RoR: Forum

Post 0

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 12:40pm

Link

Edit

Dr. Peikoff has been taking a lot heat lately, prompted largely by his support for the Democrats in the mid-term elections. As it turned out, the Demos prevailed, although by a margin somewhat greater than one might have expected. So, the executor of Ayn Rand's estate came out a winner, at least on that score. But, to paraphrase a cliche, be careful what you vote for; you just might get it. Peikoff's stated reason for voting Democratic was his concern that the religious right would extend its theocratic influence if the Republicans kept control of the house and senate. I should hope that he doesn't favor a Democratic president as well, and that his goal was simply to create a kind of gridlock so that neither party would dominate. Galt forbid that the Democrats should win the presidency in 2008, which they could, although it's by no means a sure thing, especially if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination.

So, I'm not here to defend Professor Peikoff's political views, especially since he has labeled non-Objectivist anyone who disagrees with his support for the Democrats. What I think has been overlooked in all the Peikoff bashing that has become so fashionable of late is the man's talent as a philosopher and educator. For those who have not heard his lecture series, the History of Philosophy, you are missing an extraordinary educational experience. I know the lectures are a bit pricey -- $595 for both 12-lecture sets (Thales to Hume and Kant to the Present (if you get the cassette tapes) and $659 (for the CD's) -- but if you are a serious student of Objectivism, you will definitely want to have these two courses for a clear and well integrated understanding of Objectivism in light of the philosophic doctrines that preceded it. His presentation is lively, entertaining and easy to follow. He makes complex ideas as clear and understandable as any instructor could.

Peikoff is a lot sharper than many of the people on this list give him credit for, and it is a big mistake to write him off just because he's said a few things that one disagrees with. Remember, Peikoff is not some kind of Objectivist oracle. He is simply a man exceptionally well schooled in Rand's philosophy. That's doesn't make him infallible when speaking on matters of philosophy and morals. His virtue is that he understands and can explain Objectivism about as well as anyone can. Disagree with him where he deserves it, but make it a point also to acknowledge his intellectual virtues. I sometimes think that those who are prone to attack him at every turn have accepted the implicit premise that he deserves to be admired only if he is a perfect human being. He may not be a perfect, but he's one of the most talented philosophers in the Objectivist movement. For that at least, he deserves recognition.

- Bill

Post 1

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 2:23pm

Link

Edit

As much as I disagree with Peikoff on certain points, his argument for legal abortion is pretty damn air tight as they come. It's funny though how folks try to dodge it, though. :)

-- Bridget

Post 2

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 5:40pm

Link

Edit

I'm not very familiar with LP's written work. But, it's almost universally appreciated in Oists circles. So, I think your post should've been titled "In Defense of Leonard Piekoff's Work". As for the man, even ARI supporters are starting to question his emotional state. Personally, every time I've seen him in the media, I've found him to be an angry and unpleasant person.

Post 3

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 8:27pm

Link

Edit

Can't we measure a man's worth by his work? As I said in another thread similarly about Ayn Rand, what does it matter to you if someone you'll never meet in person is short tempered or unpleasant to be around? Do you plan on sitting down with him over dinner to discuss philosophy? Have a beer with him at the local pub and worry about him insulting you? Bill is right. For all the unnecessary rants that are made against his character, Peikoff is an exceptionally intelligent man with a keen sense for reason. People ought to give him more credit.

Post 4

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 8:28pm

Link

Edit

He Can Unburden himself Whenever he Likes.

Given that I am definitely one of the Peikoff-skeptical parties alluded to in Bill's thread starter, I will make a few comments:

Listening to DIM, I get the impression of a congenial man earnestly trying to innovate and do so on reasoned grounds. I don't hear any conscious or intended malice, but have seen his anger in lectures and know of his actions toward other individuals. He and I have never met. There is no purely personal matter between us, so far as I am aware.

