[62] in libertarians
IOS, ARI and all That
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Fri Jul 8 17:21:08 1994
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 94 17:13:57 -0400
From: vimrich@flying-cloud.mit.edu (Vernon Imrich)
To: objectivism@MIT.EDU
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
Thought this might be of interest to the objectivist crowd out there.
We had some debate on this at one of the April meetings of the
MIT Libertarians. David Kelly spoke at MIT a few years ago as well,
so this might be more relevant than I know.
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
-- [ From: Institute for Objectivist Studies * EMC.Ver #2.0 ] --
BETTER THINGS TO DO
by David Kelley, Executive Director,
Institute for Objectivist Studies
***
This article was originally printed in the _IOS Journal_ (Vol.
4, No. 1, March 1994, pp. 11-12), the newsletter of the
Institute for Objectivist Studies. In response to many
requests, it is being made available electronically under the
conditions listed at the end of the piece.
***
As readers of this _Journal_ know, over the past few months
the Institute has been fighting socialized medicine, sponsoring
a lecture series on psychological growth, planning a summer
seminar on rationality, starting a mail-order service, taping a
weekly program of Objectivist ideas for a nationwide radio
audience, and successfully pilot testing the first new
introductory course on Objectivism to be offered in 15 years.
Over the same few months, the Institute has also been the
target of a flurry of attacks by the self-proclaimed guardians
of Objectivism. Among the more significant examples are the
following.
1) In last October's newsletter of the Objectivist Health
Care Professionals Network, the Network's executive director,
Sal Durante, replied to readers who had asked why the
newsletter was not publicizing my speeches and articles
defending freedom in medicine. Dr. Durante attributed to me
certain "views that contradict some of Ayn Rand's fundamental
ideas"--specifically the views that Rand's theory of
measurement-omission is "tentative" and that "men should not be
judged on the basis of the ideas they hold." On that basis, he
argued that any gain in freedom which might result from my
efforts was more than offset by the long-term "damage caused by
distorting Ayn Rand's philosophy"; and that the Institute for
Objectivist Studies "takes much needed funds from contributors
who might otherwise support the Ayn Rand Institute [(ARI)]."
2) The Association of Objectivist Businessmen (AOB), whose
stated goal is "to promote Objectivism in the business
community and to foster business support for the Ayn Rand
Institute," was revived in 1992 after some years of inactivity.
I received a solicitation to join, and decided to do so,
believing that the Association might do some good. AOB recently
distributed a membership list, followed quickly by a letter
from president Richard Salsman to AOB members, apologizing for
the fact that Nathaniel Branden, Jeff Scott, and I were listed
among them. We are not eligible for membership, Mr. Salsman
said, because we had "denounced" ARI. Claiming that we had
never been solicited, and had joined "for [their] own unknown
purposes," Mr. Salsman removed our names from the Association's
mailing list and refunded our membership contributions.
(Several IOS members who belonged to the Association have since
resigned in protest and asked for their money back.)
3) Robert Stubblefield, who is publisher of _The
Intellectual Activist_, also runs an electronic forum called
the Objectivist Study Group (OSG). Its members are prohibited
by contract from participating in another electronic discussion
group, the Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy
(MDOP), which Mr. Stubblefield says "explicitly endorses
anti-Objectivists" (a reference to me, among others).
Ironically, MDOP has recently been discussing the conflict
between Leonard Peikoff (in "Fact and Value") and myself (in
_Truth and Toleration_) over issues of moral sanction and
toleration; subscribers to OSG refused an invitation from MDOP
to defend Dr. Peikoff's position in that debate. With Mr.
Stubblefield's approval, contributors to OSG have also engaged
in various psychologizing efforts to impugn my character.
Finally, in a message posted to his subscribers on February 19,
Mr. Stubblefield said that he had been unable to come up with
an accurate name for those who inclined to my view rather than
Dr. Peikoff's; after considering and rejecting various labels,
he suggested that "snarling wimps" best described our alleged
"fear of objective moral judgments and ...hatred of those who
[pass such judgments]."
Any one of these incidents, by itself, would be beneath our
notice. IOS has better things to do than respond to sniping
from those who resent our very existence. But, taken together,
the attacks of recent months call for comment. We want to set
the record straight for those who may have seen or heard of
these attacks, and may not understand the source of the
hostility directed against the Institute. In the circumstances,
we also believe it time to reaffirm our own principles about
the conduct appropriate to a philosophy of reason.
Moral Judgment and Objectivism
The hostility to the Institute stems from a public dispute
between Dr. Peikoff and me, involving two basic philosophical
issues.
The first has to do with how we should judge those whose
ideas we believe to be false. Is a Christian, or a Marxist,
*ipso facto* immoral? Dr. Peikoff maintained that the scope of
honest error is small; except for the young, the retarded, and
the illiterate, no one can accept a false philosophical
conviction without irrationality. Hence we should be prepared
to condemn our intellectual opponents as immoral. This is the
view accepted by Dr. Durante, Mssrs. Salsman and Stubblefield,
and their associates.
