Comments on Leonard Peikoff

The Critics of Objectivism
21

I never said that there were no Objectivists in other fields–I said we need to see more of them. And I know that a culture can be changed only at its very foundation–its philosophy–and not in the field of politics. I only said that we need to see more Objectivist politicians, not change America by electing an Objectivist president.

..again I agree : )

It’s a long road to getting people onto the ‘right track’ of earning their keep by exploiting their own talents and desires when today’s message is ‘worry about what they think/want’. It has to start with our children; if they are taught in a truthful and logical way what we are and what we can do, the very idea of religion and ‘live for others’ will seem rediculous to them. Even an Objectivist President won’t be able to sway the results of fifty years of what can only qualify as widespread altruist brainwashing. I already see hope in many children today thanks to the separation of Church and state we saw in the beginning of the last century.

(added)

Oh, and perhaps you can tell from the above that I am of the persuasion that Objectivism should become a way of life, not a subject taught in universities. Yet another reason for me to treat Dr. Piekoff’s work with disdain - it’s isolationist.

22

I’m still in high school–A junior in 6 days to be exact. And I don’t see much hope in the children of today, despite the secularized curriculum, because the traditional education was replaced by an even worse method of education. At least the classical method was taught in a more logical, integrated method (grammar, logic & rhetoric). Now, it’s just special subjects that are taught with barely–if at all–any rational, philosophic basis, meaningful integration or concrete application.

Take my typical publich high school for an example. The younger generations are faring worse than ever–with over half of the entire freshman class failing at least one of their classes even in an extremely dumbed down academic curriculum! Many of the teachers in my school are horrible (you can hear these comments from the students themselves). They fail to motivate their students–and worse, they fail to teach their subjects properly, rationally, in an integrated, conceptual method. I’ve even heard that the school districts in my area are considering to make community service mandatory! :o :slight_smile:

There are good teachers in my school. However, they are few and they teach only the Advanced or AP classes–which a majority of the students will never take.

I really don’t see a very bright future for America, especially with the increasing population in public schools, which will mean more crippled minds than ever, and with the bills Congress and the state legislatures have been proposing and passing, it seems that we are in an ever accelerating vehicle heading straight down the road to a totalitarian, socialist America–or ultimately another Civil War.

This is why I think Americans desperately need to see more successful individuals in the real world (other than just philosophers in ivory towers) who live by Objectivism. Without such people like Dagny, Howard, Hank and Francisco, Objectivism will seem more like an arcane philosophic theory than a practical way of living. And that would only alienate most of the people that we’re trying to reach.

23

At least the classical method was taught in a more logical, integrated method (grammar, logic & rhetoric). Now, it’s just special subjects that are taught with barely–if at all–any rational, philosophic basis, meaningful integration or concrete application.

…you give me flashes of my school days - of the confusion I felt during those years. True, how can one be motivated to learn when the one teaching seems unconvinced or nonchalant about what he’s relaying? There were a few teachers who were ‘on the ball’ - there were two who truely motivated me, the rest have more or less merged into a fog in my memory. And the University profs… : )

…yes, imagine what students must think if even the teachers have a ‘what’s the use’ attitude. Are things really that bad in the US nowadays?

…I’d love to develop on this but I must leave now. Perhaps tonight - this is going somewhere interesting : )

24

…you give me flashes of my school days - of the confusion I felt during those years.  True, how can one be motivated to learn when the one teaching seems unconvinced or nonchalant about what he’s relaying? There were a few teachers who were ‘on the ball’ - there were two who truely motivated me, the rest have more or less merged into a fog in my memory. And the University profs… : )

…yes, imagine what students must think if even the teachers have a ‘what’s the use’ attitude. Are things really that bad in the US nowadays?

For the majority of students and teachers, it is that bad. Most students fail to see how the academic subjects are relevant to their lives–since the teachers themselves fail to present their subjects properly and motivate their students.

The most common complaint I’ve heard from students is “What the hell does this have to do with my life?”–an honest, desperate question to which teachers typically blank-out, change the subject or mumble something inaudible.

