A rose by any other name . . .
Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus…
There’s no question that Rand approved of Peikoff’s work, it is the claim that she named him her “intellectual heir” that is at issue. And also, the implications if she didn’t, especially noting that she did previously use those exact terms to describe someone else.
There clearly is a lack of respect for Peikoff floating around here; and you wonder why he and other “experts” don’t participate?
The main concern here is whether any evidence can be offered that Rand actually designated Peikoff as her intellectual heir, as he claims. Backing up one’s claims is (or should be) routine for any academic or intellectual, and in general the same would be asked of Objectivist experts in a formal academic discussion setting. I therefore fail to understand why this attitude by forum-goers would keep any experts away.
Now, if all he means by intellectual heir is what softwareNerd takes from it, an intellectual who follows in the tradition of Rand and builds on her work, then the claim is backed up by the books, articles, and lectures that he has produced. However, this would not seem to give him an exclusivity on this title in any way, and in fact I could think of several others who would also qualify based on the work they have produced.
There clearly is a lack of respect for Peikoff floating around here; and you wonder why he and other “experts” don’t participate?
I’m prepared to give him whatever respect he earns. That’s my policy for everyone. You may wonder whether his designation of Rand’s “intellectual heir” entitles him to additional respect, prima facie? It does not; titles do nothing for me.
However, if his use of the title is irrational – as I fear it may be, though have not yet concluded such – then my respect for Peikoff will suffer.
You might conclude he is irrational? Where does that come from?
From here:
Further, [his use of the term “intellectual heir”] leads me to worry that Peikoff does really believe himself to be Rand’s intellectual heir in the sense of having received a unique title carrying special privileges.
To elaborate, I fear that Peikoff might think himself to have some special role qua Objectivism to “identify the errors of others,” as I believe you’d suggested earlier in the thread. This seems to me an irrational position, as I do not believe that such a position is available in reality. The identification of errors can only happen by the individual mind, which admits no authority higher than itself. Objectivism cannot have a Pope.
On the other hand, softwareNerd has staked out a meaning for “intellectual heir” where many people could lay claim to the designation, with or without Peikoff’s (or Rand’s) knowledge or blessing: “an intellectual who understands and agrees with her philosophy, and continues to work in that tradition.” Per this definition, you could conceivably also be “Rand’s intellectual heir,” as could I. This view seems fine to me, but I don’t believe it’s what you take “intellectual heir” to mean. Perhaps I’m wrong? Do you agree with softwareNerd’s assessment of the term?
What do you think “intellectual heir” means, exactly?
If he does not write a fiction book equiv. to AS, then he proves himself incapable? Really?
I don’t know. Incapable of what? Incapable of writing a fiction book equivalent to Atlas Shrugged? Perhaps. I don’t know. If Peikoff could do such a thing, would he want to? Too speculative…
But I was addressing a couple of different senses that “intellectual heir” could mean, here. Specifically, I was considering whether Peikoff had shown himself to be a genius on Rand’s level. Maybe he has and I just haven’t familiarized myself with his work well enough? I don’t know. But in that sense of “intellectual heir,” I’d be reluctant to give it to Peikoff until I was satisfied that he did have comparable skill and insight to Rand (not necessarily fiction writing, but something).
Suppose we were to say that Rand was “Aristotle’s intellectual heir,” meaning that she was a genius of his stature, every bit as revolutionary and perceptive, or perhaps more. That Rand is worthy of “Aristotle’s mantle.” Would Peikoff measure up to Rand (and Aristotle) in that same fashion?
His existing works don’t speak for themselves?
If you have something specific you’d like to direct me to, by all means. My exposure to Peikoff’s works have been limited, and not greatly inspired me to dig deeper.
Again, and with respect to softwareNerd’s earlier surmise that Peikoff’s use of “intellectual heir” was savvy marketing, it actually has depressed my interest in his work. Perhaps sN’s right – perhaps different people react differently to it?
And all the quesitoning about him being “intellectual heir”: you just don’t believe him?
Were you around Rand’s associates from the days of Branden to her death and learned something I and others don’t know?
Can’t speak for anyone other than myself, but personally it’s less a question of “belief” and more a question of what the heck “intellectual heir” is supposed to mean. I mean, let’s say that Rand came up to Peikoff one evening and said, “Leonard, you are my intellectual heir!” Great. But what did she mean by that? What did Peikoff take it to mean/what does he mean by it on his website? And what am I supposed to think it entails?
Again, if it’s simply sN’s assessment – intellectual Objectivists working in Rand’s tradition – then I have no problem with it. But that doesn’t seem to map completely with how I’ve seen it used (the timbre of it, if you will), nor how I think you’ve been referring to the “hierarchy” within Objectivism, or how Peikoff somehow “owns” the philosophy and can name his own “successor.”
So the issue (again, for me) is less “did Rand proclaim Peikoff to be her ‘intellectual heir’?” and more “what is meant by ‘intellectual heir’?”
Do you have reason to believe that Peikoff was Rand’s “second mistake” (as noted by someone)?
