Open Objectivism
- - - - -
For reference:
Fact and Value: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The Leonard Peikoff/David Kelley intellectual exchange: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
- - - - -
As the person who first raised the issue of tolerance and of open vs. closed Objectivism—and the person whose position has been under consideration in recent posts—I’d like first of all to thank Walter Donway for his articulate explanation and defense of the position we share. To weigh in with additional thoughts:
1. Historically, the debate began in 1989 when Peter Schwartz attacked me for speaking to a libertarian organization, the Laissez-Farire Books supper club. I responded with a 4-page open letter ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) mailed (in pre-internet days) to my Objectivist colleagues, including Schwartz and Peikoff among others. I advocated tolerance in the service of the open expansion of Objectivism:
“There is much we can learn from others if we are willing to listen. And even where they are wrong, we strengthen the foundations of our own beliefs—the accuracy and range of our observations, the validity of our concepts, the rigor of our arguments—by the effort to prove why they are wrong.
“That’s why every age of reason has welcomed diversity and debate. The great minds of the Enlightenment declared war on the entire apparatus of intolerance: the obsession with official or authorized doctrine, the concepts of heresy and blasphemy, the party lines and intellectual xenophobia, the militant hostility among rival sects, the constant schisms and breaks, the character assassination of those who fall from grace. These are the techniques of irrational philosophies, such as Christianity or Marxism, and may well have been vital to their success. But they have no place in a philosophy of reason.
“Ayn Rand left us a magnificent system of ideas. But it is not a closed system. It is a powerful engine of integration. Let us not starve it of fuel by shutting our minds to what is good in other approaches. Let us test our ideas in open debate. If we are right, we have nothing to fear; if we are wrong, we have something to learn. Above all, let us encourage independent thought among ourselves. Let us welcome dissent, and the restless ways of the explorers among us. Nine out of ten new ideas will be mistakes, but the tenth will let in the light.”
That excerpt should make it clear that toleration of and engagement with those we disagree with is not the primary issue. The primary issue is whether Objectivism is open or closed as a philosophical system. If it’s open, we benefit from engagement. If closed, why bother? The open character is the founding principle of The Atlas Society, and we have pursued it many ways. An example is my work on benevolence as a virtue, which, as Walter explains, is grounded in basic values of Objectivism. That said, we are rigorous about what work we endorse: it must be consistent with established Objectivist principles, as hundreds of pages of exposition on our website will attest.
2. To my knowledge, this was the first time any Objectivist thinker has raised the issue of open vs. closed. I thought the open character was obvious; I thought my Objectivist colleagues were pursuing new Objectivist insights. “Fact and Value” was Peikoff’s response, saying that the philosophy was closed. I replied to his essay at length in The Contested Legacy pf Ayn Rand, esp. Chap 5. ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) No principal in Peikoff’s camp has responded to my arguments in 25 years. Meanwhile, I gave a talk on the issues in 2010, “Truth and Toleration Twenty Years Later” ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ).
My friends in the Gulch, this is an important issue and well worth debating. Having been party to this argument for 25 years, I hope my writing here today provides some historical context for those pursuing the issue in earnest. I'll try to answer any questions you might have.
For reference:
Fact and Value: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The Leonard Peikoff/David Kelley intellectual exchange: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
- - - - -
As the person who first raised the issue of tolerance and of open vs. closed Objectivism—and the person whose position has been under consideration in recent posts—I’d like first of all to thank Walter Donway for his articulate explanation and defense of the position we share. To weigh in with additional thoughts:
1. Historically, the debate began in 1989 when Peter Schwartz attacked me for speaking to a libertarian organization, the Laissez-Farire Books supper club. I responded with a 4-page open letter ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) mailed (in pre-internet days) to my Objectivist colleagues, including Schwartz and Peikoff among others. I advocated tolerance in the service of the open expansion of Objectivism:
“There is much we can learn from others if we are willing to listen. And even where they are wrong, we strengthen the foundations of our own beliefs—the accuracy and range of our observations, the validity of our concepts, the rigor of our arguments—by the effort to prove why they are wrong.
