• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Major Update to OL (please click to open)   02/09/2016

      Sorry for the inconvenience, but we had to update OL and there have been some serious changes made by IPB. The real bad news is that they had to merge User Names and Display Names. This meant that I had to choose between bad and bad. I opted to keep the log-on information the same, so you can get on OL like you always did, but now your User Name is displayed. If your User Name and Display Name were the same, you will not feel the change. If they were different, you are probably irritated right now. I will figure out how you can change this so you can revert to the Display Name you used before if you like, however this may entail a change in how you log-on. The good news is that OL is now searchable from the very beginning. This means all the old posts from the A-Team in Objectivism (and everybody else) will finally show up when you search for something. I will keep changing this announcement as we adapt to these new changes. It's a pain, I know, but after looking around the backend for a bit, I believe the benefits will far, far outweigh the current irritation. They changed things in a hamhanded way and I don't like that, but I can't do anything about it. Benefit-wise, they actually did a good job, so please bear with us. In addition to this change, many good things are coming over time. You are the reason OL exists and I am sorry you have to go through this. Think of it like birth pangs... (All right, all right, that's forcing it.  ) Michael
PDS

Prescient Peikoff: Phd with a Podcast

16 posts in this topic

Dr. Piekoff has a Phd.

He does podcasts.

Way back on January 7,2007, he made a podcast in response to the following question: "Q: What is your opinion of the Objectivist clubs and advocacy groups on the Internet? Your opinion, I know, would vary depending on the policies of any particular group. But all things being equal, do you consider this an effective and rational way to spread the right ideas?"

His response, summarized by our own host here at Objectivist Living, was as follows:

a. On the Internet, a person detaches his thinking on interesting problems from serious thought and practices superficial examination. This is mainly due to indiscriminate participation. He implies that this could form poor thinking habits.

b. People automatize talking off the top of their heads and encourage superficiality by disassociating the what and why of their topics from serious contexts. He specifically mentioned the problem of jumping from one topic to unrelated topics (and so on) without context and stated clearly that only an older person (like him) who is trained in correct thinking can do this without risk.

c. He emphasized the distinction between serious writing and email. Serious writing involves formulating an idea, and editing and correcting it. Email merely involves blurting out whatever is on a person's mind at the time. On the Internet, he mentioned that often people blurt out something and think they have established a position, but they have "simply immortalized the chaos in their own mind."

(emphasis mine).

Slightly ironic, no?

In addition to the undisguised rage and "personal emnity" inherent Peikoff's latest missive in Anthemgate, what is most clear about Peikoff circa 2011 is, to use a phrase, the "immortalized ...chaos of [his] own mind." Lest we forget, the missive quoted was an attempted kick-save, i.e., an attempt to explain the absurd email that got this whole boondoggle started. The lack of anything even approaching benevolence is perhaps the most startling thing about Peikoff's communications of recent years.

Peikoff 2011 has, more or less, become Objectivism's Cranky Old Man. We have all met such persons before. They sometimes have redeeming charms, like tobacco stains or war stories. I'm sure Peikoff has his charms too, although

Unfortunately, Peikoff is a Cranky Old Man with a podcast, who doesn't follow his own advice, and the face of Movement Objectivism.

Because I do take stock in Rand's benevolent universe premise, I actually feel sorry for the Movement Objectivists--all those other Phd's with Podcasts and the like, some of whom are my friends. In many ways, however, they are akin to the Iranian children and other innocents Peikoff so blithely disregards when he claims Iran should be wiped off the map: they are the victims of friendly fire, on steroids.

Slightly ironic, no?

Edited by PDS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Piekoff has a Phd.

He does podcasts.

Way back on January 7,2007, he made a podcast in response to the following question: "Q: What is your opinion of the Objectivist clubs and advocacy groups on the Internet? Your opinion, I know, would vary depending on the policies of any particular group. But all things being equal, do you consider this an effective and rational way to spread the right ideas?"

