Authorized OPAR

[RSalar]

In my research to find Ayn Rand’s meaning of the phrase “productive work” the following question has occurred to me: Since Ayn Rand authorized Peikoff’s lecture course on The Philosophy of Objectivism can we (should we) use OPAR as if it were an “authorized” presentation of Ayn Rand’s philosophy (even though it is a “rewrite” of the original lecture material and not the actual original authorized version)? In other words does it carry as much weight as the original lecture course in terms of its accuracy? Does it carry any weight? Perhaps we should only use it as a supplemental resource when it helps to support her original text?

Taken from The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. IV, No. 3 January-February 1976, A Last Survey--Part II:

“I call your particular attention to Leonard Peikoff's lecture course on The Philosophy of Objectivism. This course does not start until September, but it is to be a memorable event. It will be a systematic presentation of my philosophy, from metaphysics through esthetics, intended for informed students of Objectivism, given by a teacher who has demonstrated a matchless ability to present ideas clearly and dramatically. 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.”

Taken from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Preface:

“In 1984, eight years later and two years after her death, I began to revise the lectures for publication. I soon found that many of their formulations could be made more precise. I found arguments that I could now develop more cogently, examples that I could make more eloquent, and crucial new integrations that I only now understood. Above all, I found that the ideas required a more logical order of presentation. All these improvements changed the nature of the project. My task became not to edit, but to rewrite the lecture material.”

[DavidOdden]

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and as such, only those apects written or directly authorized by her can be taken to be part of that philosophy. If you had a copy of the lecture course, that would legitimately be seen as part of the statement of Objectivist philosophy. Any other parts are not. However, OPAR does not present new philosophical principles, it concretely illustrates Rand's principles, unpacking and integrating her economically-worded principles (not that I think Peikoff is prolix). What you no doubt noticed is that he provides the philosophical statements that Rand herself made, so that you can see the relationship between Peikoff's concretization and Rand's general principle.

[RSalar]

Makes sense --Thanks

[Chumley]

OPAR is not "part of" the philosophy, but I think of it as holding a unique position as a presentation of the philosophy. If you want to understand Objectivism, Peikoff's work is important. But remember that you always need to judge for yourself how accurate OPAR is, and refer to Ayn Rand's original works as much as possible.

In this way OPAR is different than works by Tara Smith, Harry Binswanger, et. al., that take Objectivism as a starting point and apply the philosophy to areas Ayn Rand didn't cover. Even though their works may be correct, and completely consistent with Objectivism, they are not part of the philosophy. I think of these works as "Objectivist", where "Objectivist" is an adjective meaning "Based on and consistent with the philosophy of Objectivism." Not all Objectivists would agree with me on this, though.

[RSalar]

I think of these works as "Objectivist", where "Objectivist" is an adjective meaning "Based on and consistent with the philosophy of Objectivism." Not all Objectivists would agree with me on this, though.

I don't believe "Objectivist" is even a proper concept--I have never seen anyone clearly state all of the essential attributes. And if one could state these, the result would imply that only Ayn Rand had them. (IMO)

[JMeganSnow]

The authoritative version of the description Objectivist is someone that agrees with the entire core of Objectivist philosophy, as laid down by Ayn Rand. The core is distinct from the applications of the philosophy, on which many Objectivists differ.

An issue is core to the philosophy if deciding a different way on the matter constitutes a contradiction of one of the philosophical principles. Thus you can think that Ayn Rand was mistaken about the Woman President issue, which is about a psychological issue (I do), but you can't be pro-life or pro-animal-rights because this means denying that human beings have rights (an important ethical principle inherent to the philosophy) via the method of granting them to the non-human.

[RSalar]

The authoritative version of the description Objectivist is someone that agrees with the entire core of Objectivist philosophy, as laid down by Ayn Rand.

Where can this "entire core" of her philosophy be found? Before one can "agree" with it in its entirety one would have to understand it in its entirety. Do you know anyone who fits this description? And I believe the application is as important as the understanding/agreement—because Ayn did not recognize the mind-body dichotomy. So now you not only have to understand and agree but you must also apply it consistently in your life. (I do not think there is anyone alive who fits that description.)

