The Sin against Objectivism (Peikoff as Pontifex)

Andre,

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, although I'd have to say that I don't share it, especially its strident and fanatical tone. I disagree that Rand wanted people to accept her views on faith; she said as much. What she was opposed to were presumptuous, mean-spirited and disrespectful attacks upon her and her philosophy, of which there was certainly no shortage.

I don't think that just because she had a circle of friends who had a passionate commitment to her philosophy, she was therefore a cult leader, which is not to say that there aren't people who display a cultish devotion to her philosophy. She was willing to debate her ideas in a reasonable manner as evidenced by her correspondence with those who disagreed with her. See, for examples, her correspondence with John Hospers in Michael Berliner's Letters of Ayn Rand.

Yes, she was sometimes a bit too quick to impute unworthy motives towards those who questioned her. But it is somewhat understandable, given the treatment she received from the intellectual establishment early on in her career.

- Bill

Post 21

Saturday, November 4, 2006 - 2:39pm

Is it just me or is there really any value at all in pontificating Rand's own personal behavior? Or should her philosophy either stand or fall on it's own without regard to any criticism's of her personality? I don't know what value people get out of that. Isn't her books good enough? Do we have to know every detail and facet of her personal life to give any meaning to Objectivism and her profound works? Whatever failings she may or may not have pale in comparison to the value of her writings. I think books that criticize her idiosyncrasies or personality traits are a waste of time. Life is too short to harp on things that are of only consequence to Rand's personal relationships. Does it matter to anyone if Rand had a short temper? It's not like you're going to ever sit down with her over dinner and have to be concerned about it. What does that matter to anyone? If you regard Rand a hero, please do so because of the philosophy she espoused so well. Regard her as a hero for the wonderful books she wrote. But don't elevate the meaning of hero to Messiah or some other infallible meaning. That's not what heroes are made out of.

Just my thoughts.
(Edited by John Armaos
on 11/04, 2:40pm)

Post 22

Saturday, November 4, 2006 - 4:26pm

John,

I could not agree with you more.

The problem is that some have made the validity of Objectivism stand or fall on Rand's personality. Whether or not it "worked for her" has become an empirical test for the philosophy's merits. Sadly, this premise has been advanced not only by Rand's detractors, but by some of her supporters, as well.

This is sheer nonsense. Life circumstances and talents are not apportioned according to some kind of metaphysical "justice." Many things help or hinder one's success and happiness in life quite independent of one's philosophy. A morally corrupt individual with a huge talent can succeed in the marketplace, become wealthy, and live like a prince or princess. Meanwhile, a morally unblemished individual may not have as much talent, or opportunities, and thus face a difficult struggle all his life. Moreover, even a morally consistent person can make simple mistakes -- "errors of knowledge," as Rand described them -- that can have catastrophic consequences.

Rand herself unfortunately contributed to this nonsense by citing her own life as "proof" of the validity of her code. This boast opened her personal life to the kind of critical scrutiny that no thinker should ever have to undergo, and rendered Objectivism vulnerable to all the ups and downs of her private life. Her enemies have been only too willing to conduct that kind of examination to magnify her shortcomings; some of her admirers have responded with hagiography instead of biography, and tried to whitewash any of her shortcomings. Both base their propaganda on the same false premise: that the success or failure of someone's personal life necessarily reflects, directly and unambiguously, the merits of his or her philosophical ideas.

Objectivism is "a philosophy for living on earth." But while holding a good philosophy increases the likelihood of a happy life and minimizes the possibility of certain kinds of errors and failures, it does not guarantee success. Success is never guaranteed in life. Those admirers or enemies of Ayn Rand who point to her life to justify their views about Objectivism are only planting the seeds for ad hominem attacks on the philosophy.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 11/04, 4:31pm)

Post 23

Saturday, November 4, 2006 - 10:00pm

I'll add my support for John's and Robert's Posts #21 and #22 above. As usual, Robert identifies one very important aspect of why this issue rages on within Objectivist circles. However, this "Cult Of Personality" syndrome is a widespread phenomenon that extends across a number of areas.

