The Leonard Peikoff/David Kelley intellectual exchange
Get Past Dr. Peikoff's territorial defense of his leadership of Objectivism; discover David Kelley's superb exposition of Objectivism in our lives...
Many decades ago, now, when David Kelley published his brief essay, "A question of Sanction," he expressed ideas that went to the essence of Objectivism. And he expressed those ideas with remarkable logic, eloquence, historical context, and many examples. Then, more than a decade later, in 1990, he published the book-length "The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand." That book is work of philosophy of the first rank, addressing fundamental Objectivist ideas, supplying their historical context, and, above all, examining ideas at work in the world in the lives of individuals, Objectivist and otherwise. In one sense, it is a shame that this book, necessarily, is identified with a specific dispute, because in itself it ranks as one of the foremost expositions of Objectivism. If you have all of Ayn Rand and all of Leonard Peikoff, you can find much in this book to arrest your attention and advance your grasp of Objectivism.
In view of the discussion, here, I went back and read Leonard Peikoff's "Fact and Value," which I first read the week it came out in "The Intellectual Activist." Any Objectivist, and certainly I, can agree with 90 percent of the essay as Peikoff rolls on and on rehearsing the Objectivist epistemology and meta-ethics. It is the 10 percent or less of the essay characterizing David Kelley's view, moral condemning him, excommunicating him from Objectivism, and dismissing him and his followers as evil—simply worthless to Objectivism—I do not exaggerate, here--that stops me cold. Very cold.
I could cite ideas, judgments, as the reason—and they are at the heart of the discussion, of course. But what made me feel as though there must be more than one reality is that I did not recognize the David Kelley, in any way, in Peikoff’s characterizing. I already had been studying Objectivism since 1962, when I read “Atlas Shrugged,” and had read every work of Ayn Rand, every issue of the “Objectivist Newsletter,” attended Ford Hall Forum… and I had known David Kelley for some years and had hundreds of hours of conversation with him.
Yes, Peikoff professed to identify underlying premises and to discover new fundamental errors—and claimed to be seeing them for the first time—but his statements about Kelley’s specific views had no application.
Does that mean that nothing really was in dispute here? No, that is not true. Amidst all the mischaracterizing and condemnation, Peikoff identified a basic, enduring difference between his views and those of David Kelley. When we hear an individual’s statement of his ideas can we usually rapidly and with confidence decide if he is mistaken or intellectually dishonest, given the nature of the ideas can we conclude without further investigation that he is an evader, anti-reason, anti-reality, and evil?
Or in most cases, as Kelley argues, should we engage in dialogue, even when the ideas espoused are repugnant to us, to see if the individual is mistaken, confused, but open to reason—or, and Kelley said over and over again—until we conclude the individual is evasive, anti-reason, willfully ignorant, and so evil?
That is a genuine difference of opinion. And one issue is how do we judge the workings, context, of another person’s mind to become certain that he is an evil evader? Or, as Dr. Peikoff suggests, in the case of most philosophical ideas it is obvious from the nature of the ideas themselves [intrinsically] that they are evil and anyone who espouses them is evil?
Because I had seen again and again David Kelly begin a calm discussion with an opponent, listening, summarizing his understanding of their views—and, in many cases, but not all, very rapidly moving to a tough, demanding criticism of his opponent’s evasions, repeated contradictions, and dubious motives. Indeed, in this regard, we viewed him, in those days, as a very scary interlocutor—courteous, willing to listen, but relentlessly focusing in on evasions. The little cartoon created by Leonard Peikoff had not application to this man.
I will not try to summarize an entire book, the brilliant “The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand,” but here are a few suggestive paragraphs from the introduction: “In regard to the mental actions that produce ideas, I will show that a philosophical conclusion rests on an enormously complex process of thought in which honest errors are possible at many points. In holding that most positions at variance with Objectivism are inherently dishonest, Peikoff is, once again, giving voice to intrinsicism—a belief that the truth is revealed and that error reflects a willful refusal to see. In light of the objectivity of knowledge and the distinction between error and evil, I will show in Section IV that tolerance is the proper attitude toward people we disagree with, unless and until we have evidence of their irrationality.”
This, then, is the heart of the discussion, and you could do yourself no greater service, after reading Dr. Peikoff’s “Fact and Value,” than to pick up a copy of “Truth and Toleration.” The lingering tempest over Dr. Peikoff’s attempt to expel David Kelley from Objectivism—a power that Dr. Peikoff discovered he did not possess—rapidly fades into the background as you engage with this unique exposition of Objectivist ideas, how they play out in our lives, and how we live in world of non-Objectivists.
Many decades ago, now, when David Kelley published his brief essay, "A question of Sanction," he expressed ideas that went to the essence of Objectivism. And he expressed those ideas with remarkable logic, eloquence, historical context, and many examples. Then, more than a decade later, in 1990, he published the book-length "The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand." That book is work of philosophy of the first rank, addressing fundamental Objectivist ideas, supplying their historical context, and, above all, examining ideas at work in the world in the lives of individuals, Objectivist and otherwise. In one sense, it is a shame that this book, necessarily, is identified with a specific dispute, because in itself it ranks as one of the foremost expositions of Objectivism. If you have all of Ayn Rand and all of Leonard Peikoff, you can find much in this book to arrest your attention and advance your grasp of Objectivism.
In view of the discussion, here, I went back and read Leonard Peikoff's "Fact and Value," which I first read the week it came out in "The Intellectual Activist." Any Objectivist, and certainly I, can agree with 90 percent of the essay as Peikoff rolls on and on rehearsing the Objectivist epistemology and meta-ethics. It is the 10 percent or less of the essay characterizing David Kelley's view, moral condemning him, excommunicating him from Objectivism, and dismissing him and his followers as evil—simply worthless to Objectivism—I do not exaggerate, here--that stops me cold. Very cold.
I could cite ideas, judgments, as the reason—and they are at the heart of the discussion, of course. But what made me feel as though there must be more than one reality is that I did not recognize the David Kelley, in any way, in Peikoff’s characterizing. I already had been studying Objectivism since 1962, when I read “Atlas Shrugged,” and had read every work of Ayn Rand, every issue of the “Objectivist Newsletter,” attended Ford Hall Forum… and I had known David Kelley for some years and had hundreds of hours of conversation with him.
Yes, Peikoff professed to identify underlying premises and to discover new fundamental errors—and claimed to be seeing them for the first time—but his statements about Kelley’s specific views had no application.
Does that mean that nothing really was in dispute here? No, that is not true. Amidst all the mischaracterizing and condemnation, Peikoff identified a basic, enduring difference between his views and those of David Kelley. When we hear an individual’s statement of his ideas can we usually rapidly and with confidence decide if he is mistaken or intellectually dishonest, given the nature of the ideas can we conclude without further investigation that he is an evader, anti-reason, anti-reality, and evil?
Or in most cases, as Kelley argues, should we engage in dialogue, even when the ideas espoused are repugnant to us, to see if the individual is mistaken, confused, but open to reason—or, and Kelley said over and over again—until we conclude the individual is evasive, anti-reason, willfully ignorant, and so evil?
That is a genuine difference of opinion. And one issue is how do we judge the workings, context, of another person’s mind to become certain that he is an evil evader? Or, as Dr. Peikoff suggests, in the case of most philosophical ideas it is obvious from the nature of the ideas themselves [intrinsically] that they are evil and anyone who espouses them is evil?
Because I had seen again and again David Kelly begin a calm discussion with an opponent, listening, summarizing his understanding of their views—and, in many cases, but not all, very rapidly moving to a tough, demanding criticism of his opponent’s evasions, repeated contradictions, and dubious motives. Indeed, in this regard, we viewed him, in those days, as a very scary interlocutor—courteous, willing to listen, but relentlessly focusing in on evasions. The little cartoon created by Leonard Peikoff had not application to this man.
I will not try to summarize an entire book, the brilliant “The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand,” but here are a few suggestive paragraphs from the introduction: “In regard to the mental actions that produce ideas, I will show that a philosophical conclusion rests on an enormously complex process of thought in which honest errors are possible at many points. In holding that most positions at variance with Objectivism are inherently dishonest, Peikoff is, once again, giving voice to intrinsicism—a belief that the truth is revealed and that error reflects a willful refusal to see. In light of the objectivity of knowledge and the distinction between error and evil, I will show in Section IV that tolerance is the proper attitude toward people we disagree with, unless and until we have evidence of their irrationality.”
This, then, is the heart of the discussion, and you could do yourself no greater service, after reading Dr. Peikoff’s “Fact and Value,” than to pick up a copy of “Truth and Toleration.” The lingering tempest over Dr. Peikoff’s attempt to expel David Kelley from Objectivism—a power that Dr. Peikoff discovered he did not possess—rapidly fades into the background as you engage with this unique exposition of Objectivist ideas, how they play out in our lives, and how we live in world of non-Objectivists.
