Monday, July 24, 2017

Orthodox Objectivism: An Autopsy, Part 2


Orthodox Objectivism may have been doomed from the start, simply because it was a dogmatic philosophy that prided itself on rationality and self-interest yet which, in its specific doctrines and in the behavior of its adherents, often betrayed these stated objectives. Rand's contention that human beings are born "blank slates" is about as rational as the belief that the earth is flat. And as for self-interest: is it really in anyone's self-interest to embrace orthodox Objectivism? Doubts persist on this score. Some years ago Barbara Branden noted that far too many Objectivists came off as bitter and angry. Is it really in your self-interest to be angry all the time? Is it really in your self-interest to continually distort and/or misunderstand the views of people you disagree with, while at the same time being hyper-sensitive to alleged distortions of your own views? Is it really in your self-interest to remain an adherent of a philosophy which has no viable track record of making its adherents smarter, wiser, happier, or more fulfilled? Orthodox Objectivism had so much going against it right from the start. But the dim prospects of the philosophy were made many times worse by Rand's choice for the heir to her literary estate, namely, Dr. Leonard Peikoff.
Among the non-orthodox followers of Rand, Leonard Peikoff is often made into a scapegoat, the man who drove Objectivism off the rails and brought disrepute to Rand's memory. This is not so far from the truth. If Rand had been a better judge of character, she would have selected David Kelley as her heir, not Peikoff. Despite his reputation as a "neo-Objectivist," Kelley isactually remains very close to orthodoxy in most of his Objectivist formulations. He is simply a much more intelligent expositor of Randian doctrines than Peikoff or anyone else at ARI. He at least has some notion of the weaker points in Rand's system, which he seeks to downplay, or at least present in the most plausible terms possible. In the Objectivist ethics, for example, he downplays the survivalist aspect, while emphasizing flourishing and benevolence. He insists that adherence to reality is more important than adherence to Rand's beliefs. Kelley makes Objectivism almost seem respectable. But more than that, he makes it seem humane and non-threatening. Perhaps that's the reason his version of Rand's creed has never really caught on. Those who are attracted to Rand are perhaps most attracted to the extreme parts: to the anger and resentment, the outrage and the indignation that provide the motivating force for so many of its key doctrines. Take away these emotions and Objectivism becomes little more than a deeply flawed and badly dated philosophy.

Peikoff's stewardship of  Objectivism veered from one disaster to another, each worse than before. The first crisis was brought about by a biography of Ayn Rand published by Peikoff's cousin, Barbara Branden. If Peikoff had any notions of seeking to transform Objectivism into a respectable system of thought, he immediately threw all that overboard after the publication of the Passion of Ayn Rand. Under his leadership, the cultish aspects of Objectivism, which had been there from the start, became even more pronounced. This development became a stated point of doctrine when, a year or so later, he excommunicated David Kelley from the movement. In fairness to Peikoff, it's not clear he set out to give Kelley the boot. It is more likely that his minions, particularly Harry Binswanger and Peter Schwartz, set him to it. It's long been thought that the real reason why Kelley was thrown overboard stemmed from his endorsement of Branden's biography. But I've always suspected the primary reason stemmed form sheer envy. Schwartz, Binswanger, and others within the Objectivist elite resented Kelley's intelligence and scholarly credentials. They recognized Kelley as their superior and hated him for it. Hence their attempts to incite Peikoff against Kelley.

Whether the ire of orthodox Objectivists against Kelley was motivated by envy and resentment and/or Kelley's endorsement of The Passion of Ayn Rand and/or some other factious reason, Peikoff was persuaded to write a screed against the perceived Kelley menace. In the essay "Fact and Value," Peikoff insisted that Objectivism was a closed system, on the grounds that the philosophy referred solely to doctrines originating, or at least endorsed, by Rand herself. This essentially mummified Objectivism into an Ayn Rand personality cult. The philosophy became largely restricted to Rand's known views, as sanctioned by Peikoff himself. Objectivists were allowed to apply those views to their own lives. But they were not allowed to revise or amend such views. Criticism of Rand's personal behavior was not tolerated. ARI became a kind of Objectivist Vatican, with Rand the principle deity and Peikoff its Pope. Excommunications followed. Not only Kelley and his followers, but ARI board members George Riesman, Edith Packer, and John McCaskey. Because of criticism directed against the Ayn Rand Institute and Peikoff for continuing Rand's policy of dramatic breaks with people over minor doctrinal differences, Peikoff and ARI often preferred to silently and discreetly ostracize those they no longer wished to be associated with. This, in any case, appears to be what happened with Tracinski, among others.

