearned support of parasitism." --Ayn Rand, CUI

Shayne

[Robert Campbell]

Somerset Maugham is usually credited with the observation that the reason academic politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small.

Peter R,

The same observation has been credited to a number of famous people, which of course means that it didn't originate with any of them.

Where I work, it's most often attributed to Henry Kissinger.

Robert C

[Dennis Hardin]

Somerset Maugham is usually credited with the observation that the reason academic politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small.

Peter R,

The same observation has been credited to a number of famous people, which of course means that it didn't originate with any of them.

Where I work, it's most often attributed to Henry Kissinger.

Robert C

This source says the original sentiment was actually that of Woodrow Wilson, but that political scientist Wallace Sayre used the contemporary phrasing in the 1950's, and this later became known as “Sayre’s Law” in 1973.

Wikipedia seems to agree.

I’m sure glad we cleared that up.

[kiaer.ts]

Somerset Maugham is usually credited with the observation that the reason academic politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small.

Peter R,

The same observation has been credited to a number of famous people, which of course means that it didn't originate with any of them.

Where I work, it's most often attributed to Henry Kissinger.

Robert C

This source says the original sentiment was actually that of Woodrow Wilson, but that political scientist Wallace Sayre used the contemporary phrasing in the 1950's, and this later became known as "Sayre's Law" in 1973.

Wikipedia seems to agree.

I'm sure glad we cleared that up.

Except that Wilson stole it from Oscar Wilde.

[BaalChatzaf]

Except that Wilson stole it from Oscar Wilde.

No good deed shall go unpunished.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[RightJungle]

Michael, you said,

"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?"

I have been doing just that here in the "first in the nation state of Iowa", and we need to get it right by Jan. 2012. I welcome any advice or guidance that you have to offer. I have Ayn Rand's "What Can One Do" article form 1972, but other's wisdom would be welcomed.

Thank you for your comments on Anthemgate and for the optimism you bring to our efforts to make a difference.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Mary Lee Harsha

[nskinsella]

Sooo, are you guys arguing that Ayn should not have been able to direct her intellectual property in whatever way she wished?

Selene,

I've long been an outspoken opponent of patent and copyright, on libertarian grounds (I'm a practicing patent lawyer). My reasons are given here http://c4sif.org/resources/. An increasing number of libertarians in the last decade are so have turned their attention to this issue, and have become anti-intellectual property. From what I've seen most Austrian and anarchist libertarians are completely opposed to IP, and even some Objectivists are changing their mind on this issue or at least willing to reconsider the subject. Adam Mossoff is trying to come up with some defense of it, but he will fail, IMO; Diana Hsieh admits this is a "thorny" issue--how can it be thorny, if as Rand said, "Patents are the heart and core of property rights"? If it's the very foundation of rights, as Rand perhaps sometimes thought, and as Galambos thought, how can it be a thorny issue, without calling the entire edifice into question? They are right, it is thorny; but it's not the base of properyt rights, nor even compatible with property rights.

I'm glad to see an increasing number of Objectivists being willing to reexamine Rand's very weak, confused arguments for IP.

[sjw]

Sooo, are you guys arguing that Ayn should not have been able to direct her intellectual property in whatever way she wished?

Selene,

I've long been an outspoken opponent of patent and copyright, on libertarian grounds (I'm a practicing patent lawyer). My reasons are given here http://c4sif.org/resources/. An increasing number of libertarians in the last decade are so have turned their attention to this issue, and have become anti-intellectual property. From what I've seen most Austrian and anarchist libertarians are completely opposed to IP, and even some Objectivists are changing their mind on this issue or at least willing to reconsider the subject. Adam Mossoff is trying to come up with some defense of it, but he will fail, IMO; Diana Hsieh admits this is a "thorny" issue--how can it be thorny, if as Rand said, "Patents are the heart and core of property rights"? If it's the very foundation of rights, as Rand perhaps sometimes thought, and as Galambos thought, how can it be a thorny issue, without calling the entire edifice into question? They are right, it is thorny; but it's not the base of properyt rights, nor even compatible with property rights.

I'm glad to see an increasing number of Objectivists being willing to reexamine Rand's very weak, confused arguments for IP.

Quoting Stephan from http://mises.org/daily/3682:

However, in order for IP to work, it has to bind not only seller and buyer, but all third parties. The contract between buyer and seller cannot do this — it binds only the buyer and seller. In the example given above, even if Green agrees not to copy Brown's mousetrap, Black has no agreement with Brown. Brown has no contractual right to prevent Black from using Black's own property in accordance with whatever knowledge or information Black has. Thus, the contract approach fails as well. (See also Against Intellectual Property, pp. 45–55.)

Stephan is correct so long as one accepts anarchist premises, but if one embraces a consensual form of government, then along with consenting to government, one can consent to man-made copyright laws that bind third parties belonging to the government's jurisdiction as well. Now since the government would be consensual, then only those belonging to it would be bound to the agreement, but I think rational people would prefer that creators have a means to profit from their creations, and thus the majority of productive mankind would participate in government (regarding patents, I do not believe rational people would consent to the current setup). The anarchists could do what they want--outside of the jurisdiction of rational governments (which would and should be quite geographically limited compared to the totalitarian jurisdictions we have to deal with now). No one would or should force them to participate in civilized society. They could set up their own somewhat less civilized society elsewhere, and would have to deal with the embargoes that the rational government would create that would consensually limit trade between citizens of the rational government and citizens of the anarcho-capitalist government. Eventually they would learn their lesson and embrace some form of copyright.

Other objections could be raised, some of these are addressed in my book.

Shayne

Edited December 1, 2010 by sjw

[nskinsella]

Sooo, are you guys arguing that Ayn should not have been able to direct her intellectual property in whatever way she wished?

Selene,

I've long been an outspoken opponent of patent and copyright, on libertarian grounds (I'm a practicing patent lawyer). My reasons are given here http://c4sif.org/resources/. An increasing number of libertarians in the last decade are so have turned their attention to this issue, and have become anti-intellectual property. From what I've seen most Austrian and anarchist libertarians are completely opposed to IP, and even some Objectivists are changing their mind on this issue or at least willing to reconsider the subject. Adam Mossoff is trying to come up with some defense of it, but he will fail, IMO; Diana Hsieh admits this is a "thorny" issue--how can it be thorny, if as Rand said, "Patents are the heart and core of property rights"? If it's the very foundation of rights, as Rand perhaps sometimes thought, and as Galambos thought, how can it be a thorny issue, without calling the entire edifice into question? They are right, it is thorny; but it's not the base of properyt rights, nor even compatible with property rights.

I'm glad to see an increasing number of Objectivists being willing to reexamine Rand's very weak, confused arguments for IP.

Quoting Stephan from http://mises.org/daily/3682:

However, in order for IP to work, it has to bind not only seller and buyer, but all third parties. The contract between buyer and seller cannot do this — it binds only the buyer and seller. In the example given above, even if Green agrees not to copy Brown's mousetrap, Black has no agreement with Brown. Brown has no contractual right to prevent Black from using Black's own property in accordance with whatever knowledge or information Black has. Thus, the contract approach fails as well. (See also Against Intellectual Property, pp. 45–55.)

Stephan is correct so long as one accepts anarchist premises, but if one embraces a consensual form of government, then along with consenting to government, one can consent to man-made copyright laws that bind third parties belonging to the government's jurisdiction as well. Now since the government would be consensual, then only those belonging to it would be bound to the agreement, but I think rational people would prefer that creators have a means to profit from their creations, and thus the majority of productive mankind would participate in government (regarding patents, I do not believe rational people would consent to the current setup).

By this kind of "social contract" theorizing you can justify anything the state does now--social security, the draft, etc.

You are mistaken that anarchism is the basis for my and other libertarians' critique of IP. Even minarchists support property rights and it's not too hard to show that IP is contrary to property rights.

[sjw]

By this kind of "social contract" theorizing you can justify anything the state does now--social security, the draft, etc.

You would not be able to justify the draft -- slave contracts are essentially unenforcible. You would be able to justify some form of welfare, but without totalitarian jurisdiction it would be impossible to reach the level of welfare state we're at now -- the young would go found their own government, one without it.

You are mistaken that anarchism is the basis for my and other libertarians' critique of IP. Even minarchists support property rights and it's not too hard to show that IP is contrary to property rights.

I don't say that anarchism is your basis. I think your basis is similar or identical to mine -- IP is not a natural right. This is why it must be constructed through contract. What I do say is that your anarchism prohibits you from inventing solutions that bind third parties.

Shayne

Edited December 1, 2010 by sjw