PDS

I was pretty scornful of Biddle in my earlier post, but I do perceive that he’s displaying integrity and courage, so I should have worked in some praise. Presumably his business is on the line here, unless he’s financially supported by McCaskey, it seems he’s risking his bread and butter. I called it ho-hum because there’s nothing original in it, the many facets of this controversy have been explored already, elsewhere. Coming to it this late he’s open to the charge that he waited to see which way the wind was blowing. As to the fawning, well, I can pull out the quotes, but they’re there for all to see. It reminds me of this much more timely-produced piece: Now I’m going to need an emergency insulin shot. Will you forgive me if I pass on this video? The still shot seems to be more than adequate...

I don't know that any of us are actually aware of the context, but for those of us who have actually deeply checked premises regarding Rand, ARI, and Objectivism, nothing he's done here looks particularly courageous. Shayne Maybe you're right. I still say good for him. Many in this precinct have called for those from the ARI orbit to grow a set and step out of the shadows on this issue. At a minimum, Biddle has stepped out the shadows.

Good analysis. ITOE is anything but loosely written. It would be difficult to find a contemporary work on philosophy that covers so much ground so succinctly. It's a shame that Rand didn't write similar tracts on other areas of philosophy, such as metaethics. Ghs And it's a mere "Introduction", at that...PDS

I find the article neither fawning or ho-hum. Given the context, it took something akin to guts for him to write it. I am not claiming he deserves a Purple Heart, just that it strikes me as a balanced assessment of the situation, and one it would have been quite easy to avoid going public with. Good for him.

Agreed. Witness the huge fundraising day Glenn Beck instigated for the Chamber of Commerce a few weeks back, and what Joy Behar (unintentionally) did for Angle in Nevada. Of course, as we all know, anybody who doesn't vote straight Democrat "really doesn't understand Objectivism."

David: Out of curiosity, do you have the DVD with this scene on it then? Interesting about Tesla. He is one of my favorite historic persons. I always wanted to claim him as an Italian, but he was a Serbian. Clearly the person in the scene was checking in with the Wardenclyffe Tower: Wardenclyffe Tower located in Shoreham, Long Island, New York. The 94 ft (29 m) by 94 ft (29 m) brick building was designed by architect Stanford White. The station, including the tower structure, was not completed due to financial difficulties. David: I would like to know the title of the "respected biography" that you read as I want to read one about Tesla. Thanks Adam Tesla: Man out of Time, by Margeret Cheney. I recommend his autobiography first, if possible. No I don't have the DVD. Agreed re: Tesla, by the way: a true Randian hero, with a story not dissimilar to hers. Massive insights into psychology as well, believe it or not.

David: Out of curiosity, do you have the DVD with this scene on it then? Interesting about Tesla. He is one of my favorite historic persons. I always wanted to claim him as an Italian, but he was a Serbian. Clearly the person in the scene was checking in with the Wardenclyffe Tower: Wardenclyffe Tower located in Shoreham, Long Island, New York. The 94 ft (29 m) by 94 ft (29 m) brick building was designed by architect Stanford White. The station, including the tower structure, was not completed due to financial difficulties. David: I would like to know the title of the "respected biography" that you read as I want to read one about Tesla. Thanks Adam Tesla: Man out of Time, by Margeret Cheney. I recommend his autobiography first, if possible. No I don't have the DVD.

My sense is that this entire trope is a preemptive attempt to "define the narrative" by the Democrats, in advance of a pretty huge drubbing-to-come. If I were Karl Rove (or the others), I would wait about 2 days after the landslide and disclose all my donors, and thus give the lie to this entire argument. And then I would demand that all Democrat orgs do the same.

If the video is legit, I blame Nikola Tesla. He predicted in 1909(in a New York times article) that cell phones would be among us. He was a fan of Charlie Chan. He invented and protoyped a number of items that never really got off the ground, not because they didn't work, but because he moved on to other more interesting things. And, based on my reading of his short autobiography and a respected biography as well, I would not put it past him to have done this as a practical joke. Either that, or, perhaps less likely, it's a time traveler who (1) found nothing better to do than serve as a movie extra in 1928, and (2) was accidentally caught on film checking his voicemails.

The article is underwhelming. The author doesn't seem to understand that Objectivism is simply a proper noun for "living consistent with reality." As such, one could theoretically be an Objectivist without having ever read Rand, HarriPei, or anybody else.

