About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 4:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil-

If you mean that people are getting together en masse and making up, then no I guess that's not happening. What I do think is happening is that the two sides are beginning to learn from each other and that many more backchannels for communication are opening up. ARI has learned that they have to tone down their harsh edge and TOC is learning that more of the modern libertarian movement is becoming increasingly corrupted by subjectivism, anti-Americanism, and hostility to Rand.

I can remember when each side simply acted as if the other had completely the wrong approach. The remaining problems I see are that there is little fundamental new work coming from ARI and TOC has had some trouble keeping advanced philosophy students interested. That said, I certainly think the movement is healthier than in the late 80's and early 90's. 

Jim


Post 21

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 7:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I hope you’re right James. However, what Andre says still worries me. Despite Phil’s words of caution, the vilification of fellow Objectivists creates an unhealthy atmosphere for nurturing an intellectual and cultural movement. I hope the new generation can shrug-off the attitudes of the old-timers and enjoy the give-and-take of a respectful debate. I’ll continue to give ARIans credit for good articles but personally, I’ll keep my distance.


Sanction: 29, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 29, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 29, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James, the basic problem remains this:

If you set off-limits to rational inspection any area of reality, that sets a methodological precedent for arbitrarily descending into irrationality whenever the truth becomes too painful or inconvenient to confront.

That is the Objectivist criticism leveled so often against religious faith, in such faith-based notions as a perfect, infallible God. The criticism, however, loses none of its force when self-described "Objectivists" employ that irrational methodology, and when their perfect, infallible goddess is Ayn Rand.

In this vein, let me tell you a story...and I beg your indulgence at the length of this post as a result.

Back in the mid-1980s, when rumors of Barbara's forthcoming biography began circulating, I vividly recall the "official" Objectivist position -- stridently maintained for years by Peikoff, Schwartz, et al. -- that the Brandens were filthy liars for even daring to absurdly suggest that there ever had been an affair between Rand and Nathaniel Branden. I just as vividly remember the "reasoning" offered to support these denials: that Ayn Rand was madly in love with and faithful to her husband; that Branden was a low-life and that a relationship with him would have been morally and psychologically impossible for "a heroine" and a "spiritual giant" like Ayn Rand; that Leonard Peikoff, as an intimate friend of Rand's and as her "intellectual heir," would have been in a position to know the truth of the matter, and that he had always vigorously denied it; that you'd have to believe Ayn Rand was less than she was, and that her Intellectual Heir was a bald-faced liar, in order to believe the claims of the sleazy Brandens; etc., etc.

That, my friends, was the official Party Line about the affair...before Barbara's book came along.

Around that same time, I was still on speaking terms with ARI people, and in fact had been writing for Peter Schwartz's Intellectual Activist. As a reviewer for other publications as well, I received an advance copy of Barbara's book in galley form, and of course devoured it quickly. It blew me away, to say the least. The details provided by Barbara were utterly compelling, and left no doubt in my mind that the disastrous relationship had, in fact, occurred; that it had been covered up for years; and that Rand's own account of the reasons for her break with the Brandens was -- to put it in Objectivese -- a highly selective re-creation of reality.

Given that I already knew Schwartz's hatred of the Brandens and his pre-publication hostility toward Barbara's book (which he had not even yet read), and given that I knew I'd be giving it an enthusiastic early review, I sent Schwartz an e-mail telling him that I would no longer be able to write for his newsletter. (I didn't bother to explain why at the time, knowing full well that he'd understand the reason within weeks.)

About the same time, still prior to the book's publication, I went to a party in New Jersey at which some people prominently affiliated with ARI were present. The subject of Barbara's forthcoming book came up, and I mentioned that I had read a review copy and would be reviewing it soon. One of those prominent ARI people, an artist, asked with an indignant tone: "Well, does she [Barbara] contend that Miss Rand and Nathaniel Branden had an affair?"

