RoR: Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 4:24pm

Link

Edit

I'm surprised no discussion has started of this. I think Texas State University's reaction is understandable, and worrying. We don't look good to academia; we'd look a heck of a lot better if ARI and TAS could forge an amicable relationship.

Post 1

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 5:10pm

Link

Edit

I didn't see this was due to schisms, Laure, I read the headline and moved on. I assumed the must have turned down the money due to a general hostility.

The comments are interesting indeed.

Ted

Post 2

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 5:13pm

Link

Edit

"Debates surrounding Rand's work often "resemble a religious dogma surrounding a sacred text, and not the free give-and-take of ordinary scholarship," says Rebecca Raphael, a senior lecturer in philosophy at Texas State."

Further, after having written to the non-ARI approved JARS, Andrew Bernstein, considered for an Anthem Foundation chair:

"I deeply regret my thoughtless decision to contribute to this journal, and hereby irrevocably repudiate any and all association with it. In this regard, the fault is entirely my own. This journal does not hide what it is. Its contents are available on the Internet for all to see. In failing to do the requisite research and gather the necessary data, I failed to properly use my mind. I must now suffer the consequences of that. To all who are sincerely concerned with objectivism, I apologize, and recommend a complete repudiation and boycott of this journal. ..."

Compare this to a version of the Christian prayer, the act of contrition:

O my God, I am heartily sorry
for having offended Thee,
and I detest all my sins,
because I dread the loss of Heaven
and the pains of Hell,
but most of all because they
offend Thee, my God,
Who art all-good and deserving
of all my love.
I firmly resolve, with the help
of Thy grace to confess my sins,
to do penance
and to amend my life. Amen.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 7/17, 5:25pm)

Post 3

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 6:35pm

Link

Edit

Hilarious Ted!

Post 4

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 7:05pm

Link

Edit

Actually, it's disgusting and pathetic, not hilarious. What, prey tell, is an "irrevocable repudiation?"

I repeat: "irrevocable repudiation?"

This means Bernstein forever surrenders his own judgment no matter what future evidence may be presented? This is what Rand spent 40 years tdeaching? Bernstein would be much better off both psychologically and epistemologically as a Catholic, as Catholicism believes in free will, personal effort, and God's forgiveness. He is condemning himself to a hell even worse than Calvin and his predestinationist theological allies, because Bernstein has already damned himself here on earth, with no hope of salbvation after death, and even Calvin didn't deny sinners some temporary happiness here on earth.

Ted Keer

Post 5

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 12:06pm

Link

Edit

I think this is a cautionary tale that suggests that Objectivists should have loose ties to institutional Objectivism. The track record of the major Objectivist institutions is lousy. I suggest that people attend conferences, make friends with individual Objectivists of their choosing, speak where they wish and let the major organizations sink or swim on their own.

Jim

Post 6

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 4:05pm

Link

Edit

Neutrality Means Complicity with ARI

James, that policy amounts to conceding the field to ARI which is obviously willing to fight dirty and which unfortunately has the prestige of Rand's estate behind it. Were there anyone at ARI willing to end its policy of secrecy, denunciations, loyalty tests and so on, perhaps that person could be backed. The current leadership is afloat in a cocoon cushioned by Ayn Rand's royalties and those little cardboard inserts in her books.

Until then, neutrality means not pointing out to interested third parties that ARI has a cult-like track record.

It is up to those who wish to associate with ARI to follow that advice which you would give us all. Simply saying that the track record of major Objectivist organizations is lousy is like saying that both the Axis and the Allies killed a lot of people during WWII. TOC/TAS has indeed stood on its own, and while it is not endowing chairs, it is not conducting purges and witchhunts and there is no evidence that it would were it more well funded. Meanwhile what are we to expect from Peikoff and his gang if we hold our tongues while he runs his private little fiefdom, produces one book every other decade, and in the meantime spouts off like the Red Queen every time a revelation like the necessity of voting a straight democratic ticket hits him from the great beyond?

Neutrality means complicity with ARI as it now stands.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 7/18, 4:06pm)

Post 7

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 10:05am

Link

Edit

Ted,

I disagree. I am not neutral. I consider myself anti-ARI, but no longer pro-TAS in many of the things they do. I recommend that people attend a TAS Summer Seminar if they haven't already done so, I like the individual members of the TAS Staff, but ultimately an organization has to show concrete results.

One of the things that has really torqued me off about TAS is that they will mention projects in fundraising letters and then not show results against milestones. One bright exception to that is The New Individualist magazine. If people want to give money, they should earmark it for either Summer Seminar scholarships or The New Individualist. Those are terrific projects and worthy of being supported.

If you look at a history of my posts I have consistently come out against ARI's egregious practices and unfortunately their MO has not changed. With what has happened with the Bernstein apology, the Tracinski mess and now the Objectivist CD ROM it is clear that they have no intention to change.

