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.
2. Youtubers Scott Schiff and William Swigg (Ayn Rand Fan Club) have an interesting discussion of the recent Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook dustup. As Scott and William point out, Brook had said explicitly that Objectivists should “rally with the left” in opposing ICE. Someone brought this to Peikoff’s attention and Peikoff wrote that Brook (although not naming him) said he didn’t understand Objectivism. Brook in response claimed that he never said “rally with the left” but in fact the opposite. Then, when confronted with the actual quote, Brook admitted he said it, but said he was probably just careless. I guess in Brook-land, the only person who is entitled to an honest mistake (if that’s what it was) is Yaron Brook.
Scott and William then discuss why Peikoff didn’t name Brook and why he didn’t attack the ARI for its endless railing against ICE and -- even in the case of Harry Binswanger (an ARI “expert”) – supporting open borders. (Binswanger has famously said that the borders between the US and other countries should be no different from the border between Connecticut and New York.) Hard to say, but as Greg Nyquist said recently, at this point in his life Peikoff might not see much benefit from threatening to blow up the ARI and starting over like he did in the past.
--Neil Parille
15 comments:
Mazza's comments sound surprisingly reasonable. Certainly no one should take Rand or Peikoff as the final word on non-Objectivist philosophies. Their approach is always tendentious and misleading. I went for years thinking I knew something about Kantianisn; when I finally got around to reading Kant, I discovered that nearly everything I thought I knew was wrong.
I agree Michael, I gave up debating with Objectivists on philosophy. A (snigger) leading Objectivist in the UK told me he'd studied philosophy, after some gentle probing turns out the only philosophy books he'd read are those of...Any Rand.
Speaking of philosophers, are there any besides Ayn Rand who emphasized the role of the human mind in producing the material means of existence?
Yes, Aristotle, Locke, and Marx for starters.
You can find most of Rand's ideas in other philosophers. I think the way she combined them was unique.
Fixed it for ya! "You can find most of others philosophers in Rand's ideas. The way she combined them was uniquely terrible."
"Yes, Aristotle, Locke, and Marx for starters."
My understanding is that these three philosophers taught that wealth derives from labor, not from thinking. And Aristotle expected his slaves to do the producing in his household.
Marx is an interesting case because his friend and patron Friedrich Engels was a successful businessman and investor. You'd think that Engels's actual experience with capitalism would have shown him that labor by itself doesn't accomplish much, without the capitalists' minds organizing the means of production and telling the laborers what to do.
I'm sure plenty of people have said that the reason humans do better than lower animals is because of brains/mind.
My understanding is that these three philosophers taught that wealth derives from labor, not from thinking. Erm...never heard of mental labour?
This just popped up in the /Objectivism subreddit:
https://anthemism.org
A short quote, just because it's too good and it seems like the guy is serious: "I thought about starting a Galt’s Gulch-like society, but there was, and still is, no technological way to hide it, as it was done in the novel."
Why "hide" it. It's not illegal to organize a utopian commune.
In the novel, it was hidden to keep it safe from the looters. So maybe he's just being very literal -- there's no point in creating Galt's Gulch if the looters are just going to take it away. For me, though, it's the "I thought about... but..." part that's hilarious. "Darn it, there's no such thing as a refractor ray! Oh well, I guess I can't start a Galt's Gulch-type society. Bummer." As if the lack of a refractor ray is really what's standing in his way.
Just noticed this. It made me laugh.
Some intel for a future update, perhaps. This regards Biddle claiming that ARI is contacting people and badmouthing him and his organizations.
https://craigbiddle.com/2026/05/12/some-questions-regarding-aris-claims-and-alleged-principles/
I was just scanning that piece, and this tidbit caught my eye. Because I'm really busy and got zero sleep the last couple of nights, can someone explicate what "objective" means in this context?
"Ghate and Binswanger further claim that anyone who publicly reveals the facts of a private dispute to outsiders must answer two questions: “(1) Why is it objective for them to have gone public in the way that they have?"
Post a Comment