[DavidOdden]

Where can this "entire core" of her philosophy be found?

As a matter of fact, most of it can be found on Phil Oliver's Objectivist Resarch CD. There are some unpublished materials, such as talks and interviews, some of which are included in the new "Answers" book. There are a few scholars who actually do know the entirety of Rand's philosophy and can be said to be authoritative -- Peikoff and Binswanger are the clearest examples. There are many more "non-authoritative" Objectivists, who do not know the entirety of Rand's philosophy, but who agree with all parts that they comprehend. There are aspects of what Rand said about language that don't immediately strike me as correct, given the context of my knowledge of language, but first, I'm not sure that I totally understand what she is saying (these are areas where she said very little) and second, the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not the same as the collected words of Ayn Rand. Any issue that is actually scientific in nature rather than philosophical is outside the domain of Objectivism -- thus, Objectivism does not say whether photons have mass, or whether possessive pronouns in English are in Spec of DP (or whether there is such a thing as Spec of DP).

[Chumley]

Where can this "entire core" of her philosophy be found? Before one can "agree" with it in its entirety one would have to understand it in its entirety. Do you know anyone who fits this description? And I believe the application is as important as the understanding/agreement—because Ayn did not recognize the mind-body dichotomy. So now you not only have to understand and agree but you must also apply it consistently in your life. (I do not think there is anyone alive who fits that description.)

Do you think someone has to have omniscient knowledge of Objectivism before they can live by it? If that's the case, then I disagree with you.

An Objectivist is someone who knows the philosophy, agrees with it, and lives by it. There is no dichotomy between mind and body. But you have to keep the context of human nature in mind. Error is possible, and it is possible for someone to find out that they have misunderstood part of the philosophy - even a fundamental part. An honest man who finds himself in that situation will correct his knowledge and will examine his own actions in light of his improved knowledge of Objectivism, and if necessary will change his behavior. He's still an Objectivist. I see no need to say one must have complete knowledge of the entire philosophy without error.

My other use of the word "Objectivist" was in regards to works of philosophy that are not part of Ayn Rand's philosophy but are based on it. That's a different context.

I think this has been discussed endlessly on other threads, too. If you want to go in the direction of "Who is an Objectivist" or "What does Objectivist mean", you should probably find those threads and add to them instead of continuing with this one.

[Chumley]

I'd like to add one other point. It's not as if being an "Objectivist" is a title of honor to be bestowed on those who have earned it. It's just a description. If I were to learn something about the philosophy that I disagreed with, and upon further learning I still did not believe it was correct, then I would no longer consider myself an Objectivist.

[Bold Standard]

On the issue of when should a person be considered an Objectivist, there was an interesting post by Amy Peikoff on the thread, "Who are the true Objectivists?"

I could not say exactly what amount of knowledge one should have before calling oneself an Objectivist. Certainly one need not have a degree in philosophy. I would want to know -- is the person familiar with enough of the essentials of the philosophy, and with the alternatives, to make a choice in favor of Objectivism? Does the person live by those essentials, to the extent possible to him?

A person who calls himself an Objectivist "too soon," as a mistake, out of eagerness perhaps, is not at all troublesome. If this person is honest, he will either change his mind later, and acknowledge his mistake, or he will continue to learn about and integrate the philosophy. The person who we will judge as bad is one who calls himself an Objectivist while acting on and/or advocating ideas that he knows are contrary to those that Ayn Rand believed. And, if a person is in academia, we would assume that he has the intelligence necessary to decide whether he agrees with Objectivism, certainly in all its essentials, and probably in a number of details and basic applications. Thus, if we see such a person promoting ideas that are clearly anti-Objectivist, and yet call himself an "Objectivist," then yes, we will judge him as bad, as someone who is trying to ride on Rand's coattails without being "constrained" by agreeing in total with her philosophy.