No. But then, I don’t know that I have reason to believe that Branden was her “first mistake,” if I take you right. If we’re now discussing Rand’s assessment of other peoples’ character, I don’t know that it interests me a great deal. At that point, we’re no longer talking about metaphysics, ethics or epistemology, but the interpersonal relationships of folks from about a half-century ago. If, however, we’re talking about Peikoff’s (or Branden’s) philosophy, then I don’t know of any shortcut apart from judging what they say and do on its own merit. Peikoff’s claim to “intellectual heir” tells me nothing about whether what he has to say is any good or not. And frankly, the same goes for Branden and the scorn that he’s apparently received. I’ve not read his books and so I can’t tell you much about them.
Or is this an error on my part? Should I base my assessments of people’s beliefs and character on the say-so of my “betters”?
Is it the questioning of Peikoff and perhaps others in ARI and elsewhere that leads to the debate on the appropriateness of some Obj.ist hierarchy or on who is an expert?
My apologies, but I don’t think I understand the meaning of your question.
I do note the word “expert” however, and I’ll simply seize on that for this question: with regards to philosophy, do you think that there is any appropriate time for a person to defer his own judgment to that of an “expert”?
If you have something specific you’d like to direct me to, by all means. My exposure to Peikoff’s works have been limited, and not greatly inspired me to dig deeper.
The products of his that I’ve been told are of particularly high quality (by people whose opinions I respect) are his lectures Understanding Objectivism and Objectivism through Induction. Unfortunately, I do not have firsthand experience with either, as they are prohibitively expensive, but Understanding Objectivism is slated to be released in book form next year, which I am greatly looking forward to.
The products of his that I’ve been told are of particularly high quality (by people whose opinions I respect) are his lectures Understanding Objectivism and Objectivism through Induction. Unfortunately, I do not have firsthand experience with either, as they are prohibitively expensive, but Understanding Objectivism is slated to be released in book form next year, which I am greatly looking forward to.
Excellent – thank you. Based on what I’ve read thus far across these forums, your recommendation carries weight, and I anticipate being an “early adopter” of Understanding Objectivism when it releases. 
A rose by any other name . . .
In 1976 Rand wrote the following of a new 12-lecture course that Leonard Peikoff had prepared in consultation with her: “Until or unless I write a comprehensive treatise on my philosophy, Dr. Peikoff’s course is the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism, i.e., the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate.” This series of lectures was titled The Philosophy of Objectivism. These lectures were recorded, then heard for several years around the country in a controlled social format—no pirating—by groups of people who paid to hear the lectures. I heard the recorded lectures and took 53 pages of notes. The recordings included Q&A following the lectures, and Rand participated in these (once she had recovered well enough from a major surgery). It was stated at these lectures, and through years after, that Peikoff would work the lectures into a book. This he completed in 1991.
That book is Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It is. The book is indeed true to the content of his lecture series, which were, by Rand’s own statement, an accurate presentation of her philosophy. Fortunately, Peikoff references his statements in the book to Rand’s own published writings. This is a help in checking for oneself how truly it expresses Rand’s philosophy.*
. . .
Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus. . .
. . .
Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus.
And what is left of the rose is only its name.
That is false and hateful.
Now, if all he means by intellectual heir is what softwareNerd takes from it, an intellectual who follows in the tradition of Rand and builds on her work, …
Let’s say we narrow the meaning of “intellectual heir”. Say that an intellectual heir is someone who is declared by Person X as being an intellectual who follows in the tradition of Person X and builds on Person X’s work.
This does not change much. In theory, a philosopher could still make a mistake in saying that some protege understand and follows her tradition. The point is, that this is still an evaluation, not a title. There’s no transference of any type going on.
Now, we can ask two different questions:
So, even by this stronger claim (using it to mean someone who follows another intellectual’s tradition, and is evaluated by that originator as doing so), Peikoff is clearly Rand’s intellectual heir, whether or not she used the term.
Using this meaning, anyone else who follows in Rand’s tradition but was not evaluated as such by Rand would not be an intellectual heir.
I don’t know if a poster like TLD thinks of the term as meaning some more than what I have just described in this narrower sense. If so, it will be interesting to see some type of third definition.
Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus.
And what is left of the rose is only its name.
That is false and hateful.
Huh? I don’t understand your reaction, what makes you say that?
The Latin phrase I quoted is the final line of The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco, in that context it means about the same as the title Gone with the Wind. In this context, at least my intent was that it mean: A rose by any other name…would still be just an empty name. In other words, with perhaps some poetic license: the title “intellectual heir” is empty, and something ephemeral at most. Like a rose, which certainly doesn’t last 30 years.
Ugh, with all this talk of roses, now I have Ethel Merman’s voice running through my head.
“And what is left of the rose is only its name.” Seems to imply that LP is Rands “intellectual heir” in name only. Thats probably why he said it is false and hateful. It implies that LP has departed from Objectivism philosopically.
“In considering the issue of inherited wealth, one must begin by recognizing that the crucial right involved is not that of the heir but of the original producer of the wealth.” – Inherited Wealth, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pg 96
This is why one ought to be willing to agree with Ayn Rand before calling himself an Objectivist.