I remember the sick look on all their faces when I replied, "She supplies a great deal of compelling detail that convinces me that there was an affair."

Even after publication of Barbara's book, the "official" position was still heated denial: continuing accusations that the Brandens were liars, that their accounts were "non-objective." But I noticed cracks in the public facade. In his own published screed against Barbara, Peter Schwartz asked in his closing paragraphs: So what if any of the claims in Barbara's book happen to be true? The real importance of Ayn Rand, he said, lay in her philosophy and novels: "It is her books that she should be judged by."

A curious position coming from people who had long argued that Objectivism permits no breach between mind and body, theory and practice -- and who had, since 1968, used that very argument against the Brandens.

Then -- FINALLY -- at a Ford Hall Forum speech which I attended, Peikoff revealed during the Q&A that he had recently "discovered" among Ayn Rand's personal papers some letters that confirmed that, Yes, there had been an affair.

Folks, you would have had to have been there to appreciate the thundering silence that greeted this stunning revelation. Imagine the sounds of hundreds of trains of thought suddenly screeching to a halt before hitting some unexpected obstacle on the track...then trying frantically to somehow reverse direction prior to impact. I mean, you could see it in the eyes around you: the smugness of moral superiority suddenly replaced by darting sideways glances, each person wondering how he should take this cataclysmic news, what others were thinking about it, how to reconcile it with all the previous self-righteous denunciations of the Brandens being liars...

The best historic analogy I could come up with was how U. S. Communist Party members responded early in the World War II period to sudden news from Moscow of the "Hitler-Stalin Pact." Overnight, the hated Nazis, denounced for years, were to be considered allies. Many of the more honest Party members quit in disgust. What remained was an unthinking contingent of dogmatists whose first loyalty was not to reality, but to their venerated icons: Stalin and the Party.

But just as new rationalizations flowed forth to encourage the Party faithful to navigate this startling ideological about-face, so too did Peikoff & Co. soon offer what have now become the familiar rationalizations for Rand's private behavior. No longer was their argument the one Schwartz had advanced in print -- i. e., that Ayn Rand should be judged only by her books. No, now they offered a new defense: that Ayn Rand had done absolutely nothing wrong. And more: that there was nothing wrong with extramarital affairs generally; that Rand had entered this one with everyone's full "rational" knowledge and complete "moral" consent; that the only thing wrong with it was that Nathaniel Branden had deceived her about his moral character, before, during and after the relationship began. In short, Ayn Rand was a totally innocent victim of the devious Branden. This was the new Objectivist Party Line.


I tell you this story to provide a broader context for the discussion underway here. James was absolutely correct in saying: "The problem with ARI is that being 95% right isn't good enough, when the 5% wrong that you are is viciously intolerant and blind."

Let me put it a nicer way, however.

There's a passage in Atlas Shrugged when Francisco tells Rearden that he's committing a grave mistake. Irrationalists, says Francisco, want to blind themselves to perceiving the good. Rearden, by contrast, wants to blind himself to looking at evil. But even though Rearden's motives are noble, Francisco points out, the error is the same: it's the refusal to face facts. And faking reality always results in destruction.

In this case, those who idolize Ayn Rand may have only the purest of motives. I certainly sympathize with their desire to find and venerate real-life heroes, the desperate quest to discover some living example of human perfection.

But if one has to torture facts in order to uphold such an icon, the consequences of that manipulation will boomarang back, ultimately undercutting one's entire philosophy.

How can one defend rationality and integrity against irrationalism and blind faith, if, like a religious dogmatist, he is willing to blind himself to unpleasant or uncomfortable facts? How can one defend independence if he is willing to blindly follow some false Party Line and "not make waves" in order to avoid being expelled? How can one feel self-esteem and pride if one undercuts his own independent rational judgment, and knows that his silent acquiescence is rooted in cowardice? How can one uphold the principle of justice, if he is so committed to falsely maintaining the "perfect" reputation of his hero (Rand) that he is willing to brand as liars anyone who reveals unpleasant truths (the Brandens) -- or to unjustly vilify some of the finest, most honorable Objectivists (e. g., David Kelley, George Walsh, etc.) whenever they write something that clashes with the Party Line?

