tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post8888436042851336563..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: The McCaskey ObjectischismDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-90069314885878064022011-06-05T14:28:18.677-07:002011-06-05T14:28:18.677-07:00Excellent work, Mr. Parille. I was particularaly s...Excellent work, Mr. Parille. I was particularaly startled by hearing about the journal doctering: "In the book’s foreword the editor, David Harriman, defends his practice of eliminating Rand’s words and inserting his own as necessary for greater clarity. In many case, however, his editing serves to significantly alter Rand’s meaning."<br /><br />Literaly something right out of 1984!<br /><br />I am interested in sorting through Rand's followers in order to know who has worthwhile things to say about Objectivism and who is just a cultist. So here's my 5 point cultist scale, which may be helpfull in seperating the serious thinkers from the nuts:<br /><br />5-Completely nuts Randroid. These are the people who praise Rand to the heavens and don't even have a good understanding of her philosophy. Thankfully no one like this at the ARI; mostly just fools on the internet.<br /><br />4-Classic cultist; Peikoff and Bernstein come to mind here. Know Objectivism inside and out and love it completely- and turn sour on people who criticize even minor points. Not necessarily bad people (Dr. Bernstein, as I said before, is completely harmless and even likeable), but they really aren't doing the movement any favors. And these are the types who complain that Objectivism is only just now being accepted in academia!<br /><br />3-Closed Objectivist. Genuinely intelligent people who don't worship Rand but still buy into the philosophy amost 100%; the 4's are a bad influence on them. I certainly used to be here. Worth trying to reason with, as they are dedicated to reason, and have just been duped by the 4's into thinking just about everything Rand said was reasonable. Craig Biddle may belong somewhere around here-he seems like a sensible person, but he still goes around giving lectures like "Altruism vs. America:Ayn Rand Solves the Problem" and appears in borderline worhip ceremonies like the Clemson conference.<br /><br />2-Open Objectivists, such as David Kelly. Seriously open to competing ideas, and differ enough from the 4's to risk excommunication. May be former 3's who are studying the criticisms for the first time-I'd put myself there.<br /><br />1-Non-Objectivists, like those who run this blog. Know Objectivism inside and out-and reject it. May like to poke fun at the 5's and 4's, which may turn off the 3's until they learn how valid their criticism really is.<br /><br />0-People who mock Rand who don't really understand Objectivism, such as those who try to equate it with social Darwinism. Too much exposure to these types can turn a 2 into a 3 or 4.<br /><br />Some grey era is needed here; for instance, an open Objectivist can still be a great admirer of Rand and could be a 2.4, while another can like about a third of what she says and be a 1.6. <br /><br />I hope this scale is helpfull and welcome alternative measures of cultiness (I just remembered that there is something like this on the blog's homepage too).Mr. Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1527147955392854172010-11-14T16:43:57.581-08:002010-11-14T16:43:57.581-08:00Michael,
The problem is that most Objectivists wa...Michael,<br /><br />The problem is that most Objectivists want to be Mini Me's of Ayn Rand; you know, the reason and passion business.<br /><br />Since none has the talent Rand had, they just overcompensate with the anger ("being a passionate valuer).Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-51617331253351279342010-11-14T13:25:05.546-08:002010-11-14T13:25:05.546-08:00Michael, there is something rotten in objectivism ...Michael, there is something rotten in objectivism and I think it is the authoritarianism and the moralising that are at the core of the philosophy. That coupled with these personalities that seem to populate the movement would appear to limit it's appeal. It goes far beyond an "I'm right and your wrong" smugness. Which although rankles you can get round if you truly believe in what they are offering or can be shrugged off in political opponents.<br /><br />I don't believe that objectivism is a vaible prospect, there is just too much stacked against it to make it feasible alternative in any society. But you have to wonder, would they have made greater inroads if they told the old fool to stand down. But having seen the other personnel there, they seem if anything worse. For example you have someone called Bernstien who considers Atlas Shrugged to be the greatest book ever written and seems to be unaware that even sane people who enjoy it know it's a long way from that. Or Yaroon Brook who claims he had to leave Isreal due to death threats and has to wear a bullet proof vest. As H.G Wells never said "no mouth but their own could condemn them more"<br /><br />Steven Johnston<br />UKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-86727815598899020362010-11-14T12:47:08.824-08:002010-11-14T12:47:08.824-08:00"a few longtime Board members and I are on te..."a few longtime Board members and I are on terms of personal enmity, and do not speak to each other."