Objectivist Round-up, May 2026

1. Ayn Rand Institute philosopher Michael Mazza has some interesting ideas on studying philosophy.

a. He says it’s important to read non-Objectivist philosophers.

b. He recommends the History of Philosophy Without any Gaps podcast.  I hadn’t heard of this, but it looks good. 

c. He says it’s important to read philosophy for its own sake and it’s important not to read philosophy in light of Ayn Rand. 

Nothing wrong with these things, but it seems to be a subtle jab at certain forms of Objectivist writing and thinking.  The first writing on the history of philosophy from an Objectivist perspective was Rand’s For the New Intellectual and I can only imagine how many young Objectivists took Rand’s thumbnail sketches of various philosophers as the last word.  Mazza even says that Leonard Peikoff’s History of Philosophy should be used only as an analysis of the history of philosophy from an Objectivist perspective.  

Objectivist Round-up, Mid-April 2026

1. I wonder if there is a new schism brewing.  On the same day and on the same website, James Valliant and Leonard Peikoff published two essays criticizing, in effect, the Ayn Rand Institute’s support for open immigration (which tends to veer toward Harry Binswanger’s open borders position).  While Valliant seems to be Peikoff’s main conduit to the outer world of Objectivism, the pieces are quite different in writing style.  

Here is Valliant:

Still, there are many self-styled “Objectivists” who advocate precisely such a dereliction of government’s responsibility to protect Americans from foreign threats–those who advocate completely “open borders” and who oppose the deportation of even criminal aliens. They advocate abolishing all immigration law entirely–and they do so in the name of “Objectivism.”

It is vital to recognize in this context that many nations of the world define such basic crimes as murder and rape very differently than under American law. Some places are in a state of near anarchy and do not keep or collect data on criminals as the United States does.

This means that criminal border screening must include an active process of investigation that examines the individual’s previous conduct, not merely the willingness of a foreign country to be rid of them or to have them subjected to criminal charges.

Were there to be no screening for immigrants at the border, nothing would prevent another country from systematically expelling its own criminal populations into the United States.*

Students of Objectivism who oppose any border enforcement, or who advocate that there should be no deportations, whatever, are simply ignoring Objectivist political philosophy.

Here is Peikoff attacking a certain unnamed Objectivist for the “racism” charge”:

One anti-ICEr suggests that conservatives who defend ICE and deportation are really racists — presumably, in this case, because we are supposed to be hostile to brown bodies. In other words, this student of Objectivism (I don’t call him an Objectivist because he is clearly still learning what the philosophy is) is not only perpetrating an ad hominem, but also invoking as self-evident the WOKE explanation of all evil: RACISM.

Speaking for myself: as a teenager, I spent most Augusts in Canada lying on Grand Beach getting a great tan, all the kids did, and we all boasted how brown we looked.  Then, some years later, while dating in New York City, I applied bronzer liberally to my face and neck, wanting to look like someone who did not spend all of his time reading books (though it ruined my shirt collars).  And now I have married a person of multi-racial ethnicity, and to me Grace is the most beautiful woman I have ever known.

Interesting that Peikoff implies he is a “conservative.”**  Hard to say with certainty who Peikoff is criticizing, but it sounds like he’s talking about Yaron Brook.

Objectivist Round-up, April 2026

1. The Ayn Rand Institute all but calls for a nuclear attack on Iran:

Eliminating the threat from Iran’s Islamic totalitarian regime necessitates discrediting its ideology, making it a lost cause. Some may doubt this is possible, in the shadow of the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, and indeed, it has been decades since America has followed the right approach. History, however, provides a compelling model.

Consider the lesson from the 1945 defeat of martyrdom-extolling imperial Japan, which offered an “unconditional surrender” only after two atom bombs. The historian John David Lewis has eloquently described American efforts to discredit and uproot the regime’s ideology from schools and government, and to block from political office former regime leaders.

2. Yaron Brook appears to think that the Trump administration is listening to him on the Iranian war and even taking his advice.  (Hat tip to Scott Schiff.)

3. Nikos Sotirakopoulos left the ARI after five years and is going out on his own.  He’s asking you to join his Patreon page.  If you are in a generous mood, you can be a founding member for a mere $3,082 a month.  

