Objectivist Round-up, May 2025

1. Harry Binswanger doesn’t like Harvard, and in particular its philosophy department.  I’m no historian of philosophy, but I have read some works by the philosophers he mentions, and like many Objectivists, Binswanger wants to give the worst possible interpretation to these thinkers.

2. Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate discuss whether important to know Rand’s life to understand her philosophy.  After listening to it three times, I’m not sure what Ghate and Brook think.  In any event, contrary to Ghate, Rand’s post-Atlas Shrugged depression is well-documented.  Ghate strangely says it’s hard to know much about Rand’s personality f you didn’t know her.  Brook says, quoting Leonard Peikoff, that Rand didn’t consider herself a genius.  This, if true, must be the first case of false humility in Rand’s life.  Allan Gotthelf once told Rand, “You’ve done for consciousness what Aristotle did for existence,” to which Rand responded, “that’s true.”

The Curse of Ayn Rand's Heir (Neil Parille)

The Atlantic Magazine published a lengthy article, The Curse of Ayn Rand’s Heir, which discuses Leonard Peikoff and his relationship with Rand and the Objectivist movement and also Peikoff’s daughter Kira’s conservatorship action (which she ultimately withdrew).  I thought the article was fair and balanced, to coin a phrase.  I note that the author, Chris Beam (who interviewed me for an hour or so), mentions that before his marriage to his nurse Grace Davis, Peikoff gave Kira $2 million, so maybe Peikoff’s contention (through his spokesman James Valliant) that he was cash strapped has some truth to it.  (Before the marriage and the $2 million payment, Peikoff bought a $3.5 million home for him and Davis to live in).  The article mentions that Peikoff is leaving Rand’s books to a committee but doesn’t speculate as to how Davis will be able to pay the mortgage and other expenses after he passes.  (Something tells me that Davis and her son – who lives at the house – aren’t planning on “downsizing” after Peikoff goes to his reward.)  Some Objectivists claimed the article was a “hit piece” noting that The Atlantic has a reputation for being left of center.  But I think anyone who reads the piece can see that Beam (whose politics I don’t know) just wanted to tell an interesting story.  Had he wanted to attack Peikoff, he could have dwelled on Peikoff’s rewriting of Rand’s posthumous material, his breaks with other Objectivists, and the restrictive policy of the Ayn Rand Archives.  He mentions these things in passing.

As Greg Nyquist said a while ago, no one seems particularly interested in what Rand would have wanted.  Of course we may never know.  When Rand died Peikoff was childless so she may have assumed that Peikoff would leave his estate to Objectivist causes.  Yet at the end of the day it’s hard to imagine that Rand would have wanted a fair portion of her estate to go to people who probably never heard of Objectivism until recently.  In any event, I think my conclusion stands: while Peikoff may be competent, it certainly looks like he is being taken advantage of.