To repeat what I said at the opening:

If you set off-limits to rational inspection any area of reality, that sets a methodological precedent for arbitrarily descending into irrationality whenever the truth becomes too painful or inconvenient to confront.

Let me then apply this, then, to the speech by Yaron Brook. While I'm always pleased whenever someone from ARI says something in a reasonable way, I can't get past a simple, sad fact: The context in which such statements are made does not allow for expressions of independent thought, if the thoughts expressed are in any way critical of Ayn Rand, her self-proclaimed "intellectual heir" or anything they've ever said or written, about anything.

Anyone affiliated with ARI who doubts this contention is cheerfully invited to test it.

I might leave with those lacking such courage with this question: Why not?

Another question to ponder: Do you honestly believe that a character such as Howard Roark would be comfortable inside a group such as ARI?

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 3/21, 9:04am)


Post 23

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 8:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

  Anyone see George Reisman's book at the http://aynrandbookstore.com? Didn't think so, well that book sucks anyway, it certainly isn't worthy of gracing their wonderful pages. Until they put that up, they're a joke in my opinion. No matter how good some of the stuff they offer may be, this shows how mental they were, and probably still are.

(Edited by shane hurren on 3/21, 8:56am)


Post 24

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert & James: I was going to write something along those very lines. I couldn't agree more with all the principles Robert applies to this situation (I'm not privy to the actual history). No one should be excused for indulging in even a little irrationality, least of all Objectivists!

But let's be sure not to apply this hypocritically. It's very convenient to call people you already don't like on indulging irrationality. But when your best friend does it and you point it out, well that's true commitment to the principle.


Post 25

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shane, I'm not known for holding my fire here, as a number of the walking wounded can probably attest.  Let me assure you that a certain number of former friends know where my commitments to principle begin and end.


Post 26

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, what strikes me about your long post about the affair coming to light is that you don't for a minute seem to have entertained the hypothesis that Peikoff actually wasn't kept in the loop about what was going on in the bedroom and did discover it later. You are presuming him guilty of deep-seated dishonesty as the only rational explanation.

Likewise, you seem to predominantly view all the people who then said the affair was okay as being sycophants acting out of fear of being purged. Again, as I pointed out in another thread, you do not seem to allow for much possibility of honest error. Or a long period of being mistaken and a slow process of coming to the truth.

I gave you a substantial list of other possibilities in that thread (compartmentalization, etc.), which you brushed aside without fully addressing.

Francisco and Galt allowed for a years long, slow process of coming to the truth in the case of Dagny and Rearden, the "scabs" who were opposing everything they had dedicated their lives to. They understood that these were courageous people honest enough to be fighting alone for unpopular principles against a hostile culture (as are the Objectivists at -both- ARI and TOC). And that it would be the last hypothesis not the first to assume them guilty of dishonesty, cowardice, or evasion.

And that the approach to take with them was patience, support, and respect.

When I hear you make these sweeping assumptions about the other side of the schism, I hear the same voice as those people in ARI who assume any disagreement over toleration, etc. is a sign of evil or feet of clay.

You are -not- guilty of dishonesty or evasion. But you are either blinded by anger and outrage or, like Peikoff, simply not perceptive enough about psychology on this crucial issue of what can and cannot constitute honest error.

(You are not alone. This is a mistake you share with the overwhelming majority of Objectivists, including probably most people in the SOLO and TOC wings as well as the ARI and is crippling our movement and inclines to many of us toward pessimism, negativity, hopelessness about the culture, and cynicism...a subject for another post.)