I also hear a lot of praise for his non-printed materials. If those materials are on the same level as DIM, they are most likely unobjectionable. I would ask, are they, for the price, that innovative or uniquely insightful? For that amount of money, one can buy several dozen great books. Is there some insight that his analysis of the matter brings that makes the works essential to have? Or are they just nice to have? Peikoff's printed works are no grounds upon which I can see to seek out his recorded works at those prices. Also, what long-term impact do such recorded lectures have in academia?

I found that his recent remarks on the election would have to be insulting as gratuitous condescension to those who value his judgment. So far as I am concerned, they appear to me to be an implied threat to would-be associates - the implication being in my words: "and so, if you disagree with me, don't expect to deal with me." As I have said, I don't expect to deal with him, and have no interest in demonizing him personally. If he were not Ayn Rand's executor and the purported foremost authority on her, who also controls her manuscripts, I would know him as the author of OPAR and the "Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" and a curiosity entitled The Ominous Parallels.

It is Peikoff who has made himself the issue with his statement, given the nature of his position and the property that he controls. No other person who had made such a claim would have been given second thought by anyone. If he released Rand's opus to the Library of congress and took her royalties out of his pocket, we could judge him on his works and not the implications of his acts. He can't have it both ways. He can unburden himself of these responsibilities any time he likes.

Ted Keer 17, November, 2006, NYC

Post 5

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 10:50am

Link

Edit

Ted,

What you get in Dr. Peikoff's History of Philosophy lectures can't be gotten anywhere else, and in my estimation is crucial to an understanding of Objectivism within the context of the history of western philosophy. If you are a serious student of Objectivism and have not heard these lectures, you are missing a great deal that is relevant to an informed understanding and appreciation of Rand's philosophy. I would not forgo an opportunity to get these lectures, if you can afford them. They won't be around forever, and when they're gone, they'll be a collector's item.

Dr. Peikoff taught philosophy for many years at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, where he was Associate Professor, and before that at the University of Denver, Hunter College, Long Island University, and New York University.

Here is what Dr. George Reisman had to say about Peikoff's course:

"I attended Leonard Peikoff's lectures on the history of philosophy over thirty years ago, when he delivered them in person in New York City. They very quickly established him in my mind as the very best lecturer I had ever heard. His words were brilliant, and his style of delivery dazzling. I knew that these lectures were profoundly important, representing as they did, and still do, the Objectivist view on all of the essential doctrines of all of the major philosophers of history. The lectures I refer to are, of course, those that have come to be known as Dr. Peikoff's two series on the subject, respectively titled Founders of Western Philosophy: Thales to Hume and Modern Philosophy: Kant to the Present."

Dr. Linda Reardan voiced similar praise:

�Anyone who has heard Leonard Peikoff speak knows the experience of being held fascinated for hours while being challenged to grasp substantial new knowledge � and the significant increase in his mental efficacy which results.

�In his history of philosophy courses, Dr. Peikoff selects the essential material to give the student an overall mental map of the history of philosophy. He brings each viewpoint into full focus by laser-like identifications of its principles and by luminously clear examples. Always, he explains why the viewpoint is important to the listener�s own life. And by drama and humor, he makes the whole process fun.�

Dr. Reardan received her masters in Philosophy from Harvard University and her doctorate from Claremont Graduate School. She has taught philosophy at Cypress College and Long Beach City College, and ancient Greek philosophy and modern philosophy at California State University, Fullerton as well as ancient philosophy at California State University, Long Beach.

For what it�s worth, both Drs. Reisman and Reardan are not associated with Dr. Peikoff or with other members of the Ayn Rand Institute, and were not so at the time they wrote their recommendations.

Post 6

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 2:08pm

Link

Edit

Now I'm intrigued. I've read a lot of his stuff in the past and I like it. 659 dollars is a lot of dough though for those CDs.

Post 7

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 3:53pm

Link

Edit

"They won't be around forever, and when they're gone, they'll be a collector's item."

