Mark Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Those who've followed the earlier discussions about the McCaskey affair will find nothing new in the article below, except perhaps that Leonard Peikoff has disappeared his statement from peikoff.com and that ARI has made finding their own statement difficult. Still, the article does have the virtue of presenting the important points of the affair all in one place, with links to original sources.It was a bore to write, it might not be any more interesting to read, but obviously it needed to be on ARI Watch.The Ayn Rand Institute vs. John McCaskey Edited February 2, 2011 by Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Interesting summary.Makes me glad, once again, that I never became an Objectivist academic. Makes me wonder, once again, why the cat has every other Objectivist academic's tongue on this issue. Are the speaking fees at ARI conferences, after taxes, really worth that much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Renzulli Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 All-in-all I liked this. One minor flaw but I won't point it out since to do so might open a can of worms.BTW, has anyone from The Atlas Society made an effort to contact John McCaskey or even Robert Tracinski? If so, what has their response been?If not, I would do so ASAP and ask them to join our side of the movement. Heck, I would be more than happy to do the work myself.Those who've followed the earlier discussions about the McCaskey affair will find nothing new in the article below, except perhaps that Leonard Peikoff has disappeared his statement from peikoff.com and that ARI has made finding their own statement difficult. Still, the article does have the virtue of presenting the important points of the affair all in one place, with links to original sources.It was a bore to write, it might not be any more interesting to read, but obviously it needed to be on ARI Watch.The Ayn Rand Institute vs. John McCaskey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Mark,Excellent summary and dissection.In a footnote, you say: One can hope that Mr. Biddle eventually sees the error of associating with ARI. (The same for Tara Smith, and maybe Allan Gotthelf, though one gets tired of waiting.) What happens with Craig Biddle remains to be seen.I doubt that Tara Smith will ever split from the Ayn Rand Institute. Not unless Harry Binswanger quits first.Allan Gotthelf will be 69 this year and has repeatedly delayed publication of his promised roundup of Rand scholarship. Surely he knows that if he criticizes anything by an ARI-affiliated writer in print, or praises the work of a person who has been condemned by ARI, he will get the boot. Since he decided to stay in the ARI orbit after his 100-page book on Rand was publicly ripped by Peikoff and hangers-on, why would he leave now?Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algernonsidney Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Allan Gotthelf will be 69 this year and has repeatedly delayed publication of his promised roundup of Rand scholarship. Surely he knows that if he criticizes anything by an ARI-affiliated writer in print, or praises the work of a person who has been condemned by ARI, he will get the boot. Since he decided to stay in the ARI orbit after his 100-page book on Rand was publicly ripped by Peikoff and hangers-on, why would he leave now?I know one of Gotthelf's long-time friends. He might be able to convince Gotthelf to leave ARI. Of course, this guy hasn't been involved with anybody in Objectivism for many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Hardin Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Allan Gotthelf will be 69 this year and has repeatedly delayed publication of his promised roundup of Rand scholarship. Surely he knows that if he criticizes anything by an ARI-affiliated writer in print, or praises the work of a person who has been condemned by ARI, he will get the boot. Since he decided to stay in the ARI orbit after his 100-page book on Rand was publicly ripped by Peikoff and hangers-on, why would he leave now?Robert CampbellRobert,I’m not sure you’re giving Gotthelf sufficient credit for having the courage to push the envelope here. Have you had a chance to take a close look at Metaethics, Egoism and Virtue, edited by Gotthelf and Lennox? I posted a brief “preview” of it here:A Bold New Step for Objectivist ScholarshipI am currently working on a more extensive review of the book, which I plan to post on OL sometime in the next millennium.Quoting from my earlier post:Consider the list of heretofore “tainted” or “unsavory” (from Peikoff’s warped orthodox perspective) and/or neglected characters, publications and organizations now suddenly acknowledged to exist: David Kelley, Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl, Roderick Long, Tibor Machan, Jack Wheeler, Lester Hunt, Nathaniel Branden (OMG!), The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Reason Papers, IOS Journal. Various previously disdained books and other writings by these authors are also listed as references. Multiple publications of The Atlas Society are mentioned, although it is referred to as The Objectivist Center.Here is an important quote from the preface:“Neither the editors nor the editorial board necessarily endorse the content of work published in this series, and we may on occasion publish writings one or more of us think ‘gets it all wrong,’ so long as these writings are respectful of Rand and her work and further the aims of the series.