The Peikoff-Kelley Debate

[fab006]

And just one more point; ARI are such hypocrites on this issue. Kelley can't tell Libertarians that they're wrong AT AN EVENT SPECIFICALLY ORGANIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE, but Peikoff and Brook and so on can go on FOX, one of the most irrational news networks, and talk about how great each others' beliefs are and never mention a word of disagreement with mysticism and what-have-you, yet somehow that's less of a "sanction"? Lol.

[fab006]

I have a question concerning the "closed system" - if it can be rationally demonstrated that some of the conclusions drawn by Ayn Rand (or sanctioned by her) are logically false, would a rational person then have to renounce Objectivism? Would Objectivism then become self-defeating? Would, to be an "Objectivist", I have to take Ayn Rand's words on faith, in the face of better evidence

I may or may not agree with Kelley's specific objections, but I certainly do not agree with this orthodoxism.

[356pla]

I thik I'll be a McKeeverite. A McKeeverist.

I profess McKeeverism.

[Vocalallusive]

0:00 - 5:47 Thank you Paul McKeever, it's refreshing to come across a man who actually understand the depth of Ayn Rands Objectivism. Likewise it's sad that objectivism got so many bad friends it don't need any enemies. Thank you again.

[PureLiberalFire]

To even DISCUSS this issue is to give victory to the the normal-type, healthy-type Objectivists. The evil, stupid, silly, jerk, CULT "Objectivists" can NOT stand up to debate. Like cockroaches and vampires, the ARIans flee the light of day. The rational, philosophical DAVID KELLEY-style Objectivists are the future of the world while the loathsome, absurd LEONARD PEIKOFF-style pseudo-Objectivists are nothing but Randroids, religiosos, and cultists -- the ENEMIES of Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

[greenghost2008]

And this is why objectivism seems culty to people. I'm with kelley.

[outsidemendham]

@greenghost2008

Kelley has been excommunicated. Follow him and follow evil.

[greenghost2008]

@outsidemendham lol you do capture the rand cult mentality pretty well there.

[ashlawngroup]

Thanks for your thoughtful explanation. Reading Rand's books during my college years formed a core of my values that have remained with me years later. It's great that the internet and to Youtube facilitate desimination of this information, but it is unfortunate it has occurred. I believe Ayn Rand would have welcomed and enjoyed the dialogue and differences of opinion between two thoughtful, well-meaning people, rather having it escalate into a a full schism as seems to have occurred.

[sophiaphilein1]

So, let me get this straight - your argument is that Kant's philosophy is inherently evil. Why? Because dictators used it to justify harmful actions? Kant's categorical imperative would clearly condemn their actions as morally wrong. Essentially, the categorical imperative boils down to a rationalistic reformulation of the golden rule, one which most people in the world adopt as part of their moral thinking. Now you may call it wrong or misguided, but EVIL? Are you serious?

[windigo433]

Kant also denied the reality in which we perceive. When you can deny reality, you really can do anything you want. Objectivism means an objective reality in the metaphysical sense. Reality is an absolute.

[PaulMcKeever]

Sam: It's sometimes referred to as a debate, but it was not a debate per se. Rather, each of them wrote things that, collectively, are regarded as the debate. Read Peikoff's "Fact and Value" as a good starting point.

[PureLiberalRadio]

David Kelley rules. :-) Pope Lenny sucks. :-( Objectivist cultists and Randroids are drop-dead ENEMIES of Objectivism and Ayn Rand!

[Sam26100]

I don't concider myself an "Objectivist Cultist", and don't think of Leonard Peikoff as some kind of infallible or unquestionable authority figure. To do this would be a betrayal of the very concept of objectivism

I think you're making a sweeping statement by calling Dr Peikoff a "Pope", or by calling those of us who happen to agree with him "Randroids" or worse, "cultists"

What evidence do you have to support such labels?

[PrimeMover88]

It's good to hear another rational voice out there!

[markgg1]

what the hell is this video about, and what is al the comments about

I dont understand a word of it all

Load of philosophical BS

[nikkyo34]

Was Ayn decision to choose Peikoff as the heir of the objectivism movement rational or irrational after finding out that her close associate of 18 years was having an affair?

I posted the question on another video...hope you can answer it...thanks Paul

[PaulMcKeever]

Whether one is sanctioning a group depends upon the context.  The Christian pope doing a speech at the annual convention of Satan worshippers would not be an example of the pope sanctioning Satanism.

But when an person thought to be an advocate of reality and reason based freedom gives a speech to a group that claims also to be pro-freedom, yet supports freedom on non-real, irrational, or altruistic grounds, the speaker is giving an unearned thumbs up to irrationality and altruism.

[leeotta]

In other words, the content of the speech is completely irrelevant and only the audience matters. Absurd.

[theguyublocked]

how was Hitler influenced by Kants philosophy? Where is the evidence of this?

[theguyublocked]

What is it *specifically* about Kant that Objectivists do not agree with? Can you please provide me with an answer or some specific chapter in a book on Objectivism which explains this?  I want to know what exactly it is that they disagree with and what the reasoning is behind this disagreement.

