• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Leonard Peikoff Interview

He has the copyrights and therefore, under Rand's kooky ethos, it is evil to disagree with him.
 
Last edited:
The so-called "Objectivists" who follow Piekoff are a much more rabidly fundamentalist sect. On the main Objectivist newsgroup (Humanities.philosophy.objectivism, I believe) this (old) interview generated quite a bit of discussion, and one person convincingly satirized Piekoff's position by discussing L.A. gang ties to organized crime and terrorism. Is the solution, then, to bomb Los Angeles, where Piekoff just happens to live? He's a deranged fanatic who does not care much for those innocent individuals. Objectivists in general, and ARI in particular, are champions of the overdog. They just cloak their barbaric pleas for violence in the language of "reason" and in defense of "civilization."

The whole fact we would not otherwise hear about Piekoff if Rand had not bequeathed her estate to him demonstrates he's a secondhander. She was a talentless hack to be sure, but at least she had a popular audience. Piekoff would have zero influence if not for her.
 
Cain said:
The so-called "Objectivists" who follow Piekoff are a much more rabidly fundamentalist sect. On the main Objectivist newsgroup (Humanities.philosophy.objectivism, I believe) this (old) interview generated quite a bit of discussion, and one person convincingly satirized Piekoff's position by discussing L.A. gang ties to organized crime and terrorism. Is the solution, then, to bomb Los Angeles, where Piekoff just happens to live? He's a deranged fanatic who does not care much for those innocent individuals. Objectivists in general, and ARI in particular, are champions of the overdog. They just cloak their barbaric pleas for violence in the language of "reason" and in defense of "civilization."

The whole fact we would not otherwise hear about Piekoff if Rand had not bequeathed her estate to him demonstrates he's a secondhander. She was a talentless hack to be sure, but at least she had a popular audience. Piekoff would have zero influence if not for her.
Click to expand...
Further, does anyone have a link to any paper written by Peikoff that would justify his embrace of collective responsibility based on arbitrary lines in the dirt despite the individualism and personal liberty Objectivists say they defend? Peikoff's stance on this issue is the antithesis of individualism and personal responsibility. He makes a bungling attempt to absolve us of any responsibility for the suffering of bystanders by asserting that we should only worry about our own innocent civilians--innocent civilians of other countries be damned!

I am sympathetic to a great deal of Rand's writings, but this video suggests to me that the entire movement has completely lost its way, given that Peikoff was not summarily kicked out on his a** for these comments.
 
Sefarst said:
I am sympathetic to a great deal of Rand's writings, but this video suggests to me that the entire movement has completely lost its way, given that Peikoff was not summarily kicked out on his a** for these comments.
Click to expand...
Really, he owns the copyrights. Not through an organization that he can be kicked out of, but personally. Objectivists who disagree with him get kicked out, rather than the other way around.

I was sympathetic at one time (and I'm still sympathetic to the basic notion that people should have the right to make fortunes without being treated like criminals for it), but I'm much more skeptical about Rand than I used to be.
 
Gazpacho said:
He has the copyrights and therefore, under Rand's kooky ethos, it is evil to disagree with him.
Click to expand...

As her "intellectual heir", he does leave something to be desired. It's like Mark Twain or Winston Churchill leaving an "intellectual heir", eh go find a job in a library somewhere.
 
Sefarst said:
Further, does anyone have a link to any paper written by Peikoff that would justify his embrace of collective responsibility based on arbitrary lines in the dirt despite the individualism and personal liberty Objectivists say they defend? Peikoff's stance on this issue is the antithesis of individualism and personal responsibility. He makes a bungling attempt to absolve us of any responsibility for the suffering of bystanders by asserting that we should only worry about our own innocent civilians--innocent civilians of other countries be damned!
Click to expand...

Here's the article/ad that appeared in the [INew York Times. [/I][/I]http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=2635

"In defense of individual rights."

Beerina:
As her "intellectual heir", he does leave something to be desired. It's like Mark Twain or Winston Churchill leaving an "intellectual heir", eh go find a job in a library somewhere.
Click to expand...

I remember the term "intellectual heir," as it applies to Peikoff, as being a point of controversy. She certainly gave N. Branden that distinction, but I have heard it said the same "honor" was never extended to poor Leonard. . Everyone knows Piekoff (a cousin or something of Branden) got the riches because of his loyalty rather than his competence. Most of the inner circle had been excommunicated by Rand, and anyone remotely independent-minded would eventually piss off the dogmatic guru.
 