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Dennis,I haven't read Allan Gotthelf's compilation. I intend to, and I may arrive at a different view of its editor after I've read it.As I noted in my previous post, the real question is whether Gotthelf will personally praise or endorse the work of anyone on ARI's Index Librorum Prohibitorum. This is notably different from mentioning them while trailing the implication that they've gotten everything all wrong.I've seen how Gotthelf has helped to maneuver Peikovian academics into positions of influence in the Ayn Rand Society, with the result that its board is now 100% ARIan. I've seen how long-time contributors to ARS have become disillusioned.Have you read his interview in 100 Voices?RobertPS. The review essay whose publication has been repeatedly put off isn't in the volume you plan to review. It's supposed to be forthcoming in a different volume that Gotthelf is editing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Hardin Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 As I noted in my previous post, the real question is whether Gotthelf will personally praise or endorse the work of anyone on ARI's Index Librorum Prohibitorum. This is notably different from mentioning them while trailing the implication that they've gotten everything all wrong.Robert,I think the key issue is whether Gotthelf treats the work of non-orthodox Objectivist thinkers respectfully, and I believe he definitely does that in Metaethics, Egoism and Virtue. He describes Rasmussen’s article as “thought-provoking,” and never once suggests that it reflects anything remotely resembling “corrupt” thinking. Can we really expect him to praise or endorse works he disagrees with? He certainly does not suggest that people should not read Rasmussen (or the other non-ARI sanctioned writers). At various points throughout the book, Gotthelf, Daryl Wright and Tara Smith (the in-crowd, so to speak) express both agreement and disagreement with various statements and opinions of the ARI persona non grata crowd. Personally, I’m satisfied with that.I have skimmed Gotthelf’s interview in 1000 Voices. I haven’t read it, word for word.I would not characterize myself as an admirer of Gotthelf, incidentally. I once saw him lecture in Los Angeles many years ago. George H. Smith and Wendy McElroy were both there. (I’m fairly sure it was Wendy and not George’s prior girlfriend, Diane Hunter.) In the Q and A period, Wendy asked Gotthelf, in no uncertain terms, if he truly believed she was immoral if she engaged in sex with people she did not fully love or admire. As I recall, Wendy clearly implied that she did not agree with Objectivism’s quasi-puritanical perspective on sex. Gotthelf admonished her, telling Wendy that she had to engage in evasion in order to do that. He clearly implied she was immoral in some way, in front of an audience of about fifty people. I always considered him an a-hole for that crap.[bTW, this particular memory feels more like an excursion through the crumbling archives of ancient history. Please excuse me if the cobwebs obscured my vision.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Dennis,I definitely need to read the book.It is certainly better for Gotthelf, Smith, and Wright to be actually responding to the work of personae non gratae than avoiding responding to them.But if Gotthelf never actually praises the work of a single non-ARIan, and never actually criticizes the work of a single ARIan, it is close to a foregone conclusion that he is still playing politics of the familiar, depressing kind.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Dennis,On another occasion when Gotthelf was on tour, giving his recurring lecture about love in Plato and Aristotle, an old friend of mine asked his opinion on homosexuality.He was condemnatory.This was at least a couple of years after the lecture you've recalled.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuckle Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) The Watch's anti-ARI screed includes a few sideways jabs at "neoconservative," "fascist" foreign policy without any explanation of what the disagreements are. The smear tactics detract considerably from the piece, the mainline argument of which pertains not to ideological views of ARI writers but to the institute's internal politics. The Raimondoan approach to polemics is not consonant with rational persuasion. Edited February 12, 2011 by Starbuckle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJoy Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 In the Q and A period, Wendy asked Gotthelf, in no uncertain terms, if he truly believed she was immoral if she engaged in sex with people she did not fully love or admire. As I recall, Wendy clearly implied that she did not agree with Objectivism’s quasi-puritanical perspective on sex. Gotthelf admonished her, telling Wendy that she had to engage in evasion in order to do that. He clearly implied she was immoral in some way, in front of an audience of about fifty people. I always considered him an a-hole for that crap.So am I safe to infer from this post that this forum is not, by and large, in agreement with "Objectivism's quasi-puritanical perspective on sex"? I would be