[PaulMcKeever]

Rand's discussions of Kant can be found mostly in "Philosophy: Who Needs It".

The essential problem is that Kant's philosophy denies man has the physical and mental capacity to see the world as it really is. Without knowledge of the world as it really is, man cannot identify what the facts of reality dictate about what he ought to do. In short: Kant's philosophy says that man lacks the ability to derive ethics from the facts of reality...(cont'd)

[PaulMcKeever]

...(cont'd)...In other words: Kant says that one cannot know what one OUGHT to do by obtaining knowledge about man's nature and the facts of the world around him. Man's continued existence and happiness is at the mercy of an entity OTHER THAN himself...an entity that IS capable of knowing the facts of reality.

In short: Kant was providing an (erroneous) argument to combat the enlightenment and preserve a role for an omniscient being. (cont'd)

[PaulMcKeever]

(cont'd)...so, if you want to assume the role of telling other people what they OUGHT to do, one needs first to tell them that they "cannot do it themselves" but that you CAN do it for them. Kant's is an attractive philosophy for any pope, dictator, cult leader, etc. because - having made his argument sound techically complex - people too often just fall back on "Well, Kant's conclusions must be right because I don't understand his argument".

[PaulMcKeever]

...not understanding becomes the only proof of an argument's truth (witness Kansas': "For if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know"). So any charlatan who wants to assume the role of omniscient leader need only build up the unwarranted belief that he KNOWs what the mere plebs do not. Example: Obama.

[theguyublocked]

Existence exists is simultaneously a is a and an assertion of existence (once). Although these show ontological indifference, coupled with Ayn Rands writings I can only deduce that she held existential arguments in refuting Kantian ontology and ethicsBut Ayn Rand flip flops between existence precedes essence and essence precedes existence. This is acceptable epistemologically but not ontologically. Thanks for the book rec.

[Sam26100]

Hey Paul, do you know where I can find a transcript of the Peikoff and Kelley debate? If you have a link I'd appreciate it.

Thanks

[modelmark]

Paul, can you debate Stefan Molyneux? That would be highly interesting.

[aaronhallam61]

I'm sure these are some valuable ideas to consider, but your delivery is horrible! I just can't listen to you. I will try to find information about this debate somewhere else.

[fortunatus]

Rand wrote that it was okay to join groups with don't care about your motivation as long as they have a 'specific function'.

Is the libertarian party not such a group in regard to liberty with motivations being secondary?

Yet that they dont care about your motiviation is the only things I heard from Objectivists against them.

[incrediblemulk42]

The libertarian party does not have a "specific function". It supports a broad range of libertarian ideas, many of which are definitely not objectivist. A specific function would be, for example, a group which advocates for abortion rights or lower takes.

[fortunatus]

Ok Tnx!

[SCE2AUX]

Anarchists are utterly ridiculous wackjobs.

[RichardRoy2]

I am trying to work through a great many issues regarding objectivism. I am, however, a slow study. Too slow, I'm afraid. I'll be long dead before I can catch up to the dinamically minded types that probagate this ideology of objectivism. I do, however agree with those who would say, it is the merit of the idea, and not the authority of it's originator, that should be used as the measure of an idea's worth. I am, in that sense, an objectivist, in that there is great merit to many of her ideas.

[Lifeislikeabeanstalk]

I always come away from Ayn Rand followers thinking their unquestioning certainty and dogmatic adherence to the Randian perspective on life, society and economics make them ideal Waffen SS types and easy practitioners of the genocide of those they determine to be sufficiently unenlightened. I place them on a par with any other sort of religious fundamentalist zealots.

[87176246]

In my late teens and early twenties I had several near tragedies do to my inability to judge the character of those around me. I thought everyone would be good to me if I was good to them. After a near arrest in Nicaragua I reflected upon the events and the person I was traveling with. He always wanted me to say I was his friend. He wanted my sanction; he wanted to be seen as worthy of friendship.

[87176246]

. I felt pity and would call him my friend, after all it wasn't his fault that he had to buy and use fake money, look where he came from. There are so many good people in the world, why spend a second of your time with a sketch ball. Judge others to save your life and don't use your good character to sanction his bad character. Don't encourage his rot. This has been a valuable less for a naive young man.

[legendre007]

Well-said. I have been in similar situations with people.

[paulk314]

As have I.

[paulk314]

Sometimes you need a hard concrete experience to really drive home the consequences of an abstract idea. It is inspiring to see that you were able to make the connection. Good luck and good premises.

[nikkyo34]

Whats Nathaniel Branden opinion on this issue?

[PaulMcKeever]

I don't know that he has weighed in publicly. However, he and his former wife Barbara Brandon are usually associated with the David Kelley/Atlas Society group.

[leeotta]

McKeever and Peikoff are dead wrong. Kelley did not say ideas cannot be judged as good or evil. He said good and evil apply PRIMARILY to actions. That clearly allows for them to apply to ideas secondarily.

McKeever also propogates Peikoff's muddle-headed remarks about the relations of good/evil/true/false.

