> he also substantially changed the logical order of the presentation, and he included new integrations as well.Roger, can you explain what specifically you have in mind here?Thanks.
Hey Phil, I just noticed your post. Well, in regard to logical order of presentation, Peikoff put the material from lecture 1 into the middle of his book, and he began the book with the material from lecture 2. Personally, I think that lecture 1 was perfect context-setting and motivating material, and I'm disappointed that its powerful impact was jettisoned in order to begin ~logically~ with the metaphysics.
As for new integrations, I'll mention one I just heard Peikoff mention the other day when I listened to lecture 1 of "Objectivism, the State of the Art." He said that he radically reconceived his understanding of the nature and relative importance of the virtue of integrity. I agree that he did substantially alter his presentation of this virtue, but I don't think it was entirely for the better. Specifically, I think he commits the Fallacy of the Frozen Abstraction in arguing that cleavage to one's chosen values is not necessarily integrity. In other words, he conflates integrity with ~rational~ integrity, as he has a tendency to conflate values with ~rational~ values.
No New Objectivism? Ever??
in Objectivism 401
A blog by Roger Bissell in General
Posted
Hey Phil, I just noticed your post. Well, in regard to logical order of presentation, Peikoff put the material from lecture 1 into the middle of his book, and he began the book with the material from lecture 2. Personally, I think that lecture 1 was perfect context-setting and motivating material, and I'm disappointed that its powerful impact was jettisoned in order to begin ~logically~ with the metaphysics.
As for new integrations, I'll mention one I just heard Peikoff mention the other day when I listened to lecture 1 of "Objectivism, the State of the Art." He said that he radically reconceived his understanding of the nature and relative importance of the virtue of integrity. I agree that he did substantially alter his presentation of this virtue, but I don't think it was entirely for the better. Specifically, I think he commits the Fallacy of the Frozen Abstraction in arguing that cleavage to one's chosen values is not necessarily integrity. In other words, he conflates integrity with ~rational~ integrity, as he has a tendency to conflate values with ~rational~ values.
Best,
REB