There is also such a thing as being overly reluctant to call oneself an Objectivist; perhaps this comes from fear of the very constraint of which I speak. So long as one is merely a "student," then he thinks he is free to make more errors. Only the individual can judge whether he knows enough to take the dive and commit -- and it is a huge commitment. To say that one commits to being rationally self-interested to the best of one's ability is tough stuff. However, there is also the danger of becoming an perpetual "agnostic." My analogy (which may not be very good, so forgive me if it isn't) is the couple that lives together for years and years and never commits to get married. There is something about the sheer act of commitment that allows one's knowledge and integration to proceed further. And I'm not talking public declarations or trying to put everyone on the spot -- this is a commitment to oneself, but still a commitment that one makes, explicitly, to oneself.

[RSalar]

I think this has been discussed endlessly on other threads, too. If you want to go in the direction of "Who is an Objectivist" or "What does Objectivist mean", you should probably find those threads and add to them instead of continuing with this one.

If you want to know the purpose of this thread you will find it in my opening post.

Do you think someone has to have omniscient knowledge of Objectivism before they can live by it? If that's the case, then I disagree with you.

I never said that.

[KendallJ]

Before one can "agree" with it in its entirety one would have to understand it in its entirety. Do you know anyone who fits this description? And I believe the application is as important as the understanding/agreement—because Ayn did not recognize the mind-body dichotomy. So now you not only have to understand and agree but you must also apply it consistently in your life. (I do not think there is anyone alive who fits that description.)

One must understand it in its entirety, and then apply it consistently in your life. If there is no one (maybe except Rand) that fits this bill, then you must mean omniscience and omnipotence. How about Peikoff, Binswanger, and most of the noted Objectivist scholars?

Suggest you check out "The Possible Dream" in the Objectivist Forum. It's Binswanger's refutation of Christian "perfection" as the ideal. This sort of ideal is what you are getting awfully close to in your statement.

[RSalar]

It's Binswanger's refutation of Christian "perfection" as the ideal. This sort of ideal is what you are getting awfully close to in your statement.

I was responding to and commenting on JMeganSnow's definition. I can not find the term “Objectivist” used by Rand to describe a person in any of her writings. I would like here definition and meaning of this term. The other people you mention can no longer get her endorsement and authorization so what they say about it is not necessarily what she would say. Anyone can call themselves an Objectivist and argue vehemently that they qualify but that alone cannot and does not make them into something they are not.

[KendallJ]

I was responding to and commenting on JMeganSnow's definition. I can not find the term “Objectivist” used by Rand to describe a person in any of her writings. I would like here definition and meaning of this term. The other people you mention can no longer get her endorsement and authorization so what they say about it is not necessarily what she would say. Anyone can call themselves an Objectivist and argue vehemently that they qualify but that alone cannot and does not make them into something they are not.

And I was commenting on your misuse of the concept mind-body dichotomy, and seeming demand for "perfection" in judging what is an Objectivist.

[RSalar]

And I was commenting on your misuse of the concept mind-body dichotomy, and seeming demand for "perfection" in judging what is an Objectivist.

I never demanded anything. All I said was, "Before one can "agree" with it in its entirety one would have to understand it in its entirety." I think that is a true statement.

How did I misuse the mind-body dichotomy concept? Do you mean when I said: If you agree with her philosophy you have to apply it in your life? Doesn’t Objectivism hold that it is wrong for someone to believe one thing and do another? And you are saying that is not what is meant by the mind-body dichotomy—the lack of integration between mind and body? If that is not what it means then what does it mean?

[putofftoolong]

I never demanded anything. All I said was, "Before one can "agree" with it in its entirety one would have to understand it in its entirety." I think that is a true statement.

She says that in order to consider oneself an objectivist you have to agree with it in its entirety, but that doesn't mean that when you choose to call yourself an objectivist, that that decision in itself is a declaration of complete understanding. You can say,"I'm an objectivist, to the extent of my knowledge, it is true, even though I may have a lot more to understand". I know that sounds like I am saying you should agree without understanding but note this quote from the Amy Peikoff comment above-"Does the person live by those essentials, to the extent possible to him?". You don't have to know everything right away. You can call yourself an objectivist up until the point where you conclude, honestly that you disagree with some part of it, even if you know you don't understand it all.It isn't nescesarily about leaning x,y,z but more about agreeing with the method.What it comes down to is how serious do you take the ideas by which you go by, hopefully serious enough not to call yourself objectivist lightly, but at the same time not to be so afraid of making a mistake that you never decide on anything.

jay

[KendallJ]

I never demanded anything. All I said was, "Before one can "agree" with it in its entirety one would have to understand it in its entirety." I think that is a true statement.

