one of the most important works of Kelley's is his analysis of Hayek vs Rand. If you have not yet read that paper, I suggest it. I have listened to Harriman talk. some very tough and important issues were avoided and the whole McCaskey debate is important and affects the scholarship to some degree.

In the history of civilization Ayn Rand & Nathaniel Branden made significant advances in our understanding of mankind. For the portion of the populace that can think logically, we recognize tha both were brilliant lights. Personally both have been extremely influential in my life and I will always be grateful for their ideas. The passing of Nathaniel is a sad day for humanity. The photo of Nathaniel at a medical society meeting in Kansas City in the late 90's which hangs in my medical office will continue to keep his spirit alive for the rest of my life.

ARI is both dedicated to Ayn Rand's philosophy and trying to further it in books, articles and interviews, directly and indirectly such as Allan Gotthelf's work, and the Harriman book on philosophy of science, which they sponsored, characterizing it as an application of Objectivism (not without controversy). They also engage in a lot of commentary on current events and which even ARI members don't always agree with in its content, but they don't mischaracterize it as Ayn Rand and they don't seek to re-write Ayn Rand in different language pandering to the masses to make it more 'palatable'. The growth of philosophical knowledge following Ayn Rand's creation has not been "closed" and could not be, but it could be thwarted by misrepresenting her philosophy and mixing it with its opposite as it is trying to take hold in the culture.

What serious scholarship of David Kelly should be mentioned? It's no surprise that he has been distanced following his philosophical "toleration" episode, which went far beyond treating people civilly in an academic setting instead of the embarrassing caricature of spinning away as if with a "cape waving behind them". (We used to call them "cape wavers".)

I don't know anything about the FB group you were on, what they wanted you to defer on, why you lost your membership, or who the particular people are you are referring to. There has always been the false alternative of those make snide taunting comments about Ayn Rand versus sycophantic followers maintaining a kind of "deference" that crosses the intellectual line -- and likewise for many other figures throughout time. I stay away from both, but don't assume people I don't know are either. Whatever the people on your ex-FB group are and whatever the details of your experience, it sounds like the result of your not being there anymore is mutually beneficial. So you continue on with those more amenable to you -- which is what you should do -- at no personal loss. Such is the nature of social movements and their factions. Just keep doing what you think is best.

That episode of his tantrum demanding that McCaskey leave the Board for asking scholarly questions about his book with Dave Harriman was significantly less than his finest moment, and John McCaskey should not have caved in and resigned out of deference to 'keeping the peace'. Peikoff is not on the ARI board and had no authority to tell them or him what to do. He has no power to forbid discussion and there are many examples of people speaking out over his controversial statements.

Dave Harriman has subsequently been meeting with Dave Kelly and given talks at the Atlas Society. ARI still publicizes his lectures and book.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0140447/?ref...
Eric Stoltz as Branden. TV movie based on a book by Barbara Branden.

well done Nathanial..

He wasn't in her periodicals in the 70s and the 80s. The break in his ideas and his relation with Ayn Rand was before that.

and he does forbid discussion on scholarly individuals in Objectivism. see McCaskey board shut out and ARI scholars refusing to acknowledge his contributions or discuss his work AFTER Peikoff's proclamation. It's a little creepy

evw your ability to persuade goes down when you ad hominem. Is ARI just a history group or are they actually furthering the philosophy? I was just kicked out of a FB group filled with ARI members. They actually posted that since Peikoff is the "heir" I needed to defer. The fact that a serious scholar,in Kelley, is never mentioned, discussed or his work looked at seriously by scholars at ARI is not Objective. Any logical system is not closed. Go look up the definition of Newtonian Physics. You're free to disagree, of course. but no one brings up the heir to Newton as the last word on his physics.

Branden's first comprehensive book The Psychology of Self Esteem, was based on articles he had previously published in The Objectivist. The character of his writing changed dramatically after that.

Neither did she. She said that she continued to endorse what he had previously written.

Ayn Rand's break with Branden was based on what he did and had changed himself and his character into prior to the break, not her emotions. The emotional reactions followed, and there is nothing wrong with that. Emotions are automatic responses to values.

It was originally confusing in the period after the break for several reasons, especially for students just starting out and who didn't know what had happened, and I don't think that the people close to Ayn Rand properly took that into account. As time went on, there was at least less confusion over what happened, if not why, as Branden's ideas and writing changed dramatically -- right down to embracing New Age mysticism and personal sarcasm and dishonest attacks against Ayn Rand, which was staggering for those who had expected better. He had clearly messed himself up and was grasping at all kinds of nonsense along with his personal attacks on Ayn Rand. As for what happened around the time of the break and the misrepresentations of Ayn Rand regarding it, see James Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case against the Brandens, 2005, based on Ayn Rand's private journals.

you might want to read Harry Binswanger's thoughts about Branden.

I don't mind.

It was an early attempt at summarizing that was overwhelmingly replaced by the lectures beginning around the 1970s, and the later Peikoff comprehensive book stemming from them -- Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, 1991. The Branden "Basic Principles of Objectivism" course is mostly of historical interest. (The original lectures were issued on vinyl records.) The epistemology in particular was properly dealt with in Ayn Rand's own book, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and the Workshops in NYC around 1970.

Leonard Peikoff does not and cannot "forbid discussion". He wants nothing to do with Branden and does not himself normally talk about it. His reasons are based on Branden's actions and change in character, not because Ayn Rand denounced him, without regard for the reasons for it.

ARI does not disagree that Ayn Rand's philosophy stands on its own. The word "Objectivism" refers to Ayn Rand's philosophy as she formulated it. It is "closed" to those want to appropriate the term to mean something else. The philosophy did not close with the death of its creator; her own formulations of it and its applications necessarily did.

The Thomas polemic sounds desperate and paranoid: "What it is it they value more than the truth", etc. etc. There are many individuals who belong to or who have belonged to both organizations. ARI, however, is a scholarly organization dedicated specifically to Ayn Rand's philosophy and does not want affiliations or implied endorsements with those who re-write and misrepresent it, which it doesn't encourage and otherwise doesn't waste time arguing about every time it comes up, preferring to pursue its own organizational goals. Ayn Rand did the same. She took her ideas and their impact very seriously. (Ironically, it seems that it was Branden himself most responsible for the huffy, pompous attitude at NBI before it disbanded).

That there are those who wrap themselves in momentous crusades on behalf of Truth, Objectivity, and the defense of Philosophy Itself over personal infighting, different beliefs, and organizational political and operational disagreements seems to be more a symptom of any social movement and its politics in just about any realm. Be thankful that Ayn Rand's ideas are popular enough to make that possible, and maintain your own knowledge and objectivity in determining what is right.

I emotionally feel good in the Gulch
I am dino. Hear me roar!.
Retired guy thanks you for your support.

Actually, the Vision of Ayn Rand, while it has some wonderful parts as those about atheism, also has unfair sarcasm. The section about epistemology is not clear. Go over it with a fine tooth comb and ask yourself *why* Branden propounded his various propositions there. Sometimes you'll find valid answers and sometimes leave a bit puzzled and wanting, perhaps, to delve deeper into the philosophy. It has been a long while since I heard the original lectures or the CD version and I just browsed through the book. I think Branden's book really needs a serious critique for the inquiring reader.

Spreading the points around. I am Santa Clausaurus!

Spreading the points around. No, I am not Comrade Citizen, my evil twin!

If someone else on this list is going through such a period of internal turmoil*, I unhesitatingly recommend that workbook.

Jan
*(Or is just curious to see what their brains were 'programmed with' when they were too young to be able to screen info.)