Gespräch über orthodoxe Randianer,
Neo-Objektivisten und "German Objectivism"
#1 (fehlendes Datum)
Objektivismus.de > Yoder
Hello Brian:
> > It will show up on my resources page: www.AynRand.de/7Ressourcen.htm.
But
> I
> > first have to rework the entire website before uploading it again, so
it
> > will take some time. If you want, I can give you notice about it...
>
> That would be great.
OK. So I will give you notice at time.
> > Since I'm not an adherent of the orthodoxy, I abstained from announcing
it
> > to them.
>
> I just wondered becase you had a link to the www.aynrand.org site yet the
> site didn't seem like it was from them.
I'm too excited about Objectivism that I link to whatever seems to be
valuable or at least inspiring on the net, even if I disagree with some
points -- as it's usually the case. ARI has, until now, definitively the
better website for beginners. So I'm promoting them where I can, whether
they would agree with it or not. The ARI has good programs people should
know about in Germany.
> > But I guess they're watching it with suspicion... So, yes, they
> > probably heard somewhere about it. Are you in the ARI camp? I hope it's
no
> > problem if I'm not!
>
> I'm my own camp. I must say though, that most of the anti-ARI folks I
have
> run into are that way for some reason I don't much care for. Whether
it's a
> problem for you I guess depends on what it is that makes you not like
those
> guys.
Why I ~like~ the ARI & Peikoff camp is exactly the opposite the people
arounf the TOC are disliking them: I share most of Dr. Peikoff's views in
Fact and Value and I'm opposed to "tolerationism" out of principle. Peikoff
is right, facts ~are~ values, he and the ARI is only in some instances
wrong what these values are. Where I have problems with the ARI is their
Randian fundamentalism. As much as I love this women, I think she was wrong
in some points, and the ARI folks are stubbornly denying that Ayn Rand
could possibly made some false identifications. I'm also a dogmatist, but a
dogmatist for (the law of) "identity," not for Ayn Rand. That's what
differentiates a cult from a genuine philosophy. If they stay that way,
they will stagnate forever being a Ayn Rand fan club, where no further
growth is possible -- neither intellectually nor economically.
> What I find strange about that whole issue is that it often comes down to
an
> issue that there are some people have ideas that disagree with whatever
Ayn
> Rand said on some topic or other, yet they want to call that thing
(whatever
> it is) "Objectivism". If I come up with some really smart idea that Ayn
> Rand never thought of and I just said "I like Ayn Rand's writings and so
on,
> but this is an idea that is mine and it's different from what Ayn Rand
said
> and my idea is right." that would defuse almost all of the tension
between
> these two "camps".
I've heard this view already, and I think it is based on a misunderstanding
of what the essence of Objectivism really is.
It is all the more perplexing that people who claim to
> value thinking for themselves seem so timid about asserting their own
ideas
> and labeling them as such. Instead it seems that there are all kinds of
> people out there trying to rewrite Objectivism and somehow try to grant
some
> kind of legitimacy to their ideas (whether right or wrong) by
associating
> them with Ayn Rand.
I had recently a discussion about this very topic with Matthew Ballin on
Yahoo! Group's OCN. To avoid repeating myself, I'd like to invite you to
look at this message from me where I tried to explain my view. Here it is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OCN_discussion/message/141. I welcome your
feedback on this.
Basically, it doesn't matter what topic you need to disagree with Ayn
> Rand on, but you need to pick something or you can't join the club.
What's
> your take on this?
Alas, there doesn't seem to be any "club" out there I could join. Neither
the ARI nor TOC are fully acceptable to me -- although they are the two
philosophical organizations in the world I can identify best with. Seems to
me that I'm the universal misfit in Objectivism... But I'm still learning,
as does the Objectivist Center. Perhaps the future is to be found there. In
any case, I love this philosophy to much to abandon it without good reason.
So before any better term comes up, I'll still call myself an
"Objectivist". For the sake of distinguishing my interpretation of it from
more traditional forms, you can call it GERMAN OBJECTIVISM. I think that
this is (temporaly) a solution everybody could live with.
alexander fürstenberg
___________________
Philodata Verlag und
Seminarmarketing e.K.
www.Philodata.de
www.Objektivismus.de
#2 (03.02.02)
Yoder > Objektivismus.de
> > > ARI has, until now, definitively the
> > > better website for beginners. So I'm promoting them where I can,
whether
> > > they would agree with it or not. The ARI has good programs people
should
> > > know about in Germany.
> >
> > I think so too, though the fact that it isn't available in German (is
it?)
> > limits the appeal a bit.
>
> Absolutely. I'm currently desperately looking for ways to get some
> Objectivist material published in German language. We have none of Ayn
> Rand's nonfiction here! This is absolutely unacceptable, but what should I
> do? My publishing operation, which is founded solely for this purpose, is
> lacking the funds to get off the ground with Randian materials.
I agree that various translations really need to get done. If you do
business with the TOC guys though, I can't imagine that Leonard or ARI is
going to give you the right to do translations or handle the publication.
> > Along those lines I am curious about how fertile
> > the idealogical ground is in Germany for these kinds of ideas. I
visited
> > Germany a couple of years ago and I was a little taken aback by the
cultural
> > differences there. I had expected to find that people were more like
the
> > Brits bit with an even stronger accent. ;-) Of course even a little
> > influence is better than none, so even if that's all that's possible I
think
> > it's worth pursuing, but it seemed to me that the Czech Republic might
be
> > more receptive to these kinds of ideas. How does it look to you? How
many
> > Objectivists are there in Germany today (by whatever definition...say,
> > "Significantly influenced by Rand's ideas")?
>
> Good question. Besides me, I encountered until now just one person who I
> could call a genuine Objectivist, and we lost contact.
Well, there must be more that just the two of you, but what you are telling
me sounds about like what I had expected...almost no presence at all, mostly
accidental readers. Surprisingly enough, it seems that there are a lot of
people influenced by Rand in India and Israel. I imagine that this has a
lot to do with the fact that there is a large English-speaking population in
both places. In both places they seem to have adopted some strange cultural
structures around it though since in both places they are used to the idea
of having "gurus" or "rabbis" who lead little groups of the faithful. It's
a little strange. What do you think a German movement might look like? My
impression is that Germans have a very strong (at least a lot stronger than
Americans do) set of social/cultural pressures to conform to "the norm" in a
thousand little ways (dress, customs, language, etc.) and those who are
"different" seem to have to expend a lot of time, effort, and commitment to
do so, so many of them seem to go hard over into strange kinds of
non-conformism (dressing as strangely as they can, getting strange haircuts,
body piercings, rude behaviors, etc.). Do you think that's true? Do you
think German objectivism would attract a lot of freakish people?
> Then we have a
> recently emerging, but numerically still insignificant free-market
movement
> which shows some recognition for Rand's Objectivism, but not much more. As
> "default-libertarians" tend to be, they too show a hostile
> anti-intellectualism, manifesting itself in the rejection to ground their
> non-initiation of force principle on a proper philosophical foundation and
> a despisingly stupid ("anarchist") refusal to have anything to do with the
> political process.
I don't blame you. I think that everywhere there are a lot of strange
people along those lines attracted to Objectivism in one way or another.
Once they start getting involved they realize that there are a great many
ideas in the philosophy that they completely disagree with. Many of them
try to suppress their doubts and find that to be rather miserable, so they
end up freaking out and go join up with the TOC folks. Have you noticed this
"lifecycle" before?
Regarding the "anarchists", they are growing these days and they are amazing
for their extreme anti-intellectualism. The Marxists at least had a Marxist
ideology to cling to, but these folks just seem like an unhappy rabble whose
only common characteristic is that they are unhappy about something or
other. Kinda like the Libetarian party, now that I think of it. ;-)
Speaking of that, is there a functioning Libertarian Party in Germany?
Unlike in the US (where parties that can't get 51% of the vote get no
representation in the legislature), in Europe small parties can actually get
a little political power, but I never hear of anything even remotely
"objectivish" over there in government.
> I'm sure the reason for it is that we're still lacking
> German language translations of important Objectivist works -- like OPAR.
I'm sure that is a big part of it, although I have a feeling that the
cultural "ground" is a lot less suitable for growing Objectivist fruit.
> So besides the free-market advocacy, I have nothing in common with them...
> Essentially, with Objectivism I'm isolated in Germany. What we ~do~ have
is
> Atlas and The Fountainhead, which are published by a orthodox Christian
> owned (!) part-time publishing house.
Funny isn't it? The place I first heard about Atlas Shrugged was in the
National Review magazine (a conservative Christian/Catholic political
mazagine).
> No advertising, no marketing
> campaigns. They do absolutely nothing to promote her work, and I guess
this
> will remain the case until the books go out of print one day. It's a
shame.
> Besides me, no one is doing anything here.
I wonder if their translations/publications are illegal. That might explain
the lack of real business umph behind the publications. I know from ARI
that there are a lot of pirate publications out there and I would be
surprised if they would commission a religious publisher to do the
translation.
> In regard to the Czech Republic: I have no clue, but always when I enter
> the German word for "Objectivism" in the Google engine, this (Czech) site
> shows up in the results list: http://www.aynrand.cz. Nice picture. That's
> all I can say... and that they somehow managed to get OPAR published!:
> www.aynrand.cz/pages/katalog/katalog.html
Surprising. Again, this could be a pirate translation (they do a lot of
that stuff over there), though it's a rather "tri-lingual" country
(Czech/German/English) where consumers can have a lot of influence from
outside the country. Culturally though, they seem ripe for Objectivist
ideas. They have been the victims of both Nazi and Communist governments
and they seem to have a rather freedom-oriented culture that values their
national heroes for all the right reasons. I just love it over there. If
you have not visited Prague, you really should.
> > I know there are some obnoxious people out there who say that nothing
[Rand]
> > said could ever be mistaken, but I'd bet that if you asked the employees
of
> > ARI whether they agreed with Rand on a few of her less philosophical
ideas,
> > such as whether a woman should be President or whether homosexuals are
> > immoral, almost all would tell you that they disagreed with her (though
they
> > would probably try like the dickens to avoid answering the question
because
> > of the reason it was probably being asked). They would probably also
say
> > that their job is to promote Ayn Rand's ideas and not to promote their
own
> > and to pick them apart.
>
> Well, then they're doing a good job. In principle, I have no problem with
> this attitude. As an employer I'd expect the same professionalism from my
> people. But that doesn't mean that I think their product can't be
> criticized where this seems to be necessary.
Of course not, but that's not their job. It is also worth noting that in
his comments regarding the writing of OPAR Leonard came up with a lot of his
own insights on a number of issues which he can't recall Rand ever
mentioning or writing about. He kept a box of these ideas for future books
(one of which he's working on right now) separate from the work he was doing
on OPAR. It isn't that he is opposed to doing new work, it's just that his
project wasn't about that, it was about systematizing what Ayn Rand said.
Now that OPAR is done, he has been more free to work on other things.
> > I know Leonard and the rest of the ARI folks personally and I think
> > that the characterization of their position as dogmatic etc. is
inaccurate
> > and unfair (especially with regard to Leonard).
> I only know that I'm hugely thankful to Dr. Peikoff for writing OPAR.
> Whatever I disagree with in it, its systematic presentation of Rand's
> philosophy is of critical importance for further discussions.
I am too. Are your disagreements significant ones? Are they in regard to
the proper interpretation of what Rand had to say or whether what it said
was actually true?
> But on the
> other hand, I will never forget that he put me down as I tried to publish
> it in Germany some years ago! I still get furious when I recall it.
What did he say and why?
> > > If they stay that way,
> > > they will stagnate forever being a Ayn Rand fan club, where no further
> > > growth is possible -- neither intellectually nor economically.
> > I don't see these as alternative points of view. I like Mark Twain too.
I
> > enjoy his writings a great deal, an I wish I could be as witty as he
was,
> > and sometimes I might be, but I don't see any conflict between promoting
his
> > writings while also thinking about other things too.
> I had some time ago the idea about doing exactly the same with Ayn Rand's
> work and the products from SRB, but I doubt that the ARI folks would
accept
> that in my case, since I showed some sympathies for the Objectivist
> Center...
Probably so, but I think they are right. TOC is downright DETERMINED to
promote revisionist interpretations of what Rand had to say. I wouldn't
trust them to do translations or publication either.
> > I like ARI and support
> > them and I also have some disagreements with Rand's non-philosophical
> > writings (like the woman President thing for example) and some areas
where
> > she was outside her areas of expertise. I also have used and written
some
> > ideas which I would call "derivitive" of Rand's in business and
rhetorical
> > exchanges too. The only reason I can think of for this is a conflict
> > between the desire to capitalize on Rand's fame/movement and the desire
to
> > think independently (or perhaps to cling to ideas contrary to Rand's).
I
> > don't see the two as being in conflict for me, and if I had serious
> > disagreements with Rand I would just say so and there would be a
conflict.
>
> I don't have a problem admitting my disagreements with the Randian canon,
> and I have frequently done so in various newsgroup postings. So there ~is~
> something that is less a desire, but more a ~necessity~ that I see to fix
> some problems in Objectivism.
What is it that you think needs "fixing" in particular? Are those cases
where you think people's interpreations of what Rand said are inaccurate or
cases where you think Rand was wrong?
> While it would be nice to create something on
> my own, I don't have the intention to alter Objectivism for the sake of
> altering, but out of my sheer despair with some unresolved issues which
are
> torturing my mind.
Why does resolving them necessitate changing Objectivism? Why not invent
something new?
> If someone else would provide solutions that are
> acceptable for me, I had no problem devoting my life to promote them. --
> And in regard to "capitalizing on Rand's fame": I heard that already from
> Betsy Speicher and her fans.
Yeah, I know Betsy. She's a real piece of work, but as often as not I think
she's right on the issues. She also dodges them a lot too in favor of
cheerleading and seeking approval.
> As you may have noticed, for Germany this
> claim is simply ridiculous. Almost nobody ever heard from Ayn Rand in this
> country. There is nothing one could "cash in", quite the contrary, much
> effort must be invested to make her work at least known, not to mention
> "popular"!
Of course there is! For example, your publishing company would be a lot
more effective if you got some seed money from ARI and could get the right
to make translations, no?
> > I have a number of friends who know of Rand's work who are sympathetic
> > toward her views (and mine) but who have some differences and therefore
> > don't call themselves Objectivists and we get along just fine. It's the
> > folks who insist on disagreeing with Rand's philosophy AND call their
> > disagreeing ideas "Objectivism" that rubs so many people the wrong way.
> > That said, I find that the anti-ARI folks are willing to accept
literally
> > any kind of nonsense (like say, Chris Sciabarra's writings for example)
as
> > long as they say nice things about Ayn Rand while also disagreeing with
her
> > about something or other (or reinterpreting what she said to the point
of
> > incomprehensibility).
> I don't see it that way. I have the highest respect for Chris Sciabarra
and
> his work.
That's an amazing claim! Have you read his books? I have.
> While his Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical is pretty technical, it
> has done a lot to enhance the perception of Objectivism as genuine
> philosophy that is to be taken seriously in academia.
Why? Because it claims that Rand was yet another modern philosopher? I
thought that his arguments were patently absurd factually, and
methodologically laughable. I can't count the times he made historical
arguments along the lines of "There's no way of knowing whether Rand knew so
and so, and if she did, she might have taken classes with him, and if she
did, perhaps they discussed such and such an idea, and if she did, perhaps
that's where she got the basis of such and such an idea in her own
philosophy." His only goal, it seems to me, is to revise history to put all
of his words into Rand's mouth and claim she never said what she is thought
to have said by all of her other readers. Some writers might benefit from
ferreting out obscure ideas like that, but Rand was pretty clear most of the
time. I don't give any credence to his notion that everyone else has gotten
it wrong except for him.
> And I don't think
> that the people at the Objectivist Center (which you probably meant by
> "anti-ARI folks") are so uncritical that they will accept anything,
> regardless how silly it is.
If they'll accept Sciabarra and Gladstein they will accept anything.
> The difference between the Objectivist Center
> and the ARI rather seems to be, that the latter refuses even to discuss
(or
> at least to acknowledge the existence of) works critical to Ayn Rand and
> traditional Objectivism. This can only lead to intellectual stagnation.
What would "acknowledging" them consist of? They do occasionally criticize
them, is that not acknowledgement? I think that part of the issue is that
they could spend all of their time trying to police the Sciabarras of the
world, but what would that accomplish? They would be giving him all sorts
of free publicity. They would be spending their efforts among people who
already know about Ayn Rand, and they would be specifically addressing
people who, having read Rand, reacted negatively to her. So why do that? I
think they should spend a lot more effort on things like reaching out to the
general public, translating her books into other languages, and promoting
Objectivist students and so on. "Acknowledging" anti-Objectivists seems to
me to be a complete waste of time.
> I don't have the words to describe how false I think this is. Recognizing
and
> incorporating critique is an opportunity to bring a system to perfection.
> ARI is giving this golden opportunity away.
You are plenty free to do that all you like and so am I. I don't see why
ARI itself (which is a lot smaller than most people seem to think) ought to
spending its time on that kind of thing, especially when the "critique" is
of such beligerently stupid quality. Besides, if they spent their time
doing that, wouldn't they be doing exactly what you are claiming they do
today (defending an orthodoxy against whatever new comes along)? What they
do is educate people about what Rand wrote and said. In a certain sense
that's limited because now that she's dead there's no new material to teach
about, but that's not what educational groups do. That's more like what a
"think tank" does. ARI does a very small bit of that kind of thing, but
that's not their main charter.
> > Regarding the actual history of the name you might not have read Rand's
> > discussion of why she chose to call it Objectivism. She said that she
> > thought that the term "Existentialism" would have been a better
description
> > of what she thought the key issue was, but since that was already taken,
she
> > chose the other name.
> I have read about it (as I have almost everything written by Miss Rand).
> > It is certainly true that there was a previously
> > existing idea in modern philosophy called objectivism (though I don't
think
> > it was clear that she was aware of it back then), but it wasn't very
well
> > known and she wasn't claiming that that other set of ideas had anything
to
> > do with hers.
> Neither do I! And it is false to speak of (lower-case letter)
"objectivism"
> in the past tense. It was not "previously existing", but still existing in
> philosophy. And whether you are allowed to "steal" an existing term has
> nothing to do how well it is known or whether one comes up with a clever
> redefinition of it.
I just meant to focus on the fact that it was already a term in circulation
before she used it herself (as opposed to something that came along since
then). Anyway, she didn't "redefine" it. That term is still a useful one
which has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy. The word "dog" can
refer both to the furry pet and to the act of relentlessly chasing after
something. That's not a re-definition, it's just an alternate usage of the
same word.
> > I don't think that the folks who have ideas contrary to
> > Rand's who insist on calling what they have to say "Objectivism" intend
it
> > to be something separate and different. They want to "get in on" some of
the
> > the organization, money, acclaim, and whatever else that Rand's movement
> > generated.
> Not at all. The reasons for using the term "objectivism" (in German it's
> written with a upper-case letter anyway) was explained by me in the
> OCN-post I gave you the link for in my last e-mail. That Ayn Rand used the
> same (already existing) term, and that there are indeed huge parallels
with
> Ayn Rand's Objectivism, is no reason to reject using this valid noun.
Actually, I would call the similarities "superficial", particularly with
regard to scope. Rand used the term to refer to her whole philosophy
covering everything from metaphysics to art. The other definition was a
very narrow notion that didn't address anything else.
> And that doesn't involve "capitalizing" on Ayn Rand's (in Germany
nonexistent)
> fame, etc. Even if I would claim in my (still nonexistent) advertising
that
> her ideas have anything to do with mine, this would do absolutely nothing
> to give me credibility out of the reasons I already mentioned.
As I said, if you could sell a hundred thousand of her books a year that
would seem like "capitalization".
> > Be that as it may, why should such people really care what people like
> > Leonard Peikoff think anyway? Loads of people disagree with Leonard
about
> > most things, so why does it grate on the "objectivish" types that he
doesn't
> > agree with them if not because they want to be part of the movement more
> > than they want to be right?
>
> I don't think so. You're supposing that ARI's movement is the only one
> worth being a part of and that the TOC folks are somehow thinking the same
> way. Neo-Objectivism already became a movement on its own, and one
> consisting of high quality people who surely are no hanger-on's
desperately
> seeking the acceptance of Dr. Peikoff. All I know about this people
> contradicts this view.
Who are the "high quality people" you have in mind? Kelley is probably the
best they have, and it seems that you share some of my criticisms of what he
has to say. I have also never been too thrilled about his terribly obscure
writing style either, but I know that writing dense and obscure prose is
prized in academia, so I can understand why he would want to do that if he
wants to curry favor with them. Anyway, if they didn't crave his
acknowledgement, why is it that they complain so bitterly about his not
giving it to them? Actually, you were complaining about the same thing,
weren't you?
> > I guess I don't understand what it is that you disagree with ARI or Ayn
Rand
> > on, or why you like the other guys. For one thing, the fact that ARI's
goal
> > is to promote Ayn Rand's ideas rather than yours or someone else's
doesn't
> > mean that they don't think you should have any other further ideas.
> I hope so. Even if I wanted, I couldn't stop thinking about philosophical
> issues outside the box of the orthodoxy.
Nobody says you should stop thinking about them (well, not "nobody", but
nobody who is prominent I have heard). One of the critical things matters
in this regard is just how "outside the box" this would be. I mean, if you
are thinking that there ought to be some room for God in Objectivism, or
that Rand was a secret Soviet mole gone wrong, or that Objectivism is all
about the victimization of women and minorities, or that Objectivism is
against motherhood and therefore in need of revision (all of which I have
heard from people...I'm not making them up!), I don't see how that can be
resolved with wat Rand had to say in any reasonable way. Those are quite
different ideas. What's your beef?
> > It's
> > just that whether your ideas are right or wrong, they aren't what ARI is
all
> > about. I don't see that as a problem. Do you? You said that you don't
> > have a problem with the anti-tolerationist point of view that ARI
promotes,
> > so I would think that this would make you reject the "any old idea is
> > compatible with Objectivism as long as you say it with a smile and shake
> > David Kelley's hand" point of view, right?
> Right. Smiling and shaking Dr. Kelley's hand while uttering a idea alone
> doesn't make it valid -- but neither automatically invalid.
Sure, but I have for example, seen Kelley on a stage with a "Libertarian
Socialist" claim that their ideas were "essentially the same" but that they
had a few disagreements on some details. The guy is willing to approve of
literally anything as long as they will approve of him in return.
> > I know those guys like to claim
> > that Leonard and other ARI supporters are of the opinion that nobody is
> > "allowed" to come up with anything new, but that's just not so. I mean,
> > just look at Leonard's writing and speeches for example. Many of them
> > involve clarifying and promoting what Rand had to say.
> "Clarifying and "promoting" is not exactly my idea of "new"...
Well, he has written and spoken on a lot of new stuff as well (such as his
work on induction for example), but Rand left a lot of work unfinished at
her death and he has been busy cleaning house in the past 20 years. I don't
see anything wrong with that at all. I see a LOT wrong with what Sciabarra
and his friends are up to, and that's on three counts. First, because I
think they are factually wrong about their evaluation of what Rand had to
say. Second, because even if Rand said those things, I think they are wrong
and inconsistent with her other ideas. Third, because I think that the
quality of their writing and scholarship are poor.
> > Many also involve
> > his own thinking and his own theories apart from what Rand had to say.
The
> > same is true of the other ARI speakers. How can they say that he/they
don't
> > want people to think for themselves or come up with new ideas?
> Perhaps because these "new" ideas are nothing but Ayn Rand slightly
> rephrased?
Some could be, but the ones that we have been discussing (such as Kelley's
and Sciabarra's) are very far from that.
> > > But I'm still learning,
> > > as does the Objectivist Center. Perhaps the future is to be found
there.
> > I really don't think so. Their essence is not Objectivism, but rather
> > disagreement with some aspect of Objectivism (which part it doesn't
really
> > matter).
> Although I doubt that that's really "their essence", why shouldn't they
> disagree with some aspects of Objectivism, if they are vulnerable to
> logical criticism or even invalidated by empirical counter-evidence?
They shouldn't unless there is in fact valid logical criticism or empirical
counter-evidence. Where there is none, those guys merrily proceed to
generate invalid arguments and imagine counter-evidence.
> > Does that make them devils? Not really. Many of those folks were
> > attracted to objectivish ideas for good reasons, often better than the
> > reasons that attract people to socialist, liberal, or conservative
> > movements, but their opposition to Objectivist ideas is probably more
> > virulent than you hear from the other guys.
> At least their opposition to the Randian orthodoxy seems to be much less
> "virulent" then the one of the rest of the world's population. Nearly
> ~everybody~ in this world is opposed to Rand's ideas! You should be glad
> that the people from The Objectivist Center are opposing them not only
> much, much less then others, but also in a much more knowledgeable and
> benevolent way.
Actually, most people don't understand them and therefore might react
negatively to what they THINK she said (if they only knew what that was and
then knew what it meant). Given the number of false alternatives out there
that people believe in, they dont't generally agree or disagree. Be that as
it may, I find that the TOC folks have a lot less tolerance for real
Objectivists than for Marxists or Libertarians and that results in a lot
more harsh criticism.
> > > In any case, I love this philosophy to much to abandon it without good
reason.
> > > So before any better term comes up, I'll still call myself an
> > > "Objectivist". For the sake of distinguishing my interpretation of it
from
> > > more traditional forms, you can call it GERMAN OBJECTIVISM. I think
that
> > > this is (temporaly) a solution everybody could live with.
> > I suppose, but that doesn't seem to address the question of what you
think
> > of the writings of people like Kelley, Branden, Sciabarra, Goldstein,
and
> > others which diverge from Objectivism. Do you disagree that they
diverge?
> That they diverge from orthodox Randianism? Yes, I agree.
I agree. They do. Sometimes in small ways, often in gigantic ones.
> > That they diverge but are in fact Objectivis[ts] anyway?
> Yes.
That's where I disagree. You could say that they are "friendly to
Objectivism" (though I think that's a rather inaccurate claim, I think they
are rather unfriendly to it in general). You might say that they share some
ideas with Objectivism (that is probably closer to the truth). Or you might
say that they had some ideas similar to Objectivist ones (this might apply
to folks as divergent as free market conservatives or Libertarians). Why
would you claim that someone like Sciabarra is an Objectivist?
> > That they diverge but are right?
> Alas, not nearly as frequent as I wish they would be.
Perhaps we should talk about the subjects on which you think those guys have
a point rather than the political issue of who said what and who gets to be
a "real Objectivist".
> > That they diverge and are wrong on those topics but you still
> > like them anyway for their other ideas?
> That I like them for their open discussion of possible problems in
> Objectivism? Yes, I not only have sympathies for this mindset, for me it
is
> absolutely necessary for a intellectual movement. I'm pro-perfectionsm.
Then why embrace people whom you think are wrong?
> > I'm not asking that because I'm
> > trying to trick you into saying something wrong, it just seems that
there is
> > something missing from what you are telling me about your point of view.
> This is my point of view. I'm a dogmatist for objective truth, not for
dead
> philosophers.
Same here, but I don't see those as being fundamentally opposed. I think
Rand was amazingly right about an amazingly many things. The idea that Rand
and truth are somehow fundamentally opposed seems an odd thing for an
Objectivist to say. I have never said (and neither has any prominent
Objectivist) that one ought to stick by Rand even if she's wrong. The only
people I have ever heard talking about that have been the TOC types as they
accuse Objectivism of calling for that. I would attribute that mainly to
the "syndrome" I mentioned earlier where people with sincere disagreements
with Rand try to repress them in order to be accepted by others interested
in Rand and when that becomes unendurably painful to them, they rebel and
join the opposition and insist that Objectivism forced them to believe
things because of dogmatism or whatever...the usual litany. I think
Objectivism is quite clear on how one ought to regard ideas like this and I
have only seen evidence of this kind of thinking among those destined to
jump over to the TOC camp.
--Brian
#3 (fehlendes Datum)
Objektivismus.de > Yoder
> > Absolutely. I'm currently desperately looking for ways to get some
> > Objectivist material published in German language. We have none of Ayn
> > Rand's nonfiction here! This is absolutely unacceptable, but what
should I
> > do? My publishing operation, which is founded solely for this purpose,
is
> > lacking the funds to get off the ground with Randian materials.
> I agree that various translations really need to get done. If you do
> business with the TOC guys though, I can't imagine that Leonard or ARI is
> going to give you the right to do translations or handle the publication.
That's the problem. I had the idea that they could put up a business entity
in Germany by transferring all German language rights for all ARI and SRB
materials as an investment, and appointing a manager on a profit sharing
basis. Financially, they wouldn't have to loose anything by doing this. The
manager could, as you say the ARI employees are practicing it, market the
materials while keeping his or her personal views on the matter private.
But, fundamentalists as they are, I see no chance that they would agree on
something like this. Imagine an Ayn Rand tome in German language where all
of her non-fiction essays are organized in their proper logical order...
> Well, there must be more that just the two of you, but what you are
telling
> me sounds about like what I had expected...almost no presence at all,
mostly
> accidental readers. Surprisingly enough, it seems that there are a lot of
> people influenced by Rand in India and Israel.
If I ever manage to set up a business structure promoting an objective
philosophy as I imagine, I'd be delighted to see it duplicated and
expanding in Israel! I consider this country being the bridgehead of
Enlightenment... I was recently searching for the keywords "Objectivism" +
"Israel", but I found nothing that indicates that this philosophy is
present there. Are you aware of translations of Objectivist works in
Israel? I'd be interested to learn what they have and how they respond to
Rand's ideas.
I imagine that this has a
> lot to do with the fact that there is a large English-speaking population
in
> both places. In both places they seem to have adopted some strange
cultural
> structures around it though since in both places they are used to the
idea
> of having "gurus" or "rabbis" who lead little groups of the faithful.
It's
> a little strange.
This custom could be used to spread the right ideas. After all,
enlightenment is not about persons who spread them but about rationality.
If you manage to sell Objectivism to people who are not only experienced
but also skilful in promoting a world view, this would do a lot good for
the expansion of this philosophy... and Western culture in general.
Although I'd be a little skeptical about the capacity of already existing
"gurus" to change beyond a certain age...
What do you think a German movement might look like? My
> impression is that Germans have a very strong (at least a lot stronger
than
> Americans do) set of social/cultural pressures to conform to "the norm"
in a
> thousand little ways (dress, customs, language, etc.) and those who are
> "different" seem to have to expend a lot of time, effort, and commitment
to
> do so, so many of them seem to go hard over into strange kinds of
> non-conformism (dressing as strangely as they can, getting strange
haircuts,
> body piercings, rude behaviors, etc.). Do you think that's true? Do you
> think German objectivism would attract a lot of freakish people?
Depends on whether this "freakishness" is just a matter of contemporary
fashion or of a elaborated post-modernist mind-set. It is common for teens
to conform to their peers in being "non-conformist" and slowly maturing out
of it as soon as they start their working life. So I wouldn't be to
concerned about youths with piercings or strange haircuts sitting in my
audience, as long as they show genuine interest. I was also experimenting
as I was young. Being too conservative will only shy away young developing
minds from a valid philosophy, and they'll remember it as grown-ups... as
they will remember a benevolent attitude. Don't forget that today's kids
are tomorrow's leaders in the world.
Coming back to the climate in Germany in general: It is true that Germans
used to be a nation of risk averse people that showed also in such
desirable qualities like preference for reason over emotion, tidiness, and
(self-) discipline. So in theory this would be an excellent cultural
breeding-ground for a pro-reason philosophy like Objectivism. Alas, I'm not
so sure that this is still the case for the new generation. Anyway, the key
to a world view's growth is always some alignment to the currently youth
culture, and as Objectivist I'd be prepared to make a few compromises in
this direction instead of insisting that everybody listens to Rachmaninoff.
;) This attitude in Objectivism is absolutely self-crippling... and it may
die out because of it.
> I don't blame you. I think that everywhere there are a lot of strange
> people along those lines attracted to Objectivism in one way or another.
> Once they start getting involved they realize that there are a great many
> ideas in the philosophy that they completely disagree with. Many of them
> try to suppress their doubts and find that to be rather miserable, so
they
> end up freaking out and go join up with the TOC folks. Have you noticed
this
> "lifecycle" before?
Yes -- with me. But I wouldn't call this increased insight "freaking out".
The better you know a system the more you become aware of its
inconsistencies. That's natural. If people are running away from it, the
reason for it may be rooted in the inflexibility of the system to learn and
to adapt to new findings. I don't know if you have noticed this happening
before. It is quite common for fundamentalist organizations...
