OPAR - Strengths and Weaknesses

[Philip Coates]

Nicholas Dykes' review of OPAR

(I can't find the link to Dykes' review. Someone today posted a link to Nicholas Dykes highly unfavorable review of Peikoff's OPAR and I can't find it. Here are a few of my initial reactions. When I agree with Dykes and he's given reasons that make sense, I just say "yes". Not much more to add.)

> I found Peikoff's tone far too polemical for a philosophical work; too reminiscent, one has to say, of Rand at her worst. There are the same sudden switches from exposition to harangue; the same sweeping generalisations, caustic dismissals, and frosty denunciations.

Yes.

> As even friendly critics have pointed out - e.g., Ronald Merrill, David Kelley, and others - there is both imperfection and incompleteness in Rand's thought.

What are they? If you claim there are valid objections - not in her 'work' but in her philosophy, which is what this book is about - you need to list at least the top two or three?

> Had he taken cognizance of what various..contemporary critics have said ... it would have rendered his own presentation ... far more sophisticated and illuminating.

Maybe, but difficult to do 'economically': The book summarizes a complex, abstract, sweeping philosophy and is attempting to be the briefest possible attempt to get that done in one place. You can't also cover or rebut what every critic says without making book too long and unwieldy.

Try it if you think it can be done without adding many hundreds of pages to its length.

> Labelling Hume a "paralyzed skeptic" (p. 54), or Kant "the world's greatest subverter of the conceptual faculty" (p. 109), may be entirely just; but if one's case is not demonstrated it is mere opinion or, worse, abuse. Nowhere in the book is there any documentation or clear evidence to justify Peikoff/Rand's revulsion for Kant. All is assertion or paraphrase. It is simply not enough to instruct the reader, "For evidence...consult The Critique of Pure Reason" (p. 109), particularly when one has just implied that the Critique is so badly written as to be unintelligible (pp. 108-9).

Yes.

...Nor does it suffice, on such serious matters, to refer readers to one's own earlier work, as Peikoff eventually does (p. 451). His first book, The Ominous Parallels, does indeed document a (partial) case against Kant, but couldn't we have had a few of the juicy bits reiterated here? To be convincing, a writer must make a case there and then, not pack the poor reader off to the library to do the job himself.

Yes.

> Throughout his book Dr. Peikoff treats Objectivism as if it had sprung, fully formed, pristine, and almost entirely original, from the forehead of Ayn Rand. This is partly true, Rand was neither a scholar nor a reader, she worked out her ideas herself. Nonetheless, Objectivism inevitably had roots and origins and influences. The reader would like to know what these were.

Length of book issue. Can do some of this, but don't have space for an entire history of philosophy. Judgment call. May be of interest to Oists but not to all readers.

> no biographical information about Rand is provided whatsoever.

Length - and subject - of book. Can't fit that in in this book and has been done many times elsewhere.

> One last problem with this problematic book is that in it Dr. Peikoff tells us nothing new. Every important point he makes was made previously by Ayn Rand...one would have thought that any philosopher worth his salt would have seized the Randian ball and run off joyously into parks and pastures new.

No: Subject of book is summarize her ideas and system. New ideas, new extensions would be another book. Or many books.

[Philip Coates]

In rereading the post I just made, I realized it is quite terse and doesn't offer detailed argument:

I think I'm tiring of long threads, long posts, and long internet debates. And a point like this doesn't require detailed elaboration: "Subject of book is summarize her ideas and system. New ideas, new extensions would be another book. Or many books."

Edited August 14, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Guyau]

.

The review of Nicholas Dykes: An Ass or a Lion?

A lion (and I am not a “true believer”). Related

.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Stephen Boydstun

[9thdoctor]

A lion (and I am not a “true believer”).

If this is a matter for voting, score one for “Ass”. The mosque podcast in particular had the sonic quality of a bray, and certainly not a roar. If this is strictly a matter of the Peikoff of OPAR, I still vote “Ass”, but it’s been a while since I read it, so I’m not going to list detailed reasons. I do vividly remember cringing at the part about consulting the Critique of Pure Reason, which Dykes takes him to task for in his review.

[Jerry Biggers]

Some idle speculation:

If OPAR had been finished and in, say 1978, two years after giving the first oral presentation, and Peikoff had given it to Rand for editing,...(and given that The Ominous Parallels was in constant revision and editing for 15 years) how long would it have taken for OPAR to receive her imprimatur and get published (assuming Rand had remained healthy for at least another ten years past 1982)?

Would the content have remained the same? Would it be longer? Clearer? Better written? Less boring? Less pedantic?