Intellectually, Peikoff left orthodox Objectivism worse than he found it --- which is an accomplishment of sorts, though not in a positive way. As an intellectual movement, Objectivism was already veering towards its inevitable crack-up when Peikoff took over from Rand in 1982. His decision to close the system sealed the philosophy's fate. Unable to take in and adapt new discoveries in the cognitive and psychological sciences, Objectivism became increasingly difficult to regard as a serious, rational, science-friendly philosophical movement. Meanwhile, Peikoff was busy developing the worst aspects of the Randian creed. His specialty had always been one of the weakest parts of the system, the philosophy of history. Peikoff had come to believe that Rand's vague and scientifically dubious speculations about the role of philosophy in the course of history could provide special insights to the future of the United States and Western Civilization. Assuming that history is determined by the most fundamental ideas developed by the greatest philosophers, he came to the conclusion that the United States was heading towards a theocracy. In 2004, he recommended voting for John Kerry over George Bush for President. Kerry and the Democrats did not pose as serious a threat to Objectivist values as Bush and the Republicans, because, Peikoff declared,
there is no longer a mass base or any crusade for big government. There are no ethical or political ideals in the country except among the religious people.... Kerry can’t even think of anything to say in this campaign, they simply have no ideas, period. Now of course Kerry is bad in everything,... you name a standard liberal evil he’s bad at it. But none of these types is a threat, ... not even Hillary Clinton as President would be a threat at this juncture, not a threat to the very foundations and even existence of the United States.... 
Bush is working to achieve a massive entrenchment of fundamentalism into our government and political system. Kerry has no such agenda.... 
...for the very first time we have a serious [religious] president and candidate, with all the essentials in place:  God, faith, sacrifice, statism – in other words the equivalent of a Puritan theocracy, the aggregate of it.... if this goes on for even four more years, how long do you think intellectual freedom and freedom of speech can last? 
... I don’t think there’s the least moral justification for sitting the election out on the grounds that, well, both of them are no good.... That is a total ... immoral evasion.... People who say they’re not going to vote for anybody because both men are bad, happen to ignore one crucial element:  one is normally, disgustingly bad, and the other is apocalyptic [sic] bad.
In 2006, Peikoff wrote the following:
The Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power... 
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 ... he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism... 
“If  [compared to the Left] ... you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.
In 2008, Peikoff persisted in his refusal to vote Republican, contending that the "[Republican] party has to be wiped out or severely punished for its affiliation with Evangelicals and with religion more broadly.”

In 2009, Barack Obama assumption of the Presidency made a mockery of Peikoff's speculative prognostications. From an Objectivist standpoint, Obama appeared suspiciously like the Democratic nominee for President in 1972, Senator George McGovern, whom Rand so thunderously denounced. Obama's Presidency sought to expand government in ways never dreamt by the eminent "theocrat" George W. Bush. Peikoff was forced to make a dramatic change in his outlook, switching his support from Democrats to Republicans. In 2012, he wrote:
The political choice in November is: non-entity vs. anti-entity. Or: a man who is nothing vs. a man who wants to mass-produce nothings. This, in my judgment, is an unanswerable reason to vote for Romney, no matter what the nature and quantity of his flaws. A man such as our current president is far more dangerous to the survival of the United States than any terrorists from the Mideast. 
For the same reason, I intend to vote for whatever Republicans in my district are running for the House and the Senate. Republican control of at least one of these bodies, however weakened they have become, is still some restraint on Obama if he wins.
How did Peikoff get it so wrong? How could he have seriously believed that the United States was in danger of becoming a theocracy? If he had known anything about the history of the United States, he should have known that America had been far more religious over most of its history, and that the trend in the last twenty years has been toward increasing secularism. The fact is, the Objectivist philosophy of history is based on bogus principles. History is not determined by the "best" expositors of broad philosophical concepts. Nor can one assume, as Peikoff at one point did, that a specific political faction is toothless because its most visible champions in the culture are intellectually bankrupt. Ideology is a rationalization of political will. Just because a specific ideology is often poorly rationalized in the culture doesn't mean that the political will it represents disappears or becomes weakened. That political will arises from the specific temperaments, sentiments and the perceived interests of the individual. The strongest predictor of ideological adherence is not broad philosophical principles, but temperament.

