New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Ellen Stuttle]

OK, here's some post history:

post #381 on the thread "Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore":

Ellen: "In one of his lecture courses, I think "The Art of Reasoning," he [Leonard] talks about this and says -- and recommends as a method (gasp!!!) -- that he had to learn to suppress his questions [...].

Ellen, I'm stunned by this. Does anyone have -- or can anyone get -- the exact quote?

Barbara

The exact quote is pretty long, since he elaborated on the subject for awhile. The first question is which course it was in, then which lecture. Then if you could manage to get the tape....

Ellen

___

There follow posts in which Bill P unearthed the quote Barbara cited, which he provided in post #386 (leaving out the re-quote of earlier material);

Ellen and Barbara -

I think this is the section being discussed. It is early in the course The Art of Thinking (Disc 1 out of 15):

"You have to go through an interim period, after you know the proof of the right ideas, where you say "I'm not asking those questions, I am not voicing those doubts, I am turning off that whole context even though I want to pursue it. Even though I feel it is essential to my being clear about this issue. I am resisting this feeling – I look at it as neurotic or diseased or at minimum erroneous. In any event it is a part of my thought which is built in but which I am in process of repudiating. Now if you follow that process, ultimately you will automatize, stabilize, institutionalize the right context. And then when you return to the old questions, doubts and problems you will undoubtedly have the experience that I did, because I went through this experience many times – had all these burning questions, but I said I am going to get Objectivism, to hell with all those questions, I just won't ask them, and it was almost like they were "banned in Boston" and they couldn't come up. But then of course I was conscientious, I never forgot what they were, I just didn't think about them. When I finally did get Objectivism solid in my mind, I returned to those old questions you know with a certain degree of trepidation that well, now I am ready to take them on and I found that the great majority seemed puerile to me, pointless, silly, needless."

I hope that helps,

In the second CD, he goes on quite a bit about this. Suppress those things, tell them "die and shrivel up." I'm not inclined to continue to transcribe. If more specific questions arise, let me know and I'll try to provide some further quotes.

Bill P (Alfonso)

___

Edited September 7, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[kiaer.ts]

"You have to go through an interim period, after you know the proof of the right ideas, where you say, 'I'm not asking those questions, I am not voicing those doubts; I am turning off that whole context even though I want to pursue it. Even though I feel it is essential to my being clear about this issue. I am resisting this feeling - I look at it as neurotic or diseased or at minimum erroneous. In any event it is a part if my thought which is built in but which I am in process of repudiating.

"Now if you follow that process, ultimately you will automatize, stabilize, institutionalize the right context. And then when you return to the old questions, doubts and problems, you will undoubtedly have the experience that I did, because I went through this experience many times - had all these burning questions, but I said I am going to get Objectivism, to hell with all those questions, I just won't ask them, and it was almost like they were 'banned in Boston' and they couldn't come up. But then of course I was conscientious, I never forgot what they were, I just didn't think about them. When I finally did get Objectivism solid in my mind, I returned to those old questions you know with a certain degree if trepidation that well, now I am ready to take them on, and I found that the great majority seemed puerile to me pointless, silly, needless."

This is an actual, published statement?

Does anyone have the page number?

Ted -

As Barbara said, it's in Peikoff's course on The Art of Thinking. I have the CDs, and remember that. I'm not saying it is a verbatim quote, but it agrees in meaning with my memory from listening to the CD.

Regards,

Bill P

Bill, can you, or anyone, confirm that it is a verbatim quote?

[merjet]

I had a look at John McCaskey's page http://www.johnmccaskey.com/. It includes some articles/presentations on induction.

.ppsx files are created using PowerPoint 2007. I was able to open a .ppsx file with PowerPoint 2002 by downloading and installing the Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack. Instructions for doing so are here: http://www.tenthofmarch.com/2007/10/26/how-to-open-ppsx-file-in-powerpoint-2003/

[Robert Campbell]

One comment I made down thread was that, if this [Anne Heller's statement about the "intellectual heir" claim] turned out to be true, the first thing to go would be Peikoff's authority to close her system. I have seen nothing to indicate that Heller was mistaken.