His response, summarized by our own host here at Objectivist Living, was as follows:

a. On the Internet, a person detaches his thinking on interesting problems from serious thought and practices superficial examination. This is mainly due to indiscriminate participation. He implies that this could form poor thinking habits.

b. People automatize talking off the top of their heads and encourage superficiality by disassociating the what and why of their topics from serious contexts. He specifically mentioned the problem of jumping from one topic to unrelated topics (and so on) without context and stated clearly that only an older person (like him) who is trained in correct thinking can do this without risk.

c. He emphasized the distinction between serious writing and email. Serious writing involves formulating an idea, and editing and correcting it. Email merely involves blurting out whatever is on a person's mind at the time. On the Internet, he mentioned that often people blurt out something and think they have established a position, but they have "simply immortalized the chaos in their own mind."

(emphasis mine).

Slightly ironic, no?

In addition to the undisguised rage and "personal emnity" inherent Peikoff's latest missive in Anthemgate, what is most clear about Peikoff circa 2011 is, to use a phrase, the "immortalized ...chaos of [his] own mind." Lest we forget, the missive quoted was an attempted kick-save, i.e., an attempt to explain the absurd email that got this whole boondoggle started. The lack of anything even approaching benevolence is perhaps the most startling thing about Peikoff's communications of recent years.

Peikoff 2011 has, more or less, become Objectivism's Cranky Old Man. We have all met such persons before. They sometimes have redeeming charms, like tobacco stains or war stories. I'm sure Peikoff has his charms too, although

Unfortunately, Peikoff is a Cranky Old Man with a podcast, who doesn't follow his own advice, and the face of Movement Objectivism.

Because I do take stock in Rand's benevolent universe premise, I actually feel sorry for the Movement Objectivists--all those other Phd's with Podcasts and the like, some of whom are my friends. In many ways, however, they are akin to the Iranian children and other innocents Peikoff so blithely disregards when he claims Iran should be wiped off the map: they are the victims of friendly fire, on steroids.

Slightly ironic, no?

As Rand might say, their philosophical premises have caught up with them: "The Chicken's Homecoming" (Chapter 6, The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (1971).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right. So Iran gets nukes and the advocates of paper tigritude end up looking like the rational ones on YouTube. At least, with McCaskey out of the way, the Problem of Induction gets solved. Win a few, lose a few.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right. So Iran gets nukes and the advocates of paper tigritude end up looking like the rational ones on YouTube. At least, with McCaskey out of the way, the Problem of Induction gets solved. Win a few, lose a few.

Welcome to OL Jonathan:

Thanks for the new word.

"'Last night Iris, reading a book on French linguistics, came upon the word 'tigritude.' She asked me what it meant, and I Googled it. I came upon several references to a 'Nigerian Proverb' stating that, 'Un tigre ne proclame pas sa tigritude.' (A tiger does not declare/proclaim/shout his tigritude.)'

This stuck me as a useful saying, but something about it wasn't quite right. It took me until just now to remember. There are no tigers in Africa. Haven't been for at least a million years. Either that saying was handed down from before the time Homo sapiens existed, or it isn't a traditional saying from Nigeria.

I looked it up again, in more detail, and it is actually a quote, from the Nigerian author Wole Soyinka, whom Iris of course has read but I had never heard of.

It is funny how many people, including 'proverb dictionaries' have labeled various versions of it as traditional Nigerian wisdom. Is 'Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,' an ancient Russian proverb?"

[http://blogofscience.blogspot.com/2009/01/tiger-does-not-declare-his-tigritude.html]

Adam

Edited by Selene
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right. So Iran gets nukes and the advocates of paper tigritude end up looking like the rational ones on YouTube. At least, with McCaskey out of the way, the Problem of Induction gets solved. Win a few, lose a few.

Welcome to OL Jonathan:

Thanks for the new word.

"'Last night Iris, reading a book on French linguistics, came upon the word 'tigritude.' She asked me what it meant, and I Googled it. I came upon several references to a 'Nigerian Proverb' stating that, 'Un tigre ne proclame pas sa tigritude.' (A tiger does not declare/proclaim/shout his tigritude.)'

This stuck me as a useful saying, but something about it wasn't quite right. It took me until just now to remember. There are no tigers in Africa. Haven't been for at least a million years. Either that saying was handed down from before the time Homo sapiens existed, or it isn't a traditional saying from Nigeria.

