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).