relieved to find objective thinkers who disagree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 In the Q and A period, Wendy asked Gotthelf, in no uncertain terms, if he truly believed she was immoral if she engaged in sex with people she did not fully love or admire. As I recall, Wendy clearly implied that she did not agree with Objectivism’s quasi-puritanical perspective on sex. Gotthelf admonished her, telling Wendy that she had to engage in evasion in order to do that. He clearly implied she was immoral in some way, in front of an audience of about fifty people. I always considered him an a-hole for that crap.So am I safe to infer from this post that this forum is not, by and large, in agreement with "Objectivism's quasi-puritanical perspective on sex"? I would be relieved to find objective thinkers who disagree with that.Not only do they disagree, but they do so in ways so creative that I would love to touch on some examples, but I cannot find a barge-pole long enough.Welcome to OL, CJoy. Love your name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJoy Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Not only do they disagree, but they do so in ways so creative that I would love to touch on some examples, but I cannot find a barge-pole long enough.Welcome to OL, CJoy. Love your name.Creative? Sounds like a flame war. Wars are so boring. Real exploration of ideas is SO much more interesting. I once asked the question of what was to censure in McCaskey's comments, and found myself in a conversation so much like the religionists I was trying to shake off that I knew something had to be seriously wrong. Peikoff's statement left me astonished. I find McCaskey to be so thorough and cautious that his censure seems a contradiction of reason, honesty, and justice. Likewise, I find people so adamant about the moral position of marriage that it is hard to get real exploration of ideas. Why should there be a contract if there are enough shared values? What are they contracting for - to always have shared values? (Not talking about children here, just marriage) Either they share them or they don't. What I want is not a contract, but evidence that my values actually are shared. Anyway, that should probably be for another thread. The point is that just because someone calls themselves objective doesn't make them so. Being rational in one thing, like finding value in Rand's writings, does not guarantee being rational in anything else, like determining whether McCaskey's objections were valid. I consider irrationality in someone committed to reason evidence of volition: thinking has to be chosen, on purpose, every time. Thanks for the welcome. The best part about the name is - it's my real name. First initial and middle name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Hardin Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 In the Q and A period, Wendy asked Gotthelf, in no uncertain terms, if he truly believed she was immoral if she engaged in sex with people she did not fully love or admire. As I recall, Wendy clearly implied that she did not agree with Objectivism’s quasi-puritanical perspective on sex. Gotthelf admonished her, telling Wendy that she had to engage in evasion in order to do that. He clearly implied she was immoral in some way, in front of an audience of about fifty people. I always considered him an a-hole for that crap.So am I safe to infer from this post that this forum is not, by and large, in agreement with "Objectivism's quasi-puritanical perspective on sex"? I would be relieved to find objective thinkers who disagree with that.Hi Carrie,Considering the wide variety of posters here, no doubt there are some who would call themselves “purists” with respect to the “d’Anconian” view of “moral” sexual intercourse as requiring love between two people with mutually compatible values. Francisco: “Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love.” I would be pretty damned depraved if that was the rational, objective standard.Even so, you might find a few OL members taking that orthodox perspective on sex. A wide diversity of viewpoints can be found here. My own view—and I am guessing it is shared by a lot of OL members-is that the psychology of human sexuality is far too complex for us to be throwing around terms like depravity at the present stage of knowledge. As for myself—like many if not most men—I tend to respond very strongly to women on the purely visual level prior to any awareness of the person’s values. Of course, outside the pay-as-you-go plan for romance, there is typically a conversation or two which precedes any physical interaction. Introductory conversations can definitely kill my desire in certain instances, but not often. On the other hand, from my current perspective, I also find I am drastically more selective now than I was in my youth. And a strong value affinity can raise the emotional component of the sexual experience to amazing levels of intensity. Creative? Sounds like a flame war. Wars are so boring. Real exploration of ideas is SO much more interesting. . .There are a lot of OL members who apparently feel the opposite, I’m sorry to say. They just don’t feel they can express themselves honestly unless they can rip you a new one. And they either make a mockery of politeness and/or engage in endless discussions about the meaning of civility as if respect were a strait jacket that