RoR: Forum

Thank you, Lindsay, for your friendship, and for having the courage to raise your voice in defense of those who have made a difference, and for being, yourself, a person who has made a difference.

Post 1

Monday, May 31, 2004 - 8:22am

Thanks for this interesting and energetic article.

I am in basic agreement with its essentials, especially the exasperating part regarding ARI's refusal to distinguish Objectivist fundamentals from Ayn Rand's personal opinions. You are correct to state that it leaves all participants open to unexpected ostracism due to violations of unwritten "rules" known only to key parties at ARI.

Regarding ARI's views on homosexuality, I saw nothing wrong with Peikoff's assertion in his "Love, Sex and Romance" tape that a homosexual orientation is "abnormal but not necessarily immoral". We can say the same things about fetishes and other aspects of human sexuality. Of course, one would have to define "normal" sexuality, and that is where the argumentation starts. Since I am straight and married and have no close friends or relatives who are gay (as far as I know), I have not bothered to explore this issue very much.

I have read on one other forum that SOLO is "dominated by gay white males", but I have not gotten that impression here. Perhaps SOLO's inaugural goal of "de-closeting" the gay issue has given it that reputation in some circles.

In any case, I am grateful that SOLO exists and allows discussions like this to take place.

Post 2

Monday, May 31, 2004 - 9:41am

Here, here! Well said, written and executed!

Post 3

Monday, May 31, 2004 - 11:56am

Mr. Perigo: No self-respecting Objectivist, even one in academia, would write a sentence like that, any more than he would own a yapping dog, ride a bicycle, listen to jazz or abstain from alcohol. Sciabarra does all of these things, & so is clearly beyond the pale. But let us get our reasons for excommunicating him right!

Mr. Stolyarov: Excuse me??!

I just happen to also be entirely "dry" and ride my bike quite frequently, and to enjoy certain predecessor music to jazz (ragtime). I do these for my health and/or personal fulfillment.

Unless this is meant to be a joke, these comments offer far poorer criteria to disqualify people from being "Objectivists" than ARI's ideology-based stance (which I wholly disagree with). It seems that in order to be an "Objectivist" by Mr. Perigo's definition, one has to follow certain of his personal tastes and lifestyle choices! This harkens back to the earlier "Randroid" culture where individuals were expected on pain of ostracism to smoke in the manner of Rand merely to show the "fire" within them!

Leave private tastes out of filosofy, I say. We are all Objectivists because we agree on the fundamentals, not because we happen to like wine or detest certain forms of exercise. Mr. Perigo is free to start his own "Wine Lovers' Club" and excommunicate any "dry" persons from it as he sees fit, but for a filosofy of reason this is unacceptable.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 4

Monday, May 31, 2004 - 12:03pm

Let peikoff excommunicate whoever he wants.
I do not care whether or not I can or cannot be labeled as an "objectivist". honestly, i've generally backed away from the term for fear of being associated with the peikoff nuts, even though I very much respect ayn rand and agree with most of those essentials. Objectivism means everything rand ever wrote. fine. the question at hand, more important than this petty name game (and all this talk about what is or is not objectivist IS, at bottom, a petty name game), is not whether or not something is objectivist, but whether or not something is true. and if rand is wrong about something, call me a non-objectivist, call me evil, call me whatever you like: I will still appropriate the rest of her ideas and discard that one.

Post 5

Monday, May 31, 2004 - 12:34pm

WARNING: Heresy here...

This article had me thinking about something that I've needed to say for quite awhile, regarding the dark side of Ayn Rand's emphasis on achievement, and why ARI acts the way it does nowadays.

The enormous "up" side of Rand's works, is that they attempt true objectivity like nothing else I've ever read. No matter their faults, I always strive to keep that in mind, that the whole point of Objectivism is objectivity, an essential dimension in life... I don't always agree with all the conclusions that Rand arrived at, under that label of "objectivity", but I do have enormous respect for the process of totally honest examination and decision-making known as objectivity.

With those positive things said, now I want to discuss the negatives.

As much as I've said I do admire Rand, I also have detected a definitely pervasive air of cruelty, even sadism, in her books. It always makes me wonder to what extent her characters are driven by a need to achieve something noble, or just some sadistic urge to dominate...

I see it in the ways that her characters work, play, and even have sex. There always seems to be this undertone, in a great many places.

Now, maybe I'm "imagining" all this, or maybe I'm not, and I'm just mis-interpreting it this undertone or overtone or whatever (by the way, what is the difference between an "overtone" and an "undertone"?)... but I do firmly know that there is some spirit of that sort, all over the place in her books.

