Advanced training in Objectivism: Who does it well?

Over on the thread concerning Objectivist ventures that have failed, some of the conversation has been about advanced training in Objectivist philosophy, and who provides it successfully. This looks to be an important topic in its own right--one that merits its own thread.

Here are some questions that may help to guide the discussion:

(1) What should advanced training in Objectivism consist of? Should the focus be solely on work approved for publication by Ayn Rand during her lifetime? (On a closed-system definition, those are the only Objectivist texts.) Or is it necessary to cast the net more broadly? If so, how much more broadly? Should the work of non-Objectivist philosophers that shows significant affinities with Objectivism be included? Should the work of influential philosophers strongly opposed to either the methods or the conclusions of Objectivism be included?

(2) What is an appropriate model for such training? For example, should it resemble graduate education in philosophy?

(3) Objectivism is a philosophy--not a biological theory, or a psychological theory, or a conception of applied politics, or whatever. Does it follow that advanced Objectivist training should be given only to those who want to become professional philosophers? Should advanced Objectivist training ever focus on any discipline outside of philosophy?

(4) What, if anything, is the role of universities in advanced Objectivist training? Is the purpose of such training to produce professors? Or to train intellectuals who do not work for universities, either because they find better opportunities elsewhere, or because they reject academic culture and values?

(5) What are the criteria for success? If a program of advanced training in Objectivism is working well, what concrete outcomes do you expect to see?

Robert Campbell

Post 1

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 8:29pm

These are excellent questions and I am brainstorming as I answer them so keep that in mind.

#1. Objectivism shouldn't be considered a "closed system" but it is very important that people get the core ideas down first before they move on to other things -- if it is Objectivism they are interested in learning about. The core of Objectivism WAS developed by Ayn Rand during her lifetime and that core needs to be fully understood before one can move onto other Randian writers, critiques, similiar/different philosophers ect. or else the integration process becomes a jumbled mess.

#2. For myself the model is self study. For the true individualist I'm not sure formal education is necessary. There is an incredible amount of material out there. It is all a matter of digging in and reading the stuff. Web sites like this are excellent for asking questions and developing ideas. University classroom settings tend to breed second handers and conformity. SOLO could in fact be an excellent forum for Objectivist education. A few of the top experts on this site could develop 3 month courses that include various readings and message board discussions. The expert would moderate the discussions and correct errors made by students in their discussions about the reading material. These courses could range from beginner to advanced. I'm not sure how much participation you would get but I think this would be an excellent approach that wouldn't require a lot of resources.

#3. Advanced Objectivists need to gain an understanding of economics -- and specifically the writings of the Austrian School. Along with advocating Objectivist philosophy we need to advocate proper economic policy and ideas to the general public. This is an area of massive ignorance. Most media discussions and public ideas regarding economics are still based roughly on Marxist assumptions. University economics courses tend to avoid coming to any "conclusions" and tend to emphasize an is/ought dicotomy even when the data and the principles taught show clearly that the current government policies are causing massive problems. Someone needs to take up the banner of free economics and it might as well be us. Other topics might be good supliments but different people are going to have their specialties.

#4. This is a question I will leave to those considering becoming university professors.

#5. One thing I notice when I read through message forums that have an ARI membership base is that I see people actively discussing core ideas and focusing on logical arguments. Even the more junior members understand the basic concepts and are able to defend them when challenged by outsiders. I can see that most of them have read not only Rand's fiction but also the non fiction works and even Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Piekoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. ARI has strange aspects of their culture that I don't approve of but they do seem to do a good job of teaching the core ideas to their members. Here at SOLO there is a mish mash of people who don't always seem focused on really getting into ideas -- the junior members tend to discuss topics on a very superficial level and tend to simply spout off opinions. They agree with the "Objectivist" position, but for whatever reason they don't engage the topics with the same kind of intellectual precision that I see over in the other camp. I can't speak for the TOC because I have never interacted with their membership outside of those who also use SOLO. So I think this goes back to the fact that people really do need to read Ayn Rand and have a pretty good understanding of Objectivism before they begin calling themselves "Objectivists". If I were leading a group like SOLO I would emphasize this as much as possible to my members.

- Jason

Post 2

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 8:30pm

Excellent questions, Robert, and they deserve a serious and carefully considered response, as opposed to shooting from the hip or one-liners.

I actually wrote a complete proposal for some people at TOC and in an exchange of memos: I deal with this and other questions re training in a rather thorough manner.

Since it's been a year and if my proposal had been accepted I would have heard by now, I will edit it removing references and correspondence with specific individuals, and non-training issues, and anything else personal or confidential and post just the idea itself.