TAS has their own problems. They have lost a whole generation of philosophy students. Smart people like Irfan Khawaja, Carolyn Ray, Will Wilkinson, Bryan Register, Diana Hsieh, Jimmy Wales, Bill Perry, Rick Minto, Karen Reedstrom and others have either left TAS publicly or quietly gone their own way.They really need to decide what objectives they want to accomplish as an organization. They need to show results in graduated PhD's or some other metric of performance.

Recently, I had thought that they were going to carve out a philosophy of science and cognitive science niche and try to cultivate a new group of Objectivist intellectuals in those areas where they have a lot of expertise. However, they seem to lose focus and never really finish many of the things they start so I'm beginning to worry about that as well. I hope for TAS's success. I like their Summer Seminars and The New Individualist magazine, but it's hard to do a lot of flagwaving based on what they've done in their first 18 years of existence.

Jim

Post 8

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 10:15am

Link

Edit

Barbara Branden says that, after the demise of NBI, Rand opposed the entire notion of a centralized Objectivist organization. This episode speaks well of her judgement.

Post 9

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 11:16am

Link

Edit

Okay, so you mean you are equally disappointed with TAS and ARI? Again, I see a difference between a perceived lack of results and an active hostility to any challenge of authority. I think the active hostility towards intellectual independence needs to be positively opposed. Non-association with those not providing the results you want is not the same as active opposition.

As for Rand's supposed opposition to organized institutions, does that mean her bequest to Peikoff was a practical joke?

Ted

Post 10

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 12:00pm

Link

Edit

Ted,

No, if someone is going to support an organization, I'd rather they support TAS than ARI. However, I think we've gotten to the point where it's better for people to simply do their own study and their own activism.

One other point that I would like to make is that some of ARI's success in teaching students has nothing to do with funding. Their programs are organized, respect cognitive economy and emphasize the importance of teaching Objectivism as a hierarchical, integrated system. There is a lot TAS could learn from this without indoctrinating people. Unfortunately, ARI also discourages intelligent dissent and has a tendency toward thought control which is a much worse problem than ineffectiveness.

Jim

Post 11

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 4:23pm

Link

Edit

Without attempting to enter the wider discussion of which organization is good or bad (and in what way), just how does either the "Tracinksi mess" or (most particularly) Phil Oliver's dispute with Dr. Peikoff have anything whatever to do with ARI?

ARI made a statement about its (now, lack of) relationship with Robert Tracinski. Hardly a mess, except in so far as it was hotly commented on by people on various boards.

Phil Oliver's licensing arrangements with Dr. Peikoff are a private matter between him and the heir to Rand's copyrights. So far as I (and you, I'd bet) know, it has nothing whatever to do with ARI.

I do wish people would stop equating anything that Dr. Peikoff does (or more generally and ridiculously, his fans do or say) with ARI. Dr. Peikoff does not own ARI and even if he did, his private actions (and a fortiori those of his supporters) are not co-extensive with those of ARI. Dr. Yaron Brook is the head of ARI, not Dr. Peikoff and has been for five years.

Post 12

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 5:46pm

Link

Edit

James, why, when you agree with me, do you begin your posts with "Ted, no..."?

Also, is the cognitive economy of which you speak not based on the existence of Peikoff's 40 year old lectures? I would be interested in a long post from you describing for us laymen (which I, as an outsider mean with no irony) what you think ARI is doing right and what TAS is doing wrong.

Jeff, the proof is in the pudding, and I am not familiar with Brook or any of the most recent West Coast developments. But "X is no longer associated with..." is such a time-worn formula, I wonder if it will ever be abandoned.

What goes on behind the scenes at either institution is not a transparent matter to outsiders. But how long ago was the Peikoff dirtective on the election? The Tracinski affair? The Bernstein contrition? Does not Binswanger still require a pledge of non-tolerance? Are these people not what ARI has been for 20+ years? It takes time to live down a well-deserved bad reputation.

Post 13

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 6:18pm

Link

Edit

"It takes time to live down a well-deserved bad reputation."

If it were deserved, and I think from time to time it has been, I certainly agree with this statement. But like I said, Brook has been Executive Director for 5 years and during that time he's been on watch while much good was done, such as the Books for Schools program. How long is long enough?

I wasn't a fan of HP the whole time "Carly" was at the helm. But it's been, what, two years or less and I'm already softening on them, and I'm not the forgiving type.

And I'm still darned if I can figure out what Peikoff's statement about the election (or anything else) has to with ARI.

You, better than I, know that time-worn formulae are often extremely valuable.

Post 14

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 6:28pm

Link

Edit

Jeff, I invite you to draw up the same article I invited James to do - a list of ARI's strengths and other foundation's weaknesses. As I said - the proof is in the pudding - and I am not in either kitchen. I am not hoping for anyone's future failure. I am happy to judge current and future actions on their merits.

I don't understand what you meant by your final sentence.

Ted

Post 15

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 6:40pm

Link

Edit

"Jeff, I invite you to draw up the same article I invited James to do - a list of ARI's strengths and other foundation's weaknesses. As I said - the proof is in the pudding - and I am not in either kitchen. I am not hoping for anyone's future failure. I am happy to judge current and future actions on their merits.