Bill, what is the implication of this for a scholar as opposed to an artist or a guru? A scholar's works should be as widely available as possible. An artist's works should be preserved. A guru's writ is held close and revealed only to the true believer. Scientology also offers expensive courses to its "students."

I do have an BA double major in Philosophy & Biology. I have read, to mention a portion:
Will Durant: entire works, Philosophy & World History
Ayn Rand: all published writings, incl. periodicals
and almost all available biography & criticism in printed form
Giovanni Reale: History Ancient Phil, 4 Vol
Plato: Essential Dialogues
Aristotle: Complete Works
Diogenes Laertius: Eminent Philosophers (LOEB)
Lucretius: De Rerum Natura (LOEB)
Epictetus: Discourses (LOEB)
Marcus Aurelius: Meditations (LOEB)
Stoic & Epicurean fragments
Augustine: Confessions, City of God
Hebrew, Christian Testaments, Qur'an, Gnostic & non-canonical gospels
Maimonides: Guide to the Perplexed
Aquinas: Summa Theologica, Treatise on Happiness,
Selected Scholastic excerpts & Commentary
Commentary on & Selected: Avicenna, Avveroes, Al-Ghazali
Manual of Scholastic Philosophy, 2 Vol., Cardinal Mercier
Descartes: Meditations & selected
Spinoza: Complete Works, much commentary
Hume: Understanding, Bishop Berkeley
selected Leibniz, Locke, Hobbes, Burke, Voltaire, Paine,
Federalist & Antifederalists, Charters of Britain & US
selected Rousseau, Kant (full Prolegomena) Hegel, Marx,
Much of Kierkegaard, Most of Nietzsche, Ortega y Gasset,
Camus, Sartre, as little Kafka as possible,
Much of G.K. Chesterton, C.S.Lewis, biblical criticism
Isabel Paterson, some of the Austrian Economists
All major works of Historical Linguistics, Saussure,
Histories of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology
Writings of Xenophon, Herodotus, Suetonius...

I figure the above works could be gotten in bargain and used print for less than $1,000.

Except as Randiana, is there anything in these lectures that will be essentially innovative and new, rather than "of interest"?

To me, defending Peikoff is like defending Carl Sagan. Sagan was a great hero of mine for being a conduit to me of much that I did not know. After watching his "Cosmos" on PBS as a 13 year old, I decided to attend Cornell University, but changed my mind after taking summer courses there and hearing him speak. I still value the vistas he opened to me. But he had no privileged access to those vistas. I still look on him fondly, but do not feel that I have to defend his moral altruism, economic statism and political appeasement and pacifism. Unlike Sagan, however, Peikoff does have the "keys to the cupboard," so to say.

I think my point here is clear. Perhaps an appeal to Peikoff to put his recordings in book form at a more reasonable price for the better transmission of his values is in order?

Ted Keer, 18 November, 2006, NYC

Post 8

Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 12:31am

Link

Edit

Ted,

I'm impressed, truly. But what you get from Peikoff's history of philosophy lectures is the Objectivist perspective on the key ideas in the history of philosophy from a first-rate instructor. These lectures are not only highly informative; they are a work of art in their own right, given the superb, essentialized style in which Peikoff presents them. As I say, you aren't going to get the same thing from any of the other books you might read on the history of philosophy, although reading them to the extent that you have will obviously make you a scholar, an intellectual and a man of letters. Now you just need to round out your education. :-)

Oh, and one other thing: To put then in writing would be a great value, but the written word cannot substitute for Peikoff's lively and engaging style. As an experience, you get so much more from the audible lectures than you would from their translation into printed form, although a transcribed version would afford a greater opportunity to study and absorb the finer points.

Linda Reardan had begun a project (with Peikoff's authorization and consent) to transcribe them, but only got as far as Lecture #5 before suspending the project. Unfortunately, many years have passed with no resumption on her part, so it looks like the project has been abandoned. Nevertheless, all five transcribed lectures are available from George Reisman's TJS website.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/19, 12:42am)

Post 9

Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 7:27am

Link

Edit

As far as it goes, I possess notes taken from those history of pholisophy lectures, which, as far as I can see, give that perspective - and without the whiny voice Peikoff puts out [and yes, it is whiny, high pitched , shrill and not particularly pleasant to listen to]... if there is interest, perhaps can find a way to scan them and pass around [they're on xeroxed 14x11 paper]... only such problem, however, is that I have nothing to scan with at this time...

