Understanding Objectivism Deleted Lecture


Donovan A.

Recommended Posts

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 Peikoff has requested that lecture 11 be withdrawn from this program.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

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE WAS DELETED FROM HERE

It'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(Edited by deleting quote of original material, at request of orignal poster who has withdrawn and deleted that portion of their original post.)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 by Bill P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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.

Thanks

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Andrew 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

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

Andrew 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

Considering 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

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

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

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

Michael -

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

(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 by Bill P
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