—Neil Parille

Objectivist Round-up, mid-March 2026

1. Alan Greenspan turned 100.  While Greenspan is best known for being the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, he was a member of Ayn Rand’s Collective.  In fact, he was one of the four signers to Rand’s To Whom It May Concern, which excommunicated Nathaniel and Barbara Branden in 1968.  In his autobiography, Greenspan said that while he started to doubt certain aspects of Objectivism (such as that government could exist without coercive taxation), he remained friends with Rand until she died.  Harry Binswanger said he could tell by the mid 1970’s that Greenspan wasn’t a consistent Objectivist.  (I recall that he was harsher, but I can’t find the quote.)  I’ve wondered why Rand couldn’t see that Greenspan was at least borderline betraying Objectivism.*  Rand’s biographers have said she admired Greenspan because, unlike most of her followers, he was older and had an independent career.

Objectivist Round-up, March 2026

1. Craig Biddle and his Objectivist Standard Institute (“OSI”) filed a lawsuit against multi-millionaire Objectivist donor Carl Barney and his related Objectivist organizations.  According to the lawsuit, Barney provided Biddle and the OSI several million dollars (essentially as a gift) to spread Objectivism.  However, Biddle and Barney’s personal relationship broke down, and Barney then impermissibly tried to place restrictions on the funds.  Barney has counterclaimed, alleging that Biddle has lied to and defrauded him for at least a decade.  Not only that, but Biddle allegedly admitted to Barney’s face that he was never sincere.  It’s hard to draw conclusions from initial legal pleadings, but it looks like Barney has a huge case of buyer’s remorse.

2. The Ayn Rand Institute continues its anti-Trump and anti-ICE bent.  In fact, it seems to be the main interest of the ARI and its writers.  For example, the six most recent New Ideal articles are the Supreme Court’s tariff decision (a blow against Trump’s “authoritarianism”), Ayn Rand’s life as an immigrant (two articles), “ICE tyranny,” Trump and political violence, and “ICE and the Rule of Men.”  ARI associated writers are even harsher with comparisons of Trump to Hitler and ICE to the Nazis.  Rand of course didn’t opine on Trump and never published anything on immigration (although her one public comment seems supportive of large-scale immigration).  As I’ve said before, to some extent the ARI’s commenting on Trump and issues such as immigration is inevitable.  An Ayn Rand Institute that comments only on her philosophy and political and cultural topics Rand opined upon wouldn’t be particularly interesting.  On the other hand, why doesn’t the ARI ever comment on transgenderism?  One could make a reasonable conclusion of what Rand would have thought about transgenderism given her attitude toward homosexuality and male/female roles (which unlike immigration made it into print).  And even on immigration one could surmise that Rand would support a restrictive (even group based) immigration policy given her views on certain cultures (which borders on the racist).*

* Likewise, in Ayn Rand Answers (if you can trust Robert Mayhew’s editing), Rand said Arabs were practically “savages” and “nomads” and Palestinians had lost all their rights.

-Neil Parille

Objectivist Round-up, February 2026

1. An interesting discussion by an archivist of the Ayn Rand Institute on an abandoned book project by Rand that inspired Atlas Shrugged.

2. The Ayn Rand Fan Club celebrated its 100^th episode with a discussion of the views of prominent ARI spokesmen on ICE and immigration.  It’s funny to watch Yaron Brook constantly change his positions, proclaiming each iteration with exact certitude and almost contempt for what he previously held.  

3. David Kelley is the most prominent Objectivist philosopher outside of ARI Objectivism.  The Atlas Society is now publishing many of his shorter works.  I’ve always wanted to read his A Theory of Abstraction.  Rand’s followers consider her theory of concept formation to be her most seminal achievement.  One criticism is that she presents no proof for her theory (for example, her description of how a child learns to differentiate tables and chairs).  I’ve heard that Kelley does provide some evidence in this book.

Objectivist Round-up, mid-January 2026

1. The Ayn Rand Fan Club interviewed David Harriman.  As long-time readers may recall, Harriman “edited” The Journals of Ayn Rand to such an extent that her journals (as printed)  reflect Randian-Objectivism circa 1960 more than what Rand wrote at the time of her entries.  Unfortunately, that topic didn’t come up during the interview.  (Harriman said a while ago that it was Peikoff who directed the editing.)  Speaking of editing, Harriman confirms that Rand’s editing of Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels was rather substantial. Rand would return entire chapters to Peikoff, telling him in effect that he had to start over again.

