"In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world."It seems that absolute agreement with the ARI leader on politics is necessary in order to be a True Objectivist. Sadly, it seems other True Objectivists disagree - here, here, and here for example. This can only mean one thing: that someone has to be the False True Objectivist. But who will it be? Game on!
- Leonard Peikoff, founder of the Ayn Rand Institute, and self-described as 'the world's foremost authority on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.'
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Who is the False True Objectivist?
In comments,(scroll down)Dragonfly notes the arrival of Schism #1,376 in Objectivism, triggered by the following statement:
I discuss Peikoff here --
ReplyDeletehttp://objectiblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/leonard-peikoffs-dim-witted-hypothesis.html
As I recall, a few years ago Peikoff criticized Gotthelf's fawning On Ayn Rand, claiming he was "morally obligated" to speak out due to its alleged problems.
Objectivism will never grow as long as Peikoff and his ilk refuse to show the least bit of flexibility.
As I said over at Neil's blog, Peikoff article is not interesting for the case he makes - because there is no case made, just a few handwaving assertions.
ReplyDeleteWhat's interesting is the calculated insult at the end to other Objectivists who don't vote his way - and the difference between the intensity of this insult and the paucity of his preceding case. Perhaps he's testing his power as the Pope of Objectivism, perhaps he's lost his mind, perhaps there are political scores being settled within his organisation. Perhaps a combination of the above.
We are apparently on the verge of schism #1377:
ReplyDeletehttp://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2006/11/intellectual-activists-lost-guide.htm
Objectivism reminds me of a circular firing squad, but instead of bullets, they use the idea of bullets, and then cry foul when their targets refuse to fall down dead.
ReplyDelete