I looked it up again, in more detail, and it is actually a quote, from the Nigerian author Wole Soyinka, whom Iris of course has read but I had never heard of.

It is funny how many people, including 'proverb dictionaries' have labeled various versions of it as traditional Nigerian wisdom. Is 'Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,' an ancient Russian proverb?"

["]http://blogofscience...tigritude.html]

Adam

Nor the cow its bovinity?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor the cow its bovinity?

How about the porker and its swinetude?

Next!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick Googling of "happy families are all alike" identifies Anna Karenina as the source. And while we're at it, "it takes a village to raise a child" is apparently not an African proverb. This seems to be a catch-all when you haven't the foggiest idea where a saying came from (other such catch-alls are Einstein, Churchill or Franklin). Likewise when archaeologists have no idea what something was they say it "probably had a ceremonial significance."

Edited by Reidy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor the cow its bovinity?

How about the porker and its swinetude?

Next!

I prefer porcinity.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right. So Iran gets nukes and the advocates of paper tigritude end up looking like the rational ones on YouTube. At least, with McCaskey out of the way, the Problem of Induction gets solved. Win a few, lose a few.

Welcome to OL Jonathan:

Thanks for the new word.

"'Last night Iris, reading a book on French linguistics, came upon the word 'tigritude.' She asked me what it meant, and I Googled it. I came upon several references to a 'Nigerian Proverb' stating that, 'Un tigre ne proclame pas sa tigritude.' (A tiger does not declare/proclaim/shout his tigritude.)'

This stuck me as a useful saying, but something about it wasn't quite right. It took me until just now to remember. There are no tigers in Africa. Haven't been for at least a million years. Either that saying was handed down from before the time Homo sapiens existed, or it isn't a traditional saying from Nigeria.

I looked it up again, in more detail, and it is actually a quote, from the Nigerian author Wole Soyinka, whom Iris of course has read but I had never heard of.

It is funny how many people, including 'proverb dictionaries' have labeled various versions of it as traditional Nigerian wisdom. Is 'Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,' an ancient Russian proverb?"

["]http://blogofscience...tigritude.html]

Adam

Nor the cow its bovinity?

As far as I know, Wole Soyinka it is, but I remember it in the context of the "Negritude" movement. It was the Chicoms who loved to call the USA a "paper tiger" back in Mao's time. Now they fear that the tiger is going to destroy the dollar.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right. So Iran gets nukes and the advocates of paper tigritude end up looking like the rational ones on YouTube. At least, with McCaskey out of the way, the Problem of Induction gets solved. Win a few, lose a few.

Welcome to OL Jonathan:

Thanks for the new word.

"'Last night Iris, reading a book on French linguistics, came upon the word 'tigritude.' She asked me what it meant, and I Googled it. I came upon several references to a 'Nigerian Proverb' stating that, 'Un tigre ne proclame pas sa tigritude.' (A tiger does not declare/proclaim/shout his tigritude.)'

This stuck me as a useful saying, but something about it wasn't quite right. It took me until just now to remember. There are no tigers in Africa. Haven't been for at least a million years. Either that saying was handed down from before the time Homo sapiens existed, or it isn't a traditional saying from Nigeria.

I looked it up again, in more detail, and it is actually a quote, from the Nigerian author Wole Soyinka, whom Iris of course has read but I had never heard of.

It is funny how many people, including 'proverb dictionaries' have labeled various versions of it as traditional Nigerian wisdom. Is 'Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,' an ancient Russian proverb?"

[http://blogofscience.blogspot.com/2009/01/tiger-does-not-declare-his-tigritude.html]

Adam

Thanks for your welcome, Adam. I couldn't resist inserting "paper tigritude" into this thread. It has another name, of course: "open society."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan:

Thanks for your welcome, Adam. I couldn't resist inserting "paper tigritude" into this thread. It has another name, of course: "open society."

You are quite welcome. You have an interesting "writing style," but the "tigritude" was new to me and I would never have associated it with the "paper tiger."

We have a true believing Popperian on this forum.

Nevertheless, I can always use another anti-communist/marxist ally.