> Regarding the "anarchists", they are growing these days and they are
amazing
> for their extreme anti-intellectualism. The Marxists at least had a
Marxist
> ideology to cling to, but these folks just seem like an unhappy rabble
whose
> only common characteristic is that they are unhappy about something or
> other.
Exactly! While I reject the political positions of Marxism, I do have a
deep respect for their desire to base their views on rational reasoning and
to integrate them into a comprehensive, seamless world view, stressing the
contextuality of all knowledge.
> Speaking of that, is there a functioning Libertarian Party in Germany?
> Unlike in the US (where parties that can't get 51% of the vote get no
> representation in the legislature), in Europe small parties can actually
get
> a little political power, but I never hear of anything even remotely
> "objectivish" over there in government.
Well, if you identify "Libertarianism" with classical liberalism or
minarchism, then we do have a political party advocating (inconsistently)
some libertarian ideas: the German FDP (Free Democrats). They are
represented in most parliaments, but they don't seem to have a clue what
principled (classical) liberalism is. I'm glad that they are around, but it
is sometimes painful to listen to their member's misguided speeches. If
"Libertarianism" for you is primarily "anarcho-capitalism", no. We don't
have any here, and they wouldn't have the slightest chance to gain
acceptance. If I'm correct, the FDP has some 100,000 members and a good
reputation in the press. Marketing an objective philosophy to their member
base would be a worthwhile undertaking. Many FDP politicians are in
government functions...
> > I'm sure the reason for it is that we're still lacking
> > German language translations of important Objectivist works -- like
OPAR.
> I'm sure that is a big part of it, although I have a feeling that the
> cultural "ground" is a lot less suitable for growing Objectivist fruit.
Not true. If anything, Germany and Switzerland are the best prospects for a
wide-scale acceptance of a philosophy promoting rationality as a way of
life.
> > No advertising, no marketing
> > campaigns. They do absolutely nothing to promote her work, and I guess
> this
> > will remain the case until the books go out of print one day. It's a
> shame.
> > Besides me, no one is doing anything here.
> I wonder if their translations/publications are illegal. That might
explain
> the lack of real business umph behind the publications. I know from ARI
> that there are a lot of pirate publications out there and I would be
> surprised if they would commission a religious publisher to do the
> translation.
You'll not find a lot of German publishers who would be willing to publish
pirate publications. No, I'm sure that this guy obtained the rights
legally. But he probably lied about his true philosophical beliefs to the
ARI. I can't imagine that they would have accepted him as publisher of
Rand's works either, if they had the full knowledge about his views. He's
also the adherent of an Ethiopian guru! Can you imagine this?! He told me
in an e-mail!
> > In regard to the Czech Republic: I have no clue, but always when I
enter
> > the German word for "Objectivism" in the Google engine, this (Czech)
site
> > shows up in the results list: http://www.aynrand.cz. Nice picture.
That's
> > all I can say... and that they somehow managed to get OPAR published!:
> > www.aynrand.cz/pages/katalog/katalog.html
> Surprising. Again, this could be a pirate translation (they do a lot of
> that stuff over there), though it's a rather "tri-lingual" country
> (Czech/German/English) where consumers can have a lot of influence from
> outside the country. Culturally though, they seem ripe for Objectivist
> ideas. They have been the victims of both Nazi and Communist governments
> and they seem to have a rather freedom-oriented culture that values their
> national heroes for all the right reasons. I just love it over there.
If
> you have not visited Prague, you really should.
I won't make any travels until I've set up a business structure that will
keep the monies rolling in. But as soon as I have some peace of mind, I'll
consider it.
> Of course not, but that's not their job. It is also worth noting that in
> his comments regarding the writing of OPAR Leonard came up with a lot of
his
> own insights on a number of issues which he can't recall Rand ever
> mentioning or writing about. He kept a box of these ideas for future
books
> (one of which he's working on right now) separate from the work he was
doing
> on OPAR. It isn't that he is opposed to doing new work, it's just that
his
> project wasn't about that, it was about systematizing what Ayn Rand said.
> Now that OPAR is done, he has been more free to work on other things.
I'm glad for him.
> > I only know that I'm hugely thankful to Dr. Peikoff for writing OPAR.
> > Whatever I disagree with in it, its systematic presentation of Rand's
> > philosophy is of critical importance for further discussions.
> I am too. Are your disagreements significant ones? Are they in regard
to
> the proper interpretation of what Rand had to say or whether what it said
> was actually true?
The latter. While I don't think that they are, in the overall framework of
Objectivism as I see it, "significant disagreements," for people like Betsy
Speicher they are probably "catastrophic"...
> > But on the
> > other hand, I will never forget that he put me down as I tried to
publish
> > it in Germany some years ago! I still get furious when I recall it.
> What did he say and why?
I can only say what the literary agency in Switzerland said he said: It was
something along the line of me being not a major publishing house or
something similar like this. And I remember that they have said that ~he~
said that.
> > I had some time ago the idea about doing exactly the same with Ayn
Rand's
> > work and the products from SRB, but I doubt that the ARI folks would
> accept
> > that in my case, since I showed some sympathies for the Objectivist
> > Center...
> Probably so, but I think they are right. TOC is downright DETERMINED to
> promote revisionist interpretations of what Rand had to say. I wouldn't
> trust them to do translations or publication either.
I wouldn't trust a Greek Orthodox religionist who's worshipping Ethiopian
Gurus on video! I can't believe that a neo-Objectivist would instruct a
translator to deliberately distort Ayn Rand's words. This view is outright
ridiculous!
> > I don't have a problem admitting my disagreements with the Randian
canon,
> > and I have frequently done so in various newsgroup postings. So there
~is~
> > something that is less a desire, but more a ~necessity~ that I see to
fix
> > some problems in Objectivism.
> What is it that you think needs "fixing" in particular? Are those cases
> where you think people's interpreations of what Rand said are inaccurate
or
> cases where you think Rand was wrong?
Again, the latter -- while I won't deny that some interpretations of what
Rand said may be silly.
> > While it would be nice to create something on
> > my own, I don't have the intention to alter Objectivism for the sake of
> > altering, but out of my sheer despair with some unresolved issues which
> are
> > torturing my mind.
> Why does resolving them necessitate changing Objectivism? Why not invent
> something new?
Reality is not to be "invented" but to be discovered! If you accept the
general Objectivist framework while readjusting, say, 20% to reality, have
you "invented" something new totally different from traditional
Objectivism? Which requires a new name?
Can a philosophy with "reality" in metaphysics, "reason" in epistemology,
"selfishness" in ethics and "capitalism" in politics be something totally
unrelated to Ayn Rand's ideas? I don't see this dichotomy of "changing" and
"inventing" existing as clearly as you do. In our case, every "invention"
is also a "change"... Consider that I'm not intending to embezzle Rand's
authorship here. Assuming we have the situation where I come up with
something that is 80% Ayn Rand and 20% me (or others). Should I give the
whole thing a new name and claim that it is ~not~ Objectivism?
> Yeah, I know Betsy. She's a real piece of work, but as often as not I
think
> she's right on the issues. She also dodges them a lot too in favor of
> cheerleading and seeking approval.
I understand the importance of people like her in a movement...
> > As you may have noticed, for Germany this
> > claim is simply ridiculous. Almost nobody ever heard from Ayn Rand in
this
> > country. There is nothing one could "cash in", quite the contrary, much
> > effort must be invested to make her work at least known, not to mention
> > "popular"!
> Of course there is! For example, your publishing company would be a lot
> more effective if you got some seed money from ARI and could get the
right
> to make translations, no?
Yup. But as I see things, that won't happen anyway, so I'm free to air my
deviating views openly...
> That's an amazing claim! Have you read his books? I have.
Of course I have!
> > While his Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical is pretty technical, it
> > has done a lot to enhance the perception of Objectivism as genuine
> > philosophy that is to be taken seriously in academia.
> Why? Because it claims that Rand was yet another modern philosopher? I
> thought that his arguments were patently absurd factually, and
> methodologically laughable. I can't count the times he made historical
> arguments along the lines of "There's no way of knowing whether Rand knew
so
> and so, and if she did, she might have taken classes with him, and if she
> did, perhaps they discussed such and such an idea, and if she did,
perhaps
> that's where she got the basis of such and such an idea in her own
> philosophy."
I think such a argumentative structure is called "hypothesis"...
His only goal, it seems to me, is to revise history to put all
> of his words into Rand's mouth and claim she never said what she is
thought
> to have said by all of her other readers.
Isn't his what you're doing now called in informal logic the
"intentionalist fallacy"? Instead of speculation about his goals it is
better to stick to the issue of what he said is actually true...
Some writers might benefit from
> ferreting out obscure ideas like that, but Rand was pretty clear most of
the
> time. I don't give any credence to his notion that everyone else has
gotten
> it wrong except for him.
Well, it's now a long time since I read this book, but I'm not aware of him
making this claim (in this form).
> > And I don't think
> > that the people at the Objectivist Center (which you probably meant by
> > "anti-ARI folks") are so uncritical that they will accept anything,
> > regardless how silly it is.
> If they'll accept Sciabarra and Gladstein they will accept anything.
They accept it as basis for discussion. I can say nothing about
Gladstein -- I've never read anything written by her.
> > The difference between the Objectivist Center
> > and the ARI rather seems to be, that the latter refuses even to discuss
> (or
> > at least to acknowledge the existence of) works critical to Ayn Rand
and
> > traditional Objectivism. This can only lead to intellectual stagnation.
> What would "acknowledging" them consist of? They do occasionally
criticize
> them, is that not acknowledgement? I think that part of the issue is
that
> they could spend all of their time trying to police the Sciabarras of the
> world, but what would that accomplish? They would be giving him all
sorts
> of free publicity. They would be spending their efforts among people who
> already know about Ayn Rand, and they would be specifically addressing
> people who, having read Rand, reacted negatively to her. So why do that?
A reason that comes up is building the confidence of their customers that
the ARI is capable of dealing with and refuting critical works. If a bad
book appears, the least what I'd expect from a Randian institute is writing
a good refutation. This would do a great deal for their credibility.
I
> think they should spend a lot more effort on things like reaching out to
the
> general public, translating her books into other languages, and promoting
> Objectivist students and so on.
Yes, of course they should concentrate on their main business purpose
(promoting Rand), only that doesn't mean that one shouldn't lay out the
(alleged) fallacies of new books dealing with one's main product -- Ayn
Rand's ideas.
> > I don't have the words to describe how false I think this is.
Recognizing
> and
> > incorporating critique is an opportunity to bring a system to
perfection.
> > ARI is giving this golden opportunity away.
> You are plenty free to do that all you like and so am I. I don't see why
> ARI itself (which is a lot smaller than most people seem to think) ought
to
> spending its time on that kind of thing, especially when the "critique"
is
> of such beligerently stupid quality. Besides, if they spent their time
> doing that, wouldn't they be doing exactly what you are claiming they do
> today (defending an orthodoxy against whatever new comes along)?
If they're doing it anyway, they can at least do it good. I'm not claiming
that they shouldn't exist, they should only continue doing what they do
without giving the impression of being fundamentalists, especially not of
that sort which engages in refusing to ~read~ critical works on
principle...
What they
> do is educate people about what Rand wrote and said. In a certain sense
> that's limited because now that she's dead there's no new material to
teach
> about, but that's not what educational groups do. That's more like what
a
> "think tank" does. ARI does a very small bit of that kind of thing, but
> that's not their main charter.
I got it.
> > Neither do I! And it is false to speak of (lower-case letter)
> "objectivism"
> > in the past tense. It was not "previously existing", but still existing
in
> > philosophy. And whether you are allowed to "steal" an existing term has
> > nothing to do how well it is known or whether one comes up with a
clever
> > redefinition of it.
> I just meant to focus on the fact that it was already a term in
circulation
> before she used it herself (as opposed to something that came along since
> then). Anyway, she didn't "redefine" it. That term is still a useful
one
> which has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy. [...] That's not a
re-definition, it's just an alternate usage of the > same word.
Then, logically, you should be able to explain to me why only Ayn Rand has
the right for the "alternate usage of the same word" (objectivism).
Besides, I think it ~has~ something to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy. Both
her value theory and her epistemology are (lower-case letter)
"objectivism"!
> > Not at all. The reasons for using the term "objectivism" (in German
it's
> > written with a upper-case letter anyway) was explained by me in the
> > OCN-post I gave you the link for in my last e-mail. That Ayn Rand used
the
> > same (already existing) term, and that there are indeed huge parallels
> with
> > Ayn Rand's Objectivism, is no reason to reject using this valid noun.
> Actually, I would call the similarities "superficial", particularly with
> regard to scope. Rand used the term to refer to her whole philosophy
> covering everything from metaphysics to art. The other definition was a
> very narrow notion that didn't address anything else.
My "other definition" is very narrow, but it is also very essential. And
even my interpretation of Objectivism advocates reality, reason, egoism and
capitalism... I already asked you what you think one should do about a
philosophy that is essentially Rand. If a philosophy shares (say) 80% of
its content with Rand's work, please suggest to me an acceptable new name,
if you can. I'm not saying that I'm totally opposed to call it something
other then "objectivism", but I'm not convinced yet that doing so is
appropriate.
> As I said, if you could sell a hundred thousand of her books a year that
> would seem like "capitalization".
If I could! I'd be surprised if in Germany more then 500 copies of Atlas
and The Fountainhead are sold annually -- combined.
> Who are the "high quality people" you have in mind? Kelley is probably
the
> best they have, and it seems that you share some of my criticisms of what
he
> has to say. I have also never been too thrilled about his terribly
obscure
> writing style either, but I know that writing dense and obscure prose is
> prized in academia, so I can understand why he would want to do that if
he
> wants to curry favor with them. Anyway, if they didn't crave his
> acknowledgement, why is it that they complain so bitterly about his not
> giving it to them? Actually, you were complaining about the same thing,
> weren't you?
Now you're getting nasty. I don't see anybody "bitterly complaining" about
Dr. Peikoff not giving them his acknowledgement. If such people exist at
all, I haven't met them. And I'm not complaining about anything like that
either. I'm complaining about ARI's refusal to ~discuss~ critical works,
even if they refute and condemn them in the process. Making valid, even
harsh, judgments is their right. But that's not the same as out of hand
dismissals. A well founded judgment requires prior analysis. Until now, I
don't see that happen.
> Nobody says you should stop thinking about them (well, not "nobody", but
> nobody who is prominent I have heard). One of the critical things
matters
> in this regard is just how "outside the box" this would be. I mean, if
you
> are thinking that there ought to be some room for God in Objectivism, or
> that Rand was a secret Soviet mole gone wrong, or that Objectivism is all
> about the victimization of women and minorities, or that Objectivism is
> against motherhood and therefore in need of revision (all of which I have
> heard from people...I'm not making them up!), I don't see how that can be
> resolved with wat Rand had to say in any reasonable way.
No! This is bizarre. I already explained to you that my (lower-case
letter?) "objectivism" is pretty the same as traditional Objectivism -- at
least I see it that way.
> > Right. Smiling and shaking Dr. Kelley's hand while uttering a idea
alone
> > doesn't make it valid -- but neither automatically invalid.
> Sure, but I have for example, seen Kelley on a stage with a "Libertarian
> Socialist" claim that their ideas were "essentially the same" but that
they
> had a few disagreements on some details. The guy is willing to approve
of
> literally anything as long as they will approve of him in return.
You mean Kelley??
> > "Clarifying and "promoting" is not exactly my idea of "new"...
> Well, he has written and spoken on a lot of new stuff as well (such as
his
> work on induction for example), but Rand left a lot of work unfinished at
> her death and he has been busy cleaning house in the past 20 years. I
don't
> see anything wrong with that at all.
Neither do I. But that's not the point.
I see a LOT wrong with what Sciabarra
> and his friends are up to, and that's on three counts. First, because I
> think they are factually wrong about their evaluation of what Rand had to
> say. Second, because even if Rand said those things, I think they are
wrong
> and inconsistent with her other ideas. Third, because I think that the
> quality of their writing and scholarship are poor.
Even if all what you say is true, this doesn't mean that it's justified to
reject them as being Objectivists. And it doesn't mean that ~everything~
they have to say is therefore false. If you insist on the Randian meaning
of Objectivism, call them "neo-Objectivists." I'm sure a lot of them are
capable of valid identifications, while at the same time their invalid
identifications help clarifying what is true. So in any way, they are able
of making a intellectual contribution.
> > Perhaps because these "new" ideas are nothing but Ayn Rand slightly
> > rephrased?
> Some could be, but the ones that we have been discussing (such as
Kelley's
> and Sciabarra's) are very far from that.
