Intellectual heir?

[Boydstun]

A rose by any other name . . .

In 1976 Rand wrote the following of a new 12-lecture course that Leonard Peikoff had prepared in consultation with her: "Until or unless I write a comprehensive treatise on my philosophy, Dr. Peikoff's course is the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism, i.e., the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate." This series of lectures was titled The Philosophy of Objectivism. These lectures were recorded, then heard for several years around the country in a controlled social format—no pirating—by groups of people who paid to hear the lectures. I heard the recorded lectures and took 53 pages of notes. The recordings included Q&A following the lectures, and Rand participated in these (once she had recovered well enough from a major surgery). It was stated at these lectures, and through years after, that Peikoff would work the lectures into a book. This he completed in 1991.

That book is Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It is. The book is indeed true to the content of his lecture series, which were, by Rand's own statement, an accurate presentation of her philosophy. Fortunately, Peikoff references his statements in the book to Rand's own published writings. This is a help in checking for oneself how truly it expresses Rand's philosophy.*

. . .

Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus. . .

. . .

Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus.

And what is left of the rose is only its name.

That is false and hateful.

[softwareNerd]

Now, if all he means by intellectual heir is what softwareNerd takes from it, an intellectual who follows in the tradition of Rand and builds on her work, ...

Let's say we narrow the meaning of "intellectual heir". Say that an intellectual heir is someone who is declared by Person X as being an intellectual who follows in the tradition of Person X and builds on Person X's work.

This does not change much. In theory, a philosopher could still make a mistake in saying that some protege understand and follows her tradition. The point is, that this is still an evaluation, not a title. There's no transference of any type going on.

Now, we can ask two different questions:

• Did Rand call Peikoff her "intellectual heir"? (Answer: Not in anything published; and, we don't know if she did otherwise. Also, it does not sound as if Peikoff claims she did.)
• Did Rand call Peikoff her intellectual heir? (Answer: Boydstun's post makes clear that she did, at least at some point in time.)

So, even by this stronger claim (using it to mean someone who follows another intellectual's tradition, and is evaluated by that originator as doing so), Peikoff is clearly Rand's intellectual heir, whether or not she used the term.

Using this meaning, anyone else who follows in Rand's tradition but was not evaluated as such by Rand would not be an intellectual heir.

I don't know if a poster like TLD thinks of the term as meaning some more than what I have just described in this narrower sense. If so, it will be interesting to see some type of third definition.

Edited August 4, 2011 by softwareNerd

[Ninth Doctor]

Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus.

And what is left of the rose is only its name.

That is false and hateful.

Huh? I don’t understand your reaction, what makes you say that?

The Latin phrase I quoted is the final line of The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco, in that context it means about the same as the title Gone with the Wind. In this context, at least my intent was that it mean: A rose by any other name…would still be just an empty name. In other words, with perhaps some poetic license: the title “intellectual heir” is empty, and something ephemeral at most. Like a rose, which certainly doesn’t last 30 years.

Ugh, with all this talk of roses, now I have Ethel Merman's voice running through my head.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Ninth Doctor

[WeDontNeedGod]

"And what is left of the rose is only its name." Seems to imply that LP is Rands "intellectual heir" in name only. Thats probably why he said it is false and hateful. It implies that LP has departed from Objectivism philosopically.

[Tenderlysharp]

“In considering the issue of inherited wealth, one must begin by recognizing that the crucial right involved is not that of the heir but of the original producer of the wealth.” – Inherited Wealth, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pg 96

This is why one ought to be willing to agree with Ayn Rand before calling himself an Objectivist.

“If an heir is worthy of his money, i.e., if he uses it productively, he brings more wealth into existence, he raises the general standard of living – and, to that extent he makes the road to the top easier for any talented newcomer.” – Ayn Rand, Inherited Wealth, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pg 97

Worthy of money, or attention, or time. Ayn Rand deemed Leonard Peikoff worthy of her presence and attention during her lifetime. His questions inspired a great deal of the clarification that took place during the development of her non-fiction works. Ayn Rand refined the concept of inheritance; no longer an accident of birth, it became another extension of conscious volition.

“The greater the value of the property, the greater the effort demanded of the heir.” – Ayn Rand, Patents and Copyrights, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pg 143

Ayn Rand demanded a great deal from everyone in her close circle of friends.