“That’s why every age of reason has welcomed diversity and debate. The great minds of the Enlightenment declared war on the entire apparatus of intolerance: the obsession with official or authorized doctrine, the concepts of heresy and blasphemy, the party lines and intellectual xenophobia, the militant hostility among rival sects, the constant schisms and breaks, the character assassination of those who fall from grace. These are the techniques of irrational philosophies, such as Christianity or Marxism, and may well have been vital to their success. But they have no place in a philosophy of reason.
“Ayn Rand left us a magnificent system of ideas. But it is not a closed system. It is a powerful engine of integration. Let us not starve it of fuel by shutting our minds to what is good in other approaches. Let us test our ideas in open debate. If we are right, we have nothing to fear; if we are wrong, we have something to learn. Above all, let us encourage independent thought among ourselves. Let us welcome dissent, and the restless ways of the explorers among us. Nine out of ten new ideas will be mistakes, but the tenth will let in the light.”
That excerpt should make it clear that toleration of and engagement with those we disagree with is not the primary issue. The primary issue is whether Objectivism is open or closed as a philosophical system. If it’s open, we benefit from engagement. If closed, why bother? The open character is the founding principle of The Atlas Society, and we have pursued it many ways. An example is my work on benevolence as a virtue, which, as Walter explains, is grounded in basic values of Objectivism. That said, we are rigorous about what work we endorse: it must be consistent with established Objectivist principles, as hundreds of pages of exposition on our website will attest.
2. To my knowledge, this was the first time any Objectivist thinker has raised the issue of open vs. closed. I thought the open character was obvious; I thought my Objectivist colleagues were pursuing new Objectivist insights. “Fact and Value” was Peikoff’s response, saying that the philosophy was closed. I replied to his essay at length in The Contested Legacy pf Ayn Rand, esp. Chap 5. ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) No principal in Peikoff’s camp has responded to my arguments in 25 years. Meanwhile, I gave a talk on the issues in 2010, “Truth and Toleration Twenty Years Later” ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ).
My friends in the Gulch, this is an important issue and well worth debating. Having been party to this argument for 25 years, I hope my writing here today provides some historical context for those pursuing the issue in earnest. I'll try to answer any questions you might have.
No one has the ability to do this.
Jan
Your quoted passage is just the point, Peikoff tried to do that and Kelley called him on his nonsense.
Personal Opinion: The philosophy of Objectivism in order to 'live and breath' has to be 'open' to discovery, development, and further integration and exposition into the current day-to-day lives of America. How does that happen? Is that an Intellectual driven task? Does openness to debate and discussion with anyone with other ideas really help or does it provide audiences and a level of credibility for arguments against Obectivism? What's your perception of the proposed AS TV series in relation to the above goal?
"Objectivism is more than a theoretical structure; it is a philosophy to live by. Over time, the accumulated experience of those who practice it will produce a moral tradition, a body of reflection about the issues that arise in applying the principles."
I think this prediction is being confirmed. I know many business and life coaches, educators, and others who are dealing with living the principles; TAS has published articles and talks on the subject (as has ARI). I am optimistic about the growth of insights and tools for living as an Objectivist--more optimistic about that, frankly, than about political change.
http://atlassociety.org/topics/17-per....
David
The more input from principals the better for this discussion.
Below is my experience for why I think it is important that all rational lines of inquiry have to be open.
In my exploration of economics I found that the economists (not Rand's ideas) I generally agreed with had failed to answer some important questions and were inconsistent with Rand. I began to be bored and unsatisfied with reading endless articles and books that repeated the same arguments. My first hint about how to solve these problems in economics came from a book "Farewell to Alms" that is not objectivist and challenged some of the standard line of free market economists like Friedman, Hayek, Mises and others.
In the end I have drawn on a number of economists ideas that did not spend all their time preaching the same arguments for free markets and capitalism (echo chamber). I have also been attacked for not just supporting the orthodoxy of for instance "Austrian Economics." I have even suggested that Malthus and the environmentalist have some valid points that need to be addressed and I do not think were addressed adequately by mainstream free market economics. I think that I have now answered them and in the process found some important insights into economics.
