Is Objectivism a cult?

Robert,

I took a look at the blog, Passing Thoughts that you linked to. Apparently it started in June of this year and, from another entry, I gather that the blogger is a college undergraduate. (I could speculate on the anonymity, but why bother?)

One thing is clear. This blogger states that he/she does not post on Solo on principle, but from the volume of Solo related stuff, he/she sure as hell reads it.

In the comments to the review of your post, Ms. Hsieh thinks that "malicious dishonesty" is too kind a description of your post (and probably of you in general, but I speculate).

Another person asked if any articles on Ayn Rand written by non-ARI scholars are accurate. An answer (from Don Watkins, not the blogger) was a very typical one from the things I have read so far. He was asked why he asked.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

btw - If you go back through the archives to the beginning, you will find that the posters here on Solo (and I presume myself included) are called Solo monkeys.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Dayaamm!

I will take this blogger at his/her word on Passing Thoughts and pass right on by. I have other things that are much more important to attend to, but thanks for the bellylaugh.

Michael

Edit - My post just crossed with Glenn's.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/08, 10:32am)

Post 241

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 11:10am

Michael,

Since the author of Passing Thoughts is an undergraduate, I'm all the more amused at his slam at Tom Rowland, who, according to him, knows nothing about ARI.

Robert Campbell

Post 242

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 7:13pm

Tom Rowland wrote,

"'Truth is the recognition of reality' is, in my understanding of Objectivism, a relational proposition identifying the product of the correct relationship between consciousness and existence. It says, at greater length, 'truth is the correct identification of existence -- the facts of reality.' If it is false then either the correct identification of the facts of reality does not produce truth, or truth is the incorrect identification of the facts of reality, or truth is the correct identification of non-reality. I see no other candidates."

Well, if you see no other candidates, then you need to don your philosophical bifocals, Tom, because there are indeed other candidates, as will soon become evident. :-) You go on to say, "Note, please, that the doctrine is not the equivalent of the correspondence theory and does not exclude the coherence theory." Well, if it's not the equivalent of the correspondence theory, then the correspondence theory is another candidate, wouldn't you say? - another candidate which you claim not to have seen!

Your statement that Rand's doctrine is not the equivalent of the correspondence theory also departs from Peikoff's discussion in OPAR, in which he states: "The concept of 'truth' names a certain relationship between a proposition and the facts of reality. 'Truth' in Ayn Rand's definition, 'is the recognition of reality.' In essence, ~this is the traditional, correspondence theory of truth~: there is a reality independent of man; and there are certain conceptual products, propositions, formulated by human consciousness. When such a mental content corresponds or conforms to reality, when it constitutes a recognition of fact, then it is true. Conversely, when the content does not thus correspond, when it constitutes not a recognition of reality, but a contradiction to it, then it is false." [My emphasis] (p. 165)

In keeping with Rand's definition of truth as "the recognition of reality," Peikoff equates a proposition's "correspondence" to reality with a mind's "recognition" of the fact expressed by the proposition. But a "~recognition~" of reality would not occur if one were to accept a true conclusion on the basis of faulty reasoning or wrong information. In that case, although the mental content forming one's conclusion would correspond or conform to reality, it would not constitute a ~recognition~ of reality, for "recognition" implies ~knowledge~ of what is recognized. For example, if I conclude on the basis of faulty reasoning or false information that Charles Manson is guilty of murder, then even though Charles Manson is in fact guilty of murder - even though my conclusion corresponds to reality - I do not "~recognize~" that Charles Manson is guilty of murder, because I do not ~know~ that he is. Truth is not a synonym for knowledge.

My dictionary defines "truth" as "conformity to fact or actuality," and states that "~truth~ is most commonly used to mean correspondence with facts or with what actually occurred." Similarly, according to a standard logic text, once sold under the auspices of Rand herself, "a true proposition is one which 'corresponds to the facts' or correctly describes the facts." This view of truth can be traced as far back as Aristotle, who wrote, "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, ~while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true~." (Metaphysics, Book IV: Chapter 6, Sec. 7, 1011B, Line 26.)