Phil

Post 27

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 12:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Philip: I didn't read Robert's post as saying that Peikoff was lying. Nor do I think that Peikoff would ever have done so. I am quite sure that Peikoff would have told the truth if he had known what it was.

My initial thought here relates to the repentance thread: When Peikoff discovered the truth, did he apologize for all the false claims he'd made and the hostility he'd had that was based on his false belief? Did he try to understand the epistemological/psychological roots of the error and try to correct in himself what might have caused it? Or has he taken the opposite non-repentance approach, one which as Ethan points out, leads to arrogance?

I also wonder how you would try to excuse ARI of guilt in whole Reisman issue, which strikes me as related and an even more blatant case where they've done wrong and not corrected it. Forget the personal relationships; I cannot fathom a reason or excuse why Reisman's book would not be sold at the Ayn Rand bookstore.


Post 28

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob,

To answer your question, no, Howard Roark would not feel comfortable at ARI and neither would I.

I've always been a firm Kelley supporter and remain so. However, the issue I have is this: why shouldn't we simply recognize that ARI-affiliated people have certain blind spots and not twist their tail and poison people against them at every opportunity. I think that people should judge for themselves. In college, I had an ARI-affilated professor, Darryl Wright, who was a terrific teacher and not at all like the way Will Thomas thinks of him. I have also met and interacted with Gary Hull who was a bit more strident. The point is this: if we paint a picture of ARI folks that is not realistic it will backfire. I have no doubt that Yaron Brook is a reasonable guy 99% of the time and when people see that it puts questions in their heads.

The thing I really like about David Kelley is he laid out the philosophical case in Truth and Toleration for a rejection of  cultism and upholding independence and it hasn't been refuted. If people choose to reject ARI, I really want them to understand why and not take my word for it. In other posts, I have detailed some of the epistemological mistakes that Peikoff makes that I find hit at the very core of the philosophy.

 However, I don't want to pass the emotional bile of this disagreement unattenuated down to the next generation of Objectivists. They deserve better than that.

In closing, I will say that IOS/TOC has done a wonderful thing in liberating Objectivism from cultism. However, we need to make sure that we really teach the philosophy and demonstrate open Objectivism even and especially to those we disagree with including people at ARI. We need to demonstrate what we are for, not define ourselves by what we are against.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 12:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil Coates writes:

Robert, what strikes me about your long post about the affair coming to light is that you don't for a minute seem to have entertained the hypothesis that Peikoff actually wasn't kept in the loop about what was going on in the bedroom and did discover it later. You are presuming him guilty of deep-seated dishonesty as the only rational explanation.


Not at all, Phil. Those I alluded to who were advancing the argument that "Peikoff would have known" were others connected with ARI, not necessarily Peikoff himself. In fact, he was NOT "kept in the loop" concerning Rand's private life. That, however, undercuts his claim, and those of others, that Peikoff was at any time an intimate confidante of Ayn Rand. Even after 1968 she chose not to tell him the truth, and he didn't learn of it until after her death, when perusing her private letters.

Likewise, you seem to predominantly view all the people who then said the affair was okay as being sycophants acting out of fear of being purged. Again, as I pointed out in another thread, you do not seem to allow for much possibility of honest error. Or a long period of being mistaken and a slow process of coming to the truth.


I was referring specifically (and obviously, I thought) to those who suddenly turned on a dime after Peikoff's revelation: who once indignantly ridiculed the very idea of the relationship, and denounced anyone who suggested it, but who suddenly and completely changed their tune and rationalized it after the facts became undeniable. I don't consider that sort of conduct in any way admirable.

Nor do I assume "dishonesty" merely on the basis that someone disagrees with me about the prudence of extramarital affairs.

I gave you a substantial list of other possibilities in that thread (compartmentalization, etc.), which you brushed aside without fully addressing.


Phil, if I "fully addressed" every objection everyone posted here to everything I said, I would have no other life. I think I've done as well as anyone to defend my views in as much detail as time permits, or as I think an argument warrants.

