An Open Letter To Craig Biddle

Miscellaneous Topics
21

Even stipulating that… does denouncing the book constitute a disagreement with Objectivism–the philosophy of Ayn Rand?

I have no personal interest in whether McCaskey disagrees with Objectivism. I only brought up his denunciation of Harriman’s book because it is part of Peikoff’s evidence against McCaskey–and Biddle claims that Peikoff has provided no evidence.

Whether Peikoff’s evidence supports his conclusion is another matter entirely. And I have no public comment about that, except to say that my regard for him has only increased since this controversy. I regard Peikoff to be the most brilliant philosophical thinker in the world today. I will continue to support him, buy his books, listen to his podcasts, and donate money to the Ayn Rand Institute.

I suspect that some people will say that I should not judge Biddle without first knowing whether Peikoff’s or McCaskey’s claims are true, since this is part of the controversy that prompted Biddle’s article. I disagree. My problems with Biddle’s article go much deeper than that minor issue.

22

Swig, could you please clarify something? Do you think that taking a mistaken position regarding history or philosophy warrants moral condemnation? Because that is exactly what you are doing; supporting a moral condemnation of McCaskey based on what you perceive to be a historical or philisophical disagreement.

FeatherFall,

I hope reading my article helps you understand my position on Biddle, but in it I don’t answer such questions about the Peikoff vs. McCaskey controversy.

Also, I’m assuming your question is actually rhetorical, since you answer it yourself. I will say, however, that I don’t agree with you and leave it at that. You can read my prior post if you want further elaboration on why I remain silent on some of these issues.

23

I only brought up his denunciation of Harriman’s book because it is part of Peikoff’s evidence against McCaskey–and Biddle claims that Peikoff has provided no evidence.

What aspects of Dr. McCaskey’s criticisms of the book do you consider as evidence of a moral breech? Please explain.

24

No, Swig, it wasn’t rhetorical. After reading your bizarre manifesto Its clear that you don’t understand even the basics of this one. I am particlarly annoyed by your repeated use of the word, “abstractionland,” but that is a criticism of style.

“Good reason” is neither an anti-concept nor crypto-speak for the word “evidence.” It simply is common parlance for “justifying one’s actions”. Which Peikoff hasn’t done and apparently won’t do. It appears that he doesn’t think he needs to because he controls the copyrights. And it looks like he’s right.

I invite everyone to request a copy of Evidence Against Craig Biddle so they can see how NOT to approach this subject.

1 Like
25

Craig Biddle has no business adding more flames to this issue, nor does anyone else. Dr. McCaskey resigned with specific intent: to prevent damage, etc… to ARI; however, people who are not even affected or who are not even actors in the issue keep running their mouths causing what McCaskey sought to prevent. Dr. Peikoff doesn’t have to provide anyone a philosophical argument for his letter, and anyone who acts as if–or expects–memos, communiques, letters, to and amongst board members–of any organization–to be philosophically rich, is out of touch.

26

Dr. Peikoff doesn’t have to provide anyone a philosophical argument for his letter, and anyone who acts as if–or expects–memos, communiques, letters, to and amongst board members–of any organization–to be philosophically rich, is out of touch.

Likewise, anyone who expects people to continue donating to an organization whose board is influenced so dramatically by an outside party, without the slightest bit of explanation, is also out of touch.

27

Likewise, anyone who expects people to continue donating to an organization whose board is influenced so dramatically by an outside party, without the slightest bit of explanation, is also out of touch.

Students and associated intellectuals are also rightly worried. If one writes mildly critical things about LL in private, and word gets back to Peikoff, will one lose his student status? Or grant money? All without any explanation?

Or maybe we should just turn our backs on the falsely accussed. You know, for the sake of the movement. After all, the needs of the movement are more important than the injustices done to the individual.

28

I’m not clear, are you not posting your essay because of cowardice, or because you haven’t finished it?

29

I can’t find anywhere where the OP has posted even a link to his full essay… So I am faced with reading what amounts to an executive summary that is unconvincing but admits to leaving out key information, but alludes to it existing “somewhere” else. Basically a long innuendo.

30

I can’t find anywhere where the OP has posted even a link to his full essay… So I am faced with reading what amounts to an executive summary that is unconvincing but admits to leaving out key information, but alludes to it existing “somewhere” else. Basically a long innuendo.

He said he would send it privately to people who contact him via his website.

31

OK, looking back now, I see that he provided that link. Thanks, sNerd.

32

I’m not clear, are you not posting your essay because of cowardice, or because you haven’t finished it?

