The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out


Robert Campbell

Recommended Posts

If he has not written his book to attract a wider audience than already converted ARIans, other than a brief furry of interest from others either in, or flirting with, the Randian orbit (i.e., libertarians), it will suffer the fate of The Ominous Parallels, sinking into obscurity. Too bad, especially if his major thesis is worth consideration by others not Randian/Peikovian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jerry,

I doubt The DIM Hypothesis is going to attract a wider audience than The Ominous Parallels did.

Robert Campbell

Less, but I think LP is going to buy half the printing and deposit copies in various caves around and about the world.

--Brant

along with the ARI card insert

the Rand coat-tails are threadbare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt The DIM Hypothesis is going to attract a wider audience than The Ominous Parallels did.

What he needs to do is make it part of the "Ayn Rand Library"! My copy of OP has Rand's name twice on the cover, Peikoff's only once. Rand's name is in a bigger font than Peikoff's, then it's there again in a smaller font to convey to the unconvinced: "Introduction by Ayn Rand".

41F718yJg6L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click-small,TopRight,12,-30_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really hoping for a review by David Gordon, author of the classic takedown The butcher of Königsberg. But meanwhile, I see Fred Seddon is getting to work on it:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9363

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9364

What I really want to know is: will I learn anything from this book, beyond what Peikoff's latest distortions of reality, philosophy, and history are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really hoping for a review by David Gordon, author of the classic takedown The butcher of Königsberg. But meanwhile, I see Fred Seddon is getting to work on it:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9363

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9364

What I really want to know is: will I learn anything from this book, beyond what Peikoff's latest distortions of reality, philosophy, and history are?

YES! You'll learn so much your brain will swell with the swell's swell crashing on the shores of your ignorance heartily beating back a lifetime of intellectual deprivation!

--Brant

can't wait to read it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really hoping for a review by David Gordon, author of the classic takedown The butcher of Königsberg. But meanwhile, I see Fred Seddon is getting to work on it:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9363

http://www.solopassion.com/node/9364

What I really want to know is: will I learn anything from this book, beyond what Peikoff's latest distortions of reality, philosophy, and history are?

Two comments:

1) Having attended some lectures by Fred Seddon at some past Atlas Society Summer seminars, I found his lectures and follow-up discussions to be intellectually stimulating. He is a very good lecturer and shows respect for those who questioned some of his points, going on to discuss the subject further. Overall, a pleasure.

So,...why is he posting on solopassion? There is a world of difference between his level of discussion and those of others (in paricular, Linsay whatshisname).

So what is the attraction of that forum for him?

Oh, well.

2) David Gordon: Last summer I attended an online course from the Mises Institute on Objectivism. David Gordon was the instructor. He stated at the outset that he was not an Objectivist, but rather a "Rothbardian," but he would try to separate his criticism and present Rand's philosophy "objectively." For the most part, he did so.

I cannot comment on the whole course, because I missed the last half due to several hospitalizations.

ANYWAY, back to David Gordon and some comments that he made regarding his above-referenced book review on The Omnious Parrallels. He stated that although he was originally quite dismissive of the book, over the years he has gained a much higher respect for the book and for Peikoff's thesis.

I was somewhat startled by that admission, and asked in the Q&A what it was that he had changed his mind on. This is somewhat anti-climactic, but I don't recall his response (which was brief). But now that the subject has come up, I will try to dig up my notes and/or the past lectures which I think have been archived online. Failing that, I will try to contact Dr. Gordon directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I see the name David Gordon I wonder if he's related to Doris Gordon of the anti-abortion "Objectivists for Life," who seems to have disappeared over a decade ago.

The main problem with The Ominous Parallels is the off-putting, imitating Rand writing style, making it hard to focus on the ideas. The book also begs the question Nathaniel Branden once asked about it: What if Hitler had been run over and killed by a cart when a kid?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I see the name David Gordon I wonder if he's related to Doris Gordon of the anti-abortion "Objectivists for Life," who seems to have disappeared over a decade ago.

The main problem with The Ominous Parallels is the off-putting, imitating Rand writing style, making it hard to focus on the ideas. The book also begs the question Nathaniel Branden once asked about it: What if Hitler had been run over and killed by a cart when a kid?

--Brant

I don't know about whether David Gorden is related to Doris.

The Ominous Parallels sounds like Rand because (as mentioned in the three Rand bios) she reportedly made him write it over and over again. For years.

re: Not sure if I get the relevance of the Hitler-dying-as-a-youth. Sure, he was a charismatic figure that brought the National Socialist Party to prominence, but it did exist before he arrived on the scene. Without Hitler would the NSDAP still risen to supremacy? Unanswerable question.

However, Mussolini and Fascism pre-dated Hitler and had most of the elements that Hitler used in Naziism. Where that would have gone without a Nazi Germany is also unanswerable.