Harriman discusses contemporary physics and cosmology.  Granted, I’m no expert on these things, but his approach seems a bit one-sided.  He attacks the Big Bang Theory as a “creation myth,” duly noting that it was developed by a Catholic priest who was also a physicist.  It’s been a while since I looked into the topic, but my recollection was that the BBT is supported by multiple lines of evidence.  One might think that the “objective” approach to the question would be, in effect, “if it has theistic implications, then so be it.”  Even Harriman concedes that most cosmologists support the BBT and I doubt most would describe themselves as religious, much less creationists.

Harriman also discusses his book The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics which he collaborated on with Peikoff (although Harriman is listed as sole author).  Strangely, he says that the Ayn Rand Institute attacked the book (which he says was otherwise well received).  In fact, two physicists associated with the ARI (John McCaskey and Travis Norsen) criticized the book.  Upon learning of this, the ARI (at Peikoff’s urging) booted McCaskey out (I think Norsen might still be associated with it).

Objectivist Round-up, January 2026

1. A new edition of The Letters of Ayn Rand was just published.  According to the description:

This edition presents the complete transcripts, including more than fifty newly added letters, restored passages previously cut for space, and extensive new commentary by Berliner. Altogether, the added material expands the book by roughly thirty percent.

In her 2009 biography, Goddess of the Market, historian Jennifer Burns revealed that much of the posthumously published by the Archives was so heavily edited as to be essentially worthless.  She did say, however, that the Letters was more or less accurate.

2. The Ayn Rand Institute just published their year end report.  

3. The ARI invited neuroscientist Steven Pinker to the 2026 Objectivist Conference, although it’s been reported that a video of his appearance won’t be made available.  I’m curious why they would invite someone whose best-known book is The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature and holds views of the relationship between intelligence, personality and genetics which most ARI authors would consider “deterministic” if not evil.  

2025 Year in Review

1.  The big story in 2025 was the continuing controversy over the situation between Leonard Peikoff and his daughter Kira.  In 2024, Kira filed a conservatorship action against Leonard arguing that he was so mentally impaired that he was not competent to make decisions.  She dropped the action toward the end of 2024 stating that her relationship with her father was so strained that continuing the case would be pointless.  This generated a fair amount of discussion on the internet and even an article in The Atlantic about the matter.  It doesn’t appear that the two have reconciled.

Objectivist Round-up, December 2025

1. Objectivist historian C. Bradley Thompson wrote and interesting article in which he argued that Marxism is a kind of Christian heresy.  The similarities between these two ideologies have been noted occasionally, even by Christians.  But the same thing could be said about Objectivism.  A while ago I wrote an essay comparing ARI-style Objectivism and religion.   One thing that has occurred to me over the years is that just as there is the phenomenon of six degrees of separation between people, there is a similar concept at work with ideologies.  It’s easy to find parallels, but that doesn’t mean there is a direct line of influence.  Anthropologists have for example found similarities between Native American religions and the religions of Australian Aborigines although direct influence is virtually impossible.

Yaron Brook Challenges Peikoff by Neil Parille

Recently, Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) Chairman of the Board Yaron Brook decided to “unload” on fellow Objectivists Andrew Bernstein, David Harriman, and (to a lesser extent) Leonard Peikoff.  This was surprising for a couple of reasons.  First, Brook has said over the years that he doesn’t want to comment on specific Objectivists.  Second, Leonard Peikoff is 92 and the status of his estate (and Rand’s papers most importantly) might still be up in the air.

What prompted this tirade was a question about Andrew Bernstein’s recent essay on President Trump, where he argued that Trump was a hero.  Brook said that, on the contrary, Trump is a horrible president and may be the worst president in American history.  Not only that, but he’s also a flat out “villain,” hates the United States, and says Bernstein’s piece is “B.S.” (he didn’t use the abbreviation).  However, he went on to say that Trump is supportive of business and businessmen.  In addition, he says that Trump – for whatever his flaws – speaks his mind and doesn’t care what people think about him.  However, the few topics he mentioned was Trump’s support for tariffs and attacking drug dealers.  At the end of the day, it looks like what is driving Brook is that Trump is an anti-intellectual populist.

Objectivist Round-up, November 2025

1. American philosopher John Searle passed away.  I recall Harry Binswanger writing that he was the academic philosopher whose thought was closest to Rand’s.  Years ago I read Searle’s Mind, Language and Society and some parts reminded me of Objectivism.

2. The always outspoken Ayn Rand Institute Chairman of the Board Yaron Brook said recently that European countries, to assimilate Muslims, should be “required” to periodically run cartoons of Muhammad.  He was asked if he would post such cartoons on his web site and said he would at the right time but didn’t know where he would place them.