Apparently, then, Rand's definition of truth is indeed false! But you say, "if the proposition [namely, Rand's definition of truth] is false, every philosophical system collapses, there is no identifiable standard of truth." Do you really believe this? - that because Rand's definition of truth is false, every philosophical system collapses and there is no identifiable standard of truth?! Seriously?!

And even if you disagree with me and still believe that her definition is correct, why would it follow that ~if~ it were false (according to the argument I have thus far advanced), every philosophical system would collapse and there would be no identifiable standard of truth? This strikes me as preposterous!

You add, "Peikoff has opined on his own that "the truth is the whole" because reality is the whole. It is in that sense -- that if a philosophy claims to apply to all of reality, the failure of any part of it is a failure of identification and collapses the whole truth and the whole philosophy."

The only sense in which this is true is one that is trivial, viz., the truth considered as a unified body of propositions: if any one of its propositions is false, then the "whole truth" ~qua unified body~ collapses. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the propositions it comprises are therefore false, if that indeed is what you're implying.

(Btw, I wonder if you wouldn't mind correcting your spelling errors, as they can be a distraction, especially when they occur so frequently. It shouldn't be that difficult, given the spell-check preview. All you have to do is use it. :) I've corrected them this time, as a courtesy.)

- Bill

Post 243

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 7:32pm

Bissell:

And we're also not going to do our philosophy any favors by granting quarter to the likes of Jordan, Barnes, and Laj, all of whom seem to wring their hands with eager anticipation any time they think they can punch some hole in Objectivism

Check my posts. I've offered cordial and earnest debate on this forum. It's a shame if you can't see that.

Jordan

Post 244

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 11:05pm

And ARI, often posited as prima facie evidence of Randroidism-run-rampant, actually produces a lot of sterling work from creative writers and scholars, and has improved much in recent years. Yes, they still have some room for improvement, but they're hardly the strict Objecti-convent that many ARI apostates portray them as.

Well, there's a certain 'type' of Objectivism that is totally irrational. I was run out of town at www.objectivismonline.net for disagreeing with several things, including Rand's ideas on humor.

And we're also not going to do our philosophy any favors by granting quarter to the likes of Jordan, Barnes, and Laj, all of whom seem to wring their hands with eager anticipation any time they think they can punch some hole in Objectivism ...

You know, I shouldn't have to defend critical thinking, [here anyway!], but Jordan is just such a critical thinker, and we're luckly to have someone who questions things and make cogent arguments when he disagrees. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.

Sincerely,

Craig Haynie (Houston)

Post 245

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 1:39am

Robert, we're essentially in agreement here:

I don't say these kinds of things about scholarly work that has come out of ARI. In my opinion, some scholars affiliated with ARI do excellent work. I just think they would be a lot better off in a less (better be careful in my choice of terms here... don't dare use anything that could be interpreted as metaphorical... toxic? nope; unhealthful? better not; authoritarian? that's going to need another post already... OK, OK, I'll settle for a term with a single meaning in Objectivist parlance...) dogmatic environment, where they might be able to interact with the rest of the scholarly world without fear of reprisals.

Just to clarify, I made my original comment on ARI because, in the context of this thread, it seemed we were headed to the point where someone said, "There's a cult headquartered in Irvine right now," a clearly false claim that I wanted to debunk before it was made. I have not had nearly as many dealings with ARI as you have, but the comments of many friends whom I know and trust lead me to believe your criticisms are warranted.

Post 246

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 5:56am

Thanks for defending me, Craig. I do appreciate it.

Jordan

Post 247

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 9:01am

Robert,

I'm going to say as few words as possible in the way of criticism of Objectivists of any stripe on a thread with this title. Actually, I think this thread belongs in the Dissent Forum.

