Collateral Damage in "Diabolical Dishonesty"

[Roger Bissell]

In the Poodle Poop discussion thread for Diana Hsieh's "Dialectical Dishonesty," the primary target has continued to be Chris Sciabarra. However, thanks to the pot-stirring of Chris Cathcart, Diana decided in reply to lob a grenade at yet another of her betters, another productive, rational individualist, Dr. Douglas Rasmussen of St. Johns University in New York City. In post 105 of the thread, she wrote:

...what evidence do you have of animus against Den Uyl and Rasmussen for _The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand_? That book might not have been worth publishing, but it's not a systematic distortion of Ayn Rand's thought like _The Russian Radical_. Moreover, Dr. Rasmussen was invited to give the primary paper on universals at a recent Ayn Rand Society meeting. Contrary to expectations, it was an *incompetant* [sic] paper. For example, he admitted during the discussion that he had no idea how measurement omission worked in concepts above the first-level. (!) (In contrast, I heard nothing but praise for the response by the excellent Bob Pasnau -- an Aquinas scholar, chairman of my department.)

Interesting, how Dr. Rasmussen's paper was deemed "incompetant," based on his not being able to provide an answer to a technical point about Objectivism during the question period. (No other evidence to support the claim of "incompetance" was offered.)

Dr. Rasmussen provided an excellent and effective rejoinder to Dr. Pasnau's response, in which he stated, among many other things:

...his [Dr. Pasnau's] comments have, oddly enough, intensified my conviction that Rand’s theory of measurement-omission is, despite her claims to the contrary, very much a part of the Thomistic moderate realist tradition.

I don't see any admission in this rejoinder of Dr. Rasmussen's having "no idea" how measurement-omission works for higher-level concepts. Perhaps it was in informal remarks which, being extemporaneous, ought not to be judged by the same standard as one's formal, written paper. (We are still ping-ponging back and forth, trying to resolve the question of whether Ayn Rand Answers or the Epistemology Workshop appendix to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology are "part of Objectivism," and whether Rand ought to be held accountable for ideas she did not personally edit or approve for publication.)

Diana also wrote:

I am sick to death of hearing you harp upon what you think ARI scholars should be doing with their time. Am I obliged to sacrifice my own research interests to pursue the topics you find so interesting?

I imagine she is a bit aggravated by such suggestions. She has been assuring us for months (years?) now that she will soon set aside all this negative focus and turn her efforts to positive, productive philosophizing. Well, we're still waiting -- and yes, this is a reproach and an expression of pity. Seeing what a combined yenta and Darth Vader she has become, I am wondering what is left of the considerable constructive faculty I thought I saw in her several years ago.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Frankly, I am have been mulling over the sleight-of-hand in Chapter 3 of ITOE for a long time. The magic is to suddenly consider the distinguishing characteristics of lower level concepts as measurements for the higher level ones, thus distinguishing characteristics and not measurements become the elements omitted.

No reason is given for this - just proclamation.

This needs further fleshing out - a whole lot from my view - and I would wager that a person as knowledgeable as Dr. Rasmussen might entertain doubts along these lines. If he were thinking specifically about measurements, he could say with perfect sense that he "he had no idea how measurement omission worked in concepts above the first-level." He didn't say "distinguishing characteristic omission." He said "measurement omission."

This is a technical detail for investigation, but it is obscure enough to scratch the itch of someone addicted to bashing. The nature of the itch permits a person to skip over precision in language in order to bash.

Michael

[Rodney]

... to suddenly consider the distinguishing characteristics of lower level concepts as measurements for the higher level ones, thus distinguishing characteristics and not measurements become the elements omitted.

This never puzzled me. After all, the distinguishing characteristics are a subset of measurements (see p. 15 of the Expanded Edition)--though on the higher levels this may be harder to grasp.

Remember too that "0" (zero) is a measurement.

I hesitate to post this, as I have no time or wish for online discussions at present. So if I don't continue on this, I apologize and may return later.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rodney,

Don't worry, I ain't going to split hairs here. However, zero could be considered as not measurement, but lack of measurement.

(I think I just split one...)

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael and Rodney,

A critical take on Rand's notion of measurement omission can be found here:

Merlin Jetton, Omissions and measurement. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 7(2), 383-405 (Spring 2006).

A basically favorable view (though one that suggests a broader generalization about what is omitted) was presented by:

Stephen Boydstun, Universals and measurement. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 5(2), 271-304 (Spring 2004).

