Ayn Rand Wikipedia Article Locked - "Amateur" Philosopher

[Jonathan13]

But this is already happening; specifically, in the Ayn Rand Society Philosophical Studies series edited by Allan Gotthelf and James Lennox.  The first book, Metaethics, Egoism, and Virtue, contains essays by Objectivists which further flesh out Rand’s philosophy, a series of responses by non-Objectivist philosophers, and rejoinders by Objectivist scholars.  This seems like precisely the type of exercise that you are asking for.

Close, but not quite. The idea that I’m talking about is arguing in forums that are independent of either side’s control. One side’s choosing which of its opponents are worthy of having a voice, and which of their arguments will be published, isn’t quite the bravely facing of criticism that I had in mind.

If those associated with Peikoff and the ARI were to have the confidence to publish in, say, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, which they have no control over, now that would be what I’m talking about.

The final section of the book is titled “Author Meets Critics: Tara Smith’s Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics.”  It contains critiques of Smith’s presentation of Rand’s philosophy by philosophers, and rejoinders by Smith herself.

Again, I think that’s good. It’s a step in the right direction. But it’s not the letting go of control. It’s not fearlessly sailing the Good Ship Objectivism into the open seas, but cautiously keeping her near the mouth of the harbor.

 

I’d note that several of the Objectivist scholars involved in this series are also strongly affiliated with ARI, most notably Onkar Ghate and Tara Smith.  They seem to be perfectly willing to engage in critical debate with non-Objectivist academics over Rand’s ideas.

Then The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies would be a perfect opportunity for them. Why are they not taking advantage of it? It’s a forum where Objectivist and non-Objectivist experts can meet on neutral ground. I’d think that academically kicking the asses of non-Objectivist critics in a completely fair fight (where the Objectivists weren’t deciding which of their opponents they were willing to debate or which arguments they’d be willing to address) would be something to look forward to and enjoy, and that it would have the benefit of promoting Objectivism.

J

[Nicky]

Bodystun, sounds like you are making two claims:

1. wisdom is the ultimate purpose of a man’s actions

2. all philosophy (or at least all philosophy considered worthwhile by academics) is wisdom

I disagree with both. Life is the ultimate purpose of a man’s actions, and wisdom is merely a means towards that end, and a lot of philosophy has nothing to do with wisdom (or the understanding of any aspect of the Universe) anyway.

[Dante]

Somehow I missed this when you originally wrote it, sorry about that. Anyhow, better late than never.
 

Close, but not quite. The idea that I’m talking about is arguing in forums that are independent of either side’s control. One side’s choosing which of its opponents are worthy of having a voice, and which of their arguments will be published, isn’t quite the bravely facing of criticism that I had in mind.

If those associated with Peikoff and the ARI were to have the confidence to publish in, say, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, which they have no control over, now that would be what I’m talking about.

…

Then The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies would be a perfect opportunity for them. Why are they not taking advantage of it? It’s a forum where Objectivist and non-Objectivist experts can meet on neutral ground. I’d think that academically kicking the asses of non-Objectivist critics in a completely fair fight (where the Objectivists weren’t deciding which of their opponents they were willing to debate or which arguments they’d be willing to address) would be something to look forward to and enjoy, and that it would have the benefit of promoting Objectivism.

 
Okay, but if this is your concern then I’m still pretty mystified. One glance at Tara Smith’s CV, for instance, shows that she’s been publishing in a number of philosophy journals not controlled by ARI or even anyone in the Objectivist movement: Social Philosophy & Policy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Journal of Value Inquiry, etc. The same goes for James Lennox and Greg Salmieri, although their research focuses more on interpreting Aristotle than outright defense of Objectivism.  Although I can’t seem to get my hands on his CV, Darryl Hunt has an article articulating and defending Rand in Social Philosophy & Policy.  Tara Smith even has a publication in a non-ARI libertarian journal, Reason Papers.  Just because they aren’t publishing in the one particular journal that you’d like them to (JARS) doesn’t mean they’ve insulated themselves from criticism.
 