Peikoff had one more embarrassing episode to get through before  finally retiring from the scene. In 2010, Peikoff excommunicated ARI board member John McCaskey for some very mild criticisms of David Harriman's book The Logical Leap. McCaskey's criticisms appear to have been well founded, but that hardly mattered to Peikoff. "When a great book sponsored by the Institute and championed by me ... is denounced by a member of the Board of the Institute, which I founded, someone has to go, and will go," Peikoff thundered. McCaskey subsequently resigned. Even some orthodox Objectivists were alarmed at this latest of Peikoff's temper tantrums. Craig Biddle, the publisher of the Objective Standard, came out in support of McCaskey. Murmurs of discontent swelled among the rank and file. Under the mounting pressure, Peikoff felt compelled to author an apologia of sorts (which he later withdrew). In this extraordinary document, he confessed to being on terms of "personal enmity" with "a few longtime Board members." Peikoff made this confession to demonstrate his degree of restraint. In effect, he was saying, "See, I'm not the tyrant everyone claims I am. Far from it, I am willing to allow people I despise to sit on ARI's board of directors." But Peikoff's admission raises another problem: orthodox Objectivists seem to lack any means by which to resolve differences among themselves. If Peikoff and Binswanger come to differing conclusions about whom to vote for in the 2004 election, how do they figure out who is right? Theoretically, Objectivist "reason" should solve this problem. But Objectivist "reason" is a fraud. It cannot resolve such differences. So orthodox Objectivists, when they fall into disagreement (which inevitably happens) are condemned to exist in states of "personal enmity." The only other option is outright schism --- and we know how that ends.


35 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rand's concern. About the religious right might have been valid in 1980 but by 1988 they lost every battle. Now there main concern is that cake bakers dont have to bake cakes for weddings they don't support. Peikoff Jeremaid in 2006 looks silly.

The ARI s direction can now be seen in that Yaron Brook is now their chief spokesman. He is so ignorant that he has repeatedly said the concept of race is nonsense and IQ tests are "bull shit" from his gated community he lectured the us on the need for mass third world immigration while for some reason exempting israel.

Neil P

Anonymous said...

Brook also supports nuking Saudi Arabia and Iran. He's given no thought to what would happen if the USA did such a thing. He is so beholden to ari orthodox that he thinks such attacks will reduce Islamic terror in the west.

Np

Mark Plus said...

Rand cultists have also boxed themselves into a corner by pestering everyone to read Rand's novels, then they get upset when the news readers, who apply their own judgment to the Randian literature, disagree with the cultists about the interpretation Rand's message and the value of her ideas.

Mark Plus said...

Both the people who run the Ayn Rand Institute and the other Rand cultists who run Atlas Society realize that they can't sustain their respective branches of the movement without nonstop recruiting of teenagers and college students from normal people's families, as creepy as that sounds.

Apparently it hasn't occurred to any of them to ask why a social movement based on Rand's philosophy can't flourish and grow organically without this private social engineering.

The Ayn Rand Institute even engages in bad economics by its own "Austrian" standards when it buys bulk quantities of Rand's novels and gives them away to youngsters as part of its essay-writing contests, whether these kids want to read them or not. This practice artificially inflates the sales figures for Rand's novels, it sends bad price signals through the market about the value of Rand's work and it misallocates scarce resources, including these young people's time.

Anonymous said...

"The Ayn Rand Institute even engages in bad economics by its own "Austrian" standards when it buys bulk quantities of Rand's novels and gives them away to youngsters as part of its essay-writing contests, "

I don't belive the ARI is Austrian. They are basically Friedmanite from what I can tell. They also believe in blank slate BS. Brook denies race realism. He is as bad as Gould.

-NP

Anonymous said...

"Rand's contention that human beings are born 'blank slates' is about as rational as the belief that the earth is flat."

That's the crux of the matter. Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature. Her metaphysical view of Man is false. Everything is distorted to support the vision that Man is a combo of comic book character and economic cog. The Heroic Interchangeable Individualist Cog. A weird blend of Nietzsche and Marx.

