Objectivist Culture

[Boethius Newman]

After watching the further disintegration of Objectivism as adherents reacted to the Harriman fiasco, I wrote the "Question" below, to a friend.  His "Answer" is very astute.

 

Please note:  this is not addressed to the case of the Brandens, Kelley, or Harriman.  They have left Objectivism.  This applies to those of us who fall generally under the "orthodoxy" of ARI, OCONs, etc.

___________________________

 

Mr. B:  Re the propensity of Objectivists to form schisms and splits, denounce and revile at the least provocation, and be easily provoked into hostility, name calling, and childish petulance:

 

This proves the total lack of understanding of relationships by Objectivists, and therefore Politics.

 

Did you ever change anyone's mind by calling them names or mercilessly criticizing their opinion or otherwise abusing them?

 

Do you ever see anyone who is effective at getting people to agree or work with them or come to their point of view say anything that gets remotely similar to the abusive style shown throughout by both sides of any typical Objectivist disagreement?

 

Did you ever even see anyone agree with you, even if they are of the same opinion, if you mistreat them the way these people are doing?

 

Do you think John Galt ever used such language like that in his efforts to persuade the other would-be strikers?

 

Do you think Galt's Gulch would survive for twenty minutes if these attitudes existed there?

 

QED:

 

1.  None of these people would be invited nor welcome in Galt's Gulch.

 

2.  There is no future nor progress based on these attitudes and treatment of other people.

 

3.  This behavior is therefore the alternative: destructive.

 

4.  This behavior and therefore these people will not and cannot produce an Objectivist culture.

 

Mr. X:  Re #4, this IS Objectivist culture.

_________________________________

 

[softwareNerd]

I sympathize with your disappointment... ...but, surely there's more to be said

Edited May 31, 2014 by softwareNerd

[StrictlyLogical]

This thread is useful...

[Nicky]

John Galt can't be the standard of behavior for Objectivist intellectuals, because John Galt didn't deal with the problems Oist intellectuals deal with. John Galt's response to people with opposing views was to ignore them, and fully insulate himself from the society they were a part of. He had no interactions with anyone who disagreed with him on matters of philosophy. Objectivist intellectuals are choosing to engage such people. Of course relationships won't always be harmonious.

As for not being welcome in Galt's Gulch, the Gulch was a meritocracy. I doubt a "bad attitude", especially towards outsiders, would've cost a great producer his place in Galt's Gulch. So, are you claiming that Leonard Peikoff's work for instance isn't significant enough to earn him that kind of reward?

There is no future nor progress based on these attitudes and treatment of other people.

That's what everyone says, about people he feels are wrong about something. And yet, people can be perceived to be wrong, or even actually be wrong in some of their actions, and still be successful in other endeavors.

I disagree that ARI is defined by the quibbles they had with people who have left. They can "mistreat" (in your eyes, at least) some people, and be successful in working with others just fine.

Take me, for instance. I have no complaints against ARI or Leonard Peikoff. I have learned a lot from them, and, since I don't pay attention to the disagreements, or the complaints of people who left, they don't affect me in the least. As long as ARI puts out a quality product (and, it seems to me, they do), how they are organized is not my concern.

 

 I'm sure there are plenty of others like me, who could care less about the internal politics of ARI, and on whom ARI's activism has had a positive influence. We should be counted as "progress", and direct proof that your definitive claim that "ARI is making no progress" is wrong.
 

3. This behavior is therefore the alternative: destructive.

Not to me it's not. I could care less about deciphering these quibbles, let alone evaluate people based on it. I'd much rather judge them on their work. I would bet anything that that's also the attitude of the general population. Personal disagreements between Oist intellectuals are exactly that: personal. Their business. 

 

When members of ARI write articles in mainstream magazines, hold speeches at universities, or give interviews to the media, they don't talk (nor are they asked ) about their personal quibbles with the latest guy who resigned from ARI, they talk about the philosophy. In fact, cleaning house from time to time to make sure the message being sent out is coherent, is probably beneficial to the work being done, rather than destructive.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Nicky

[dream_weaver]

With regards to #4, ARI's stated goal is to change the culture. Now if the philosophy of a culture has no role in its course, then "will not" and "can not" might well be an accurate assessment. The more I learn about and gain understanding of the power philosophy plays in determining the direction of the culture, and ARI's explanation of how to go about implementing such change - I think it is just a matter of when.

