RoR: Forum

Merrill makes several points: That Rand was interested in passing on knowledge while most philosophy professors seemed more interested in critiquing existing thought. They were about the debate and opposed to system building. That they appeared to require that one come to them, on their terms - to prepare learned papers chock full of footnotes for publication in peer-reviewed journals, while she sought to speak to intelligent individuals anywhere and to inspire them and teach them. The professors sought to deal with an academic discipline that compared different views in an academic fashion. She wanted to demonstrate the need for a philosophy to be able to have a successful life.

Post 1

Sunday, May 22, 2011 - 5:02pm

Charles Sykes, in Prof Scam, makes the case that the professor is responsible for the decline in higher education, saying, "Almost single-handedly, the professors - working steadily and systematically - have destroyed the university as a center of learning and desolated higher education, which is no longer higher or much of an education."

He covers some of the items below:

tenure, bad enough under any standard, but worse when totally uncoupled from merit in teaching
The ruin of research as a professorial pursuit (even if it weren't tied to government grants and their corrupting influence).
The dishonesty in much of the academic publications.
The wholesale ignoring of student cheating.
The dumb-it-down movements great "success."
The flight from actual teaching (into consultation, research, etc.) - and the rise of the teaching assistant and the grad student as teacher.
Desertion of ideas in favor of audio-visual presentation of trivial facts.
Using a demand for Academic Freedom to achieve unaccountability
Pseudo-scientists - the social sciences.

That book remains a stunning eye opener on how not to structure universities - on what not to let teachers become. Each time I pick it up I'm surprised that things aren't worse. But then I remember that much of our culture today, at least some of the worst we see is the consequence of what was taught yesteryear.

Think about what would happen to any business, in any industry that totally ignored the wishes of the customer and proceeded to determine among themselves what to produce (teach), how to distribute it, what constituted customer satisfaction, what measure to use to determine success (what grades to give), the terms upon which customers (students) will be allowed to consume the product and even who will be allowed to be customers.

Divorced from the market place, academia has evolved to suit the desires of the professors - to make them safe and happy in a nest they don't have to pay for. A position that pays them for doing what they want to do.

And Sykes only barely touches on the effects and the motivations of PC, subjectivism, moral relativism, and multiculturalism.

Post 2

Monday, May 23, 2011 - 11:16am

It is easy to blame the devil, too easy.

Droves of clear headed learners did not flock to known centers of conservative thought, voting with their dollars to reward the best products on the market. Indeed, Hillsdale, and George Mason, and Auburn, and even Chicago existed. And within those other institutions, there were always professors who taught what you might agree with. Now, economics professor Mark J. Perry(Carpe Diem blog here) teaches at UM-Flint. No one ever singled them out and praised them -- and marketed them. Instead, Ayn Rand and the Objectivists just complained about Kantians.

If what counted was learning, then the Hoover Institute or the Enterprise Institute or the Cato Institute or the Nathaniel Branden Institute could have had a list of approved lecturers all over with students then pursuing them. (Of course, no Objectivist coudl give a "sanction" to someone they might disagree with.) In point of fact, that was indeed, how university education could work in Germany of the 1500s-1800s -- which is why they led the world: students could follow good lecturers from school to school, finally getting their degrees here or there where they took those examinations. It was not the mainstream, but it was known.

It is unfair to dump all of this in Ayn Rand's lap. Other advocates of the free market, reason, and reality could have done this, but did not.

And there is a problem with the theory that having the right ideology makes you a good teacher. I worked off campus with Dr. Donald Thomas Asselin, author of Human Nature and 'Eudaimonia' in Aristotle (his dissertation from Maquette turned into a book). He never got good reviews at any school. Check RateMyProfessors.Com. And I pretty much knew why. Don could be hard to take in person. Myself, I "got" him and made an easy effort to work well enough with him. But I could see how he would fail as a teacher in a 100-level philosophy class because he really lacked tolerance for those of us who were so far beneath him. The guy stands 6-5. No wonder he looks down on everyone. And he lets you know it, too. It was not a problem for me: I was 58 not 18.