Would she have accepted Peikoff's modifications, or elaborations, of her concepts? Or, would he have been taken to the "philosophical woodshed," so to speak?

Or, would she have shelved the project?

My guess: it still would have been a posthumous publication.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Guyau]

Jerry,

I have not noticed any concepts discoursed upon in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand that Rand did not concur with in Peikoff’s 1976 lectures The Philosophy of Objectivism. Which concepts do you have in mind when you refer to Peikoff’s modifications of Rand’s concepts?

As to extensions of Rand’s concepts, this might be case. I do not think Peikoff’s elaboration of Rand’s published view (ITOE without Appendix) of this issue is significantly extended beyond what was in his lectures and what Rand had remarked a few years earlier informally (ITOE Appendix). (In his little book on Rand’s philosophy, Allan Gotthelf made one extension, and repair, beyond Rand’s published texts – fair dice.)

I do not find OPAR boring. It is carefully worded and worth close, careful study. It is not so scholarly and technical as I would have liked, but the author had to make tradeoffs, as Phil has indicated, as to which sort of audience would be his target for this first systematic presentation of Objectivism. Making it more scholarly and technical would have made it even more interesting for me. But that’s the way it goes with inveterate scholars.

In the summer of ’92 I attended an Objectivist summer seminar at which Dr. Peikoff was giving a series of lectures. There I met a middle-aged woman from New York. As a conversation starter over lunch, I asked her which books of Rand’s she had read. To my surprise, she said None, but that she was eager to read Rand’s works. She had read the recently released OPAR, and that was why she was there at the conference.

[Robert Campbell]

I have not noticed any concepts discoursed upon in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand that Rand did not concur with in Peikoff's 1976 lectures The Philosophy of Objectivism. Which concepts do you have in mind when you refer to Peikoff's modifications of Rand's concepts?

Stephen,

I also took the 1976 course on tape (a couple of years after you did) and now have the whole thing on CDs.

OPAR does follow the 1976 course pretty closely, as far as content goes. It ramps up the superheated rhetoric, though the 1976 lectures already had plenty of that.

I think that some portions of Objectivism, as Peikoff presented them in 1976 and later in OPAR, are in fact Peikoff's contribution and not Rand's.

What I have in mind specifically are:

— The doctrine of the arbitrary assertion (particularly the claims that arbitrary assertions are neither true nor false, and that some of them can be redeemed)

— The doctrine of contextual certainty

— The doctrine of the premoral choice to live

In each case, Rand obviously knew Peikoff's formulations and endorsed them (or, in the third case, left room for them), but (contrary to Peikoff's own statements, in the introduction to OPAR and elsewhere) I don't think she originated any of them.

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

Stephen,

Although I thought I had written that post in a style that indicated a bit of levity (at least regarding what would have happened if Rand had had the same chance to edit OPAR that she did with The Ominous Parallels), I did mean what I said.

The issues of whether Peikoff modified, extended or clarified Rand's concepts have been discussed at length elsewhere (e.g., Robert Campbell's The Peikovian Doctrine of the Arbitrary Assertion, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, I, Vol.10, pp. 85-170,243). David Kelley had also noticed issues and mentioned them in Peikoff's Summa, in the IOS Journal (I don't have the exact reference in front of me, but it probably accessible through the TAS website). Whether we are talking about modifications or extensions is open to discussion.

Additionally, I think Peikoff's edict (in Fact and Value) declaring Objectivism a "closed system," is his invention and not Rand's. She had stated on several occasions that Objectivism was a "work in progress," and not finished. However, strictly speaking, since Fact and Value was not included in OPAR (although the ARIans act as if it was), this criticism applies only to its author, but not the book in question..

Peikoff's style in OPAR: Compared to Rand or Branden, his style of writing (to me) appears plodding and boring (if Rand had gotten a hold of it, I think it would have resulted in some extensive re-writes, with improvements in clarity). It is also not written in the style to appeal to academics (contrast it with Sciabarra's Ayn Rand The Russian Radical). It has a pedagogical/pedantic style of presentation that is dismissive of opposing viewpoints without bothering to refute them.

Which brings up the issue of who his intended audience is for this book. Clearly, it is written for the already converted. If it was written for scholars and academics, Peikoff would not have prefaced it with an insult. Implying that academics may be less than human is not an effective way to be taken seriously. Parenthetically, I cannot think of another book in technical philosophy, from any viewpoint, that starts out by insulting its prospective audience. This is quite unfortunate, since Rand had always made it clear that she wanted her philosophy to be accepted and taught in the universities. Indeed, her whole theory of social change is based on the key role that the intellectuals play in shaping the culture.

All of this is not to say that OPAR should be discarded. With the caveats stated above, I think it is a worthwhile book, but (oh well, see above).

Jerry,

I have not noticed any concepts discoursed upon in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand that Rand did not concur with in Peikoff’s 1976 lectures The Philosophy of Objectivism. Which concepts do you have in mind when you refer to Peikoff’s modifications of Rand’s concepts?

As to extensions of Rand’s concepts, this might be case. I do not think Peikoff’s elaboration of Rand’s published view (ITOE without Appendix) of this issue is significantly extended beyond what was in his lectures and what Rand had remarked a few years earlier informally (ITOE Appendix). (In his little book on Rand’s philosophy, Allan Gotthelf made one extension, and repair, beyond Rand’s published texts – fair dice.)

I do not find OPAR boring. It is carefully worded and worth close, careful study. It is not so scholarly and technical as I would have liked, but the author had to make tradeoffs, as Phil has indicated, as to which sort of audience would be his target for this first systematic presentation of Objectivism. Making it more scholarly and technical would have made it even more interesting for me. But that’s the way it goes with inveterate scholars.

In the summer of ’92 I attended an Objectivist summer seminar at which Dr. Peikoff was giving a series of lectures. There I met a middle-aged woman from New York. As a conversation starter over lunch, I asked her which books of Rand’s she had read. To my surprise, she said None, but that she was eager to read Rand’s works. She had read the recently released OPAR, and that was why she was there at the conference.

[Robert Campbell]

Although OPAR finds room for nearly every Objectivist notion, in one place or another, it is not a very good exposition of the philosophy.

The rhetorical faults were noted in Nicholas Dykes' review and Phil acknowledges them.

But the book has many logical faults, and Dykes didn't bring these up in his review.

For instance, Chapter 5 contradicts Chapter 1 on the status of assertions about the supernatural.

And Chapter 5 contradicts itself (on one occasion, it does this in the space of a single paragraph) about what to do when faced with an (allegedly) arbitrary assertion.

Then there is the moral condemnation of anyone who makes the (premoral) choice not to live.

I can't believe that no one noticed these contradictions before the manuscript went to the publisher. More likely, those who did notice didn't dare point them out to Leonard Peikoff.

Other problems: In the wake of excommunicating David Kelley, Peikoff does not develop his account of perception as far as he had in some of his lectures.

And his citations are so sparse that one might come away from reading the book thinking that Peikoff's is the classic Objectivist formulation on self-esteem (Tara Smith later cited him as though it was).

As for ways in which Rand left Objectivism incomplete, I don't know why Dykes didn't mention some. I'm reasonably sure he and I would have some of the same issues in mind. For instance, proof for propositions gets what the Wikipedians call a "stub"—a treatment that takes up 2 pages in OPAR.

In my experience, the more often and the more closely one reads OPAR—and this applies to any part of the book—the worse it turns out to be.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Which brings up the issue of who his intended audience is for this book. Clearly, it is written for the already converted.

I recall that Nathaniel Branden once said that OPAR was a "wasted opportunity," because it preaches to the converted.

If it was written for scholars and academics, Peikoff would not have prefaced it with an insult. Implying that academics may be less than human is not an effective way to be taken seriously. Parenthetically, I cannot think of another book in technical philosophy, from any viewpoint, that starts out by insulting its prospective audience. This is quite unfortunate, since Rand had always made it clear that she wanted her philosophy to be accepted and taught in the universities. Indeed, her whole theory of social change is based on the key role that the intellectuals play in shaping the culture.

This is a good part of the reason why the ARI crowd needs intermediaries like Tara Smith, whose books relay the same message in far less charged language, without insulting the academic readership.

But between OPAR and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics, how many years went by?

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Here's a good review of the book by David Gordon (the second review) --

http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_8.pdf

-Neil Parille

[Philip Coates]

I took a quick look at it. Wherever I alighted, he was making silly statements.

So I stopped reading. I've had plenty of experience reading arrogant - and silly - critics of Objectivism.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Barbara Branden]

I could forgive almost any of the book's flaws except the fact that it so paralyzingly boring. Scarcely adding an idea that we have not already encountered and re-encountered in Rand's works, Peikoff manages to remove all the color, the drama, the excitement, the graceful ballet of words that makes Rand such a joy to read. His literary style is hopelessly, irritatingly pedantic; like an old-fashioned fire-and-brimstone preacher, he constantly lays down the law, telling his benighted readers what they must do, think, believe, accept if they are to achieve anything but endless misery and self-contempt. I cannot imagine that this book has won a single convert to Objectivism.