I devoted a considerable amount of work and thought to it, and I don't want my work and ideas to simply vanish. So, I'm hopeful there will be some Soloists who can take a break from sliming each other long enough to print it out (it's detailed and long) and read it and process it in depth. If so, I'll continue to offer things like this.

I have to figure out first if this is a post or an article.

Phil Coates

Post 3

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 8:38pm

Jason, your post and mine went up almost simultaneously:

"One thing I notice when I read through message forums that have an ARI membership base is that I see people actively discussing core ideas and focusing on logical arguments. Even the more junior members understand the basic concepts and are able to defend them when challenged by outsiders. I can see that most of them have read not only Rand's fiction but also the non fiction works and even Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Piekoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. ARI has strange aspects of their culture that I don't approve of but they do seem to do a good job of teaching the core ideas to their members."

Very true. They have a formal, college-like, topic by topic training program in Objectivism and philosophy, as NBI essentially did with its courses and Peikoff essentially did with his courses on every area and topic of philosophy.

TOC under Kelley made the catastrophic mistake of thinking something as difficult and radically new to most Ayn Rand readers as Objectivism didn't need this or everybody already knows the basics, that you can just give a few lectures in the summer [more recently a whole week of Objectivism 101 given by Will then Diana then Shawn, which is a step in the right direction, but is only a start] and an "advanced seminar" for people who aren't sure to have graduated through a series of courses beyond reading collections of essays. Most of the philosophy students given speaking positions or allowed to present at the advanced seminar never took the more than half dozen most essential series of ten or twelve lecture Peikoff courses, which are available on tape if you are really serious and are the equivalent of a college major in Objectivism.

The incomplete and non-systematic approach hasn't worked.

I will elaborate soon.

Phil
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 8/02, 8:49pm)
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 8/02, 8:51pm)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 8/02, 10:17pm)

Post 4

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 8:50pm

I think I'll mainly stick to point's three and five.

Objectivism is a philosophy, but it is a philosophy for living on earth. I think one of the best thing about NBI was that it didn't just produce philosophers, it produced doctors, psychologists, politicans, writers and all kinds of other things. Philosophers are of UTMOST importance, but having high profile Objectivists in other industries dirrectly affected by Objectivist philosophy could also be of great importance in the marketing of the philosophy and changing the culture.

---Landon

Post 5

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 9:51pm

Phil, please do post your training proposal for discussion here on SOLO. And if you start a new thread for it, please put a little notice/link here, in case some of us miss it otherwise. And thanks for your continued interest in this area and your generosity in sharing your extended thoughts with us.

Robert Campbell wrote:

(1) What should advanced training in Objectivism consist of? Should the focus be solely on work approved for publication by Ayn Rand during her lifetime? (On a closed-system definition, those are the only Objectivist texts.) Or is it necessary to cast the net more broadly? If so, how much more broadly? Should the work of non-Objectivist philosophers that shows significant affinities with Objectivism be included? Should the work of influential philosophers strongly opposed to either the methods or the conclusions of Objectivism be included?

(2) What is an appropriate model for such training? For example, should it resemble graduate education in philosophy?

(3) Objectivism is a philosophy--not a biological theory, or a psychological theory, or a conception of applied politics, or whatever. Does it follow that advanced Objectivist training should be given only to those who want to become professional philosophers? Should advanced Objectivist training ever focus on any discipline outside of philosophy?

My replies (omitting #4 and #5):

1. I think that methodology is of utmost importance. Advanced training should include critical thinking as well as both deductive and inductive logic, focusing primarily on Peikoff's lecture courses, but also including outside readings from the best Aristotelian logicians, especially, in my opinion, Henry B. Veatch. He has covered a lot of ground not well trod yet by Objectivist philosophers, and his treatment of those topics is rigorous enough and close enough to Objectivist thinking to be helpful and "safe." Another part of methodology I think should be included in advanced training is the whole area of methodological orientations, but especially systematic context-keeping, as exemplified by Chris Sciabarra's brand of dialectics (see his Total Freedom)...This may seem a bit odd, but I also think that economics or politico-economics should be a part of advanced training. The texts should include Reisman's book on capitalism and von Mises' Human Action. (Perhaps also Bernstein's new book.) I also think that philosophy of science should be included, both the life sciences and the physical sciences. There are several texts by Objectivists on the former, and Peikoff's lecture course on induction in physics and philosophy would suffice for the latter until his book with Harriman is available...As for philosophers at odds with Objectivism, I think that in-depth study of Plato and Kant (and their principal offshoots) should be required -- but of Aquinas and Aristotle, as well.