Of course, like all consumers, students might not know a good product when they see one. Objectivist professor Gregory Browne (author of Necessary Factual Truth) is excellent. Like Don Asselin, Greg Browne teaches at Eastern Michigan University, my alma mater and a hotbed of Marxist, progressive, post-modern nonsense of all stripes and flavors. Walking the halls before a class, I heard Greg Browne lecturing philosophy. He was clear and concise. I looked in. The class was catatonic: freshmen; what else?

Also, I point out that David Kelley earned his doctorate under Richard Rorty. Again, ideological incorrectness may not prevent you from being a good mentor.

At EMU, as an undergraduate, I never compromised my principles, but I also never insulted a professor by parroting Glen Beck. My papers always took the best of what I learned and integrated it into an individualist perspective. For my senior seminar in criminology, my term paper was on "The Choice to Think: A Meta-Choice to Explain the Conflicting Data of Rational Choice Theory." You have accept it as an empirical fact that rational choice theory produces conflicting data. Objectivists just dish out blame and calls for retribution without parsing the problem. Anyway, that kind of thinking got me through summa cum laude. But I was already an experience learner. In other words, I was a smart consumer.

So, you cannot blame "academia" across the board. The problems with university education are many and deep. Fixing them all would require a complete paradigm shift in society and culture. That, in fact, is probably the one lesson that all of them do teach.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/23, 11:29am)

Post 3

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 - 7:30pm

Mike,

Your negative view of Objectivists is saddening. You have repeatedly brought it up (especially recently).

I imagine you had early encounters with high-level (i.e., founding) Objectivists who were somehow harsh with you. I think you are making a naturalistic fallacy. I think you associate the negative behavior of early Objectivists -- to which I must assume you were exposed -- with the philosophy, itself. An analogy would be claiming Objectivists have brown eyes, simply because every Objectivist that you directly interacted with did have brown eyes. While you are being true to your personal experience, you end up making a spurious connection.

The proposed thought-chain runs like this:

It has been my experience that Objectivists are anti-social types with personality disorders. Therefore, all Objectivists are anti-social types with personality disorders -- and it must have something to do with Objectivism, per se.

It's too bad you didn't first get exposed to Objectivism by coming here to RoR, where there is a decent dose of kindness, good will, and benevolence (KGB) to be found. If you go online to other forums, you will largely find one of two things:

1) more "kindness, good will, and benevolence" than is found here at RoR -- but that is either deliberately faked (by second-handers) or altruistic in nature ("guilt-driven goodness")
2) less kindness, good will, and benevolence than is found here at RoR

Now, one's past experience will tint one's present experiences a little, so that it may be hard to see the good in others who are associated with those who have behaved so terribly. That's one reason why it can be hard to appreciate RoR. Also, one's own struggles -- when seen in others -- come to light immediately and boldly, because one is hyper-aware of another's character flaw if it happens to be a shared flaw**. That's an alternative reason why it may be hard to appreciate RoR.

Mike, I can think of dozens of participants on RoR whom I would pick -- out of everyone I've ever known in my life -- with which to be stranded on a desert island. Objectivists can be really cool, and it'd be extra cool if you, someday, somehow, lost that chip on your shoulder.

Ed

**In my experience, it has been folks who lie that get the most upset when they witness others who also lie. And cheaters have been the most upset when they got cheated. I can only imagine that thieves are the most upset when they witness someone stealing. It only stands to reason that benevolent folks will see the most actual benevolence in others.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/24, 7:53pm)

Post 4

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 4:55am

Has anyone considered the possibility that the academics' hostility to Rand was at least in part a case of the idiot-philosophers ("Kant and Sullivan") and hatred-eaten mystics of the subsidized classroom (Atlas Shrugged) replying in kind? The current generation of professional Objectivists doesn't talk like this, and they get along fine with academics.

Post 5

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 6:14am

Never met an 'objectivist' I didn't like (or "get") as all have proven to be quite kind hearted friendly (Sociable) people - and paradoxically 'altruistic' in a way that does not in the least seem selfish.

Post 6

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 6:28am

Peter,
I have, and I agree with you. Why should a philosopher, or anyone for that matter, take seriously someone who doesn't take them seriously? Why waste their time?

