Every once in a long while, I publish some observations about the various conflicts and schisms in the Objectivist movement. Those who are not particularly interested are encouraged to skip these editions. But this one perhaps has some special interest, because it raises the possibility of an eventual end to this fractiousness, or at least a diminution in its intensity.
The fact that prominent intellectuals like Piekoff were drawn to making breath-taking pronouncements their knowledge and experience did not justify set the movement back by decades. Tracinski has yet again put his finger on the issue: “… let’s have Independent Objectivism, with a multiplicity of Objectivist voices explaining, debating, and contributing to the philosophy, and no one central organization or authority figure presuming to serve as the arbiter who is able to cast people out of the movement.” Individuals, thinking for themselves, will necessarily generate disagreement as well as agreement. Rand’s unique genius has already shown us this rightfully a market, not a war.
As one who came to this philosophy late (age 42), but who has now lived my life by it for over 25 years I find once again that you have a better understanding of what is happening and what is needed in this movement than anyone. Your identification of Ayn Rand's singular role in all this is something I've obviously known but never fully considered in the same light you just presented it. And that speaks volumes about what has continually happened in Objectivism from long before I found it. This has been as equally illuminating as your 'Independent Objectivist' recommendation from several years ago, something I have agreed with and supported financially. And something I might add that is flowering more and more with each new Alex Epstein, Don Watkins and Bradley Thompson I see contributing something new and different. Yet with all that being said I remain a staunch supporter of ARI, both morally and financially, because they still represent the center of the movement to me. And most important they remain the best teachers of the philosophy. They are the ones who have taught Alex and Don and Brad ... and Rob, and I remain ever grateful they exist, they keep doing what they do and indeed have now finally expanded it to hopefully a real university. From the outside looking in I wish you could all get along, but that is truly secondary so long as you all keep doing great work in your chosen fields.
rob, i know there have been many attempts to explain this 'schism', but i think this is excellent and should be read by anyone who has struggled over this issue. thank you, tom
As much as we can know, look at the phenomena of Aristotle and his followers, and the results of his death It would seem to be a very similar situation.
Well Said, & thank You!
Hear, Hear. Thank you.
The fact that prominent intellectuals like Piekoff were drawn to making breath-taking pronouncements their knowledge and experience did not justify set the movement back by decades. Tracinski has yet again put his finger on the issue: “… let’s have Independent Objectivism, with a multiplicity of Objectivist voices explaining, debating, and contributing to the philosophy, and no one central organization or authority figure presuming to serve as the arbiter who is able to cast people out of the movement.” Individuals, thinking for themselves, will necessarily generate disagreement as well as agreement. Rand’s unique genius has already shown us this rightfully a market, not a war.
As one who came to this philosophy late (age 42), but who has now lived my life by it for over 25 years I find once again that you have a better understanding of what is happening and what is needed in this movement than anyone. Your identification of Ayn Rand's singular role in all this is something I've obviously known but never fully considered in the same light you just presented it. And that speaks volumes about what has continually happened in Objectivism from long before I found it. This has been as equally illuminating as your 'Independent Objectivist' recommendation from several years ago, something I have agreed with and supported financially. And something I might add that is flowering more and more with each new Alex Epstein, Don Watkins and Bradley Thompson I see contributing something new and different. Yet with all that being said I remain a staunch supporter of ARI, both morally and financially, because they still represent the center of the movement to me. And most important they remain the best teachers of the philosophy. They are the ones who have taught Alex and Don and Brad ... and Rob, and I remain ever grateful they exist, they keep doing what they do and indeed have now finally expanded it to hopefully a real university. From the outside looking in I wish you could all get along, but that is truly secondary so long as you all keep doing great work in your chosen fields.
Excellent article. Thank you
rob, i know there have been many attempts to explain this 'schism', but i think this is excellent and should be read by anyone who has struggled over this issue. thank you, tom
As much as we can know, look at the phenomena of Aristotle and his followers, and the results of his death It would seem to be a very similar situation.