<br /><br />This doesn't surprise me at all. In 1984 I had some brief business dealings with Peikoff, which ended badly. At the time I was astonished by the vitriol he spewed. He clearly has never learned that it's possible to disagree without rancor. (More precisely, he seems to believe it's a moral failing to disagree without rancor.) <br /><br />I actually feel a little sorry for him. For all his bluster and bravado, he strikes me as a deeply insecure person. He lashes out to protect his ego, which must be exceedingly fragile. To borrow a Biblical phrase, he's a man who has built his house on sand.Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963295565160636175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3800241178320152932010-11-13T16:56:36.281-08:002010-11-13T16:56:36.281-08:00I suspect Hsieh will try to find a way to backtrac...I suspect Hsieh will try to find a way to backtrack, but it is probably too late.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-86767171773698061942010-11-13T16:37:14.407-08:002010-11-13T16:37:14.407-08:00Peikoff & Harriman remind me of Stalin & L...Peikoff & Harriman remind me of Stalin & Lysenko. Now you might say that Peikoff still doesn't <i>execute</i> Harriman's dissenters, but I'm not sure that he wouldn't <i>want</i> to do just that!<br /><br />In the meantime Hsieh has closed all the comments on this subject. The sorcerer's apprentice is probably afraid that she can no longer control all those brooms. Imagine that some of them might say something unflattering about Peikoff or about ARI and that she doesn't remove such contributions quickly enough!Dragonflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-69977715905935515832010-11-13T15:29:07.914-08:002010-11-13T15:29:07.914-08:00Greg,
If McCaskey is such a bad guy and might not...Greg,<br /><br />If McCaskey is such a bad guy and might not even be an Objectivist, then what was he doing on the Board in the first place?<br /><br />Peikoff is tone deaf. Does he really think the greater Objectivist world will consider it a badge of courage that that he has "enmity" with 40% of the Board?<br /><br />Yaron Brook is more polished than Peikoff, but I can't imagine him believing that people will take his press release seriously.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-42075221385319231962010-11-13T15:05:08.400-08:002010-11-13T15:05:08.400-08:00But in his recent reaction Peikoff drops all prete...<em>But in his recent reaction Peikoff drops all pretense, here he writes about McCaskey: "I regard him as an obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual". In the same reaction he also writes: "a few longtime Board members and I are on terms of personal enmity, and do not speak to each other."</em><br /><br />Those are extraordinary admissions. Now I know there are some people out there who will accept anything Peikoff says, no matter how bizarre. But that's of little importance. What is critical, and which ARI apologists are incapable of understanding or accepting, is the large amount of people that will be turned off by this sort of display. Peikoff makes a lot of virtuous noise about spreading Objectivism, and uses that as a pretext for his conduct in relation to McCaskey, yet Peikoff's own conduct, as exemplified in the notorious email and in his posting on his website are far more damaging to Objectivism's credibility. They reinforce precisely what those of us who are critics of ARI have been saying for years. <br /><br />Peikoff: "But given my opinion of [McCaskey], intellectual discussion was impossible to me."<br /><br />So we can only have discussion with people we like? What kind of principle is that? Either McCaskey is rational or he isn't. If he is rational, discussion would be useful. If he isn't rational, then what is he doing on the board of ARI? Why wasn't he asked to leave years earlier (along with the other board members Peikoff doesn't like)? If he is not irrational, what possible objections can Peikoff have to engaging in discussion with him? Peikoff can't have both ways.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-39324405864760031342010-11-13T09:47:10.619-08:002010-11-13T09:47:10.619-08:00Dragonfly,
It looks like the ARI has/had three pe...Dragonfly,<br /><br />It looks like the ARI has/had three people who know about physics and the history of science (McCaskey, Norsen and Lockith). Two of the three have come out against the book.<br /><br />How this must gall Peikoff. The Logical Leap, along with the DIM book, were supposed to be his lasting contributions to Objectivism. I think Peikoff is bitter over his lack of academic success.<br /><br />Apparently Binswanger's book should be out soon. What happens if Peikoff doesn't like it? I'd like to think that Peikoff can't excommunicate everyone, but who knows.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-37013691816985281812010-11-13T08:47:06.590-08:002010-11-13T08:47:06.590-08:00Dragonfly,