Barbara

[Starbuckle]

Campbell writes: "In each case, Rand obviously knew Peikoff's formulations and endorsed them (or, in the third case, left room for them), but (contrary to Peikoff's own statements, in the introduction to OPAR and elsewhere) I don't think she originated any of them."

RC is mistaken, I think, about one of his examples, that of "contextual certainty," which is certainly integral to Rand's epistemology. Perhaps he is referring to some aspect of Peikoff's formulation.

Barbara Branden, like others, goes overboard in criticizing Peikoff's OPAR. Despite any deficiencies rhetorical or logical, it offers very valuable arguments and explanation, and it can't be dismissed as a "paralyzingly boring" rehash of Rand. When it came out, I read it with devouring interest, and by then knew Rand's work pretty well. Criticisms of the writing ability of authors whose stance or style rubs the reader the wrong way often tend to be too sweeping, judging by what I see posted on discussion boards and Amazon.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Starbuckle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara Branden, like others, goes overboard in criticizing Peikoff's OPAR. Despite any deficiencies rhetorical or logical, it offers very valuable arguments and explanation, and it can't be dismissed as a "paralyzingly boring" rehash of Rand.

Can't be dismissed?

Sure it can.

Barbara did it above (except she did not say "rehash"--and I seriously doubt she would accuse Peikoff of presenting Rand's ideas as if they were new, which is what people who rehash stuff do).

But on the "paralyzingly boring" part, a fundamental tenet of Objectivism is "A is A." You can't change the nature of a thing just by saying, "No, Joe, it ain't so."

That said, a paralyzingly boring presentation of Rand's ideas is still a bunch of Rand's ideas. Something is bound to get through.

Michael

[Guyau]

. . .

I do not find OPAR boring. . .

I could forgive almost any of the book's flaws except the fact that it so paralyzingly boring. . .

. . .

But on the "paralyzingly boring" part, a fundamental tenet of Objectivism is "A is A." You can't change the nature of a thing just by saying, "No, Joe, it ain't so."

. . .

Michael,

That Stephen does not find the book boring and that Barbara does find the book boring are both facts. There is no contradiction, no A is non-A, between those facts.

Objectivity of values does not entail that everyone’s response to and evaluation of a book ought to be the same. We all bring differences of mind and experience to our reading.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have been meaning to add a note on Barbara’s remark:

. . . I cannot imagine that this book has won a single convert to Objectivism.

I have met a couple of people who followed that route. OPAR was the first book they read on Objectivism, and they were persuaded by the book that the philosophy was right. So there are some. Overwhelmingly, people I've met who had been swayed to Objectivism were swayed mainly by the writings of Rand.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

You are a huge exception.

I admit, I can't keep up with you. You are capable of finding The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts by Binswanger as a romping good read and an unstoppably addictive page-turner.

Just for the record, the above context of the boringness of OPAR is for "spreading Objectivism," i.e., mainstream stuff.

Another context--I get a visceral reaction when someone says, "You can't do that." Almost without thinking, a full-blown thought floods my total awareness: "Says who?"

On a substantive note, I've gone through OPAR and marked it up with objections and observations as I went along. (Believe me, that was one boring task I set for myself!) My intent at the time was to write about it. But I no longer consider OPAR important enough to do that, although I will probably make some passing references to it in the work I am now researching and planning (basically neuroscience applied to morality and behavior from the viewpoint of a person who started with a grounding in Objectivism).

Michael

[studiodekadent]

About OPAR being boring, well, I haven't read it so I can't comment. However, whenever I read articles or the like which rely on stock-standard formulations of Rand's ideas, repeating the same arguments without even putting a unique 'spin' on them, I do find that boring. Even several articles at TAS (sorry!) fall into that trap.

Its just become predictable... I feel like a mathematician reading a fourth-grade mathematics book.

This isn't to really attack things; TAS etc. focuses a lot on outreach and thus sticking with the basics is a reasonable strategy to take. But even when I write articles that employ standard-issue Objectivist ideas I try to use my own formulations, vary up the phrasing, and add a little wit to keep things interesting.

That said, I doubt my articles are particularly good 'outreach' since they tend to be relatively caustic and venomous and haughty, which isn't the best way to Make Friends Into Objectivists And Influence People.

Point being, I can see why some would consider OPAR boring.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

Your outline of Rand for TV Tropes was anything but boring.

I just reread it. I don't know how much has been edited since you had your run-in with those folks, but it is still interesting, balanced and informative without preaching, except for an odd point here and there.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

Your outline of Rand for TV Tropes was anything but boring.

