ARI vs. TOC

The Critics of Objectivism
1

At the Summer conferences:

ARI had a panel discussion on the progress of Objectivism in academia. The most important news is Dr. Gotthelf will be publishing in a top philosophical journal, a paper on Ayn Rand’s epistemology. I think that’s a first!

toc had a panel discussion on whether …wait for it…“Objectivists should abandon the term libertarian because it has been hijacked” by nuts (lewrockwell.com, etc.)

Wasn’t toc set up so they could call themselves libertarian, form united fronts with libertarians, and be nonjudgmental togeather.

I got the above quote from L. Perigo, who was on the panel. He defended libertarians with “should we really eschew cooperation on a political level with libertarians who believe rights come from God, or from nowhere?”

2

I take it you went to both. How would you contrast the intellectuality of both organisations? Was there more original material being presented at ARI? More and better applications of Objectivism to the various intellectual disciplines?

Diannal Hesiah did the same thing last summer (attend both conferencs) and she had some interesting things to say about them. Could you give more info about your experiences other than what I’m sure you knew in advance; ie Kellyites toleration of libertarianism.

Here is Lindsay Perigio’s take:

http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Perigo/TOC,…_and_KASS.shtml

By the way, in my opinion, Robert Bidinotto is one of the best minds the TOC has. I enjoy reading his blog and find his stances almost identical with ARI’s. I also liked reading his book on the legal system; “Criminal Justice?”. Did he give any lectures and if you attended them, were they valuable?

3

I got the above quote from L. Perigo, who was on the panel. He defended libertarians with “should we really eschew cooperation on a political level with libertarians who believe rights come from God, or from nowhere?”

I watched a libertarian presidental candidate nomination on C-Span once. They were an offensive bunch of louts and I got the impression they just want freedom so they can spend their time getting high. There is just no comparison between these people and rational to the core Objectivists. How can they even consider an alliance? I can see why the proper Objectivists at ARI have nothing to do with them.

4

The reason that TOC did not have a panel discussion on the progess of Objectivism in academia is because TOC and the like has been making progress in academia for years now. I’m glad that Gotthelf is publishing an article in a respected journal, but in case you didn’t know, David Kelley has written a respected _book_ on Objectivist epistemology and a widely used book on logic.

5

…TOC and the like has been making progress in academia for years now.

Every single bit of material that I have seen from “TOC and the like” has been anything but progress.

6

Sure, that is exactly what an ARI supporter would think. All I am saying is that one shouldn’t compare the progress of, shall we say, “orthodox” Objectivists versus neo-Randian types in academia. In fact, neo-Randians _run_ a respected journal of moral and social philosophy. It is called Social Philosophy and Policy. Of course, the response from the ARI types on this board will be “That work is destructive of Rand in academia, etc.” That is a different debate. My point is that the original poster was trying to demonstrate the ARI is somehow more serious than TOC. Furthermore, if the original poster had been completely forthcoming, he would have mentioned that there were treatments of Rand’s ethics contrasted with recent neo-Aristotelian ethical theories, a discussion and critique of Robert Nozick, bioethics, Rand and modern philosophy, and many more “serious” “academic” classes. So let’s not attack a straw man here. My purpose is not to engage in a debate over the term “libertarian” or tolerationism–I was making a specific point about the level of dialogue at both TOC and ARI.

7

I take it you went to both. How would you contrast the intellectuality of both organisations? Was there more original material being presented at ARI? More and better applications of Objectivism to the various intellectual disciplines?

By the way, in my opinion, Robert Bidinotto is one of the best minds the TOC has.

Argive99, I wouldn’t waste money on toc.

Yes.

Yes.

Lindsay Perigio’s record is were the discription came from.

Bidinotto is one of the best minds at toc, and that’s not a compliment.

8

The reason that TOC did not have a panel discussion on the progess of Objectivism in academia is because TOC and the like has been making progress in academia for years now. 

I’m glad that Gotthelf is publishing an article in a respected journal, but in case you didn’t know, David Kelley has written a respected _book_ on Objectivist epistemology and a widely used book on logic.

C-wolf, “and the like”? Why don’t you give some examples of their progress.

David Kelley’s book isn’t “a respected book” in the field.

