Was Bowe Bergdahl Going Galt?

The latest edition of Serial highlights the influence of Atlas Shrugged in Bowe Bergdahl's decision to quit his post. This older article adds further detail.

Rand's Novels 2 - Anthem

Anthem is a dystopian novella written in 1937. It is unique in Rand's ouvre in a number of ways. It is largely plotless (as Rand herself admitted) and it's much shorter than her other published fiction. It's more a parable than a story, and while it lacks the portentousness of her last novels, honestly, it's little more than a trifle. It's a short piece of fiction which has its basis, initially, in Rand's experiences during the early years of Soviet Russia. In Anthem, Rand took some of the high moral rhetoric that was used to defend communism in Russia and took these scraps of incoherent sentimentality to its logical extreme.

Objectivist Roundup - January

Neil Parille rounds up some recent Objectivist news from around the interwebs: 

• There are forty-nine countries where Muslims are in the majority and Craig Biddle can’t wait to nuke ‘em all.

• You’re 50 years young Objectivism – and it’s time for a reboot.

• The Gotthelf and Salmieri Companion to Ayn Rand is out.  I have a preliminary review.

• The increasingly ARI-dominated Ayn Rand Society has a new blog, Check Your Premises (not to be confused with the anti-Diana Hsieh web site).

• This is a little older, but former Ayn Rand associates Allan Blumenthal and Joan Mitchell Blumenthal self-published some books in 2013.

Rand's Novels 1: We the Living

Of all of Ayn Rand's published fiction — and, indeed, of nearly all her writing, published or otherwise — We the Living is the easiest for the non-Objectivist to appreciate. Most of her chief faults as a novelist are absent from the book. The characters and situations of novel are more or less real, (and all the more vivid and powerful for being so). The prose is largely straightforward, direct, unadorned. It may be the best Russian novel written in English. I wish Rand had written more novels like We the Living. But, alas, that was not to be.

Oddly enough, We the Living was the most reviewed of any of Rand's books, receiving more positive than negative notices. H. L. Mencken, who, in the twenties, had been one of the leading literary critics in America, described Rand's first novel as "a really excellent piece of work." The novel, however, struggled to gain an audience in the 1930's, and Rand's publisher, Macmillan, destroyed the plates after a modest print run of 3,000 copies. In 1959, Rand issued a second, revised edition of the work. Rand insisted that "all the changes [she made] are merely editorial line changes." This view has been challenged. It seems that Rand indulged in a little more than mere line changes, that she sought to edit her former self in order to conceal some of the views she had flirted with in her youth.

A Brief Post on Haylock's "Contra Rand"

During the last year and a half, I have been preoccupied in writing a comic novel, Normal Madness, and did not have the time to post here at ARCHNBlog. Now that I have finished the novel, I can resume, at least for the nonce, posting here. And we do have some unfinished business to take care of. To begin with, there's Rand's novels. We've had some discussions about Atlas Shrugged (in relation to the horrible movies and to Chamber's review), but we've never really discussed We the Living or The Fountainhead. I also would like to provide a series of posts providing a summary of the main points against Rand's Objectivist philosophy that I've made in more detail in earlier posts.

Objectivist Roundup November

Neil Parille heads 'em out and rounds 'em up:

Sean Haylock in Crisis Magazine has an interesting essay, Contra Rand

Isaac Lewis reviews Leonard Peikoff’s The DIM Hypothesis

The long-awaited Salmieri and Gotthelef,  A Companion to Ayn Rand will be out in January.  You can read an excerpt here.

Philosophy In Action Becomes Inactive.

Diana Brickell (Hsieh) has announced her intention "to withdraw from the very public online life that I’ve lead for so many years" and is mothballing her Philosophy In Action site, where she was developing a kind of Ayn Rand Agony Aunt service.

Brickell (Hsieh) has been a human weathervane for the various political currents blowing through Objectivism over the years,her position fluctuating wildly between apparatchik orthodoxy and so called "open" Objectivism. Perhaps this is another signal that the movement is, as it has appeared to be for the past few years, in the doldrums.

Tara Smith: Reality Is Not Objective

Hilarious. John Allison forked out $2m for Tara Smith to sit around playing word games like this all day.

Objectivist Roundup October

A whole lot of not a lot happening in Objectivism right now. Neil Parille rounds it up:

1.         Objectivist philosopher Tara Smith recently published Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System.  Here is an interview with Smith

2.         The Ayn Rand Institute has an extensive You Tube channel.  For those of you who have trouble sleeping, here are some videos from previous Objectivism Conferences.