Anonymous said...

Neil P has it right. Until the ARI recognize the carnage the lower races are inflicting on the world, it's not an institution worth supporting. So much for their "objectivity."

Anonymous 2 said...

"race realism"

"lower races"

Okay, what in hell is race realism?? And which are the "lower races"??

David Hoffman said...

Race Realism is the word racists use when they don't want to be called racists. I think you can guess who the lower races are.

Anonymous 2 said...

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Mark Plus said...

I suspect the money for running the Ayn Rand Institute and the Atlas Society will dry up over the next 20 years or so any way as the wealthy Silent-Generation and Boomer Rand cultists either die or else cut back on their spending in retirement, with no one stepping in to take their place as subsidizers; and then the organized cultism will collapse. I'd like to know if the late Ed Snider left any money to the Atlas Society in his will, for example.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but Rand's so-called philosophy doesn't work practically for a reason I haven't seen addressed: She didn't create it to solve practical problems, like how to build a fortune for yourself in real life; but rather as a form of theater for spectators, where you dress and behave in certain ways to instantiate Rand's abstract notions about man's nature.

And this makes sense, because from early in her life Rand cared mainly about novels, plays and movies - in other words, her mind showed an orientation towards story-telling and make-believe over an engagement with practical reality. She tried to retcon a philosophy around her artistic efforts only circa 1960, and with Nathaniel Branden's encouragement. But then she came up with something that no one really found threatening, and especially not the powerful people in our society. I doubt anyone at the level that he could attend the Bilderberg meetings or the annual gathering at Davos has lost any sleep because Rand praised Victor Hugo as the greatest novelist in the 19th Century.

Gordon Burkowski said...

"the carnage the lower races are inflicting on the world"

Do we really need to be reminded that the populations of Europe - presumably not the lower races this person is talking about - engaged in two world wars in the 20th century which resulted in the death of over 70 million people?

That's carnage.

Wow. Talk about pathological tunnel vision.

Anon3 said...

Sadly, there are lots of people in the liberty movement who think like Neil and Anon.

Anonymous said...

Charlottesville.

Race Realists 2
America 0

Anonymous 2 said...

Okay, make that 3-0.

Anonymous said...

Score one for Neil Parille! Sorry, that's 3 for the Parille's of the world.

Anonymous 2 said...


Interesting. I hear stuff like "race realism" and "lower races" - followed by complete silence. No attempt to explain, no attempt to justify. Nothing. What is going on? Shyness? Or maybe - just maybe, given events over the weekend - a faint sense of shame. . .

Anon 9 said...

Seriously, Anonymous 2 - I highly doubt that anyone that truly holds any racist beliefs feels any shame over them, faint or otherwise. One generally doesn't feel shame over beliefs they honestly hold to be true, although they may respond in a way to avoid other peoples' negative reactions.

This is, I think, part of the problem with much online "discourse", is that often some people will assume that the other side actually knows they're wrong and they just need to be hit with the perfect, scornful bon mot in order to confess their sins and renounce evil, etc. That's been an Objectivist strategy at times in my experience - I'm sure Rand herself hoped her little scathing quotes would melt the brains of the moochers and looters - and there's been a rise in it from those who burnish the altar of intersectionalism.

For my part, I am a bit surprised and disappointed to see people here seemingly expressing racist notions - I don't recall it popping up before - but I am also cautious about going ahead and laying into folks over it at the moment, since I am aware that now and again people leave deliberately incendiary messages in order to start some kind of drama or argument. The number of Anonymii here tends to make me wary (and yes I realize I'm being one of them).

Anonymous 2 said...

"I highly doubt that anyone that truly holds any racist beliefs feels any shame over them, faint or otherwise."

Agreed. Just trying to provoke those involved into giving something that looks vaguely like a rational argument. If they think they have one, that is.

And yes, I too was surprised and disappointed to see these notions appearing at ARCHN.



Gordon Burkowski said...

"For my part, I am a bit surprised and disappointed to see people here seemingly expressing racist notions."

Amen.

Anon 3 said...