I hold that the possibilities for honest error are many,
especially in a field as complex as philosophy. It is true, of
course, that many people *are* willfully irrational in their
thinking and should be judged accordingly. But we can't know
this of a given individual merely from the *content* of what he
believes; we have to know something about *how* he reached his
beliefs before we can pass moral judgment. What I object to is
not moral judgment per se but the blanket condemnations that
some Objectivists issue without adequate evidence. It is this
position of mine that inspired Mr. Stubblefield's name-calling.
The second issue is whether Objectivism is a closed or an
open system of thought. Dr. Peikoff has maintained that
Objectivism is an immutable system, with an "official,
authorized doctrine" laid down by Ayn Rand. Objectivism means
all the philosophical ideas, and only the ideas, that she
espoused. My position is that Objectivism is a body of
knowledge rather than dogma, and as such is open to further
discoveries in the same way as a scientific theory. It is even
open to revisions in light of new evidence, as long as they are
consistent with the central principles of the philosophy, such
as the efficacy of reason and the individual's right to live
for his own happiness.
In _Truth and Toleration_, I illustrated this point with the
example of Rand's theory of measurement-omission, which
addresses a vital but technical issue concerning the nature of
concepts. The theory explains, for the first time in the
history of philosophy, exactly how and why human concepts are
objective. I do not have any doubts about the truth of this
theory, as Dr. Durante implies. On the contrary, I have written
the only scholarly analysis and defense of the theory ever
published (in my article "A Theory of Abstraction"). My point
is that if we ever did acquire evidence against the theory, we
would not abandon the principle that concepts are objective
(which is a central principle of Objectivism). We would look
for a better theory to explain that principle.
A systematic treatment of these philosophical issues can be
found in _Truth and Toleration_. I am certainly willing to
entertain criticism of my position, and to change it if proven
wrong. To my knowledge, however, no such criticism has been
offered in the three years since that work was published.
Indeed, many of my opponents have declared that, lest they
sanction me, they will not even read _Truth and
Toleration_--thereby forgoing the opportunity to acquaint
themselves with the views for which they denounce me. Instead,
we have Mr. Salsman's exercise in cliquesmanship, Mr.
Stubblefield's adolescent name-calling, and the like.
It seems clear that these attacks do not reflect an honest
philosophical dispute. They reflect the syndrome that I
described (in the final chapter of _Truth and Toleration_) as
"intellectual tribalism": an effort to create an orthodoxy as a
substitute for independent thought, placing loyalty to the
group above loyalty to the truth. The clearest, and most
offensive, illustration of the tribal approach is Dr. Durante's
assumption that if the Institute did not exist, its members and
their contributions would flow to ARI--as if our supporters
could not think for themselves and would follow any leader who
called.
The Institute's Foreign Policy
We are aware that some IOS members do support ARI, as well
as the Association of Objectivist Businessmen, the Objectivist
Health Care Professionals Network, or allied organizations. It
has never been our policy to discourage this, nor do we presume
to do so now. For all the reasons that I gave in _Truth and
Toleration_, the question of which individuals and groups to
associate with is a complex one. A great many facts are
relevant, and every individual must integrate those facts for
himself. But we hope that the facts outlined above are included
in your deliberations.
Some of our members have asked us whether the breach in the
Objectivist movement can be healed. Our policy is comparable to
the one that Israel long adopted toward its Arab foes. We
prefer to live in peace with our intellectual neighbors, but we
see no basis for a civil relationship with those who deny the
legitimacy of our existence as an independent Objectivist
organization, and who launch unprovoked and irrational attacks
on us.
Irrationality of this sort can usually be ignored, but we
reserve the right to respond as we think necessary to preserve
our reputation. Meanwhile, we will continue to pursue our
mission: to expand the body of Objectivist thought, and to
communicate these ideas to a world sorely in need of them. With
your help, we will succeed.
*******
This article is copyright 1994 by the Institute for
Objectivist Studies. Permission to store and forward on
electronic information systems is granted as long as the
complete text of the article and the notes at the beginning and
end are included unchanged. Permission to print and photocopy
is granted under the same conditions.
_Truth and Toleration_ and "A Theory of Abstraction" are both
available from the Institute. If you refer to this article in
your order, the price is $13 for the former, $5 for the latter,
and $16 for both, including shipping and handling. Orders are
accepted by mail when accompanied by a check or money order in
US funds drawn on a US bank. New York residents must add state
sales tax.
The mission of the Institute for Objectivist Studies is to
advance the philosophy of Objectivism as a basis for
theoretical knowledge, social progress, and individual
happiness. For more information, contact: Institute for
Objectivist Studies, 82 Washington Street, Suite 207,
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601. Toll-free: 1-800-374-1776. E-mail:
ios@mcimail.com.
* END *
What were/are the thoughts of objectivists in the MIT community?
The Boston Area?
Vernon