Thanks for posting the link about Hsie...Dragonfly,<br /><br />Thanks for posting the link about Hsieh's comments pre-conversion. I used it in part 2 which I just sent to Dan.<br /><br />One of the interesting thigs about this schism is that it is getting the rank and file involved, which probably couldn't have happened prior to the internet.<br /><br />The older schisms were generally with Objectivist intellectuals Peikoff had a falling out with (Kelley and the Reismans for example). Now Biddle and others are upset and there is enough information to make a decision rather than just taking it on Peikoff's say-so. I read somewhere that Betsey Speicher even supported Biddle.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-12424323621159505342010-11-13T06:47:18.911-08:002010-11-13T06:47:18.911-08:00That's not to say that amateurs can't make...<i><br />That's not to say that amateurs can't make useful contributions in technical fields, but they need to acquaint themselves with the details and subject their work to the scrutiny of professionals, neither of which Rand (or Peikoff) was (or is) inclined to do.</i><br /><br />I'll add that it's not just about inclination - it is also about ability and talent, especially mathematical talent in this case. It takes a good amount of humility and self-acceptance to admit one's limitations in a way that shows real self-awareness. Objectivism doesn't promote such humility, but I'm speaking to the choir here.<br /><br />Feynmann used to claim that one needed to be able to explain things in layman terms to really understand physics. I take the opposite view - that physics is bound up with mathematics and that to claim to understand physics without understanding the underlying mathematics is ultimately a false understanding. There is grey area here, but I think Feynmann later made some admissions that he was being overly optimistic that the understanding of complicated physics could be simplified without mathematics. Whenever I see a physics book for the popular audience without math, I feel that someone is getting hoodwinked.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-80676288144196277942010-11-12T23:10:11.114-08:002010-11-12T23:10:11.114-08:00Dragonfly wrote, "This resulted in a folie à ...Dragonfly wrote, "This resulted in a folie à deux of two quacks ..."<br /><br />The same kind of thing cropped up in Rand's life. In Jeff Walker's book "The Ayn Rand Cult," we're told how Rand boasted that she and an aspiring screenwriter were working "on the definition of the nature of human intelligence" and had developed "some most startling ideas and discoveries on the subject." As Walker points out, Rand's later work with Nathaniel Branden was of the same dilettantish character. (p. 254)<br /><br />That's not to say that amateurs can't make useful contributions in technical fields, but they need to acquaint themselves with the details and subject their work to the scrutiny of professionals, neither of which Rand (or Peikoff) was (or is) inclined to do.Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963295565160636175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45445668042942753502010-11-12T20:58:19.213-08:002010-11-12T20:58:19.213-08:00What Dragonfly said. I greatly regret that I haven...What Dragonfly said. I greatly regret that I haven't had time in the past few months to think about things Objectivish, as this is such a classic, entirely predictable debacle in so many ways. I have a couple of thoughts I'll briefly post tomorrow.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-92107089831857442212010-11-12T16:41:25.855-08:002010-11-12T16:41:25.855-08:00The story of the sycophant Hsieh is also amusing. ...The story of the sycophant Hsieh is also amusing. Years ago she still had some thoughts of her own. It's always funny to dig up some of her statements from that time: <br /><br />http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4405&view=findpost&p=43431<br /><br />Then came her conversion to the True Faith, whereby all her criticisms of Peikoff disappeared like snow in the sun. Everything he said and wrote was suddenly wonderful. Of course she also supported his "fatwa". But then with the case of the mosque at Ground Zero she spoke a bit too soon, it turned out that Peikoff completely disagreed with her viewpoint. Ouch! That was embarrassing, and she had to walk on eggs to limit the damage.