25

Interestingly, at least in regard to philosophy, it doesn’t necessarily get better in college. I think in most fields there’s an implicit assumption that one goes to college to learn a trade which is to be practiced – imagine a computer science professor saying “What we’re speaking about doesn’t really apply to computers.” It’d be absurd. And yet, the *best* professor I had last year said something along these lines at one point: “Well, we’re philosophers… we don’t really deal with reality.”

(By the way, when I say best, I mean genuinely GOOD. For her, this was the exception to the rule, the rule being quality pedagogy. For some other professors I’ve had, this would be something they’d say casually on their best day.)

26

If I may say, I find that that is where Ayn Rand’s philosophy is lacking… or rather, that’s where it left off. There are more ‘jobs’ today than there are trades - why? Because of businesses began for profit alone, the product itself has taken a second role to marketing.

I can’t have a greater respect for the Hank Reardens of this world, but the time of the ‘self-deserving businessman’ is unfortunately coming to a close. Once a business sells out to the market, or opens itself to share speculation by putting itself on the stock market (of which Rand makes only the vaguest of references), the ‘Rearden’ can be removed by the votes of the major shareholders (if the business in question is dumb enough to own less than 51% of its shares). That makes a position in any place in the whole system, top to bottom, precarious. Can you imagine being a student with aspirations - in face of that?

I find that Ayn Rand’s thinking is incomplete for today’s world, and it is for that I began this thread - after finding that her ‘heritor’ has but applied her words to today’s events without any further thought of his own.

One of the biggest questions I have yet to examine is: ‘the value of money’. Yet another hole in the Rand philosophical legacy.

27

Sleepyop:

(However, I do know one Objectivist who is running in the California recall election.)

I’m curious, who might that be?

28

Sorry, the MySQL database got corrupted and deleted this thread when I tried to repair the DB. I re-created it, but forgot the original title.

29

Don’t worry about it, was nothing important. Thanks : )

30

Sleepyop:

I’m curious, who might that be?

Whoever he is, he’s not going to win–certainly not in California.

31

Whoever he is, he’s not going to win–certainly not in California.

…with people like Bill Gates claiming to be Objectivists, could be anyone. Arnie? Arnold? Willie? Whoops, the orca isn’t in the running : )

32

…with people like Bill Gates claiming to be Objectivists, could be anyone. Arnie? Arnold? Willie? Whoops, the orca isn’t in the running : )

Might as well add to the quote-onion.

Just when the heck did Gates claim to be an Objectivist? Last I heard of his mentioning Rand, he was telling a college audience that in regard to a free-market economy “we don’t need to go as far as Ayn Rand”.

My opinion of Arnold has gone down somewhat after having read some of the info on his behavior during the Mr. Olympia contests (avail. on mikementzer.com), and having a lot of it corraborated by an old interview recently republished at The Smoking Gun. If he is still *anything* like he was back then, he’d be a pretty problematic politician. He was a staunch hedonist, talked about engaging in casual group sex, and used all sorts of Machiavellian tactics to manipulate his opponents. I doubt he acts like that anymore, but if his principles are at all similar, I’d expect him to be something of a power-luster and a pragmatist.

Harry Binswanger recently suggested that given his past record of thinking long-term (which is true, and is a good thing), there might even be a possibility that he’d push for a constitutional amendment to allow for naturalized citizens to be eligible to run for President. One thing he made clear is that he intends to be at the top in whatever field he’s competing in: he was addressing body-building and Hollywood specifically, but the same almost certainly would apply to politics. That’s not a bad thing in itself, except that he also made clear that he was willing to do *anything* to get to the top.

33

Might as well add to the quote-onion.

Just when the heck did Gates claim to be an Objectivist? Last I heard of his mentioning Rand, he was telling a college audience that in regard to a free-market economy “we don’t need to go as far as Ayn Rand”.

Hehe, I wonder how big the onion can grow : )

…have a look at Peikoff’s site for an answer to that one. Also do a search for - “Bill Gates” Objectivism OR Objectivist - and have a look at this site: http://microsoft.aynrand.org/ - made by the ARI ! Peikoff can’t get any more explicit than that.