3. Speaking of Brook, he said he was invited to and attended Leonard Peikoff’s 92-year birthday party.  He said he talked to Peikoff but doesn’t know if he’s “patched it up” with Peikoff.

Objectivist Round-up, October 2025

1. In 2022, correspondence was discovered from Murray Rothbard to Frank Meyer concerning his involvement with Ayn Rand and Objectivism.  I haven’t had the time to read the essay in full, but here is the abstract:

Relying on live-ink letters discovered in an Altoona, Pennsylvania, warehouse in 2022, this article provides a fresh look at an old controversy: Murray Rothbard’s bitter parting from the inner orbit of Ayn Rand. The correspondence from Rothbard to National Review senior editor Frank S. Meyer pertaining to the Randians details Rothbard’s rollercoaster of responses toward the Collective. The letters on Rand begin shortly before the release of Atlas Shrugged in October 1957 and end after the publication of an unsigned 1961 Newsweek article belittling the novelist. The newly discovered correspondence undermines the persistent claim that Rothbard fabricated unflattering descriptions of the Objectivists in response to their accusations of plagiarism. The letters, sent long before Nathaniel Branden leveled those charges, reflect the general description of the group in Rothbard’s “Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult,” issued in 1972. The article further details the influence of Meyer’s Molding of Communists on Rothbard in his structuring of “The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult.”

2. Objectivist writer Craig Biddle has a series of videos on religion and reason.  See here (concerning William Craig).  Biddle thinks that – as Rand said – faith means believing something without reason or that is opposed to reason.  Biddle knows that there are plenty of religious believers who think that their faith is supported by reason, faith means trust, etc. but, seems to think that at the end of the day they are “really” operating on faith as Rand defined it.  

The overvaluing of definitions is a sub theme of Objectivism -- definitions don’t just describe how words are used, but somehow (at least if you get them correct) give a deeper understanding of the world.  For example, as Rand wrote in The Virtue of Selfishness, “[y]et the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word ‘selfishness’ is: concern with one's own interests.” I don’t know any dictionary that defines “selfishness” that way and dictionaries don’t normally give “exact” definitions.*  Likewise, in her essay “Racism,” Rand defines racism as “the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry.”  I’d say that racism includes an element of invidiousness.  However, taken to the extreme, according to Rand, if you believe Joe White Guy is smarter than Bill White Guy and this has something to do with genes, you might as well be George Wallace or even Adolf Hitler.  

The latest version of “definitionalism” is the constant use by Ayn Rand Institute Objectivists is the endless attack on “tribalism,” which apparently means anything that the ARI speaker doesn’t like.  ARI Charman of the Board Yaron Brook seems to think that every issue from immigration to free trade to abortion could be resolved if you get the definition of tribalism correct (and apply it to anyone Brook doesn’t like).  Would that resolving life’s most complicated questions be so easy.

In any event, as libertarian philosopher David Gordon wrote me, “Biddle misstates Craig's position. Craig is saying, if we have good reason to think someone is trustworthy, then we have good reason to accept what he tells us. He is not saying that reason and faith are the same concept, as Biddle claims. Craig is a trained philosopher, and Biddle is out of his depth.”

_____________

*A prominent Objectivist once told me that the dictionaries of the world should be rewritten to define “selfishness” according to the Randian definition even if that definition is still in the minority of normal usage.

Objectivist Round-up, September 2025

1. It’s been reported that Allan Blumenthal and his wife Joan Mitchel Blumenthal passed away recently.  Allan Blumenthal (Nathaniel Branden’s cousin) was a psychiatrist and a member of the Collective (he signed the statement denouncing Nathaniel after Rand booted Nathaniel and Barbara out of the movement).  Allan (who was joint heir to Rand’s estate with Leonard Peikoff) broke with Rand around 1974, finding it impossible to maintain a civil, non-argumentative relationship with her.  Barbara Branden, in her biography of Rand quoted Allan: "She was relentless in her pursuit of so-called psychological errors [concerning judgments on art]. If an issue were once raised, she would never drop it; after an evening's conversation, she'd telephone the next day to ask what we had concluded about it overnight . . . It was becoming a nightmare." She quotes Joan: "but, often, she would seem deliberately to insult and antagonize us." 

2. Ayn Rand Institute thinkers Don Watkins and Onkar Ghate have a new book, Profit Without Apology: The Need to Stand Up For Business.  I discussed it here.