Well, I’ve finished it and have already started distributing it to people privately, so I must be a coward then, right?

33

I’m not clear, are you not posting your essay because of cowardice, or because you haven’t finished it?

I’m certain it wasn’t out of cowardice, but rather out of respect for the forum rules. It’s really long, and this forum isn’t the place for it. I received my copy within 24hrs of my request. Go ask for one.

34

Russ says: “Craig Biddle has no business adding more flames to this issue, nor does anyone else.”

Speak for yourself, brother. I’ve given money to the ARI, started a University club in their name and with their support, bought stuff from them, gone to their school, attended dozens of their functions, made friends of their employees, and other things besides. If I decide that I don’t like the way they do business, then it impacts the decision whether or not to participate in all of the above. If you offer your unqualified support to ARI without ever questioning business practices you are concerned about, then you’re not doing your job. And if this situation did not at all lead you to question their business practices, then see point A: Speak for yourself.

–Dan Edge

35

What aspects of Dr. McCaskey’s criticisms of the book do you consider as evidence of a moral breech? Please explain.

I consider this question to be irrelevant to my position on Craig Biddle, so I’m not going to answer it directly. But I will give you a hypothetical to think about, and if you want we can discuss the hypothetical.

Suppose that you are a painter, and you were taught how to paint by a very close friend and a real popular master of the craft named Nick Branson, who died and willed his entire estate to you. One day you decide to build an art gallery to promote your master’s paintings as well as some of your own, and you call the gallery The Nick Branson Art Gallery. Over time, the gallery gets larger and you get older. Eventually you decide to retire from the business end of the gallery and focus on writing a book on art. You hand the business over to a friend, but you, of course, retain all rights to your master’s name and work as well as your own work.

Things go well for many years. But then one day you find out that your friend hired his friend to be a co-manager for the business. And this other person has started saying some very negative things about your paintings to some of the other employees at the gallery. And he is suggesting that your paintings should be repainted so that they better match his view of good art.

What would you do in this situation?

36

Russ says: “Craig Biddle has no business adding more flames to this issue, nor does anyone else.”

Speak for yourself, brother. I’ve given money to the ARI, started a University club in their name and with their support, bought stuff from them, gone to their school, attended dozens of their functions, made friends of their employees, and other things besides. If I decide that I don’t like the way they do business, then it impacts the decision whether or not to participate in all of the above. If you offer your unqualified support to ARI without ever questioning business practices you are concerned about, then you’re not doing your job. And if this situation did not at all lead you to question their business practices, then see point A: Speak for yourself.

–Dan Edge

I was speaking for myself, either way. I don’t offer unqualified support for ARI: my support and attendance of ARI events and lectures is directly based on what the institute has accomplished–or sets to accomplish–generally spearheading the spread of Objectivism. Because of my qualified support for ARI, it’s going to take quite more than a spat between two people (primarily), of which a non-philosophical letter has become a focal point, to throw my hands in the air and start crying foul.

Additionally, I elaborated on why I said “Craig Biddle has no business adding more flames to this issue, nor does anyone else.” You and others, not being the original actors in the issue, are not affected by it, except through your own choice. Lastly, Dr. McCaskey is a big boy, and can speak for himself, like he has already. Why do I need to hear from Craig Biddle what should be coming from Dr. McCaskey? McCaskey’s own motivations for resignation were:

“I believe it would be damaging to the Institute if the Institute acted either way, either acceding to his demand or rejecting it. So I decided to resign from the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute and of the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship.”

How do the actions of all of these non-involved actors correspond with his intention? Obviously, they don’t: TOS seems to have removed ARI affiliation, and ARI has canceled lectures. If one is being a mouthpiece for McCaskey, when such a thing isn’t necessary because the man can speak for himself, and, at the same time, causing negative problems of the type McCaskey probably sought to prevent, then I’d say such a person “has no business adding more flames to this issue.”

37

Trust, objectively, should never go that far as to accept someone’s moral denunciation of a person without a shred of evidence - when that judgment is in a direct contradiction to everything known about this man. [emphasis added]

Are you allowing Leonard Peikoff the same benefit of the doubt that you espouse in the part I’ve emphasized?

Harriman should have at least seriously considered McCaskey’s constructive criticisms. It’s clear from Harriman’s email to Paul Hsieh that he did not.

I believe Harriman considered McCaskey’s criticisms for seven years and found them wanting.

Peikoff denounced McCaskey because of what McCaskey wrote in his emails to Harriman, and (most of) those emails are now public for us all to read. To claiming that there is some other unknown evidence that makes Peikoff’s position reasonable is baseless speculation, […]

A sample of 3 emails from only one side of the conversation is not “most”, nor is it “baseless” to speculate that there is another side to the story.

[…] given that one of the parties of this dispute (Harriman) testifies that we have all of the evidence needed to reach a judgment.

I agree with him: “The Logical Leap”, McCaskey’s criticisms, Objectivist material and the historical record provide all the evidence needed to reach a judgement about who is right.

Furthermore, if this is indeed a dispute about philosophy (and not history), what business does ARI have in weighing in one way or the other?

You’re kidding right? ARI’s mission is to spread Objectivist ideas and principles throughout the culture. If judging whether something is consistent with Objectivism isn’t ARI’s business, then they have NO business whatsoever.

I can only speculate that the primary reason ARI sided with Peikoff so difinitively is that he flexed his muscles over the estate copyrights.

And speculation it is: can you think of no more rational reason why ARI would side with Peikoff? How about: that Peikoff is right? Is that a good reason?

Furthermore, if Peikoff judges something at ARI to be contra Objectivism, then should he refrain from “flexing his muscles”?

Otherwise, I can’t see how this private dispute becomes such a public spectacle.

Because McCaskey made it public.

Maybe I haven’t thought this through, but my first thoughts are that what might have been the more appropriate thing to do was to give those rights over to the Ayn Rand Institute upon his retirement, or Yaron Brook even.

Why? If Leonard Peikoff believes that he understands Objectivism better than anybody else, why would he relinquish control over his creation and that which makes it possible? I can think of no reason. Some day he will have to and I’m sure he is contemplating that now.

softwareNerd:

Of all the people on this forum I have found you to be the most even tempered and one of the most rational; moderators should emulate your behavior – so I found your remarks to be the most disturbing to me and completely out of character for you.

I think one can semi-retire, but there is some minimal level of involvement needed, without which one becomes the absentee boss, out of touch with the organization. LP’s level of involvement does not even rise to being concerned about what ARI donors think about the professionalism and integrity of the institute.

As evidenced by what we are talking about and its subject clearly LP is involved, is not absentee and is in touch with ARI. I think LP’s actions show tremendous concern for ARI and its donors.

McCaskey had seven years to make his case along with the rest of the board. He traded emails with Harriman. He had the chance to make his case in front of a forum of other scientists. After all this he was unable to convince Harriman or Peikoff. If LP thinks he’s right (and I’m sure he does), then he has saved the donors from a board divided about the direction of the Institute.

Nobody who was concerned would release the letter he did for public consumption.

Let’s remember the facts: LP wanted McCaskey out; as a condition of leaving McCaskey wanted permission to release the letter; McCaskey released the letter. So who is the one showing concern here, McCaskey?

Now and then LP has mentioned that others around him were more motivated than he about setting up an institute to spread Objectivism.

The way I have heard LP express it is that he didn’t think it would be successful. Now perhaps that does lead to one being less motivated than others, but I think his actions in actually creating ARI belie that assertion in his case. And since that time LP has said that he was completely wrong, that ARI has been an unmitigated success and that he is proud of its achievements.

From LP’s approach, it does seem that he really does not care about ARI anymore. He does not value it enough to act for the value. […] If one intends to lead people to battle, the least one has to do is show that one cares about winning. Obviously, LP no longer does.

I don’t see this at all and I don’t know what you are basing this opinion on – is it this one incident? Have you taken into consideration everything else he has done?

In my opinion Leonard Peikoff is ARI’s greatest champion. The man who has done more than any other person to present Ayn Rand’s ideas to the world. The man who understands Ayn Rand’s ideas more than any other. A man who continues to work assiduously to apply Ayn Rand’s philosophy to varied fields. Is he infallible? No, and I’ve heard him acknowledge such. But I’ve never heard or read him making a serious mistake, certainly not on a philosophical issue.

1 Like
38

softwareNerd:..

I appreciate your remarks Marc. Let’s assume that Piekoff and ARI are of a single mind on McCaskey’s deviations from Objectivism.

Do you have a theory on why ARI didn’t simply fire McCaskey? He might have asked for a document; but, they did not have to give him anything. Even if they did, why give him an internal communication that was never meant for his eyes? And, why allow him to make it public?

Also, given that a significant number of its donors and supporters wanted answers (and note that the more prominent ones did not jump the gun and react immediately), do you have a theory why ARI has not responded in any way – not even to making a very brief but explicit defense of Dr. Peikoff ? Do you think it is fair that they allow this to look like it is about Peikoff vs. McCaskey. Do you think they should at least make a statement that McCaskey could not remain on the board because of significant philosophical differences with ARI? If my boss tells me to make my team do something, shouldn’t I – in the ordinary course of things, and if I agree – take ownership and not say “the boss is saying we should…”?