Francisco and Galt allowed for a years long, slow process of coming to the truth in the case of Dagny and Rearden, the "scabs" who were opposing everything they had dedicated their lives to. They understood that these were courageous people honest enough to be fighting alone for unpopular principles against a hostile culture (as are the Objectivists at -both- ARI and TOC). And that it would be the last hypothesis not the first to assume them guilty of dishonesty, cowardice, or evasion.

And that the approach to take with them was patience, support, and respect.


I will leave aside the use of fictional characters here as if they were real people; I will take this to be only a way of using them as symbols to illustrate your principle. And as to that -- Sure, one should allow time and a lot of latitude to people whom you think are making mistakes.

But mistakes are one thing; injustices are something different. A "mistake" might only victimize the person in error; an injustice is an undeserved cruelty inflicted on another. And I will NOT abide in silence, or with patience, vicious lies and outrageous accusations heaped upon fine individuals (and friends) such as Barbara, David Kelley, Bob Hessen and the late George Walsh. Nor will I wait around for the day that the smug bastards who issue such calumnies may -- may -- finally "see the light."

Perhaps what might best help them open their eyes to that light is the proverbial (or in this case, "verbial") two-by-four upside of the head.

I frankly don't care if such injustices occur as a result of ignorance, honest errors, stupidity or plain malice. Nor would you, if the object of the attack were, say, your own friends or loved ones. If the bad rhetorical habits learned from too-close proximity to ARI gurus lead many affiliated Objectivists to indulge in such unthinking vituperation, they ought to publicly pay a price for it.

When I hear you make these sweeping assumptions about the other side of the schism, I hear the same voice as those people in ARI who assume any disagreement over toleration, etc. is a sign of evil or feet of clay.


(Sigh...)

You are -not- guilty of dishonesty or evasion. But you are either blinded by anger and outrage or, like Peikoff, simply not perceptive enough about psychology on this crucial issue of what can and cannot constitute honest error.


Well, Phil, I can't be let off that easy on the mere excuse that I'm "blinded," because, you see, I reached my conclusions about these people from up-close observation and countless encounters. But since you have excluded from the logical possibilities here the possibility that I might actually be right...oh gosh gee, I guess that leaves me as "simply not perceptive about psychology on this crucial issue..."

Oh damn. Failed again... Guess I better work on that, eh?


(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 3/21, 12:51pm)


Post 30

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[Phil] "you don't for a minute seem to have entertained the hypothesis that Peikoff actually wasn't kept in the loop." [Robert] "I was referring specifically (and obviously, I thought) to those who suddenly turned on a dime after Peikoff's revelation."

I misread you. Sorry!

"That, however, undercuts his claim, and those of others, that Peikoff was at any time an intimate confidante of Ayn Rand."

Robert, this sounds like an example of not entertaining other possibilities than exaggeration or pomposity or otherwise cynically viewing his claims - she did spend a tremendous amount of time with him, discussing philosophy with him, helping him, editing his mistakes. I can say I am an intimate confidante of X in the intellectual sense, without being an ***intimate*** confidante, if you get my meaning.

"I frankly don't care if such injustices occur as a result of ignorance, honest errors, stupidity or plain malice."

I do.

"Nor would you, if the object of the attack were, say, your own friends or loved ones."

Yes I would. I'd allow as much time as needed to separate my emotions from the facts of the matter.


Phil

"since you have excluded from the logical possibilities here the possibility that I might actually be right, oh gosh gee -- I guess that leaves me as 'simply not perceptive about psychology on this crucial issue... Oh damn. Failed again... Guess I better work on that, eh? "

Only if you really want to...and can afford the time :-)

Post 31

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 3:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[James] "why shouldn't we simply recognize that ARI-affiliated people have certain blind spots and not twist their tail and poison people against them at every opportunity."

But if we did that, we'd have a break in the circular firing squad that is the Objectivist movement.

