Peikoff on Rand and "Perfect" Heroes

From superherobabylon.blogspot.com:

On Leonard Peikoff's recent "Q& A" at peikoff.com, he answered the following question:

"Isn't it dangerous to hold another person in such high esteem...to admire a hero?" (regarding whether or not Ayn Rand ever acted irrationally). Peikoff first responds that Rand, to his knowledge, did NOT act purposely irrational, but did make errors, particularly in her judgement of certain people, which she would correct "as more evidence came in...". He then added:

"...If you think it's a danger to recognize a hero as a value, it's because you think you have to be evading or distorting reality...why? 'Because there are no heroes! There are no perfect people! Plato proved that, Christianity proved that.' So your idea is that in order to be rational, you should...escape this faith in the supernatural...you should be a cynic and say nobody is this good... You are entirely wrong."

Hear the full comment here.

I touch on this in my recent essay The Epic Ballad of Superman, in how popular music sees Superman as futile because people aren't perfect: One particular lyric, Billy Idol's "White Wedding," captures this issue nicely:

Hey little sister, who's your Superman?/
Hey litle sister, who's your only one..."

Why does the singer ask this? Because:

There is nothing sure in this world/
and there is nothing purein this world/

In other words, "Who is John Galt?"

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/28, 12:04pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 10/28, 12:31pm)

Post 1

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 4:13pm

I do happen to like that song tho...

But this is better:

Post 2

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 10:24am

I personally enjoy it when my heroes have flaws, I've even been known to enjoy a good anti-hero story. I'm much more of a punisher fan than superman. I think heroes are ok, especially the heroes that we're really talking about here, the made up kind. Having an model that displays value is always a good reference, and good entertainment, even if a person displaying all of those values would be unlikely to exist. Heroes are a part of myth, and myths do have value, I believe.
On another note, Am I the only one who isn't particularly impressed with Peikoff? I realize, not knowing the tone of the objectivists here fully that I may be setting myself up for some massive flaming, but the guy doesn't strike me as being impressive. Maybe impressive in the way that a supercomputer with a lot of knowledge plugged into it is. Just from my limited knowledge, I would say that Rand made some mistakes, and that they were a little more involved that misjudging "people's character". So what? She was a person. She made errors. It doesn't make her less than a genius. How is it that something like 26 years after her death, her intellectual heir is nearly completely unknown outside of very specific circles. Ayn Rand shocked the world with her ideas. Peikoff inherited all of that and is still talking about Ayn Rand's affairs.

Post 3

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 3:00pm

Peikoff is a third-rate philosopher who was designated as Rand's executor - and only self-styled as an 'intellectual heir'...

Post 4

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 3:52pm

Third-rate? No way. There are areas where I significantly disagree with him, but he's not third-rate. Although I know that Peikoff-hate is way fashionable and "in" in the Objectivist crowd.

Post 5

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 5:39pm

I've just honestly never heard him innovate. He's a good read if you want to know EXACTLY what Ayn Rand thought, but he certainly isn't doing much to advance much of anything. Also, I read his account of his run in with the library of Congress. It reads like an episode of Mr. Magoo.

Post 6

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 5:50pm

Ryan,

I have Peikoff's Grammar course and have enjoyed it. He is very bright and very knowledgeable. I agree that there are many more things he could have done as her executor.

The big issue, for the movement, is the schism between the open school of Objectivism and the closed school of Objectivism. Not many (if any) agree with my position, which is that both are needed right now. Objectivism is fairly new as philosophies go. It needs to be open to discovering errors, expanding and adding new areas, and expansion of details where there is now just broad summaries - the open school that David Kelly kicked off.

But it will profit from having a group dedicated to maintaining the original principles, as stated. There are those who call themselves Objectivists, for example, yet espouse anarchy - which must make Rand spin in her grave. Peikoff and ARI may not always interpret current events as Rand would have, but they see their job as keeping Objectivism from 'evolving' into something that contradicts Rand's original work. No anarchists in their camp!

What would be a major improvement would be a friendlier attitude between the different factions - but maybe that is asking for too much.

With the passage of time, the philosophy will form roots - in the culture and in academia and will, hopefully, not stray from its original principles (which is what the closed school's influence will help with). When it is spread far and wide and rooted deep, it will no longer need the closed school in the same way.

Just my two cents.

Post 7

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 6:24pm

From all that I've seen over the years, Peikoff has contributed nothing really new and expansive in Objectivist philosophy, unlike Kelley's several books and pamphlets - even the tooted Objectivism book is while worthy, nothing patricularly noteworthy other than it was the first presentation of the philosophy in an ordered form to the public... his Ominous Parallels was so overlorded by Rand it might as well had been written by her... much of this could be ascribed to this closed system approach... Reisman's Capitalism is a well-done work, more innovated than anything of Peikoff's... even the lecture series [I have the notes of his histories of Philosophy, for instance] are nothing any of us could not have done, given the materials laid out by many others - and even his Objectivism lectures are a smoothed over Branden brushed-off of the original NBI ones - something expected of a third-rater, certainly NOT a first or even second rated one... and his puffery of being the 'intellectual heir' is such a symptom of insecurity [which he always had from the time he was introduced to the philosophy] that reduces him again to what I say he is - just a third rate philosopher...
(Edited by robert malcom on 12/29, 6:27pm)

Post 8

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 11:17pm

I would like to agree with Robert, but don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough to criticize Peikoff's work. I have however, read many of Peikoff's political and worldview opinions, much of which I'd characterize as foolish and maniacal. I think he contorts Objectivism to serve his personal (and incoherent) views. As such, I think he does far more harm than good.

