Jennifer Burns a bridge or two


9thdoctor

Recommended Posts

MSK, my take is this: if an assertion is 'arbitrary' one can (pretend that/assert that) it carries no meaning ... it is the third class of statements; not true, not not true, not not even wrong, but ... empty of cognitive import or value.

So a charity refutation is a refutation that is not necessary in any way, but a refutation that 'gives' back to the refuter something for the 'sacrifice' of refuting.

Robert Campbell is the expert and has written a long piece on SOLO. I have that link somewhere, but if you need to check my premises ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dr. Diana Hsieh may not have published in any academic journals, but she's up there with Aristotle and Aquinas.

In this segment, I answered a question on recommended works of Aristotle.

What works of Aristotle do you recommend reading? As a layperson interested in philosophy, I’d like to educate myself on the philosophy of Aristotle. I’m particularly interested in developing a better understanding of epistemology and metaphysics. What works should I read, and where should I start? Do you recommend any secondary sources?

My Answer, In Brief: Aristotle is difficult but rewarding reading. Choose your readings based on your interests, and be very selective about any secondary sources.

Listen or Download:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WSS,

Right—a charity refutation is an unnecessary, unwarranted, and unmerited refutation of an arbitrary assertion. Not of a false assertion—"the arbitrary" is neither true nor false.

But the assertion has to be redeemed first (restored to a "cognitive context"). Otherwise, it would remain unintelligible and would induce Peikovian paralysis, rendering any refutation impossible.

From Peikoff's point of view, one simultaneously can't refute an arbitrary assertion, needn't refute an arbitrary assertion, and mustn't refute an arbitrary assertion.

A charity refutation is something one needn't do.

But one also can't do it, and mustn't do it.

The utility of the idea is unclear, to say the least.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Diana Hsieh may not have published in any academic journals, but she's up there with Aristotle and Aquinas.

In this segment, I answered a question on recommended works of Aristotle.

What works of Aristotle do you recommend reading? As a layperson interested in philosophy, Id like to educate myself on the philosophy of Aristotle. Im particularly interested in developing a better understanding of epistemology and metaphysics. What works should I read, and where should I start? Do you recommend any secondary sources?

My Answer, In Brief: Aristotle is difficult but rewarding reading. Choose your readings based on your interests, and be very selective about any secondary sources.

Listen or Download:

Not a fair observation, Neil. She's only teaching what's been taught by reference to that other teacher.

--Brant

or, she's not actually teaching, just helping along

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we are all in the midst of understanding one 'cognitive error/bias' at near the same time, it is like dawn, it comes on slowly, but the bells do ring in and the birds begin furious chatter and the Idea becomes suddenly sharper, brighter and clear.

The epigrams below are roughly equally correct -- yours, MSK. . . yours to Wooster sharpness, Nth, Robert's stiffly whipped danger:fool icing so smooth so deadly, Reidy's clarity pointer on the mechanics of the fraud, Brant's awry aside on fecklessness, and then congress, coalition, hi-beams. a brief glimpse to a heart of things.
Said he poetic-ishly


I'd venture it's these "Little things" like snide charity refutations that reveal the blemishes of the ARian junta: AND what fun when such zingers as these come to the surface with such fizz and sparkle ...

woo

[to think that That Man considers this a swamp and that Meine Dame Doktora slinks about here anonymously. Philosophy Inaction, Magic Perfect Caveman, and gurglings as that man goes slowly farther down the drain.]

  • What does "Charity Refutation" mean, especially in ARI-speak? Is it anything related to the principle of charity?
  • I had wondered where Dr Mrs Doctor Diana ("did I mention I have a doctorate?") Hsieh came up with that term Charity Refutation. She uses it like a small cudgel
  • As with so many of her contacts since she converted to ARIanism, her direct source has not been named.
  • Charity Refutation means doing somebody the favor of talking him out of fallacious beliefs that don't really deserve the explainer's attentions
  • A Charity Refutation is a refutation that is not necessary in any way, but a refutation that 'gives' back to the refuter something for the 'sacrifice' of refuting.
  • Facebook fed her an ad from Prince Institute Stenography School, a profession which Comrade Sonia says is outside of her range of interests
  • Hsieh only has herself to blame. The unfolding of the "Dear Abby of philosophy" schtick counts as information to Facebook.
  • Charity Refutation means that a view is so plainly false it doesn’t even rise to the level of being worthy of discussion. In fact, oftentimes, one sanctions evul by debating it. Think religion, libertarianism, Kant, or TheBrandens™.
  • From Peikoff's point of view, one simultaneously can't refute an arbitrary assertion, needn't refute an arbitrary assertion, and mustn't refute an arbitrary assertion.
  • A Charity Refutation is an unnecessary, unwarranted, and unmerited refutation of an arbitrary assertion. Not of a false assertion—"the arbitrary" is neither true nor false.
  • Offering a good faith noob some level of explanation: this is [also] a Charity Refutation.
  • A Charity Refutation is something one needn't do.
  • But one also can't do it, and mustn't do it.
  • The utility of the idea is unclear

May you all have further gnosis on this and other sulfurous mysteries of ARiana.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe "charity refutation" is a Binswanger coinage.

If so, did Binswanger coin it during Rand's lifetime—and did she ever use it herself?

Robert Campbell

I don't remember ever hearing the term used in conversation by Objectivists I knew. Seems likely that if Rand used it -- or at least if she used it with any frequency -- it would have been picked up while she was still alive.

