How should major Objectivists address informed criticism of Objectivism?

Questions about Objectivism
1

We’ve been discussing how to make Objectivism more culturally relevant or influential. I’ve suggested that Objectivists, especially “major” ones, should be addressing informed and potent criticism of Objectivism.

Here’s one criticism, by George H. Smith, which might be a good starting point:

http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/few-kind-words-about-most-evil-man-mankinds-history

It’s a very intelligent and informed refutation of the Objectivist position on Kant. There are others like it as well, but this is a good first example.

I’d think that truly confident “major” Objectivists would be eager to address the content of such articles.

J

MOD NOTE: The thread was split from here. -Eiuol

Why Dont any Major Objectivists Participate in Online Forums?
2

In your own words, if it is a very intelligent and informed refutation of the Objectivism, we may as well pack up our books and go home. If it is not, then what is there to address?

3

20 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

In your own words, if it is a very intelligent and informed refutation of the Objectivism, we may as well pack up our books and go home. If it is not, then what is there to address?

Um, sorry, but I’m not following your thinking there.

First of all, I did not say that the article is a “refutation of Objectivism.” Rather, I said it was a “refutation of the Objectivist position on Kant.”

Do you see the difference between what you claimed that I said versus what I actually said? It’s a significant difference.

As for your question about packing up our books and going home, what does that mean? Are you saying that if Rand was shown to be wrong about anything, then she was wrong about everything, and we might as well give up on existence? Are you saying that you can find no value in Rand’s errors being corrected?

If you’re asking what we should do when confronted with information which very powerfully lays out evidence which claims to refute our positions, or Rand’s, the answer is not that we should pack up and go home, but that we should study the evidence and the arguments against our positions, we should set aside emotions and then rationally consider the arguments, we should then offer rational counter arguments if we have any, and if we gave none, then we should learn from and accept reality and correct our mistaken positions.

But it doesn’t end there. When discovering that we were mistaken about one aspect or another of a philosophy, we should cultivate our curiosity and recognize that we should apply the new knowledge to other aspects of the philosophy to which it is naturally connected. We should ask ourselves and investigate if the mistake has tainted any other parts of the philosophy. Was the mistaken idea in anyway a part of the foundation of other, higher ideas in the hierarchical structure? If so, it will necessarily have an effect on the merits of those ideas, and, if we value truth and reality, we should be eager to rationally explore and discover what consequences there will be to the strength of those higher ideas when we remove the defective bits below them.

What we should not do is look at all of that as being too much work and therefore deny the reality of the defective brick in the foundation. We shouldn’t take our books and go home, but should be happy to correct those books, and, more importantly, to study new ones and to be not merely open to learning, but eager. We should be grateful to open our eyes and admit to error. We should be happy to say, “Kant wasn’t the evil man that Rand and Peikoff misportrayed him to be, but held views that were quite similar to Rand’s in more ways than not.”

That would be the rational, Objectivist thing to do.

Meanwhile, I doubt that “major” Objectivists will be taking up the challenge offered by such articles as George H. Smith’s. They’re missing opportunities to correct, advance and promote Objectivism. The ship was built to sail, but they prefer to keep it safe in the harbor.

J

1 Like
4

The Ayn Rand Society of the APA devoted its 1992 session to Kant. That might be a case of what you’re looking for, an intellectually serious Objectivist treatment of his ideas.

5

Good point, Jonathon. The Objectivist position and the Objectivist position on Kant do need be better discriminated. In all the excitement, I got carried away.

I’d have to echo Reidy as to where to mine for further information.

6

I suspect there are as many interpretations of Kant as there are Kant interpreters.

1 Like
7

23 hours ago, Reidy said:

The Ayn Rand Society of the APA devoted its 1992 session to Kant. That might be a case of what you’re looking for, an intellectually serious Objectivist treatment of his ideas.

No, that’s not at all what I’m looking for. The point is for “major” Objectivists to address informed criticism of Objectivism and of Objectivist positions. As a starting point, I suggested one example of someone’s intelligent criticism of the Objectivist misinterpretations of Kant. So, what I’m looking for are responses to that criticism. Reading about an intellectually serious Objectivist treatment of Kant’s ideas wouldn’t accomplish that.