How did I misuse the mind-body dichotomy concept? Do you mean when I said: If you agree with her philosophy you have to apply it in your life? Doesn’t Objectivism hold that it is wrong for someone to believe one thing and do another? And you are saying that is not what is meant by the mind-body dichotomy—the lack of integration between mind and body? If that is not what it means then what does it mean?

Well, you said a lot more than that. You said exactly,

you not only have to understand and agree but you must also apply it consistently in your life. (I do not think there is anyone alive who fits that description.)

1. understand, in its entirety

2. agree, in its entirety

3. apply it consistently in your life

Your demand is implicit in your assertion that there is no one alive who fits this bill. Now either you have some data that says even the most noted Objectivist scholars do not fit one of the 3 criteria, or you think that the criteria are so difficult to acheive in and of themselves that the chances that anyone could have met them are slim to none. That is flirting with the concept of Christian perfection. A standard of value that is unobtainable, is in itself, a reflection of the mind-body dichotomy. That is the irony. You claim that the standard must be so because it must conform to the mind-body integration, yet you use the mind-body dichotomy to arrive at the standard.

The other standards that you have been presented with differ in that claim, and offer contextual definitions of what an Objectivist is.

Here is a quote from the Binswanger article, Objectivist Forum, Feb, 1981 "The Possible Dream"

The actual meaning of "perfection" is: flawlessly complete satisfaction of a standard of value.

In its rational meaning, the concept of perfection denotes not the unimprovable but the best possible in a given context. If one has acheived a goal to the fullest extent possible in a given context, then the achievement is perfect, in the rational sense of that term. Subsequent improvements based on a wider range of knowledge or higher level of ability will not invalidate that achievement or subtract from its value.

So, you are right in the sense that understanding cannot be divorced from practice, but not in the sense that the standard must be absolute knowledge, agreement and consistency. Replace, "in its entirety", with "to the absolute best of one's ability" and you might be closer. But then that includes a lot of people, including myself.

[Bold Standard]

Here is a quote from the Binswanger article, Objectivist Forum, Feb, 1981 "The Possible Dream"

Thanks for that. That's the clearest, most concise and precise definition of "perfection" I've ever seen. In fact, it's perfect! I'm going to have to memorize that, because that issue comes up in discussions I have all the time.

[KendallJ]

Thanks for that. That's the clearest, most concise and precise definition of "perfection" I've ever seen. In fact, it's perfect! I'm going to have to memorize that, because that issue comes up in discussions I have all the time.

I saw Binswanger's talk on Perception at OCON this year, and I have to say from that and from what I've read in The Objectivist Forum, that he has very clear and consice understanding of the "tough" Objectivist ideas. The whole article is excellent.

[RSalar]

Well, you said a lot more than that. You said exactly,

1. understand, in its entirety

2. agree, in its entirety

3. apply it consistently in your life

Your demand is implicit in your assertion that there is no one alive who fits this bill. Now either you have some data that says even the most noted Objectivist scholars do not fit one of the 3 criteria, or you think that the criteria are so difficult to acheive in and of themselves that the chances that anyone could have met them are slim to none.

I already stated that I was commenting on a post by JMeganSnow who said: "The authoritative version of the description Objectivist is someone that agrees with the entire core of Objectivist philosophy, as laid down by Ayn Rand."

You are misrepresenting what I said again. I was simply adding that understanding and agreeing couldn’t be enough—because if you did understand it fully (and I do not think anyone alive does) you would have to apply it. If there is such a thing as an Objectivist, the application in real life is definitely an essential ingredient.

I have not read the other articles on what other people think it means to be an Objectivist but I do know that it took Peikoff 30 years (Reminisces) before he was starting to feel comfortable (and he had Ayn Rand to ask questions to). I also know (and I will find the quote if you need it) that Ayn Rand said that she alone was the one and one final authority on Objectivism.

So if you call yourself an Objectivist today and you don’t understand some part of her theory, whom do you go to for clarification? And how do you know that the answer you get is correct?

