Joe:Ciro, if I were Piekoff, we would not be having this discussion.
Dear Joe, I guess Mr. Peikoff doesn't need to. There are many people, I guess, on this forum that represents him well, "You never fight with generals, but with soldiers"
My Friend Rich, disappointment? Here is what people get disappointed about Peikoff:
A very good statement of what is entailed in the virtue of justice is the following (and you should recognize the words):
Justice consists first not in condemning, but in admiring – and then in expressing one's admiration explicitly and in fighting for those one admires. It consists first in acknowledging the good: intellectually, in reaching an objective moral verdict; then existentially, in defending the good – speaking out, making one's verdict known, championing publicly the men who are rational (one also praises them to their face, if there is a context to indicate that this would be a value to the person rather than an intrusion). Evil must be combated, but then it is to be brushed aside. What counts in life are the men who support life? They are the men who struggle unremittingly, often heroically, to achieve values. They are the Atlases whom mankind needs desperately, and who in turn desperately need the recognition – specifically, the moral recognition – to which they are entitled. They need to feel, while carrying the world on their shoulders, that they are living in a human society and that the burden is worth carrying. Otherwise, like the protagonists of Ayn Rand's novel, they too, properly, will shrug. (OPAR, p. 284f.)
Now, George Reisman is a truly great mind (and there would be no reason for me to bother with this conflict, if he were not). In his own profession, he ranks with the great names (such as Smith, Ricardo, Mises, and a few others). His recent treatise will revolutionize the science of economics, if it gets to be known and read. He has ridded Classical and Austrian economics of the inconsistencies that have cluttered them up in the past, and added quite a few contributions of his own. (3) His work is certainly an application of Objectivism (and I challenge anyone to claim otherwise). (4) That his work will be belittled and/or silenced by today's establishment economists is bad, but to be expected. That it will be belittled and/or silenced by Objectivists is an outrage. Yet, this is precisely what is taking place.
That George Reisman's reputation is now to be destroyed – and destroyed by pure rumor mongering – is simply something I will not sanction.
Dr. Peikoff's answer:
My quarrel with the Reismans is none of your business. It consists of personal disputes which have nothing to do with Objectivism and could not be proved to outsiders even if I wanted to, even though those facts are objective and known to me as such. Precisely for this reason I expect nothing of you in Sweden except the courtesy of a polite question as to my policy regarding you and the Reismans – as against a diatribe. In light of this last, I must withdraw all cooperation from your [translation] venture and prohibit any further reprinting of Ayn Rand materiel.
Comments, hopefully, unnecessary. Except, perhaps, this one:
I do not need anyone's "cooperation" in order to translate Ayn Rand's works into Swedish. All I need is my brain, a good dictionary, and some time in which to do the job. The only scarce item on this list is time. And if Leonard Peikoff wants to make a martyr out of me and mete out some terrible punishment for the crime of translating Ayn Rand into a foreign language (something which, if properly and conscientiosly done, deserves a medal and a place in the Objectivist Hall of Fame) - well, he can always go to court.
I am not in the position to judge Peikoff or any of the others luminaries of objectivism, but I can certainly say that
for what I read, many objectivists, especially those whose interest in objectivism is based in making money, have
Changed their position about Peikoff a least once. Why? I guess the above letter tells us why.
(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 8/06, 10:42am)