2. I think that a graduate training school would be the most effective setting for building a community of Objectivist scholars. However, the syllabi and course materials should be made available for independent Objectivist scholars as well.

3. Even though psychology, biology, economics, etc. are not part of Objectivism, it has long been obvious that Objectivism's methodology is especially important in helping professionals in these areas to ground their views. As noted above in my reply to #1, I think that economics and physics (and perhaps other areas) would be good non-philosophical areas for advanced training to focus on. The rigorous study of these areas, with the training wheels of Objectivist methodology, would be the kind of practice-in-application that would well prepare Objectivist intellectuals to import rational individualism to their fields of expertise.

This is a vital topic for further exploration. Thanks, Bob, for drawing our attention to it, and thanks, Phil, for your valuable insights. (More, please. :-)

Best regards,
Roger Bissell

Post 6

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 9:59pm

This is a vital topic for further exploration. Thanks, Bob, for drawing our attention to it, and thanks, Phil, for your valuable insights. (More, please. :-)

Couldn't agree more.

---Landon

Post 7

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 10:26pm

I agree with Roger that the Training Program should not only be courses in Objectivism. But you have to be selective. You can't be too grandiose and try to recreate an entire college curriculum tomorrow with top-level teachers and courses in every science or social science or area of the humanities.

I see it as a four-pronged stool: Objectivism and exactly three other areas which are needed in order to understand, integrate, apply Objectivism and to live it successfully and to be a skilled activist or salesman or intellectual using it.

(I'll describe the four areas as soon as I cut and paste my previous memos on this so they are intelligible.)

Phil

Post 8

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 5:47am

Phil,

Thanks for taking the time to do this. It is the important topic in Objectivism today. I hope to find the time to listen to the Understanding Objectivism lectures sometime in the next couple of years when life permits :-). I agree that many at TOC and here at SOLO are deficient in concepts such as context, hierarchy, the role of induction in Objectivism as a result of a nonsystematic study of the philosophy and not going through the Peikoff courses.

I think this is not an open/closed system problem, but a failure to apply the spiral theory of knowledge in development of Objectivists and the failure to bulwark against subjectivist tendencies that might accompany an open system orientation. I think ARI had a version of this problem (not the subjectivist variety :-)) too in the late 80's and early 90's but corrected it. I remember Linda Reardan remarking at the time that the advanced ARI students at that time had not studied the extant literature. To solve the problem, you have to develop a systematic program and then delegate after developing a few students who deeply understand the philosophy. You also have to set the expectation and maintain standards.

I think ARI has a similar problem in psychology and philosophy of science. They aren't systematic and lack experts.

Jim

Post 9

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 10:04am

There shouldn't be any advanced training in Objectivism.

There should be inquiry, but not training, unless Objectivism is a religion.

Advanced study in philosophy, including Objectivism, is another matter.

Objectivism is not "a philosophy for living on earth"--not yet. Now it is a want-to-be philosophy for living on earth.

The philosophy for living on earth is reason and reality: train yourself.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 8/03, 10:13am)

Post 10

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 10:12am

Brant,

Ok, use your terms. How can we help students to optimally use their time studying Objectivism?

Jim

Post 11

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 10:15am

James, give them the references. And we are not being semantical here.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 8/03, 10:19am)

Post 12

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 10:35am

Brant,

I took an ethical survey course in college that was tremendously helpful to me. Dr. Darryl Wright, an ARI Objectivist, taught the course. We studied ethics from Nietzsche, Rand, Aristotle, Hospers and several others. We also looked at free will vs. determinism, agent causation and a number of other other topics motivated by John Searle's Minds, Brains and Science.

This wasn't a course in Objectivism, but it did plant the seeds for several avenues of further exploration. Inquiry into Objectivism doesn't need to be paternalistic or handed down from above, but it does need to have some structure. I think students should maintain their independence, but they need to know what questions to ask, how to go about getting the answers and have some idea when their knowledge is inadequate.

Jim

Post 13

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 11:19am

James, you merely did what I suggested. The course you took sounds very interesting. You were not being "trained" in Objectivism, however. Now Objectivism 101, or "Basic Principles of Objectivism" (I cannot recommend Branden's course unless it is pointed out that its tone of voice came out of the 1960s [I understand Peikoff actually did a good course at this level in the early 1980s before his Objectivism book came out]) is where you find the structure you are alluding to. But this is not advanced Objectivism; Objectivism isn't advanced enough for there to be such a thing that isn't much more than opinions. Of course, philosophy generally is much worse. The trick is that if you have basic Objectivism as a reference point in philosophical inquiry you are searching for the truth not garbage such as all truth is relative or "What is truth?" or what use, really, is philosophy (or anything else)?