3. The Ayn Rand Fan Club has an excellent discussion of grudges within and outside of the Objectivist movement.  Highlights: Yaron Brook says (shockingly) that “I’m a big believer in holding grudges” and Leonard Peikoff saying in 1989 that he won’t live long enough to forgive David Kelley even if Kelley became repentant.  They make they point that many Objectivist schisms are in part personal grudges disguised as philosophical disputes.

—Neil Parille

Objectivism and Sources by Neil Parille

One of the things I’ve noticed having followed the Objectivist movement for close to thirty years is the extreme reliance of Objectivist authors on secondary (and often outdated) sources and the constant use of previous Objectivist writings in place of original research. As a result, Objectivists tend to fall for urban legends at a rate higher than any group I can think of. I’ll present some examples and give a few potential explanations.

The Fountainhead: Leonard Peikoff

The first book by an Objectivist philosopher (other than Ayn Rand) was Leonard Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels in 1982.  This book, which was heavily edited by Rand, claimed to show that Nazism was caused by Kantian philosophy and that the influence of Kantian-inspired philosophy in the United States was leading to similar results. Say what you want about the thesis of the book, one of Peikoff’s main sources for Hitler’s thought was the work Hitler Speaks (also known as The Voice of Destruction) by Hermann Rauschning, a Nazi leader in Danzig who later left the Nazi Party and moved to the US. While Rauschning may have met Hitler a time or two, it’s unlikely he had any private conversations with him much less enough to fill a book. The Hitler quotes Peikoff used portray Hitler at his nihilistic best, e. g., “the Age of Reason is over.” A friend told me that when he first read Peikoff’s book that he thought the quotes were “too good to be true.” I can’t blame Peikoff for using the book because it wasn’t known at the time that it was spurious, but it was known around 2000 that the book was largely, if not completely, fraudulent. Unfortunately, Objectivist author Craig Biddle quoted from the book in his 2002 Loving Life (a summary of Objectivist ethics) and Andrew Bernstein in his 2005, The Capitalist Manifesto.

Objectivism and War by Neil Parille

The Ayn Rand Fan Club (YouTubers Scott Schiff and Willliam Swig) has a new episode entitled “Objectivism and War,” which discusses the views of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook on war, focusing on the status of innocents in war.  Rand’s comments, albeit off the cuff, don’t seem consistent or entirely thought out.  She says, in response to a question about war with the Soviet Union:

Why is it important to be concerned about politics?  Why should we care about having the right social system?  Because our lives are dependent on it.  Because those systems, good or bad, are established in our name, and we bear responsibility.  So that the Soviet citizens who are innocent I hope someday will be destroyed in a proper war along with the guilty.  There aren’t very many innocent ones, and they’re not in the big cities—they’re mainly in concentration camps.  

Robert “Rewrite” Mayhew in his edition of Rand’s Question and Answers, toned down her response a bit, adding a new sentence -- “If we go to war with Russia” -- to make her call for the death of innocents (now put in scare quotes) appear conditional.

But we must care about the right social system, because our lives depend on it—because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.

If we go to war with Russia, I hope the “innocent” are destroyed along with the guilty.  There aren’t many innocent people there; those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps.

Scott and William then mention Peikoff, who was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly shortly after September 11, 2001.  Peikoff called for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and said what kind of weapons to be used was entirely battlefield issue to be determined by the military in the war zone.  As William says, even of utilitarian grounds, there are good reasons not to use nuclear weapons since many of the people killed who would have been allies or even spies for the United States.  I’m no expert on Iran, but I get the impression that the base of the regime’s power is in the countryside.  Using nuclear weapons against the major cities could increase the support for the regime and perhaps radicalize the fence sitters.  Best I can tell, the entire leadership of the Ayn Rand Institute has either called for the use of nuclear weapons against Saudi Arabia and Iran or at least said it should not be taken off the table.  Never considered is that there are European countries where the Islamic population is now approaching ten percent.  The ARI doesn’t seem to have given any thought on what might happen in, say, London (now fifteen percent Muslim) should the spiritual capitals of Islam be attacked with nuclear weapons.  Likewise, it isn’t clear how attacking Iran and Saudi Arabia would stop terrorism.  For example, how would the 2016 Nice truck attack (which was carried out by a Tunisian living in France) been prevented by an attack on Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Objectivist Round-up, August 2025

1. The Ayn Rand Institute’s 2025 Objectivist Conference was held in July.  ARI president Tal Tsfany gave an address about the ARI’s future.  The most interesting part was the discussion of the new archival finds (see below).