If you're in touch with Robert Bidinotto, you might want to ask him if he recalls hearing it back when. He was around Binswanger and those folks more often than I was.

I've been thinking, however, that even if Rand never used the term, she provided a kind of prototype for the technique in her Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness.

I'm interpreting the meaning of "charity refutation" the way Ninth does in post #100: "It means that a view is so plainly false it doesn’t even rise to the level of being worthy of discussion. In fact, oftentimes, one sanctions evul by debating it. Think religion, libertarianism, Kant, or TheBrandens™. Sometimes, however, one may provide a good faith noob some level of explanation: this is a charity refutation."

Here's how Rand starts the Intro to VOS:

The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: "Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?"

To those who ask it, my answer is: "For the reason that makes you afraid of it."

But there are others, who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, yet who are unable to formalize my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved. It is to them that I will give a more explicit answer.

I've always thought that that beginning was really poor, with the opening intimidatory technique -- the implication that anyone who would ask what seems to me the perfectly reasonable question she posits is asking from moral cowardice.

And then she goes on and makes a gaffe about there being such a thing as a correct meaning of a word, along with citing an unidentified dictionary which people -- for instance George Walsh -- tried and failed to find.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know Rand, unlike Wittgenstein, did not leave any important unpublished philosophical writings when she died

A few phrases have emerged"little stuff" for the ultimate constituents of the universe, "charity refutation"

The term "little stuff" I do remember hearing -- plenty of times -- while Rand was alive. Larry and I and others used to talk about her "little stuff" theory.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know Rand, unlike Wittgenstein, did not leave any important unpublished philosophical writings when she died

A few phrases have emerged"little stuff" for the ultimate constituents of the universe, "charity refutation"
The term "little stuff" I do remember hearing -- plenty of times -- while Rand was alive. Larry and I and others used to talk about her "little stuff" theory.

Ellen

Big stuff from "little stuff"? "The Little Street"? Any irony going on?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big stuff from "little stuff"? "The Little Street"? Any irony going on?

--Brant

No. "Little stuff" was her term for something(s) occupying so-called vacuum. Basically, she was objecting to the idea that there could be a literal Void, a somewhere where there's nothing.

(I agree that the idea of a literal Void is nonsensical. As I put it in conversation with a friend, "If there's nothing there, there's no there there.")

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big stuff from "little stuff"? "The Little Street"? Any irony going on?

--Brant

No. "Little stuff" was her term for something(s) occupying so-called vacuum. Basically, she was objecting to the idea that there could be a literal Void, a somewhere where there's nothing.

(I agree that the idea of a literal Void is nonsensical. As I put it in conversation with a friend, "If there's nothing there, there's no there there.")

Ellen

An expanding universe expands into nothing, as far as we know, maybe can/could know, hence creates its own space--or, there is no void for there is always something somewhere, it's only a matter of density and what.

--Brant

"nothing" is where you find infinity--in your head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know Rand, unlike Wittgenstein, did not leave any important unpublished philosophical writings when she died.

Didn't Rand say once that she was working on a book on metaphysics? No notes or drafts of this were made?

-Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard or read several times that she had a book in the works on epistemology. One, as memory serves, was in the intro to ITOE, where she says this is a preview of the longer book. If shed left anything publishable Peikoff would have seen it into print by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know Rand, unlike Wittgenstein, did not leave any important unpublished philosophical writings when she died

A few phrases have emerged"little stuff" for the ultimate constituents of the universe, "charity refutation"

The term "little stuff" I do remember hearing -- plenty of times -- while Rand was alive. Larry and I and others used to talk about her "little stuff" theory.

Big stuff from "little stuff"?

"The Little Street"? Any irony going on?

I would settle for a pratfall. But in the meantime, behold, a new addition to my Soundcloud, a robotic voice intoning Robert Campell's ... well, it starts like this:

Is This What They Teach at the Ayn Rand Institute?

picture-322.jpg

April 6, 2006 / SoLOPassion.com:

Since Diana Hsieh is remarkably quick to impugn the scholarship of her "detractors," I thought it might be worthwhile to go through one of her own recent public statements about Objectivist scholarship, to see what standards it actually meets.

...

https://soundcloud.com/bill-scherk/is-this-what-they-teach

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard or read several times that she had a book in the works on epistemology. One, as memory serves, was in the intro to ITOE, where she says this is a preview of the longer book. If shed left anything publishable Peikoff would have seen it into print by now.

There was talk of a treatise on Objectivism that would focus on the epistemology.

But whenever Rand was asked about it at the Ford Hall Forum, she said she could at best hope to get to it in the future. Such notes for it as were published in Journals of Ayn Rand are as skimpy as the notes for her never-written final novel.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't finish Burns' article.


The tone just DRIPPED with disdain. That, plus I think characterizing Rand as "right wing" is fallacious unless by "right wing" you mean "anyone and anything disliked by the Democratic party."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tone just DRIPPED with disdain.

It makes you wonder who is the real Jennifer Burns -- the pleasant, scholarly professional whom we saw during the book tour, or the condescending, high-maintenance-nothing's-good-enough-for-me popstar diva wannabe who wrote the article.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

WSS,

https://soundcloud.com/bill-scherk/is-this-what-they-teach

I greatly appreciate the sonic tribute.

I only wish the robot could be taught to say PEA-COUGH, instead of PIE-COUGH :smile:

Robert Campbell

The robot and I are going to have A Talk. Thanks for not mentioning the other infelicities of the robot. It is a great article, with a lot of bite.

Link to comment
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