“If an heir is worthy of his money, i.e., if he uses it productively, he brings more wealth into existence, he raises the general standard of living – and, to that extent he makes the road to the top easier for any talented newcomer.” – Ayn Rand, Inherited Wealth, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pg 97
Worthy of money, or attention, or time. Ayn Rand deemed Leonard Peikoff worthy of her presence and attention during her lifetime. His questions inspired a great deal of the clarification that took place during the development of her non-fiction works. Ayn Rand refined the concept of inheritance; no longer an accident of birth, it became another extension of conscious volition.
“The greater the value of the property, the greater the effort demanded of the heir.” – Ayn Rand, Patents and Copyrights, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pg 143
Ayn Rand demanded a great deal from everyone in her close circle of friends.
“Intellectual achievement, in fact, cannot be transferred, just as intelligence, ability,or any other personal virtue cannot be transferred. All that can be transferred is the material results of an achievement, in the form of actually produced wealth. By the very nature of the right on which intellectual property is based – a man’s right to the product of his mind – that right ends with him. He cannot dispose of that which he cannot know or judge: the yet-unproduced, indirect, potential results of his achievement four generations – or four centuries – later. – Ayn Rand, Patents and Copyrights, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pg 143-144
This is where individuals have the space to grow with the development of human knowledge. When Leonard Piekoff says something is or isn’t Objectivism he does so as consistently as he can, as the custodian Ayn Rand’s rights. Each individual has to decide for himself, based on his own evaluation, his relationship to Objectivism. Your reputation is valuable to the development of the important relationships in your life but, the volitional functioning of your mind and your quest for rationality and truth are more essential.
“It is in this issue that our somewhat collectivistic terminology might be misleading: on the expiration of a patent or copyright, the intellectual property involved does not become “public property” (though it is labeled as “in the public domain”); it ceases to exist qua property. And if the invention or the book continues to be manufactured, the benefit of that former property does not go to the “public,” it goes to the only rightful heirs: to the producers, to those who exercise the effort of embodying that idea in new material forms and thus keeping it alive. – Ayn Rand, Patents and Copyrights, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal pg 143-144
I see Leonard Peikoff’s claim that he is Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir as a self assessment; a statement of self esteem. He obviously respects the efficacy of his own mind. As in all of Objectivism, any statement ought to be evaluated by your own judgment, rather than taking anyone’s authority for it.
“In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.” Ayn Rand, Anatomy of Compromise, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal 159.
During Ayn Rand’s lifetime Leonard Peikoff was the most consistent.
Did Rand call Peikoff her intellectual heir? (Answer: Boydstun’s post makes clear that she did, at least at some point in time.)
In the material he quotes, Rand does no such thing. Quite the opposite, in fact. She communicated her approval for a specific lecture series, with no suggestion that she approves of Peikoff per se, or even of Peikoff’s other work to date. Also, bear in mind that that statement comes in the context of competition from the Basic Principles of Objectivism course, which was then available for purchase on LP’s.
I think we ought to give some consideration to what “intellectual heir” meant in practice, during Rand’s lifetime. It meant Nathaniel Branden had explicit license to speak for Rand, and to be one hell of a bully, both in her presence and on his own. Why would anyone want to step in those shoes?
“And what is left of the rose is only its name.” Seems to imply that LP is Rands “intellectual heir” in name only. Thats probably why he said it is false and hateful. It implies that LP has departed from Objectivism philosopically.
I suppose, though it’s not what I was thinking. I’ve interacted with Stephen on OL, he’s one of the few who defend Peikoff over there, where attacks can sometimes become admittedly hyperbolic. He’s ok in my book.
There are plenty of people who understand and agree with Objectivism, not just Dr. Peikoff.
But I think “intellectual heir” suggests that the heir “inherited” the predecessor’s intellect in terms of magnitude, not just content. Does Ayn Rand really have an intellectual heir, with that in mind? Does any Objectivist intellectual, as of now, have the body of work (in which he builds on Objectivism, while remaining consistent with it, as opposed to just understanding and explaining it to the rest of us) to qualify?
I think we ought to give some consideration to what “intellectual heir” meant in practice, during Rand’s lifetime. It meant Nathaniel Branden had explicit license to speak for Rand, and to be one hell of a bully, both in her presence and on his own. Why would anyone want to step in those shoes?
A bit of a delayed reaction quote worth dropping here:
If you knock down monuments, spare the pedestals: they can always be used again.
Stanislaw J. Lec,
Uncombed Thoughts
Intellectual hair is more easily obtained nowadays. See: http://shop.bricktw.com/color/brown/intellectual-hair-style-hg007-n10.html
In action on Flickr:
Much Ado About Nothing.
That cat’s grammar is hardly serious.
That cat’s grammar is hardly serious.
Yes, well if I don’t think a thread is interesting, I generally don’t post on it.
How about another Lec aphorism? I could go on and on with these, and they are relevant, if you think about them.
Is it a progress if a cannibal is using a knife and fork?
Stanislaw J. Lec,
Uncombed Thoughts
