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.