Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/14/2009 in all areas

  1. Part 2. I was exhilarated. I knew I had solved the problem and developed a complete theory. I had shown the seamless connection between induction and deduction working in tandem across a human's lifetime. I had addressed "subtopics" such as hypothesis formation. I had offered leads to how to APPLY my theory. And build logic books on it... I would get acclaim (at least within Objectivist circles). Maybe I would go on to work in the allied fields of philosophy and psychology. (More the latter.) Peikoff would introduce me to Miss Rand. People would build on what I had done. But none of that happened. Peikoff gave me an "A" on the quite lengthy paper. ertainly an attempt to address and integrate every issue and problem related to induction. But he said he didn't completely understand it. I had invented my own terminology and new concepts: primary exhaustive generalization, metaphysical primary exhaustive generalization. I came in for a half hour conference during his office hours and explained those concepts and answered every tough question he threw at me. He nodded his head. . . . Dead end for me. No further exploration by the man I most respected and the best teacher I had ever had. Crushing depression. It wouldn't have been so bad if he had found a flaw or an omission. If he had asked me to rewrite it to make it clearer, I would have gladly spent another summer. He did start to invite me to his private seminars, but certainly not to meet Rand or become one of the 'englightened' non-rifraff. He praised my contributions on occasion. But the promising students, the 'young studs' --year after year, and forever-- were always the philosophy majors, those with degrees in that area or pursuing or having Ph.d's. In those New York years, I had even originated another important idea - in the philosophy of law, this time - which had been praised by Peikoff (and cc'ed to Binswanger.) But years later I found it circulating in the "Objectivist ether" with my name forgotten, credit to me not given, but with the exact title I had given it still attached. So, angry at the carelessness but not concluding any unethical intent, I simply decided not to offer any more major original insights. Unless they were in print. Maybe a paper in "The Objectivist Forum" or the equivalent. After David Kelley started his own movement and seemed to welcome "fresh blood", I thought maybe "credentialitis" was less important. Kelley had been sitting in the same room on Peikoff's small apartment in those private seminars along with me, Binswanger, and others year after year. He presumably had some idea what I could do. I didn't know him at all, but he'd heard me ask lots of very good questions, knew that I was bright and quite knowledgeable. So I dusted myself off, decided to again offer some of my intellectual contributions...
    1 point
  2. > good old fashioned Southern tough love...smacked a butt with it, the blisters would welt up...it took a month [MSK] And I'll keep giving you a no-nonsense Northern stomping whenever you make a post like your original snarky one to me. I'll stick an even tougher New York City boy's boot so far up your hillbilly ass that you'll taste shoe leather. The only other cheek that will be turned will be yours. I'll keep up your butt-kicking until you beg for mercy and say "I'm SORRY Phil, I realize I was psychologizing about your motives. And I was projecting: I'm the one who has the Public Image of an immature, whining, passive aggressive! I'm SO sorry!" Should take about six years. Or your lifetime. (Jonathan, you're next. Bend over.) ,,,, [ Staying with the butt or ass theme - which seems to be your intellectual level.]
    1 point