Kelley is "very far from [Ayn Rand]"? You mean that he introduced
benevolence as another key virtue in Objectivism?
> > Although I doubt that that's really "their essence", why shouldn't they
> > disagree with some aspects of Objectivism, if they are vulnerable to
> > logical criticism or even invalidated by empirical counter-evidence?
> They shouldn't unless there is in fact valid logical criticism or
empirical
> counter-evidence. Where there is none, those guys merrily proceed to
> generate invalid arguments and imagine counter-evidence.
In this hypothetical form, I can nothing but agree...
> > At least their opposition to the Randian orthodoxy seems to be much
less
> > "virulent" then the one of the rest of the world's population. Nearly
> > ~everybody~ in this world is opposed to Rand's ideas! You should be
glad
> > that the people from The Objectivist Center are opposing them not only
> > much, much less then others, but also in a much more knowledgeable and
> > benevolent way.
> Actually, most people don't understand them and therefore might react
> negatively to what they THINK she said (if they only knew what that was
and
> then knew what it meant).
Haven't you said before that Rand has written so clear that it's virtually
impossible to misrepresent her?
Given the number of false alternatives out there
> that people believe in, they dont't generally agree or disagree. Be that
as
> it may, I find that the TOC folks have a lot less tolerance for real
> Objectivists than for Marxists or Libertarians and that results in a lot
> more harsh criticism.
This is absurd! You're not aware of what you're talking of! How can you say
such a thing? Would you prefer a government run by Marxists instead of
neo-Objectivists? Not that I say it will ever happen, but the principle
behind this example should be able to show you how wrong you are!
> > That they diverge from orthodox Randianism? Yes, I agree.
> I agree. They do. Sometimes in small ways, often in gigantic ones.
More gigantic then, say, Marxists?
> > > That they diverge but are in fact Objectivis[ts] anyway?
> > Yes.
> That's where I disagree. You could say that they are "friendly to
> Objectivism" (though I think that's a rather inaccurate claim, I think
they
> are rather unfriendly to it in general). You might say that they share
some
> ideas with Objectivism (that is probably closer to the truth). Or you
might
> say that they had some ideas similar to Objectivist ones (this might
apply
> to folks as divergent as free market conservatives or Libertarians). Why
> would you claim that someone like Sciabarra is an Objectivist?
Because of "reality" in metaphysics, "reason" in epistemology", and
"capitalism" in politics? If you insist in making this distinction, you can
consider him being a neo-Objectivist, but a Objectivist he seems to be.
We're still fighting about the definition of that term, aren't we?
> > > That they diverge but are right?
> > Alas, not nearly as frequent as I wish they would be.
> Perhaps we should talk about the subjects on which you think those guys
have
> a point rather than the political issue of who said what and who gets to
be
> a "real Objectivist".
I agree. Where do you think they ~don't~ have a point? Is it just about
Truth And Toleration? Besides that point, and maybe Sciabarra's work, I
don't see them deviating that much from Randian thought.
> > > That they diverge and are wrong on those topics but you still
> > > like them anyway for their other ideas?
> > That I like them for their open discussion of possible problems in
> > Objectivism? Yes, I not only have sympathies for this mindset, for me
it
> is
> > absolutely necessary for a intellectual movement. I'm pro-perfectionsm.
> Then why embrace people whom you think are wrong?
Because they're in principle willing to show me where ~they~ think
Objectivism may need some improvement. Their open discussion, even if
they're wrong, helps clarifying some problematic issues.
> > This is my point of view. I'm a dogmatist for objective truth, not for
> dead
> > philosophers.
> Same here, but I don't see those as being fundamentally opposed. I think
> Rand was amazingly right about an amazingly many things. The idea that
Rand
> and truth are somehow fundamentally opposed seems an odd thing for an
> Objectivist to say.
That she was "amazingly right" about many things implies that she was
(amazingly?) wrong about the rest. I'm ~not~ saying that Rand and truth are
"fundamentally opposed," but that they are not the same!
I have never said (and neither has any prominent
> Objectivist) that one ought to stick by Rand even if she's wrong.
It should be occasionally tested whether they mean in practice what they
claim in theory...
The only
> people I have ever heard talking about that have been the TOC types as
they
> accuse Objectivism of calling for that. I would attribute that mainly to
> the "syndrome" I mentioned earlier where people with sincere
disagreements
> with Rand try to repress them in order to be accepted by others
interested
> in Rand and when that becomes unendurably painful to them, they rebel and
> join the opposition and insist that Objectivism forced them to believe
> things because of dogmatism or whatever...the usual litany. I think
> Objectivism is quite clear on how one ought to regard ideas like this
[snip]
How?
alexander fürstenberg
#4 (06.02.02)
Yoder > Objektivismus.de
> > > Absolutely. I'm currently desperately looking for ways to get some
> > > Objectivist material published in German language. We have none of Ayn
> > > Rand's nonfiction here! This is absolutely unacceptable, but what
should I
> > > do? My publishing operation, which is founded solely for this purpose,
is
> > > lacking the funds to get off the ground with Randian materials.
> > I agree that various translations really need to get done. If you do
> > business with the TOC guys though, I can't imagine that Leonard or ARI
is
> > going to give you the right to do translations or handle the
publication.
> That's the problem. I had the idea that they could put up a business
entity
> in Germany by transferring all German language rights for all ARI and SRB
> materials as an investment, and appointing a manager on a profit sharing
> basis. Financially, they wouldn't have to loose anything by doing this.
What they would be doing is taking a risk with their crown jewels of course.
If the translations were botched, if the PR were mishandled, if the manager
was to cause some scandal, or what have you, there could be significant
costs indeed.
> The
> manager could, as you say the ARI employees are practicing it, market the
> materials while keeping his or her personal views on the matter private.
> But, fundamentalists as they are, I see no chance that they would agree on
> something like this. Imagine an Ayn Rand tome in German language where all
> of her non-fiction essays are organized in their proper logical order...
If they had someone they could trust to do that (and the spare money, time,
and focus) I could well imagine ARI doing something like that, but don't you
think it would be foolish to rest the success of such an enterprise on
someone who thinks ARI is bad and who doesn't have a proven record in the
publishing business? If the choice were up to me, I'd prefer an established
company run by Christians to that scenario.
> > Well, there must be more that just the two of you, but what you are
telling
> > me sounds about like what I had expected...almost no presence at all,
mostly
> > accidental readers. Surprisingly enough, it seems that there are a lot
of
> > people influenced by Rand in India and Israel.
> If I ever manage to set up a business structure promoting an objective
> philosophy as I imagine, I'd be delighted to see it duplicated and
> expanding in Israel! I consider this country being the bridgehead of
> Enlightenment... I was recently searching for the keywords "Objectivism" +
> "Israel", but I found nothing that indicates that this philosophy is
> present there. Are you aware of translations of Objectivist works in
> Israel? I'd be interested to learn what they have and how they respond to
> Rand's ideas.
There have been some I have seen, but I imagine that most of the Israeli
Objectivists read the books in English. There are a fair number of
Objectivists and pseudo-Objectivists there.
> > I imagine that this has a
> > lot to do with the fact that there is a large English-speaking
population in
> > both places. In both places they seem to have adopted some strange
cultural
> > structures around it though since in both places they are used to the
idea
> > of having "gurus" or "rabbis" who lead little groups of the faithful.
It's
> > a little strange.
> This custom could be used to spread the right ideas.
It could be and to some degree it is, though from what I have seen it is
very often used by the gurus for self-agrandizement and the promotion of
some very strange ideas. In one case I know of, the leader insisted that
the female faithful should all sleep with him (after all, sex is good!) and
that they should sleep with new recruits in order to show them just how good
joining up would be.
> After all, enlightenment is not about persons who spread them but about
rationality.
Your argument seems founded on the idea that everyone who claims to be
rational actually is. Just because someone says "I like Ayn Rand and I
believe in reason, individualism, and capitalism." that doesn't mean that
they do. That's true in spades for people who say "I like 80% of Rand's
philosophy but trust me, I think reason comes in a lot of different flavors
and I want my flavor to get equal billing."
> If you manage to sell Objectivism to people who are not only experienced
> but also skilful in promoting a world view, this would do a lot good for
> the expansion of this philosophy... and Western culture in general.
> Although I'd be a little skeptical about the capacity of already existing
> "gurus" to change beyond a certain age...
Don't you think that people "ecperienced in selling world views" are also
likely to have made some commitments to some kind of world view in their
last job (promoting whatever other world view that may be)?
> What do you think a German movement might look like? My
> > impression is that Germans have a very strong (at least a lot stronger
than
> > Americans do) set of social/cultural pressures to conform to "the norm"
in a
> > thousand little ways (dress, customs, language, etc.) and those who are
> > "different" seem to have to expend a lot of time, effort, and commitment
to
> > do so, so many of them seem to go hard over into strange kinds of
> > non-conformism (dressing as strangely as they can, getting strange
haircuts,
> > body piercings, rude behaviors, etc.). Do you think that's true? Do
you
> > think German objectivism would attract a lot of freakish people?
> Depends on whether this "freakishness" is just a matter of contemporary
> fashion or of a elaborated post-modernist mind-set. It is common for teens
> to conform to their peers in being "non-conformist" and slowly maturing
out
> of it as soon as they start their working life. So I wouldn't be to
> concerned about youths with piercings or strange haircuts sitting in my
> audience, as long as they show genuine interest.
I guess my point was that there are two reasons one might behave that way.
One is that they genuinely like it (not a very common thing as I see it,
especially in Germany). The other is that they do it specifically because
it isn't what everyone else is doing. I was just having a little discussion
with my girlfriend's daughter about this the other day. Conformism is bad,
but irrational rejection of norms is even worse. Such rejection is just as
much a rejection of the idea that you should think for yourself but it has
the additional downside of not benefitting from the fact that at least in
this culture the norms are pretty reasonable choices most of the time so
their opposites are most often bad for you.
> I was also experimenting
> as I was young. Being too conservative will only shy away young developing
> minds from a valid philosophy, and they'll remember it as grown-ups... as
> they will remember a benevolent attitude. Don't forget that today's kids
> are tomorrow's leaders in the world.
I don't think this is either a conservative or a young thing. It's an
independence thing.
> Coming back to the climate in Germany in general: It is true that Germans
> used to be a nation of risk averse people that showed also in such
> desirable qualities like preference for reason over emotion, tidiness, and
> (self-) discipline. So in theory this would be an excellent cultural
> breeding-ground for a pro-reason philosophy like Objectivism.
Those things would point in that direction, but the thing I was referring to
that would seem to make it less fertile is conformism. If being tidy and
rational are parts of what you are supposed to do then a conformist will try
his best to behave that way whether he actually believes it is best or not.
I think that partly explains the cynicism that runs so deep in Europe in
general and Germany in particular. Anyway, when I was there it struck me as
an all-pervading weight driving everything around me. Not oppressive like a
police state exactly...after all, Germany is a pretty tidy and pleasant
place in general, but when I left it was light a breath of fresh air. For a
while I could feel it I didn't quite put my finger on it until I went to a
supermarket and saw several house wives out buying groceries. It was
apparent that they had taken considerable effort to get all dressed up just
to go out for a quart of milk. It wasn't apparently that they felt good
about themselves that made them do this, it was just that "You have to do
this because that's what you are supposed to do." Now, I'm no fan of slobs
going out in public in curlers (which happens much too much in the US) but
watching them was the moment it hit me what it was that had been nagging at
me about how people were acting and why.
> Alas, I'm not
> so sure that this is still the case for the new generation. Anyway, the
key
> to a world view's growth is always some alignment to the currently youth
> culture, and as Objectivist I'd be prepared to make a few compromises in
> this direction instead of insisting that everybody listens to
Rachmaninoff.
> ;) This attitude in Objectivism is absolutely self-crippling... and it may
> die out because of it.
I know that there are people like that out there, but it's hardly common and
certainly not from any of the ARI employees or the majow supporters (well,
maybe Gary Hull a little). The people I have heard nonsense like that from
are the kind who I described earlier who usually end up freaking out and
joining up with David Kelley. This idea that the ARI promotes the kind of
conformist nonsense you are describing is a strawman invented by the TOC
folks, not a point of view promoted by ARI or Leonard Peikoff, or by me.
That said, the ARI does publish Rand's writings on music and I think there's
a lot of good artistic analysis in those writings, but anyone who looks at
them and says "You are not an Objectivist if you don't like Rachmaninoff."
or "You don't love life if you don't like Rachmaninoff." or "There's
something wrong with you if you don't like Rachmaninoff." or anything like
that is wrong, and not taking Ayn Rand's position, and not an Objectivist.
Personally I like his music and have since long before I had ever heard of
Rand, though I'd say I am more of a Mahler fan these days.
The upshot of this is that you seem to be saying that you don't agree with
ARI or Leonard or someone or other because you claim that they insist that
you like Rachmaninoff, yet in fact they don't say that, and in fact, if
someone did say so they would certainly denounce the idea. So tell me again
why this is a rational reaction?
> > I don't blame you. I think that everywhere there are a lot of strange
> > people along those lines attracted to Objectivism in one way or another.
> > Once they start getting involved they realize that there are a great
many
> > ideas in the philosophy that they completely disagree with. Many of
them
> > try to suppress their doubts and find that to be rather miserable, so
they
> > end up freaking out and go join up with the TOC folks. Have you noticed
this
> > "lifecycle" before?
>
> Yes -- with me. But I wouldn't call this increased insight "freaking out".
An increased insight? How is it an increased insight when you imagine all
of these forces doing this bad thing to you when you did it to yourself in
opposition to the claims of those people and institutions.
> The better you know a system the more you become aware of its
> inconsistencies. That's natural. If people are running away from it, the
> reason for it may be rooted in the inflexibility of the system to learn
and
> to adapt to new findings. I don't know if you have noticed this happening
> before. It is quite common for fundamentalist organizations...
But the system never told you that you had to repress your actual beliefs.
To the contrary, it told you not to do that.
Perhaps I could get a little more insight into this if you were a little
more specific about what this 20% of Objectivism it is that you disagree
with. Do you still want to believe in the afterlife? Support anarchy? Are
you anti-abortion? Do you think we need a mini-welfare-state? Do you like
Jackson Pollack? Heavy metal? Satanism? Feminism? Hegel? I have run
into people who insisted that Ayn Rand was nice but was wrong on one of
these issues or the other. Are you one of them? How would you recommend
that such people be dealt with?
> > Speaking of that, is there a functioning Libertarian Party in Germany?
> > Unlike in the US (where parties that can't get 51% of the vote get no
> > representation in the legislature), in Europe small parties can actually
get
> > a little political power, but I never hear of anything even remotely
> > "objectivish" over there in government.
> Well, if you identify "Libertarianism" with classical liberalism or
> minarchism, then we do have a political party advocating (inconsistently)
> some libertarian ideas: the German FDP (Free Democrats). They are
> represented in most parliaments, but they don't seem to have a clue what
> principled (classical) liberalism is. I'm glad that they are around, but
it
> is sometimes painful to listen to their member's misguided speeches. If
> "Libertarianism" for you is primarily "anarcho-capitalism", no. We don't
> have any here, and they wouldn't have the slightest chance to gain
> acceptance.
I guess I meant a combination of both. About ten years ago I went to a
Libertarian World Conference to see whether Peter Schwartz's accusations
were accurate (I was inclined to think not going in the door), and what I
found was a really varied collection of characters. Something like a third
of the people there were farily reasonable folks with whom I had a fair
amount of common ground, though we might have a few marginal differences.
About another third were various kinds of anarchist/nihilist types just as
disgusting as Peter had described. The other third were the most amazing
mix of every kind of "politically homeless" people I have ever seen. There
were UFO people, pro-hemp folks, pro-abortion and anti-abortion ones,
pro-LSD folks, pro-mushroom people, conspiracy theorists, Marxists,
socialists, bigfoot hunters, evangelical atheists, evangelical Christians,
satanists, environmentalists, and who knows what else. My impression is
that there isn't that Europe doesn't have much in the way of Libertarians of
that kind. Just some Christian-Democrats and some small free market
oriented parties.
> If I'm correct, the FDP has some 100,000 members and a good
> reputation in the press. Marketing an objective philosophy to their member
> base would be a worthwhile undertaking. Many FDP politicians are in
> government functions...
Would that be the number of votes they get in elections or their total
member base or the number of people who registered with the party or the
number who find them appealing?