3.         Dustin Byrd recently published A Critique of Ayn Rand’s Philosophy of Religion: The Gospel According to John Galt.  The book is expensive ($85) but there is a generous preview available on Amazon.
- Neil Parille

Objectivist Roundup

Courtesy of occasional contributor Neil Parille, here's a handy roundup of Objectivism-related doings.

1.  Ayn Rand biographer Anne Heller will shortly be publishing a small biography of Hanna Arendt.

2. Ayn Rand’s novel Ideal was recently published.  Here is Heller’s review (note: paywall)

3. Harry Binswanger recently published his “conversion” story

4. Objectivist philosopher Greg Salmieri was interviewed about Rand’s ethical theory.

5. Peter Schwartz published In Defense of Selfishness.  Ex-Objectivist philosopher Bryan Register critiques it on his new blog here and here and here.

Open thread 2015

As per Gordon's suggestion. Comment away as the spirit moves you.

Open thread

As per Lloyd's suggestion. Comment away.

Nathaniel Branden has died, aged 84.

Reason and the Huffington Post provide obituaries.

Here's his essay "The Benefits and Hazards of Ayn Rand" to mark his passing.

Update: Neil Parille points me to Chris Sciabarra's memorial post.

A Little Ancient History

In response to a commenter who claims that ARCHNbloggers like myself are too "cowardly" to go on Objectivist sites and debate their philosophy first hand, here's a couple of screenshots of my user activity on a couple of O-ist sites from a few years back - Rebirth of Reason (formerly SoloHQ), and Objectivist Living.

There's nearly 2,000 posts there, covering a period of around a decade,  all under my own name - which is more than can be said for this particular fellow, who in a totally non-cowardly way prefers a pseudonym. 

So, so much for that. Will I now rise to his challenge of going on and doing it all over again on Objectivist Answers? Well, clearly I hardly need to, and for now I have better things to do. I'm not even spending that much time in the last few years on the ARCHNblog. It was fun while it lasted, but there isn't that much that interests me about Objectivism these days - I've heard it all before.

But never say never...

The Biggest Bomb Yet.

Box Office Mojo reports on Atlas Shrugged III's opening weekend:

The three-part adaptation of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged ended with a whimper this weekend. Opening at 242 theaters, Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt? bombed with just $461,179*. In comparison, the first two movies each opened above $1.68 million. To be fair, the second outing opened at over 1,000 theaters, and both previous movies had more marketing/publicity ahead of their launches.
Ultimately, the entire three-part endeavor will likely wind up with less than $10 million at the domestic box office (and not a whole lot overseas as well). The troubled production history is surely to blame for some of this—the cast changed with each installment—though it does call in to question whether the novel is as popular as it's perceived to be.

Never fear, the business masterplan will be to cream it on the merch!

Getting Amped.

Just 9 more sleeps to go. 

Surprise Defection from the Peikoff and ARI

This is actually somewhat old news (several months old), but apparently there's been a rather startling defection from the ARI/Peikoff/Orthodox wing of Objectivism. This isn't so much as an excommunication as a pure defection, and from an entirely unexpected source. Dave Harriman, Peikoff's most prominent philosophical protege and virtual co-author of The Logical Leap, has defected from the ARI to TAS, from Peikoff to David Kelley. I have no idea why Harriman defected. Usually, there are personal reasons for splits of this sort, which are masked with philosophical ones. Apparantly, Harriman and Peikoff have not been on speaking terms for last year or so. Beyond that we know nothing and are not likely ever knowing much more than that, as it looks Peikoff and ARI are going to be silent on this one, since it's obviously a defection that places them in a very awkward position. They cannot, after all, turn Harriman into a complete non-person, since Harriman, rather than Peikoff himself, wrote the book which introduced Peikoff's theory of induction to the world. That book won't be disappearing from ARI book shelves any time soon, regardless of what Peikoff may privately think of Harriman. My guess is that this weakens the orthodox faction over at ARI, and makes Peikoff and the old guard look out of touch and even irrelevant to many within the Objectivist movement.

Those of us who are outsiders and critics of Objectivism have always regarded Harriman some suspicion, not only for his close ties with Peikoffian orthodoxy, but for his rather eccentric views on physics. Kelley's version of Objectivism has always sought to make Rand's ideas as intellectual respectable as possible. Will Harriman's views on modern physics soften now that he has thrown over the incubus of Peikofian orthodoxy? Hard to say. But his first scheduled talks for the Atlas Society have nothing to do with physics.

Attack of the Overzealous Spam Filter!

Apologies are due to a number of commenters here. Looking back on the blog's spam filter I see a number of comments from genuine writers have been caught inadvertently. 