I'm not so surprised to see this pop up here. Neil and a few others on the fringes of the objectivist web have been crying about the problem of immigrants for a few years now. And as they see the problem, it's color is brown. Linz Perigo is now using dehumanizing language to describe brown immigrants (they're "filth"). And the ARIWatch proprietor is always eager to point out who is a jew and what ethnicity ARI writers are. Maybe Neil Parille thinks people here will empathize with racist realism?

Gordon Burkowski said...

"Maybe Neil Parille thinks people here will empathize with racist realism?"

Well, GN?
Well, DB?

Do you?

Anonymous 3 said...

Neil Parille is an assistant attorney for the state of Connecticut. Are the non-whites of CT OK with being prosecuted by someone who believes in race realism!? Now THAT is something worth blogging about! Much more interesting and important bit of objecti-gossip than Peikoff's bad behavior from 10+ years ago.

Daniel Barnes said...


>"Maybe Neil Parille thinks people here will empathize with racist realism?"

Sorry, just saw this. Not been blogging much of late.
Er...nope. Not sympathetic in any way, shape, or form.

Gordon Burkowski said...


Good to hear.

Wolfgang Gibson said...

It is a fact that the brown races have lower average IQ than the white races, and are not able to build advanced societies without help from the white races. You don't like that fact, because you are blinded by the religion of "the blank slate," which states that every human being is born equal to every other human being. Your religion's chief heresy is "racism," a scare word that contains no argument, because its sole purpose is to silence thought on this matter. If you want to challenge a more pernicious form of orthodoxy than Peikoffism, then you might take a hard look at your leftist religion and all the unexamined assumptions that proceed from it.

Anonymous said...

Even if it were a fact that "brown races" (and what does that include?) were on average less intelligent, that would not preclude the building of an "advanced society" (whatever THAT's supposed to mean). But furthermore, it wouldn't mean that we as a society should start treating non-white races any differently, just as we wouldn't treat two white people differently just because one may have a 10-point IQ advantage over the other. I'm smarter than you, but on principle we ought to have the same rights.

Racism can indeed be used as a word to simply drown out critique, and often is. But that doesn't mean racism doesn't exist - obviously, from the fact of your post's existence - nor does it mean it's never a valid criticism. In your case, whether you are simply throwing out bait to stir up drama, or actually believe what you posted, I'd say you could easily describe it as racism without it being an exaggeration.

Anonymous said...

Its very unlikely tgat groups which evolved in different areas under different selection pressures have the same innate intelligence.

The genes for intelligence will found within a few years so we will know.

Anonymous said...

Other anonymous: That's just silly. "Genes for intelligence"? Except for cases of extreme brain damage, every human has intelligence of some sort. You might as well be waiting for them to find the genes for your arms. How would you tell from your genes whether you had strong arms or weak ones?

Anonymous said...

There was a poll recently of experts on intelligence. 80 percent of those who responded said that the black white iq gap has a genetic component. I dont think these tbings are debatable among experts

Anonymous said...

Poland has produced 5 Nobel prizes in the hard sciences. Thats more than Latin America and Africa combined.

Human beings evolved in Africa but sib Saharan Africans never produced an alphabet or numbers.

THE black white gap in the isa has stayed the same over the last 100 years.

These things are easy to explain on a hereditarian theory but hard on a purely environmental one.

Anonymous said...

Incidentally there is a correlation between brain size and intelligence within groups. East Asians have larger brains than whites who have larger brains than blacks.

Anonymous said...

Brains must be evenly distributed since nobody ever complains about not having enough!

Anonymous said...

guy c'mon some sciencey studies I don't understand say the browns are less smart it's science I'm not a racist I promise I'm just a realist blank slate something I'm def not racist science-sounding buz words

Anonymous said...

Well, certainly the amount of typos and other grammatical irregularities displayed in several comments shows that even if there were a difference in average intelligence between the races, individuals can easily fall below the average.

There's obviously no sourcing of all these assertions, and I suspect that if there were, it would be dubious at best. But none of this addresses my earlier point, which is: even if all of this is true (which I am not at this point willing to concede), it still doesn't mean we should apply any difference in how we treat different races. So what if one race has a greater or lesser average intelligence? What does anyone propose that we DO about it? The implication seems to be that it would be some sort of justification for one race to treat the other race badly - in other words, holding up this supposed difference as an excuse to be assholes to people with certain skin colors.

If that's your end game, then you are - by definition - racist, whether or not science actually supports this idea of inherent IQ differences.