J

8

23 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Good point, Jonathon. The Objectivist position and the Objectivist position on Kant do need be better discriminated. In all the excitement, I got carried away.

Thank you! The issue of criticism of the Objectivist position on Kant is just the first of many possible examples that I’m suggesting that “major” Objectivists should seek out and address. No single criticism of such individual issues or aspects of Objectivism would be a “refutation of Objectivism.” It’s even possible that Objectivism might need multiple aspects corrected without the philosophy as a whole being refuted.

And “correct” and “incorrect” are not the two only options when doing philosophy. The third option is that of tentativity: we might not know, for the time being, the answer to a given philosophical question or problem; we might have an inkling or a fairly high degree of confidence based on incomplete evidence, and therefore admit that we believe our proposed theory to be likely true, but that we can’t quite prove it just yet.

Perhaps one of the main causes of Objectivists’ reluctance to seek out strong, intelligent criticism of Objectivism is that Rand, if I’m remembering correctly, and her closest inner circle members held the mistaken belief that Objectivism was an integrated whole, and that if any aspect of it was wrong then it was all wrong.

J

9

23 hours ago, William O said:

I suspect there are as many interpretations of Kant as there are Kant interpreters.

That’s true of any thinker, including Rand.

Anyway did you read Smith’s article? There’s always room for slightly different interpretations, but not enough room to accommodate the difference between the Objectivist interpretation of Kant and Kant’s own words taken in full context.

If Kant, or anyone else, writes that he loves apple pie, and the Objectivist position is that he hates apple pie, it wouldn’t be a rational argument to excuse the Objectivist position by saying that there are as many interpretations of Kant as there are interpreters.

If I were to say that, in order to make room for theft, I would need to discard my Objectivist morality, I could understand someone’s potentially misunderstanding me as advocating theft and abandoning my morality – if they limited themselves to reading only that statement out of context. But I would hope that they’d be benevolent and scholarly enough as to research the context before going off half cocked and writing articles or entire books denouncing me. I would expect them to be open to being informed of the context in which I also made it clear  that I have no intention of discarding my morality, and therefore there is no room for theft while being moral.

J

10

If by “‘major’ Objectivists” you mean Peikoff-approved, it’s not going to happen.

A brief search turned up some leads. Seddon, Walsh, Hicks and Kelley are all credentialed academics and professed students of Rand’s writings. I haven’t read any of these myself.

http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Objectivists-History-Philosophy/dp/0761823085

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41560303?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/19/rp_19_7.pdf

http://www.stephenhicks.org/2011/11/20/was-kant-really-that-skeptical/

http://philpapers.org/rec/WALARA-3

11

Jonathan said:

Quote

And “correct” and “incorrect” are not the two only options when doing philosophy. The third option is that of tentativity: we might not know, for the time being, the answer to a given philosophical question or problem; we might have an inkling or a fairly high degree of confidence based on incomplete evidence, and therefore admit that we believe our proposed theory to be likely true, but that we can’t quite prove it just yet.

There is no such thing as a “philosophical theory” if you mean to treat “theory” like a special science theory in need of testing. Ubiquitous facts are not “testable” but they are open to validation. 

I do realize that Kellyist have this upside down but I don’t know if your aware of this divergence of Kellyist from Objectivism on this topic. 

By the way. The hypothetical deductive method is full of problematic premises. 

Edit:

Quote

It’s even possible that Objectivism might need multiple aspects corrected without the philosophy as a whole being refuted.

I’d say that any aspect of Objectivism, the  name that denotes Ayn Rands premises on philosophy, that is wrong needs to be rejected and replaced with whomever does the rejecting’s own premises and denoting word…

12

Yes, by “major” Objectivists, I think we all mean Peikoff and associates.

Seddon and Walsh are critical of Rand’s take on Kant. The back and forth between Seddon and Kelley is close to what I’m talking about. There should be much more of that.