As an architect, I have been observing this same issue for many years with regard to Frank Lloyd Wright. In the early 1970's when I attended college Wright was all but ignored. He was not taught in architectural schools and few people in the general public had any real idea who he was or what he had accomplished. However, by the mid '80s, 45 years after his death, Wright started to become fashionable. Many books began to be published and people were exposed to his work. Still in my optimistic youth, I was excited by the expectation that this exposure would result in wider professional appreciation for the principles of Organic architecture and an increase in general aesthetic awareness that would lead to a demand for better architecture. Despite 20 years having passed, I see neither result. Acknowledging the occasional exception, by and large, instead of people seeing enough value in Wright's work to motivate them to act to create a better built environment for themselves, they continue to accept the status quo in their housing and offices, the places where they spend over 90% of their time.

And yet, people were intrigued by Wright. They were not so much interested in understanding his work, but they were fascinated by his personal life. This can be best illustrated by the Ken Burns' documentary that was aired on PBS back in 2002. It concentrated much more on the controversial events in Wright's life than it did his work. Now, almost everyone has heard of Frank Lloyd Wright, but I'll bet that if you ask a group of random people, more will be able to tell you a number of scandalous details about Wright's marriages or recount apocryphal stories about interactions with his clients then could name three of his buildings. Oh well, you can still have a little Wright in your life. How about a rollerball pen with the design from the beautiful 1920's Tokyo Imperial Hotel china. Or possibly a drink coaster with a two-dimensional representation of the three-dimensional concrete block pattern for the 1923 Millard House in Pasadena, CA. Of course the magnificent 1913 Chicago Midway Gardens complex was destroyed in the 1920's, due in part to Prohibition, but you could wear a piece of the polychromed "City By The Sea" mural around your neck for only $34.99. $10.00 for seconds!

I don't recount the above as some sort of professional "sour grapes". I'm simply providing some data to back up my point which is that it takes a lot of mental effort to develop an understanding of aesthetic principles and it takes a great deal of drive and commitment to follow through on the design and construction of a home or and office complex. Few people are willing to expend this level of effort. The same is true of Rand. It takes a lot of effort to integrate a comprehensive philosophy of Objectivism and then follow that by determining how to apply it to the decisions and actions of one's life. I wouldn't necessarily say that it was evasion, but focusing one's energies and attention on the personal aspects of Rand's or Wright's life rather than on the essence of what they had to teach us and then acting upon that knowledge is certainly a major diversion with serious consequences.

At any moment each of us can make a choice as to how to pursue our life. We can take the voyeuristic "People's Magazine" approach of obsessing about the life of others, or we can act to build a better house - literally or metaphorically. The second path is harder, but much more rewarding. I have evaluated Organic architecture, found it valuable, and acted to apply those aesthetic principles to my built environment - and my life is enriched daily as a result of my actions. I really do not see how any errors Wright may have made in the conduct of his life have any bearing upon this process or my resulting enjoyment. And like John, I have made my judgement about the validity and practicality of the philosophy Objectivism and determined how best to leverage it for my personal benefit. If Rand did or didn't make mistakes in her life, I honestly cannot see how that would change my process or results.

So just to be clear, I am not saying that the life of Wright, Rand or any other person should be ignored. I think there can be valuable lessons learned from an analysis of the behavior or others in the context of the results they achieved. But I do agree with John and Robert that the philosophy of Objectivism stands or falls on it's own internal merits and not on how successfully it was or was not applied by any single individual, including Rand. My exasperation with this never ending topic comes from the realization that Objectivism is first and foremost grounded in Individualism. I'm tires of hearing everyone's secondhand, armchair analysis of of other people - including Rand. Contra popular sentiment, I suggest we engage in a bit more navel-gazing. It would be much more instructive if people explained how and why the application of Objectivist principles to their lives resulted in benefits or failures. Where do you stand? Do you really apply Objectivism to your life, or is it just an attractive tea cozy you display to impress your friends?
--
Jeff

Post 24

Sunday, November 5, 2006 - 12:04am

Except for those who were personally harmed by Rand's affronts against them, I see no reason or need to either condemn her even attempt to pass judgement on her as a person. In so far as any man's life can serve as an object lesson, one is free to learn from her behavior what one can. This does not mean that one should idealize her or ignore the excesses that are apparent to any objective third party observer. Were she alive, it would be the responsibility of those who saw themselves as her friends to prove that friendship by standing up to her if they saw her err. Given that she is not with us, that is no longer an option.