Post 32

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 5:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, I thought your Post 22 was a stunningly good story. I bet that yourself, David Kelley, Barbara Branden, Nathaniel Branden, etc. have a ton of such good stories inside you -- complete with revelations, observations, insights, and morals. But the great problem is....you guys tend to keep them to yourselves. You assume we all know and understand the historical events and intellectual issues illustrated already -- but often we don't. Our knowledge is half-way and unfleshed-out at best. What's extremely obvious, familiar, and even boring to insiders and former insiders such as yourself is far, far less so to the rest of us. The more inner-circle stories of this type -- complete with your old views and new analysis thereof -- the better! I hope you continue to share anecdotes of this type. It has a humanizing and three-dimensionalizing effect which is highly entertaining, which indirectly improves philosophical thought, and which helps bring the philosophy of Objectivism alive.    
 


Post 33

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[Shayne] I cannot fathom a reason or excuse why Reisman's book would not be sold at the Ayn Rand bookstore.

Neither can I! The best I can recall it was something incredibly dumb or lacking a sense of proportion: Personal and business disputes and acrimony escalates to moral and character condemnations on both sides. Then it escalates to you don't want to have business dealings with someone who you have an ethical dispute with (and there was something also about who owned the copyright to one of Peter Schwartz's lectures, wasn't there?).

Made not much sense (except as another manifestation of the circular firing squad). Reisman's book "Capitalism" is a masterpiece. It rounds out their offerings by plugging a big whole in economics.

Message to bookstore:

1. You should be selling this book.
2. You should never have stopped.
3. Time to start again.

Phil

(I should add that it is -possible- that you might not want to have business dealings with someone you have an ethical or business dispute with - but this didn't seem to be such a case from everything we heard. And also there is a distinction between selling a book and having -personal- dealings with someone.)
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 3/21, 6:51pm)


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 6:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert: "If you set off-limits to rational inspection any area of reality, that sets a methodological precedent for arbitrarily descending into irrationality whenever the truth becomes too painful or inconvenient to confront."

Bravo and amen!

You also wrote: " I certainly sympathize with their desire to find and venerate real-life heroes, the desperate quest to discover some living example of human perfection."

I sympathize, too. But in their search for a hero, they can stop with Ayn Rand. What in the world do they want of their heroes? Omniscience? So what if she made mistakes! So what if she made some terrible, disastrous mistakes! She was a giant, of the kind rarely seen in this world: a giant of the intellect, and a giant of character. That's quite enough for me .I don't require my heroes to be God.

At the risk of being flippant, there is also, of course, Leonard Peikoff -- whom I understand has made a film documentary about the life of an heroic man: himself. .I don't know if everyone will find the blurb for it as hilarious as I do; perhaps I -- and I assume Robert, Linz, James Kilbourne and a few others on Solo-- have a special context. But here is the blurb:

"This compelling film reveals the story of a brilliant intellect who
forsook a career in medicine to study personally with the late
novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand, and who, in time, became her designated
legal and intellectual heir.

"The life of Leonard Peikoff is a heroic one. From his early years as a
precocious student tortured by the dichotomy of the "moral vs. the
practical" to his awakening when he read /The Fountainhead/ and set off
to California from Winnipeg, Canada, to meet its author; to the 30 years
he spent under her guidance in mastering her philosophy of Objectivism
and in learning how to think and write; to his special insights into her
unique mind and values; to his breaking new ground in presenting and
promoting Objectivism in his already-classic books; to his overseeing
the publication of Rand's many posthumous works; and to his own value
system, artistic favorites and personal life, it's all here and all in
his own words."

Well, I suppose one could say: to each his own definition of heroism.

By the way, Robert, I may have mentioned to you that Peikoff's letter of apology to me for saying I was a vicious liar when I wrote that Rand had an affair with Nathaniel, must have been lost in the mail. Because I never received it.

