Thursday, June 02, 2016

Objectivist Roundup

Barely a pulse:

Austrian economist Richard Ebeling describes his meeting with Ayn Rand

Leonard Peikoff in his old age still finds it necessary to remind the world that he is the leading expert on Objectivism.  Is another Objectischism brewing?

- Neil Parille


Daniel Barnes said...

The Peikoff piece is a 45s confession of complete and utter failure.

Daniel Barnes said...

It's the full Dunning Kruger. Too thoroughly incompetent to recognise the extent of his incompetence.

Daniel Barnes said...

I mean what a disaster. Thirty years, millions of dollars, millions of tons of free PR, Institutes, what-have-you, all directed at educating people in Objectivism and turning them into philosophical geniuses. Yet Peikoff can't name anyone that's emerged from all that effort that's even close to him. Not even in his own institute. Does that mean Objectivism is unteachable? Did all the Roarks and Galts genetically churned out of the past half century in the US and worldwide somehow miss the memo?
Or is there really nothing there in the first place? Is the Ayn Rand Institute really as much about philosophy as Donald Trump University was about real estate?

Sam Simmons said...

Fun takedown of the immoral illogic of Atlas Shrugged:

advancedatheist said...

Has anyone noticed the female takeover of the Atlas Society?

As one of her first acts, the new CEO, Jennifer Anju Grossman, published drivel about using Atlas Shrugged as a guide for dating. I laughed when I read that because it shows how Objectivists have lowered their expectations. People just don't buy their implied claim that Rand's philosophy activates quasi-superpowers, so Objectivists have dumbed down their propaganda considerably to try to stay relevant.

Adam Lee's piece about Atlas Shrugged on Raw Story also points out a lot of the weirdness in what the novel shows versus what Rand and her Kool-Aid Drinkers claim. Both the villains and the strikers believe that the American population needs some Malthusian herd-thinning, for example. So what differentiates the two sides morally? Starving in the name of a good cause will leave you just as wrongfully dead as starving for a bad one.

advancedatheist said...

In another sign of capitulation to reality, this piece actually writes approvingly of Shakespeare as a writer and Beethoven as a composer, despite Rand's dismissals of these artists:

advancedatheist said...

Man + Objectivism ≈ Man

Subtract Man from both sides of the equation:

Objectivism ≈ 0

Anonymous said...

You'd think Peikoff could at least acknowledge that there are many up and coming Objectivist philosophers (such as Greg Salmieri) who have written a lot on Objectivism, but apparently that's too hard for Rand's "intellectual heir" to concede.


Anonymous said...

Peikoff is right.

There can only be one Pope at a time!

Jzero said...

"Has anyone noticed the female takeover of the Atlas Society?"

You mean, has anyone thought it notable or strange or even mildly interesting in any way? No.

Anonymous said...

-- "Has anyone noticed the female takeover of the Atlas Society?"

Even worse is the female takeover of Objectivism generally. I hear that some are even claiming that the philosophy was originated by a female.

JoyousFlame said...

Speaking of the Peikoff podcast, have you heard this segment?

Question: "Ayn Rand denies instinct. What about the 'fight or flight' response for evading your captors?"
Peikoff's answer: "Well I don't regard those as instincts or even as universally true! [...] What about completely passive people who just sit in a bar and drink and evade everything? They don't fight, they don't flight, they just fall off the chair!"

Never have I heard such a poor understanding of what is meant by "fight or flight response," not even from a layperson or high school student. The downfall of Objectivism will perhaps be that its celebrity spokespeople demonstrate abysmal lack of understanding of basic topics.