<br /><br />But with the McCaskey affair it has become clear that all her plotting and scheming were in vain: it's obvious that Peikoff only has contempt for her, so much for all her ass-kissing. Now she's got her knickers in a twist and is seeing which way the wind is blowing, with frantic admonishments to remain <i>polite</i> (Peikoff was far from polite, but of course quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi) and even suggesting a time-out (be careful, you might offend the wrong person!). The fact that people on her site were allowed to be slightly critical of Peikoff was of course a mortal sin. Nevertheless there are still a lot of Objectidiots on that site who <i>still</i> try to defend Peikoff and rationalize his obvious kooky cult behavior away (like saying that it is just a <i>private</i> matter, ha ha ha!) Cult members are probably the last persons on earth to realize that they <i>are</i> cult members.Dragonflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-14530017653373391392010-11-12T15:51:40.841-08:002010-11-12T15:51:40.841-08:00Peikoff is obviously decompensating. He no longer ...Peikoff is obviously decompensating. He no longer even <i>attempts</i> to pretend that his action against McCaskey is rational. In his famous email he wrote that McCaskey's work and the money he brought to ARI might raise him "one rung in hell", which prompted Randroids to argue that this was just a figure of speech, etc. But in his recent reaction Peikoff drops all pretense, here he writes about McCaskey: "<i>I regard him as an <b>obnoxious braggart</b> as a person, and a <b>pretentious ignoramus</b> as an intellectual</i>". In the same reaction he also writes: "a few longtime Board members and I are on terms of personal enmity, and do not speak to each other."<br /><br />So much hate and frustration! Peikoff reminds me here of James Taggart with his impotent rage.<br /><br />I think it's fairly clear what has happened. Peikoff has the delusion that he has some original and good ideas, like a definitive theory of induction. First he'd tried to learn some physics from Harriman, but he must finally have realized that he's out of his depth in this department, so he entered some kind of partnership with Harriman, in which Harriman would take care of the physical part and Peikoff of the philosophical principles. <br /><br />This resulted in a <i>folie à deux</i> of two quacks, as became clear in the recording of the "DIM" lectures (see http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2955 ). You can find a proof of my predictive powers here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2471&view=findpost&p=19890<br /><br />This is not to brag about my great insight, but more about the fact that Objectivists were so completely blind to what was happening. Those two fools were convinced that they were revolutionizing the philosophy of science, and none of the Objectivist ass-kissers made objections, as they were too busy admiring The Great Man. Well, until McCaskey suggested in private sessions that there were some flaws in Harriman's book, destroying the soap bubble that Peikoff and Harriman were blowing. McCaskey didn't at all say that the emperor was naked, he only pointed out a few stains on the emperor's clothes. But that was enough to destroy the fragile self-esteem of Harriman and Peikoff, with the results that we now can observe.Dragonflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-78474595199038400062010-11-11T21:08:40.594-08:002010-11-11T21:08:40.594-08:00What's most striking to me is that Peikoff is ...What's most striking to me is that Peikoff is the one who seems to think that Objectivism is "inadequate" (for its want of a validated theory of induction, which he and ARI must now supply in earnest) - so much so that filling that perceived gap is essential to the spread of Objectivism - that that is what makes The Logical Leap necessarily a "major" project of ARI, worth throwing people under the bus over. Objectivism, sayeth Dr. Peikoff in effect, has its fly unzipped, and the most crucial project now is to remedy that embarrassing defect. "This is, truly, what Objectivism should have been" is the implication, which, more thank anything, explains his desire to treat The Logical Leap as if it were Rand's own, and to give it the same imprimatur, and to treat its critics accordingly.Anon69noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-34073382243502688072010-10-31T16:53:14.007-07:002010-10-31T16:53:14.007-07:00The Objectischism has gotten worse: http://blog.di...The Objectischism has gotten worse: <a href="http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/craig-biddles-lectures-canceled-by-ari.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/craig-biddles-lectures-canceled-by-ari.html</a><br><br><br />It almost seems like a seige mentality has set in now. Where will the purges stop?Anon69noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70617874092162439452010-09-18T07:52:07.734-07:002010-09-18T07:52:07.734-07:00There may be another schism brewing.
The Objectiv...There may be another schism brewing.<br /><br />The Objective Standard decided not to print Ed Cline's review of Heller's new biography.<br /><br />But it will be publishing a review of an out of print book . . . PARC!<br /><br />On November 2, the Archives publish 100 Voices, an oral history of Rand. Based on how this book is used in the Burns and Heller biographies I don't think it will be pro-Peikoff and Valliant.<br /><br />I report, you decide.Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-86520955374972653382010-09-16T17:22:56.040-07:002010-09-16T17:22:56.040-07:00Greg,
Glad you liked it.