[softwareNerd]

I'm not sure what the OP is saying. Is his focus on ARI, or is he talking more broadly about Objectivists and the way they relate to other Objectivists? Or, since he talks about changing the culture, is he talking about how Objectivists relate to other Objectivists? That's why I think the original post needs more elaboration.

[dream_weaver]

softwareNerd,

That was initially my perspective. Note the phrasing: This applies to us, an inclusive term, associating the OP'er to the "orthodoxy" of the ARI, OCON's, etc.

 

I may have jumped the gun here, yet the objections raised are consonant with objections I've encountered with folks evaluating Objectivism from doing a quick online search of it, or evaluating it based on what they have acquired via news media or their social circles.

 

The section from Mr. B to Q.E.D. outlines how folks not intimate with the nuances of Objectivism might view the causes of the schisms.

The four points summarize the "orthodox" position.

 

The last line: Mr. X: This IS the Objectivist culture. - - - What IS the Objectivist culture? See point #4. The Objectivist culture IS: This behavior (the internal bickering, criticizing opinions, and name calling) and therefore these people (the "orthodoxy" of ARI, OCON, etc.) cannot produce an Objectivist culture.

 

What I can't identify from the OP, is whether Boethius Newman concurs with this assessment or not. He may be seeking insight how to respond to the astute "Answer".

[Boethius Newman]

Excuse me if I did not make myself clear.  I am in no way criticizing ARI, and I will include LP in that as well.  ARI is an essential part of building the future.  I have been a contributor almost from its beginning.  LP has had one of the toughest jobs of all:  keeping Objectivism to its definition in the face of those who would have changed it.  "Fact and Value" is one of his greatest contributions. 

 

I view "Productiveness" as not just as in the classic, immediate explanation but more:  building the world that we want to live in and want to see, for ourselves, our families, and our friends.  Infighting, etc., will never be a part of making that happen. 

 

I urge Objectivists to focus more on building the relationships that will bring about an Objectivist culture.  This takes a lot of people working together.  Those Oists who bemoan that they will not see it happen in their lifetime are failing to realize that building relationships - stressing common ground - is where it starts. 
 

Edited June 1, 2014 by Boethius Newman

[softwareNerd]

I urge Objectivists to focus more on building the relationships that will bring about an Objectivist culture.  This takes a lot of people working together.  Those Oists who bemoan that they will not see it happen in their lifetime are failing to realize that building relationships - stressing common ground - is where it starts.

Are you talking about building relationships with non-Objectivists? For instance, say, engaging politely with the mix of left and right wing folk on a local school-board, to show them some rational ideas that might work?

[Eiuol]

Excuse me if I did not make myself clear.  I am in no way criticizing ARI, and I will include LP in that as well.  ARI is an essential part of building the future.  I have been a contributor almost from its beginning.  LP has had one of the toughest jobs of all:  keeping Objectivism to its definition in the face of those who would have changed it.  "Fact and Value" is one of his greatest contributions.

Lol. Definitely a troll/sock puppet. Your only post is this thread, recently made account, use of the word "orthodox" (the people who use that term would never say anything positive about ARI), and the absurd exaggerations of praise...  Need I go on? Amusing, though. Heh, and your treatment of what "closed" Objectivism as though it means its supporters as an idea seek no knowledge outside of Objectivism's definition.

 

Be honest, don't hide behind satire here. You won't be banned or modded for mere criticism of ARI.

[Plasmatic]

Louie, that seems to be quite a hasty generalization. The list of things you cite are not a rational justification for your conclusion. I consider "orthodox" to be a good categorization of ARI. Maybe you should evaluate your criteria for evidence....

[Plasmatic]

OP said:

This proves the total lack of understanding of relationships by Objectivists, and therefore Politics.