Dave
Barbara:
Though I had read but the first hundred pages of your book, The Passion of Ayn Rand, I knew at that time I would send a thank you note for writing it. I have now read it to completion.
The events of which you write offer great insight into the human being, Ayn Rand. You identify and document her great attributes, her failings, and her profound effect(s) on those whose paths crossed hers.
Your book also offers wonderful insights for those of us who, though not closely associated with her, were drawn to her much in the same way as were you and Nathan. I therefore wish to share a personal perspective that you may find interesting…..
I met Ayn only once. It lasted but for a minute. It was the year the Ford Hall Forum was hosting a banquet in her honor, 1976 I believe. After the ceremonies had concluded it was announced that Ayn would spend some time autographing books for those who might be interested. I grabbed my tattered copy of The Fountainhead, rushed down to the podium, and proudly stood first in the rapidly forming line. I was thirty-three at the time.
After a moment or two she approached the podium and looked slightly down at me. Upon looking into her dark eyes I was mesmerized. I am certain that my face was radiant with the result of all that she meant to me. For you see, much as you have so often heard from so many people, she changed my life.
She raised her eyebrows and made a sound that I can only describe as one of non-conceptual verbal curiosity/interest. It wasn’t an “oh.” It was more like a deep resonant “hmmmm……” I was silent. I then handed her my well-worn paperback and indicated that I would like her to dedicate it to my wife.
She quickly looked away dismissively stating, “I don’t do that sort of thing.” I was about to say something partially intelligible in reply when to my utter amazement she then portrayed to me something that was totally unexpected. Just as quickly as she had curtly dismissed my request, she looked at me and instead, in the most childlike and openly emotional tone and manner – with warmth on her face to match the obvious radiance on mine, she said “to whom would you like me to dedicate this?” I indicated “Alicia:” She then so dedicated my copy of The Fountainhead.
I have heard your voice on two occasions, Barbara. The first was when a few years earlier, together with a dozen or so friends and associates, I listened intently as you explained many of the “Principles of Efficient Thinking.” The second time was more recently. You were a guest on a local Denver talk radio station. I called in and presented you with the story I cited above. I also mentioned a second subject – one that troubled me. Upon describing my impressions to you I sensed on the phone that there was a genuine sadness in your voice as you responded to my comments. Now that I have read your book I know I was correct in my perception.
You see what troubled me was what I observed on the podium – a person that was accompanying my intellectual idol. I didn’t know at the time who he was or why he was there. One of the people with whom I was attending the banquet had to tell me. The person there on the podium with Ayn was Frank.
As the dignitaries were forming on the podium – and after being told by a friend who it was that Ayn was escorting to the stage - in addition to being focused on Ayn, I intently watched both of them as she helped Frank be seated behind her. As I approached the podium I glanced at him several more times. While Ayn was signing my book I looked around her once again as I was not ten feet from him. I recall the feeling of both shock and sadness as it became apparent that not only was he physically terribly frail, but he was also mentally oblivious to what was happening around him. I remember wondering if he was even aware of himself.
At that moment in some manner that I cannot describe, out of nowhere so it seemed, my subconscious formulated the following thought. Could this state of being that Frank had become, be in some way related to his reaction to being the husband of Ayn Rand? In the manner each of us dismisses that which we sense as incomprehensible, foolish, or otherwise evaluate as not being worthy of further speculation, I quickly re-focused on the rest of the reality unfolding before me.
She handed me back my prize and with a smile on my face reflective of my gratitude I thanked her and returned to my table.
Over the years I have often “returned” to the banquet but have only rarely recalled the feelings I felt upon observing Frank. That has changed since reading your book.
Upon completing your book I am reminded of how much I have learned. From your accounts of the early years of your relationship with Ayn, I was amazed at how very similar I and the people I knew during those years were to you, Nathan, and those surrounding you. People whose primary value to me was our mutual interest in and growing passion for the ideas expressed in the works of Ayn Rand. We were young, impressionable, and having discovered such a powerful and exciting intellectual force, we eagerly and enthusiastically hung (the rational side of my mind wants to use the word “explored” but “hung” is the more appropriate term) on her many new ideas, analyzing her articulations and dramatizations of them.