Dennis,

If Rand had designated Peikoff as her intellectual heir in her will, a scan of the page so designating him would be out front on Peikoff's website.

It isn't.

So I see no reason to doubt Heller on this issue.

There is a deeper problem, however.

During her lifetime, Rand farmed portions of her epistemology out to Leonard Peikoff.

I am reasonably sure that he is responsible for:

— Much of what she said about Kant (she didn't read Kant, Peikoff did)

— The critique of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy

— The doctrine of contextual certainty

— The doctrine of the arbitrary assertion (actually originated by Nathaniel Branden, but in a much more modest form than Peikoff's rendition)

If no one in Rand-land took his "intellectual heir" proclamations seriously, such latter-day interpretations as the premoral choice to live and latter-day projects as DIM and the Harriman book would no longer be counted as part of Objectivism (despite his protestations, Peikoff obviously wants the DIM book and The Logical Leap to be treated as canonical).

But that would leave the stuff he contributed while Rand was still around, and that she ended up endorsing.

The Peikovian parts of Objectivism tend to be problematic (the problematicity increases, IMHO, as one goes down the list of four).

But even if one were to peel them all away (and not start worrying about Objectivism being even less complete on account of their removal), there would still be problems with what remained (e.g., Rand's tendency to assume that logical notions, such as "premise," are also psychological notions).

Robert Campbell

[Greybird]

The parties in this latest controversy are contending, at root, once again, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, over the theoretical scope of and authoritative voices about "Objectivism."

And that proper name is meant to refer to something that — in any conceptually coherent sense, and apart from its being a term of intellectual history — does not and cannot exist.

What do you have when you cross rhetorical swords over something that does not and cannot exist? You have a religious dispute.

Observations from kibitzers that this is yet another "schism" are exactly on target.

Yes, of course, it's salaciously fascinating, utterly appalling, and infinitely wearying to read about this brouhaha. Yet it has, to me, as much relevance as a behind-the-scenes struggle over who'll be the next archbishop of the Los Angeles diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. Namely, none whatsoever.

The only practical difference is that the religious institution at issue is merely a few dozen miles southeast of the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels — in an office park in Irvine.

[kiaer.ts]

The parties in this latest controversy are contending, at root, once again, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, over the theoretical scope of and authoritative voices about "Objectivism."

And that proper name is meant to refer to something that — in any conceptually coherent sense, and apart from its being a term of intellectual history — does not and cannot exist.

What do you have when you cross rhetorical swords over something that does not and cannot exist? You have a religious dispute.

Observations from kibitzers that this is yet another "schism" are exactly on target.

Yes, of course, it's salaciously fascinating, utterly appalling, and infinitely wearying to read about this brouhaha. Yet it has, to me, as much relevance as a behind-the-scenes struggle over who'll be the next archbishop of the Los Angeles diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. Namely, none whatsoever.

The only practical difference is that the religious institution at issue is merely a few dozen miles southeast of the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels — in an office park in Irvine.

It's only Peikoff who is trying to identify his opinion with "official Objectivsm." McCaskey is not in the role of Luther here, trying to establish his own church. He is more like Galileo, saying eppur si muove, but a bit more forcefully, and willing to face the consequences.

[Robert Campbell]

McCaskey is not in the role of Luther here, trying to establish his own church.

Not so far as we know.

If McCaskey is interested in starting a rival organization (à la The Atlas Society), he's given no indication yet.

In any event, there's no need for one.

Robert Campbell

[kiaer.ts]

McCaskey is not in the role of Luther here, trying to establish his own church.

Not so far as we know.

If McCaskey is interested in starting a rival organization (à la The Atlas Society), he's given no indication yet.

In any event, there's no need for one.

Robert Campbell

Should I interpret your statement as implying that he could be evil?

[George H. Smith]

One comment I made down thread was that, if this [Anne Heller's statement about the "intellectual heir" claim] turned out to be true, the first thing to go would be Peikoff's authority to close her system. I have seen nothing to indicate that Heller was mistaken.

Dennis,

If Rand had designated Peikoff as her intellectual heir in her will, a scan of the page so designating him would be out front on Peikoff's website.

It isn't.

So I see no reason to doubt Heller on this issue.