Hicks has a very Rand-tainted view of Kant, and, in my personal experience, is unable and unwilling to defend his positions. He cant handle informed criticism. I visited his blog and challenged his Newberry-influenced mistaken views on Kant’s view of the Sublime, and his response was not to address the overwhelming substance of my comments, but to go on the personal attack, and then to ban me from posting.

That’s the type of behavior that I’m trying to encourage Objectivists to abandon. It’s very harmful. It’s very damaging to Objectists and Objectivism being taken seriously and gaining cultural traction. When people in the world of ideas see that an Objectivish professor doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and is highly misinformed on an issue which is quite easy for everyone else to understand (everyone but a handful of Objectivists who have led each other astray with their misinterpretations), it’s inderstandable that they’re not going to waste their time listening to Objectivists opine on much more complex issues.

J

13

What you seem to mean, then, by a serious Objectivist treatment of Kant and of AR’s critique of him, is Peikoff’s minions’ saying just what you want them to say and being open to the possibility of publicly and overtly disagreeing with her. The first condition is unlikely and the second is flatly impossible.

14

Peikoff’s History of Philosophy can be quite instructive in helping individual mind’s seeking to gain a better understanding of Kant, advancing their understandings well enough to not drink the kool-aide being presented. Whether intentional or mistakenly drawing waters out of poisoned wells in a wilderness to offer to weary sojourner’s to quench their thirst on, the result is the same.

Once a sojourner has discovered a clarifying experience that dissipates the fog surrounding Kant, why would further clarification be needed for a repackaging of the same errors? Kant does such a thorough job in tangling up his philosophy that most of his victims aren’t even aware they are suspended in an unsupported web, even when evidence to the contrary is pointed out to them.

One one side of this coin is inscribed with:

Reason, to them, is a means of defeating their victims, a menial servant charged with the task of rationalizing the metaphysical validity and power of their whims.

On the other side of the same coin is embossed with:

Thus reason was pushed off the philosophical scene, by default, by implication, by evasion.

The only alternative is to accept or reject the coin, based on a personal ability to assay its value.

When two honest traders dispute over such a coin, the trade moves from the acceptance/rejection of the coin, to the acceptance/rejection of the process and results of the assay. When the process and results of the assay are rejected by one party, what further recourse is possible?

“Production,” Rand once wrote, “is the application of reason to the problem of survival.” So this question arises in my mind: Can I still apply reason in the realm of production to be applied to the problem of survival—and simultaneously go Galt? Galt is portrayed as having discovered a way to dissociate from the collective, yet fight for his cause in plain sight, because he recognized that few could pierce thru the ray-screen that protected Michael’s Mausoleum. If this seems like a contradiction, all I can say is: Check your premises.

 

15

When I hear “major Objectivists” I think any intellectual involved with Objectivism with at least minor notoriety.

It’s not so much insular as much as it looks like Objectivism is going more towards passivity as a whole. Rand may have had errors about interpreting Kant, but Objectivism is still fundamentally anti-Kant anyway in purpose and way of doing philosophy. Yes, talking about Kant is fine, and it doesn’t help if people immediately run to their ivory tower and fling tomatoes. But if you stop flinging tomatoes, you’re still in an ivory tower.

16

16 hours ago, Jonathan13 said:

Anyway did you read Smith’s article? There’s always room for slightly different interpretations, but not enough room to accommodate the difference between the Objectivist interpretation of Kant and Kant’s own words taken in full context.

My standard of proof for a claim to the effect that a philosopher said or believed something is that either (1) I have personally read the philosopher in context and verified that he believed the claim, or (2) I have read a reputable secondary source and the secondary source asserted that he believed the claim. My basis for this standard is that there are countless incorrect interpretations of philosophers floating around, because interpreting a philosopher correctly is very hard.

George H. Smith is not a Kant scholar, and I haven’t studied Kant closely enough to know that his claims about Kant are true first hand, so this article does not meet the burden of proof, in my view. However, the article is interesting enough that I will probably do some reading in the secondary literature to double check the interpretation of Kant I have held up to this point.