Terry,
I agree. You should attend The Atlas Society's Summer Seminar (now organized and run by Free Minds) if you haven't yet. You'll find even more of what you describe.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 7

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 6:30am

Ed Thompson wrote: Your negative view of Objectivists is saddening. You have repeatedly brought it up (especially recently). I imagine you had early encounters with high-level (i.e., founding) Objectivists who were somehow harsh with you. I think you are making a naturalistic fallacy. ... An analogy would be claiming Objectivists have brown eyes, simply because every Objectivist that you directly interacted with did have brown eyes. ...

Ed, you are far from the mark. I never knew any early Objectivists personally. I did take a "Basic Principles" class in 1966-1967, but it was on tape. I never got to know well any of the attendees, though I had pizza with one college student and canary-sat for a couple on vacation. My negative view of Objectivists is based on recent experience 2004-present, after joining SOLO. Barbara Branden used to post here. Lindsay Perigo used to call her "Highness." Then, the subject of alcoholism came up and everything fell apart. Of course, being aware of the The Rand-Branden Split, and knowing a little about "Fact and Value," I was not surprised.

As an Objectivist, myself, as much as I value the philosophy - and Philosophy generally - I recognize that we all have limitations and foibles. I know that I do. If you think that I am being harsh when I quipped that one cannot claim to be an Objectivist without having been banned from an Objectivist discussion board, it may be because you are completely orthodox in your beliefs, and also (more to the point) a nice guy. Your confirmation bias is assuming that everyone is as pleasant as you are. They are not. I was invited to leave Objectivism Online not for ideological reasons specifically but because my "rambling" posts were evidence of "senility" in the opinion of a moderator who lacked formal education or experience in health care. If his prognosis were accurate, his message to me would be only all the more insulting.

Objectivists can be like that. It has nothing to do with the formal philosophy, or maybe a little. Mostly, it has to do with people in general, and the kind of people who are attracted to a system of thought that promises absolute truth. From "A is A" we move quickly to denuniciations of Beethoven, Mozart, and the midi-skirt.

Peter Reidy wrote: ... academics' hostility to Rand was ... replying in kind? The current generation of professional Objectivists doesn't talk like this, and they get along fine with academics.

Well, some still do talk like that. We have the Topic Quote and the first two posts in this thread to demonstrate that. But, yes, it is true that there are Objectivists (and libertarians and conservatives) within university academics. We do not publicize them. They are not marketed.

As I said above, if learning matters more than degrees, then the ARI, AS, Cato, Hoover, Enterprise, etc., etc., would be publishing lists of great professors at different schools where you can go and get a real education.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/25, 6:35am)

Post 8

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 8:38am

Don't feel bad Michael. I was kicked off Objectivism Online after having a conversation with perhaps the same moderator that claimed his hands were too small to play the guitar, and hence he could never play it well. It was in a thread about innate abilities (which he argued there was such a thing). I played the bass and my hands are not by any means large, so I thought his claim to be absurd especially when 6-year olds have been known to play Eddie Van Halen rifts with near flawless accuracy. When I posted a video of a small child rock virtuoso playing the guitar my posts were deleted. So I get what you're saying, it's a case of someone substituting knowledge for philosophy. But some people are just assholes, it's not just an Objectivist thing.

Post 9

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 10:18am

I agree with Ed where he said that Michael's post exhibits a negative view of Objectivists.

I've noticed a kind of hostility towards Rand and Objectivists in a number of Michael's posts and I find it all the more peculiar given that Michael calls himself an Objectivist. Maybe this is evidence that his subconscious knows better, that he isn't an Objectivist, which one can't be while remaining an anarchist.

Post 10

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 11:11am

John Armaos observed:

"But some people are just assholes, it's not just an Objectivist thing."

Moderators on numerous non-Objectivist forums corroborate this. Google "City-Data sucks" and you will get many hits. That forum has no particular ideology beyond making the owner an advertising income stream via shady means such as censoring negative forum data and banning members who offend the whims of any moderator who chooses to do so. College Confidential is considerably better but still has a moderator who enjoys flexing power in questionable ways based on subjective posting rules about what exactly constitutes "authoritative" links to share. These people should learn from Facebook, a company worth billions that has none of these restrictions.

Post 11

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 8:23pm

Mike,

Thanks for the illuminating response.

... it may be because you are completely orthodox in your beliefs, ...

Well, I'm not completely orthodox. For example, I don't agree with the orthodox Objectivist notion of a pre-moral choice to live (See: Kids and the "Pre-moral" Choice to Live).