In fact, I would question your characterization of the Ayn Rand Society Philosophical Studies series as an insulated forum controlled by “those associated with Peikoff and the ARI.”  One member of the editorial board for the series, Lester Hunt, has in fact published in JARS numerous times.  Another (Fred Miller) is also on the editorial board of Reason Papers.  I’m just not seeing this insular echo chamber that you’re claiming will take several generations to fade.

[Jonathan13]

Okay, but if this is your concern then I’m still pretty mystified. One glance at Tara Smith’s CV, for instance, shows that she’s been publishing in a number of philosophy journals not controlled by ARI or even anyone in the Objectivist movement: Social Philosophy & Policy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Journal of Value Inquiry, etc.

The issue is not if Objectivists have published in independent philosophy journals, but whether or not they have faced sustained, informed criticism of Objectivism in those journals. One glance at Tara Smith’s CV tells us nothing about whether or not her participation in any journals included defenses of Objectivism against sustained, informed criticism. For all we know, her participation may have been the opposite: she may have been offering informed criticism of some other philosophy. Which isn’t the same thing at all.

 

The same goes for James Lennox and Greg Salmieri, although their research focuses more on interpreting Aristotle than outright defense of Objectivism.

Well, we’re talking about people engaging in structured, scholarly debates in academic journals and other fora about the philosophy of Objectivism, we’re not talking about Objectivists discussing subjects other than the philosophy of Objectivism in academic journals.

 

Although I can’t seem to get my hands on his CV, Darryl Hunt has an article articulating and defending Rand in Social Philosophy & Policy. Tara Smith even has a publication in a non-ARI libertarian journal, Reason Papers. Just because they aren’t publishing in the one particular journal that you’d like them to (JARS) doesn’t mean they’ve insulated themselves from criticism.

Where did you get the idea that I’d “like them” to publish in one particular journal? I merely cited it as one obvious opportunity. It exists specifically for the purpose of discussing Rand’s ideas, yet people associated with the ARI avoid it and condemn it.

Are you aware of the Bernstein apology?

As Wikipedia reports:

 

In 2002, philosopher Andrew Bernstein, who is associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, contributed a brief reply to a review of the CliffsNotes for Ayn Rand’s novels. He subsequently issued an apology for having contributed to the journal. Bernstein wrote, “I deeply regret my thoughtless decision to contribute to this journal, and hereby irrevocably repudiate any and all association with it”, and asserted that the journal was “filled with writings by people with whom I refuse to knowingly associate under any circumstances.” In 2007, the Department of Philosophy at Texas State University turned down a grant from the Anthem Foundation to support a visiting faculty position that would specialize in Objectivism. Bernstein was a candidate to fill the position. According to Rebecca Raphael, a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Texas State, Bernstein’s apology for publishing in the journal indicated that the Anthem Foundation was expecting the person hired to meet an “ideological litmus test.” According to reporter David Glenn, “When asked by The Chronicle about his 2002 comments, Mr. Bernstein replied that rejecting The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies was a moral and intellectual obligation.”

 

The notion of announcing that one is refusing “to knowingly associate under any circumstances” with certain people, after one has just done so, is the type of attitude that I’m talking about.

I wonder specifically what crimes those associated with JARS committed. I’d think that identifying their immoral behavior by citing specific examples would be important to an Objectivist who is issuing a public apology and making a public condemnation. I’ve read many issues of JARS, and I’ve never seen anything in the publication that would indicate that its participants are evil, let alone evil to the point of anyone’s needing to publicly announce that they won’t associate with them. The only conclusion that I can come to is that JARS allows informed criticism of Rand’s ideas, and therefore it is seen by certain people as a threat. The crime appears to be, as Rebecca Raphael noted in the Wikipedia excerpt above, that JARS has not passed an “ideological litmus test.” It has not shown the expected loyalty. It has shown that it is willing to critically examine Rand’s ideas.

 

 

In fact, I would question your characterization of the Ayn Rand Society Philosophical Studies series as an insulated forum controlled by “those associated with Peikoff and the ARI.” One member of the editorial board for the series, Lester Hunt, has in fact published in JARS numerous times. Another (Fred Miller) is also on the editorial board of Reason Papers. I’m just not seeing this insular echo chamber that you’re claiming will take several generations to fade.

