RoR: Forum

Joe, I don't have an exact snapshot of the bar graph in my mind, but $5 million is approximately the figure from 2003-2004. The figure from 2005 was right around $6.5 million. That was last year. This year would be more than that.

Once you're in double figures, you are most certainly in an arena comparable to Cato or Heritage. You're no longer some distance away from them by some factor greater than 2. And like I said, that's just funding-wise. Money at ARI is easily money more well-spent than money at Cato or Heritage. Keep in mind that in addition to the kinds of things that Cato and Heritage do, ARI is putting money into long-term projects like training aspiring academics, something for which Cato and Heritage are thoroughly out of their depth producing their by-now-formulaic policy analyses.

Funding-wise, they're still off by nearly a factor of 3, so it's not quite yet at the point that they're in the same arena (funding-wise) with Cato and Heritage. It's still roughly 2 or 3 years off. But in terms of doing the kinds of things needed to effect long-term change, they're well, well past what Cato and Heritage have had to offer.

One of the things Dr. Brook spoke of, was setting up an East-coast branch of ARI sometime soon, in New York or D.C. The funding levels are almost there. They're be literally and figuratively alongside Cato and Heritage in the recognizability dept. And substantively, they'll be doing much better and more.

By that point, I could give a damn that I have issues with some people or positions at ARI. In their capacity as the kind of organization that they are, they're getting the basic important job done of getting more and more exposure for Rand's ideas where it's going to count. The differences of opinion I have with ARI people (and more and more, with most of them, I see it not really as a difference in basic fundamentals but in terms of correct application) can be worked out in other venues/forums; for purposes of this kind of crusade (if you will), I think it's time to set aside the differences and get on board with a winner.

Post 41

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 3:58pm

Hmmm,..."Doctor Evil" look-a-likes or sound-a-likes among Objectivists? Several candidates immediately come to mind....!
"...but seriously, folks..." no matter what names are used (ARI, TOC, TAS, etc.) or how much their annual budgets are, the impact (if any) on the overall culture by Objectivist organizations depends more on the quality than the quantity of their intellectual output. It also depends on how accessible and relevant that that output is for individuals and society as a whole.

The influence that conservative foundations (e.g., the Heritage Foundation) have had on social policy discussions are quite noticeable (and this is also true for libertarians, such as the Cato Institute). They did that by increasing their visibility through actively interacting and dialoguing with political and intellectual figures and institutions, and vigorously presenting their views. They did not develop a "fortress" mentality and create walls or barriers around their ideological positions and then demand agreement-in-advance before engaging in discussions with others.

ARI has chosen to devote a considerable amount of effort on their web sites, press releases and letters-to-the-editor, summer institutes, and sponsoring school essay contests. However, the attempts of (some) of the ARIans to control and limit the discussion of Objectivism to conform to their "party line" (I don't know what else to call it) has been a failure and simply results in confirming to outsiders that Oism does indeed have cultish tendencies.

I would like to point out that Ayn Rand, herself, did not practice this "fortress pull-up-the-bridges" strategy. Instead, she went out and actively engaged many of her conservative and liberal opponents and on national television programs during the 1960s, such as ABC's "Continuing Challenge," "At Random," and many other occasions. That's right, she actually debated with people whose views would be considered immoral and evil by Objectivist standards. And she was a formidable debater. According to her publisher at Random House, Bennett Cerf, nobody could best Ayn Rand in an argument. She did this by practicing the same unique methodology that she used so successfully, and so devastatingly, in print - she bypassed their political or philosophical conclusions and took apart the premises upon which their whole arguments were based. The results were usually predictable and spectacular (for example, she left conservative historian Russell Kirk sputtering, stuttering, and appearing befuddled on national TV).

Why do I mention this? Because Ayn Rand has developed in Objectivism, a philosophy that is uniquely suited to intellectual debate and discourse. We do not need "fortresses." We don't need to hide - collectivists do. We need to follow Ayn Rand's example - we need to forthrightly present Objectivism and that means also being willing to debate any and all components of our philosophy. Only by doing this will Objectivism become a major intellectual influence in the culture.