There is a deeper problem, however.

During her lifetime, Rand farmed portions of her epistemology out to Leonard Peikoff.

I am reasonably sure that he is responsible for:

— Much of what she said about Kant (she didn't read Kant, Peikoff did)

— The critique of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy

— The doctrine of contextual certainty

— The doctrine of the arbitrary assertion (actually originated by Nathaniel Branden, but in a much more modest form than Peikoff's rendition)

If no one in Rand-land took his "intellectual heir" proclamations seriously, such latter-day interpretations as the premoral choice to live and latter-day projects as DIM and the Harriman book would no longer be counted as part of Objectivism (despite his protestations, Peikoff obviously wants the DIM book and The Logical Leap to be treated as canonical).

But that would leave the stuff he contributed while Rand was still around, and that she ended up endorsing.

The Peikovian parts of Objectivism tend to be problematic (the problematicity increases, IMHO, as one goes down the list of four).

But even if one were to peel them all away (and not start worrying about Objectivism being even less complete on account of their removal), there would still be problems with what remained (e.g., Rand's tendency to assume that logical notions, such as "premise," are also psychological notions).

Robert Campbell

How much detailed control did Rand really exercise over (1) articles published in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, and (2) NBI courses?

Back in the 1970s NB told me that Peikoff wrote The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy with Rand peering over his shoulder. One thing that has always struck me about that monograph is the writing style: It is pure Rand.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

George,

The style of "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" is pure Rand, or a fairly close imitation.

But is the content pure Rand?

There is a Leibnizian flavor to it.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Should I interpret your statement as implying that he could be evil?

Not at all.

I just think there are other constructive ways to respond after being booted from the Ayn Rand Institute besides starting yet another Objectivist organization. There are enough of those already.

John McCaskey seems to be having a good time doing history and philosophy of science. Let him contribute there.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

When Peikoff goes the only nut to carry on in kind with any serious influence would be Harry Binswanger, but I think he'll be excluded. What happens to the copyrights and any trademarks is all that matters.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

Exactly.

It's Peikoff's control over the Estate that has given him the whip hand.

Robert Campbell

[George H. Smith]

George,

The style of "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" is pure Rand, or a fairly close imitation.

But is the content pure Rand?

There is a Leibnizian flavor to it.

Robert Campbell

Hmmm.... ASD and parts of OPAR strike me as having a Hegelian flavor, especially as manifested in early British Absolute Idealists like F.H. Bradley. Brand Blanshard came out of this tradition, though he had significant disagreements with it, and some chapters in The Nature of Thought about the ideal of completely integrated knowledge remind me a bit of Peikoff.

I've read quite a bit by the British Idealists, and though I cannot bring myself to agree with them in basics, they do present an inspiring vision of the role of philosophy, and they typically reject conventional dichotomies, such as the analytic-synthetic.

They are also big on the ontological status of logic. Bradley wrote a two-volume work on logic, as did Bernard Bosanquet. Even more significantly, they typically defend a coherence theory of truth. Although the official O'ist theory is a correspondence one, there are elements of the coherence theory in Peikoff's writings.

I cannot recall who said this, but a knowledgeable friend once called Peikoff "a secret Hegelian."

This is just idle speculation. If anyone challenges me, I will probably fold. Then again, I may not....

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

George,

Chris Sciabarra has said on a number of occasions that Peikoff is a Hegelian.

Robert Campbell

[George H. Smith]

George,

Chris Sciabarra has said on a number of occasions that Peikoff is a Hegelian.

Robert Campbell

Ah, yes; that's where I heard it.

Ghs

[Ellen Stuttle]

George,

Chris Sciabarra has said on a number of occasions that Peikoff is a Hegelian.

Robert Campbell

Ah, yes; that's where I heard it.

Ghs

I've heard Leonard Peikoff himself speak of a Hegelian leaning -- and there's some quote from Hegel, "The whole is...," I'm drawing a blank, which he's used time and again in lectures.

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

George,

Chris Sciabarra has said on a number of occasions that Peikoff is a Hegelian.

Robert Campbell

Ah, yes; that's where I heard it.