However, most of us, if not all, were in the process of developing our self-esteem. It is here then that I shudder at the thought of what it would have meant to me – i.e. to my young and in many ways fragile sense of self, had the force that was Rand in a rage, unleashed upon me the pronouncement that I had behaved irrationally – no, not just irrationally, but immorally! The thought of what you must have endured creates a great sense of empathy in my mind for you, Nathan, and Frank. It does so because I know that had similar circumstances happened to me during that time in my life, I would have likely chosen the same responses as you. It also creates a great sense of admiration for the fact that both you and Nathan persevered. However, I find I do not feel the same admiration for Frank.
This brings me to what I sensed in your voice on the phone in Denver.
Your book has reminded me that I too feel sadness when I think of Frank. I do so because I believe Frank, in a very fundamental way, must have been little different from the rest of us upon “discovering” Ayn. To him she must have seemed like a Tornado whirling him around in her vortex, spinning him in directions he could only in wonder and excitement react to. He must have quickly realized that he was not even in the same league as her, and yet this powerhouse of a woman seemed to adore him. He therefore must have continually wondered, with a sense of doubt and puzzlement, why she was so enthralled with him. Yet he “went along” with the wind and tide, apparently determining in some imminently personal combination of reason and values, serving to define “Frank O’Connor” at that time, that this course was best for him.
However, his sense of self esteem must have required that he in some manner “repay” her for the fact that she “loved” him. From Frank’s perspective, I think this may be the reason they were married. He had found a way, a singularly important act, through which he might return that which she was apparently providing him. It is at this important point in their relationship that I believe Frank began his inexorable path toward psychological oblivion. A path that you and Nathan were to eventually reject as your growth and maturity dictated that you must.
Had Frank been more representative of the man Ayn apparently imagined him to be, he might have reasoned as follows: “I admire and respect this incredible woman of immense power and will. While I do not (cannot?) love her, I want to offer her something of great value that I can give her. I will make her a proposition. I will agree to marry her so that she may become an American citizen. In exchange, she must agree to a subsequent divorce and when she is a successful writer, as I know she will one day become, she must agree to help me in my career by introducing me to the many famous people that she will have come to know.”
Instead, what may have started, perhaps motivated by Ayn, as an attempt by Frank to repay Ayn for what he could only interpret as her genuine love for him, became, over time, a ritual of committed duty – perhaps a sacrificial one that had endured for almost twenty-five years when you and Nathan entered their lives.
From your writing it seems that from Frank’s perspective, regardless of how his relationship with Ayn started out, he ultimately was to define his life only in relation to hers. This was, initially at least, apparently acceptable to him, though it is doubtful it was satisfying. Beginning in the fall of 1954, I think it no longer remained acceptable. Thereafter, for the next fourteen years, with your continuing compassion and influence, it seems it was only barely tolerable. When the inevitable breakup occurred, I think it then, quite literally, became unbearable. What started as an act of trying to repay her love became subservience to her values, her career, and her will. After all, she had become a famous and successful writer, her efficacy reaffirmed by her adoring admirers – especially you and Nathan, and by the reality of her success. Conversely, what had he become, other than Mr. Ayn Rand?
His relinquishing of his life to hers then apparently evolved to the point where he automatically assumed that she always “knew” what she was doing – even in the face of what he would come to determine to be the incomprehensible. Nonetheless he seemed to have maintained this life-long trust that she must always “know” what was in their “best interest” – even in the face of what became inescapable evidence to the contrary.
Faced with the fact of the break up, faced with the cold, hard, realization that she had not known such things, as he had trusted she must, (as we all in some manner imagined she must!) he did the only thing remaining “tolerable” to him. The physical form of an aged Frank O’Connor was there on the podium in 1976. However, what I had only remotely sensed there at that podium over thirty years ago, was that the quiet, gentle, soft-spoken man of honest character, who had remained a loyal partner to one of the greatest intellectual forces in history, had simply “gone away.” It was and remains truly sad.
In closing I’ll offer a final perspective. When the marriage between Ayn and Frank was decided upon, I believe the results of this decision from the perspective of consequences to Ayn, because of her powerful mind, were ominous. Frank might have recanted. Ayn could not. Because of this I think a crucial Genesis in the emotional future Ayn set into motion for herself, was triggered.
I think that for the remainder of her life she was aware of the fact that while she may have loved the image in her mind that the figure of Frank represented, she did not by her standards actually love him – certainly not in the manner that her novels breathtakingly portray – not as romantic love that might exist between a man and a woman. She also must have been aware of the fact that she married this man, regardless of whatever other reasons she may have had for doing so, because it would enable her to stay in America. I do not think it an accident that you quote her as saying, “I don’t remember how the question of marriage came up.”