I think it's legitimate for people to join ARI if their positions on sanction, closed system, etc. line up that way and they have their own well established set of intellectual interests outside of Objectivism.

There's a balance to be struck between rigor and autonomy and at this point I don't think either ARI or TOC meets it. When I'm asked whether someone should join ARI or TOC, its a little like asking if their kid should go to Pepperdine or UC Santa Cruz.

Pepperdine isn't a cult or cult-like, but I wouldn't advise lighting up a joint on campus.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 10/09, 9:08am)

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 10/09, 9:13am)

Post 248

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 9:32am

Jordan,

Let me defend you a bit, too, but with a touch of criticism.

A questioning mind and honest sincerity added to intelligence are always welcome in my own world. From the way my own sometimes contrary viewpoints have been discussed, I have seen that it is welcome on Solo as well. I believe you have these characteristics. But here is what has been going on at Solo recently - when Linz finally exploded with his slime article (that name still causes me to laugh without wanting to - LOLOLOLOLOLOL...).

Ayn Rand's ideas were being attacked at the base (axioms and epistemology) from the viewpoint of other philosophers, as if this were a site dedicated to those thinkers. Then Objectivism was being judged to be a cult (well... it was considered as not having certain traits but having certain tendencies, so you could not say that it was not not a cult), still from the standpoint of these other philosophers.

You are expected to have read much of Rand's works around here, as it is a site devoted to Objectivism. You are not expected to have read the bulk of Popper, for instance. Bringing in an idea from Popper would be one thing - even a very good thing. Bringing in his whole kit and caboodle, then posturing as if you had some kind of superiority because others have not read Popper in depth is completely out of context and comes off as an attack on Rand's ideas, not a discussion of them. (I am only mentioning Popper, but other philosophers have been used like this also.)

Notice that outright dismissal and mocking of premises like "existence exists" or "A is A" was going on - in long and legion threads. If an attempt had been made to align Rand's fundamental premises with the ideas of another philosopher, that would be interesting. But to try to negate or belittle her fundamentals only served to irritate (I know that it irritated the hell out of me). I want to hear what other Objectivists have to say about axioms, for instance. I really don't give a fuck about what others say if they are trying to belittle me or Rand or others interested in her philosophy.

On the thread to Fred Seddon's axiom article, a gem from Roger Bissell was finally allowed space to be developed. I can't say that I completely agree with it, since I am still chewing, but it gave me a wonderful sense of seeing a different highly intelligent approach that makes me think (including Fred's article in itself) - based on the same premises, even while contesting some of them.

Now to you. Many times I see your arguments based on Objectivism and you call other posters on consistency and premises. I enjoy that kind of thinking tremendously. It is when you harp on Objectivism as an invalid philosophy at times, or at least imply such (especially in the midst of those with that specific agenda) that I personally turn off. I think that this is why there is some objection to your approach around here.

Once again, the disclaimer. I speak only for myself and not for any particular "party line." I am also offering these observations in good faith, not in hostility or finger-wagging. Frankly I would love to see some more of your independent thinking - but within the world of Objectivism - or at least looking at the world innocently and saying that you cannot see where certain things apply, not completely outside of Objectivism and trying to undermine it from the premises of another philosophy. A questioning mind like yours - let me add, a good and intelligent questioning mind like yours - used in the right direction can only help things improve. It keeps people on their toes - and that is a good thing.

Michael

Post 249

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 11:16am

MSK,

I don't feel the criticism is warranted. I tend to question Rand's axioms only when they are put into question, like on Seddon's article. In terms of mocking Rand or Objectivism, you might have me confused with other posters whose arguments I sometimes find persuasive. Even in my dissent threads I try to be as respectful as I know how. You also might have me confused with others in that I don't try to "Popperize" all threads, or even some. I'm not even Popperian. Nor do I push other philosophers. I use basic reasoning tools in most of my posts, tools shared by most rational thinkers, Objectivist or otherwise.