All this makes me wonder: Does a preoccupation with uncompromised, outstanding achievement all the time, at all costs, with no regrets, lead to one crossing over into a sadistic personality? At what point, if ever, does one cross that line?

With all this said, I think that this spirit of which I speak, might be the one dimension, out of the several key emphases in Rand's works, that really drew together and consolidated a certain group of people who would later become ARI.

What I mean by this is the following: If there are really, let's say, three principal emphases in Rand's work (not that there aren't necessarily more) - 1) objective, metaphysical love of philosophy, 2) making money without interference from the government, and 3) the sadistic preoccupation of which I speak - then it makes logical sense to me that a separate social camp would have arisen out of each of those dimensions.

And that's what I believe has happened. As I look at things, SOLO represents what I mentioned above as the first emphasis... This group seems more interested in the love of philosophy and objectivity than in making money, or in being hard and nasty.

Emphasis number two of Rand's works seems to have been what has attracted and brought together the members of what would later become TOC, and emphasis number three seems to have led to ARI. All three groups try to be well-rounded with regard to covering all of Rand's emphases, but of course, each can only focus on one at a time. If each of the three groups could each do justice to all of Rand's emphases, then there would be no need for three groups, now would there? Three would not exist today. (Think about it)

ARI may be hopping mad over this sort of comment, if indeed they ever read it, but I don't think many people outside the group would disagree with it.

Rand, as a person, had many dimensions, as do we all... good and bad. But I think that once she started to attract followers, a sort of direct power over people was put in her hands... and nothing brings out the dark side of any person, as much as power. It has always been noted that there arose within her group, exactly this sort of premium on sado-masochistic abuse and obedience, which drove away those who did not enjoy it, and actually consolidated into total, diamond-like cohesion, those who stayed behind... those who actually hungered for it.

I submit that ARI now consists of the latter of these two groups... if not the exact same people as were originally in Rand's fold (which I do not know), then the same personality types as the originals, who remained behind.

Comments? *hiding for protection*

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 5/31, 12:41pm)

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 6/04, 9:22am)

Post 6

Monday, May 31, 2004 - 12:36pm

Oh dear. Gennady, old thing, *of course* the segment you quote is tongue-in-cheek. Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Post 7

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 3:38am

"When challenged about some of her sillier utterances, such as those about a woman in the White House, they will grudgingly concede that "that's not part of Objectivism," but to make such a concession causes their hair to fall out."

Why were her comments about not wanting to have a Woman as US president silly?
I read her essay on it, where she explains exactly what she meant.
She said that she that it was not that she didn't think that a woman could do the job or do the job as well as a man. It was just that she personally did not want a woman as president.

What's wrong with that? Doesn't she have a right to discriminate against a certain sex if that is her personal preference?

I agree that it would be silly to interpret her comments as being Objectivist orthodoxy, i.e. that Objectivists must not favour a woman as US president.

Still, I don't find her actual comments in their right context to be silly.

Post 8

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 5:52am

Lindsay:

Thanks for your great essay regarding SOLO!!!!

As a "newcomer" to SOLO, it provides me with a richer perspective with respect to its goals and purposes.

Cheers!!!

Ed

Post 9

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 6:33am

Hear, hear. That�s the spirit. Sciabarra & Machan & Kelley & Walsh & Reisman � how these men are not Objectivists is beyond comprehension. And I�d add the Brandens.

I can�t believe some people don�t sense ARI�s stultifying atmosphere; one where there is a constant threat of banishment for deviations, original thought or �tolerationist� sympathies. That atmosphere � so contrary to the sense of life one would expect � should be a clear sign that something is wrong. All the ARI dialectics can�t twist that non-A into an A.

Oh, yes, I enjoyed your kidding Sciabarra. He doesn�t drink? And he�s from Brooklyn?

By the way, my philosophical dictionary has the correct spelling for the technical term in your phrase �kit and kaboodle� as follows: caboodle. Perhaps, like the political word �liberal� you are using the non-American usage and spelling. While this may be "abnormal but not necessarily immoral", such �personal preference[s]� are on that slippery slope to Tolerationist City.

Rick

Post 10

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 6:19am

I submit that ARI now consists of the latter of these two groups... if not the exact same people as were originally in Rand's fold (which I do not know), then the same personality types as the originals, who remained behind.