Post 42

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 4:36pm

Bingo, Gerald. Once again, you've nailed it. Did Ayn Rand have -- or need -- a $10 million budget?

Persuasive success in the intellectual arena depends on much more than slinging cash around. Anybody can spend money. The Moonies have spent more cash than all Objectivists put together; but does anyone seriously think they are about to have a measurable impact on our culture?

Meeting, debating, and otherwise interacting with publishers, editors, media figures, think-tank denizens, Capitol Hill staffers, congressmen, film producers, etc., can have a tremendous impact in moving your ideas through the culture. It's called "networking." But to network effectively requires both (1) a willingness to interact with non-Objectivists, and (2) their willingness to interact with YOU. The former is impossible if you treat every non-Objectivist as a moral monster. The latter is impossible if you lack credibility -- i.e., if you come off as a fanatic and moonbat, in which case you'll turn off your audiences and be dismissed out of hand, no matter how much cash you sling around. (Consider Tom Cruise.)

This has nothing to do with one's willingness to take strong, principled, uncompromising stands. It has everything to do with not confusing principled stands with rhetorical bravado. Secure, principled people don't need to engage in self-righteous posturing.

Post 43

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 5:37pm

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/1398_1.shtml#31

Chris C,

OK, the Ayn Rand Institute is pulling in $6.5 mil a year. If we believe their own promotion, this number will grow substantially. If they're being overoptimistic, it won't. It's a fair chunk of change either way.

But what are they spending it on? Is it worthwhile?
Up this thread a piece, at

you described ARI's mission as follows:
Advancing Objectivism is a pretty straightforward idea, I think. I think it means presenting the best and strongest defenses of Objectivism -- not as interpreted by ARI, but as interpreted objectively. And, yes, it does mean advancing Objectivism which, in essence, is Ayn Rand's own philosophy. Actually, I'm not an "expert" on all aspects of Objectivism, so I don't know whether it basically gets all the right answers on epistemology. On methodology, it does. On ethics, it does. Where I think I have a solid understanding, it's fundamentally right because it's fundamentally a radical updating of Aristotelianism. Properly advocated and defined, any neo-Aristotelianism is worth advancing -- hence why I advocate reading the Dougs' work, even if they don't claim to be Objectivists.

Some of ARI's mission is fulfilled by putting out unpublished work by Rand. We can argue whether she would have wanted it published�we can certainly argue whether their manner of editing, or controlling access to the archives, passes muster�but there's obvious positive value in such a project. On the other hand, they're going to run out of material one of these days.

How about �Objectivist philosophy�--what goes beyond the canonical writings of Rand and others she approved, but does so without violating any of the tenets of �Objectivism,� the closed system?

First question: Is ARI interested in any defense of Objectivism that diverges from the interpretations put forward by Peikoff, Binswanger, Smith, Ghate, et al.? (Smith's new book diverges from Peikoff just twice on ethical matters, and maybe shows a little less enthusiasm than Peikoff for Rand's doctrine of emotions as based on �premises.� It discusses self-esteem at some length, but never cites a single publication by Nathaniel Branden.)

(Meanwhile, we know that ARI treats anyone who offers a critique of Objectivism, even a sympathetic one, as an enemy.)

As a psychologist, I am interested in Objectivist epistemology. I find it to be gap-ridden. The ARIans partly admit the gaps; they can hardly deny some of them, when Rand said that it was important to formulate a philosophy of science, but, no, she hadn't come up with one. Yet the unadmitted gaps, for instance, the lack of a theory of skill, are just as bad if not worse than those that Rand acknowledged.

Even worse, I find parts of the Objectivist epistemology to be false.

The doctrine of tabula rasa is not sustainable; neither is Rand's belief that newborn babies experience pure sensations. (There is no way to correct either of them without drawing on the findings of biology and psychology, which according to Rand's later view of philosophical method should never be done!) Nor is there any way to square the doctrine that sensations and percepts are never in error with the errors that animals (who, according to Objectivism, form no concepts) actually commit.