I can’t see anyone who takes Arnold’s candidature seriously calling themselves any sort of philosopher - thus my jibe.

34

Hehe, I wonder how big the onion can grow : )

…have a look at Peikoff’s site for an answer to that one. Also do a search for - “Bill Gates” Objectivism OR Objectivist - and have a look at this site: http://microsoft.aynrand.org/ - made by the ARI ! Peikoff can’t get any more explicit than that.

I can’t see anyone who takes Arnold’s candidature seriously calling themselves any sort of philosopher - thus my jibe.

Despite what I said above, I *do* think that Arnold sounds like the best candidate out of the ones that have a chance.

I looked on Peikoff’s site and found no reference to Gates being an Objectivist. I didn’t read much on the ARI Microsoft Defense site, but the articles looked like they were intended as a moral defense for a company which has been attacked for its success. That’s totally appropriate, and doesn’t imply anything about Gates’ philosophical views.

35

hehe, I’ll ‘hold the onion’ this time.

Did you do that search? You would have found a lot on Gates and Objectivism. True that he doesn’t follow much of any philosophy - he doesn’t want or need to. Microsoft IS a philosophy for some…

Do you (or anyone else) have any commentary on my thoughts above - especially about the ‘holes’ I seem to have found in Rand’s writings. She covers very well who and what dollars are for… but speaks little of what a dollar is without he who earned it, or what it becomes after it is earned in an illicit way…

36

No, I didn’t go a Google search. I’ve found that 90% of the writing on Objectivism online is junk, so I’m not really inclined to sift through it. (Particularly since my time is limited right now, since I’m in the process of packing up for a move.)

I don’t know much in detail about corporate charter law, and I’ll admit to a sneaking suspicion of the whole thing. But that could be just from lack of info, so I leave it as an open question. As for the issue of dollars, when Rand wrote Francisco’s money speech, she was addressing money as a symbol of the trader principle. When it’s taken outside of that context, obviously its symbolic value changes. A dollar bill that somehow lands on an asteroid is just a piece of paper without meaning; a dollar bill in the hands of a thief is nothing to be proud of.

What other “holes” do you believe you’ve found?

37

…yes it’s along those lines that I’d like to continue this discussion - er, without the ‘dollar on an astroid’ part, I think we’re smarter than that : ) - There is something wrong with the existing system for one base reason: man’s rapid accumulation of tools and knowledge over the past two centuries has also contributed to the hights of his inventiveness - and thanks to that we have machines that greatly reduce our workload and even the need for human labour. Now, with that in mind, doesn’t logic tell us that, thanks to our machines, because our ability to produce with a high efficiency a lesser need for human labour, that life in general should become at the same time more comfortable and cheaper? The former, surely, but prices for products existing since the beginning of the last century remain the same and a select few are getting richer because of this. A useful business or orginanisation should be successful if the service or product it provides sells, and even more so if it is inventive and useful, thus even more popular; without question, its maker deserves every penny he gets. This latter is Ayn Rand’s ideal, the Hank Rearden type.

Rand mentions ‘not asking more than a customer is willing to pay’ - but for me this thought it rather vague and incomplete. I could even say, for those such as Peikoff who follow Rand’s teachings to the letter, it can become, depending on the intentions of he who is ‘following the rule’, a wide-open door to greed.

Take for example mister Gates. His product has brought the computer back to the comprehensible ‘see and use’ tool-using habits of humans, but his tool is 1) an invention that is not his own; 2) a tool copied and developed by only a few ‘thinker-labourers’; 3) a tool which requires, in comparison to the numbers in which it is distributed, next to no human intervention to reproduce (thanks to human-made machines, granted); and 4) a tool whose price is calculated on, not the cost of making and distributing the product itself, but statistical results of a study on how much an average human is willing and able to pay. This is why Gates is a millionaire - Gates knows much more about finance and human ignorance than he does computers, but that shouldn’t be what we pay him for. Gates ‘adopted’ (to say it in a kind way) Job’s concept of a ‘humanistic’ computer interface without bothering to pursue Job’s passion for the computer itself - the hardware was where the majority of production expenses went, and Gates was smart enough to see that. But again, that is in no way being a thinker or inventor. In my mind Steve Jobs fits the Hank Rearden and perhaps even the John Galt characters to a tee - but strangely enough, I can’t find a close match for Gates in any of Rand’s works.