9

Sure, that is exactly what an ARI supporter would think.  All I am saying is that one shouldn’t compare the progress of, shall we say, “orthodox” Objectivists versus neo-Randian types in academia.  In fact, neo-Randians _run_ a respected journal of moral and social philosophy.  It is called Social Philosophy and Policy.

My point is that the original poster was trying to demonstrate the ARI is somehow more serious than TOC.

What is a “orthodox Objectivist” and a “neo-Randian.” You say “shall we say” does that mean you don’t really know. Are you Bob Dole using “we” when talking about yourself?

If you knew what you were talking about you would know Social Philosophy and Policy is run by Fred Miller at Bowling Green and is “allied” with Gotthelf if anybody. Go to their site read all the “orthodox Objectivists” that have been visiting scholars.

Yes, I glad you agree with me that ARI is serious.

10

Alright.

The entire journal of _Social Philosophy and Policy_ which is very respected and has published many articles on Rand or Rand-inspired themes.

Kelley’s books The Evidence of the Senses, The Art of Reasoning, and A Life of One’s Own.

C.M. Sciabarra’s triology of books.

Roderick Long’s Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand

Neera Badhwhar’s Is Virtue Only a Means to Happines?

Tibor Machan’s Pseudo-Science of B. F. Skinner, Human Rights and Human Liberties, The Freedom Philosophy, Marxism: A Bourgeois Critique, Individuals and Their Rights, Liberty and Culture: Essays on the Idea of a Free Society, Capitalism and Individualism: Reframing the Argument for the Free Society, and The Virtue of Liberty.

Mimi Gladstein’s The Ayn Rand Companion

Over 70 articles by Eric Mack

Den Uyl’s The Virtue of Prudence

Den Uyl and Rasmussen’s Liberty and Nature, Defending Liberalism, The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand and more.

Torris and Kahmi’s What Art Is

Not to mention the novels of Kay Nolte Smith, Erika Holzer, and Alexandria York.

Not to mention the Journal of Ayn Rand studies, which is abstracted and indexed in whole or in part by CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, IBR (International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences), IBZ (International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, International Political Science Abstracts, The Philosopher’s Index, MLA International Bibliography, MLA Directory of Periodicals, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts.

Shall I go on? Because there is more I can list if you please.

WGD–since you didn’t go to the TOC seminar, you are not qualified to speak on it. You took one remark by Lindsay Perigo to make a remark about the entire quality of the conference. Let’s not be second-handed. Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent.

11

WGD. You do not know what you are talking about in terms of Social Philosophy and Policy. I am well aware it is run by Fred Miller. But did you know that Fred Miller has done work for TOC? Hmm, probably not.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/…itical-phil.asp

Furthermore, Social Philosophy and Policy has published articles by such neo-Randian heretics as David Kelley (!), Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl, Roderick Long, Eric Mack, Lester Hunt, and more.

Certainly ARI would not approve of the writings of any of those characters. Furthermore, TOC does not deny that ARI types can do good work–thus there would be nothing wrong with publish an “orthodox” article. It is ARI who sees nothing of value in the neo-Randians.

12

Shall I go on?  Because there is more I can list if you please. 

Perhaps you should add this one to your list:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/toc/statement.html

Fred Weiss

13

Fred Weiss–I realize that Hseih’s statement has caused a lot of ruckus. I think she raises many good points against TOC. However, there has been more of an exodus of people out of ARI than out of TOC. (Not that that is an argument against ARI, if you want that, check out _The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand_.) So don’t use the fact that _one_ graduate student became disillusioned with TOC as proof of anything. If you want to debate the merits of their cases on their ideas, ok.

Also, I define an Orthodox Objectivist as one who never writes a critical word of Rand, i.e. Peikoff, Gotthelf, Tara Smith, etc. and a neo-Randian who believes in the fundamentals of Rand’s philosophy while remaining critical–i.e. Douglas Den Uyl, Rasmussen, Machan, etc.

14

Social Philosophy and Policy is very respected because Fred Miller doesn’t allow it to be associated with the likes of sciabarra and kelley.

Gladstein can’t get dates right.

“Novels by…” I though you said, “making progress in academia”?

Eric Mack has written over 70 articles on Objectivism in academic journals?