Peikoff demands that every concept be �reduced� to the perceptual data that it subsumes, retracing along the way the chain of concepts by which it was (logically? psychologically?) arrived at, but of course neither he nor anyone else has actually provided such a reduction for the vast majority of the concepts that he and other Objectivists regard as legitimate.

Peikoff has put forward a doctrine of the arbitrary assertion, according to which such assertions are literally meaningless. With his apparent encouragement, his followers brand a wide swath of views as arbitrary when in fact many of them are just plain false, and some of them may be true.

I have a lot less trouble with the Objectivist ethics, but there's a stubborn structural weakness in the foundations (the �premoral choice to live�) and a further problem posed by Rand's retention of old notions of �the unity of the virtues�and of moral perfection. By contrast, I wonder what happened to the old notion of practical wisdom, as Objectivism is the only significant neo-Aristotelian philosophy to try to function without it.

Another way of putting the question would be: does anyone in a position of authority at ARI agree with you that neo-Aristotelianism is worth advancing in general? If it were so regarded, wouldn't Doug Den Uyl and Doug Rasmussen and Tibor Machan and Fred Miller and Eric Mack and Roderick Long and Aeon Skoble and Neera Badhwar and Jonathan Jacobs and Julia Annas�hell, even David Kelley and Chris Matthew Sciabarra�be drawing multiple invites to ARI functions? Wouldn't ARI even be steering a little of its largess in their direction?

Au contraire, if Peikoff, Binswanger, Schwartz, Brook, Ridpath, Mayhew, and the rest could reliably get people not to read anything by Den Uyl or the others abovementioned � say, at a cost of $1 mil a year � would they reject the proposal out of hand and commit the money to other projects? Or would they jump to invest in pulling academics and/or the general public away from the work of unapproved authors?

Robert Campbell

(Edited by Robert Campbell on 6/13, 5:39pm)

(Edited by Robert Campbell on 6/13, 5:42pm)

(Edited by Robert Campbell
on 6/14, 4:30pm)

Post 44

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 5:39pm

As a slight side here, having been going thru the back issues of The New Individualist, The Navigator, and TOC Journal, noted a number of excellent articles which would well serve - if can be gotten to - as "point to" articles answering various positions [animal rights, etc.]... Is there an archive to which these can be referred to? An online one especially?
(Edited by robert malcom on 6/13, 5:40pm)

Post 45

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 6:09pm

Robert M -- All of our back issues should be online. If you have any problems finding them, let us know. When we launched the redesigned website in December there were still some bugs that I find on occasion when I pull up some old, archived piece.

Post 46

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 6:18pm

Robert, here's the online archive of past issues of Navigator and The New Individualist; check the left margin.

You can also search the TAS/TOC archives here, by author name, keyword, or type of publication.

There is a hell of a lot of material posted at The Atlas Society Web site; even some monographs are posted online. An ambitious visitor could explore and read for months.

Be our guests.

Post 47

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 9:09pm

Thanks - sort of figured ye did, but was too tired to google .....

Post 48

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 9:43am

Robert Campbell, post 43, right on, brother!

The only thing I would note is that, about 10 years ago, in the second of two lectures marketed as "Judging, Feeling, and Not Being Moralistic," Peikoff does indeed discuss a number of examples of Objectivist-based "practical wisdom" -- i.e., how to apply the Objectivist ethics to difficult practical-life situations, like what to choose for a career, whether to have children (and why), etc. I intend to transcribe this material and study it well at my earliest opportunity -- not for the concrete topics dealt with (I'm 57, nearing retirement and expecting my 4th grandchild), but for the methodology, which will help me in deciding things like what to do when I retire from Disneyland (I'm in my "21st Big Year" at the Magic Kingdom) and where to live. Also, I intend to keep letting people know about the material, so that they too can spend their valuable time transcribing for study material that, by all rights, should be in printed form.