Post 10

Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 1:23pm

Link

Edit

Robert,

Perhaps it would be better to type the notes up as an article and post it on RoR?

Bill,

I responded to you in private before reading this post. I do understand the pleasure of listening to a good commentary. I did listen to the lecture on Music series that was available back in the 1980's Several friends & I purchased and listened to the set, and I found it quite valuable. Can you provide the link or let us know what TJS stands for? I will check it out.

Ted

Post 11

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 7:10am

Link

Edit

Ted,

TJS is Reisman's
The Jefferson School.

Post 12

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 8:58pm

Link

Edit

Ted asked me in a private email if I would post Peikoff's remarks regarding a transcribed version of his lectures on the History of Philosophy. The following is from the preface to Linda Reardan's transcription which was limited to the first five lectures, now currently available from George Reisman's Thomas Jefferson Institute (TJS):

"I am very pleased that my History of Philosophy lectures are being edited by Linda Reardan for publication by Professor George Reisman. Based on my recognition of Linda Reardan's knowledge and integrity, I have every reason to believe that the editorial changes she makes will be true to the lectures' essential content.

"I must, however, tell readers at the outset that I myself have not read, let alone evaluated, this printed version, and could not undertake such time-consuming work at this stage of my career. The job of moving from oral material to written has been done with my permission and approval but without my participation. Hence I am unable to state of my own first-hand knowledge the accuracy of every editorial change.

"Let me also add that these lectures were given originally in the late fifties and sixties, and that I have not heard the tapes since then. In thirty years, my understanding of philosophy (and of Objectivism) has grown substantially. This too may be a source of error in the present version. I am confident that, in fundamental terms, these lectures remain valid; but I also know that, were I to prepare them from scratch at this point in my life, I would in many ways do the job differently.

"LEONARD PEIKOFF
August 1994"

Post 13

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 5:40pm

Link

Edit

I have a lot of respect for Bill who writes:

What I think has been overlooked in all the Peikoff bashing that has become so fashionable of late is the man's talent as a philosopher and educator.... His presentation [in the History of Philosophy audio tapes] is lively, entertaining and easy to follow. He makes complex ideas as clear and understandable as any instructor could.

Peikoff is a lot sharper than many of the people on this list give him credit for, and it is a big mistake to write him off just because he's said a few things that one disagrees with. Remember, Peikoff is not some kind of Objectivist oracle. He is simply a man exceptionally well schooled in Rand's philosophy. That's doesn't make him infallible when speaking on matters of philosophy and morals. His virtue is that he understands and can explain Objectivism about as well as anyone can. Disagree with him where he deserves it, but make it a point also to acknowledge his intellectual virtues. I sometimes think that those who are prone to attack him at every turn have accepted the implicit premise that he deserves to be admired only if he is a perfect human being. He may not be a perfect, but he's one of the most talented philosophers in the Objectivist movement. For that at least, he deserves recognition.

I also have a lot of respect for Ted who rejoins:

Listening to DIM, I get the impression of a congenial man earnestly trying to innovate and do so on reasoned grounds. I don't hear any conscious or intended malice, but have seen his anger in lectures and know of his actions toward other individuals....

I found that his recent remarks on the election would have to be insulting as gratuitous condescension to those who value his judgment. So far as I am concerned, they appear to me to be an implied threat to would-be associates - the implication being in my words: "and so, if you disagree with me, don't expect to deal with me." As I have said, I don't expect to deal with him, and have no interest in demonizing him personally. If he were not Ayn Rand's executor and the purported foremost authority on her, who also controls her manuscripts, I would know him as the author of OPAR and the "Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" and a curiosity entitled The Ominous Parallels.