> > > I'm sure the reason for it is that we're still lacking
> > > German language translations of important Objectivist works -- like
OPAR.
> > I'm sure that is a big part of it, although I have a feeling that the
> > cultural "ground" is a lot less suitable for growing Objectivist fruit.
> Not true. If anything, Germany and Switzerland are the best prospects for
a
> wide-scale acceptance of a philosophy promoting rationality as a way of
> life.
I hope you are right, but I suspect that the opposite is true. For one
thing, look at the bad philosophical and political movements of the past few
hundred years. They all seem to have strong roots in Germany. No? Why do
you think that is? Just bad luck?
> > > No advertising, no marketing
> > > campaigns. They do absolutely nothing to promote her work, and I guess
this
> > > will remain the case until the books go out of print one day. It's a
shame.
> > > Besides me, no one is doing anything here.
> > I wonder if their translations/publications are illegal. That might
explain
> > the lack of real business umph behind the publications. I know from ARI
> > that there are a lot of pirate publications out there and I would be
> > surprised if they would commission a religious publisher to do the
> > translation.
> You'll not find a lot of German publishers who would be willing to publish
> pirate publications. No, I'm sure that this guy obtained the rights
> legally. But he probably lied about his true philosophical beliefs to the
> ARI. I can't imagine that they would have accepted him as publisher of
> Rand's works either, if they had the full knowledge about his views. He's
> also the adherent of an Ethiopian guru! Can you imagine this?! He told me
> in an e-mail!
An etheopian guru? How strange.
> > I am too. Are your disagreements significant ones? Are they in regard
to
> > the proper interpretation of what Rand had to say or whether what it
said
> > was actually true?
>
> The latter. While I don't think that they are, in the overall framework of
> Objectivism as I see it, "significant disagreements," for people like
Betsy
> Speicher they are probably "catastrophic"...
Well out with it then, what are they?
> > > But on the
> > > other hand, I will never forget that he put me down as I tried to
publish
> > > it in Germany some years ago! I still get furious when I recall it.
>
> > What did he say and why?
>
> I can only say what the literary agency in Switzerland said he said: It
was
> something along the line of me being not a major publishing house or
> something similar like this. And I remember that they have said that ~he~
> said that.
I can understand why you might be disappointed, but I can certainly
understand why he would want to use a major publisher rather than a little
company with (presumably) no experience or connections. Were you in his
position could you not imagine arriving at the same conclusion?
> > > I had some time ago the idea about doing exactly the same with Ayn
Rand's
> > > work and the products from SRB, but I doubt that the ARI folks would
accept
> > > that in my case, since I showed some sympathies for the Objectivist
> > > Center...
> > Probably so, but I think they are right. TOC is downright DETERMINED to
> > promote revisionist interpretations of what Rand had to say. I wouldn't
> > trust them to do translations or publication either.
> I wouldn't trust a Greek Orthodox religionist who's worshipping Ethiopian
> Gurus on video! I can't believe that a neo-Objectivist would instruct a
> translator to deliberately distort Ayn Rand's words. This view is outright
> ridiculous!
On the contrary, I would be shocked if they didn't. You need look no
farther than Chris Sciabarra to find someone determined to deliberately
misinterpret Rand's point of view. Even if his point of view is 100% right
(and I know he isn't), there's no way that his interpretation of what Rand
said is anything like what she intended. Can you just imagine what she
would say if she were still alive about his nonsense?
> > > I don't have a problem admitting my disagreements with the Randian
canon,
> > > and I have frequently done so in various newsgroup postings. So there
~is~
> > > something that is less a desire, but more a ~necessity~ that I see to
fix
> > > some problems in Objectivism.
>
> > What is it that you think needs "fixing" in particular? Are those cases
> > where you think people's interpreations of what Rand said are inaccurate
or
> > cases where you think Rand was wrong?
> Again, the latter -- while I won't deny that some interpretations of what
> Rand said may be silly.
Like what in particular?
> > > While it would be nice to create something on
> > > my own, I don't have the intention to alter Objectivism for the sake
of
> > > altering, but out of my sheer despair with some unresolved issues
which are
> > > torturing my mind.
>
> > Why does resolving them necessitate changing Objectivism? Why not
invent
> > something new?
>
> Reality is not to be "invented" but to be discovered! If you accept the
> general Objectivist framework while readjusting, say, 20% to reality, have
> you "invented" something new totally different from traditional
> Objectivism? Which requires a new name?
Well, a chimp "adjusted" by 1% is a human being. The question is what 20%.
If someone were to keep all the same ideas but write them down with
different words and using different examples, I guess you could say they
were the same thing, but somehow I don't think that's what you are getting
at. In fact, it would seem that you are being careful to not be specific
about what that 20% is. The way this argument generally goes (from the
non-Objectivist folks) that anyone who claims to be in favor of reality,
reason, egoism, and capitalism is OK no matter quite what they mean by these
things and what else they also believe. I think that's wrong, both because
you can't be said to agree with or not agree with such an amorphous thing
and because it defines out of existence any particular philosophy. You
might say that various philosophies are similar, but why muddy the waters by
asserting that clearly different points of view are somehow the same thing?
> Can a philosophy with "reality" in metaphysics, "reason" in epistemology,
> "selfishness" in ethics and "capitalism" in politics be something totally
> unrelated to Ayn Rand's ideas?
Of course they can. Ever hear of Neo-Tech? Extropianism?
> I don't see this dichotomy of "changing" and
> "inventing" existing as clearly as you do.
I didn't mean to imply a great deal with that particular word choice.
Whether one "discovers" a fact, "creates" a systematic way of thinking about
it, or "invents" and approach to dealing with it, those are pretty much
synonymous in the context I was discussing. I guess my point is that a
bunch of ideas about this topic were organized by someone and one's own
ideas can be the same, different, similar, or opposed to such a collection
of ideas.
> In our case, every "invention"
> is also a "change"... Consider that I'm not intending to embezzle Rand's
> authorship here. Assuming we have the situation where I come up with
> something that is 80% Ayn Rand and 20% me (or others). Should I give the
> whole thing a new name and claim that it is ~not~ Objectivism?
Sure, why not? You might say that it is "similar to Objectivism" or that
you like Objectivism too, but it's not the same thing.
> > Yeah, I know Betsy. She's a real piece of work, but as often as not I
think
> > she's right on the issues. She also dodges them a lot too in favor of
> > cheerleading and seeking approval.
>
> I understand the importance of people like her in a movement...
You mean movements need "annoying pollyanna cheerleaders"? ;-)
> > > As you may have noticed, for Germany this
> > > claim is simply ridiculous. Almost nobody ever heard from Ayn Rand in
this
> > > country. There is nothing one could "cash in", quite the contrary,
much
> > > effort must be invested to make her work at least known, not to
mention
> > > "popular"!
> > Of course there is! For example, your publishing company would be a lot
> > more effective if you got some seed money from ARI and could get the
right
> > to make translations, no?
>
> Yup. But as I see things, that won't happen anyway, so I'm free to air my
> deviating views openly...
But you would have secretly hidden your disagreements otherwise? I thought
you said that you had learned your lesson about repressing your
disagreements?
> > That's an amazing claim! Have you read his books? I have.
>
> Of course I have!
So for example, when he claims that Rand was a Hegelian and that she opposed
dichotomies as a result what would you call that? It has been a while since
I read the book, but if you insist I can go collect some quotes. That's
false (Rand was NOT a Hegelian and not opposed to dichotomies), obviously
false (it's not some subtle issue that would be hard for anyone to see in
her writings), and if it were true, it would be a horribly mistaken
philosophy she was advocating (for reasons that would take more time to
outline that I want to spend here).
> > > While his Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical is pretty technical, it
> > > has done a lot to enhance the perception of Objectivism as genuine
> > > philosophy that is to be taken seriously in academia.
What it has done is create a whole lot of people who have mistaken notions
of what Rand said. I am sure that if someone wrote that Rand advocated
communism that would make her a lot more popular in academia too. Perhaps
you think a book on that topic would be a good idea too?
> > Why? Because it claims that Rand was yet another modern philosopher? I
> > thought that his arguments were patently absurd factually, and
> > methodologically laughable. I can't count the times he made historical
> > arguments along the lines of "There's no way of knowing whether Rand
knew so
> > and so, and if she did, she might have taken classes with him, and if
she
> > did, perhaps they discussed such and such an idea, and if she did,
perhaps
> > that's where she got the basis of such and such an idea in her own
> > philosophy."
> I think such a argumentative structure is called "hypothesis"...
What do you call a hypothesis for which there is next to no foundation and
which proceeds to go on for several steps for which there is not even a
shred of evidence? What about when there's a mountain of counter-evidence
which gets conveniently left out of the analysis (like Rand's explicit
statements to the contrary for example)?
> > His only goal, it seems to me, is to revise history to put all
> > of his words into Rand's mouth and claim she never said what she is
thought
> > to have said by all of her other readers.
>
> Isn't his what you're doing now called in informal logic the
> "intentionalist fallacy"? Instead of speculation about his goals it is
> better to stick to the issue of what he said is actually true...
It's only a fallacy if I use it in an attempt to prove his claims are false.
What I was doing is summarizing my conclusions about him and his writings,
not trying to prove those conclusions are right. Doing that would require
that I go get my copy of the book, find some good quotes and demonstrate
that what I think is true. I just can't believe that you could think that
his book was anything other than garbage of the worst kind.
> > Some writers might benefit from
> > ferreting out obscure ideas like that, but Rand was pretty clear most of
the
> > time. I don't give any credence to his notion that everyone else has
gotten
> > it wrong except for him.
>
> Well, it's now a long time since I read this book, but I'm not aware of
him
> making this claim (in this form).
The form in his case was more like "Up until now nobody has noticed that
Rand was a Hegelian, but I'll show that they all got it wrong and I'll prove
it by the use of lengthy and esoteric historical analysis and patently
irrational chains of unproven (and perhaps unprovable) hypotheses."
> > > And I don't think
> > > that the people at the Objectivist Center (which you probably meant by
> > > "anti-ARI folks") are so uncritical that they will accept anything,
> > > regardless how silly it is.
> > If they'll accept Sciabarra and Gladstein they will accept anything.
> They accept it as basis for discussion. I can say nothing about
> Gladstein -- I've never read anything written by her.
Check out her book on Rand and Feminism. It's just as ludicrous as
Sciabarra's books.
> > > The difference between the Objectivist Center
> > > and the ARI rather seems to be, that the latter refuses even to
discuss (or
> > > at least to acknowledge the existence of) works critical to Ayn Rand
and
> > > traditional Objectivism. This can only lead to intellectual
stagnation.
> > What would "acknowledging" them consist of? They do occasionally
criticize
> > them, is that not acknowledgement? I think that part of the issue is
that
> > they could spend all of their time trying to police the Sciabarras of
the
> > world, but what would that accomplish? They would be giving him all
sorts
> > of free publicity. They would be spending their efforts among people
who
> > already know about Ayn Rand, and they would be specifically addressing
> > people who, having read Rand, reacted negatively to her. So why do
that?
> A reason that comes up is building the confidence of their customers that
> the ARI is capable of dealing with and refuting critical works. If a bad
> book appears, the least what I'd expect from a Randian institute is
writing
> a good refutation. This would do a great deal for their credibility.
The volume of errors in a book like Sciabarra's is gigantic. Refuting it in
depth would take nearly as much work as writing a book, and it would shift
the attention of the organization and the public impact of the Institute
>from promoting Rand's work and toward helping idiots like Sciabarra promote
their own odd notions. Now, if George Will or Mortimer Adler or Bill
O'Reilly wrote a book critical of Objectivism I think there might well be
some value in someone over there doing something like that (since they
already have an audience and could do some harm on their own if not
responded to), but given the limited energies and resources toward writing
another book or sponsoring another scholarship or holding another lecture on
what Rand actually said rather than responding to cranks. You should
remember too, that the charter of ARI is not to be a think tank or to go out
and defend some orthodoxy against all comers. In fact, you seem to be both
condemning it for doing so and for not doing so at the same time. On the
one hand you claim that they are dogmatic and insist that everyone conform
to their ideas on the one hand and on the other you criticize them for not
going out and arguing with any idiot with a word processor every time he
feels like making up some nonsense about Objectivism.
If you think that's worth doing though, why not put your money where your
mouth is and spend your time and money defending Objectivism against anyone
who comes along with some criticism of it? Perhaps you should go out and
refute Sciabarra, Kelley, Gladstein, Hospers, and the rest for the next few
years? Does that sound like a productive way to spend your time?
> > I think they should spend a lot more effort on things like reaching out
to the
> > general public, translating her books into other languages, and
promoting
> > Objectivist students and so on.
> Yes, of course they should concentrate on their main business purpose
> (promoting Rand), only that doesn't mean that one shouldn't lay out the
> (alleged) fallacies of new books dealing with one's main product -- Ayn
> Rand's ideas.
Why give them the added publicity by doing that?
> > > I don't have the words to describe how false I think this is.
Recognizing and
> > > incorporating critique is an opportunity to bring a system to
perfection.
> > > ARI is giving this golden opportunity away.
>
> > You are plenty free to do that all you like and so am I. I don't see
why
> > ARI itself (which is a lot smaller than most people seem to think) ought
to
> > spending its time on that kind of thing, especially when the "critique"
is
> > of such beligerently stupid quality. Besides, if they spent their time
> > doing that, wouldn't they be doing exactly what you are claiming they do
> > today (defending an orthodoxy against whatever new comes along)?
>
> If they're doing it anyway, they can at least do it good. I'm not claiming
> that they shouldn't exist, they should only continue doing what they do
> without giving the impression of being fundamentalists, especially not of
> that sort which engages in refusing to ~read~ critical works on
> principle...
What exactly do they do that makes them seem "fundamentalist"? What does
that even mean? The act like they think they are right, if that's what you
mean. I know that rubs some people the wrong way, but I don't see any
reason to change that. As for refusing to read critical works, I certainly
don't do that, but I must say that in retrospect, other than getting some
good material for debating with those people, most of those books are so
tied up with misunderstandings, alternate agendas, and poor thinking that I
generally don't learn much from them in terms of good new information. Some
of the biographical works (from the Brandens for example) are different in
this regard since there's some evidently reliable information of a
historical nature, but I'm not all that fascinated by Ayn and Frank's
stuffed animal collections (etc.) so that information isn't all that
significant either. The lone exception I can think of to this was a book I
read many years back called "An Answer to Ayn Rand" written by some
Christian apologist. I of course didn't agree with him, but I at least
thought his aruments were mostly sincere and mostly at least superficially
well formed. I have a feeling though that there were never more than a
couple of thousand of those books printed.
> > > Neither do I! And it is false to speak of (lower-case letter)
"objectivism"
> > > in the past tense. It was not "previously existing", but still
existing in
> > > philosophy. And whether you are allowed to "steal" an existing term
has
> > > nothing to do how well it is known or whether one comes up with a
clever
> > > redefinition of it.
> > I just meant to focus on the fact that it was already a term in
circulation
> > before she used it herself (as opposed to something that came along
since
> > then). Anyway, she didn't "redefine" it. That term is still a useful
one
> > which has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy. [...] That's not a
> re-definition, it's just an alternate usage of the > same word.
> Then, logically, you should be able to explain to me why only Ayn Rand has
> the right for the "alternate usage of the same word" (objectivism).
Because the differences are clear and because the word was never in terribly
wide circulation outside (or even inside for that matter) of academia.
Nobody is likely to be confused by the difference between the two. That
would not have been the case had she picked "Existentialism" for example.
If you came along and developed a philosophical point of view and decided to
call it "Vampirism" it woudln't be too easily confused with the mythical
affliction that involves drinking blood even though that term had been used
to mean something else in the past. On the other hand, if you picked some
popular point of view, say "Christianity" and claimed that your new
philosophy was both "Christianity" and also disagreed with Christianity.
What would such a name choice gain you?
> Besides, I think it ~has~ something to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy. Both
> her value theory and her epistemology are (lower-case letter)
> "objectivism"!
I would say that there are some similarities with some versions of pre-Rand
"objectivism", but they weren't the same in detail and that was an almost
unknown little sub-sect in the modern managerie. Isn't this an odd little
linguistic game to be wasting time on anyway?
> > > Not at all. The reasons for using the term "objectivism" (in German
it's
> > > written with a upper-case letter anyway) was explained by me in the
> > > OCN-post I gave you the link for in my last e-mail. That Ayn Rand used
the
> > > same (already existing) term, and that there are indeed huge parallels
with
> > > Ayn Rand's Objectivism, is no reason to reject using this valid noun.