The fact that this lecture's "practical wisdom" contents are not widely known -- because of being nestled in a two-lecture audio package with a non-helpful title -- is an obvious example of the downside of the Objectivist movement's being overly mired in an aural/oral tradition. To adequately utilize this material means, currently, that one has to either attend the lectures or buy the tapes/CDs, then take very good notes (if not transcribe the material), then study and apply the ideas. If it were in written form -- even as pamphlets or monographs -- this material would be so much more helpful. For one thing, it would spare (hopefully) countless people the drudgery of individually writing/typing up the material, when one person could do so, thus multiplying everyone else's time and labor. For another thing, people would be more easily able to compare notes, discuss and work through differences of opinion, etc. For yet another, Objectivist thinkers like Peikoff could better be held accountable for the validity and usefulness of the ideas they disseminate.

As it is, in the 42 years since his Ph.D. dissertation, Peikoff -- who has delivered hundreds (thousands?) of hours of taped lectures -- has produced only two books, and these basically under the tutelage of Rand herself. (OPAR is a modified re-write of his 1976 lectures.) He is reportedly working on a book on the D-I-M Hypothesis and consulting/co-authoring(?) a book with David Harriman on induction in physics and philosophy. It will be very interesting to see how these books materialize and what useful purpose they serve.

In the meantime, it would be extremely helpful to those wanting tips on how to apply A PHILOSOPHY FOR LIVING ON EARTH, i.e., tips in Objectivist "practical wisdom" -- which was your point, Robert, and well taken.

REB

P.S. -- As for why more lecture material is not in printed form, consider this: thanks to the dominant notion that Objectivism is a "closed system," a person may earn the title �Objectivist philosopher,� and his work will thus be philosophy "by an Objectivist philosopher," but none of this philosophizing (except what was approved of by Rand before she died in 1982) will ever be called part of Objectivism! Talk about intellectual emasculation! Talk about taking a brutal hit to your self-esteem! Even if you crank up the courage and ambition to understand, accept, and apply Objectivism, what you do is not Objectivism! Does anybody else see this for the balderdash that it is?

Further, any intellectual creativity by an orthodox Objectivist (or by anyone offering it to them for consideration) has to be looked upon with suspicion, if not outright immediate rejection, since Rand is not around to officially endorse it. Instead, orthodox Objectivist intellectuals (of the "closed" school) are on safe ground only when they rehash (�chew�) Rand�s ideas. And after you�ve heard or read so much of that stuff, well�you want something new, creative, and original! But you won�t get it from the orthodox Objectivists. Or, if you do, it most likely (there are still very few exceptions) be in a lecture, not in printed form. Going into print entails risk, and it's difficult to take on risk when you've accepted being in a state of intellectual emasculation.

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 6/14, 10:37am)

Post 49

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 4:04pm

After having had over 50 books, edited and authored, published by more or less reputable and prestigious houses--from Random House and St. Martin's Press to Endward Mellon and Peter Lang--I can testify that at least this author has been shown everything that goes into and around a book before the final copy is cast in stone. Hoover Institution Press, for which I have edited and written about 15 books, sends me all the stuff that's slated for the flaps, back covers, you name it, as have all the others--Rowman and Littlefield, Ashgate, Open Court, etc., etc.,--for final approval. All of them seem to take the idea very seriously that what is written in and on the book is what the editor or author wanted to be written in and on the book. Typos, therefore, are those of the author/editor, period. (Which is not to say we don't need a whole lot of help catching them!) And all this goes for papers and essays and columns published in various forums, although in newspapers and magazines the editorial staff is more directly involved in dealing with grammatical and spelling infelicities.

Post 50

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 4:09pm

To this passage, "jacket copy and design belong to marketing, not to editorial or to the authors themselves; authors don't see what goes on the outside of their books until the rest of us do, and they often hate it," I wish to add a qualification: text is still the province of the author/editor, although illustrations and such are entirely the province of the marketing division of the publisher. (There are exceptions--my very first book, published by the now defunct Arlington House Publishing Co., Inc., did compose some back copy text about how Skinner worked with rabbits, which was wrong. I didn't learn of it until after the book appeared.)