I absolutely agree with Steve, and his thoughts on the two camps. I expressed early on when I joined ROR that I thought there was much more to be expanded upon and refined in Objectivism. Unfortunately, no one shared my particular viewpoints on what to examine, so I never got anywhere. Out of respect, I haven't brought them up since, although I still have the same questions and opinions.

I just wish the passage of time Steve mentions didn't seem so infinite.

jt

Post 9

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 11:42pm

Jay said, "I just wish the passage of time Steve mentions didn't seem so infinite."

When I was young, I wouldn't have imagined having to wait even 10 years to see Objectivism change everything. Now, I'm holding on to my optimism that one day reason WILL prevail - but I think the earliest would be after the next dark age.

Sorry, Jay. But if you want to hope for something sooner, that wouldn't be totally unreasonable, given that we have choice, given the degree of unpredictability in human affairs - just don't bet on it.

Post 10

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 7:02am

Am in somewhat the same pessimistic view, but from a personal standpoint... there has been for many years a manuscript slowly being written, yet much yet to be done before finishing... parts have been shown here, tho mostly notes... it is my attempt to enlarge on the philosophy thru the arena of aesthetics... I have never been satisfied with the Torres/Kamhi book, tho was glad it came out, as there had not been a good overview of the general understanding of her aesthetics... but that was as far as it went - nothing new in many areas, and as such a lack of understanding of aesthetics' importance in the philosophy... but it has competed, so to speak, with my desire to make it financially as an artist, especially with the limited funds of SS to live on...

Still, it moves on, and will be done, even if much later than would have wanted... one thing I've come to see over the years is that while the speed of youth is wonderful, it is the length of experience which in final analysis makes for these works, unless one is the rare person who is more single-minded than most... the germ of the idea may be there in the early years, but the development may take long times before the details come forth... and as noted even with Rand, sometimes they shift over the years from first impressions...

And yet, I still aim to see in my lifetime [given I have, say, thirty more years]this philosophy take hold and be given the deserved respectability...

Post 11

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 9:28am

I'm optimistic, for good reason.

Lot's of unreason is floating around in the world today in the form of bailouts and of nominating socialists for president and such things like that, but there are good people doing more than nothing (which is what is required for evil to win). Just look at the recent respect being given to Objectivism (from the outside):

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Quotes/1377.shtml

... or at the respect given to reason, itself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vweLBpE4mso&feature=channel_page

There's this one YouTube video (couldn't find it) where some anti-mind leftist was saying that Bernanke is good for us because he studied the Great Depression. Peter Schiff trashes Bernanke and cites Murray Rothbard's book on the Great Depression as evidence for his conviction.

The anti-mind leftist tries the usual trick of "argument from intimidation" to get Peter to back down -- but it doesn't work on Peter. Peter doesn't back down, but gets more emboldened. It was a small triumph of Reason, Virtue, and Value.

People are shouting some of the right things and being heard. It's a process. Embrace it.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/30, 3:26pm)

Post 12

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 1:36pm

Growing up is always a process - and society is no exception...

Post 13

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 12:30pm

Steve,

I think optimism is a reasonable approach to life, so long as one stays realistic in assessing one's choices. Nevertheless, what I'd wish to see is some better indication of progress. Sadly, I don't get that looking at the world news, and see more contrary evidence when listening to many of those 'leaders' who offer their analysis of the events.

I'm optimistic, but not naive.

jt

Post 14

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 1:23pm

Remember, news is news only if it is less than glad tidings... at least that seems the motif of almost all the media, and for a long time... many years ago, in the 80's, there was a magazine put out called Oasis... a mag of good tidings... very interesting, a lovely respite from the 6 PM news - but it paled in general interest to the depressing world and local scandals and similar events - and after a couple years, went out of business...

Post 15

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 2:09pm

There is a website called Happy News with the credo:

"We believe virtue, goodwill and heroism are hot news. That's why we bring you up-to-the-minute news, geared to lift spirits and inspire lives. Add in a diverse team of Citizen Journalists reporting positive stories from around the world, and you've got one happy place for news."

There is also the site Science Daily that reports on all types of scientific progress happening each day. It is also another "happy news" site.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 16

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 4:32pm

I get the Science Daily newsletter - does good in keeping me somewhat uptodate, and at less expense than Science News... it is true, things of that nature have an audience - new discoveries and innovations, etc., and perhaps that truly is 'news', the rest the gossip filler[tho that certainly can affect one very negatively, especially if not known beforehand]... while I keep abreast of the latter, and the former as much as desire, am finding it more important to be concerned with 'my world' - my renderings, ideas, and writings... the other tends to fade in importance as far as my own life is concerned...

Post 17

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 4:48pm

I check science daily everyday. There's always something pertinent to something I'm interested in. I never miss the astronomy picture of the day:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Post 18

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 4:51pm

Jay, the mass media news is awful. you have to cherry pick facts from there, separate out the emotionalism and scare tactics and then try to evaluate all of the disparate facts into a trend. The most important area, to my way of thinking, isn't politics, but the state of education. That is the conveyor belt of society where we pass on our ever changing culture to the next generation. Or, in our current case, where we diminish and cripple our culture - shrinking and warping it with each generation. I see technology and science as nearly separate from everything else - with even a modicum of freedom, those will prosper as direct expressions of human activity. Because of my background I track things as long term psychological trends that grow out of changes in the culture. Like the measure of personal responsibility or the tendency to use emotionalism or denial or rationalization. But that's just me.

But that doesn't really address what you said. I think optimism is more a result, an effect than a chosen state. But to the degree that it can be chosen, it is certainly preferable to cynicism or pessimism or being detached. (I'm not talking about an unreasonable, Pollyanna type of optimism, that is just foolish). Optimism is a collorary of self-esteem - feeling worthy and capable naturally leads to a degree of optimism (relative to the context in question).

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 12/31, 4:57pm)

Post 19

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 8:37pm