unfairly restricted their ability to communicate. Discussing ideas is just no fun at all for some unless they can top off their impressive arguments with a conclusion about what a stupid fool (idiot, moron, cretin, a-hole, imbecile, et. al.) you are for not agreeing with them. It’s very sad.I'm sure that's why so many of the people who visit OL decide against posting here. Who wants to take the time to put their thoughts in writing, only to have some nerdy know-it-all respond with a nasty personal attack? Even so, welcome. I hope you decide to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 In the Q and A period, Wendy asked Gotthelf, in no uncertain terms, if he truly believed she was immoral if she engaged in sex with people she did not fully love or admire. As I recall, Wendy clearly implied that she did not agree with Objectivism's quasi-puritanical perspective on sex. Gotthelf admonished her, telling Wendy that she had to engage in evasion in order to do that. He clearly implied she was immoral in some way, in front of an audience of about fifty people. I always considered him an a-hole for that crap.So am I safe to infer from this post that this forum is not, by and large, in agreement with "Objectivism's quasi-puritanical perspective on sex"? I would be relieved to find objective thinkers who disagree with that.Hi Carrie,Considering the wide variety of posters here, no doubt there are some who would call themselves "purists" with respect to the "d'Anconian" view of "moral" sexual intercourse as requiring love between two people with mutually compatible values. Francisco: "Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love." I would be pretty damned depraved if that was the rational, objective standard.Even so, you might find a few OL members taking that orthodox perspective on sex. A wide diversity of viewpoints can be found here. My own view—and I am guessing it is shared by a lot of OL members-is that the psychology of human sexuality is far too complex for us to be throwing around terms like depravity at the present stage of knowledge. As for myself—like many if not most men—I tend to respond very strongly to women on the purely visual level prior to any awareness of the person's values. Of course, outside the pay-as-you-go plan for romance, there is typically a conversation or two which precedes any physical interaction. Introductory conversations can definitely kill my desire in certain instances, but not often. On the other hand, from my current perspective, I also find I am drastically more selective now than I was in my youth. And a strong value affinity can raise the emotional component of the sexual experience to amazing levels of intensity. Creative? Sounds like a flame war. Wars are so boring. Real exploration of ideas is SO much more interesting. . .There are a lot of OL members who apparently feel the opposite, I'm sorry to say. They just don't feel they can express themselves honestly unless they can rip you a new one. And they either make a mockery of politeness and/or engage in endless discussions about the meaning of civility as if respect were a strait jacket that unfairly restricted their ability to communicate. Discussing ideas is just no fun at all for some unless they can top off their impressive arguments with a conclusion about what a stupid fool (idiot, moron, cretin, a-hole, imbecile, et. al.) you are for not agreeing with them. It's very sad.I'm sure that's why so many of the people who visit OL decide against posting here. Who wants to take the time to put their thoughts in writing, only to have some nerdy know-it-all respond with a nasty personal attack? Even so, welcome. I hope you decide to stay.Yes, to all points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) --Deleted-- Edited March 27, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jriggenbach Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Discussing ideas is just no fun at all for some unless they can top off their impressive arguments with a conclusion about what a stupid fool (idiot, moron, cretin, a-hole, imbecile, et. al.) you are for not agreeing with them. It's very sad.Been looking in the mirror again, Dennis?JR Edited March 26, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) JR Edited March 26, 2011 by Ted Keer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJoy Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Well then! I guess the point has been made. All disagreement is not the same. What is it that makes it sometimes useful and sometimes and sometimes not? I suspect that ad hominem attacks are a key element that makes disagreement un-useful. Now I'm wondering how to describe when disagreement is useful. (If this question is more suited to another location on the forum, please let me know where you would put it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Hardin Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 JR That is hysterical, Ted. I have noticed an odd coincidence. The Penguin always seems to be just below this notice on my screen:"You have chosen to ignore all posts from Reginald Jeeves"I wonder why that would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJoy Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 thinking has to be chosen, on purpose, every time. BTW, for future reference, I recognize this also applies to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now