I think those people here who treat me poorly and speak poorly of me do so because I disagree with them and ask questions that challenge or diverge from their views. I suspect they find me dishonest or irrational when I disagree with them or ask such questions; I threaten their identity. Most unfortunate. If I knew how to assuage their hostility toward me, I probably would.

That said, even though I don't feel your criticism is warranted, I will try to be sensitive to it in the future. And I do appreciate the compliments you gave me.

Jordan

Post 250

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 11:36am

Glenn,
     I haven't read all of this thread mainly because I can't believe that there's so much debate on the original question...on THIS, of all sites, site, for Pete's sakes.

     Ntl, re your post #239, I also read the original article on this guy's "Passing Thoughts" blog. It was linked/referred-to by another as a 'fisking' article, but, by Wikipedia's def (the only 'dictionary' I could find the term-as-a-verb), 'fisking' is supposedly oriented at pointing out logical fallacies and incorrect facts in someone's argument, while including derogatory evalutions re the 'fisker's viewpoint. All this guy did was sarcastically and rhetorically 'flame', not 'fisk.'

     Anyhoo, when I read the 'comments' I did a double take at precisely what you pointed out in your post, and found myself nodding "Yes, that sounds like the kind of response I'd expect from certain self-styled O'ists as their response to a straightforward question that is paranoically interpretable as 'hostile.' --- "What is the purpose of your question?" indeed !

     When I read it, there were only 3 comments ending with the last 2 being your quoteds(?); since then, 'Steve,' who asked the ( in your quotes) question, got a reply from 'Mike' that started out with: "Ok, I'll play along for a while." --- Methinks this shows that some questions (and, what Steve asked is down *my* problem line with ARI advocates ['defenders'?]), such as finding out what 'criticizers' are not automatically construed as 'hostile-Attackers,' and, are there any type of questions on THAT subject considered non-'game-playing' by innocent askers? None, apparently. Talk about a 'siege' mentality oriented at Rand's benevolent, optimistic orientation at 'joy in life'...unless one asks the 'wrong' questions of a defender/Follower/TB!

     The rest of the (as of now, 8) comments are also interesting. Neither 'Mike' nor 'Don' answered 'Steve's original question, but merely challenged him on his asking it, which says a lot right there (and, *I*ve 'been there; endured that' elsewhere). --- Talk about the 'E'-word! I suggest any interested check them out.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/09, 11:41am)

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/09, 11:44am)

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/09, 11:52am)

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/09, 1:52pm)

Post 251

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 4:26pm

Glenn Fletcher noted the following exchange between Steve Jackson and Don Watkins:

1. "Are there any articles written by non-ARI scholars concerning Ayn Rand that you consider to be accurate and informative? If so, which ones?"

Comment by Steve Jackson � October 8, 2005 @ 1:57 pm

2. "Steve,

"What�s your purpose in asking that question?"

Comment by Don Watkins � October 8, 2005 @ 2:22 pm

I love it! Shades of Nathaniel Branden back in the '60's. I remember asking him a question about some point that was covered in his lecture, and was greeted with exactly the same response. He shouted at me in an angry, accusatory tone of voice: WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTION??!! I think this stems from Rand's tendency to respond to questions she didn't like in a similar manner. So her acolytes have picked this up, and think that this is how you deal with people who don't automatically agree with you - that, and ostracizing them from your lectures or cancelling their subscriptions to your periodicals. Such sanctions only work, of course, against those who are sincerely interested in the philosophy, the very people who are suspected of being hostile to it. What a wonderful atmosphere in which to learn about a revolutionary philosophy that is supposed to save the world! I've got news for them. Unless they change their tune, it ain't gonna happen! If you deal with independent thinkers in this manner, you're just going to be preaching to the choir, and all you'll be left with is a cadre of true believers marching to the beat of an Objectivist drummer. Maybe that's what they want, but it sure is alien to the spirit of the philosophy they claim to be promoting!