Comments? *hiding for protection*

No need to hide chap! Well, maybe there is ; - )

I agree with a lot of what you said. As far as the article goes, I don't see anyone challenging the basic principals of objectivism (except in the gay marriage thread were I was right, everyone else was wrong and there are no two ways about that). I do remember hearing Peikoff a few times and he was dismissive of any dissent and refused to even mention Nathanial Branden (who I have no problem with). But then, there are so few people who even know about objectivism that I do not see the need to try to push any of them away. Wouldn't Rand want those with disagreements to sit down and figure this out? After all, a combination of two rational individuals in discussion should be able to come to some one single rational conclusion... that;s what Ayn would say anyway. :: shrug ::

Dustin M. Hawkins

www.dustinmhawkins.com

Post 11

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 11:44am

Greetings.

Mr. Perigo, thank you for the clarification. If this is a joke, and a parody of those who would employ such standards for classification of Objectivists, I will take it with good humor. I have made an honest mistake in ever thinking that it could be serious, and I apologize for this. In total, the article was thought-provoking, and provided an eloquent case against ARI's denunciation of some of the leading scholars of Objectivism.

Your position on the "closed system" seems to define the closed system quite differently from ARI's working definition. You claim that the fundamentals of Objectivism are closed, and, if you mean Reality, Reason, Egoism, and Capitalism, I fully concur. But Peikoff compares Rand's writings to a legal text, and a good Objectivist to a law-abiding judge; he must apply Objectivism only in a manner consistent with every word that Rand wrote. In this, I cannot agree with him.

Rand, though magnificent, was not omnipotent or omniscient. I consider her mistaken on some periferal issues, though certainly correct in the fundamentals. Moreover, certain genuinely filosofical endeavors, such as a theory of induction or a political scheme for the implementation of a laissez-faire society, were barely addressed by Rand, not because of a lack of intent to do so, but due to her finite lifespan. It is necessary to keep Objectivism an open system in David Kelley's sense of the word in order to allow for these expansions to take place and establish themselves in the free market of ideas and discourse.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 12

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 9:06pm

Lindsay, you wrote: "The reason I agree is what I infer from Peikoff's qualification of 'closed system': 'New implications, applications, integrations can always be discovered; but the essence of the system - its fundamental principles & their consequences in every branch - is laid down once & for all by the philosophy's author.' What I infer from this is that it is the fundamentals that are 'closed' while their application remains open."

I think you are misinterpreting both Peikoff's statement and Kelly's concept of an open system. Kalley certainly agrees that the fundamental principles of Objectivism are laid down once and for all by Ayn Rand. But note that in Peikoff's statement, he speaks of "fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch" -- and you take that to mean: "the fundamentals are 'closed' while their application remains open." The problem arises over the meanings of "consequences" and "applications."

What does Peikoff see as the consequences in every branch of the fundamental principles? Just about every word Ayn Rand uttered, including her view that homosexuality is a sign of neurosis. But not, for instance, her early sanction of Nathaniel Branden's work as "Objectivist Psychology;" if Peikoff agreed with that, we would have heard him loudly singing Nathaniel's praises. Because of her statements that Branden's work is Objectivist psychology, it appears that even Rand did not agree with Peikoff, but with Kelley.

I'm not at all convinced of your statement that Romantic Realism is a fundamental principle of Objectivism -- at least, not to the exclusion of every other manifestation of art. Rather, I think that Rand's insistence that no other form of art is of value, is simply one of her own applications of fundamental principles of Objectivism, and that one may quarrel witth it as with any other application.

Barbara

Post 13

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 10:48pm

Barbara - You wrote:

____________________________

Lindsay, you wrote: "The reason I agree is what I infer from Peikoff's qualification of 'closed system': 'New implications, applications, integrations can always be discovered; but the essence of the system - its fundamental principles & their consequences in every branch - is laid down once & for all by the philosophy's author.' What I infer from this is that it is the fundamentals that are 'closed' while their application remains open."

I think you are misinterpreting both Peikoff's statement and Kelly's concept of an open system. Kalley certainly agrees that the fundamental principles of Objectivism are laid down once and for all by Ayn Rand. But note that in Peikoff's statement, he speaks of "fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch" -- and you take that to mean: "the fundamentals are 'closed' while their application remains open." The problem arises over the meanings of "consequences" and "applications."

_____________________________________________

I think we actually agree here. Note my statement further on in the article that Peikoff *behaves* as though both fundamentals *and* applications are "closed."

