Robert Campbell Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 Does he mention Heraclitus? Is there an index? Is there a reason Disintegration could only have begun after the enlightenment?ND,The book has an index. Actually, a pretty good one.Heraclitus, so far as I can determine, is mentioned just once (on p. 196), as part of the historical background to Greek physics.I can sort of see Peikoff starting the D clock with empiricist responses to the advent of modern science. But then David Hume should be a definite D1, if not a D2.Such a late arrival for the Ds is a source of puzzlement...Robert CampbellNote added September 11: The index was compiled by Tore Boeckmann. I've been rough on Boeckmann in the past, but his index is good and thorough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 My copy hasn't come yet. I get the explanation so far he's trying to explain what is what and why, not coming with better thinking going forward. Am I wrong?--Brantis DIM an attempt to get up to Rand-speed or could Rand have used this stuff or both?is LP having a problem with essentialization?bitter medicine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 Brant,Although Peikoff would not want to see his project identified this way, he seems to be trying to extend the old Attila vs. Witch Doctor model.Attila-ism = DisintegrationGenuine rationality = IntegrationWitchdoctory = MisintegrationHowever, Kant's position has been shifted in the classification, and new examples or case studies (e.g., Stoic physics, Newtonian physics) have been added.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Although Peikoff would not want to see his project identified this way, he seems to be trying to extend the old Attila vs. Witch Doctor model.Attila-ism = DisintegrationGenuine rationality = IntegrationWitchdoctory = MisintegrationRobert,I like it.It's good to see Nathaniel Branden at the root of DIM. A precursor, in fact.(Just feelin' wicked... )Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Unh, that was Ayn, Michael. No?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Unh, that was Ayn, Michael. No?--BrantShe credited Attila and Witchdoctor to NB. It's in FTNI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 Which is why you won't find Leonard Peikoff using either of those terms in his new book.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Unh, that was Ayn, Michael. No?--BrantShe credited Attila and Witchdoctor to NB. It's in FTNI.Thx. I suspected it but my copy of the book is in storage.LP owes his career more to NB than AR even. No NBI--?It's not that he couldn't have been successful, but it would have been in many different possible ways--Brantand no break in '68?if the Blumenthals hadn't split?what he needed to do was under Hook, not Rand; under Hook he could have been his own man, philosopher and all and achieved respectable academic employment in the mid-60sNB was so crazy brilliant he needed to be under Rand just to Gestalt through it all--then he was trapped but got busted out through his own humanity and nefaridity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 He wouldn't have met AR in the first place. He'd probably be a retired M.D. living in Winnipeg, unknowingly uttering paraphrases from Babbitt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Unh, that was Ayn, Michael. No?I wasn't going to say anything, but, hell, I'm a former addict. The temptation is killing me..I'll just leave it at this: I remember when Brant was a bad-ass...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Unh, that was Ayn, Michael. No?I wasn't going to say anything, but, hell, I'm a former addict. The temptation is killing me.. I'll just leave it at this: I remember when Brant was a bad-ass... MichaelMoi?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 ND,I spotted another allusion to Heraclitus, in the notes to Chapter 7 on Education:In his collectivist aspect, Dewey may be said to endorse a One of sorts, a Heraclitean One, so to speak: a flux of peer groups that absorb the individual. (p. 355, n. 105)Well before this point, The DIM Hypothesis has presented Dewey's ideas as a follow-on to Kant's.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I just got the Kindle sample, but I'm not feeling drawn to it. I'll give it a try before long. I mention Heraclitus because he seems like the earliest representative of disintegration, though I suppose we really don't have enough of his material to know his system. I referenced him in my Cato/Peikoff/Libertarianism video, like a motif representing change, then when I had to name my new YouTube channel, I had Heraclitus on the brain you might say. Hence, I'm HeraclitusPantaRei. Could be worse, I could have picked KantsDeontologicalEthics or HegelsTriad. Damn, the last one looks cool, like the perfect name for a thrash metal group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 ND,I suppose we'll be finding out soon enough, with John Allison saying one thing to the audience at OCON and quite another to the top people at Cato, just how many things are in flux.In the Western tradition, Heraclitus does seem like the earliest known representative of what Peikoff is calling disintegration.Peikoff gave the opposition between Heraclitus and Parmenides a fair amount of attention in his early 1970s lectures on the history of philosophy from Thales to Hume.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I suppose we'll be finding out soon enough, with John Allison saying one thing to the audience at OCON and quite another to the top people at Cato, just how many things are in flux.The most recent statement was the one to Cato, so it ought to get the most weight. If Andrew Bernstein said something like that he'd have to do the sackcloth and ashes routine again, to get back in good graces. I can't visualize Allison performing that ritual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 I don't somehow see the retired CEO of a large bank repenting in sackcloth and ashes.We'll just have to stay tuned...Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 A key passage:The concepts of valid and invalid integration are epistemological. not evaluative; the difference between the two lies in the method of the integrator, not in the value of the product he creates. In most cases, to continue our example, Galileo's method does lead to truth, while Nostradamus's does not. But such a correlation is not invariable. A mystic can stumble into what others know to be a truth, and a scientist into an error. The lucky mystic, however, has still integrated invalidly, while the unfortunate scientist, though mistaken, has integrated validly.An example of the latter can be found in the work of Kepler. Integrating facts he had observed with empirical knowledge earlier established by Gilbert and Brahe, he came to a false conclusion about the nature of the force exerted by the sun on the planets. His method of thought was rational, though its result was mistaken. His integration, therefore, was valid. Since fallibility is a human attribute, no norm, such as rationality—and no cognitive process, such as integration—can