Did you ever change anyone's mind by calling them names or mercilessly criticizing their opinion or otherwise abusing them?

Do you ever see anyone who is effective at getting people to agree or work with them or come to their point of view say anything that gets remotely similar to the abusive style shown throughout by both sides of any typical Objectivist disagreement?

I'd like to see instances of this in ARI members stated, to evaluate what this person thinks is "name calling", "merciless criticizing", and what is claimed to be typical of those who fail to "understand relationships" in a way that informs Oist tenets.... The ironic thing is that ARI currently appears to be much more willing to engage than Ms.Rand was herself, both with philosophical opponents and with academics.... Edited June 1, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Eiuol]

Louie, that seems to be quite a hasty generalization. The list of things you cite are not a rational justification for your conclusion. I consider "orthodox" to be a good categorization of ARI. Maybe you should evaluate your criteria for evidence....

They're reasons I'm skeptical that the OP is genuine. The thing about satire is that only people "in on it" can recognize it until the intentions of the speaker are revealed. Perhaps I am too hasty. But if it isn't satirical here from its apparent absurdities and exaggerations, then I'd truly be surprised - I'm open to further explanation from Boethius. I know people from this forum (this was a while ago, not any current poster) who really would/have do/done things like this for ulterior motives besides just trolling purposes.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

LP has had one of the toughest jobs of all:  keeping Objectivism to its definition in the face of those who would have changed it.  "Fact and Value" is one of his greatest contributions. 

. . .

I urge Objectivists to focus more on building the relationships that will bring about an Objectivist culture.  This takes a lot of people working together.  Those Oists who bemoan that they will not see it happen in their lifetime are failing to realize that building relationships - stressing common ground - is where it starts. 

 

Are you aware of the events which prompted LP's "Fact and Value?"  I would appreciate some clarification

 

While you're urging Objectivists to take a calmer and more benevolent approach to outsiders, the entire Peikoff-Kelley split revolved around just that- and Peikoff was condemning that approach as a form of the victim's sanction.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The ironic thing is that ARI currently appears to be much more willing to engage than Ms.Rand was herself, both with philosophical opponents and with academics....

The double irony being found here:

 

http://ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/religion-and-morality/Fact-and-Value

1. David Kelley speaks at a Libertarian function, and is expelled from the institute for it.
2. Peikoff and Peter Schwartz proceed to write several essays in which they explain that to speak to evil men, such as Libertarians, is a form of appeasement.
3. Years later Peikoff writes articles in which he explicitly supports Mitt Romney.

http://www.peikoff.com/election/

 

Be honest, don't hide behind satire here. You won't be banned or modded for mere criticism of ARI.

A fact which I do not express my gratitude for nearly enough. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold

[StrictlyLogical]

The double irony being found here:

 

http://ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/religion-and-morality/Fact-and-Value

1. David Kelley speaks at a Libertarian function, and is expelled from the institute for it.
2. Peikoff and Peter Schwartz proceed to write several essays in which they explain that to speak to evil men, such as Libertarians, is a form of appeasement.
3. Years later Peikoff writes articles in which he explicitly supports Mitt Romney.

http://www.peikoff.com/election/

 

A fact which I do not express my gratitude for nearly enough. 

 

 

Does anyone know where to find a copy of David Kelly's paper? It's ok I Found it.

 

Its early yet... in a few centuries there will be a non-institutionalized non-personalized version of capital O-Objectivism, possibly by another name.

 

People will argue... but there will be nothing to be excommunicated from or associated with... only reality will be the final arbiter for ideas of individuals...

 

 

After all A is A

Edited June 3, 2014 by StrictlyLogical

[Dormin111]

Does anyone know where to find a copy of David Kelly's paper?

http://www.atlassociety.org/sites/default/files/The_Contested_Legacy_of_Ayn_Rand.pdf

That is the expanded version of his original essay in its entirety. I'm not sure if I can find the original, shorter version.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Does anyone know where to find a copy of David Kelly's paper?