_______________________________________________

I'm not at all convinced of your statement that Romantic Realism is a fundamental principle of Objectivism -- at least, not to the exclusion of every other manifestation of art. Rather, I think that Rand's insistence that no other form of art is of value, is simply one of her own applications of fundamental principles of Objectivism, and that one may quarrel witth it as with any other application.

Barbara

_______________________________________________

The question is, is *her* particular view of art fundamental to *her* philosophy? She didn't herself include it while standing on one foot, to be sure. I included it because hers is the type & view of art that treats man as a heroic being, which is incontestably fundamental. If the metaphysical/ethical view of man is fundamental, is not also the aesthetics to which that view gives rise? Doesn't mean any other kind of art is actually not art or doesn't have value (see her comments re Dali & Dostoevsky, for instance) - just means her view of art is a fundamental of her philosophy.

The other argument for its being a fundamental is that she herself said art fulfils a fundamental human need.

However, I *did* indicate that my inclusion of it was tentative, & I'll happily stand corrected. Usually folk take issue with me on this because they like headbanging caterwauling & resent Rand's strictures! I *know* that's not true in your case, Majesty!! :-)

Linz

Post 14

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 11:12pm

Linz, in reply to my post, you wrote: "I think we actually agree here. Note my statement further on in the article that Peikoff *behaves* as though both fundamentals *and* applications are 'closed.'"

We certainly agree about Peikoff. But your point was that you believe Objectivism is a closed rather than an open system, and it was that to which I was taking exception.

You also wrote, about your inclusion of Romantic Realism in the fundamentals of Objectivism: "I included it because hers is the type & view of art that treats man as a heroic being, which is incontestably fundamental. If the metaphysical/ethical view of man is fundamental, is not also the aesthetics to which that view gives rise?"

Then how would you estimate a book that presents heroic characters, is beautifully written -- but is for the most part plotless? Rand would say it contradicts the fundamental Objectivist principle of free will. Further, I've never understood why EVERY novel must present Objectivism's specific view of man. Freedom is fundamental to Objectivism; how would you estimate a book that was a ringing defense of freedom, but presented characters who were perhaps good and decent, not extraordinry?

Barbara

Post 15

Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:27am

Barbara said: Linz, in reply to my post, you wrote: "I think we actually agree here. Note my statement further on in the article that Peikoff *behaves* as though both fundamentals *and* applications are 'closed.'"

We certainly agree about Peikoff. But your point was that you believe Objectivism is a closed rather than an open system, and it was that to which I was taking exception.

______________________________________

Linz replies: I meant closed in the sense that the fundamentals are closed but the applications are open. That's what Peikoff *says* he means, but he *behaves* as though both fundamentals *and* applications are closed ... as though Objectivism is simply everything Ayn Rand ever said or wrote.
________________________________________

Barbara says: You also wrote, about your inclusion of Romantic Realism in the fundamentals of Objectivism: "I included it because hers is the type & view of art that treats man as a heroic being, which is incontestably fundamental. If the metaphysical/ethical view of man is fundamental, is not also the aesthetics to which that view gives rise?"

Then how would you estimate a book that presents heroic characters, is beautifully written -- but is for the most part plotless? Rand would say it contradicts the fundamental Objectivist principle of free will. Further, I've never understood why EVERY novel must present Objectivism's specific view of man. Freedom is fundamental to Objectivism; how would you estimate a book that was a ringing defense of freedom, but presented characters who were perhaps good and decent, not extraordinry?

Barbara

____________________________________________

Linz replies: I would estimate your second example highly. I would enjoy it greatly (chance would be a fine thing these days). I would evaluate it as approximating to or perhaps fully embodying the values of Romantic Realism. But this is not the issue here. The issue is whether the aesthetics of Romantic Realism is a fundamental of Objectivism. The more I think about it, the more I think it has to be: Is this not the realm in which everything that is *incontrovertibly* fundamental finds a tangible concretisation?

As for your first example - a beautifully written novel with heroic characters, but which is plotless - I don't see how such a thing is possible. How could you evaluate the characters as heroes if there were no plot in which their heroism was manifest?

Hmmm. A further thought about art that supposedly doesn't *quite* measure up to Romantic realism in every respect. Dr Diabolical & I were having a discussion about Mario's I'll Walk With God. It makes both of us weep. It is a glorious piece of singing that touches the highest within. Should it be marked down because its lyrics are religious? There *are* Objectivists who would answer, yes - but I'm certainly not among them. For me, it embodies "the total passion for the total height" beyond any shadow of doubt. Same could be said for a lot of religious music. I think there should be a category that takes context into account & cuts the appropriate degree of slack - "Honorary Romantic Realism" perhaps?! But I repeat - *this* discussion is separate from whether Romantic Realism is a fundamental of Objectivism. Do you recall Ayn Rand actually commenting on this, Barbara?