--Brant

Post 14

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 12:01pm

However - what really would be of use, for all, is a compendum of these source materials, all gathered in one spot - a concordance of sorts, where the interested person may peruse these questions and see what others proposed as answers... and this must include ALL the sources, not just the ARI ones or TOC or whatever...

Post 15

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 1:56pm

I've made a number of posts recently in which I've been critical of David Kelley or TOC.

And in the past I've posted criticism of SOLO or Lindsay Perigo. And years before that I was accused of "bad mouthing" ARI and Leonard Peikoff. (And it's my view that Ayn Rand made a number of mistakes which have been copied by every single one of the movements and leaders since.)

Moreover, I will be making *still more* criticisms of the Objectivist movement from soup to nuts as I spell out my Training Plan or other alternative ideas.

I am fully aware that most people do not take criticism, especially very strong criticism, objectively to say the least. Especially if they have worked very hard at what they are being criticized for. In my quest to try to piss off absolutely everybody, I expect to make quite a few people (especially if they feel the sting of my criticism emotionally) quite irritated at me.

I intend to do it anyway.

Several points:

First, I have a great deal of respect for the people I am criticizing. I just think, however brilliant or well-meaning, they have their own quite sizable limitations or blind spots. And I wish each of the organizations (ARI, TOC, SOLO) I take to task well and hope they succeed in advancing Objectivism. The books are not closed yet.

Second, I think people shouldn't tiptoe around soft-pedaling their criticism or give it less than full clarity when it could be timely or useful. Or, just as bad, bite their tongues and let it build up and build up until there is a vicious and non-objective explosion. There needs to be more and earlier well-delivered and respectfully handled internal discussion and criticism within Objectivist groups or subcultures. And the groups and individuals involved should respond to criticism by explaining what they are doing or why they can't do something (Bill Perry's brief answer on audio tapes is an example of promptly doing this). They should not make all their decisions behind closed doors without give and take with their supporters (all of them, not merely their biggest contributors). In other words, TRANSPARENCY.

Nor should they quietly resent their critics and stew inside and view them as troublemakers. They can learn from them when they are right. And when they are wrong they can learn what a portion of their constituency is thinking and then address those concerns. There is a Korean proverb, "The Wise Man Learns Even From a Fool."

[Whoops, I hope I didn't just say I'm a fool there. Well, too late. ]

Third, Don't just be a lazy, armchair, twenty-twenty hindsight "potshotter". Criticisms should be coupled with suggestions for how to improve. Don't just say what is wrong: offer some ideas (non-vague, specific) for what can be done to correct or resolve or improve matters.

Finally, critics should be answered not ignored.

[The uncontested absurdity becomes tomorrow's conventional wisdom. Sometimes you find out, "Hey, I'm having a hard time answering that SOB." And you discover the reason: Your critic was right.]

Phil

Post 16

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 2:04pm

Following up on my last post, I don't think TOC should let Diana Hsieh's sustained critical attack on it in her blog go unanswered.

Some of her practical criticisms I think have merit and should be taken seriously by TOC, but many of them, especially the moral and character attacks and her analysis of "Truth and Toleration" do not. But she is influential, writes well and carefully, and needs to be taken seriously and engaged intellectually.

This is not a task that can be delegated outside of TOC.

Phil

Post 17

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 2:12pm

Phil said:

Moreover, I will be making *still more* criticisms of the Objectivist movement from soup to nuts as I spell out my Training Plan or other alternative ideas.

I am fully aware that most people do not take criticism, especially very strong criticism, objectively to say the least. Especially if they have worked very hard at what they are being criticized for. In my quest to try to piss off absolutely everybody, I expect to make quite a few people (especially if they feel the sting of my criticism emotionally) quite irritated at me.

I intend to do it anyway.

OK, Phil, as long as you can take it as well as you dish it out.

Glenn

Post 18

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 3:27pm

I've refuted the last three of Diana's attacks on Branden in particular, here: http://joeduarte.blogspot.com. You are overestimating her at this point. She has regressed a great deal in the quality of her writing.

You might be right about TOC needing to respond, but at this point her attacks are so rabid, with so little factual and argumentative support, that TOC responses might be a waste of precious resources.

Joe Duarte

Post 19

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 5:48pm