I suggest that those who wish to see their heroes as idols or infallible consider the case of Thomas Jefferson, who preached the incorrigible inferiority of the African race. Some see Jefferson's love of Sally Hemmings as a further proof of his hypocrisy and fallibility. I believe that Jefferson's example shows that just as sometimes our ideals are better than our actions, sometimes our actions are better than our ideals. Jefferson may have been an ignorant ideological racist, according to our enlightened standards. Yet it seems his "body" was more virtuous than his "mind." We are complex beings, and the soul is not an "either/or" singularity. Perhaps Rand's actions sometimes belied her beliefs. And perhaps Jefferson's love for Hemmings shows that his private actions sometimes surpassed his public ideals.

Pictured are a great man and his progeny. May his line never fail.

Ted Keer, 05 November, 2006, NYC

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 11/05, 1:48am)

Post 25

Sunday, November 5, 2006 - 12:39am

Ted:

Your post would save thousands of people from turning away from inquiring more about Rand's take on individualism and minarchism. Not because her ideas are lacking, but because inquirers are confronted at every turn with this cult of personality issue. Who the stink cares about Rand as a person!

Ideas are the capital of philosophy, not personalities.

T

Post 26

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 8:02pm

I still doubt the claims that Rand was a cultist just by the very fact of those who espouse it. First, lets look at the Brandens, granted both of them have done some interesting work, and have their own ideas, but there's a key problem here and that is can anyone believe hearsay to be absolutely true. Second, lets look at Rothbard and how he tried to turn probably what was a simple disagreement into something more. Again that was hearsay. And third, lets look at Michael Shermer who basically stretched the definition of cult to basically include anyone that was exclusive in his/her company and what not. That too was hearsay, but built more from opinion rather than direct witnessing.

Ultimately, each of the three examples are clearly not substantial enough to demonize Rand and resign her to some Xth circle of Hell. Rather it shows that people always try to find the drama in things. And that sometimes the drama may originate from the one accused, but often gets misconstrued into something else entirely. Thus providing a distorted point of view to examine. All in all, what I see in the hearsay and words of others with regard to Rand is that she was a stubborn person, probably the type not to back down in a debate, and generally stuck by her views thick or thin. These traits do make for some difficult social situations, but none of them lead automatically to being a cult leader.

-- Bridget

Post 27

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 12:06am

If, and I stress the if here, Rand was consigned to any circle of hell, it was by her own actions. Any person who dies alone at her age with not one real friend whom they've had for more than a few decades is doing something wrong. I can't believe that there were no people in Rand's life that she couldn't have claimed as better friends than just Leonard Peikoff, no aspersion on him, unless she were doing something wrong. You have to work very hard to alienate that many people. The very fact that people are referred to as having been excommunicated, and that this in and of itself is not disputed, is a sad sad commentary. The original purpose of this argument was to address a post on SOLO regarding Peikoff's pronouncement on the election, but it got sidetracked there. I didn't intend this string to attack a dead person. I may pick it up on Peikoff again. But Rand deserves to lie in peace.

Ted

Post 28

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 10:05am

Ted: Any person who dies alone at her age with not one real friend whom they've had for more than a few decades is doing something wrong.

Me: Hell, that fits me, I'm 26 and have no real life friends. Most people annoy me and I annoy them too, so I keep to myself usually. I find that most people can't even grasp what's outside their front door, let alone halfway across the globe, universe, and beyond. Those that die alone, don't die usually with grief or sadness. Rand at the time of her last interview by Tom Snyder did not look to be a woman racked by regret, but rather a woman that has realized that not everything is about having friends and a social life. Sometimes such things are rather just trivial and even an impediment to a good life. Being alone never implies loneliness, rather it implies aloneness as the late Osho would have said. And that aloneness implies in itself a sense of self-control and integrated self-awareness in the world, that one has nothing more to fear or lose and is able to take on just about anything.