>
> > Actually, I would call the similarities "superficial", particularly with
> > regard to scope. Rand used the term to refer to her whole philosophy
> > covering everything from metaphysics to art. The other definition was a
> > very narrow notion that didn't address anything else.
>
> My "other definition" is very narrow, but it is also very essential. And
> even my interpretation of Objectivism advocates reality, reason, egoism
and
> capitalism... I already asked you what you think one should do about a
> philosophy that is essentially Rand. If a philosophy shares (say) 80% of
> its content with Rand's work, please suggest to me an acceptable new name,
> if you can. I'm not saying that I'm totally opposed to call it something
> other then "objectivism", but I'm not convinced yet that doing so is
> appropriate.
How could I name it without knowing what the other 20% is and how it relates
to the real thing?
> > Who are the "high quality people" you have in mind? Kelley is probably
the
> > best they have, and it seems that you share some of my criticisms of
what he
> > has to say. I have also never been too thrilled about his terribly
obscure
> > writing style either, but I know that writing dense and obscure prose is
> > prized in academia, so I can understand why he would want to do that if
he
> > wants to curry favor with them. Anyway, if they didn't crave his
> > acknowledgement, why is it that they complain so bitterly about his not
> > giving it to them? Actually, you were complaining about the same thing,
> > weren't you?
>
> Now you're getting nasty. I don't see anybody "bitterly complaining" about
> Dr. Peikoff not giving them his acknowledgement.
That's all the the TOC folks seem to talk about. I wish they would get over
it. They disagree with various things Rand said. So what, lots of people
do. It just seems to bother them more than the other guys do because they
wish she would have agreed with them rather than whatever it was that she
herself said. Too bad. Get over it.
> If such people exist at all, I haven't met them.
Maybe you don't see many of the same people I do living here in the US, but
I have seen hundreds and hundreds of them. Kelley and Sciabarra are among
the more famous ones.
> And I'm not complaining about anything like that
> either. I'm complaining about ARI's refusal to ~discuss~ critical works,
> even if they refute and condemn them in the process. Making valid, even
> harsh, judgments is their right. But that's not the same as out of hand
> dismissals. A well founded judgment requires prior analysis. Until now, I
> don't see that happen.
Who in particular are you talking about? ARI isn't a person after all. I
could imagine that if one of those guys were to write a serious book someone
friendly to ARI might well review it or take it apart, but I don't think
that these pathetic revisionist works by unknowns are worth the trouble.
> > Nobody says you should stop thinking about them (well, not "nobody", but
> > nobody who is prominent I have heard). One of the critical things
matters
> > in this regard is just how "outside the box" this would be. I mean, if
you
> > are thinking that there ought to be some room for God in Objectivism, or
> > that Rand was a secret Soviet mole gone wrong, or that Objectivism is
all
> > about the victimization of women and minorities, or that Objectivism is
> > against motherhood and therefore in need of revision (all of which I
have
> > heard from people...I'm not making them up!), I don't see how that can
be
> > resolved with wat Rand had to say in any reasonable way.
> No! This is bizarre. I already explained to you that my (lower-case
> letter?) "objectivism" is pretty the same as traditional Objectivism -- at
> least I see it that way.
Not really. You have pretty consistently avoided saying what that
"different 20%" is in your case. Do you not think it matters? Or do you
think that whatever it is would be so unacceptable that it would invalidate
the rest of this?
> > > Right. Smiling and shaking Dr. Kelley's hand while uttering a idea
alone
> > > doesn't make it valid -- but neither automatically invalid.
> > Sure, but I have for example, seen Kelley on a stage with a "Libertarian
> > Socialist" claim that their ideas were "essentially the same" but that
they
> > had a few disagreements on some details. The guy is willing to approve
of
> > literally anything as long as they will approve of him in return.
> You mean Kelley??
Yes.
> > I see a LOT wrong with what Sciabarra
> > and his friends are up to, and that's on three counts. First, because I
> > think they are factually wrong about their evaluation of what Rand had
to
> > say. Second, because even if Rand said those things, I think they are
wrong
> > and inconsistent with her other ideas. Third, because I think that the
> > quality of their writing and scholarship are poor.
> Even if all what you say is true, this doesn't mean that it's justified to
> reject them as being Objectivists. And it doesn't mean that ~everything~
> they have to say is therefore false. If you insist on the Randian meaning
> of Objectivism, call them "neo-Objectivists." I'm sure a lot of them are
> capable of valid identifications, while at the same time their invalid
> identifications help clarifying what is true. So in any way, they are able
> of making a intellectual contribution.
Capability is one thing, interest is something else entirely. I think there
are some marginal folks whose errors I am willing to put up with such as
George Reisman and Harry Binswanger for example. I don't think Sciabarra is
even close to that category and I would say that Kelley is somewhere in the
middle.
> > > Perhaps because these "new" ideas are nothing but Ayn Rand slightly
> > > rephrased?
>
> > Some could be, but the ones that we have been discussing (such as
Kelley's
> > and Sciabarra's) are very far from that.
>
> Kelley is "very far from [Ayn Rand]"? You mean that he introduced
> benevolence as another key virtue in Objectivism?
That's one example, sure, though perhaps one of the modest sized ones since
at least benevolence (of a sort) is something she advocated. Tolerance and
nominalism on the other hand are much worse because she advocated the
opposite in both cases.
> > > At least their opposition to the Randian orthodoxy seems to be much
less
> > > "virulent" then the one of the rest of the world's population. Nearly
> > > ~everybody~ in this world is opposed to Rand's ideas! You should be
glad
> > > that the people from The Objectivist Center are opposing them not only
> > > much, much less then others, but also in a much more knowledgeable and
> > > benevolent way.
> > Actually, most people don't understand them and therefore might react
> > negatively to what they THINK she said (if they only knew what that was
and
> > then knew what it meant).
> Haven't you said before that Rand has written so clear that it's virtually
> impossible to misrepresent her?
No, I said that she wrote clearly and her points were generally pretty clear
and direct. No matter how clear and direct one is, it is possible to
misrepresent what one says, especially among people who have not read your
books. It is also apparently pretty easy for people to delude themselves
into believing even what clearly written books say.
> Given the number of false alternatives out there
> > that people believe in, they dont't generally agree or disagree. Be
that as
> > it may, I find that the TOC folks have a lot less tolerance for real
> > Objectivists than for Marxists or Libertarians and that results in a lot
> > more harsh criticism.
> This is absurd! You're not aware of what you're talking of! How can you
say
> such a thing? Would you prefer a government run by Marxists instead of
> neo-Objectivists? Not that I say it will ever happen, but the principle
> behind this example should be able to show you how wrong you are!
I didn't say I would rather ave a Marxist government, I said that the
criticisms they have for Objectivists is much more virulent than the
criticism they have for Marxists. I don't think that if they asked you
whether Leonard Peikoff was worse than Stalin they would say he was, but I
can't recall any of them getting upset at Stalin or writing long analyses of
his misdeeds either.
> > > That they diverge from orthodox Randianism? Yes, I agree.
>
> > I agree. They do. Sometimes in small ways, often in gigantic ones.
> More gigantic then, say, Marxists?
No.
> > > > That they diverge but are in fact Objectivis[ts] anyway?
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > That's where I disagree. You could say that they are "friendly to
> > Objectivism" (though I think that's a rather inaccurate claim, I think
they
> > are rather unfriendly to it in general). You might say that they share
some
> > ideas with Objectivism (that is probably closer to the truth). Or you
might
> > say that they had some ideas similar to Objectivist ones (this might
apply
> > to folks as divergent as free market conservatives or Libertarians).
Why
> > would you claim that someone like Sciabarra is an Objectivist?
>
> Because of "reality" in metaphysics, "reason" in epistemology", and
> "capitalism" in politics? If you insist in making this distinction, you
can
> consider him being a neo-Objectivist, but a Objectivist he seems to be.
> We're still fighting about the definition of that term, aren't we?
In part, but also about who we consider to be "on our side". I don't think
that Kelley and Sciabarra are.
> I agree. Where do you think they ~don't~ have a point? Is it just about
> Truth And Toleration? Besides that point, and maybe Sciabarra's work, I
> don't see them deviating that much from Randian thought.
I do. They also diverge a whole lot more when they think nobody is looking,
so that brings into question the sincerity of what they say "on the record".
> > Then why embrace people whom you think are wrong?
>
> Because they're in principle willing to show me where ~they~ think
> Objectivism may need some improvement. Their open discussion, even if
> they're wrong, helps clarifying some problematic issues.
That doesn't require that you "embrace" them. It just means that you at
least give them some thought. I read C.S. Lewis, Christopher Hitchens,
William Buckley, Khomeini, and Noam Chomsky (as long as I can stand him
anyway) for that very reason. Heck, I read Kelley and Sciabarra too, though
I get a lot more out of the other guys. I have "open discussions"
too...like this one. I just don't spend all my time of that stuff. Should
I?
> > > This is my point of view. I'm a dogmatist for objective truth, not for
dead
> > > philosophers.
> > Same here, but I don't see those as being fundamentally opposed. I
think
> > Rand was amazingly right about an amazingly many things. The idea that
Rand
> > and truth are somehow fundamentally opposed seems an odd thing for an
> > Objectivist to say.
>
> That she was "amazingly right" about many things implies that she was
> (amazingly?) wrong about the rest. I'm ~not~ saying that Rand and truth
are
> "fundamentally opposed," but that they are not the same!
I don't think they are by definition the same either. No Objectivist would.
> > I have never said (and neither has any prominent
> > Objectivist) that one ought to stick by Rand even if she's wrong.
>
> It should be occasionally tested whether they mean in practice what they
> claim in theory...
What do you mean by that? Who is "they"?
> > The only
> > people I have ever heard talking about that have been the TOC types as
they
> > accuse Objectivism of calling for that. I would attribute that mainly
to
> > the "syndrome" I mentioned earlier where people with sincere
disagreements
> > with Rand try to repress them in order to be accepted by others
interested
> > in Rand and when that becomes unendurably painful to them, they rebel
and
> > join the opposition and insist that Objectivism forced them to believe
> > things because of dogmatism or whatever...the usual litany. I think
> > Objectivism is quite clear on how one ought to regard ideas like this
> [snip]
> How?
To refrain from repressing your beliefs in order to appeal to the demands on
a peer group (in this case, Objectivists) and to rationally discover the
truth and stick by it. Often times the guys involved in this syndrome
violate both of these ideas, and then they blame Objectivism for it and have
better feelings toward those who support the philosophy. It's all a very
strange syndrome, but I have seen it happen again and again.
--Brian
#5 (fehlendes Datum)
Objektivismus.de
> Yoder
> > That's the problem. I had the idea that they could put up a business
> entity
> > in Germany by transferring all German language rights for all ARI and
SRB
> > materials as an investment, and appointing a manager on a profit
sharing
> > basis. Financially, they wouldn't have to loose anything by doing this.
> What they would be doing is taking a risk with their crown jewels of
course.
> If the translations were botched, if the PR were mishandled, if the
manager
> was to cause some scandal, or what have you, there could be significant
> costs indeed.
Agreed, there's more about it then just financial risks. On the other hand,
in my model this risk would be limited, since ARI would be either the main
shareholder or the sole owner of the company, so that it would keep full
control over its (intellectual) property. Managers, like other employees,
can be fired if they are endangering the profitability or another purpose
of the operation. Setting up a German Ayn Rand Institute would require much
besides some minor investments and finding a good marketing professional.
> > The
> > manager could, as you say the ARI employees are practicing it, market
the
> > materials while keeping his or her personal views on the matter
private.
> > But, fundamentalists as they are, I see no chance that they would agree
on
> > something like this. Imagine an Ayn Rand tome in German language where
all
> > of her non-fiction essays are organized in their proper logical
order...
> If they had someone they could trust to do that (and the spare money,
time,
> and focus) I could well imagine ARI doing something like that, but don't
you
> think it would be foolish to rest the success of such an enterprise on
> someone who thinks ARI is bad and who doesn't have a proven record in the
> publishing business? If the choice were up to me, I'd prefer an
established
> company run by Christians to that scenario.
I wouldn't. To market Objectivism in Europe would require a business entity
focusing solely on this purpose with somebody managing it who has no major
ideological disagreements with the owner -- the latter would rule out
Christians and other religionists, however competent they may be as
managers.
> > If I ever manage to set up a business structure promoting an objective
> > philosophy as I imagine, I'd be delighted to see it duplicated and
> > expanding in Israel! I consider this country being the bridgehead of
> > Enlightenment... I was recently searching for the keywords
"Objectivism" +
> > "Israel", but I found nothing that indicates that this philosophy is
> > present there. Are you aware of translations of Objectivist works in
> > Israel? I'd be interested to learn what they have and how they respond
to
> > Rand's ideas.
> There have been some I have seen, but I imagine that most of the Israeli
> Objectivists read the books in English. There are a fair number of
> Objectivists and pseudo-Objectivists there.
To establish a system of though requires much more then just a few books.
English language editions won't do the job in foreign countries. The needed
customer loyalty cannot be generated by books alone, especially not with
books in languages foreign to locals.
> > This custom could be used to spread the right ideas.
> It could be and to some degree it is, though from what I have seen it is
> very often used by the gurus for self-agrandizement and the promotion of
> some very strange ideas. In one case I know of, the leader insisted that
> the female faithful should all sleep with him (after all, sex is good!)
and
> that they should sleep with new recruits in order to show them just how
good
> joining up would be.
Does it work?
> Your argument seems founded on the idea that everyone who claims to be
> rational actually is. Just because someone says "I like Ayn Rand and I
> believe in reason, individualism, and capitalism." that doesn't mean that
> they do. That's true in spades for people who say "I like 80% of Rand's
> philosophy but trust me, I think reason comes in a lot of different
flavors
> and I want my flavor to get equal billing."
Like me, I guess?
> Don't you think that people "ecperienced in selling world views" are also
> likely to have made some commitments to some kind of world view in their
> last job (promoting whatever other world view that may be)?
Yes, sure. But if it is a commitment based on (faulty) reasoning, it can be
"overwritten" by a rational refutation and subsequent "re-installation."
> I guess my point was that there are two reasons one might behave that
way.
> One is that they genuinely like it (not a very common thing as I see it,
> especially in Germany). The other is that they do it specifically
because
> it isn't what everyone else is doing. I was just having a little
discussion
> with my girlfriend's daughter about this the other day. Conformism is
bad,
> but irrational rejection of norms is even worse. Such rejection is just
as
> much a rejection of the idea that you should think for yourself but it
has
> the additional downside of not benefitting from the fact that at least in
> this culture the norms are pretty reasonable choices most of the time so
> their opposites are most often bad for you.
You "guess"? Teens ~do~ genuinely like individuating themselves from their
parent's generation. This initiatory rites for adolescents are a part of
human nature. I see no way preventing this from happening. Of course you
are right with the irrational rejection of proven norms, but you should
consider that youthful rebelliousness is itself a norm in human life.
> I don't think this is either a conservative or a young thing. It's an
> independence thing.
What teens are trying to establish by their behaviors is exactly
independence. It is not to be belittled just because they are doing it in
groups. See it as temporary interest group for independence based on age.
> > Coming back to the climate in Germany in general: It is true that
Germans
> > used to be a nation of risk averse people that showed also in such
> > desirable qualities like preference for reason over emotion, tidiness,
and
> > (self-) discipline. So in theory this would be an excellent cultural
> > breeding-ground for a pro-reason philosophy like Objectivism.
> Those things would point in that direction, but the thing I was referring
to
> that would seem to make it less fertile is conformism. If being tidy and
> rational are parts of what you are supposed to do then a conformist will
try
> his best to behave that way whether he actually believes it is best or
not.
What is of importance that it actually ~is~ the best. A wrong motive (like
conformism) doesn't automatically invalidate the outcome of an action. With
greater insight over time wrong motives can be detected and replaced by
good ones. I wouldn't be too concerned about this issue.
> I think that partly explains the cynicism that runs so deep in Europe in
> general and Germany in particular. Anyway, when I was there it struck me
as
> an all-pervading weight driving everything around me. Not oppressive
like a
> police state exactly...after all, Germany is a pretty tidy and pleasant
> place in general, but when I left it was light a breath of fresh air.
For a
> while I could feel it I didn't quite put my finger on it until I went to
a
> supermarket and saw several house wives out buying groceries. It was
> apparent that they had taken considerable effort to get all dressed up
just
> to go out for a quart of milk. It wasn't apparently that they felt good
> about themselves that made them do this, it was just that "You have to do
> this because that's what you are supposed to do."