Post 51

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 4:17pm

Roger, is it not one element of the ethical life that one isn't provided with a formula that will enable one to figure out what to do? In substantive ethics all that one can hope for from philosophers is general principles or virtues. The rest is exactly what one gets moral credit for if one manages to figure it out well, and for which one is blamed if one messes it up. If ethics produced some decision mechanism that people could just enter into their computers and consult as they need to make their choices in life, where would the agent come into the picture? Thinking rationally is a virtue because one needs to produce it oneself as the means for identifying guidelines for one's conduct in life.

Post 52

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 4:22pm

Love this post, Robert!

Post 53

Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 11:43am

Roger,

The lectures by Peikoff that you mentioned sound most interesting, and... in due time... I shall shell out the $60 or so that they go for on CD.

I think that some Objectivists do regard practical wisdom as an unnecessary notion, because they subsume it under rationality in general. Problem is, they never say that they are doing this. And they don't provide specifics about recognizing the situation or making the decision; i.e., about what the ancients thought we need practical wisdom for. Tara Smith has around 300 pages at her disposal in Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics, yet she never says what Rand and Objectivists do with practical wisdom. She never says anything about practical wisdom.

I think you are spot-on with your comments about the added vulnerability that comes with committing your views to print. A colleague of mine in psychology likes to say, "You publish, and you take your lumps." Mature adults ought to be able to handle the responsible critical dialogue that ensues when a book or article attracts enough notice to elicit such dialogue.

In her final chapter (on generosity, charity, temperance, and kindness) and her appendix on friendship, Smith admits to working without a net, because she has few texts by Rand and Peikoff to fall back on. In my opinion, though, she does as well in in these as she did in the preceding 9 chapters where she could quote Rand and Peikoff on just about every page. Such is the hard life of the "Objectivist philosopher."

Tibor,

Henry Veatch used to say that living the good life is like fly fishing--you have to learn it through practice, instead of making your choices by getting detailed instructions from a philosophy book. But Veatch believed that practical wisdom is a virtue.

Robert Campbell

Post 54

Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 12:38pm

Chris: "Once you're in double figures, you are most certainly in an arena comparable to Cato or Heritage."

Actually, I just looked up Heritage's 2004 tax form, and their total revenue then was just over $50 million. So unless they've since had a gargantuan dropoff in fundraising (highly unlikely), ARI wouldn't be close to them with $10 million.

Robert: "Did Ayn Rand have--or need--a $10 million budget?"

Well, no . . . but she did have two of the best novels *ever written* under her belt, which is what earned her a large fanbase, which is what landed her appearances on national television shows. I suppose if an Objectivist at ARI or TOC writes something of The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged caliber, then money wouldn't matter as much to spreading Objectivism.

"Persuasive success in the intellectual arena depends on much more than slinging cash around. Anybody can spend money. The Moonies have spent more cash than all Objectivists put together; but does anyone seriously think they are about to have a measurable impact on our culture?"

I agree that money obviously isn't a *sufficient condition* for cultural change. However, money is a *necessary condition* for cultural change (a point that many ideological activists, not just Objectivists, don't seem to understand). Basically, without money, you can't do stuff. You can't put out many publications. You can't help train many intellectuals. You can't hire many quality people to work for you. All of these things are required to actualize the level of fundamental change in the culture that Objectivists envision--and all of them require MONEY.

Post 55

Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 3:53pm

I'm a veteran of years at both Heritage and Cato. At the former I came up with the economic freedom index idea, did work in free trade, deregulation and transitions to free markets in the Soviet bloc and Third World. At the latter I edited Regulation magazine and did books and papers on Postal Service privatization, free markets in space, Amtrak and a bunch of other things.

Those organizations are highly effective. The Index of Economic Freedom and another one developed by a coalition that includes Cato are becoming standard tools for economic analysis. Cato's work for decades on Social Security privatization is a major reason that it has become an issue today. I use my lessons at those organizations as my models.