Damn, my old Taoist/Zennist studies are bleeding through the screen! *abort abort abort* ^_^

-- Bridget

Post 29

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 12:14pm

Bridget,

We have corresponded before on similar issues, and it seems almost indecent to me to offer such advice in public, but in an earlier post of yours you said that people evoke nothing from you and that you mostly feel no emotion unless someone has gone to some lengths to prove themselves to you. I do see this as perhaps flowing in part from a person's natural dispositions. My father has no real friends (as in hang out buddies) and seems to do fine while my mother always has regular friends and has remained friends with these people for 30 to 50 years. But if you have read Epicurus you know that he says friendship is the greatest external positive value. I myself find it as easy to make friends with a busboy as with an intelllectual giant. And the busboys are often the more genuine people. The range of experiences available in this life is great enough that but for the rare exception I think most people should be able to find some common ground to enjoy sharing. And true deep and meaningful friendships are worth cultivating. If a person is truly happy as a loner, good for them. But such a life is not part of the "norm" for our species.

As for Rand, you were seeing her in front of an audience where I am sure she always shined. I never met her, but I did meet a bookshop owner in Long Beach who said that she had a summer cottage there. He said she was a very lonely person so far as he knew, and he thought it was sad. I was going to mention that in my proposed Heinlein thread. But I am on a limited dial-up connection for now, so I will leave it at that for the moment.

Ted

Post 30

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 4:23pm

Actually, I believe the Tom Snyder interview had no audience in the studio. But I still don't see why friendship is so important if you don't love yourself first off. Friends often can be great fun, but if they're there to fill the emotional void in your own being then they're worthless and you are also doing a disservice to them as well. For me, I'm changing all the time, ever improving and altering, even my looks are changing. A friend for me wouldn't be very useful since such a person couldn't relate to such a change. I think Rand had a similar pattern in her life too, she changed a lot from when she was in her 20s to her 40s and onward. Even her last interview by Tom Snyder showed that. Can you imagine Rand being as gentle as that considering how often claimed she was a firebrand of a person. It's strange to consider the fact that Rand and her philosophy wasn't stuck in a time or a place, but was always in motion, but not arbitrarily so, rather it followed the pattern that is woven within Nature itself to whatever end it could lead. For Rand, this journey was cut short [possibly too short], but her philosophy and all of us here would are interested in it or students [and scholars] of it continue it. That sort of trailblazing does set one up for a life sparse of friends, but I think it's much richer than those who think all that matters is chattering like a pack of squirrels for no reason.

-- Bridget

Post 31

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 6:42pm

Tom Snyder himself would have been more than enough of an audience. I don't think it's a point that one can really argue anyway. It's like trying to argue someone into liking skydiving or chewing gum, to name two things for which I can't understand some people's attractions. But in her case, she did value friendship. The only point where making this argument makes any sense to me is in the raising of a child, as advice a parent might give. I am very gregarious, and except for the openly obnoxious or violently objectionable I like all to be included. I like anyone who likes me for the things that I like about myself. And I would have liked to have been Rand's friend.

Ted

Post 32

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 9:18pm

Ted wrote,

I can't believe that there were no people in Rand's life that she couldn't have claimed as better friends than just Leonard Peikoff, no aspersion on him, unless she were doing something wrong. You have to work very hard to alienate that many people.

Why do you assume that the reason she didn't have more friends is that she alienated people, i.e., that there weren't enough people who wanted her as a friend? What is far more likely is that there weren't enough people whom she wanted as friends. A friend to Rand would have to be a very special person, and I'm sure there were very few of those in her circle of acquaintances.

- Bill

Post 33

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 9:40pm

All the evidence of her entire life, the collective, her having Nora come from Russia, and so on, points to the fact that she very much did want friends. For me as someone who knew of her only after she was dead, who has not had lengthy conversations with anyone who knew her directly, and who has no axe to grind against her to try to argue the point is useless. But she definitely was not a loner. And she definitely did alienate a large number of people.