Ghs

I've heard Leonard Peikoff himself speak of a Hegelian leaning -- and there's some quote from Hegel, "The whole is...," I'm drawing a blank, which he's used time and again in lectures.

Ellen

I don't know if Hegel ever actually said "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts," but this notion is appropriately Hegelian. Thus Hegelian political philosophers have frequently defended social organicism, according to which "society" is more than a sum (or aggregate) of individuals.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

there's some quote from Hegel, "The whole is...," I'm drawing a blank, which he's used time and again in lectures.

"The truth is the whole" from the '76 course.

[merjet]

I've heard Leonard Peikoff himself speak of a Hegelian leaning -- and there's some quote from Hegel, "The whole is...," I'm drawing a blank, which he's used time and again in lectures.

I believe the quote from Hegel is "The truth is the whole." It is associated with the coherence theory of truth.

I vaguely recall Peikoff approvingly saying it more than once, but can't say where. He alludes to it at least twice in OPAR:

Logical processing of an idea within a specific context of knowledge is necessary and sufficient to establish the idea's truth (p. 171).

Knowledge, therefore, which seeks to grasp reality, must also be a total; its elements must be interconnected to form a unified whole reflecting the whole which is the universe (p. 123).

Also, see here.

[Robert Campbell]

Peikoff also uses "The Truth is the Whole" in the introduction to OPAR, if memory serves.

I think Hegel is one source for Peikoff's way of totalizing knowledge. He often claims that everything in the universe is related to everything else, hence our knowledge must be a totality fully interconnected via internal relations (Peikoff does not use the language of external and internal relations, but I think that's a fair description of his position).

But Parmenides is another. A Peikovian totality is more static than a Hegelian totality.

And there are these weird correspondences in OPAR:

Existence <-> Truth <-> Rationality

Nothingness <-> Arbitrariness <-> Irrationality

How can you make literal sense of Peikoff's declaration that an arbitrary assertion is completely lacking in context (or that when an arbitrary assertion is redeemed, as he claims can sometimes be done, the redeemer has provided it with a context)?

He seems to mean that an arbitrary assertion refers directly to Nothingness or the Zero, and fails to refer to the totality of Existence; "therefore," it can have no context. There is no nothing; Nothingness has no context, etc.

Robert Campbell

[merjet]

Peikoff also uses "The Truth is the Whole" in the introduction to OPAR, if memory serves.

Not verbatim, but chapter 1 includes: "The True, said Hegel, is the Whole."

[George H. Smith]

Logical processing of an idea within a specific context of knowledge is necessary and sufficient to establish the idea's truth (p. 171).

Knowledge, therefore, which seeks to grasp reality, must also be a total; its elements must be interconnected to form a unified whole reflecting the whole which is the universe (p. 123).

Also, see here.

Wow! This really does have a Hegelian flavor to it. F.H. Bradley and other Absolute Idealists said very similar things.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a relevant quote that jumped out at me when I read OPAR, Chapter 4—Objectivity (pp. 122-123):

Knowledge is not a juxtaposition of independent items; it is a unity.

. . .

Metaphysically, there is only one universe. This means that everything in reality is interconnected.(13) Every entity is related in some way to the others; each somehow affects and is affected by the others. Nothing is a completely isolated fact, without causes or effects; no aspect of the total can exist ultimately apart from the total. Knowledge, therefore, which seeks to grasp reality, must also be a total; its elements must be interconnected to form a unified whole reflecting the whole which is the universe.

The footnote simply says "See IOE, p. 39." I consulted both editions of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and he meant the second expanded edition. There is nothing on p. 39 of the first edition that even remotely pertains to this point. In fact, there is only one short passage on p. 39 in the second edition that he could use:

If anything were actually "immeasurable," it would bear no relationship of any kind to the rest of the universe, it would not affect nor be affected by anything else in any manner whatever, it would enact no causes and bear no consequences—in short, it would not exist.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Meanwhile, over in the Orthodoxy, there are a lot of folks trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

At FARF, the discussion was remarkably tentative, and has now been temporarily closed:

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=12236

And the usually highly opinionated Diana Hsieh has yet to refer to John McCaskey's departure on her blog.

She hasn't mentioned him in a blog entry since 2006.

Robert Campbell