I'm not a historian, but I don't think that anyone outside the Randian influence buys the argument that Kant's philosophy can be blamed for the rise of Naziism. (except, maybe David Gordon??) But, as I said, I have to get more clarification on exactly how much of Peikoff;s argument that he now accepts.) Hegel, however, is a different matter, and many have claimed that much of Hegel would be consonant with Naziism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

Like Jerry, I've enjoyed Fred Seddon's talks, when I've had a chance to attend one.

I also wonder why Fred is posting at SOLOP.

His modus operandi has often resembled Stephen Boydstun's. He posts when he feels like it, draws few comments, and serenely ignores everything else that goes on.

Eventually he will attract adverse attention from Mr. Perigo.

In the meantime, he can't be getting any readers.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I really want to know is: will I learn anything from this book, beyond what Peikoff's latest distortions of reality, philosophy, and history are?

ND,

I'm up to page 212 of a book that runs to 347, not counting endnotes. I genuinely can't say what its likely overall value is till I've read the whole thing. At some point beyond my current reading, Peikoff appears to be presenting a law or set of laws by which "modes" of integration evolve within a culture; he also appears to be making a revised version of his despairing forecast of an M2 Christian theocracy in the United States.

So I don't know what its interest will be to non-collectors of Peikoviana and non-trackers of ARI Kremlinology.

But it's clear to me that Peikoff's manner of exposition, which builds heavily on Objectivist epistemology (I've already commented on some of this) and aesthetics (not so much just yet), but devotes very little space to describing or defending either, can't make his book appealing to non-Randians.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he needs to do is make it part of the "Ayn Rand Library"!

Maybe he will.

But there's no introduction by Ayn Rand to hawk on the cover.

Would Peikoff summon her back from the beyond, if he thought such things could be done?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he needs to do is make it part of the "Ayn Rand Library"!

Maybe he will.

But there's no introduction by Ayn Rand to hawk on the cover.

Would Peikoff summon her back from the beyond, if he though such things could be done?

Robert Campbell

He could have adapted the Intro to the OP.

--Brant

maybe it can still be alluded to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just showed up on YouTube, but there are already comments saying that it's there without permission. The takeaway is that LP was on Amy Peikoff's podcast today, talking DIM, so even if this gets pulled you can still get it easily enough. I haven't listened to it yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YzWBe5xrLk

Here's a link:

http://dontletitgo.com/2012/09/12/this-sunday-an-hour-long-interview-with-leonard-peikoff-part-of-the-intervention-series-5-p-m-pdt-8-p-m-edt/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listening to the man speak, I suspect incipient congestive heart failure or emphysema. Too much breath catching. His brain seems to be working okay. I only listened to a few minutes as the book will soon arrive in my mailbox. I suspect my basic criticism going all the way back to Ayn Rand will be there is too much importance given to philosophy to the exclusion of other disciplines in explaining what we are, where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. Philosophy and psychology especially need to be integrated. They are two legs and the rest of a three-legged human stool, never mind that third leg, which might be a combination of the remainder liberal arts including basic science.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 Kraus

With a little tweaking it's adaptable to the situation at hand.

I think you're probably right on the money. My suspicion is that Rand probably never read Kant's Third Critique, but was misinformed on its contents by someone in her circle who had misread it with as much prejudice and hostility that we've seen Newberry and other O-zealots bring to it. I think it's likely that Peikoff is the one who misinformed Rand, and, reflecting your Kraus quote, he is now going around saying that the erroneous published opinion that he probably caused her to have represents the consensus view. And that just shows how intellectually/culturally isolated he is.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I'm sure Ayn Rand never read the Third Critique.

But I wonder whether Leonard Peikoff ever read it either. Whether you care for his interpretation or not, he obviously read The First Critique, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and Religion within the Limit of Mere Reason—and various of his publications carry detailed citations and quotes.

Has Peikoff ever quoted from the Critique of Judgment?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I'm sure Ayn Rand never read the Third Critique.

But I wonder whether Leonard Peikoff ever read it either. Whether you care for his interpretation or not, he obviously read The First Critique, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and Religion within the Limit of Mere Reason—and various of his publications carry detailed citations and quotes.

Has Peikoff ever quoted from the Critique of Judgment?

Robert Campbell

I don't know of anywhere that Peikoff quotes from the Critique of Judgment. I think his approach is typically Objectivist/Randian -- basically: "Kant was the cause of something that I don't like, and if you need proof that he caused it, then see his writings!"

I seem to recall that Peikoff has claimed that Kant was the father of Romanticism, or at least of the Evul aspects of Romanticism, and that those Evul aspects of Romanticism eventually caused Modernist art (but, of course, they did not have any influence whatsoever over Rand or her passion for Romanticism).

The only times that I've seen Objectivists quote Kant in attempting to blame him for Modernist art, it turns out that they've somehow misinterpreted or misrepresented him as believing the opposite of what he stated, and they've failed to recognize the obvious fact that Rand's art is an example of what they're condemning where Modernist (and Postmodernist) art is not.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Objectivish-types misunderstanding Kant, I love the fact that, in this essay, Michael Newberry attempts to blame and condemn Kant for the destructive mindset behind the 9/11 attacks, but he doesn't realize that in the essay he is confessing that he himself experienced Kantian Sublimity through the attacks!