Seriously? You're not bothered by Rand's expressions of contempt for the 'masses' who were outraged by Hickman's crimes? She claimed that they had committed worse sins and crimes than Hickman had (presumably the crime of being average), and that it wasn't his crimes that had upset them, but his daring individualism. That's nutty. It's whackjob. I wonder, do any of you who are disgusted by Penn's comments think that he too has committed worse crimes than Hickman's? Do you think that mocking Rand for having romanticized the Hickman case is worse than mutilating a little girl? J Jonathan, That's apples and oranges you're comparing there, and unjust. The Hickman thread on OL said it all: nobody - the greatest admirers of Rand included - was not astonished and disgusted by what she was thinking (what was she thinking?!) out loud in her Journals. But back to Penn; aren't you missing the fact that while damning Rand with faint praise, he managed to fit in this very early (in her career) abberation of hers ...without one mention of her values and over-riding greatness? Does he presume that all his viewers are fully aware of the context and perspective regarding Rand's work in toto, as we are? It is possible, but not credible. This is like, say, a short TV insert on Ronald Reagan, that dedicates a portion of the air time to his inept delivery of a line in one of the 'B' movies he acted in, or something unrepresentative of his complete life. Tony Well said.

Food for thought: can't we just be happy about an AS movie being made? I'm not trying to imitate Phil here, but this would seem--for Objectivists--to be something worthy of congratulations, sans any kind of sniping. Ed: congratulations! [And I mean it...]

Well, I of course agree with your principles -- the burden of proof must always lie that way. But your remarks are disingenuous. Although a full case of fraud is not warranted (there are, as I have said elsewhere, redeeming aspects of the book), I have been making a case for fraud regarding the fundamental *and advertised* purpose of the book. You have not addressed a single one of my arguments. So don't stand on your principles like you're so high and mighty, you're not. In fact, your silly argument really does smack of what one often hears in a court of law nowadays -- with wily attorneys trying to trip up their opponents rather than actually being concerned with the truth. I will refrain from making a joke about lawyers. A lawyer telling ME about burden of proof. That's enough of a joke already. Shayne Hmmm. And to think I had actually tried to rescue you on this thread from the thrashing George had been giving you, and with one arm behind his back at that. Under the "life is short" principle, I will be joining Brant and yesterday's George in ignoring you from now on.

You forgot the challenge contained in the accusation: Show how Harriman actually did justify his notion of first-level generalizations. Shayne No thank you--I will let Harriman and his book speak for themselves. I happen to be a trial attorney who defends companies against fraud allegations. The burden of proof is always on the person making the accusation in court, and here as well, in my opinion. All one needs to file a fraud lawsuit is a piece of a paper and a 100 dollar bill. All one needs to make a fraud allegation on the internet is to hit the "send" button, apparently.

"[The book] is a fraud." Isn't this rather unnecessary? Come on now.

Ghs George: very interesting. I shall absorb again and then chew before attempting to comment. Side note: also interesting is McCaskey's comment in the Noodlefood thread I referenced above. fyi. PDS

I addressed this issue earlier on this thread here. Ghs I was thinking more of Ms. Newton's comment about the use/overuse of an "example" to prove one's case. Perhaps I missing something, but I have not seen this particular argument (which obviously also applies to IOE) put in quite that way. She would almost seem to be arguing that such reasoning is the equivalent of "anecdotal evidence", and thus subject (my conclusion, not hers) to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Shayne: let me make another attempt to get us back to the topic of your post. I found this comment in a Noodlefood thread, by Mindy Newton, interesting and thoughtful: "In the induction book, the case for "first-level inductions" is being made based on the supposed particulars of how children arrive at--"first-level inductions." There is a world of difference between using an example--a fictional example, in fact, to help the reader imagine the concrete process that has been laid out and supported on independent gounds, and creating a fictional account and then using it to "prove" that a certain process takes place." http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/open-thread-on-induction.html#disqus_thread Your thoughts? George, your thoughts?

A persistent doom, Over this thread does loom, Because SJW assumes, Certain facts about Hume.

I, for one, appreciate the "HarriPei" pun George has instituted for DH and LP. Seriously, let us not forget that Ayn Rand titled IOE as an "Introduction" to Objectivist epistemology: i.e., the book explicitly is (by the most relevant dictionary definition of the word) a "preliminary part" of Objectivist epistemology. As such, there was always going to be a push and pull over the rounding out of an epistemological framework influenced by Objectivism. HarriPei's efforts is one of the first pushes, and there are bound to be pulls in response, but apart from personality-driven issues that might be highly annoying, there is nothing to be upset about with their efforts. Two Objectivist philosophers/intellectuals have collaborated and published a book on induction. Isn't this a good thing?

I would be willing to bet my dog-eared copy of Ominous Parallels that Ms. Palin has never read Atlas Shrugged.

I doubt she thinks Timothy is misogynistic, assuming she has read it.

MSK: very nicely said.

I don't get it either.

One viewing of The Fountainhead, the movie, as compared to the book, should lead to healthy caution in the area of judgments on art.