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/09, 10:34pm)

Post 252

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 4:36pm

James,

I'm less concerned about the title of this thread than you are. But then, if I thought that Objectivism was of interest only to cultists, I wouldn't be participating on SOLO at all.

Maybe it would be better to start a new thread on the Ayn Rand Institute, its institutional culture and practices, and how well they comport with the epistemological and ethical standards that Rand put forward.

But you raised a good point about ARI, and I don't think I'll be doing harm by responding to it here:

There's a balance to be struck between rigor and autonomy and at this point I don't think either ARI or TOC meets it.

Fair enough. I agree that TOC isn't doing enough education in Randian philosophy, at least past the introductory level. And for too long The Logical Structure of Objectivism didn't get top priority. More rigor would be good at TOC.

There's a difference, though, between rigor and rigidity.

Peikoff helped to bring a lot of rigor to the presentation of Objectivism that wouldn't have been there without him: because Rand didn't know other philosophers' positions and rationales well enough and Peikoff knew them better; because she was too impatient to spell out some of her key arguments and Peikoff went to the trouble of spelling them out or getting her to spell them out in conversation; because he'd thought about some things she hadn't, and brought them to her attention.

But over time, has done less for rigor and more for rigidity in Objectivist thinking. Some ARI types cite and quote "Fact and Value" as roughly equal in importance with Rand's major writings on ethics, or at least with her best cultural commentaries. Even if its conclusions were correct, "Fact and Value" would not rank with any of them. Lots of rigidity in that essay; no net addition to rigor.

Besides, people who have developed their ideas rigorously don't dismiss virtually all criticisms of those ideas as unworthy of a response. People who are rigid do that.

Robert Campbell

Post 253

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 5:00pm

Bill,

You hit the nail on the head!

Suspecting a sinister agenda behind legitimate, indeed innocuous questions is a legacy of the NBI era, yet it is still being proudly carried on at ARI.

People who deny that Ayn Rand discouraged people from asking questions often attribute the policy of discouraging them to Nathaniel Branden. About his complicity, there can be doubt. Whether Rand was truly ignorant of what he was up to, or inclined to disapprove, is another matter. (See Chapter 3, "Mullah Rand?" in James Valliant's book for a recent instance of that argumentative strategy.)

But let's suppose that discouraging questions truly was all NB's doing. Then surely, once his baleful influence had been banished, Peikoff, Binswanger, and the rest would have followed Rand's salubrious lead and brought a halt to the policy of discouraging questions. As far back as September 1968, they could have made a fresh start on the issue.

Instead, what we see 37 years later is the principals at ARI training a new generation of Randians to do the same kind of thing. Do anyone really think that the average 21-year-old who is interested in Rand's ideas be doing that sort of thing, without models to emulate?

Robert Campbell

Post 254

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 5:36pm

Robert,

I agree with you that denoting Objectivism as a closed system promotes rigidity and I disagree with it. However,
as an open system proponent, I have an obligation in debate to denote where I think Objectivism is open and why. Otherwise, there is no bulwark against subjectivism.

The difficulty I see with many who object to ARI is that in the cut and parry they don't spell out what they are for. What principles do you think are correct and which are mistaken or on less firm ground. Many simply haul out a list of objections and call it critical scholarship. Objectivism is a systematic philosophy and has taken the responsibility for staking out positive positions in each branch of philosophy that are hierarchically connected.

I think the rigidity among ARI Objectivists is a mistaken, but understandable reaction to philosophical skepticism. Principles have to be established. This can be done firmly without cutting off debate and shunning people and retarding progress in philosophical inquiry. ARI proponents would do well to admit where in the philosophy more development is needed and where it needs to be explained more fully. TOC would do well to put its cards on the table and spell out what its objections are and provide a positive alternative.