[DavidOdden]

So if you call yourself an Objectivist today and you don’t understand some part of her theory, whom do you go to for clarification? And how do you know that the answer you get is correct?

If you're actually asking a practical question, my answer is that you can ask Harry Binswanger. That doesn't mean that you should just blindly accept his word on faith: you still have to integrate his answer with what Rand said. But let's put that in contrast to posting a question on HPO and then getting various replies. The correlation between Ayn Rand's philosophy and what passes for an answer on HPO is -- actually, negative, not just random. You have to evaluate the correctness of the answer, using the evidence of your sense.

[KendallJ]

I already stated that I was commenting on a post by JMeganSnow who said: "The authoritative version of the description Objectivist is someone that agrees with the entire core of Objectivist philosophy, as laid down by Ayn Rand."

You are misrepresenting what I said again. I was simply adding that understanding and agreeing couldn’t be enough—because if you did understand it fully (and I do not think anyone alive does) you would have to apply it.

Go read what you wrote. You just moved your parenthetical to subtly change your meaning. I think I reflected accurately what you wrote. If you meant something different, that's fine.

If there is such a thing as an Objectivist, the application in real life is definitely an essential ingredient.

I agreed with this. If this is all you meant then fine. It is not what you said.

I have not read the other articles on what other people think it means to be an Objectivist but I do know that it took Peikoff 30 years (Reminisces) before he was starting to feel comfortable (and he had Ayn Rand to ask questions to). I also know (and I will find the quote if you need it) that Ayn Rand said that she alone was the one and one final authority on Objectivism.

So if you call yourself an Objectivist today and you don’t understand some part of her theory, whom do you go to for clarification? And how do you know that the answer you get is correct?

It took me 15 years before I started to feel comfortable, but I have a different purpose than Peikoff. I don't formally represent the philosophy. He does. I would expect his standard of what he needs to be to call himself and Objectivist different than mine.

I developed a heck of a lot of understanding of Objectivism on my own and from listening to other objectivist scholars, and from engaging in discussions like these. While Rand is the final authority, I never met her, and certainly being an Objectivist couldn't have rested on her "annointing" me.

So, it's clear you have a standard for deterimining, or at least beginning to determine, what an Objectivist is. Megan has given you hers, I gave you mine, Jay gave you his. They are not quite the same, but somewhat compatible, and they certainly allow for people in the world today to call themselves Objectivists. Your appears to indicate that there is no one alive who can rightfully claim to be. Your still smacks of Christian perfection. So, please clarify for me. Is there no one that you thing fits a standard of Objectivist?

[RSalar]

Go read what you wrote. You just moved your parenthetical to subtly change your meaning. I think I reflected accurately what you wrote. If you meant something different, that's fine.

Just as it is improper to take one sentence out of a paragraph and say: "See what you said! You said X so you must have meant X," it is also improper to take one post out of a thread (when it is a continuation of a position and/or a rebuttal to another's). By taking my post out of context you were in fact misrepresenting what I was saying. I have not defined what an Objectivist is because at this point I believe the word represents an improper concept. As you have said it means different things to different people—is it possible for an Objectivist to hold a subjective view of concepts? Have you taken the time to reduce the concept to its essential concretes? If so perhaps it would be helpful if you would share your results here. If not, then it would be wise to do so, before continuing this discussion.

Your still smacks of Christian perfection. So, please clarify for me. Is there no one that you thing fits a standard of Objectivist?

Since I believe that the concept "Objectivist" is an improper concept it would follow that there can't be one alive.

[KendallJ]

Rsalar, I think at this point we're talking past one another.

As I tried to show multiple times, your standard of judgement which you have given for determining if it is an improper concept is in itself invalid. I've already given you my essential contretes for developing a standard of perfection. I think Megan's definition is appropriate and she gave you a priniciple for deciding what is "core". I've added for you a contextual standard of judging one's understanding and consistent practice of the philosophy.

I've given you multiple opportunities to apply your context, and you keep articulating much the same standard. If all you have now is "Don't quote me out of context", then I don't have much more to say.

Don't confuse subjective with contextual.

What else were you looking for?

Edited September 25, 2006 by KendallJ