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/?showtopic=722

 

It's a transcription of the original "Question of Sanction" by David Kelley, which someone hand-copied onto Objectivist Living.  The alternative is presented in this essay by Peter Schwartz, which extends on the ideas in "Fact and Value":

http://ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/religion-and-morality/On-Moral-Sanctions

Edited June 3, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I've been using this extensively as a sort of informational road map:

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/ari-toc.html

[Boethius Newman]

To "Moderators":  FYI:  No satire; and I have been around awhile:  my first Con was in 1985.  I first read AR in 1976-77. 

 

AR (and LP vs. Kelley, et al) were and are keeping the Oist philosophy as it was defined.  Their approach was necessary at the philosophical level.  But Oists in general are not fighting that fight.  The infighting I was referring to and see and hear about is among (what I call) "orthodox" Oists (vs. IOS, Atlas Society, etc., or whatever they are calling themselves now) - i.e., the "good guys". 

Destructive relationships among common "orthodox" adherents are a bad thing.  We want to build a better world, right?  We can do that now.  We don't need to wait (for what mysterious reason?) a thousand years, into some undefined future.  I don't know who first said something like that, but it is wrong.  All it takes is for the current generation to understand the means.  But it cannot be done by one person, nor even just by ARI.  We must do it together, mutually supportive.  That is not to say all thinking alike, always agreeing, but mutually supportive in our efforts, exchanging ideas, "lending a hand" so to speak, on occasion.  That is, building relationships among ourselves - Oists. 

 

For example, what is the secondary thing after supporting ARI and education generally, to bring about the Oist culture?  That is politics.  As a politician I have already had a positive impact:  I have begun rolling back zoning laws, etc.; I have kept the govt. here limited and more properly aligned for the model future Oist culture than it would have been otherwise (if only because I took the seat of a liberal).  I am changing the culture now.  Politics is the mechanism.  Oh, yes, I wish all Oists would give greater support to ARI and education; my job is made more difficult by the lack of penetration of Oist ideas, so please contribute more to ARI!  But still, I am being successful.  You can be too.

 

It would be so much better if other Oists would become politicians.  You don't have to be on the national scene (although, hurrah for David Brat in Richmond, if he is as close to Oism as I have heard claimed).  Start on the municipal level.  You can have much more impact now.  If there were 300 Oists like me, we could change the direction of this country now.  We could have conferences where we could exchange ideas on how we have each innovated, to our mutual benefit.  I sure could use a few.  We could be building a better world now.  And as that experience level rises, Oists could then use the acquired skills to ultimately move to national-level offices.  That would be in less than a decade for the best and the brightest. 

 

Politics takes learning and skills development, just like being an accountant, an engineer, a programmer-analyst, etc.  You don't just hop right in any more than you do in those or any other professions, whatever you may think.  Oists need that experience and knowledge to succeed as much as any politician. 

 

Outside of identifying the need for education and spreading of Oist ideas, Oists' identification of how to bring about an Oist culture has been completely absent.  The means - the mechanism - is politics, which starts with relationships.  That includes all kinds of relationships, and being good at cultivating relationships, to the full range of degrees, among Oists, and with non-Oists.  You must build them all to succeed as a politician, for many, many reasons.  But being politicians remains the avenue for building that Oist culture. 

 

Do that now, and you build an Oist culture now.  I am doing it in one isolated little place.  Obviously if more Oists were doing the same, the impact would be compounded.  You have the same tools as anyone living in any distant future - relationships.  Change comes to those who can use them. 
 

[splitprimary]

by the orthodox position, “infighting” can’t occur because any disagreement with the official orthodox position means you’re no longer an Objectivist. and by the way, if you believe people who share the same philosophical foundation should be “mutually supportive”, “exchanging ideas” and “building relationships”, and that “it cannot be done by one person, nor even just the ARI”, you are the opposite of orthodox. watch out because Objectivists might have to stop talking to you... and to other people who talk to you.