It is Peikoff who has made himself the issue with his statement, given the nature of his position and the property that he controls. No other person who had made such a claim would have been given second thought by anyone. If he released Rand's opus to the Library of congress and took her royalties out of his pocket, we could judge him on his works and not the implications of his acts. He can't have it both ways. He can unburden himself of these responsibilities any time he likes.

I have rather less respect for self-styled Pope Lenny.

It's great, or course, that Bill has enough honesty and integrity to actually defend Peikoff. But every rational and normal Objectivist does. When someone is right, he's right. When someone has accomplished something, he's accomplished something.

But I can't help but point out the obvious: Peikoff doesn't have near the virtue -- nor even the rudimentary decency and humanity -- to return the favor to the true Objectivists like Bill. And Bill D' is much more worthy.

However much Peikoff has successfully pored over the Sacred Scripture of Rand's work in the familiar braindead, soulless, robotic, Talibani style of the 'Objectivist' cultists, and however much Peikoff has mastered and memorized his version of the Koran and Hadith, he's still going to be known for one thing thruout history: Treating far and away the world's best and most rational philosophy as a religion and a cult belief. His damage to mankind is incalculable. He needs to be damned and hated no small amount.

Post 14

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 6:12pm

Link

Edit

Footnote to # 12: Reisman, Reardan and their spouses were excommunicated around the time Peikoff wrote this.

Peter

Post 15

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 6:33pm

Link

Edit

JeSUS, Andre, what is this? -- some kind of Objective Hate, a la Troi Torain! I don't expect I'll change your mind, but your animosity towards Peikoff is over the top. It's become a self-caricature! Even Nathaniel Branden, who rarely misses an opportunity to derogate "poor Leonard," doesn't exhibit this kind of antipathy towards him. Keep this up, and you'll arouse sympathy for him from even his most disaffected quarters. :-|

- Bill

Post 16

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 6:36pm

Link

Edit

Peter Reidy wrote,

Footnote to # 12: Reisman, Reardan and their spouses were excommunicated around the time Peikoff wrote this.

I believe it was before Piekoff wrote it.

- Bill

Post 17

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 7:43pm

Link

Edit

Bill -- I stand by what I wrote. I'm not interested in how I compare to Nathaniel Branden. I don't care what kind of sympathy my comments raise from disaffected quarters. I only care about justice.

If my evaluation of any of the ARIans is untrue, injust, immoral, unbalanced, acontexual, warped, fanatic, etc. then I care. Otherwise, I'm not comparing myself to others, nor observing my effect upon them. And I still have a high opinion of you and a low opinion of him.

But are you so sure you're not practicing Christian toleration, forgiveness, and charity here? Is not this some kind of utterly unreciprocated, unappreciated, Christian love? Are you aware of Peikoff's potential contempt for your position, respect for mine, and the rich irony thereof?

I don't think the sanction of the victim is appropriate. I don't think the appeasement of evil is right.

However much there might be some true greatness present, I don't like Kant's approach to reason and philosophy, and I don't like Peikoff's either. And as for my approach to moral issues, intellectual dishonesty, cowardice, Objectivist "evasion," ARIan "toleration," innocent error, etc. -- Peikoff agrees with me.

Post 18

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 12:27pm

Link

Edit

Well, I don't think you're being entirely just here. You're dismissing his major accomplishments, and focusing only on his political views with which you disagree.

And your expression of absolute hatred for him is inappropriate. You're committing the same error that he and others have committed against Kelley by ignoring his accomplishments and over-reactiing to relatively minor disagreements.

If you're going to hate Peikoff with such virulence, then what do you have left for people who truly deserve to be hated? Don't you recognize differences in degree? You don't seem to have any balance, any sense of proportion in your reactions to what you see as wrong with the world.

- Bill

Post 19

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 12:35pm

Link

Edit

What has he accomplished? Everything he has, he had handed to him.

In Defense of Leonard Peikoff