Adam

Edited by Selene
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan:

Thanks for your welcome, Adam. I couldn't resist inserting "paper tigritude" into this thread. It has another name, of course: "open society."

You are quite welcome. You have an interesting "writing style," but the "tigritude" was new to me and I would never have associated it with the "paper tiger."

We have a true believing Popperian on this forum.

Nevertheless, I can always use another anti-communist/marxist ally.

Adam

I hope you don't think that the true-believing Popperian is me! I am totally opposed to "paper tigritude" and IMO Soros has stolen Popper's "open society" label to justify his (Soros') anti-Americanism. From what little I know of Popper (I never read any of his books) the "open society" is "liberal democracy" which means whatever the "open society" advocate wants it to mean. In other words, the "open society" is one in which "power to the people" means power to the people who say "power to the people."

Popper was no Rand.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan:

Thanks for your welcome, Adam. I couldn't resist inserting "paper tigritude" into this thread. It has another name, of course: "open society."

You are quite welcome. You have an interesting "writing style," but the "tigritude" was new to me and I would never have associated it with the "paper tiger."

We have a true believing Popperian on this forum.

Nevertheless, I can always use another anti-communist/marxist ally.

Adam

I hope you don't think that the true-believing Popperian is me! I am totally opposed to "paper tigritude" and IMO Soros has stolen Popper's "open society" label to justify his (Soros') anti-Americanism. From what little I know of Popper (I never read any of his books) the "open society" is "liberal democracy" which means whatever the "open society" advocate wants it to mean. In other words, the "open society" is one in which "power to the people" means power to the people who say "power to the people."

Popper was no Rand.

Jonathan:

LOL

No, I certainly did not get any pro-Popper slant from you.

Soros is an extremely dangerous self hating Jew who has funded a slew of anti individualist tax deductible organizations. You should look at the thread that Michael has posted which deals with Glenn Beck's evisceration of ole Georgie boy.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those interested in critique of Popper and his conception of the open society might like a paper by Veatch available from Mises.org (it's a pdf). I only skimmed it so far, but get the sense that Veatch doesn't distinguish sharply enough between Plato's "forms" (including a form or essence of human nature) and human nature as such, recognition of which doesn't require any Platonist framework. So there may be a certain false dichotomy operative. But Veatch seems to get the better of Popper.

http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=search&q=Popper

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan:

Thanks for your welcome, Adam. I couldn't resist inserting "paper tigritude" into this thread. It has another name, of course: "open society."

You are quite welcome. You have an interesting "writing style," but the "tigritude" was new to me and I would never have associated it with the "paper tiger."

We have a true believing Popperian on this forum.

Nevertheless, I can always use another anti-communist/marxist ally.

Adam

I hope you don't think that the true-believing Popperian is me! I am totally opposed to "paper tigritude" and IMO Soros has stolen Popper's "open society" label to justify his (Soros') anti-Americanism. From what little I know of Popper (I never read any of his books) the "open society" is "liberal democracy" which means whatever the "open society" advocate wants it to mean. In other words, the "open society" is one in which "power to the people" means power to the people who say "power to the people."

Popper was no Rand.

Jonathan:

LOL

No, I certainly did not get any pro-Popper slant from you.

Soros is an extremely dangerous self hating Jew who has funded a slew of anti individualist tax deductible organizations. You should look at the thread that Michael has posted which deals with Glenn Beck's evisceration of ole Georgie boy.

Adam

In fact I did read the Glen Beck v Soros thread and watched the videos, which led me to dust off my Shadow Party book and to start googling Soros and Popper.

They say the devil has the best tunes, and Soros certainly has more effective NGO's than we do.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those interested in critique of Popper and his conception of the open society might like a paper by Veatch available from Mises.org (it's a pdf). I only skimmed it so far, but get the sense that Veatch doesn't distinguish sharply enough between Plato's "forms" (including a form or essence of human nature) and human nature as such, recognition of which doesn't require any Platonist framework. So there may be a certain false dichotomy operative. But Veatch seems to get the better of Popper.

http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=search&q=Popper

I just downloaded. It could be a good read. On the principle of follow the money, Soros deserved to have his Popper popped, and soon.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now