be defined in such a way as require infallibility. Error as such is not a breach of reason nor of any principle of cognition, unless it is error reached by a rejection of reason or of such principles. (p. 19)Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 A key passage:The concepts of valid and invalid integration are epistemological. not evaluative; the difference between the two lies in the method of the integrator, not in the value of the product he creates. In most cases, to continue our example, Galileo's method does lead to truth, while Nostradamus's does not. But such a correlation is not invariable. A mystic can stumble into what others know to be a truth, and a scientist into an error. The lucky mystic, however, has still integrated invalidly, while the unfortunate scientist, though mistaken, has integrated validly.An example of the latter can be found in the work of Kepler. Integrating facts he had observed with empirical knowledge earlier established by Gilbert and Brahe, he came to a false conclusion about the nature of the force exerted by the sun on the planets. His method of thought was rational, though its result was mistaken. His integration, therefore, was valid. Since fallibility is a human attribute, no norm, such as rationality—and no cognitive process, such as integration—can be defined in such a way as require infallibility. Error as such is not a breach of reason nor of any principle of cognition, unless it is error reached by a rejection of reason or of such principles. (p. 19)Robert CampbellRobert:A question that unfortunately needs to be asked: based upon your reading, does it look like LP knows what he's talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Thanks for asking that PDS. Having already urged Robert to read faster, I did not want to nag him.I will claim the Regular's Privilege of quoting myself and repeat that by outline this looks like a sequel -"Why the Parallels are Really, Really Ominous." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 See also p. 101, where Peikoff repeats an old swipe: "it will come as no surprise that the father of Modernist art is generally recognized to be Kant through the Critique of Judgment, his treatise on art." But no more than half of the Critique of Judgment is about art, and Kant's actual aesthetic theory, in "The Analytic of the Beautiful," has nothing to do with Modernism. No need to refine, correct, or improve anything.Does Peikoff offer anything to support his opinions?The claim that Kant is "generally recognized" to be the father of Modernist art is laughable. In fact, I think that no one other than Rand, Peikoff and few of her other followers believe that to be true.Does Peikoff give any quotes from the Critique of Judgment, or any specific analysis of what he takes to be Kant's views, or are his accusations as vague and meaningless as Rand's?J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 Jonathan,Peikoff doesn't quote from the Critique of Judgment. Since he's made no use of it in any of his other writing, I have to wonder whether he's read it. He seems to be reprising Rand's old accusation.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 based upon your reading, does it look like LP knows what he's talking about?Sometimes.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 The claim that Kant is "generally recognized" to be the father of Modernist art is laughable. In fact, I think that no one other than Rand, Peikoff and few of her other followers believe that to be true.Somehow this quote seems relevant:How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read.Karl KrausWith a little tweaking it’s adaptable to the situation at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 based upon your reading, does it look like LP knows what he's talking about?Sometimes.Robert CampbellNot a good sign. I'm glad he is not my brain surgeon, then. Or my cable guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted September 14, 2012 Author Share Posted September 14, 2012 Returning to the passage I quoted above, from page 19 of The DIM Hypothesis, I see Peikoff contending with some fundamental difficulties.The book appears to presuppose the truth of epistemological theories previously presented in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, such as validationism (the theory of truth as the product of a valid cognitive process), contextual certainty, and the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion.Yet none of these views is explicitly presented anywhere in The DIM Hypothesis. For instance, the word "arbitrary" appears regularly, and such epithets as "floating" and "detached from reality" duly make their appearance, but nowhere does Peikoff say (in this book) that what is asserted arbitrarily is neither true nor false.Meanwhile, Peikoff seems to be trying to avoid the conclusion that any proposition that results from disintegrated or misintegrated thinking must either be false or arbitrary (and, in the latter case, lacking a truth value). He seems to be trying avoid concluding that whatever results from properly integrated thinking must therefore be true.A mystic can stumble into what others know to be a truth, and a scientist into an error. The lucky mystic, however, has still integrated invalidly, while the unfortunate scientist, though mistaken, has integrated validly.Note the qualification: "what others know." Peikoff won't grant, in this passage, that misintegrated thinking can ever produce a true conclusion—because when a misintegrated thinker asserts such a conclusion, it will be arbitrary. Another thinker, who is more inclined toward proper integration, may be able to assert the very same conclusion truly. For Peikoff, arbitrariness is a function, not merely of the content of the assertion, but of the person who made it.An example of the latter can be found in the work of Kepler. Integrating facts he had observed with empirical knowledge earlier established by Gilbert and Brahe, he came to a false conclusion about the nature of the force exerted by the sun on the planets. His method of thought was rational, though its result was mistaken. His integration, therefore, was valid.But if Kepler's integration was valid, how from Peikoff's point of view, can his conclusion not have been valid? And, how, in turn, could it not have been true? (Peikoff goes on to say that Kepler was able to come up with the correct conclusion a little later on. But wasn't Kepler entitled to contextual certainty that his previous conclusion was true? At least until he came up with his new, improved conclusion.)Here validationism is rubbing up against the correspondence theory of truth, with rope burns likely to ensue. But in The DIM Hypothesis, Peikoff is not stating his underlying validationism—nor is he actually stating most of the other distinctive features of Peikovian epistemology. Instead, he works from a very quick net-out of Ayn Rand's theory of concepts and an even quicker net-out of Peikovian proof (pp. 7-10).More in a little while about the Peikovian proof part...Robert Campbell 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