Jim

Post 255

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 6:02pm

It was a pretty fearful atmosphere for Students of Objectivism at NBI. Both Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand contributed to that in q & a sessions after lectures. We preferred writing the questions out and sending them up to the stage to just asking them in person. Then there were the ushers maintaining law and order. I always felt that I was on the verge of being gooned. It wasn't actually that bad, but the whole place was repressive, intellectually and otherwise as people confined themselves to a mold of expected behavior and thinking. Still, it was a great experience overall, but I can't relate why right now as supper calls.

--Brant

Post 256

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 6:41pm

Mike at Passing Thoughts is continuing his defense of the Ayn Rand Institute and its ways. See http://passingthoughts.blogsome.com/2005/10/08/blog-wars/#comments

His previous blog entry applied the epithet "arbitrary gibberish" to the entire contents of 6 1/2 annual volumes of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Then, in the comments section to the selfsame entry, he admitted to never having read a single article that has appeared in JARS. In the new entry he now says:

(1) The National Review is a destructive magazine. It actively attacks Objectivism and Ayn Rand, and it actively promotes the religious right. There have been valuable articles written in the National Review, yet somehow I don�t think calling NR a destructive force while conceding that it publishes the occasional insightful piece is a contradiction or problem. I wouldn�t be shocked if there have been some quality articles published in JARS. But that, in and of itself, doesn�t make JARS a worthwhile publication, and it doesn�t change the fact that, as a whole, JARS is a damaging force in Rand scholarship.

I'm curious to know whether there is ever a difference, for the members of ARI, between criticizing Rand's ideas and "attacking" and "destroying" them--or her.

In any event, I can assure Mike that no one on the editorial board of JARS shares William F. Buckley Jr.'s antipathy toward Rand (which, in his case, seems to have been based on horror of her atheism), or his corresponding interest in frightening readers off and discouraging discussion of her ideas.

Here is a list of the articles just recently published in Volume 7, number 1 of JARS.

Chris Matthew Sciabarra: The Rand Transcript, Revisited
Kirsti Minsaas: Mimesis and Expression in Rand's Theory of Art
NIcholas Dykes: The Facts of Reality: Logic and History in Objectivist Debates about Government
Robert White: Ayn Rand versus Adam Smith
Peter Jaworski: Feser on Nozick (Review)
Fred Seddon: Kant on Faith
Roderick Long: Reference and Necessity: A Rand-Kripke Synthesis? (Review)
Michael Huemer: How to Be a Perceptual Realist (Reply)
Ari Armstrong: Direct Realism and Causation (Rejoinder)

How do any of these make JARS less than a worthwhile publication? How do they render JARS a "damaging force in Rand scholarship"?

(2) Ok, so we are making progress. Now, instead of �authoritarian� ARI is �dogmatic.� Near as I can tell, this means, �If you do not agree with the philosophy this organization was founded to promote, we will not use our resources to help you.� If it doesn�t mean this, then I am at a loss, because this is ARI�s policy. Perhaps I am ignorant of the facts. I�m sure if there is an example of injustice on the part of ARI someone will point it out to me. But let me ask a question: should ARI use its money and time to promote those who do or write or say things that are counterproductive to its goals? I think no.

Mike seems to think that when I say that I will need to write a post specifically about authoritarianism, I am conceding that ARI is not authoritarian.

On the contrary... Since Mike insists that "authoritarian" cannot be legitimately used of anyone or any institution unless he, she, or it uses physical force to compel obedience, I will need that further post to explain my meaning--though it is hardly idiosyncratic.

In the interim, I would suggest that a writer who comes out charging with a declaration that everything published in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is "arbitrary gibberish" has no business accusing an opponent of "intimidation tactics." If the argument from intimidation is a fallacy--and I fully agree that it is--it is a fallacy no matter who resorts to it.

What I mean by "dogmatic" should in any case be clear, and will suffice for the present discussion. Leonard Peikoff has defined "dogmatism" as "faith in immutable revelations." Peikoff's definition may lean a little too hard on a religious setting for dogmatic belief. But the elements of nonobjectivity and immutability are apropos here.