You don’t appear to want to see it. Your last post to me lists examples as evidence which don’t actually support your position. The fact that certain Objectivists have published in certain fora doesn’t mean that they have defended Objectivism against sustained, informed criticism in those fora, and the fact that certain members of the Ayn Rand Society editorial board have published in JARS or elsewhere doesn’t make the Society a neutral scholarly publisher that isn’t under the control of those associated with Peikoff and the ARI. As long as anyone associated with the ARI is a board member, it is not an independent journal. It is an advocacy group, not a neutral party.

J

[Dante]

Where did you get the idea that I’d “like them” to publish in one particular journal? I merely cited it as one obvious opportunity. It exists specifically for the purpose of discussing Rand’s ideas, yet people associated with the ARI avoid it and condemn it.

 

Because it’s literally the only example that you’re citing, and you do it again in this post.  Your original claim was that mainstream Objectivists will be unwilling to engage in critical debate within the wider context of academic philosophy for probably several generations.  To support this, you’ve repeatedly criticized them for not doing so in JARS specifically, both in the original post I quoted and now doubling down here.  The fact that they seem to have a problem with JARS specifically doesn’t necessarily mean that they have a problem engaging the wider philosophical community.  It may be an indication of that larger phenomenon, or it may simply reflect personal disagreements with Sciabarra and others at JARS.  Certainly there is reason to believe such animosity exists.

 

Now I certainly agree that during Rand’s lifetime, and for years following her death, there was essentially zero interaction between academic philosophy and the Objectivist movement.  I also agree with what I presume is your position that there should have been much more, that both sides would have benefited from critical engagement with one another.  Really the only people willing to do so were those that were outside the organized movement, such as Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen.  However, you seem to be arguing that this is still basically the case, and will be for several generations to come.  I don’t agree with that at all.  I think we’ve seen a new generation of scholars within the movement, many of whom were mentioned above, that have taken such a task seriously, and have done good work in that area.  Certainly the Anthem Foundation deserves much credit in this regard.  Obviously this phenomenon has much farther to go, and there have been setbacks and backlashes, but overall it’s much farther along than you seem to think.  I certainly wouldn’t interpret animosity towards JARS as animosity to the idea of engaging with any informed philosophical criticism at all.

[Jonathan13]

The fact that they seem to have a problem with JARS specifically doesn’t necessarily mean that they have a problem engaging the wider philosophical community.

I think that it does suggest that they have a problem engaging with the wider philosophical community. Participants in JARS are the wider philosophical community.

When someone morally condemns a journal which is much friendlier to Rand’s ideas than anyone else in the outside community, it’s logical to conclude that those in the community who are more skeptical and critical of Rand’s ideas would likely be judged even harsher.

 

It may be an indication of that larger phenomenon, or it may simply reflect personal disagreements with Sciabarra and others at JARS. Certainly there is reason to believe such animosity exists.

Now I certainly agree that during Rand’s lifetime, and for years following her death, there was essentially zero interaction between academic philosophy and the Objectivist movement. I also agree with what I presume is your position that there should have been much more, that both sides would have benefited from critical engagement with one another. Really the only people willing to do so were those that were outside the organized movement, such as Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen. However, you seem to be arguing that this is still basically the case, and will be for several generations to come. I don’t agree with that at all.

Then please cite examples of ARI-sanctioned Objectivists facing sustained, informed criticism of Objectivism in neutral fora. Post links to the publications, or to any online copies of the back-and-forth arguments. Show me where ARI’s scholars, directors and staff have invited and answered criticism of Objectivism on neutral territory.

 

I think we’ve seen a new generation of scholars within the movement, many of whom were mentioned above, that have taken such a task seriously, and have done good work in that area.

I haven’t seen that. Will you please give specific examples? My impression is that Bernstein’s apology served as a warning to others about which lines are not to be crossed, and everyone associated with ARI, including the new generation, is heeding that warning. The McCaskey ordeal served as further warning that criticism is unacceptable – even if it is constructive criticism delivered privately and with kid gloves. No one is being publicly assured by the ARI leadership that they will not lose any funding or other benefits of being officially sanctioned by the ARI if they publish or engage in debate wherever they wish. They are not being publicly encouraged to invite and answer criticism of Objectivism in neutral fora.