... and also (more to the point) a nice guy.

Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment.

:-)

Your confirmation bias is assuming that everyone is as pleasant as you are.

Well, I'd agree that I may be more likely to err with a confirmation bias of someone's pleasantness, but you missed my point. I agreed that there is the confirmation bias of seeing the world as you see yourself (projection of skeletons-in-your-closet), but I also said that you'll pick up on the actual -- read: real -- things that you prefer to focus on. So yes, more possibility of confirmation bias, but also ... importantly ... more legitimate confirmation of really-existing traits in others.

I was invited to leave Objectivism Online not for ideological reasons specifically but because my "rambling" posts were evidence of "senility"

That moderator sounds to me like a spineless coward who wanted you to leave out of probably envy or jealousy, and hid behind some kind of an appeal-to-authority medical excuse for getting you out of there. Not having built character, he could not be sincere and straightforward about his motives. One of my favorite quotes, from some French guy (de la Rouchefould, or something like that), is: Weak people cannot be sincere.

After hearing about John's and your experiences there, I'm glad I didn't join Objectivism Online.

Mostly, it has to do with people in general, and the kind of people who are attracted to a system of thought that promises absolute truth.

Certainty and hope are the 2 reasons folks seek religion. They are what it is that religion offers. Objectivism offers them, too, but there's a catch.

certainty
You can get too much certainty too fast, denouncing things just like you say (Mozart, friends, family members, etc.). I had less of that, because I had lived for over 30 years -- loving, learning from, and losing people and things -- before I got exposed to Objectivism. I also started with Christianity and had already felt certain, only to leave that behind for something I turned out to value even more. In Rand's words, I had certainty, but I realized that "it only went down so far."

In a way, Objectivism is like a drag-race car. It can be loads of fun if you first realize what kinds of things (good and terrible) which can come from the application of that kind of power.

hope
It sounds counter-intuitive, but hope can be worse than certainty -- if it is false or empty hope. If someone didn't feel right for existence, and you thrusted Objectivism on them -- which tells them, in opposition to religion, that "what you see" is all that you are ever going to get -- they could be devastated. It may be better -- and is, if anything, safer -- to have gotten inspired to live from or for something else first, before getting exposed to Objectivism. If not, you may develop John Galt syndrome, making you feel either inadequate for -- or uninspired by -- "normal" life on earth.

I don't believe in luck but, in retrospect, I was "lucky" to be in the place I was in ... when I got exposed to Objectivism.

Ed

Post 12

Friday, May 27, 2011 - 7:14am

The hostility of mainstream academics toward Objectivism is accepted. Nonetheless, I found eight Objectivists who post regularly on these boards and who teach at universities. Adam Reed is in computer science. Glenn Fletcher teaches math. As we all know Tibor Machan recently retired as a professor of philosophy. Auburn is the home of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Cafe Hayek, Organizations & Markets, The Unbroken Window and other blogs are the work of college and university professors with favorable opinions of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, even if they do not endorse them with fervor.

That hostility is largely opposition to capitalism. We know that von Mises was a Kantian, but we would expect that Auburn would not be hostile to a professor who taught objective metaphysics. The anti-reason, anti-reality stream of whatever is out there. It may or may not "dominate." Post modernists stand out in our view of the landscape. Polling might reveal something else.

My own experience does underscore the deeper problem identified by Ayn Rand: the mind-body dichotomy. In formal philosophy objectivism (small-o) is rational-empiricism. Objectivism was eclipsed by positivism in the mid-1800s and it is positivism that endures as the "scientific" philosophy. I never found a sociology or criminology textbook that suggested otherwise; and I was a voracious reader and collector. Long ago warned by Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff, I was not surprised when my instructor for Symbolic Logic - a doctoral candidate at the U of Mich - agreed that A is A, but was not sure that the sun would rise in the east tomorrow as, to her, empirical claims are not truths. At least she was teaching logic and not a physics lab.

If I did not point to Gregory M. Browne, no one here would know who he is. He is just a guy who teaches philosophy at a midrange midwest state school. But he is an Objectivist. There must dozens like him out there, even more across all the disciplines.

Rather than complain that we are in the garden eating worms, what would it take to create a database?

Post 13

Friday, May 27, 2011 - 8:01am