[illuded]

Wow, thanks for the clarification. I was a long time self-identified objectivist and libertarian, but thanks to this video I'm over it. I at first didn't see a problem with people uniting commonly under liberty as a slogan. But, looking at it in the sense that objectivism can be exploited unjustly by the motives of libertarianism, it makes perfect sense now. Kind regards!

[PaulMcKeever]

You're quite welcome. Cheers, PM.

[horvay]

Could you tell me where that quote that Ayn Rand made was from? The one where she said that the person who praises capitalism without reason or morality is more immoral than a communist. I haven't heard that before and I'd like to hear the entire build up to it.

Sorry for posting on an old video.

[PaulMcKeever]

It's at the end of her Ford Hall lecture, "What is Capitalism?". If I'm not mistaken, it also appears in the article of the same name, found in the book "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal".

[horvay]

Thanks. I'll check out the book.

[contentiousbastard]

Where can I learn more?

[scotchscotch]

I meant to write "remnants" and was referring to an old obscure article about Objectivists of the Rand/Piekoff school being a dying breed.

[PaulMcKeever]

Ah. Well, for those who believe there is more than one school of Objectivism (I don't think there is), I too can be regarded as hailing from the Rand/Peikoff school...and, if ARI's size and influence is a measure of the size of the breed, I'd say the old article's conclusions were incorrect. Cheers, PM.

[scotchscotch]

Superb summary. One of the remnant in Los Angeles thanks you!!

[PaulMcKeever]

Thank-you, and you're welcome. "The remnant"?

[PaulMcKeever]

The issue certainly is not whether one listens to false ideas. The issue is: it is wrong for a recognized defender of reality, reason, and self to give moral sanction to a movement founded on the idea that freedom is not necessarily the result of a commitment to reality, reason, and self.

[bryher2]

Wasn't it Ayn Rand who said that "The only evil thought is the refusal to think"?

If so, that sounds to me like toleration of entertaining possibly false ideas, which your video seems to say is not Objectivism.

It sounds like judging oneself and others on the bases of their actions, not their mere thoughts.

Is the quotation not accurate? Or do you have a different interpretation of it than what appears to me its obvious meaning?

[Elhan2005]

What makes you think libertarians, or at least Austrian libertarians, do not adopt a proper epistemology and moral system?

[PaulMcKeever]

I don't think that. I think that libertarianISM refuses to adopt any epistemological or moral system upon which to found its alleged adherence to the non-aggression principle.

[Elhan2005]

Hah, you caught me online. :) I actually agree with you on this, I think more libertarians need to adopt a complete philosophical system rather than sloppily throwing one together, and specifically an Aristotelean one.

[Merryjest]

Very good summary, Paul.

[politEgoEgonomics]

Remember also folks that voting in a civilIzation is only to support the Man that will work to protect Your Individual rights.

This is all You can and should ask for, the rest is up to You.

To expect anything else is immoral and destructive to Life and Living.

O:$Much obliged MrPaulMcKeever, its important to start with a clean slate and hands$:O

[AynRandMotor]

As long as you've brought up the topic of 'voting'\politics : Ask yourself sometime: - How would JohnGalt vote? -

...ah, never mInd its a trick question. But one that is now relevant and does lead somewhere (a nice change, huh?).

[tsummerlee]

Remember, folks, Peecough encourages Americans to vote for Democratic party candidates (or "Dem-scum" for short).

Right, Paul. Ideas are either good, or evil. Couldn't agree more.

[brainpolice2]

1. Peikoiff supports the slaughter of innocent foreigners, therefore he is evil. Ayn Rand supported the slaughter of innocent foreigners, therefore Ayn Rand was evil. Ethical value judgements are indeed objective. Aesthetic judgements and judgements of economic value are not. This is the area where subjectivism is perfectly valid. You have misrepresented the libertarian philosophy. I do not believe that ethics is subjective, nor do I believe that any old philosophical approach is acceptable.

[Kesshutsu]

If innocents around the world are your primary concern, then you are still mistaken. You sacrifice many more innocent lives when you allow a system of enslavement and consistent murder to continue. Then sit back and be content with knowing it was not YOU who destroyed your values. Admire your clean hands and be proud that you spared yourself any fight for the things you valued.

[Aynology]

Ayn Rand's Objective Ideology is a 'closed system' in the same way that our Earth and our Atmosphere is.

[politEgoEgonomics]

"It does not matter that only a few in each generation will grasp and achieve the full reality of man's proper stature - and that the rest will betray it. It is those few that move the world and give life its meaning - and it is those few that I have always sought to address. The rest are no concern of mine; it is not me or TheFountainhead that they will betray: it is their own souls. -AynRand\NewYork\63AR-

[AynRandOeuvre]

"He thought: I haven't mentioned to him the worst second-hander of all - the man who goes after power." (HR:(GW)\TF\AR)

[SaskBigPicture]

Great explanation of the Peikoff-Kelley schism, Paul. I did not understand previously what caused the rift. Thanks for this video. Your efforts do not go unnoticed.

[PaulMcKeever]

You're quite welcome SBP. Cheers.  PM

[Inaissance]

Thank you, Mr. McKeever.

[PaulMcKeever]

My pleasure.