One of the basic functions of Peikoff's later (post-1970s) lecture courses is to teach people methods of thinking (i.e., the how as distinguished from the what) about Objectivism as well as about any other subject. The essential core of Objectivist method - a responsible (context-appropriate) approach to checking premises - makes Objectivism itself essentially impervious to refutation. Like induction itself, you couldn't even attempt to refute it without implicitly accept and affirming it. Induction is the essence of rational, reality-oriented thought; Rand identified basic principles of inductive reasoning - the most notable achievement being her theory of concepts - and those basic principles are the very basic principles of Objectivism itself. Objectivism is the method of induction applied to the fundamental issues of man and his relationship to existence.
(I'll also note that Rand had the most perfectionistic thought processes for a philosopher since Aristotle. Same basic idea: check premises responsibly, spiral progression of knowledge, respecting the hierarchy of knowledge, etc. As perfectionism is essentially related to virtue in ethics, so it is in epistemology; Rand's definition of intellectual virtue is her way of establishing a Virtue Epistemology. [Hell, is there any other kind of sound epistemology?] The academic mainstream is, like, totally in the dark on this stuff - and why is that?)...
Cognitive clarity and efficiency are central aspects of successful functioning in life.... Familiarity with this course also makes for a good head start as our culture moves in the Randian direction in the coming years....
In the Utopia I envision for humanity's not-too-distant future, familiarity with Peikoff's courses or something of comparable caliber would be an essential qualification for university professors - hell, all university professors, and not just those in the Humanities. There's really no excuse for educators and intellectuals not to be familiar with this stuff.... Their minds might well be blown at just how insidiously, damagingly rationalistic (or emotionalistic, or otherwise dysfunctional) their thought processes were all along. Then they, too, will thank Rand for showing them the way.
The future enlightenment of humanity depends on it.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Disorganizing Brains: New Book on Objectivism
If all goes well, we will soon be graced with yet another tome on Objectivism: namely, Understanding Objectivism: A Guide to Learning Ayn Rand's Philosophy. This is yet another rehash of lectures: to be specific, a lecture series of the same name delivered by Leonard Peikoff in 1983 and sanitized for publication by no less an authority than the eminent Michael S. Berliner. Back in the halcyon days of Objectivism, just after Rand had passed from the scene and before things began to fall apart with the publication of Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand, this lecture series was regarded as kind of holy grail among the Objectivist faithful. It was Peikoff's first major effort without the presence of Rand, who, during the seventies, had served as kind of philosophical training wheels to the future heir to her estate, and had kept a close eye on him during his most important lectures. There were some among the Objectivist cognoscenti who considered this lecture series Peikoff's very best effort. It undoubtedly is strong stuff, reputed to be among the highest-octane Objectivism one is likely to ever run across. Indeed, it's so strong that (to paraphrase Schopenhauer) it may in fact be capable of thoroughly and permanently disorganizing the brains of at least some who have listened to it. Consider, as evidence, the effect these lectures had on the mind of the self-proclaimed "Ultimate Philosopher." In terms of brains thoroughly and permanently disorganized by Rand, Peikoff, and Objectivism, it doesn't get any better (and hopefully not any worse) than what we find in the Ultimate Philosopher's review of Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism":
And THIS is another reason why Objectivism failed to connect with me when Objectivists would attempt to sway me: Objectivist discussion of Objectivism is often pretty difficult to parse. I had to re-read this quote a few times and I'm still not exactly sure about a few lines.
ReplyDeleteI like to think I'm a bit more rational and intelligent than average, but I'll admit I have no formal education in philosophy. And so there's a lot of references and keywords that may seem commonplace to those who make a study of it that can go over my head. One of the disadvantages I've had discussing things with Objectivists is that I have to spend a lot of time first just trying to unpack exactly WHAT has been said - not to mention the added difficulty of Objectivists using non-standard definitions of commonly-used words... not to mention the more visceral problem of a lot of Objectivists tending towards the smug and snide in their delivery when any opposition is met.
By contrast, a lot of the criticism of Objectivism in sites like this is - even if I don't have an extensive education in philosophy - a lot less of a chore to understand. I'd even go so far as to say that I understand Objectivism far better by reading the works of its critics than I ever have from reading the writings of its supporters, and that includes Rand herself.
(Doubtless Objectivists would point this out as evidence that I do not understand it at all.)
"Rand made a number of normative assertions that Objectivists widely regard as non-essential to her philosophy. For example, she infamously remarked that it would be improper for a female to run for President of the United States. She also held that homosexuality was disgusting and immoral. Rand’s moral proscriptions on female political ambitions and particular sexual expressions can be rejected as being at odds with more fundamental principles she espoused and with what science now tells us.
ReplyDelete"We know, for example, that homosexuality is innate to some people’s genetic makeup. They cannot be judged morally for the sexual orientation that nature gave them.
"We also know that racial differences that are more than skin deep inevitably do manifest in ways that are socially significant. Black sub-Saharan Africans aren’t immoral for carrying genes that code for relatively low general intelligence; nor are people who identify this fact of reality."
http://libertarianrealist.blogspot.com/2011/11/on-ayn-rand-on-racism.html
Nice book cover: haphazardly stacked blocks with ladders leading nowhere -- a fair illustration of the journey through Objectivism.
ReplyDeleteWell why don't we give the book a chance. Who knows, it might be pretty good.
ReplyDelete-Neil Parille
@Neil: It will surely be as good as the original 1983 lectures. Will it be better? Will it incorporate all the advances that Objectivism has made in the past thirty years?
ReplyDelete(Are there any such advances?)
Great comment, Anon69!
ReplyDeleteUniversal Philosopher's comments fail to persuade again -- it just leads me back to the same request: please, objectivists, *read* more widely! Read more philosophy, more history, more science, more history of science. Otherwise, you inspire laughter with your inflated (and clueless) claims about her originality and the "necessity" of her work "for the future of humanity." Argh. They are a step away from claiming that Rand invented clothing, breathing, the wheel, the English language, and sliced bread, for Pete's sake.
And stop telling us what the "academic mainstream" thinks, you're just invoking a monolith/strawman that you made up in your imagination. Every prof should be forced to read Rand to get a job? So much for freedom of thought. What nonesense.
- Chris (sorry for the grumpy post)
@Chris: They are a step away from claiming that Rand invented clothing, breathing, the wheel, the English language, and sliced bread,
ReplyDeleteAs others have noted, in many ways Rand is a funhouse-mirror of a Soviet propagandist. Outlandish claims for inventions would be part of the package.
"We also know that racial differences that are more than skin deep inevitably do manifest in ways that are socially significant. Black sub-Saharan Africans aren’t immoral for carrying genes that code for relatively low general intelligence; nor are people who identify this fact of reality."
ReplyDelete??
?? indeed...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/
always fun!