Kerberos said:
OMG, O'Reailly is the voice of reason.
Click to expand...
Or at least the voice of pragmatism. You'd see the dead babies, and all of that.

Question: did Peikoff have plastic surgery to greater resemble Rand? His countenance lurks deep within the Uncanny Valley.
 
Beerina said:
As her "intellectual heir", he does leave something to be desired. It's like Mark Twain or Winston Churchill leaving an "intellectual heir", eh go find a job in a library somewhere.
Click to expand...

Agreed, except that Twain and Churchill were GOOD writers, something you can't accuse Ayn Rand of being.
And notice how Lenny ,despite being born and raised in the US, has actually adapted Ayn Rand's Russian accent at times? That has earned him a LOT of riducule in the Libertarian community, where Peikoff is ,let us say, not too popular
 
I actually bought a copy of his book a while ago because I'd heard so much about Objectivism but never actually read any, and it sounded interesting enough to warrant a little of my time.

Frankly, I'm sorry I bothered. I sold the book about a week after I read it.
 
While Ayn Rand had a number of flat sides to her wheel; I think calling her a "Hack" is too harsh. Haven't read Churchill; but I'd definately rate her ahead of Twain. "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn" are okay children's books--but few people would read them twice. Twain's satire is too over-the-top; like Monty Python.


I've read "Atlas Shrugged" and "Fountainhead" through about three times each--but admit that I tired of them and didn't finish them the last few times that I attempted to read them...But my attention span ain't what it used to be.


I haven't read Peikoff's critique of Objectivism. However, I thought that "The Ominous Parallels" was well presented--though slow in spots. He makes the excellent point that governments are FAR more likely to commit attrocities in the name of humanitarianism and maternal/paternal/nannyism; than they are from greed; incompetance, imperialism or warmongering.

.....RVM45 :cool:
 
While Ayn Rand had a number of flat sides to her wheel; I think calling her a "Hack" is too harsh. Haven't read Churchill; but I'd definately rate her ahead of Twain. "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn" are okay children's books--but few people would read them twice. Twain's satire is too over-the-top; like Monty Python.
Click to expand...

And any respect I have for your opinions on literature vanishes. Anybody calling Huckelberry Finn a "children's book" shoud be ignored on the topic of literature. Hemingway consideried it the greatest American novel, and he has a lot of company.
 
RVM45 said:
While Ayn Rand had a number of flat sides to her wheel; I think calling her a "Hack" is too harsh. Haven't read Churchill; but I'd definately rate her ahead of Twain. "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn" are okay children's books--but few people would read them twice. Twain's satire is too over-the-top; like Monty Python.
Click to expand...

Although I disagree completely with your opinion of Twain, I do think that Rand could've been a decent writer. She's good at building atmosphere (grim and bleak as it is!), and, to a lesser extent, character development.

Unfortunately, she wasn't interested in storytelling --- her novels were just a vehicle for indoctrination. Preach, preach, preach, that's all it is. Periodically, she'll haul out another character to be a straw man for why she dislikes communism or some crap. At least, judging from Atlas Shrugged, which was so bad I couldn't finish it.
 
If you want to discuss literature--I believe that one of the most undervalued of American literary figures is Edgar Rice Burroughs. The man had a keen, dry wit. He was motivated by a consistant and fairly sophysticated philosophy of life and almost all of his stories are upbeat.

I wonder...

Could a novelist start of with the premise that Altruism is the motivating force behind most misery and evil; that Self-Interest is the source of most human virtue and accomplishment...

And note carefully my two italicized "MOST"s--I've already been far more liberal than Rand. She'd have held out for "ALL".

But anyway, try writing a novel with that premise--and not have either a lot of exposition and/or beaucoup readers very confused about motivation and characterization...

Nobody want to comment on "Ominous Parallels"?

.....RVM45 :cool:
 
RVM45 said:
Could a novelist start of with the premise that Altruism is the motivating force behind most misery and evil; that Self-Interest is the source of most human virtue and accomplishment...
Click to expand...
The second part has already been written it's called "Evolutionary psychology". Only it's not a novel.
 
dudalb said:
Agreed, except that Twain and Churchill were GOOD writers, something you can't accuse Ayn Rand of being.
Click to expand...

Yes, true. Only one of her books was made into a movie starring Gary Cooper. :rolleyes:


And yes, there is one hell of a difference between the first two, who are among the greatest who ever turned a phrase (IMO perhaps the only two who can stand with Shakespeare) and Rand. But her subjects and general stories were well-crafted for the desired effect. Witness the famous train/tunnel scene from Atlas Shrugged, which royally pissed off a lot of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom