I split Eric and Mr. Laughlin’s discussion off here.
I don’t think I’ve ever found anything I’ve read by either Rand or Peikoff to be hard to grasp. But then again I do have an I.Q. approaching 150 and most of the tenets of Objectivism correspond with my implicit sense of life, so maybe it was just more natural for me to grasp the process and derivations. I also had my first exposure to Rand (although I didn’t know it, because I had no idea about her until about a year ago (I had heard of Atlas Shrugged, but only passingly)) through Atheism: The case against God by George Smith when I was 15 or so. _ That _ book was written for the layman, and I think it probably is a nice introduction to rational thought. Personally, I believe that being atheist is a definite must in order to smoothly accept Objectivism. Imagine how hard it must be for someone who has to wrestle with giving up the notion of god when they actually believe in it. I’m glad the belief in god was never that important to me and that I was able to shake it off almost as easily as belief in Santa Claus.
I didn’t struggle with either of them, but I am a painfully slow reader. I take enough time to make sure I understand everything, and if I don’t, I get a dictionary and re-read.
I think appeals to IQ are dangerous, and not because intelligence is unquantifiable. My experience with one IQ test (the WAIS-II) was that it was weighted for linguistic skills - that is, your verbal intelligence was much more of a factor in determining the final score. Whether or not this even approaches objectivity, I don’t know. But I would guess that if someone took the same test and had a full scale score that was around 150 due to a phenomenal performance score and a lackluster verbal score, they would have a harder time with texts like OPAR and ITOE when compared to someone who’s 150 IQ was based on a higher than average verbal score.
I find Dr. Peikoff’s writing to be incredibly lucid. In fact, I find all Objectivist writers write with such clarity. I’m not sure if this is the writing style that Ayn Rand originated and Peikoff has only improved upon and/or used his own style.
Referring to “The Art of Nonfiction”, Ayn Rand makes it pretty clear that the primary focus of nonfiction is to write with clarity and objectivity and the style will follow. All one has to do is pick up other philosophy books only to realize how truly excruciating some of them are to read.
Andrew, your point about other philosophers is well taken. Some of the stuff is simply impenetrable. One of the attributes of Objectivism that appeals to me is its clarity.
As far as Rand v. Peikoff, I don’t see much of a difference in terms of understandability. If I had to pick though, Rand would get my vote.
Here’s the difference between the two as I see it. Reading Peikoff’s writing is like reading a textbook at many times, while reading Miss Rand’s works give you all the essential’s you need to understand her points AND usually pack an emotional punch that leaves you elated and in tears at the same time. The only work by her that has never brought those feelings to me is ItOE because of the nature of the work. This is the unique essence that only SHE can bring to her works as both the creator and as a professional novelist. Peikoff on the other hand, is great at integrating alot of different concepts into excellent technical writing.
I think how difficult OPAR is for a new reader depends, in large part, how familiar that reader already is with Ayn Rand’s writings - especially with her non-fiction. I really don’t suggest reading it until one has finished reading all of Ayn Rand’s essays which have been republished in book form. That will give one a much better framework as to where Dr. Peikoff is coming from.
Back when Dr. Peikoff was still writing OPAR, he offered through the old Second Renaissance book service a taped lecture course on the book - and attendees were provided with a rough draft copy of the chapters that Dr. Peikoff had completed up to that point. I don’t have access to that course in order to provide an exact quote, but I recall Dr. Peikoff talking about some of the difficulties inherent in writing such a book. His objective was to provide a systematic presentation of the essentials of Objectivism in a single volume - not necessarily an exhaustive argument for every one of it points and premises. He pointed out that it would have been much quicker and easier to have written the book in multiple volumes which would have given him plenty of room to elaborate on each point. But, of course, to do so, would have defeated the purpose of what he set out to do. All of that is definitely something which will have an impact on the writing style of such a work and the pace at which the material is covered and the degree it is elaborated on.
Trying to compare Dr. Peikoff to Ayn Rand in this context is not especially fair, I think, because they were writing to different audiences (I think Dr. Peikoff assumed an audience with a greater level of familiarity with Objectivism and a deeper interest in technical philosophy than Ayn Rand assumed when she wrote essays for the subscribers of her newsletter, many of whom were merely familiar with her fiction) and towards different ends.