I have more thoughts on this but this is enough for now… but don’t get me wrong, I’m not asking that mister Gates distribute his wealth anywhere; what’s his is his and it’s too late to go back. Nor do I want to regulate anything, I think that if situations such as the above are exposed and explained for what they are to the public things will pretty much take care of themselves. The problem is that: the public seems to have so ‘politically corrected’ itself that it can no longer 1) say that the above example is right or wrong and 2) decide for themselves if they’re asked to. I think these last two reasons are yet two more to add the the reasons why mister Gates is rich today.

(added) I’ve just re-read Peikoff’s rather lengthy chapter on ‘honesty’ but he just re-applies many of Rand’s ‘Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal’ already-applied theories. I’m still trying to narrow my question down… but it’s getting towards something like ‘technology as a replacement for religion in the common mind’ - perhaps a reason why the ignorant pay so blindly. Still thinking.

38

JMS is much like the 19th century conservatives who created ‘anti-trust’ laws. For them, marketing is not part of competition. Marketing is something which stands in opposition to and hinders competition. And competition is god. Why?

Blank out.

39

That’s a bit easy, redcap. How about trying a bit less to ‘pin me down’ to something you already know and looking a little more to my still developing line of thought. If you already know better, spill and I’ll be informed to the better if what you say fits, but hold the easy criticisms.

I already said above that I don’t want to see any ‘control system’. I sure would like to see a bit more honesty and ‘fair marketing’, though - there are so many businesses living off the general ignorance of people, and just as many more keeping them ignorant. Microsoft doesn’t teach you how to do anything, it teaches you to become dependant upon what it does. Just for an example.

Education is at the base of everything, in an optimal society - where everyone learns everything about what he wants to do to be most useful to himself thus others instead of being forced through a system (eductational) where he comes out trained to do what’s someone else’s idea of ‘right’ - there will be much less ignorance than there is today, but as things are going it’s going to take a hell of a long time to get there. Not many are doing anything to change things, just a lot of know-all attitudes and blah blah blah. There’s a few out there who live off being ‘right’ but won’t spread the word to anyone who won’t pay them. Not very progressive, that’s ‘eliting’ onself to perdition.

So in the meantime we have the gullible sheeplike public being trained to buy products made by intelligent people with a lot of means to make them. Problem is that these modern-day industrialists want the majority of people to stay that way, as sheep. This is normal and ‘good’? Even Peikoff had to add ‘swindling’ to Ayn Rand’s evil of ‘physically taking property from another’ - but that still is not a complete thought.

I said before that I thought that no-one deserved more to be popular and rich than an inventive someone who makes a product of worth. I still don’t think underhanded maneuvering or exploiting weaknesses should merit the same rewards.

40

Funny–I would think that if Microsoft’s products offered no objective value over those products of others from whom they were “stolen”, and if the prices they charged for their products were so ridiculously high that only the “ignorant” would “pay blindly” for them, as you claim, then a competitor could have come along and offered a better product for cheaper and taken Microsoft to the cleaners.

And if they haven’t, that’s Bill Gates’s problem why?

You seem to be basically claiming that by being too user-friendly, the very trait of their products that makes them so accessible to the masses, Microsoft is somehow forcing people to “become dependent upon” their product. But there’s no force involved here. Only people trading what they judge to be value for value. You have not given any evidence of any actual wrong-doing on Microsoft’s part.

And as for your statement that Bill Gates claims to be an Objectivist, apparently based on evidence no better than the fact that ARI has defended them against being raped by the government, that’s kind of a leap. Any Objectivist will tell you outright that Bill Gates is disappointing philosophically–but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t support the good things he does.