I think Burns also said...Greg,<br /><br />Glad you liked it.<br /><br />I think Burns also said on her blog that ARI scholars using the materials (I assume non-archivists) were also upset.<br /><br />On the other hand, have any ARI supporters publicly acknowledged the problems with the published material? This must have been known for years.<br /><br />It's still better to be LP's friend than his enemy. And I doubt McCaskey was even Peikoff's enemy.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3984132659844400242010-09-16T14:33:19.868-07:002010-09-16T14:33:19.868-07:00Chris wrote: "objectivists assuming that the ...Chris wrote: <i>"objectivists assuming that the scientists' observations can't be right, b/c it doesn't square with objectivist premises. That's deductive, isn't it?"</i><br /><br />I suppose that's one word for it, although the first word that came to my mind was "cult". However, my semantic associations may have been biased by the activities described in the rest of the article, especially the part about the editing of the diary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4978856625595819632010-09-16T13:07:46.741-07:002010-09-16T13:07:46.741-07:00DF:Correction: the fatwa was against anyone who wa...DF:Correction: the fatwa was against anyone who was considering NOT to vote Democratic.<br /><br />Corrected thanks guys.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-11275560877288679522010-09-16T11:07:31.024-07:002010-09-16T11:07:31.024-07:00Excellent post. This Objectischism may end up bein...Excellent post. This Objectischism may end up being rather significant, because it indicates unhappiness among the rank and file with how ARI is being run and with LP. There were some hints of this in Jennifer Burn's book. She reports that the Objectivists running the archives sympathetic with Burn's annoyance at Harriman's tamperings. There is also a hint of dissatisfaction reflected in Peikoff's rather nasty email to Arline Mann. When Peikoff notes "I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism," he is obviously being provactively sarcastic. Of course Ms. Mann would know who Peikoff is. His reminding her in that fashion is a way of both intimidating her and setting her straight, as if to say: "How dare you question my authority. Have you forgot that I'm Rand's intellectual heir? Know your place." Why does Peikoff feel the need to do this? Because he sensed a challenge from her (and perhaps other ARI staffers who might feel like she does). This suggests that some key staff members of ARI are getting restless and there's some doubt as to where they might stand on this issue. Peikoff's later threat ("someone has to go, someone will go") is meant to persuade these wafflers to toe the Peikoffian line. Note that Peikoff doesn't specify who is to go. This is clearly a veiled threat to Ms. Mann and any possible allies she might have with ARI. Since Ms. Mann was probably the one responsible for leaking Peikoff's email (so that it wound up in Mr. McKaskey's hands), this further suggests resistance and unhappiness on her part.<br /><br />Above all, what this demonstrates is the vapidity of the claims Peikoff and other orthodox Objectivists make about "reason" and rationality. ARI is not run according to "reason" or any coherent standard of rationality. It's run at the whim of Peikoff and his inner circle (Binswanger, Schwartz, etc.) through brute intimidation.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47899342739770665252010-09-16T08:54:09.002-07:002010-09-16T08:54:09.002-07:00DF,
Thanks. I had caught that but forgot to tell...DF,<br /><br />Thanks. I had caught that but forgot to telll Dan.<br /><br />NeilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-49175535390997482022010-09-16T08:21:52.559-07:002010-09-16T08:21:52.559-07:00Neil: "In 2006 he issued a fatwa against anyo...Neil: "In 2006 he issued a fatwa against anyone who was considering voting Democratic, going so far as to claim that they didn’t understand Objectivism."<br /><br />Correction: the fatwa was against anyone who was considering NOT to vote Democratic." BTW, recently the pragmatic fellow reversed his fatwa. I suppose now <i>nobody</i> understands Objectivism any longer.Dragonflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6590019095847242892010-09-16T08:06:41.200-07:002010-09-16T08:06:41.200-07:00One question: is Rand's philosophy (or philoso...One question: is Rand's philosophy (or philosophizing) inductive or deductive?<br /><br />I find this confusing: the claim made seems to be that it is inductive (from observation to hypothesis to theory). But the practice seems to be the reverse (theory to hypothesis to observation).<br /><br />So many objectivist texts assume conditions before the fact, and then look for things that prove them (deduction). Rand's whole career seems to bear this out: concoct a theory in the realm of fiction, and then move towards writing about its application in the real world.<br /><br />This flap over quantum mechanics being wrong seems wholly from the perspective of deduction: objectivists assuming that the scientists' observations <i>can't</i> be right, b/c it doesn't square with objectivist premises. That's deductive, isn't it?<br /><br />- ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com