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.
9 comments:
I also think the article is fair and balanced, it is consistent with what I gather about these events from other sources.However, for an orthodox objectivist the notion that Peikoff's behavior nowadays is not particularly rational, amounts to blasphemy. And the idea that, if you think that Peikoff is no longer quite compos mentis, that means that you must "hate" him, is complete bullshit. Thinking that someone is an idiot doesn't automatically imply that you "hate" him.
Anyway, Peikoff's reputation may be high among objectivists, but outside that bubble not many people take him seriously. He may be an expert on objectivism, after all these years drilling and grilling by Rand, but did he contribute anything original and worthwhile? I remember his eternally "forthcoming" book "The Ominous Parallels" in which he tells us a lot of nonsense about modern science, as if he were an expert in this area.
And then his silly DIM "theory". Is there anyone outside objectivistm who takes that seirously? That for example Richrd Feynman's ideas are an example of "misintegration" because he didn't follow the objectivist dogmas? Further, he doesn't improve his image by his "do you know who I am?" behavior, Dunning-Kruger all over again.
I would be curious to learn how much, if at all, Peikoff has been drilling his recent wife in Objectivist principles. Does he expect her to live as an Objectivist, doing Objectivist things? Or has he resigned to the idea that she will continue on unblessed by Rand's teachings as she spends what he leaves her?
In any case, one might speculate that she's certainly got the "self-interest" aspect down pat.
Is AR really an advocate of "selfishness"?
She thinks that it is immoral for businessmen to get subsidies from the government.
Perhaps it is "immoral" but isn't it in their self-interest to do so?
Apparently it defeats the purpose of Objectivism to live to your 80's and 90's.
This is the second post I've seen this comment on and I still can't parse out what point it's trying to make.
Rand would say she favors rational selfishness, and that a rational person wouldn’t want government subsidies because he would know that government interference in the economy leads ultimately to disaster. Of course, this requires the rational businessman to put the long-term interests of society above his short-term personal interests — a position that would seem to undercut his own "selfishness," though Objectivists assure us it does not.
If true, then Rand, who died at 77, nailed it!
Most people who live to those ages lose the ability to take care of themselves, as we can see in Peikoff's case. All the bold Objectivist talk about being self-reliant stops making sense, so you wind up in pretty much the same dependent state as all the other physically similar people who never tried to live as Objectivists.
But there is more to life than senility!
Post a Comment