 

Certainly the Anthem Foundation deserves much credit in this regard. Obviously this phenomenon has much farther to go, and there have been setbacks and backlashes, but overall it’s much farther along than you seem to think. I certainly wouldn’t interpret animosity towards JARS as animosity to the idea of engaging with any informed philosophical criticism at all.

Then please give examples of ARI Objectivists engaging others on neutral territory and answering their criticisms of Objectivism.

J

[Reidy]

^{The presentations and publications of the APA Ayn Rand Society (Click Past Programs, Upcoming Programs and Publications for details) are examples of what Johathan13 is asking to see. They always include non-Objectivists on their programs and in the books they publish. Objectivist participants include both ARI loyalists and not.}

[Jonathan13]

^{The presentations and publications of the APA Ayn Rand Society (Click Past Programs, Upcoming Programs and Publications for details) are examples of what Johathan13 is asking to see. They always include non-Objectivists on their programs and in the books they publish. Objectivist participants include both ARI loyalists and not.}

 

Actually, no, it’s not what I’m asking to see. I’m asking to see examples of ARI Objectivists engaging others on neutral territory and answering their criticisms of Objectivism. I’m talking about ARI scholars not having any control over who will offer criticism, or what content will be addressed, or how long the criticism will continue.

 

The ARS programs and publications are a good start in the right direction, by they are not a letting go of the reins. They are like a baseball game in which some of the home team’s players serve as umpires who get to decide who will pitch for the other team and which pitches they’ll be allowed to throw. I’m suggesting that they need to go out and play away games where they don’t get to choose the umps and pitches.

 

J

[Boydstun]

Some of the Societies of the American Philosophical Association are listed here, with hyperlinks to each. For some reason, many of the Societies that regularly have sessions at meetings of the APA are not listed there, but the list gives a sample of the range of Societies.

 

I am a member of two besides ARS, and samples of some of their past conference programs are linked below. They have sessions at meetings of the APA, like ARS has, but they have a sufficient number of scholars to hold their own multiday conferences as well. It will be for generations after us to see if Ayn Rand’s philosophy ever has that much top-shelf scholarly interest and fertility. Notice that the Societies dedicated to a particular philosopher have programs, papers, and publications all within an extended family of scholars competent in and respectful towards some aspect of that philosophy seen as significant and innovative in the history of philosophy.

 

LSNA

 

NAKS

 

There are other societies of the APA dedicated to a topic, not a philosopher, and their sessions are often bouts between sides on issues within the topic, where participants share only adherence to logic and interest in the topic, and there is not any overarching school of philosophy organizing the sessions or their publications. Examples are the Philosophy of Time Society and Society for Realist/Antirealist Discussion.

 

Presenters at ARS by widely respected philosophers who are not within the Objectivist extended family have included:

 

Julia Driver

 

Paul Griffiths

 

Robert Pasnau

 

John Cooper

 

Helen Cullyer

 

Paul Bloomfield

 

Bill Brewer

 

Hasok Chang

 

These philosophers have seen some part of Rand’s philosophy worth thinking about and critiquing. That philosophers of this caliber and this independence from Objectivism will continue to find making a paper for the Ayn Rand Society worthwhile is nowise assured. It depends on the leadership of the Society and the quality and respectfulness of the Objectivist-minded presenting at the sessions.

 

At present the Steering Committee of ARS consists of two members who are affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute and two members who are not and never have been affiliated with that institution. All of them find some significant portion of Rand’s philosophy true and something in the philosophy not only true, but original and important enough to promote for consideration and cultivation. I know all of them personally, at least a bit, and have by their written and oral work the highest confidence in their competence in Rand’s philosophy and in their professional dedication to its competent criticism and further elucidation.

 

James Lennox, Associate Editor of the series Ayn Rand Society Philosophical Studies, is likely to become Editor since Allan Gotthelf has died. Whether or not that eventuates, he will be the preeminent weight in the future course of the sessions and press of the Society, and he is not affiliated with ARI.