People who are not dogmatic tend to be a lot more willing to respond to criticisms of their beliefs than people who are. This make sense, because if you can provide evidence and arguments for your views, you will normally respond to criticism by producing the evidence and the arguments. If you cannot, you will strongly tempted to reject the criticism as improper or to change the subject. And those who avoid dogmatism are a lot less prone to questioning the motives or the character of those who bring the criticisms. Again, that's because replying to the criticisms themselves will usually suffice. The non-dogmatic may even be persuaded by evidence or arguments to change their beliefs. The dogmatic never will be.

[Robert] �I must apologize to the author for withholding specifics about those individuals who don�t want their communications with members of the JARS editorial board publicly known.�
[Mike] This is too vague to make any sense of. What are these supposed communications? Is this an ignorant scholar inquiring about the nature of the journal? If so, I don�t really care, nor do I think any one else will. Or is it someone saying, �Oh Mr. Campbell! I agree with everything you say about AR, Objectivism, and ARI and I want to publish in JARS. But ARI has so much money to offer me and I don�t want to lose their funding.� THAT would be a big deal. Did this communication happen two months ago or shortly after the existence of the Journal was made public in 1999? Excuse me if I�m skeptical of this entire claim.

I'm talking about communications since Andrew Bernstein made his public penance in sackcloth and ashes. Before that, not everyone in ARI-land was convinced that JARS would be off limits; since then, everyone has been.

I'm also not talking about ARI-affiliated scholars asking what JARS is about because they don't know. We maintain a website that lists the contents of every issue of the journal since 1999. We've run the same editorial statement (I quote some of it in the next paragraph) since we opened for business. They all knew by the time our first issue was out, and they all know now. Besides, we're talking about people who have been trained to be, well, careful who they give their "sanction" to. (That's why I don't believe for a minute that Andrew Bernstein didn't know.)

I'm not talking about ARI-affiliated scholars saying that they agree with everything "we" say about Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and ARI. They aren't likely to, if only because "we" don't all say the same thing. There is no party line at JARS, beyond the conviction that Ayn Rand's ideas are to be taken seriously and open discussion of them is a good thing rather than a bad one. Inside the front cover of each issue, the reader will find the statement that JARS is "a nonpartisan journal devoted to the study of Ayn Rand and her times. The journal is not aligned with any advocacy group, institute, or person. It welcomes papers from every discipline and from a variety of interpretive and critical perspectives. It aims to foster scholarly dialogue through a respectful exchange of ideas."

Yes, at this point in time, some ARI-affiliated scholars are afraid of loss of standing or even expulsion from ARI should they publish in JARS. But after the Bernstein episode this ought to be a no-brainer. Here is how far it extends today: ARI-affiliated scholars are afraid of loss of standing or expulsion if it merely becomes known that they have been in communication with any member of the JARS editorial board about any matter of mutual interest in the world of Ayn Rand scholarship. Again, I am not going to name names, on the ARI side or the JARS side. But that's what it's come to.

Robert Campbell

Post 257

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 8:37pm

     It's unfortunate that the ideas of 'open' vs 'closed' system re O'ism have...morphed into almost ambiguity. Piekoff clearly defined his meaning, and, I have no problem with it.

     Prob is, too many interpret HIS argument as meaning that nothing more worthwhile can be 'added' to O'ism. Re 'fundamentals,' yes, he meant that; I accept it...to a point (probably not his). An added, and unanalyzed, 'prob' seems to be: "Exactly what is 'included' and 'excluded' re these...'fundamentals'...or this...'essence' of it?"