One thing that I would like to clarify is that I do not find that one can only find friendship with one's equals or with those who agree with one in toto. I have had many friends (not best friends) who were uneducated laborers. We enjoyed canoeing trips and billiard games and so on. We watched movies and went to concerts together.

Also, if one is lucky, one's family are one's friends. And this on-line forum is also a substitute in some ways for friendship.

Why can't we all just get along?

:)

Ted
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 11/11, 10:08pm)

Post 34

Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 10:22pm

Speaking of Friends

A friend of mine recently had the pleasure to run into Patricia Neal who is living on the Upper East Side. It was late at night, and he was reluctant to approach her, but could not resist asking if she were indeed "The Patricia Neal." Given his age, she was surprised that he knew her. He said that "The Fountainhead" was one of his favorite movies, and that he had enjoyed her in "The Day the Earth Stood Still." She smiled and showed him a necklace that she was wearing that had been given her on the set of the Fountainhead. They spoke briefly, and she seemed to be very much more animated after they spoke. Searching the web, I see that www.patneal.org is a functioning concern. Follow the preceding link briefly, it is very interesting. I was reminded of her by the path this discussion has taken. I told my friend it was good that I had not been there, because I would have never let her leave.

Ted

(I am going to double-post this as a news item)
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 11/11, 10:26pm)

Post 35

Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 1:03pm

Just a couple of random thoughts to add to this discussion. First, Rand had close friends at the end of her life in Charles and Mary Ann Sures, both of whom I knew.

Second, from the beginning of Nietzsche's famous work, "When Zarathustra was 30 years old, he left his home and the sea of his home and when into the mountains. Here he enjoyed his soul and his solitude (seines Geistes und seiner Einsamkeit) and for 10 yeas did not tire of it." There is a difference between loneliness and solitude. As someone how goes into the mountains by myself al lot -- sometimes accompanied by my trusty telescope! -- I appreciate the difference.

Third, Aristotle pointed out that a friend is "another self.," Branden expanded on this point with the principle of visibility. We see in the concrete actions of the friend the things we value in the abstract - intelligence, curiosity, honesty, creativity, etc. Further, we feel visible, that someone understands us. We get a perspective on ourselves from interactions with and reactions from others.

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 11/12, 4:35pm)

Post 36

Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 3:07pm

Thanks, Ed

I am glad to hear about the Sureses. I also enjoyed the quote of Maimoides that the wise must content themselves with the knowledge of the truth that Paterson informed Rand about.

There are so many things in life that one simply cannot intellectualize about. The value of friends is one of them. There's no point arguing someone into understanding the pleasure they bring. Objectivism seems to suffer this flaw, the view argument and argument alone assure right conduct and happiness. But we must live according to our own dispositions as well. And sometimes these are not subject to change by reasoning alone. It is almost like the Lutheran belief in justification through faith alone. Ah well.

Ted

Post 37

Monday, November 13, 2006 - 7:45am

Pictured are a great man and his progeny. May his line never fail.

I have not investigated the evidence in the case of Jefferson and Hemmings. It's never been a deep desire of mine. I seem to remember that David Mayer said that the scholarship was "shoddy."

I have always given Jefferson the benefit of the doubt, considering the possiblity that he may have actually loved Sally. If that was the case, then this would have been the only way for them to have lived together.

Jefferson did wrestle with the dilemma of equality very much. But I don't ever remember him using the word inferior.

Incidentally, Martha Jefferson died in 1782 before she was even 34. Wikipedia claims that Jefferson "suffered from deep depression" as a result of this. This was probably the least productive period of Jefferson's political life, too. Perhaps, his alleged affair was one way for him to get out of that.

Post 38

Monday, November 13, 2006 - 9:24am

Last I heard, the Jefferson / Hemmings story (originally concocted by political enemies during his lifetime) had been discredited. What the DNA tests showed was that somebody in the family, not necessarily Jefferson himself, was the child's father. Business records at Monticello showed that he wasn't there at the right time. His brother, given his reputation, was probably the one. This is why the story dropped from sight a few years ago. Has any new information come to light?

Peter

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 11/13, 10:16am)

Post 39

Monday, November 13, 2006 - 2:55pm