Linz

Post 16

Friday, June 18, 2004 - 3:25am

As I continue looking through areas of this forum now and then, little facts about everything in Objectivism keep popping up and surprizing me. I don't want to swerve this thread away from its focus, but I see that there's a division in Objectivism that leaves this forum separate from something called the ARI (Ayn Rand Institute, I suspect), and that the latter is overly rigid in its day to day application of Objectivism. I know little about this latter lot, so forgive me if I misjudge them, but it doesn't surprize me that Rand attracts such a following. I think the reason it happens is that certain people force themselves to be Randian for the authoritative joy of it, rather than finding out that they're Randian and then feeling the joy of it. And yes, the joy is different in each instance. Being Randian for the sake of it is hollow in its joy, whereas being Randian by way of a natural flow-on effect of ones beliefs is heart-felt. The first attempts to overcome an inner emptiness by making of Objectivism whatever is necessary to fill the void, and thus distorts it in the process. The second is already internally filled, and thus needs not blind itself to what's right and wrong. Regarding the former, the empty, all you can expect from them is hate, even though it may be mild, because such people are unhappy inside. But as for the rest, the honest Objectivists, you find real people, you find fountains that give out rains of love and positive energy rather than trickles of both that smell like acid. I'm not an Objectivist yet myself, because I haven't read all the literature, but one thing I do know is that I don't need it, irrespective of whether or not I'd be bettered by it. And thus, in turn, I also know that I'm inevitably better as a person than certain false Objectivists, whom my simple reasoning tells me will exist, even if they don't in ARI. And as a kind of side note, one way to avoid being a false Objectivist is to keep life in perspective, to look at things from a distance, to realize you're alive. In this view, reality not only brightens, but the blaze of it burns up smaller concerns before your eyes.

-D

Post 17

Friday, June 18, 2004 - 4:54am

Very interesting discussion about the status of Romantic Realism in Objectivist philosophy.

I tend to think that Romantic Realism is not a fundamental of the philosophy; I think Rand's view of the nature and purpose of art, however, is fundamental. Whatever you think of the Torres-Kamhi book, What Art Is, one of its contributions is that it focuses attention on this specific issue. The specifically Randian contribution here is Rand's view of the nature of art and the role of art in human life. Rand certainly makes a fine case for "Romantic Realism" as that form of art (actually, she defines it more in terms of literature---it is an open question as to whether "Romantic Realism" can be used to describe nonliterary forms of art), which concretizes the heroic in man. But I think there are many ways that one can understand the role of heroic values in human life; sometimes, we can see their role in tragedy. Sometimes, we can see their role by their sheer absence: a film like "The Godfather," for example, is not what I'd call heroic Romanticism, but it does depict how choices can contribute to the erosion of human values and the destruction of human souls.

So that's where I stand on this question: Rand's view of the nature and purpose of art, and its role in human life, is the fundamental. At this fundamental level, Rand explores the nature of sense of life, psycho-epistemology, the conceptual level of awareness; the need for concretization and emotional abstraction; as well as the role of metaphysical value-judgments and of human values in aesthetic response, and the distinction between aesthetic response and aesthetic evaluation. In my own work, I argue that Rand's examination of the cognitive function of art and the creative process is so important to the framework of her Objectivist philosophy that it effectively places aesthetics right at the heart of her conception. That's one of the reasons I discuss aesthetics not as an afterthought in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical---it's almost always relegated to the final chapters of any book on Objectivism---but right after my chapters on metaphysics and epistemology. In fact, I'd say that people who focus on Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology as the first and last word on Objectivist epistemology are sorely lacking in their understanding of Rand's theory of knowledge. That theory requires that one go deeply into Rand's writings on aesthetics and creativity, which focus on tacit levels of consciousness so crucially important to our understanding of the nature and function of the human mind.

Post 18

Friday, June 18, 2004 - 7:44am

Dr. Sciabarra,

You know I have the utmost respect for your intelligence and usually clear writing. I was reading along you very interesting comments when I came to these completely baffling expressions.

Would you mind explaining what you mean by an emotional abstraction. What exactly are metaphysical value-judgments? And what would tacit levels of consciousness be, as opposed to just consciousness?

I hope you will be patient with my ignorance in these matters.

Regi

Post 19

Friday, June 18, 2004 - 12:54pm