This would not have happened if I thought Rand and free market economics were "perfect" or closed.
It may be the first time to your knowledge, but I can assure you, that in the hinterlands, that discussion has been going on for40 years at the minimum. As an ancient Objectivist what I call the Piekoff attitude has caused divisiveness. In my case, I was in Michigan's Detroit area when we got the message that our "Ayn Rand Society" could no longer use her name. Those questioning this edict were threatened to be dismissed. In any case, it was the first time I heard about Libertarianism. I don't know if the debates are still ongoing as I moved to Florida 24 years ago.
"In attacking McCaskey, Leonard Peikoff defends The Logical Leap’s theory of induction as part of Objectivism, despite the fact that it contains many innovations that Ayn Rand herself never addressed."-William R. Thomas
http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...
From Amazon on TLL, "Ayn Rand presented her revolutionary theory of concepts in her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. As Dr. Peikoff subsequently explored the concept of induction, he sought out David Harriman, a physicist who had taught philosophy, for his expert knowledge of the scientific discovery process."
If that is not a statement in favor of "open" I don't know what is. Perhaps only Peikoff can make innovation with respect to Objectivism. and when he dies-then what? Will he name a successor? that's weird
Pity, but it seems most organizations start, grow, then inside fighting stymies them, and then they fail.
To me, Schwartz is a dogmatist, and that is the exact opposite of the heros of Ayn Rand --- or any other thinker. I see he is now a “Distinguished Fellow, Ayn Rand Institute.” That’s nice, I suppose, and it fits in that ARI appears to me to be dogmatic: If Rand did not say it, then it is not right. If she did say it, it is right (even if she made a mistake). I think they should rename themselves into Rand Witnesses and follow the teachings of Rand (right or wrong) the way Jehovah’s Witnesses follow their bible.
I had some friends who are ARI members, and, just as the Jehovah’s Witnesses shun those who question anything, they no longer talk to me because I questioned a few points about Rand.
The late Sam Steiger was a former six-term US Congressman from my state of Arizona. He ran for governor of Arizona on the Libertarian ticket in, I think, 1984. He was a genuine gentleman rancher and had the "people's touch." At a talk given July 31, 1982, at The Nevada Libertarian Party “Candidate's Convention” in Las Vegas, Nevada, he suggested what he modestly called:
Steiger’s Law: People involved in a structure spend more time and energy maintaining that structure than in working toward its goals.
I don't usually engage in too much back-and-forth blogging, since this rarely results in more light than heat. I prefer to wag more, bark less.
Your constant personal attacks are not "questioning a few points". Any normal person can see what you are doing and that it has no content. Calling you on this is and rejecting it for what it is is not "my, you sound hostile". The hostility is all yours.
:)
Precisely. If something is true, every time we revisit it it's truth comes out and reconfirms to us it's veracity. It is not that the nature of the thing has changed, it is because we as humans are so inconstant that we must be reminded lest we stray.
As a secondary matter, there is the tendency to go back to the comfortable or historical when confronted with new information because it is comfortable. It is a part of human nature that very few overcome without constant reinforcement of correct principle. That re-wiring of the brain doesn't happen instantly - it takes conscious and continuous effort to become ingrained within us. It's the reason there are so many self-help books, diet fads, and fashions and why people constantly flit from one to another. Ask anyone who has lost significant weight and kept it off, however, and they will readily acknowledge that they did so only by changing their attitudes and behaviors toward food. So must we examine our attitudes and behaviors toward endeavors of the mind.
Read the comment for what it is. Don't take apart pieces of my argument and try to invent claims on my behalf or misconstrue them to mean anything other than what they are.
Change is also difficult, however. Change requires effort - especially because there is always a psychological change which accompanies a procedural or technical change. Good business managers and change consultants have known this for decades. It's one reason why so many software projects fail: they address the technical side of the change, but insufficiently address the psychological side of the change. It's a concept in the business world known as "buy-in" and if your users and line managers don't buy in (or psychologically invest) in the change, until they do they are going to fight the changes. When enough people fight the changes to a software system - or fail to buy-in - the system will eventually fail, and usually not because it lacked merit.