I think that for her to remember “how the question of marriage came up” would have served to remind her of something potentially much more devastatingly significant to her. A message from her subconscious that could not help but set off a tidal wave of emotion that would wash over her formidable consciousness. As you point out in your book, her seeming unwillingness to introspect at times, coupled with her awesome and relentless focus outward for the explanation of whatever was going on inside her, caused her to build up a festering assemblage of contradictions within her subconscious. I think this was a significant contributor to much of her seemingly bizarre and emotionally charged behavior you document in your book, behavior that seemed to those around her at the time, as inexplicable.
Should you choose to do so, I look forward to a response from you. No doubt you will be able to put into better perspective my thoughts. Perhaps showing where I may be generally correct though precisely wrong - vice versa, or neither.
I believe my life has benefited beyond measure for having had exposure to Rand’s ideas and work. Your lectures and now your book have added to that benefit. Thank you Barbara.
Dave Walden
I can attest to that, having personally experienced Dr. P.
My thoughts though better articulated.
I think that many of us become so buoyed up by her fiction that they impose her characters as being her.
Why did ARI not partner with anyone to do something along those lines?
You may not like the ones that were made, but they did make people aware of Ayn Rand's fiction. And in turn does inspire some to dig further. Which leads them here and to other resources.
We have had many discussions about those movies and their flaws in here. We have also disussed what was good and done well.
In all the time since its publication, it finally took an individual to get that project off the ground and produced. And for that Mr Kaslow and all involved have my thanks, including Dr Kelley and others.
While the vessel has its acknowledged flaws, the message is indeed timeless.
I was aware of the ARI website, and have read some of the content.
As I have discovered, the "Mind" of a man in possession of one is the determining factor as to whether one adapts to knew knowledge or continues in rejection of that knowledge and it's true that there are times we just aren't sure one way or another; but there are inherent in creation absolute truths within the physical laws and consequential realities of creation and to those there is no question.
I state clearly in my book in promoting a basic understanding of "Wide Scope Accountability" that "we are all accountable for what ever actions we take or not...like it or not." and to account for that new knowledge is inherently consciously human.
Branden while married to Barbara had a regularly ongoing sexual encounter with Rand who was married to Frank O'Connor. Barbara, who idolized Rand was very much pained by this, but felt if it was OK with Rand, it must be OK. Neither Rand nor Branden made any formal commitment to one another. Rand felt it was OK to have sex with Branden, many years her junior, because they did it openly with the full knowledge of their spouses. At that time, Rand was not merely Branden's mentor, but his idol. He damn near worshipped her as did Piekoff after Branden's "disgrace.." You must admit that this arrangement was at best, bizarre at best. Then, to complicate matters, Branden falls in love with a woman and starts having an affair with her. Branden and Barbara by then have pretty much ended their marriage in every way except for outward appearences. Because of that, Branden confided in Barbara of his affair. He didn't tell Rand because he knew she would take it badly and treat it as a betrayal, although, in my opinion, a betrayal of what? In any case, when Rand found out, she, as predicted, took it as a betrayal, and tried to virtually erase Branden from any association with her. Branden no doubt adored Rand as an idol. His sexual encounters with her were not because she appealed to him in that way, but because she wanted them, and could not say no to her. That's why I called it an excommunication. I think that if you check my posts you will find that I choose my words carefully, to not only be factual, but to give a sense of what was or is actually happening. Except , of course, when I'm satirizing. As to Branden's actions after the break-up, they were not always commendable, but he was never in full repudiation of Rand. As an acolyte, he did more in a short period of time to disseminate Objectivism than anyone since, in my opinion. As to Rand, she became feistier and harder to get along with. She always, again, in my opinion, had a propensity to overreact when being challenged and as time went on this became more evident to the point of inciting fear for those close to her. Also, during that time, she increased her usage of speed. I'm not sure if she became a full fledged addict, as some writers have pointed out, I rather doubt it.
Ayn Rand was a great woman. Like Einstein set physics on a new path, so she set philosophy on a refreshing and inspiring new path. Being a Rand idolizer, one might scorn Branden, but while he was with her, he did more for Objectivism than any other person, except Rand herself. While we are inspired by Rand's work, you must remember that she and those close to her were human beings and as such are not the icons found in fiction. Knowing all that, and much more, I still can realize the inspiration and truthfulness of her work and gladly follow its precepts.
Moderators of the Gulch do not have the ability to "relegate comments to the bottom of the heap."
Load more comments...