Barbara

P. S. I can't stop laughing!

P.P. S. By the way, Peikoff didn't WALK to California from Winnipeg . And he had no idea he would meet Ayn Rand until I suggested that he join me when I next visited her.

P. P.P. S. I'm sending this off immediately, before I can decide that I shouldn't.



Post 35

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does Peikoff personally receive the royalties from Rand's books or does that money go straight to ARI coffers?  And if it goes to Leonard, will his daughter then be the next heir?

Post 36

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 7:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ok, someone has to say it. This thread has been twisted around by people with an axe to grind. I'd single our Bob Bidinotto as the main instigator. Bob, I've enjoyed much of what you've written over the years( in fact, next to Linz, you're one of the best thinkers here at SOLO). I know of your loyalty to Kelley and The Objectivist Center. Yet, I've also noticed that, as of late, you've come to *essentially* agree with Schwartz's critique of Libertarianism. I've enjoyed reading your insights on this issue, as well as your critique of Anarcho-Capitalism. Now, I have to ask.
Puting aside criticisms that you,(and I) may have of Yaron Brook's specific views on the war in Iraq:  Would you agree  that representatives of A.R.I. may actually be right on a specific issue where T.O.C. disgrees? 

As to the Article. This isn't a revelation to me. I've personally heard Yaron Brook, John Lewis and John Ridpath say many things about foreign policy that may seem as a surprise to those who are critics of A.R.I.(And I'm by no means an apologist).  What motive could there be in presenting a slightly distorted view of A.R.I.'s position? Who profits?




Post 37

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 8:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wayne,

It's been awhile since I've read Schwartz's screed on Libertarianism. However, whatever value it had was overshadowed by the over the top hyperbole. Can you honestly say that you can equate libertarians with the Ayatollah Khoemeini? I agree that the libertarian movement has taken a serious turn for the worse, but the skewed presentation of Libertarianism in that piece was comical.

My main complaint with ARI is not the usual one. I have not generally been turned off by the ARI people I've met, I've simply found much of their written work to be disappointingly poor. Here is another example from Peikoff's magnum opus OPAR:

In OPAR page 171:
 
         In the previous chapter, I stressed the importance of relating a new idea
         to the full context-- of seeking to reduce the idea to the data of sense and
         to integrate it with the rest of one's conclusions. Now I want to develop a
         further point: once these logical requirements have been met, the idea has
         been validated. If a man evades relevant data: or if defaulting on the process
         of logic, he jumps from the data to an unwarranted conclusion; then of course
         his conclusion does not qualify as knowledge. But if he does consider all the
         available evidence, and he does employ the method of logic in assessing it,
         then his interpretation must be regarded as valid.
         Logical processing of an idea within a specific context of knowledge is
         necessary and sufficient to establish the idea's truth.
 
Now, the last sentence of this passage is just plain false. The truth of an idea is its relationship to the facts of reality, my reasoning about it or logical processing of an idea within my context of knowledge has no bearing on its truth. Peikoff's argument conflates the idea of validity, which is an epistemological term designating a best effort standard for an argument (i.e. I have considered the available evidence and made no logical or inferential errors) with the idea of truth which represents the relationship between an idea and the facts of reality independent of anyone's apprehension of it.
 
This passage that I quoted is not an isolated instance. Throughout Peikoff's writings he seems more concerned with how an idea fits together with what he already knows than gathering additional data. In fact, there is always an epistemological tension between gathering new data and integrating the knowledge we have and it is a difficult balance. The standard I use concerning the rigor of an argument is the maintenance of that balance. Are the counterarguments considered? What are the sources of evidence of which I may be in ignorance? Is there any disconfirming evidence? The process of continuing to consider these questions is key in maintaining objectivity.


Post 38

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 8:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Pete: "Does Peikoff personally receive the royalties from Rand's books?"

Yes,

"will his daughter then be the next heir?"

Yes.


Post 39

Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, how heroic!

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.