Q: Why don't we as humans simply just accept that when our IT people tell us an upgrade or new system is a good thing for us?
A: Because we are comfortable with how we have been doing things and have developed a mindset that complements those methods.
To expand, that mindset is not just a psychological thing, it is also a physical path of networking of the neurons in the brain. It is literally our internal wiring. Can the wiring be changed? Yes, but the longer someone has been doing something, the more difficult it is to effect change. The old axiom "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" is based on this observation. While not 100% accurate, the amount of effort required to re-write old pathways with new ones is roughly analogous to the amount of time we spent using those old pathways. Habits are a powerful thing and are reflective of neural pathways exercised until those actions, etc., are literally ingrained in our minds.
So if habitual actions are that difficult to change, isn't it amazing that people can change at all? Quite frankly, yes. Motivation, obviously, must be a powerful thing - powerful enough to cause us to exercise/work until change happens. The motivation ultimately must be personal gain or improvement to be truly effective, because change only happens at a personal level. That's why monetary impulses can be highly motivating. It's why the grocery stores have all those impulse-buy items right at the checkout counter: they are playing on the stimulus-response of short-term gain.
Impetus for change can also be derived from the perception of a future gain or improvement. These are the most difficult changes to effect because the effort put forth does not necessarily generate a gain in the near-term. Smoking cessation projects qualify here, as it may take an individual several years on nicotine patches or gum before they finally give up cigarettes and override the habit of having something wedged between the fore- and middle fingers. Weight loss programs face a similar challenge. For long-term changes to habits, therefore, there must be a constant reminder that the work we do now is to effect a change that may only fully manifest itself in the future, or that our efforts at every day change effect such a small alteration to the pathways of the brain that this ever-so-gradual change is imperceptible except when viewed from the long-term.
When we are talking psychological or ideological change, we are talking long-term change - not something that happens at the snap of fingers. The metaphorical "lightbulb" moment only applies to the sudden understanding one gains with insight into the nature of the personal gain to be had by change - it unfortunately provides no more than a mere spark towards effecting the actual change. Thus constant reinforcement from external sources (repetition, revisiting things we already know) is not wasted effort at all. It is an effort towards strengthening and reinforcing those neural pathways through constant practice and exercise.
What happens when we don't use those pathways? Just like volatile RAM in a computer, it may get over-written with new pathways. Our behaviors change and we stray from what we once did.
Please feel free to send your phone number to austexk72 in a private message. To send a private message, click on the member's username (e.g. "austek72") and then click on the "Message" button located directly underneath the member's profile picture.
Always add a question mark to knowledge that you think to be a closed subject. I find that beliefs that I considered knowledge for decades sometimes have to be reconsidered and changed to be consistent with objective reality. Similarly, philosophies have to be considered as open systems and if religions were to be considered open then it would be possible for them to become philosophies for those who look for facts and ultimately for truths about existence.
I think I may have first read Atlas Shrugged earlier than almost anyone in this forum. The lesson I took away from Rand's book was that rational, fact-based decisions lead naturally to a more productive, fulfilling life. Those seeking a new Objectivist Ten Commandments to live by seem to be supplanting one form of dogma for another.
At the same time, I don't automatically dismiss those "in the other camp," despite our conflicts. ARI has recruited and trained some very good scholars. To be sure, a lot of that work is what I would call "Rand scholarship"--interpreting her works, the way ancient philosophers try to interpret Aristotle's writings. That's not my interest; my interest is in the substantive philosophical issues about reason, logic, knowledge, ethics, etc. But even here, I would say that "the other side" has produced good new work, e.g., Logical Leap (Peikoff and Harriman), How We Know (Binswanger).
That said, open Objectivists recognize good work no matter who does it. I think this is a matter of intellectual honesty. I would never allow my organization to shove good work down the memory hole. I wish I could say the same for the other camp....
This is the essence of Objectivism. Thank you David. You are a HERO.
