Neil Parille

If Harriman were to talk about the rewriting of the Journals and Peikoff's role in this and other projects, it might be embarrassing to LP. -Neil

I find this schism most interesting because there has been no word from Peikoff. He doesn't think keeping quiet is a virtue. Neil

Speaking of race, NYT science writer Nicholas Wade has a new book out called A Troublesome Inheritance. He argues that racial differences are real and play out in terms of different cultures and success levels. It's kind of like The Bell Curve, although more on culture than IQ. Anyone have any thoughts? There is an excerpt of the book at time magazine, but for some reason I can't link to it.

Yeah Bruno was a martry for science. Cant objectivists come up with a new trope.

Binswanger has a lot of praise for Peikoff in the book, but there are no endorsements from Peikoff or anyone else. The book is good but it is pitched to an audience of Objectivists and readers who haven't studied epistemlogy. I guess that's fine, but considering that it took Binswanger probably as long to write it as it took Rand to write Atlas Shrugged, it's something of a disappointment. -Neil Parille

Hardcover: 416 pagesPublisher: TOF Publications, Inc. (November 30, 2013)Language: EnglishISBN-10: 0985640618ISBN-13: 978-0985640613Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.1 x 0.9 inchesWhat is "TOF Publications, Inc."? I assume it stands for The Objectivist Forum, a journal which Binswanger published in the 80s. But I imagine it is less of a publishing house than Durban House. Binswanger is well known in Objectivist circles and I'm surprised he couldn't get a major publisher to publish his book. Or perhaps he didn't want to. -Neil Parille

I posted a brief review of How We Know on Amazon: Harry Binswanger is a philosopher who was associated with Ayn Rand in her later life. This is his long awaited book on epistemology written from the perspective of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. It covers most of the major topics in epistemology, including some that Rand didn't comment on, such as propositions. Generally speaking, I enjoyed this book. Although Binswanger is a rather dogmatic Objectivist, the tone is surprisingly mild. More than the typical Objectivist he tries to understand the ideas with which he disagrees and present them in a fair manner. The heart of the book is an exposition of Rand's theory of concept formation, which her acolytes consider her greatest achievement. She developed an elaborate theory of "measurement omission" in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I'm not persuaded that all concepts are formed on the basis of measurement omission (what measurements are omitted when we form the concept "justice"?), but Binswanger makes a decent effort. Unfortunately, he presents no evidence that the Objectivist theory of concepts is true. I'd like to see the psychological studies that children (much less adults) form concepts the way Rand and Binswanger claim. Indeed I suspect that we often form concepts without having two or more examples and a "foil." If I'm wandering in Borneo and see an animal that no one has seen before, do I need to see another one to conceptualize it? On the negative side, Binswanger appears to believe the urban legend that people in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat. I was surprised that he doesn't mention David Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses, an important Objectivist work on epistemology.

What measurements are omitted when we form the concept "justice"? What measurements are omitted when we form the concept "concept"? I could go on and on. Measurement omission is a superficially plausible theory, but doesn't hold up. I suspect that's why Rand talk about tables and chairs, where it does seem plausible. -Neil

It seems pretty much a retelling, but he goes beyond Rand. For example the discussion of direct realism is much more developed than Rand. There is a chapter on propositions, which is Binswanger's own theory. He says Rand was thinking of writing ITOE II: Propositions. I hadn't heard that before. I was a little disappointed that he didn't make much of an effort to prove that Rand's theory of concept formation is true.

He makes some references to these topics.

Got the book and its pretty good. (I’m on page 150.) The tone is actually surprising. Although he disagrees with other views, it’s not in the snarky tone of something like OPAR. He generally says “Rand” and not “Ayn Rand,” which was quite a relief. No mention of Branden, Kelley or any published criticisisms of Rand. I guess that’s not a surprise. The price keeps bouncing around on Amazon. I got mine at 38 but I saw it the other day as low as 28. Today it’s 31.