17

Jonathan, would you mind listing your main points of disagreement with Objectivism?

Your position is that Objectivism contains a number of errors, so the conversation would probably be clearer if we had a list of at least, say, your top five or ten disagreements.

18

1 hour ago, William O said:

My standard of proof for a claim to the effect that a philosopher said or believed something is that either (1) I have personally read the philosopher in context and verified that he believed the claim, or (2) I have read a reputable secondary source and the secondary source asserted that he believed the claim. My basis for this standard is that there are countless incorrect interpretations of philosophers floating around, because interpreting a philosopher correctly is very hard.

George H. Smith is not a Kant scholar, and I haven’t studied Kant closely enough to know that his claims about Kant are true first hand, so this article does not meet the burden of proof, in my view. However, the article is interesting enough that I will probably do some reading in the secondary literature to double check the interpretation of Kant I have held up to this point.

By that reasoning, Rand and Peikoff and their “major” Objectivist supporters are also not Kant scholars, and therefore their opinions do not meet the burden of proof. In fact, that’s the point of the article. The issue at hand is the assertion that Rand did not study Kant deeply, but instead came to a hasty, mistaken opinion, which was then passed down to her admirers, including Peikoff, who added his own misunderstandings to the tainted interpretation.

Smith has the courage to admit to limitations. But that shouldn’t be used against him. When saying that he’s not a Kant scholar, he’s using an academic standard that is much higher than the one that you accept. Smith is much more knowledgable on the subject than Peikoff.

Please, do not take my word for it. Go to OL, where he has posted the article, and publicly challenge him on the subject! Debate him. Invite “major” Objectivists to do so. Respond to the substance of his article, point by point.

J

19

1 hour ago, William O said:

Jonathan, would you mind listing your main points of disagreement with Objectivism?

Your position is that Objectivism contains a number of errors, so the conversation would probably be clearer if we had a list of at least, say, your top five or ten disagreements.

No, I don’t mind. I’ll continue to provide examples, but I’ll do it over time. Bite by bite, rather than one big gulp. Let’s avoid intellectual indigestion.

I’ll post a link occasionally to what I think are good, strong criticisms of different facets of Objectivism, including some with which I have my own disagreements.

I’d like to take it slow as to allow the opportunity for informed responses to the criticisms to surface. Let’s see some substantive replies to the substance of the criticisms, and then we’ll move on to igniting the next discussion, and then the next.

J

20

1 minute ago, Jonathan13 said:

By that reasoning, Rand and Peikoff and their “major” Objectivist supporters are also not Kant scholars, and therefore their opinions do not meet the burden of proof.

Right, I don’t regard Rand’s claims about the history of philosophy as proof, nor Peikoff’s, etc. I don’t think other people should do so either, unless they have verified the claims themselves.

Quote

In fact, that’s the point of the article. The issue at hand is the assertion that Rand did not study Kant deeply, but instead came to a hasty, mistaken opinion, which was then passed down to her admirers, including Peikoff, who added his own misunderstandings to the tainted interpretation.

The claim was not that Rand’s claims about the history of philosophy do not amount to proof, the claim was that a specific, detailed interpretation of Kant’s ethics is correct. My background knowledge about Kant doesn’t indicate that Smith’s interpretation is correct, so I’m skeptical of his interpretation.

Quote

Smith has the courage to admit to limitations. But that shouldn’t be used against him. When saying that he’s not a Kant scholar, he’s using an academic standard that is much higher than the one that you accept. Smith is much more knowledgable on the subject than Peikoff

The standard I accept, which is the same one I use everywhere, is the author’s credentials and reputation among relevant scholars in the academic community. If they don’t have those credentials, then I don’t regard their work as proof, although it can be the starting point for research that may lead to my acquiring proof of their claims.

Quote

Please, do not take my word for it. Go to OL, where he has posted the article, and publicly challenge him on the subject! Debate him. Invite “major” Objectivists to do so. Respond to the substance of his article, point by point.

J

I do not claim be able to disprove his interpretation, so I have no reason to debate him.