I don't care for the reasons why a woman tries to look good as long as she
does it. If the reason for doing the right thing is being afraid of doing
the wrong thing that's fine with me.
> > Alas, I'm not
> > so sure that this is still the case for the new generation. Anyway, the
> key
> > to a world view's growth is always some alignment to the currently
youth
> > culture, and as Objectivist I'd be prepared to make a few compromises
in
> > this direction instead of insisting that everybody listens to
> Rachmaninoff.
> > ;) This attitude in Objectivism is absolutely self-crippling... and it
may
> > die out because of it.
> I know that there are people like that out there, but it's hardly common
and
> certainly not from any of the ARI employees or the majow supporters
(well,
> maybe Gary Hull a little). The people I have heard nonsense like that
from
> are the kind who I described earlier who usually end up freaking out and
> joining up with David Kelley.
If you care to know -- your use of the expression of "freaking out" in the
context of the TOC becomes annoying!
> This idea that the ARI promotes the kind of
> conformist nonsense you are describing is a strawman invented by the TOC
> folks, not a point of view promoted by ARI or Leonard Peikoff, or by me.
> That said, the ARI does publish Rand's writings on music and I think
there's
> a lot of good artistic analysis in those writings, but anyone who looks
at
> them and says "You are not an Objectivist if you don't like
Rachmaninoff."
> or "You don't love life if you don't like Rachmaninoff." or "There's
> something wrong with you if you don't like Rachmaninoff." or anything
like
> that is wrong, and not taking Ayn Rand's position, and not an
Objectivist.
Wasn't it Ayn Rand herself who frequently said things like this?! I don't
think this is an invention by the TOC.
> The upshot of this is that you seem to be saying that you don't agree
with
> ARI or Leonard or someone or other because you claim that they insist
that
> you like Rachmaninoff, yet in fact they don't say that, and in fact, if
> someone did say so they would certainly denounce the idea. So tell me
again
> why this is a rational reaction?
Why what is a rational reaction? You mean mine? You've represented it false
anyway. I was neither claiming that the ARI or Leonard Peikoff insist on
liking Rachmaninoff nor saying that I disagree with them out of this reason
(alone).
> > Yes -- with me. But I wouldn't call this increased insight "freaking
out".
> An increased insight? How is it an increased insight when you imagine
all
> of these forces doing this bad thing to you when you did it to yourself
in
> opposition to the claims of those people and institutions.
What "forces" are you talking about? I have a pretty good sense of
self-determination. And how do you think I would consider an increased
insight "a bad thing"?
> > The better you know a system the more you become aware of its
> > inconsistencies. That's natural. If people are running away from it,
the
> > reason for it may be rooted in the inflexibility of the system to learn
> and
> > to adapt to new findings. I don't know if you have noticed this
happening
> > before. It is quite common for fundamentalist organizations...
> But the system never told you that you had to repress your actual
beliefs.
> To the contrary, it told you not to do that.
Who said that I was repressing my beliefs? Yes, I had a transitory phase of
doubts I wasn't able to talk about to anybody, but since I was aware of
them, I wouldn't call this "repression".
> Perhaps I could get a little more insight into this if you were a little
> more specific about what this 20% of Objectivism it is that you disagree
> with. Do you still want to believe in the afterlife? Support anarchy?
Are
> you anti-abortion? Do you think we need a mini-welfare-state? Do you
like
> Jackson Pollack? Heavy metal? Satanism? Feminism? Hegel?
Who the heck is Jackson Pollack? And "no" to all of the above -- with some
exceptions for some brands of Satanism, and to dialectics as contextualism.
And I believe they may be some directions in heavy metal with an acceptable
sense-of-life message -- but I'm no expert to make a definitive statement
in regard to this issue.
> I have run
> into people who insisted that Ayn Rand was nice but was wrong on one of
> these issues or the other. Are you one of them? How would you recommend
> that such people be dealt with?
Talk, think, decide -- if it seems worthwhile. What else should I
recommend? It depends on how promising a prospect looks like. The
experience in dealing with people will tell you pretty fast if they are
open to rational reasoning or whether you're wasting your time on a lost
soul. Whether an action is rational or not depends on the nature of your
goal.
> > Well, if you identify "Libertarianism" with classical liberalism or
> > minarchism, then we do have a political party advocating
(inconsistently)
> > some libertarian ideas: the German FDP (Free Democrats). They are
> > represented in most parliaments, but they don't seem to have a clue
what
> > principled (classical) liberalism is. I'm glad that they are around,
but
> it
> > is sometimes painful to listen to their member's misguided speeches. If
> > "Libertarianism" for you is primarily "anarcho-capitalism", no. We
don't
> > have any here, and they wouldn't have the slightest chance to gain
> > acceptance.
> I guess I meant a combination of both.
Nope. Nothing like this.
> About ten years ago I went to a
> Libertarian World Conference to see whether Peter Schwartz's accusations
> were accurate (I was inclined to think not going in the door), and what I
> found was a really varied collection of characters. Something like a
third
> of the people there were farily reasonable folks with whom I had a fair
> amount of common ground, though we might have a few marginal differences.
> About another third were various kinds of anarchist/nihilist types just
as
> disgusting as Peter had described. The other third were the most amazing
> mix of every kind of "politically homeless" people I have ever seen.
There
> were UFO people, pro-hemp folks, pro-abortion and anti-abortion ones,
> pro-LSD folks, pro-mushroom people, conspiracy theorists, Marxists,
> socialists, bigfoot hunters, evangelical atheists, evangelical
Christians,
> satanists, environmentalists, and who knows what else. My impression is
> that there isn't that Europe doesn't have much in the way of Libertarians
of
> that kind. Just some Christian-Democrats and some small free market
> oriented parties.
Yes, we would indeed need such a party. But restricting it to hard-core
anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work. It had to be "gradualist" without ruling
"anarcho-capitalism" out, but focusing on more realistic, minarchist goals.
> > If I'm correct, the FDP has some 100,000 members and a good
> > reputation in the press. Marketing an objective philosophy to their
member
> > base would be a worthwhile undertaking. Many FDP politicians are in
> > government functions...
> Would that be the number of votes they get in elections or their total
> member base or the number of people who registered with the party or the
> number who find them appealing?
I deduced the number from the circulation of their monthly paper every
member automatically gets. The actual membership is probably less then
100,000, and to receive more then 5% in an election which is necessary to
get into the parliaments much more then 100,000 votes are needed. And I
think even more people find them appealing but don't vote for them out of
pragmatic reasons. I'm sure the FDP has the exact statistical numbers for
each of this questions.
> > Not true. If anything, Germany and Switzerland are the best prospects
for
> a
> > wide-scale acceptance of a philosophy promoting rationality as a way of
> > life.
> I hope you are right, but I suspect that the opposite is true. For one
> thing, look at the bad philosophical and political movements of the past
few
> hundred years. They all seem to have strong roots in Germany. No? Why
do
> you think that is? Just bad luck?
No. It is because thorough thinking almost necessarily results in
radicalism.
> > You'll not find a lot of German publishers who would be willing to
publish
> > pirate publications. No, I'm sure that this guy obtained the rights
> > legally. But he probably lied about his true philosophical beliefs to
the
> > ARI. I can't imagine that they would have accepted him as publisher of
> > Rand's works either, if they had the full knowledge about his views.
He's
> > also the adherent of an Ethiopian guru! Can you imagine this?! He told
me
> > in an e-mail!
> An etheopian guru? How strange.
Yes, much stranger then a neo-Objectivist...
> > The latter. While I don't think that they are, in the overall framework
of
> > Objectivism as I see it, "significant disagreements," for people like
> Betsy
> > Speicher they are probably "catastrophic"...
> Well out with it then, what are they?
As you ask me, I realize that I should systematically summarize my
objections. What comes to mind presently are these issues: (Metaphysics)
the false rejection of materialism, determinism, and AI, the false
dichotomy of man-made versus metaphysically given; (Epistemology) the false
dichotomy of reason versus force in the receiver perspective; (Meta-Ethics)
the false interpretation of "man qua man" rationality, seeing one's own
life instead of happiness as the ultimate value, the omission to take
"family" and procreation as important values into account; (Ethics) the
absolutist view of the "harmony of interests" where other people's
rationality is always in one's own self-interest, the absolutist adherence
to respecting rights, the false dichotomy of reason versus force in the
transmitter perspective, the omission of class interests; etc. As I said,
I'd have to summarize and systemize it one day. Probably I can come up with
some additional points I left out.
> > I can only say what the literary agency in Switzerland said he said: It
> was
> > something along the line of me being not a major publishing house or
> > something similar like this. And I remember that they have said that
~he~
> > said that.
> I can understand why you might be disappointed, but I can certainly
> understand why he would want to use a major publisher rather than a
little
> company with (presumably) no experience or connections. Were you in his
> position could you not imagine arriving at the same conclusion?
Not in this case. Giving some kind of restricted license, I'd rather have
my book (OPAR) published by somebody then by nobody. When I see that people
are driven by idealism, I'd at least give them a fair hearing and see what
can be done. Nothing like this happened. A reason might be that the
literary agency sensed that there is not much of a royalty to earn.
However, if the ARI were indeed interested in spreading the word, they
could have offered to pay off that relatively small sum.
> > > Probably so, but I think they are right. TOC is downright DETERMINED
to
> > > promote revisionist interpretations of what Rand had to say. I
wouldn't
> > > trust them to do translations or publication either.
> > I wouldn't trust a Greek Orthodox religionist who's worshipping
Ethiopian
> > Gurus on video! I can't believe that a neo-Objectivist would instruct a
> > translator to deliberately distort Ayn Rand's words. This view is
outright
> > ridiculous!
> On the contrary, I would be shocked if they didn't.
Should I laugh or should I take you serious? You would be "shocked" if they
didn't?!
> You need look no
> farther than Chris Sciabarra to find someone determined to deliberately
> misinterpret Rand's point of view. Even if his point of view is 100%
right
> (and I know he isn't), there's no way that his interpretation of what
Rand
> said is anything like what she intended. Can you just imagine what she
> would say if she were still alive about his nonsense?
First, if his point of view ~is~ 100% right in determining what Rand
actually said, it doesn't matter what Rand ~intended~ saying nor what she
would say if she were still alive. In principle it is possible to discover
new aspects in the work of a thinker he wasn't aware of himself. Second, I
see no reason why Chris Sciabarra should be "determined" to deliberately
misrepresenting Rand's work. You should be able to explain this wild
accusation before you expect me to buy it.
> > Again, the latter -- while I won't deny that some interpretations of
what
> > Rand said may be silly.
> Like what in particular?
Where she was wrong? I wrote about that above.
> > > Why does resolving them necessitate changing Objectivism? Why not
> invent
> > > something new?
> > Reality is not to be "invented" but to be discovered! If you accept the
> > general Objectivist framework while readjusting, say, 20% to reality,
have
> > you "invented" something new totally different from traditional
> > Objectivism? Which requires a new name?
> Well, a chimp "adjusted" by 1% is a human being. The question is what
20%.
I already gave you a hint what that might be.
> If someone were to keep all the same ideas but write them down with
> different words and using different examples, I guess you could say they
> were the same thing, but somehow I don't think that's what you are
getting
> at. In fact, it would seem that you are being careful to not be specific
> about what that 20% is.
I was today as specific about it as I could be in our context.
> The way this argument generally goes (from the
> non-Objectivist folks) that anyone who claims to be in favor of reality,
> reason, egoism, and capitalism is OK no matter quite what they mean by
these
> things and what else they also believe. I think that's wrong, both
because
> you can't be said to agree with or not agree with such an amorphous thing
> and because it defines out of existence any particular philosophy.
What do you mean with the expression "defining out of existence"?
> You
> might say that various philosophies are similar, but why muddy the waters
by
> asserting that clearly different points of view are somehow the same
thing?
Because the POSITIONS arrived at -- reality, reason, egoism and
capitalism -- are the same thing as in traditional Objectivism... the
(slightly) different argumentative ways to arriving at them
notwithstanding.
> > Can a philosophy with "reality" in metaphysics, "reason" in
epistemology,
> > "selfishness" in ethics and "capitalism" in politics be something
totally
> > unrelated to Ayn Rand's ideas?
> Of course they can. Ever hear of Neo-Tech? Extropianism?
While neither of them is a full "philosophy", the basic writings of
Neo-Tech are clearly based on Ayn Rand's Objectivism. And, currently,
Extropianism is just a technological vision with a bunch of systematically
unrelated beliefs.
> > I don't see this dichotomy of "changing" and
> > "inventing" existing as clearly as you do.
> I didn't mean to imply a great deal with that particular word choice.
But factually you did! You set up the spurious dichotomy of "changing
Objectivism" versus "inventing something new".
> Whether one "discovers" a fact, "creates" a systematic way of thinking
about
> it, or "invents" and approach to dealing with it, those are pretty much
> synonymous in the context I was discussing. I guess my point is that
[if] a
> bunch of ideas about this topic were organized by someone and one's own
> ideas can be the same, different, similar, or opposed to such a
collection
> of ideas.
You are confused.
> > In our case, every "invention"
> > is also a "change"... Consider that I'm not intending to embezzle
Rand's
> > authorship here. Assuming we have the situation where I come up with
> > something that is 80% Ayn Rand and 20% me (or others). Should I give
the
> > whole thing a new name and claim that it is ~not~ Objectivism?
> Sure, why not? You might say that it is "similar to Objectivism" or
that
> you like Objectivism too, but it's not the same thing.
Do you know what happens when I do so? Scores of people will jump up and
cry that I'm plagiarizing Ayn Rand.
> > I understand the importance of people like her in a movement...
> You mean movements need "annoying pollyanna cheerleaders"? ;-)
Yes, I do.
> > Yup. But as I see things, that won't happen anyway, so I'm free to air
my
> > deviating views openly...
> But you would have secretly hidden your disagreements otherwise? I
thought
> you said that you had learned your lesson about repressing your
> disagreements?
That I was "repressing" anything was your invention, and not based on
anything I said. But if my job were promoting a product, I wouldn't defraud
my employer by criticizing it in front of my customers.
> So for example, when he claims that Rand was a Hegelian and that she
opposed
> dichotomies as a result what would you call that? It has been a while
since
> I read the book, but if you insist I can go collect some quotes.
If you expect me to evaluate and comment your claims, I'm afraid that I
indeed have to insist on you collecting some quotes. It's been a while
since I read it too.
> > > > While his Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical is pretty technical, it
> > > > has done a lot to enhance the perception of Objectivism as genuine
> > > > philosophy that is to be taken seriously in academia.
> What it has done is create a whole lot of people who have mistaken
notions
> of what Rand said.
Not true. Sciabarra clearly states that this is his interpretation of what
she said, not that she was actually intending to say it.
> I am sure that if someone wrote that Rand advocated
> communism that would make her a lot more popular in academia too.
Perhaps
> you think a book on that topic would be a good idea too?
You shouldn't make fun of me. Such a bizarre claim had to be
well-founded -- which I'm sure it can't.
> > I think such a argumentative structure is called "hypothesis"...
> What do you call a hypothesis for which there is next to no foundation
and
> which proceeds to go on for several steps for which there is not even a
> shred of evidence?
Rationalism.
> What about when there's a mountain of counter-evidence
> which gets conveniently left out of the analysis (like Rand's explicit
> statements to the contrary for example)?
Stupidity.
> > Isn't his what you're doing now called in informal logic the
> > "intentionalist fallacy"? Instead of speculation about his goals it is
> > better to stick to the issue of what he said is actually true...
> It's only a fallacy if I use it in an attempt to prove his claims are
false.
While you're not doing this technically, you seem to speculate that it has
an effect by a default on my part to recognize this fallacy. You have given
this statement for a reason. I don't like this reason.
> What I was doing is summarizing my conclusions about him and his
writings,
> not trying to prove those conclusions are right.
Then why "summarize" such irrelevant conclusions at all?
> Doing that would require
> that I go get my copy of the book, find some good quotes and demonstrate
> that what I think is true.
Indeed.
> I just can't believe that you could think that
> his book was anything other than garbage of the worst kind.
I just can't believe that you have the guts telling me this after all I
have said in this regard. It is certainly not garbage, especially not "of
the worst kind." On the contrary, he has analyzed some aspects of
Objectivism that had gone unnoticed before.