Anyone know when the Milgram bio will come out? I heard it was going to be only an intellectual biography up to '57. -Neil

I always liked solo. In its day there was a lot of traffic and people showed up such as Dr. Diana, Valliant, etc. There don't seem to be as many active Objectivist blogs as you might expect. -Neil Parille

I posted this on McCaskey's site, which will probably get deleted. _________________________________ Following the highest established standards of logic, the most rigorous canonical reasoning, any logic professor can decimate Ayn Rand’s moral and political philosophy in one 45-minute lecture. It took the Harvard professor Robert Nozick only a few paragraphs. But Rand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic. She has her own distinctive method of arguing. If that method is valid, her moral and political philosophy stands. If it is invalid, her whole system comes crashing down. This always cracks me up. Rand was such a compelling writer that even a person untrained in philosophy can understand her. But to really understand her you have to know some sort of Objectivist "super logic." So even if you have a Ph.D. in philosophy you can't intelligently critique her. The best critique of Rand's ethics is Eric Mack's "Problematic Arguments in Randian Ethics," Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, vol.5 no. 1 (Fall 2003) pp.1-66.

Michael, Which prominent scientists (or theologians) thought the world was flat? I gather it's something of an urban legend. -Neil Parille

Very sad news.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to believe (AR considering divorce). After all she had an affair with Nathaniel which indicates her marriage to Frank wasn't exactly what she would have considered optimal. Neil

Mark Twain wasn't a fan of the American Indian either. http://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/redman.html

New Books of Interest to Objectivists. 1. Dr. Diana Hsieh, Ph.D, Responsibility and Luck (A revised version of her doctoral thesis for which Diana earned a Ph.D.) 2. Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand. (Doesn't appear to have been revised, contrary to what Amazon says. I purchased it and it's the 1986 book with a 2013 new introduction. For example, typewriter story is still there.) 3. Edith Packer, Lectures on Psychology.

Stephen, Thanks for the kind words. I don't think one can dispute that amnestying illegals (the large majority of whom are Hispanics) would eventually turn much of the country into one party, Democratic states. That's why the Democrats have their eyes on Texas, the last reliably large Republican state. So not withstanding the beliefs of Mexicans (who are nominal Catholics for the most part) I think we have to oppose immigration. -Neil

Peikoff is correct that Hispanics will vote overwhelmingly Democratic as far as the eye can see. And it really doesn't have much to do with the supposed anti-immigration of the Republicans. Bush got at most 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 and they have been doing worse ever since. Texas is the last big state that is reliably Republican and if it becomes Hispanic it too will become Democratic.

I just came across this post by the Maverick Philosopher, critical of Dr. Gotthelf's anti-theistic arguments: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/07/allan-gotthelf-on-ayn-rand-on-the-existence-of-god.html

Ellen, But even in the Synoptics there are hints of Jesus' divinity. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says "you have heard it said . . . but I say to you . . . " This "rewriting" of God's commandments implies a divine like power. I only skimmed this essay but it looks good: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-3/JETS_37-3_333-350_Doriani.pdf -Neil

A few points: 1. There are mainstream scholars such as Ben Witherington and Luke Johnson who believe that Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him. Even if he didn't they might still have common from a Pauline school. Also, if he didn't write them it doesn't necessarily make them forgeries. In ancient times they had somewhat different standards. Witherngton also reviewed Ehrman's book Forged: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/04/09/forged-chapter-six%E2%80%94forgeries-in-conflicts-with-false-teachers/ 2. The non-canonical gospels are probably later than the 4 in the NT, sensational claims notwithstanding. Charles Hill's Who Chose the Gospels presents a good defense of the idea of 4 gospels going to back to the early church. 3. Larry Hurtado's book Lord Jesus Christ as well as his other books are good at showing that a high view of Christ was common in early Christianity and not just a sectarian belief. Paul's disputes with the more Jewish Christians did not appear to have anything to do with Christology. Christ worship was not the result of Greek thought, Hurtado concludes. http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/lord-jesus-christ/

I was exaggerating a little. Maybe "secular religion" is a better way to describe orthodox Objectivism. -Neil