Bob Campbell wrote:
The question I have for Chris C is what "advancing Objectivism" truly consists of. So far as I can determine, the only response to Ayn Rand's ideas that will qualify as "advancing Objectivism," by the Ayn Rand Institute's standards, is wider and wider-spread conformity to the interpretations of Rand put forward by the leaders of ARI. By that standard, only ARI could be "advancing Objectivism" (although we may still ask how widespread the conformity to its official views actually is). But why should anyone consider the accomplishment of ARI's mission a good thing?
Since Objectivism officially (by Rand's definition) consists of what was published and/or approved of by Rand before her death in 1982, there are many things that might "advance" Objectivism that are not actually Objectivism themselves. These include: (1) things written or said by Rand but not edited/prepared for publication before her death (including her letters, journals, comments in Q-A sessions, her interviews, and even the material in the huge appendix to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology), and (2) all of the vast amounts of post-1982 "chewing" of her ideas done by ARI, TOC, and independent Objectivists and sympathizers (including Tara Smith's new book, Harry Binswanger's and Dave Harriman's forthcoming books, and of course Leonard Peikoff's book on Objectivism). Now, the things Rand published and/or approved of before 1982 (i.e., official Objectivism) might be advanced by some or all of these other things, but it's more likely that they will simply advance the fortunes of those who are in a position to cash in on using Rand's name and her not-intended-for-publication writings.
I agree with Joe R that authors' achievements are primarily their own, not those of some organization. Still, we can draw a useful distinction between work that was actually sponsored or financially supported by an organization (e.g., Hicks' book or Long and Badhwar's monographs by TOC, Smith and Mayhew's books by ARI) and work that is in favor with many members of some organization but was not supported or sponsored by it. No Randian organization funded or sponsored any of the work of Eric Mack, the Dougs, Chris Sciabarra, Tibor Machan, Ed Younkins, et al.
There are more ways to support a person's work than by outright sponsorship or financial support. For instance, TOC sponsored a seminar on Chris Sciabarra's Russian Radical, solmething that ARI would never dream of doing (and indeed was linked to several negative reviews of his book). By this standard, I would say that TOC was substantially more supportive of Chris's work. Similarly, the Dougs, Eric Mack, and Tibor Machan have all been invited (multiple times?) to speak at TOC seminars, but ARI has not once rolled out the welcome mat for any of them. The writings and publications of these authors are not TOC accomplishments, but their willingness to speak at TOC certainly suggests that they are disposed to think kindly of TOC, if not fully endorsing it, and this in itself indicates a loose linkage and supportiveness, if not outright affiliation and sponsorship.
...isn't it time to move beyond the item on the curriculum vitae (that Smith's new book was published by Cambridge) to reading and reviewing its contents? I've read the book now; so have some other participants here; still others will be getting to it sooner or later. I'm all for it. Want to set up a chapter-by-chapter, Bob? Book reviews are bound to show up, and that's fine. But I like group study and discussion, too. Keep me posted on this!
...a non-Randian academic, getting his or her first exposure to the Objectivist ethics through Smith's book, will almost surely come away from it convinced that Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is "part of Objectivism," rather than "Objectivist philosophy." (And I very much doubt that anyone at ARI will find that outcome upsetting.) For, as I previously noted, Peikoff's book is footnoted an average of once per page.
A non-Randian scholar who peruses Peikoff's OPAR will quickly see that Peikoff, hamstrung like all the other Objectivist philosophers, is duty-bound to refer to his post-1982 writing as falling outside of "official Objectivism."
Because of my thirty years of study under her, and by her own statement, I am the person next to Ayn Rand who is the most qualified to write this book. Since she did not live to see it, however, she is not responsible for any misstatements of her views it may contain, nor can the book be properly described as "official Objectivist doctrine." "Objectivism" is the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy as presented in the material she herself wrote or endorsed.
We can only speculate about what OPAR would have been like, had Peikoff set aside "Ominous Parallels" and written OPAR while Rand was still alive and could guide and endorse it (as she did "Ominous Parallels"). But it still remains that, as Rand wrote in 1976 about Peikoff's lecture course on "The Philosophy of Objectivism": Until or unless I write a comprehensive treatise on my philosophy, Dr. Peikoff's course is the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism, i.e., the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate.
Peikoff's main changes in his revision of the lectures was to make some of the arguments more precise and the examples more vivid. But he also substantially changed the logical order of the presentation, and he included new integrations as well. We can only presume that Rand would have approved of most of them. But since I think there are obvious flaws in the book which were also in the lectures (which Rand approved), I'm not sure that it would have made all that much difference had she been able to take part in "birthing" OPAR. Anyway, no, OPAR is not "official Objectivism." It is "the definitive statement of Ayn Rand's philosophy--as interpreted by her best student and chosen heir." And that is about as good as it gets. For anyone else at ARI, it must be truly emasculating, to be recognized as an Objectivist philosopher, but for one's work to fall into the no-man's-land of not being Objectivist philosophy -- but instead merely philosophy written by an Objectivist philosopher and inspired by or derived from Objectivism. How peculiar, and how sad. But that is the logical implication of Objectivism as a "Closed System." Perhaps, though, we should be glad that this is the official stance of ARI. Suppose they rejected Rand's "Closed System" doctrine and took it upon themselves -- being the "big dog in the fight" -- to rule on what comprised "official Objectivism" (and what did not) of post-1982 writings. A no-longer emasculated ARI, monopolizing the certification of what new writings qualified as Objectivist? No, thank you! REB
|