> > > Some writers might benefit from
> > > ferreting out obscure ideas like that, but Rand was pretty clear most
of
> the
> > > time. I don't give any credence to his notion that everyone else has
> gotten
> > > it wrong except for him.
> > Well, it's now a long time since I read this book, but I'm not aware of
> him
> > making this claim (in this form).
> The form in his case was more like "Up until now nobody has noticed that
> Rand was a Hegelian, but I'll show that they all got it wrong and I'll
prove
> it by the use of lengthy and esoteric historical analysis and patently
> irrational chains of unproven (and perhaps unprovable) hypotheses."
"Up until now nobody has noticed" is not the same as "everyone else has
gotten it wrong". That his analysis is lengthy and somewhat esoteric may be
true (most academics have this writing style), but I reject the notion that
it is a "patently irrational" chain of unprovable hypothesis.
> > > > And I don't think
> > > > that the people at the Objectivist Center (which you probably meant
by
> > > > "anti-ARI folks") are so uncritical that they will accept anything,
> > > > regardless how silly it is.
> > > If they'll accept Sciabarra and Gladstein they will accept anything.
> > They accept it as basis for discussion. I can say nothing about
> > Gladstein -- I've never read anything written by her.
> Check out her book on Rand and Feminism. It's just as ludicrous as
> Sciabarra's books.
Even if Gladstein's book ~is~ "ludicrous", that still doesn't mean that the
TOC people will accept or praise it uncritically. And I'm aware of the TOC
viewing Sciabara's interpretation of Rand with some reservations either.
> > A reason that comes up is building the confidence of their customers
that
> > the ARI is capable of dealing with and refuting critical works. If a
bad
> > book appears, the least what I'd expect from a Randian institute is
> writing
> > a good refutation. This would do a great deal for their credibility.
> The volume of errors in a book like Sciabarra's is gigantic. Refuting it
in
> depth would take nearly as much work as writing a book, and it would
shift
> the attention of the organization and the public impact of the Institute
> >from promoting Rand's work and toward helping idiots like Sciabarra
promote
> their own odd notions.
I protest calling Sciabarra an idiot! And you don't have to refute a book
by responding to every single line in it. It is enough to focus on the main
points.
> Now, if George Will or Mortimer Adler or Bill
> O'Reilly wrote a book critical of Objectivism I think there might well be
> some value in someone over there doing something like that (since they
> already have an audience and could do some harm on their own if not
> responded to), but given the limited energies and resources toward
writing
> another book or sponsoring another scholarship or holding another lecture
on
> what Rand actually said rather than responding to cranks.
While some may be, not everybody writing critically on Rand is a "crank".
For example Nyquist's recent book on her is in my eyes a valid (although
too polemical) critique of traditional Objectivism, but until now I have
seen not a single review of it by any of the institutes.
> You should
> remember too, that the charter of ARI is not to be a think tank or to go
out
> and defend some orthodoxy against all comers. In fact, you seem to be
both
> condemning it for doing so and for not doing so at the same time. On the
> one hand you claim that they are dogmatic and insist that everyone
conform
> to their ideas on the one hand and on the other you criticize them for
not
> going out and arguing with any idiot with a word processor every time he
> feels like making up some nonsense about Objectivism.
You're building up a false alternative that doesn't reflect my views on the
matter accurately. I have nothing against them defending the orthodoxy, but
I expect them to do it right, i.e. engaging in intellectual debate, and not
in the equivalent of book burning.
> If you think that's worth doing though, why not put your money where your
> mouth is and spend your time and money defending Objectivism against
anyone
> who comes along with some criticism of it? Perhaps you should go out and
> refute Sciabarra, Kelley, Gladstein, Hospers, and the rest for the next
few
> years? Does that sound like a productive way to spend your time?
Not in the context of my personal life, but it may be a productive way to
spend one's time for a institute dealing with these ideas. My definition of
"institute" contains not only "teaching" but also "research". If they are
not a genuine institute in the academic sense, why don't they call
themselves "Ayn Rand Fan Club" instead? This would be closer to the truth.
> > Yes, of course they should concentrate on their main business purpose
> > (promoting Rand), only that doesn't mean that one shouldn't lay out the
> > (alleged) fallacies of new books dealing with one's main product -- Ayn
> > Rand's ideas.
> Why give them the added publicity by doing that?
In a controversy all parties concerned with this matter gain publicity. The
side who is right will profit from it. If the ARI is confident about its
position, it can only gain public approval.
> > If they're doing it anyway, they can at least do it good. I'm not
claiming
> > that they shouldn't exist, they should only continue doing what they do
> > without giving the impression of being fundamentalists, especially not
of
> > that sort which engages in refusing to ~read~ critical works on
> > principle...
> What exactly do they do that makes them seem "fundamentalist"? What does
> that even mean? The act like they think they are right, if that's what
you
> mean. I know that rubs some people the wrong way, but I don't see any
> reason to change that.
No, with "fundamentalism" I don't mean an attitude of certainty, but the
refusal to deal with critique to protect one's faith (in a person or
personified power). I may have used the wrong word to describe what I was
thinking about. I had "dogmatism" in mind.
> As for refusing to read critical works, I certainly
> don't do that, but I must say that in retrospect, other than getting some
> good material for debating with those people, most of those books are so
> tied up with misunderstandings, alternate agendas, and poor thinking that
I
> generally don't learn much from them in terms of good new information.
It's part of the job of a institute promoting ideas to engage in debating!
> The lone exception I can think of to this was a book I
> read many years back called "An Answer to Ayn Rand" written by some
> Christian apologist. I of course didn't agree with him, but I at least
> thought his aruments were mostly sincere and mostly at least
superficially
> well formed. I have a feeling though that there were never more than a
> couple of thousand of those books printed.
A "couple of thousands"?! For Objectivism it's really not that much, you
know that. I'm glad you had the experience of profiting from a critical
book, and I'm sure you can have it again. I can't stress enough how
important I think it is for an idea system to regularly analyze and
incorporate criticisms against it.
> > Then, logically, you should be able to explain to me why only Ayn Rand
has
> > the right for the "alternate usage of the same word" (objectivism).
> Because the differences are clear and because the word was never in
terribly
> wide circulation outside (or even inside for that matter) of academia.
The differences to what? To the prior usage of this term? If anything, I
can only count that as counter-argument for the position you stated. So if
the differences are big enough, I'm free to redefine a term? This is
absurd! And how wide the circulation of a term is has nothing to do whether
I'm entitled to use it "alternatively". If I identified a totally new
concept, I'd rather invent a neologism for it. Rand didn't.
> Nobody is likely to be confused by the difference between the two.
In Germany ~everybody~ is confused by the difference between "Objectivism"
and "objectivism", since only the latter is known... and can't be
differentiated by capitalization anyway.
> That
> would not have been the case had she picked "Existentialism" for example.
> If you came along and developed a philosophical point of view and decided
to
> call it "Vampirism" it woudln't be too easily confused with the mythical
> affliction that involves drinking blood even though that term had been
used
> to mean something else in the past. On the other hand, if you picked
some
> popular point of view, say "Christianity" and claimed that your new
> philosophy was both "Christianity" and also disagreed with Christianity.
> What would such a name choice gain you?
In this hypothetical case, nothing, since it would be a contradiction. I
don't see this being the case with my views on "objectivism" and
"Objectivism." As I said, I'm not totally opposed to call it something
different (like German Objectivism for example), but I'm not convinced
about their ~fundamental~ difference. If I would indeed chose another name,
I would do this primarily out of intellectual property considerations.
> > Besides, I think it ~has~ something to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy.
Both
> > her value theory and her epistemology are (lower-case letter)
> > "objectivism"!
> I would say that there are some similarities with some versions of
pre-Rand
> "objectivism", but they weren't the same in detail and that was an almost
> unknown little sub-sect in the modern managerie. Isn't this an odd
little
> linguistic game to be wasting time on anyway?
No! As I see it, (lower-case letter) objectivism is A PART of (upper-case
letter) Objectivism! Rand's Objectivism is in no way contradictory to these
traditional usages, it only ~adds~ something what shouldn't have been added
in the first place (without giving it a new name).
> > My "other definition" is very narrow, but it is also very essential.
And
> > even my interpretation of Objectivism advocates reality, reason, egoism
> and
> > capitalism... I already asked you what you think one should do about a
> > philosophy that is essentially Rand. If a philosophy shares (say) 80%
of
> > its content with Rand's work, please suggest to me an acceptable new
name,
> > if you can. I'm not saying that I'm totally opposed to call it
something
> > other then "objectivism", but I'm not convinced yet that doing so is
> > appropriate.
> How could I name it without knowing what the other 20% is and how it
relates
> to the real thing?
Now you know. There was a time when I was toying with "Expansionism", but
then I would have done what Rand did...
> > Now you're getting nasty. I don't see anybody "bitterly complaining"
about
> > Dr. Peikoff not giving them his acknowledgement.
> That's all the the TOC folks seem to talk about. I wish they would get
over
> it. They disagree with various things Rand said. So what, lots of
people
> do. It just seems to bother them more than the other guys do because
they
> wish she would have agreed with them rather than whatever it was that she
> herself said. Too bad. Get over it.
Great suggestion! I'm sure that will help resolve the issue. :)) At least I
can have some fun with you...
> > If such people exist at all, I haven't met them.
> Maybe you don't see many of the same people I do living here in the US,
but
> I have seen hundreds and hundreds of them. Kelley and Sciabarra are
among
> the more famous ones.
Hundreds and hundreds of US citizens, I think. Or have you met really that
much TOC folks?
> > And I'm not complaining about anything like that
> > either. I'm complaining about ARI's refusal to ~discuss~ critical
works,
> > even if they refute and condemn them in the process. Making valid, even
> > harsh, judgments is their right. But that's not the same as out of hand
> > dismissals. A well founded judgment requires prior analysis. Until now,
I
> > don't see that happen.
> Who in particular are you talking about? ARI isn't a person after all.
About the ARI as institute.
> I
> could imagine that if one of those guys were to write a serious book
someone
> friendly to ARI might well review it or take it apart, but I don't think
> that these pathetic revisionist works by unknowns are worth the trouble.
To find that out, whether they are really pathetic, you must read them. I'm
not aware of the ARI offering reviews of critical works -- at least not at
their website.
> > No! This is bizarre. I already explained to you that my (lower-case
> > letter?) "objectivism" is pretty the same as traditional Objectivism --
at
> > least I see it that way.
> Not really. You have pretty consistently avoided saying what that
> "different 20%" is in your case. Do you not think it matters? Or do you
> think that whatever it is would be so unacceptable that it would
invalidate
> the rest of this?
I already explained where I see the problems. How often do you plan to ask
me again?
> > > Sure, but I have for example, seen Kelley on a stage with a
"Libertarian
> > > Socialist" claim that their ideas were "essentially the same" but
that
> they
> > > had a few disagreements on some details. The guy is willing to
approve
> of
> > > literally anything as long as they will approve of him in return.
> > You mean Kelley??
> Yes.
If this were true, I would have noticed that.
> > Even if all what you say is true, this doesn't mean that it's justified
to
> > reject them as being Objectivists. And it doesn't mean that
~everything~
> > they have to say is therefore false. If you insist on the Randian
meaning
> > of Objectivism, call them "neo-Objectivists." I'm sure a lot of them
are
> > capable of valid identifications, while at the same time their invalid
> > identifications help clarifying what is true. So in any way, they are
able
> > of making a intellectual contribution.
> Capability is one thing, interest is something else entirely. I think
there
> are some marginal folks whose errors I am willing to put up with such as
> George Reisman and Harry Binswanger for example. I don't think Sciabarra
is
> even close to that category and I would say that Kelley is somewhere in
the
> middle.
George Reisman and Harry Binswanger are "marginal folks" for you?? They're
pretty much on the front line, don't you think? And you want to say that
neo-Objectivists are not interested in making valid identifications and
therefore contributing to O'ist thought?
> > Kelley is "very far from [Ayn Rand]"? You mean that he introduced
> > benevolence as another key virtue in Objectivism?
> That's one example, sure, though perhaps one of the modest sized ones
since
> at least benevolence (of a sort) is something she advocated. Tolerance
and
> nominalism on the other hand are much worse because she advocated the
> opposite in both cases.
Where is David Kelley advocating Nominalism? In Evidence of the Senses?
> > Haven't you said before that Rand has written so clear that it's
virtually
> > impossible to misrepresent her?
> No, I said that she wrote clearly and her points were generally pretty
clear
> and direct. No matter how clear and direct one is, it is possible to
> misrepresent what one says, especially among people who have not read
your
> books. It is also apparently pretty easy for people to delude themselves
> into believing even what clearly written books say.
Not that easy as with books written in an esoteric, poeto-mystical language
as common in most works on philosophy, but, yes, this is possible. Only
that this possibility doesn't give any evidence that this is factually true
for all critical works.
> I didn't say I would rather ave a Marxist government, I said that the
> criticisms they have for Objectivists is much more virulent than the
> criticism they have for Marxists.
That's always the case when you're an expert on something. Since they have
a greater expertise on Objectivism then on Marxism, this is not surprising.
> I don't think that if [you] asked [them]
> whether Leonard Peikoff was worse than Stalin they would say he was, but
I
> can't recall any of them getting upset at Stalin or writing long analyses
of
> his misdeeds either.
Because they are not historians but (neo-) Objectivists. That's their area
of expertise.
> Why
> > > would you claim that someone like Sciabarra is an Objectivist?
> > Because of "reality" in metaphysics, "reason" in epistemology", and
> > "capitalism" in politics? If you insist in making this distinction, you
> can
> > consider him being a neo-Objectivist, but a Objectivist he seems to be.
> > We're still fighting about the definition of that term, aren't we?
> In part, but also about who we consider to be "on our side". I don't
think
> that Kelley and Sciabarra are.
I part ~what?~ That Sciabarra is an Objectivist or that we're still having
a conflict over the word "Objectivism"? Before the latter is not resolved,
I wouldn't be so sure that I'm on ~your~ side!
> > I agree. Where do you think they ~don't~ have a point? Is it just about
> > Truth And Toleration? Besides that point, and maybe Sciabarra's work, I
> > don't see them deviating that much from Randian thought.
> I do. They also diverge a whole lot more when they think nobody is
looking,
> so that brings into question the sincerity of what they say "on the
record".
Metaphysically, this is possible. However, the context that is available to
me doesn't indicate anything in this direction.
> > > Then why embrace people whom you think are wrong?
> > Because they're in principle willing to show me where ~they~ think
> > Objectivism may need some improvement. Their open discussion, even if
> > they're wrong, helps clarifying some problematic issues.
> That doesn't require that you "embrace" them. It just means that you at
> least give them some thought.
That was exactly what I was meaning. I don't want to go in bed with them...
if this is what you mean with this metaphor.
> I read C.S. Lewis, Christopher Hitchens,
> William Buckley, Khomeini, and Noam Chomsky (as long as I can stand him
> anyway) for that very reason. Heck, I read Kelley and Sciabarra too,
though
> I get a lot more out of the other guys. I have "open discussions"
> too...like this one. I just don't spend all my time of that stuff.
Should
> I?
Not if you're profession is not being a full-time ideologue, like the
management of the ARI.
> > That she was "amazingly right" about many things implies that she was
> > (amazingly?) wrong about the rest. I'm ~not~ saying that Rand and truth
> are
> > "fundamentally opposed," but that they are not the same!
> I don't think they are by definition the same either. No Objectivist
would.
But a Randroid would do it, his contrary claims on that matter
notwithstanding. And I sense a lot of these guys hanging around the ARI...
> > > I have never said (and neither has any prominent
> > > Objectivist) that one ought to stick by Rand even if she's wrong.
> > It should be occasionally tested whether they mean in practice what
they
> > claim in theory...
> What do you mean by that? Who is "they"?
Randians. Especially those hanging around the ARI.
> To refrain from repressing your beliefs in order to appeal to the demands
on
> a peer group (in this case, Objectivists) and to rationally discover the
> truth and stick by it.
That's what I'm doing.
> Often times the guys involved in this syndrome
> violate both of these ideas, and then they blame Objectivism for it and
have
> better feelings toward those who support the philosophy. It's all a very
> strange syndrome, but I have seen it happen again and again.
As much as I agree with you, I also have some understanding for people who
are doing such things, especially when their views are not widely accepted
in society. As ideologically homeless it is natural to gravitate around
groups who at least share a fair amount of your ideas, even if they're not
totally in sync with you. The human being is not zoon logon alone -- that's
even the case for intellectually independent individuals.
alexander