[Boydstun]

PS

 

Contributors to the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies do not include any from the professional philosophical community way wider than the Objectivist one. JARS has been an extended-family affair and a very worthwhile one for the extended family, myself included. But the heavyweights of ethics and epistemology today (think T. Hurka, B. Herman in ethics; C. Peacock, J. Prinz in epistemology), which are the areas in which Rand had something both original and significant to say, will not be showing up in JARS in this generation. (Yes, M. Huemer did appear a few years ago, though not in relation to his claims to fame; delighted if he returns.) And they are not going to be bringing up Rand’s thought for serious sustained criticism in the professional journals of the really wider philosophical community this generation either. Engagement by heavyweights in the really wider academic philosophical community does occur sometimes at sessions of the Ayn Rand Society.

[Boydstun]

Correction to #30: John Cooper was not a presenter at ARS, but chaired the session (2005).

[Jonathan13]

Presenters at ARS by widely respected philosophers who are not within the Objectivist extended family have included:

Julia Driver

Paul Griffiths

Robert Pasnau

John Cooper

Helen Cullyer

Paul Bloomfield

Bill Brewer

Hasok Chang

These philosophers have seen some part of Rand’s philosophy worth thinking about and critiquing. That philosophers of this caliber and this independence from Objectivism will continue to find making a paper for the Ayn Rand Society worthwhile is nowise assured. It depends on the leadership of the Society and the quality and respectfulness of the Objectivist-minded presenting at the sessions.

The issue isn’t who has presented at Objectivist functions or critiqued Objectivist ideas, or how far outside of Objectivism the critics are, or how big of a star any of them are in philosophic circles, but rather which criticisms of Objectivism have they offered, and, more importantly, how have members of the ARI answered the criticisms. Which of Objectivism’s errors have they corrected, which contradictions have they resolved, and which equivocations have they admitted to and fixed?

 

At present the Steering Committee of ARS consists of two members who are affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute and two members who are not and never have been affiliated with that institution. All of them find some significant portion of Rand’s philosophy true and something in the philosophy not only true, but original and important enough to promote for consideration and cultivation. I know all of them personally, at least a bit, and have by their written and oral work the highest confidence in their competence in Rand’s philosophy and in their professional dedication to its competent criticism and further elucidation.

Do any of them find some portion of the philosophy to be untrue? Do any of them find any part of the philosophy to be potentially true but inadequately supported? If so, have they voiced these concerns to the ARI people, and have the ARI people answered them? Has anyone at the ARI ever publicly recognized any flaws in Objectivism and identified possible means of correcting the errors? Have they ever recognized any parts of Objectivism which need to be clarified, or supported with proof that until now has been lacking?

 

PS Contributors to the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies do not include any from the professional philosophical community way wider than the Objectivist one. JARS has been an extended-family affair and a very worthwhile one for the extended family, myself included. But the heavyweights of ethics and epistemology today (think T. Hurka, B. Herman in ethics; C. Peacock, J. Prinz in epistemology), which are the areas in which Rand had something both original and significant to say, will not be showing up in JARS in this generation.

I doubt that any “heavy hitters” will be involving themselves with analyzing and critiquing Objectivism until after it has been presented formally and has already been vetted and critiqued and corrected and vetted again by “lighter hitters” first.

Any philosophy or philosophical proposal doesn’t start at the top. The first step would be to answer the obvious criticisms that hundreds of people have already been offering for a few decades now. Objectivism has had a wide range of critics, from those who are very friendly and supportive of it to those who ridicule it, from those who are published writers to those who are basically unknown but who have valid, intelligent criticisms. I’ve seen none of their criticisms addressed by anyone at ARI. That’s what I’m asking on this thread to see. That’s what I’m stressing is an important activity that the ARI should be involved in.

 

(Yes, M. Huemer did appear a few years ago, though not in relation to his claims to fame; delighted if he returns.) And they are not going to be bringing up Rand’s thought for serious sustained criticism in the professional journals of the really wider philosophical community this generation either. Engagement by heavyweights in the really wider academic philosophical community does occur sometimes at sessions of the Ayn Rand Society.