Journal of Ayn Rand studies??? LOL

Your argument seems to be, if anybody anywhere mentions Ayn Rand, even people that don’t understand Objectivism(Eric Mack, etc.) thats academic advancement.

cwolf-- since you don’t understand objectivism, you are not qualified to speak on it. Let’s not be second-handed. Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent.

15

Point by point:

“Social Philosophy and Policy is very respected because Fred Miller doesn’t allow it to be associated with the likes of sciabarra and kelley”

False. Social Philosophy and Policy PUBLISHED an article by Kelley. Here is the direct proof:

http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/sppc/humanrights.htm

“Eric Mack has written over 70 articles on Objectivism in academic journals?”

I didn’t say all of them were specifically or exclusively on Rand. Merely that they were written from his neo-Randian perspective.

“Journal of Ayn Rand studies??? LOL”

Wow. Great argument. I believe Rand called it the argument from intimidation, did she not?

16

WGD.  You do not know what you are talking about in terms of Social Philosophy and Policy.  I am well aware it is run by Fred Miller.  But did you know that Fred Miller has done work for TOC?  Hmm, probably not.

urthermore, Social Philosophy and Policy has published articles by such neo-Randian heretics as David Kelley (!), Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl, Roderick Long, Eric Mack, Lester Hunt, and more.

Certainly ARI would not approve of the writings of any of those characters.  Furthermore, TOC does not deny that ARI types can do good work–thus there would be nothing wrong with publish an “orthodox” article.  It is ARI who sees nothing of value in the neo-Randians.

cwolf. You do not know what you are talking about in terms of Social Philosophy and Policy. You said “Neo-Randians run” it, they don’t. Its respected because of that.

I didn’t say some people can publish crap. Is your argument, something gets published so it is good?

“neo-Randian heretics” that doesn’t make any sense.

But yes, I agree they are a bunch of “characters.”

“…thus there would be nothing wrong with publish an “orthodox” article.”

What are you talking about here?

17

Excuse me. Please first admit that you made an out and out fabrication when you said Social Philosophy and Policy has nothing to do with Kelley.

Secondly, Fred Miller is not an Orthodox Objectivist–he has published and written pieces that are critical of Objectivism. Yet he agrees with the fundamentals of Objectivism, ergo he is a neo-Randian.

He would not mind having an article published by someone like Tara Smith, even though she is orthodox. Neo-Randians believe that orthodox Objectivists can make a valuable contribution. Therefore, Miller would not mind publishing something by Smith. It is the orthodoxs who think that the Neo-Randians are worthless, i.e. Peikoff would never publish an article by Eric Mack.

18

Point by point:

Follow your link and read the date! WHILE HE WAS STILL ORTHODOX, OH MY!

Eric Mack doesn’t view himself as a “neo-Randian.” Check out his web site, I think its called Catholic.

“did she not?” She did not. How is that intimidation. I don’t think there is an “argument from intimidation” do you mean Argumentum ad baculum?

19

Please address these points specifically.

  1. Your point was that Social Philosophy and Policy hasn’t associated with Kelley. That is wrong. Furthermore, it has _recently_ published articles by neo-Randians–Long, Mack, Den Uyl, etc. It is run by Fred Miller, who has written for TOC. So I am correct in saying it is run by a neo-Randian.

  2. Eric Mack is NOT Catholic. Here is his website:

http://www.tulane.edu/~phil/facMack.htm

No mention of being Catholic. Oh, also, here is an interview in which he states that he was raised Jewish!

http://209.197.94.171/people/mack.htm

20

Excuse me.  Please first admit that you made an out and out fabrication when you said Social Philosophy and Policy has nothing to do with Kelley.

Secondly, Fred Miller is not an Orthodox Objectivist–he has published and written pieces that are critical of Objectivism.  Yet he agrees with the fundamentals of Objectivism, ergo he is a neo-Randian. 

He would not mind having an article published by someone like Tara Smith, even though she is orthodox.  Neo-Randians believe that orthodox Objectivists can make a valuable contribution.  Therefore, Miller would not mind publishing something by Smith.  It is the orthodoxs who think that the Neo-Randians are worthless, i.e. Peikoff would never publish an article by Eric Mack.

Good example of “Begging the question.”

“He wouldn’t mind…” Gee I guess that why he asked her to be a visiting fellow.