Donovan A. Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I recently purchased Leonard Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism Course from ARI. There should be 12 lectures but there are only 11 provided. At the end of Lecture 10 (Disc 2), there is a statement: "Dr. Peikoff has requested that lecture 11 be withdrawn from this program. Therefore, this course proceeds directly to the final lecture at this point." The next CD in the case is labeled Lecture 11, but obviously it is not. Lecture 11 on the back of my case is labeled: Judging Intellectual Honesty. I would like to hear the deleted lecture (#11). From what I understand this lecture series was given in 1983. Does anyone have a copy of this deleted lecture? If you do, could you please contact me. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donovan A. Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 I have also read this: http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writin...ingPeikoff.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Was the course you purchased advertised as a twelve part lecture? Or perhaps a new and improved 11 part lecture? Is this not fraudulent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfonso Jones Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) QUOTE WAS DELETED FROM HEREIt's described online at the Ayn Rand Bookstore (correctly) as a 22 CD course. The current pdf catalog is consistent with this, and lists is as an 11 lecture course, offering titles for the lectures and brief descriptions (see page 5 of the catalog).Bill P (Edited by deleting quote of original material, at request of orignal poster who has withdrawn and deleted that portion of their original post.) Edited January 14, 2009 by Bill P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 And another memory gets dropped down the Qua hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Peikoff memory-holing Peikoff sounds like something on a list of ten signs the world is ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfonso Jones Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 And another memory gets dropped down the Qua hole.I think that this is one of the drawbacks of the still largely oral tradition of Objectivism. Peikoff and many others just haven't been prolific writers (there's a grand understatement!). The result - it's hard to reference things - - - you end up talking about lecture numbers or CD numbers, etc... Bill P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfonso Jones Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Peikoff memory-holing Peikoff sounds like something on a list of ten signs the world is ending.The lack of respect for history is distressing. Why not admit that one's thinking has changed, and explain why? That would be much better.Bill P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Note that the quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria - how apt!) has two 'qua holes' - the incurrent and the excurrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Bill:"...still largely oral tradition of Objectivism..." - thank you, I guess having been part of it, I never really perceived the movement from that lens. ThanksAdam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Why not admit that one's thinking has changed, and explain why?Bill,You can do that if you are God.You can do that if you are a scientist.You cannot do that if you are a morally perfect human being or a mathematician. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Why not admit that one's thinking has changed, and explain why?Bill,You can do that if you are God.You can do that if you are a scientist.You cannot do that if you are a morally perfect human being or a mathematician. MichaelAndrew Wiles first attempted proof of FLT (Fermat's Last Theorem) was defective so he changed his thinking and developed a correct proof.Mathematicians know when they are wrong. Philosophers and sociologists generally don't.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donovan A. Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) Post Withdrawn. Edited January 10, 2009 by Donovan A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Why not admit that one's thinking has changed, and explain why?Bill,You can do that if you are God.You can do that if you are a scientist.You cannot do that if you are a morally perfect human being or a mathematician. MichaelAndrew Wiles first attempted proof of FLT (Fermat's Last Theorem) was defective so he changed his thinking and developed a correct proof.Mathematicians know when they are wrong. Philosophers and sociologists generally don't.Ba'al ChatzafConsidering what had to go into that correct proof in terms of sheer work, is it reasonable to question Fermat's honesty when he claimed he had a proof but no time to write it down? If he actually did, doesn't that imply he had an easier one than the finally done one? I suspect he had no proof but wanted to goad mathematicians to seek one out. If they found one or not his reputation would be enhanced either way. It was. I suspect, but of course don't know anything.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Donovan,We joke to keep from crying.The situation really is as petty as it looks. (Actually, after you study this more, you will see that it is worse.)That's why Objectivist offshoots exist. They don't belong to the fundamentalist tribe and they can't take the hypocrisy.Incredibly, several Objectivist offshoots repeat the same errors, even as they bash ARI. I have been working on why this is.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Folks:Adlai Stevenson - an honest liberal - wrong all the time, but honest stated:"Someone asked me... how I felt and I was reminded of a story that a fellow townsman of ours used to tell - Abraham Lincoln. They asked him how he felt once after an unsuccessful election. He said he felt like a little boy who has stubbed his toe in the dark. He said that he was too old to cry, but it hurt too much to laugh."Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 We joke to keep from crying.That's not me in that "we."--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 We joke to keep from crying.That's not me in that "we."But it does include me. I do hope you find your text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Related info:http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writin...ingPeikoff.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donovan A. Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 Related info:http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writin...ingPeikoff.htmlThanks Mikee, I already posted that link though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 We joke to keep from crying.That's not me in that "we."--BrantBrant.Editorial "we."But you have a standing invitation.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 We joke to keep from crying.That's not me in that "we."--BrantBrant.Editorial "we."But you have a standing invitation.You have a crying club?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfonso Jones Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Why not admit that one's thinking has changed, and explain why?Bill,You can do that if you are God.You can do that if you are a scientist.You cannot do that if you are a morally perfect human being or a mathematician. MichaelMichael - Actually, mathematicians do it. Check any major mathematical research journal and look in the errata and corrections section at the back.Bill P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfonso Jones Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) (MATERIAL QUOTED EARLIER DELETED AT REQUEST OF PERSON BEING QUOTED)Donovan - It does say something about the "Closed System" viewpoint, in which certain annointed ones speak ex cathedra.Bill P Edited January 14, 2009 by Bill P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 You have a crying club?Brant,I am not at liberty to say what goes on behind closed doors.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now