     To be sure, given Piekoff's def of 'closed' (c'mon, why argue the nomenclature? Rand said 'X'; anything 'added' is 'X'+1! What's the beef?), it appears to 'sound like' nothing more need be said to add anything worthwhile to it. Uh, if so, he leaves himself no place to say anything more other than to iterate what Rand said. It should be obvious that such was never his meaning; he's clearly too intelligent to box himself therein. --- So, let's not get myopic re 'closed'. Clearly all that was meant was O'ism is 'the essence' of what Rand defined it as; and THIS (in *my* interpretation) is nothing less than Galt's speech. You rationally agree with it all, and you're a...well...pick your term (I prefer 'Randite'); you disagree (even rationally, by your lights) with any point, and, you're not...whatever.

     Arguing disagreements with point A, B, or C re Galt's speech, yet still calling yourself...whatever...is hypocritical. Give such a break. I agree with Hitler on one (random) point or other; such does not make me a Nazi. I agree with almost most of Buddhism (ancient, not contemporary) ethics; this does not make me a Buddhist. I disagree with Kelley re his lack of limit-setting re his argument for 'Tolerance.' This does not make me an anti-Kelleyite (anti-Kelleyist?) --- O-t-o-h, I fall into all (and many other) groups, given sloppy criteria (definitions?) used for classifying me. --- I regard my *self*, as...a Randite.

      Defining criteria does promote 'rigidity.' No argument there. However, some things need to be inflexible/rigid; think about it. If all things are made/regarded as bendable, then keep in mind that even 'bendable' things have their...breaking point, Buddhist (Zen, or otherwise) aphorisms nwst. And when something breaks...it's no longer what it was.

      OTOH...(oh, Tyeve, you almost make me sorry I saw "Fiddler on the Roof"), Kelley's correct re his view of 'open' systems (I don't see it as inherently contradictory to Piekoff's). As far as I'm concerned, Piekoff and Kelley's views on this, as published so far (and, as I understand, are really irrelevent to their break), seem to show that both are on different pages re their meanings of 'open'/'closed', their public arguments nwst. --- O'ism is...ALSO (from an other perspective, I stress)...an 'open' system, allowing for new discoveries re added 'possible' fundamentals, as well as mostly (?) 'applications' of the established ones. *My* meaning here of 'possible' refers to mainly: "...for all I understand so far, the established ones may not be the totality." I'll be the 1st to agree that those 'established' are non-negotiable in any epistemological (which implies also, 'debatable-worth') sense. They're THERE, and worthless to debate over.
      Those who 'question' the established areas, are questioning from some base that has nothing to do with O'ism. I have no prob with such questioners...as long as they don't call themselves O'ist's. Ergo, spare me "O'ists" who question the existence of O'ist-identified (see Galt's speech) 'natures' of volition, knowledge, morals/ethics, etc. As well, those who question 'authorities' on such. I have little truck with all such.

      Those who question the non-established areas, or, as Nathaniel Branden called them, 'gaps' (and, yes, they ARE there, philosophy-wise, though, irrelevent to Rand's purposes)...those are the ones dealing with the 'open' territory (such as the morally-justifiable base for the moral and legal status/view of children...nm animals.) These are the ones (and questions) which will add to Rand's corpus...and O'ism itself.

      Exactly just what 'X+1' should properly be called...I have no problem with leaving it to Leonard Piekoff. Interestingly, he distinguished a difference himself, but, had nothing to say re nomenclature. --- Fascinating.

LLAP
J:D

Post 258

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 9:00pm

William,

You write: "Shades of Nathaniel Branden back in the '60's. I remember asking him a question about some point that was covered in his lecture, and was greeted with exactly the same response shouted at me in an angry, accusatory tone of voice: WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTION??!! I think this stems from Rand's tendency to respond to questions she didn't like in a similar manner."

I had the same experience from Nathaniel Branden, and other lesser lights in the Establishement, but NEVER from Ayn Rand herself. Did you? Or is it an assumption that everything NB did in those days was in imitation of Ayn Rand? Do you have any direct evidence of "Rand's tendency to respond to questions she didn't like in a similar manner?"

Post 259

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 10:09pm