Most important is our strategy at TAS/TOC of producing good material -- The New Individualist, op-eds, speeches at events, etc -- using these products to leverage our name recognition and influence with other groups, news outlets, public intellectuals and the like.

Also important, we are the serious (but never boring!), responsible Objectivists who welcome open discussion with others as a way to spread the philosophy. We're not closed true believers or juvenile name-calls.

Watch for our future projects and, of course, everyone come to the Summer Seminar!

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 6/16, 6:41am)

Post 56

Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 4:40pm

Jon (post 54), no one will argue that having oodles of cash is a bad thing. It's always better to have more money than less.

However, creative ingenuity, an effective strategy of competitive differentiation, and the judicious use of technology can "level the playing field," allowing groups with modest assets -- even lone individuals -- to compete effectively against large, entrenched institutions that command far greater resources.

Regarding that, I commend to you Glenn Reynolds's new book, An Army of Davids, and also my own recorded seminar, "Guerilla Activism."

In a similar vein, I also recommend the marketing books by Jack Trout and Al Ries, including Positioning, Focus, and Marketing Warfare.

Post 57

Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 10:54pm

Robert (post 53), you said:

The lectures by Peikoff that you mentioned sound most interesting, and... in due time... I shall shell out the $60 or so that they go for on CD. I think that some Objectivists do regard practical wisdom as an unnecessary notion, because they subsume it under rationality in general. Problem is, they never say that they are doing this. And they don't provide specifics about recognizing the situation or making the decision; i.e., about what the ancients thought we need practical wisdom for.

Even in Peikoff's lecture that I find so helpful in this regard, he does not even use the phrase "practical life" until the very end of his lecture. The purported context was helping people to avoid the false dichotomy of emotionalism and repression in making personal decisions, and the lecture set was so titled that you would never guess that he was going to present an extended lesson on Objectivist "practical wisdom." It is almost as if Objectivists were philosophically tone-deaf to this issue that neo-Aristotelians -- and most people! -- find so compellingly interesting. As it was, Peikoff came at it "through the back door" of "how best to integrate emotions with your personal decision-making.

You also said:

I think you are spot-on with your comments about the added vulnerability that comes with committing your views to print. A colleague of mine in psychology likes to say, "You publish, and you take your lumps." Mature adults ought to be able to handle the responsible critical dialogue that ensues when a book or article attracts enough notice to elicit such dialogue.

Peikoff himself confessed as much. In a 1996 lecture, "Two Definitions" (a lecture that should be widely distributed and discussed, but which is not)(and which has substantial problems with its thesis, but addresses an important issue rarely handled well by Objectivists), Peikoff said:

...if I ever wrote on this topic, which I never will, because I haven�t thought it out properly; I mean, you know, it�s OK for a lecture, but to write it out, you do have to do that for eternity...

That's as close to an admission as you're ever going to get (well hidden in one of Peikoff's lesser known lectures) by a major Objectivist figure of the perilous downside of actually publishing your views. I don't think his unpublished lectures are any worse than his two published books. I just don't get it. Maybe it's just a case of the truism about "the best being the enemy of the good."

REB

Post 58

Friday, June 16, 2006 - 6:28am

Roger said:

Peikoff himself confessed as much. In a 1996 lecture, "Two Definitions" (a lecture that should be widely distributed and discussed, but which is not)(and which has substantial problems with its thesis, but addresses an important issue rarely handled well by Objectivists), ...

Roger: are you referring to Peikoff's taped lectures entitled "Unity in Epistemology and Ethics"? I recall Peikoff introducing the idea that in some cases a concept could have two independent definitions and that it may be unavoidable. It's been a long time since I listened to them, but I seem to recall that someone appeared to correct one of Peikoff's examples in the question period. That doesn't mean that the issue was resolved, but I don't recall ever hearing anything about it again.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 59

Friday, June 16, 2006 - 7:32am