If ARI did not fire McCaskey – but let him resign – because they wanted to do things quietly, I do not understand how they could also have given him LP’s internal letter. Nor, how they would stay quiet and let the controversy drag on. If they were being soft-hearted and letting him take an easy way out, then would they not view his subsequent actions as a breach of their benevolence, and thus be motivated to make their own position clear?

The only thing I have seen from “ARI” (actually Brook), was what was reported by Diana here:

Dr. McCaskey resigned as a result of a conflict between him and Dr. Peikoff , regarding David Harriman’s newly published book on induction, in the creation of which Dr. Peikoff had a large role

We are not going to comment here on that conflict itself, but we do want to make clear that the issue for Dr. Peikoff was only whether or not Dr. McCaskey should remain on ARI’s Board, not his continued involvement in ARI activities. In other words, contrary to claims that some are now making, no “excommunication” was demanded by Dr. Peikoff or considered by any Board member. While Board members were still weighing this matter, Dr. McCaskey decided to resign. We understand the public’s interest in changes in ARI’s Board membership, but our internal discussions about Board composition are properly kept confidential. ( emphasis added )

Do you think that portraying the conflict as between Mc Caskey and Dr. Peikoff is accurate? Having had time to think about this, and having seen the controversy this has stirred up, do you think ARI ought to set the record straight and say that this about philosophy and not just some “conflict” with Dr. Peikoff?

39

What more is required to identify his position as a denunciation of the book?

How about a statement that rises to being a denunciation? A denunciation requires a moral judgement, McCaskey merely points out discrepancies with the historical record. McCaskey repudiates any interpretation of his criticisms as being against the theory itself.

This really goes back to Fact and Value, interpreted so that pointing out mistakes becomes equivalent to a moral denunciation. Harriman’s book is written at a introductory level as if for a popular audience, and at that level it is not clear whether what McCaskey calls inaccuracies are in fact mistakes or deliberate editing choices for the level at which the book was written. Others have criticized exactly that popular tone and introductory nature of the text as an editorial error, they wanted a tome that could be cited in academic works. Harriman wrote the book that he wrote, it was his prerogative to decide how to write it and others have the prerogative to be disappointed in it. I have no need to take a side in this conflict of personal contexts.

Craig Biddle has McCaskey on his masthead at TOS, so he needed to think this through. He should have asked if Yaron Brook wanted to be removed from the masthead instead of acting pre-emptively. The result is that by keeping McCaskey and removing Brook, Biddle has cast his lot with McCaskey to a degree he didn’t need to demonstrate. Now that Biddle has likely lost most of his writers, and he is running out of chapters of his own book to publish, he will likely cease publishing TOS within a year. Now that pisses me off.

Academics love their theories, it is their main claim to being productive besides teaching. Let Peikoff and Harriman zealously defend their work. McCaskey should more zealously advocate for the high standards he holds and not pose as an impersonal robot bringing inconvenient truths to light. This kind of dispute is not unique to Objectivism.

40

You’re kidding right? ARI’s mission is to spread Objectivist ideas…

I wasn’t kidding, but I accept this explanation. However, I’m still waiting to read why this is about philosophy, and how we got from philosophical disagreement to fire and brimstone moral condemnation.

can you think of no more rational reason why ARI would side with Peikoff? How about: that Peikoff is right? Is that a good reason?

No, that’s an assertion which I will not accept on faith. A reason requires an explanation. The people who supposedly have that explanation were rightly afforded the benefit of the doubt when this began. But that benefit is a perishable good.

Furthermore, if Peikoff judges something at ARI to be contra Objectivism, then should he refrain from “flexing his muscles”?

I thought that figure of speech was clear, but I see I’ll have to elaborate. Only Rand gets to say, “It’s part of my philosophy because I say so.” She created it, she can do that. Peikoff needs to explain how new additions ideas are consistent with her philosophy. It is entirely possible that Peikoff argued McCaskey to the grave and he didn’t see fit to make his argument public. But please concede that it is also possible that he didn’t feel like presenting a convincing argument because leveraging copyrights is easier. If that is the case, he didn’t flex his mind.

Because McCaskey made it public.

Come, now. You know there was cooperation at every level in making this public; from McCaskey, to Peikoff to ARI. If Peikoff cared about privacy, I probably wouldn’t even know who McCaskey is right now.

1 Like