2. Chris Sciabarra has a lengthy post, the ARI at Forty.

3. ARI honcho Yaron Brook is preparing courses for The (Jordan) Peterson Academy.  The Peterson Academy also features courses by Open Objectivist Stephen Hicks.  Shouldn’t Brook be working more with Ayn Rand University than Peterson (who is sympathetic to Christianity)?

4. Long time Objectivist writer Andrew Bernstein has a new collection of essays Aristotle Versus Religion.  One thing I’ve noticed about Bernstein and some other Objectivists is their extreme reliance on secondary (and often outdated) sources.  Bernstein’s main source for the history of Europe is Will Durant’s The Story of Civilization (1945-1975).  Bernstein cites it 64 times.  As an atheist and Objectivist, Bernstein isn’t a fan of Christianity.  Fair enough, yet many of his claims about Christianity are second-hand and often unsourced.  The atheist historian Tim O’Neill has a website that refutes the numerous urban and semi-urban legends that Bernstein has accepted uncritically.

Here is an example of Bernstein’s “scholarship”:

The Apostle Paul, for example, wrote: “The more they [the Greeks] called themselves philosophers, the more stupid they grew . . . they made nonsense out of logic and their empty minds were darkened.”  

Bernstein doesn’t even quote Paul directly but instead Charles Freeman’s 2002 book, The Closing of the Western Mind: 

“The more they [non-Christians] called themselves philosophers,” he tells the Romans (1.21-22), “the more stupid they grew . . . they made nonsense out of logic and their empty minds were darkened.”  

For whatever reason, Freeman used the 1966 Jerusalem Bible (an English translation of a French translation).  However, the most widely used English translation of the Bible in scholarly circles is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which says:

20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse;

21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.

22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools;

The use of the words “philosophers” instead of “wise,” and “logic” instead of “thinking” in the Jerusalem Bible is idiosyncratic.  I can’t find a single English version that translates the Greek text that way.  The revised New Jerusalem Bible (1985) translates Romans 1:21-22 similar to the NRSV.  In context, Paul seems to be referring to human beings as a result of the fall, not to Greek philosophy or logical reasoning.

4. The Ayn Rand Fan Club has a lengthy discussion of the Leonard Peikoff/Kira Peikoff Bellis situation.

—Neil Parille

Objectivist Round-up, July 2025

1. The Ayn Rand University press recently published Harry Binswanger’s 1975 doctoral dissertation, The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts.

2. The ARU press also published a collection of essays by Binswanger, Ayn Rand’s Philosophic Achievement and Other Essays.  You can read the Philosophic Achievement essay here and here.  I found this interesting:

Ayn Rand’s esthetics depends upon her entire philosophical base, from metaphysics through ethics. Yet her basic explanation of art is quite simple: “What an art work expresses, fundamentally, under all of its lesser aspects is: "This is life as I see it." ...

The history of esthetics is perhaps even bleaker than the general history of philosophy. The 2300 years stretching from Aristotle’s Poetics to The Romantic Manifesto is practically a void; philosophers of art have seemed to be discussing some mysterious, inaccessible entity — not art. Their sterile disquisitions on “the sublime and the beautiful” and their contrived theories of “art as play” or “art as pure form” bear no discernible relationship to the actual paintings, dramas, symphonies, and sculptures that constitute the history of art.

The history of esthetics isn’t my strong suit, but I doubt nothing useful was written for 2300 years and that no one ever said something to the effect that art expresses, “this is life as I see it.”  Binswanger’s essay is rather abstract so it’s difficult to critique.  Some years ago I did a series on Ayn Rand’s originality.  See here, here, and here.

3. Objectivist Conference 2025 is happening in July in Boston.  

4. James Valliant is interviewed about the Leonard Peikoff and Kira Peikoff situation.

-Neil Parille

Objectivist Round-up, June 2025

 1. The Ayn Rand Institute Archives are now searchable, but the on-line Archives seem limited to Rand’s letters.

2. Sam Tannenhaus just published his long-awaited biography of William Buckley, coming in at 900 pages (plus endnotes).  I was naturally interested in what he said about Ayn Rand.  It’s only one paragraph and oddly refers to Rand as an “[Alfred J.} Nock disciple.”  He confirms (citing an interview of Buckley by Anne Heller) that Rand’s first words to him were, “You are too intelligent to believe in God.”  I was surprised that Tannenhaus (who wrote a biography of Whittaker Chambers) didn’t mention Chambers’ review of Atlas Shrugged in National Review.

-Neil Parille

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.”