In the essay, Newberry says, "To witness the obliteration of those glowing, lithe twins was a shock beyond comprehension," and that "after I experienced the shock of the attack, I felt none of those other emotions [anger, sorrow, and sadness]. Instead a quiet calm spread over me and I knew it was a time for cold, calculating, and uncompromising action and thought. A time to expose evil and put it in its place. And a time to stand up proudly and defend the values of civilization against the onslaught of a species of human beings that romanticize destruction."

The exhilarating feeling of wanting to "stand up proudly and defend the values of civilization" against a shockingly, incomprehensibly destructive force is exactly what the experience of Kantain Sublimity is all about! Newberry's "will to resist" was stimulated by the attacks, and he regarded his estate as "exalted above" the threat. In doing so, he did not realize that he was guilty of practicing Kantian Sublimity, that this "affection of the strenuous type" that he was proudly sharing with his readers, and which excited the consciousness of his "power of overcoming every resistance," was the experience that he was trying to condemn!

It just doesn't get any better than that.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

Peikoff did quote The Critique of Pure Reason, on many occasions. Both in his late-1960s essays and in The Ominous Parallels.

He quoted extensively from the Groundwork and Religion within the Limit as well. Not so much from Kant's other writings on morality, which I've taken to mean that he didn't study them.

So when Peikoff made Kant out to be a major epistemological villain, or a major villain in ethics, he would actually quote him.

But not from the Critique of Judgment, when someone in Rand's circle decided to make a Kant an aesthetic villain.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, Robert. My suspicion that Peikoff is the one who led Rand astray on Kant's aesthetics is really just a hunch. It could have been someone else in her circle. I only have "stomach feelings" that it was probably Peikoff.

J

I bet you could find evidence of this! If I were you I would contact James Valliant immediately and get working on the triumphant sequel to PARC: The Final Deception !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, that's interesting! I've never really considered the possibility that TheBrandens™ may have been the ones who polluted Rand's understanding of Kant's aesthetics! They've never seemed to be very interested in the subject, especially from a historical perspective, so I just haven't see them as having a passion for studying and writing about the history of aesthetics. On the rare occasions that I've seen anything they've written on art, it has mostly been to outline and praise Rand's theories and tastes, and not to criticize anyone else's.

Is anyone here aware of TheBrandens™ going off on aesthetic tirades and blaming Kant for Modernist art crimes, especially back in the days when they were closely associated and working with Rand?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offhand, I don't recall any statement by Nathaniel Branden pointing to the Critique of Judgment.

And I believe Jennifer Burns was on the right track when she gave Leonard Peikoff credit for convincing Rand that Immanuel Kant was Historical Bad Guy Numero Uno.

The 1962 answer from Rand where she doesn't come across as well-versed in Kant's moral theory is consistent with that hypothesis. As is her subsequent delegation of prosecutorial duties to Peikoff, in those late-1960s articles and in his book.

Maybe someday we'll get to hear the passages in Rand's oral history interviews where she tells Barbara Branden about Peikoff's role. Or at least see a decent transcript of them.

But I've never seen much of anything out of Peikoff on aesthetics that gives an impression of being his own thinking. So this Kant-as-father-of-modern-art bit keeps bugging me.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I'm sure Ayn Rand never read the Third Critique.

But I wonder whether Leonard Peikoff ever read it either. Whether you care for his interpretation or not, he obviously read The First Critique, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and Religion within the Limit of Mere Reason—and various of his publications carry detailed citations and quotes.

Has Peikoff ever quoted from the Critique of Judgment?

Robert Campbell

I don't know of anywhere that Peikoff quotes from the Critique of Judgment. I think his approach is typically Objectivist/Randian -- basically: "Kant was the cause of something that I don't like, and if you need proof that he caused it, then see his writings!"

I seem to recall that Peikoff has claimed that Kant was the father of Romanticism, or at least of the Evul aspects of Romanticism, and that those Evul aspects of Romanticism eventually caused Modernist art (but, of course, they did not have any influence whatsoever over Rand or her passion for Romanticism).

The only times that I've seen Objectivists quote Kant in attempting to blame him for Modernist art, it turns out that they've somehow misinterpreted or misrepresented him as believing the opposite of what he stated, and they've failed to recognize the obvious fact that Rand's art is an example of what they're condemning where Modernist (and Postmodernist) art is not.

J

I'm pretty sure that as of November 1970 she had never read one book by Kant. That's when I went to the Bronx Community College to hear her speak on some forgotten subject. During the Q n A some guy bluntly asked her if she had ever read a single book through by Kant. Instead of simply saying "Yes" or "No" she rambled for a while essentially avoiding the question. If she had said "Yes" and she hadn't that'd have been a lie. If "No" that would have been an embarassment. No way was she going to out-right lie. I interpreted all that to the conclusion she had never read through any book by him but wasn't going to admit it. Frankly, I doubt if she had read very much of him at all. Why? Because she could have answered "No, but . . ."

--Brant

I have not read Kant

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