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Roger,

Ms. Hsieh's comment at

http://www.dianahsieh.com/cgi-bin/blog/com...17276802712#105

denies any "animus" against Doug Den Uyl and Doug Rasmussen in the portion that you quoted--then goes on in the very next sentence to opine that The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand "might not have been worth publishing."

Since the core of The Philosophic Thought is the chapters by Den Uyl and Rasmussen themselves, anyone who thinks their book wasn't worth publishing shouldn't have had high expectations for any talk by either of the Dougs on any aspect of Rand's thought.

I wonder whether Ms. Hsieh's verdict on the editors' contributions to The Philosophic Thought was informed by actually reading them. She once quoted Wallace Matson's chapter (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2002_04_14_weekly.html), but I could find no reference on NoodleFood to any of Den Uyl and Rasmussen's chapters.

Robert Campbell

[Rodney]

I have that article by Boydstun, having requested it from him some time ago. However, I have not read it yet, since it has merely tangential relevance to a topic I am thinking about, the epistemology of math. I plan to look at it after I finish writing about my conclusions, in case there is anything there that might be related and that I might want to allude to.

This issue of measurement-omission at every level of cognition has never presented a problem for me, so I am not impelled to study it as things stand now.

(When I do write on my thinking about math, it will be for an audience of math teachers and mathematicians first of all. According to the reaction, I will tie in Ayn Rand more strongly and make it into an article on conceptualization in general. I still do not know what audience to write that piece for.)

[Robert Campbell]

This thread has once again become relevant, as Ms. Hsieh makes a purported concession on SOLOP:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1162#comment-11336

ChrisC[athcart] said: "There are those on the board of advisors [of JARS] that are also current or past members of the Ayn Rand Society steering committee that aren't affiliated with ARI or even refer to themselves by the title of Objectivist (rather more likely more broadly Aristotelian), who nonetheless are worthy partners in Ayn Rand scholarship."

Absolutely!

I'm all in favor of involving non-Objectivist Aristotelians -- if their work is generally of good quality -- with a journal or society devoted to Ayn Rand's philosophy. My worry is with an editorial staff and board of advisors wholly consisting of such people. And even that's not necessarily objectionable, but it does raise some warning flags. Consider an analogous situation: Would you be worried about a "Journal of Aristotle Studies" edited and advised by a bunch of Kantians with an interest in Aristotle, i.e. without a single Aristotelian in the bunch?

As for those non-Objectivist Aristotelians publishing in JARS, I'd like to see them withdraw their sanction from JARS for basically the same reason as Objectivist scholars.

Note the passages in bold.

Will Ms. Hsieh concede that the work of any non-Objectivist Aristotelian is "generally of good quality"? She has yet to mention one such person. Her dismissal of Doug Rasmussen as "incompetant" does not bode well. Nor does her insinuation that non-Objectivist Aristotelians are as distant from Rand's way of thinking as non-Aristotelian Kantians would be from Aristotle's.

Meanwhile, the call for non-Objectivist Aristotelians to "withdraw their sanction" from JARS comes from a champion of the Ayn Rand Institute, which would never invite any of these folks to speak at an ARI event or publish in an ARI-sponsored publication. So why on earth should they listen?

Robert Campbell

[Roger Bissell]

Robert, two points about your post:

1. In fairness, Diana did not say that Doug Rasmussen's work in general was "incompetant," just his 2004 Ayn Rand Society paper about Rand and Aquinas on universals -- and her only substantiation of this claim was Doug's inability (?) to talk in the discussion period about how Rand's "measurement omission" concept applied to higher-level concepts. Of course, she may have more examples of his "incompetance" than that. And she very well may think that his two (excellent) essays on Rand's ethics that JARS published were also "incompetant." Or that the books he co-authored with Douglas Den Uyl were "incompetant." She didn't say. (I hope she's shopping for a new spell-checker.)

2. Diana's parallel between Aristotelians and Randians on the one hand and Kantians and Randians on the other is way out of whack. First of all, since Rand's philosophy is a sub-category of Aristotelian philosophy (just ask Leonard Peikoff), and Neo-Aristotelians and Thomists are two more such sub-categories, the parallel would be better expressed as a concern if a bunch of Neo-Platonists or Augustinians were running a journal of Kant Studies. This would especially be true if the Neo-Platonists had begun their philosophical studies with a deep involvement in Kantian philosophy -- as a number of the Neo-Aristotelians I know began their careers with an immersion in Rand's ideas.

Another point worth noting is that the current board of JARS is probably nearly optimal, since its members are all at least as close, if not closer, to the Randian ideals of scholarliness and objectivity than those similarly credentialed in the ARI camp.

REB