Can you give examples of some of the specific issues that have been discussed at such ARS sessions? Which criticisms were offered of which Objectivist positions, and what were the responses from ARI members?

J

[Boydstun]

So far as I have noticed, professional philosophers affiliated with ARI speak on points in Rand’s thought that they think are correct, defensible, and fertile when they speak in ARI forums. That was also true of writers in Rand’s journal publications. I don’t know anything about these speakers’ disagreements with Rand. I bet they have some. I bet also they differ from person to person. Certainly, the areas of Rand’s thought they propound or elucidate vary from person to person. This group of scholars is loose in the sense that there is no publication such as The Objectivist over which the author of the philosophy rules on what is correct expression of the philosophy. There is no publication voicing unified manifestos on Objectivism from this group of philosophers, which would include T. Smith, Wright, Salmieri, Rheins, Ghate, Bayer, as well as the older fellows Binswanger and Peikoff.

 

I imagine Peikoff, and David Kelley too, have points on which they think Rand got something or other wrong. In Peikoff’s OPAR, as I recall, there are indications of that where he distances himself by saying “According to Miss Rand, . . .” in the course of relating her view on some aspect of child cognitive development. Then too, his treatment in that work of Rand’s gedanken of the indestructible immortal robot—probably sensitive to criticisms, such as from J. C. King—suggests he (and perhaps late Rand) had reservations on her original formulation of the idea, that is, on its complete correctness. It would seem natural that these two, Peikoff and Kelley, who have won esteem as expositors of Rand’s philosophy as a whole should concentrate in their presentations on what they find true and productive in Rand’s philosophy. In contemporary Kant scholarship, there is a similar emphasis in Allison’s Kant’s Transcendental Idealism and Wood’s Kantian Ethics.

 

There are different styles of worthwhile books and papers to be written on a philosophy. Smith’s two books Viable Values and Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics engage criticisms and contemporary competitors. Similarly it is with the collection edited by Den Uyl and Rasmussen The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand. Informed defenses of Rand, in print, by professional philosophers against contemporary criticisms of her views did not wait for the era of T. Smith in affiliation with ARI. I’m glad to have all of them, earlier or later, and I find expositions such as Peikoff’s OPAR and the tomes of Allison and Wood valuable as well. Perhaps the old criticisms of Rand’s ethics by Nozick, which were stoutly addressed by Den Uyl and Rassmussen in the ’70’s, will receive some further defensive perspective from Ghate at the meeting of ARS next month.

 

Thus far, the ARS engagements of Rand defenders (including ones affiliated with ARI) with contemporary criticism that have been published include Swanton’s criticism of Rand’s egoism with its response from Wright and Cullyer’s criticism of Rand’s egoism with its response from Smith. Those are in Metaethics, Egoism, and Virtue. Noteworthy outside the proceedings of ARS would be Young’s defense of Rand’s egoism against criticisms by Huemer in V5N2 of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. The ARS volume Concepts and their Role in Knowledge includes criticisms of various parts of Rand’s epistemology by five different philosophers and responses from five different philosophers, all of the latter affiliated with ARI.

 

If one reads the various books and papers I have mentioned, one may find some of one’s own criticisms of Rand’s ideas set forth and debated therein. Perhaps not, not yet, ever. Hopefully, books on Rand’s philosophy, pro and con, will continue to issue. I have been able to set out a substantial amount of thought on that philosophy on the web* and may write a book on my own philosophy in the future, which would surely have its debt to and correctives of Rand’s, though that would not be its focus.

[Jonathan13]

It would seem natural that these two, Peikoff and Kelley, who have won esteem as expositors of Rand’s philosophy as a whole should concentrate in their presentations on what they find true and productive in Rand’s philosophy.

 

It doesn’t “seem natural” to me. Not only that, but it doesn’t seem Objectivist. I see the Objectivist approach as being intolerant of errors and contradictions, and of wanting to resolve them immediately. I see Objectivism as rating such issues as the top priority when doing philosophy. After all, if it’s acceptable to selectively focus on what’s true and productive in a philosophy, and to save dealing with the errors and contradictions for later, we could do the same with Kantianism, Christianity or Postmodernist Feminism, no?

J