There's not huge numbers - maybe 10-15 over the past couple of years. I've reverted them back, probably too late now, however. Once again, my apologies.

Future of Objectivism 8

Peikoff's Legacy. How will Leonard Peikoff be remembered by future Objectivists? Will even the orthodox remember him all that fondly? Will he continue to be influential? Rand's most steadfast and controversial protoge casts a long shadow over orthodox followers of Ayn Rand. His legacy is definitely of the questionable, perhaps even dubious, variety. While he exhibited some skills as a teacher, lecturer, and expositor of Objectivist orthodoxy, whenever he attempted to stray from the Randian straight and narrow, and take flight on his own intellectual steam, the consequences were often deeply embarrasing. The man simply has very little in the way of independent judgment. Couple this with an over-sensitivity to criticism and a deep-seated distrust of anyone who refuses to defer to even his most outlandish ideas, and you have the perfect recipe for the paranoid idealogue, seperated from the world by his own political and moral delusions. His apologists describe him as a man who does not well suffer fools; which is an overly kind way of saying that Peikoff is not a nice man.

Peikoff's legacy consists of four parts: the intellectual, the institutional, the personal, and the cultural. Let's examine each in turn.

Future of Objectivism 7

John McCaskey, the candid Objectivist. Whereas many Objectivists, especially from the older generation, come off as a bit insular and even paranoid, McCaskey seems more open and engaging. He teaches part time at Stanford, and is well-liked by his students. He writes a blog, where he invites comments and even (sometimes) responds in a civil manner. There can be little doubt that evangelizing for the Objectivist cause means a big deal to McCaskey. He's a true believer in the Randian cause. But the way he goes about evangelizing his ideological preferences seems far more reasonable and inoffensive than what we've been accustomed to at the hands of Peikoff, Schwartz, Binswanger, and even Rand herself. Unlike those Objectivist luminaries, McCaskey is not offended when people disagree with him; nor does he automatically equate criticism with a personal attack. He seems to understand, what so many older orthodox Objectivists fail to grasp, that you don't win converts by displaying contempt for the people you disagree with.

McCaskey made a good deal money in the computer business. He then went back to school to get a Ph.D. in history. Presumably, he should have been perfect ARI board member. He had money, he had the credentials, he shared an obvious passion for Rand and her ideas, and he wanted to teach. What more could be wanted by the folks over at the institute? Well, there was a fly in the ointment; a tragic flaw, if you will, that would lead to McCaskey's fall from grace over at ARI. And I suspect it goes well beyond merely disagreeing with Harriman and Peikoff over a few points of historical scholarship. When Peikoff described McCaskey as "an obnoxious braggart" and "pretentious ignoramus," Ayn Rand's heir clearly exaggerated. But if you read McCaskey's blog, you  may detect an element of truth behind Peikoff's exaggerations. Peikoff likely had reasons beyond McCaskey's criticisms of Harriman for his histrionic denunciations of the former ARI board member. Indeed, I would not be surprised if the McCaskey's Harriman criticisms were merely the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. While calling McCaskey an obnoxious braggart and pretentious ignoramus is clearly over the top, McCaskey does exhibit just that sort of breezy self-confidence as an expositor of Randian ideology that could easily exasperate the over-protective, thin-skinned Peikoff. In his infamous "ultimatum" letter, Peikoff described McCaskey's criticism as saying, "in essence, Peikoff is misguided , Harriman is misguided, [McCaskey] knows Objectivism better than either." At the time, Peikoff's criticism struck many ARI critics as unjustifiable hyperbole stemming from an over-sensitivity to criticism. But if, as I suspect, McCaskey had, during his tenure on the ARI board, been riffing on Objectivism like he riffs on his blog, I can see how that would get on Peikoff's nerves. Riffing has always been a problem for orthodox Objectivism. Objectivism mostly appeals to high school and college students. While some of these students are content to follow an orthodox path, the more bolder nascent Objectivists often irrepressible desire to "improve" Objectivism in some way or another. It is likely that Peikoff, over the years, has received scores of emails from pretentious, sometimes even belligerent and nasty college students offering "improved" versions of the Randian creed. This sort of thing was never welcomed by Rand, and it certainly would not have been welcomed by Peikoff. McCaskey's riffs may seem, to those of us who are outsiders, as mild and inoffensive. They most deal with semantic issues (i.e, with how Objectivist arguments are worded) rather than posing any serious challenge to orthodoxy. But any sort of changes, even if merely to the phrasing of arguments, would constitute a challenge to Peikoff's authority as the most qualified interpreter of Objectivism. Over the years, Peikoff has guarded his position as the supreme authority on Randian doctrine with an intense, paranoid jealousy.