Edited June 16, 2014 by splitprimary

[splitprimary]

these are the main texts in the discussion, in order:

Feb 1989 – "On Sanctioning the Sanctioners" by Peter Schwartz, published in The Intellectual Activist
(finally found it pasted in SOLO post- http://www.solopassion.com/node/9122)

March 1989 – "A Question of Sanction," open letter by David Kelley
(http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php...)

May 1989 – "Fact and Value" by Leonard Peikoff, published in The Intellectual Activist

(http://ari.aynrand.org/.../religion-and.../Fact-and-Value...)
and
"On Moral Sanctions" by Peter Schwartz, an addendum to "Fact and Value", also published in The Intellectual Activist
(http://ari.aynrand.org/.../religion.../On-Moral-Sanctions)

1990 – "Truth and Toleration" by David Kelley, published privately, expanding on "A Question of Sanction"
which became, in Sept 2000, "The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand"
(http://web.archive.org/.../cth--1703-contlegacyonline.aspx)

[Iudicious]

It seems like a large part of the reason that Objectivism is so prone to schisms - on large scales and small scales - is that Objectivism, unlike many other movements, is so specific. Our beliefs are very specific, creating a much greater range of things that could create a schism than in a typical movement, which would be focused on broad, general goals and ideas. Beyond that, the intense focus on an objective reality and there being only one right answer in all situations but for matters of arbitrary personal opinion (e.g. which fast food restaurant serves the best burger) makes it that much more likely to create a major problem when a small difference of opinions occurs. I think some people interpret the idea of there being an objective, correct answer as meaning that all Objectivists must come to an agreement on that answer, and anyone in disagreement is inherently not "one of us".

 

Polite disagreements can occur among people with the same foundational beliefs without causing a conflict. It just requires that all participants in the exchange of ideas maintain cool, level heads. Something that many intellectual leaders in the Objectivist movement over the years seem to have had issues with doing.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Iudicious

[Boethius Newman]

Re "by the orthodox position, “infighting” can’t occur because any disagreement with the official orthodox position", with all due respect to the writer, infighting does occur, and it is not true philosophical disagreement, but Oists who take that as their model of behavior, which is the wrong thing to do.  As the next writer said, "Objectivism is so prone to schisms".  "Orthodox" to me, means AR's philosophy, plus LP's Fact and Value, Induction, and DIM.  Beyond that, it is our job to build.  Building is the real, physical implementation, not the abstract philosophical discussion. 

 

Re "watch out because Objectivists might have to stop talking to you", I don't care about those people.  Forget them and leave them in their holes; that is their choice.  Move on.  They are by definition not builders (not of relationships and therefore not of a culture).  They will have no impact on the future.  They are the losers. 

 

Culture - and politics - is built on relationships.  The key to implementing Oism into the culture is building relationships, not destroying them.  There are degrees of relationships, from close ties (friends, spouses) to casual and momentary for the sake of the next vote.  Political relationships are always guarded; they have to be.  You have to use all of the various kinds of relationships, deliberately, constructively, and endlessly.  Like any profession, politics is a challenge, but one I really found I enjoy. 

[softwareNerd]

There are two threads to this discussion. One: about schisms etc., the other about being involved in politics. I'm not sure how these two are related. Also, not sure which one you intended as the main thrust of this thread.

 

On schisms, your major point seems to be that the ones involving Branden and Kelly were good but the more recent one's (the one involving Tracinski, the old Stephen Speicher fight, the one between Peikoff and Binswanger et al about how Objectivists should vote, the one around John McCaskey, the moronic "Checking Premises" nut jobs, and the latest one about Harriman) are somehow not legit and should be rolled back, with the parties coming together. If this is your claim, I dispute the idea that these more recent schisms are fundamentally different from the previous ones.

 

On getting involved in politics, I think you make a good point. It is true that if Objectivist do not get involved in politics, they'll never achieve political change. I doubt an Objectivist politician can go very far in politics on an Objectivist platform, but the right one could probably do well: acting something like the more centrist governors (say Rick Snider of Michigan). In other words, holding back the worst of the left and the right, while not rolling back too much either. I'm really curious how you got involved in politics.

Edited June 16, 2014 by softwareNerd