“Intellectual achievement, in fact, cannot be transferred, just as intelligence, ability,or any other personal virtue cannot be transferred. All that can be transferred is the material results of an achievement, in the form of actually produced wealth. By the very nature of the right on which intellectual property is based – a man's right to the product of his mind – that right ends with him. He cannot dispose of that which he cannot know or judge: the yet-unproduced, indirect, potential results of his achievement four generations – or four centuries – later. – Ayn Rand, Patents and Copyrights, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pg 143-144

This is where individuals have the space to grow with the development of human knowledge. When Leonard Piekoff says something is or isn't Objectivism he does so as consistently as he can, as the custodian Ayn Rand's rights. Each individual has to decide for himself, based on his own evaluation, his relationship to Objectivism. Your reputation is valuable to the development of the important relationships in your life but, the volitional functioning of your mind and your quest for rationality and truth are more essential.

“It is in this issue that our somewhat collectivistic terminology might be misleading: on the expiration of a patent or copyright, the intellectual property involved does not become “public property” (though it is labeled as “in the public domain”); it ceases to exist qua property. And if the invention or the book continues to be manufactured, the benefit of that former property does not go to the “public,” it goes to the only rightful heirs: to the producers, to those who exercise the effort of embodying that idea in new material forms and thus keeping it alive. – Ayn Rand, Patents and Copyrights, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pg 143-144

I see Leonard Peikoff's claim that he is Ayn Rand's intellectual heir as a self assessment; a statement of self esteem. He obviously respects the efficacy of his own mind. As in all of Objectivism, any statement ought to be evaluated by your own judgment, rather than taking anyone's authority for it.

“In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.” Ayn Rand, Anatomy of Compromise, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal 159.

During Ayn Rand's lifetime Leonard Peikoff was the most consistent.

[Ninth Doctor]

Did Rand call Peikoff her intellectual heir? (Answer: Boydstun's post makes clear that she did, at least at some point in time.)

In the material he quotes, Rand does no such thing. Quite the opposite, in fact. She communicated her approval for a specific lecture series, with no suggestion that she approves of Peikoff per se, or even of Peikoff’s other work to date. Also, bear in mind that that statement comes in the context of competition from the Basic Principles of Objectivism course, which was then available for purchase on LP’s.

I think we ought to give some consideration to what “intellectual heir” meant in practice, during Rand’s lifetime. It meant Nathaniel Branden had explicit license to speak for Rand, and to be one hell of a bully, both in her presence and on his own. Why would anyone want to step in those shoes?

"And what is left of the rose is only its name." Seems to imply that LP is Rands "intellectual heir" in name only. Thats probably why he said it is false and hateful. It implies that LP has departed from Objectivism philosopically.

I suppose, though it's not what I was thinking. I’ve interacted with Stephen on OL, he’s one of the few who defend Peikoff over there, where attacks can sometimes become admittedly hyperbolic. He’s ok in my book.

[Tanaka]

There are plenty of people who understand and agree with Objectivism, not just Dr. Peikoff.

But I think "intellectual heir" suggests that the heir "inherited" the predecessor's intellect in terms of magnitude, not just content. Does Ayn Rand really have an intellectual heir, with that in mind? Does any Objectivist intellectual, as of now, have the body of work (in which he builds on Objectivism, while remaining consistent with it, as opposed to just understanding and explaining it to the rest of us) to qualify?

[Ninth Doctor]

I think we ought to give some consideration to what “intellectual heir” meant in practice, during Rand’s lifetime. It meant Nathaniel Branden had explicit license to speak for Rand, and to be one hell of a bully, both in her presence and on his own. Why would anyone want to step in those shoes?

A bit of a delayed reaction quote worth dropping here:

If you knock down monuments, spare the pedestals: they can always be used again.

Stanislaw J. Lec,

Uncombed Thoughts

[Grames]

Intellectual hair is more easily obtained nowadays. See: http://shop.bricktw.com/color/brown/intellectual-hair-style-hg007-n10.html

In action on Flickr:

Much Ado About Nothing.

[Ninth Doctor]

Intellectual hair is more easily obtained nowadays.

[TheEgoist]

That cat's grammar is hardly serious.

[Ninth Doctor]

That cat's grammar is hardly serious.

Yes, well if I don't think a thread is interesting, I generally don't post on it.

How about another Lec aphorism? I could go on and on with these, and they are relevant, if you think about them.

Is it a progress if a cannibal is using a knife and fork?

Stanislaw J. Lec,

Uncombed Thoughts

Edited August 10, 2011 by Ninth Doctor