I don't understand what you meant by your final sentence.

Ted"

No thanks. That's not an exercise I judge to be worth my time, especially since I'm not a fan or supporter (nor critic or detractor) of either organization.

My point was only this: ARI (or TAS) should be judged according to the actions and motives of those responsible for its policies and how they're executed, not the actions or motives of others. It's a simple plea for fairness and objectivity.

I can't see how Dr. Peikoff is any longer responsible for the policies or actions of ARI and vice-versa. But perhaps someone who knows ARI better than I can correct me on that.

[Never mind about the time-worn formulae. I was responding to your statement, but it's not worth clarifying at length. I was implying a compliment based on your vast knowledge of arcane matters.]

[Added in edit:]

I will make the effort to provide just two items for your requested list, however.

1. I don't recall the exact number, but ARI has placed something on the order of several thousand ((hundred thousand?) Rand books in schools around the country. (Mostly The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, if I recall correctly.)

I consider that single program to be enough to outweigh a great many imputed sins, since that alone has the potential to influence millions in the way I want over the next 20 years.

2. I'm reliably told that a dozen or more ARI-aided graduate students in Philosophy have gained admission to major universities over the past five years. To paraphrase Rand, paraphrasing Lenin: "the revolution is assured." That last is an exaggeration, of course. But I consider that a very significant achievement given what I know of Philosophy graduate departments. Of course, the students themselves deserve the major credit, but to the extent ARI helped, my hat's off to them.

On the other half of your request, I have no specific criticisms of TAS.
(Edited by Jeff Perren
on 7/19, 6:54pm)

Post 16

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 11:38pm

Link

Edit

Jeff,

I simply consider the Tracinski separation to be in the same vein as the ARI/Kelley, ARI/Reismans, Reardan and Kirkpatrick split. ARI has established a pattern since its inception of collectively enforced shunning. Why, given the lack of transparency of the ARI organization should we assume this is any different?

Yaron Brook was aligned with ARI as far back as 1994. If he really had a change of heart from ARI's previous policies he's had plenty of time to spell it out. I do think Yaron has been a modest positive influence on ARI and hope that continues.

When members of the ARI organization are free to take important positions at variance with the ARI line and state them in print, I will believe the organization has reformed.

You are right about the Phil Oliver/Dr. Peikoff disagreement. There are no grounds to assume it has anything to do with ARI. It does however put one more footnote into my mostly negative opinion of Dr. Peikoff.

Jim

Post 17

Friday, July 20, 2007 - 12:11am

Link

Edit

Is the Canon Closed?

When I graduated highs school, Philosophy: Who Needs it? had just been published. I donated each of my non-fiction books to the library after I was given assurances that they wouldn't be discarded (the Librarian knew and distrusted Rand, but evidently valued choice more) and they were rebound and on the shelves when I checked there three years later.

Had ARI not had a school book distribution plan, I would have been one to complain, but that they do shows that they are meeting the absolute minimal requirements of their mission - and are also sending out those little insert ads for ARI if they are providing the paperbacks.

The old NBI formula of having innovative articles published in the Objectivist and then bound later as books seems to me like such a good and successful one. What ARI house organ is willin to publish new ideas (like Binswanger's Goal-Directedness of Biological System) and put out entirely new books on the sciences, fashionable fallacies - such as Goedel and Turing - new books on sexuality, the islamist threat, on the renaissance in the cinema and the internet and other media. I haven't read Normative Ethics - I fear it costs too much and will teach me too little. PARC is not what I would call inspiring. The release of the Journals, Letters, & books on fiction & non-fiction are great - but hardly unexpected. Britting's little book is very pretty. DIM seems to me little more than a bestiary, a catalog of evils, a new malleus maleficarum. All these works under the Aegis of ARI hardly innovate. Can one work with ARI and innovate?

Post 18

Friday, July 20, 2007 - 7:35am

Link

Edit

"I haven't read Normative Ethics - I fear it costs too much and will teach me too little."

I may respond in the future to comments about ARI, about which I'm no expert, not a representative, and not particularly interested in.

For now, a minor bit of information.

Dr. Smith's book is available in paperback for less than $25. If that is still too expensive, most libraries will obtain a book you request through their Inter-library loan program, though the NYPL probably has a copy of its own. I don't recall you being morally opposed to using them, so that's one option.

As to whether it's worth reading, I don't know. I haven't gotten around to it yet myself. The excerpts make me think it's very academic, which after all is its purpose. But you like that sort of thing. If you thoroughly understand the Objectivist ethics and can argue for it against all comers, then probably it won't have anything new for you.

To end, I'll repeat what I said or suggested earlier. I'm not interested in defending (or supporting) ARI, TAS, or any other Objectivist organization. So, I think it may be appropriate here to end my hijacking of this thread.

Post 19

Friday, July 20, 2007 - 11:49am

Link

Edit

I had only seen much more expensive list prices for a hardback copy. At that rate, I might consider buying it.