Here’s a rare gem.
An interview of Ayn Rand from back in 1959,by a young Mike Wallace. This was only a few years after the publication of Atlas Shrugged and before Objectivism descended into it’s more cult-like phase.
Given all of the attention being paid to her ideas today, it’s worth watching:
Here’s Part One:
Part Two:
Part Three:
“before Objectivism descended into it’s more cult-like phase”
Objectivism is not an organization. It is Rand’s personal philosophy. Its content has not changed since she formulated it. It is not possible for it to “descend” into anything thereafter, least of all, in this case, a “cult”.
Even a superficial knowledge of her philosophy is sufficient to grasp that it is in every principle and proof dedicated to the eradication of dogmatism of any kind. To even hint that it could be the basis for a cult is to flaunt one’s own ignorance – or more likely, desperation.
Those who are themselves dogmatic cannot imagine that such a tightly woven system of ideas could be anything other than dogma. How dare Objectivists posit a dogma different from their own! Those who do not believe in truth attack all ideas as dogma. How dare Objectivists claim she was right!
Neither of these anti-intellects can distinguish certainty backed by reason from dogma held on faith alone. So they cannot distinguish devotion to a person who teaches one that ideas are superior to obedience from devotion to a person who threatens one with the reverse. If they could tell the difference, they would not have to resort to cheap-shot slurs and would get busy presenting alternatives to her reasoning.
If you are looking for a cult to ridicule, how about the bloggers who in lieu of ideas traffic in such unsubstantiated characterizations, accepting their validity solely on faith in their number alone.
See Michael, this is where the “cult like” part comes in.
The idea that Ayn Rand and only Ayn Rand — or, in the present tense her “intellectual heir” — can say what Objectivism is and that nobody has the right to take her ideas and add to them, or, dare I say, even challenge them is where Objectivism stops being a philosophy and starts looking more like Scientology.
[...] In 1980, shortly after her husband’s death, Ayn Rand sat down with Phil Donahue. It’s interesting to contrast this interview from the one more than 20 years earlier with Mike Wallace. [...]
Doug Mataconis,
You need to distinguish adding to a philosophy from applying a philosophy or formulating a new system that incorporates the ideas of someone else’s philosophy. Objectivism is the personal philosophy of Ayn Rand. She was at once and forever its only author, just as Aristotle and Plato were the only authors of theirs. Applications and incorporations of their ideas have proceeded ever since their deaths. But the philosophies they authored are since their lives unchanged.
Rand named her philosophy with that word, She intentionally chose to name it with a word not in common use (she would have preferred Existentialism). As a form of “objective”, the word can obviously have another meaning on its own. But it can only have a different meaning in a different context. Not even her intellectual heirs may add to the meaning of Objectivism in the context of the philosophy she authored.
So when you attack Objectivist ideas, you should always make clear which ideas you are talking about — those of the originator of the philosophy by that name, those of a subsequent adherent to that philosophy, or those of some philosopher who advocates an entirely different version of what constitute being objective. Lumping them into one concept is either sloppy thinking or an intentional deceit.
This is not an issue of ownership. It is an issue of the necessary epistemological discipline to recognize that all words have specific meanings contingent on the specific contexts in which they are used.
I’m not attacking any philosophical system, I am criticizing the people, such as Leonard Piekoff (and I’d note that the very idea of someone being a “intellectual heir” is both a little weird and a little cultish) who think it is solely their province to determine what is and is not an acceptable avenue of intellectual inquiry for someone who wishes to call themselves a “objectivist.”
Basically, my point is that Objectivism is even less relevant to modern Americans than libertarianism is, and I think the main reason for that is the dictatorial manner in which those who purport to be it’s guardians conduct themselves.
Doug Mataconis,
Your comments add up to nothing more than an obtuse ad hominem. The engine powering Objectivism to the forefront is the content of the ideas. Trying to diminish their efficacy by whining about the behavior of Peikoff, Branden is intellectually impotent. Piss on the ideas, or get off the pot!