Regardless of discovering or learning new principles, simply applying known principles takes a great deal of thought. No one stopped thinking when Ayn Rand died. Her death was not a "moratorium on brains" and was not proclaimed as that by anyone.
Ayn Rand would be spinning in her grave if she knew a bunch of secondhanders are not thinking for themselves but instead quoting her or everything she ever said anything about, whether she was speaking with philosophical rigor at the time or not. Instead of taking on the most central duty of objectivist ethics, thinking, they make objectivism and all or nothing closed system and act as if that closed system is more important than comprehending reality for oneself and acting on that comprehension.
Objectivism is a philosophy of rationality and of fully rational self interest. That is by its nature not closed. Especially if it is to be a living philosophy and way of life rather than a memetic mausoleum.
I agree, much of the down voting does not make for a civil discussion and is likely counter productive. I think we see the same in politics today.
You might want to check out when the 26th and 27th amendments were ratified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
What is ironic is that Peikoff's jealous guardianship of Objectivism has driven people away from Objectivism and into libertarian circles.
Yes, one's mind can be too far open, and thus allow in all kinds of nonsense, as today's "liberals" do.
But a closed mind is one sign of cultism, and fear of engagement shows a lack of confidence in one's position.
Objectivism's main attraction is it frees the mind. but demands the price of honesty as a payment. Then assigns the harshest judge to rule. Thus ends Diogenes search.
Of the latter, several times they lay in wait for her at her Ford Hall Forum talks, pouncing during the question period: "Miss Rand, why do you not support the Libertarian Party, which is so obviously in line with your principles?"
Rand had studied the writings and speeches of Libertarians, I'm sure, and knew that the Libertarians borrowed from her "as convenient" to support their own flavor of anarchy or socialism or free-wheeling flights of fancy. The ill-fated Republic of Minerva was but one of these adventures. I was involved with some people producing a totally unauthorized film of Anthem.
Rand rejected ALL of these, referring in public to "Leebertairian Heepies" and castigating the film project in private with the words, "I'LL SUE YOU!"
To this day there are those who staunchly continue to defend Rand from what they see as the very same crowd of intellectual thieves.
True to Rand's prediction, the Libertarian Party has had little discernible positive impact (from an Objectivist perspective) on American politics. Rand said it was too early, in answer to the question, "Is Atlas Shrugging?" She also said, if I remember correctly, that American politics had no working philosophy other than pragmatism. She of course rejected pragmatism. I believe that she regarded the Libertarians as pragmatists.
So there you have it.
As far as I can tell, David Kelley's position suffers especially from being regarded as an alternative to Leonard Peikoff's. Peikoff does have, if I understand correctly, the authority to present and publish additional works by Rand that did not appear in her lifetime. He also cannot avoid speaking as to what does and does not constitute Objectivism. He once said that if one wants to set up a philosophy that borrows Rand's ideas, please do not call it Objectivism, but instead call it Gloopism. (He made up that word.)
Kelley has, as do all of us, not only the right but the moral necessity of interpreting what Rand meant in her works. If Objectivism is to have any purpose at all we must use it. None of us, not Peikoff, not Kelley, and certainly not I, has any "Papal" authority to speak for Rand. All of us are capable of error, and of recognizing and correcting errors, our own and others'. But we can and MUST present our own views.
LFB included books by Ayn Rand, along with fringe books cashing in on her name (most of which few have heard of) attacking her and her philosophy, Austrian economics, and classical liberalism back to the 19th century. But it was not just a book service for free market books carrying books that sold well (like Ayn Rand's). LFB had an ideological editorial policy of promoting all the "libertarian" books it could it find in the store front and in its periodical, emphasizing anarchism as the meaning of libertarian. The editor of the periodical was an anarchist whose attacks on Ayn Rand caused a major, diversionary controversy.
Part of the problem with the libertarians, which for a while were dominated by anarchists, was their attempt to hijack Ayn Rand and others as really meaning anarchism and their a-philosophical radical politics, claiming her popular books as their major contemporary source. She rejected them as the "hippies of the right" half plagiarizing and half contradicting her ideas.
Load more comments...