I just reread it. I don't know how much has been edited since you had your run-in with those folks, but it is still interesting, balanced and informative without preaching, except for an odd point here and there.

Michael

Michael,

I appreciate your compliment, however I didn't do the outline for Ayn Rand (although I made some modifications by removing a few insults). I did the initial Useful Notes page for Objectivism.

I relied pretty heavily on my own formulations in that piece, kept the language casual and tossed in the occasional joke. But then they banned me from editing that page so I'm sure the haters have vandalized it. I haven't returned to that page or site since the edit-ban.

Although speaking of the page as I wrote it, several people echoed your sentiments about it being informative and balanced.

[Xray]

> Throughout his book Dr. Peikoff treats Objectivism as if it had sprung, fully formed, pristine, and almost entirely original, from the forehead of Ayn Rand. This is partly true, Rand was neither a scholar nor a reader, she worked out her ideas herself. Nonetheless, Objectivism inevitably had roots and origins and influences. The reader would like to know what these were.

Quote from Jennifer Burns's book Goddess of the Market, p. 2:

JB: Like her creation Howard Roark, Rand believed, "I inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps stand at the beginning of one." She made grandiose claims for Objectivism, her fully integrated philosophical system, telling the journalist Mike Wallace, "If anyone can pick a rational flaw in my philosophy, I will be delighted to acknowledge him and will learn something from him." Until then, Rand asserted she was "the most creative thinker alive". [source given in JB's book: Mike Wallace asks Ayn Rand, New York Post, Dec 12, 1957].

The only philosopher she acknowledged as an influence was Aristotle. Beyond his works, Rand insisted that she was unaffected by external influences and ideas. According to Rand and her followers, Objectivism sprung, Athena-like, fully formed form the brow if its creator.

Imo Ayn Rand was affected to a great degree by external influences, e. g. by the traumatic experiences she had while living under the communist regime in Soviet Russia, which played a crucial role in the formation of her moral philosophy. .

Edited August 21, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

> Throughout his book Dr. Peikoff treats Objectivism as if it had sprung, fully formed, pristine, and almost entirely original, from the forehead of Ayn Rand. This is partly true, Rand was neither a scholar nor a reader, she worked out her ideas herself. Nonetheless, Objectivism inevitably had roots and origins and influences. The reader would like to know what these were.

Quote from Jennifer Burns's book Goddess of the Market, p. 2:

JB: Like her creation Howard Roark, Rand believed, "I inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps stand at the beginning of one." She made grandiose claims for Objectivism, her fully integrated philosophical system, telling the journalist Mike Wallace, "If anyone can pick a rational flaw in my philosophy, I will be delighted to acknowledge him and will learn something from him." Until then, Rand asserted she was "the most creative thinker alive". [source given in JB's book: Mike Wallace asks Ayn Rand, New York Post, Dec 12, 1957].

The only philosopher she acknowledged as an influence was Aristotle. Beyond his works, Rand insisted that she was unaffected by external influences and ideas. According to Rand and her followers, Objectivism sprung, Athena-like, fully formed form the brow if its creator.

Imo Ayn Rand was affected to a great degree by external influences, e. g. by the traumatic experiences she had while living under the communist regime in Soviet Russia, which played a crucial role in the formation of her moral philosophy. .

I'm dubious Rand ever said something like, "I am the most creative thinker alive." I suppose it was possible in the 1957 publication days for her magnum opus.

(edit: "My philosophy" must mean as presented in her work circa 1957, esp. Atlas Shrugged. There are no flaws in any philosophy--call it "rational"--if you live all inside it instead of outside it. A truly rational philosophy is both inside and outside oneself as one experiences and lives it.)

--Brant

really dubious

Edited August 22, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Reidy]

I wonder about the accuracy of the Post article. It's also the source of "I prefer the dollar sign to the cross," which she angrily denied, in her Playboy interview, having ever said. Are any of the quotes above in the video version? I don't remember them from YouTube. They seem almost in character; this could mean that she said them, or it could mean that some reporter made them up to sound Randian.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Reidy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I appreciate your compliment, however I didn't do the outline for Ayn Rand (although I made some modifications by removing a few insults). I did the initial Useful Notes page for Objectivism.

Andrew,

Man am I glad you said that.

I was starting to feel a little guilty about writing too fast. I admit to being a bit tribal when I like someone--I have no problem giving moral support to people I like. But that article on Rand is not what I said it was. It's simply not well written. Despite misgivings at the time, I blundered on and wrote what I wrote, thinking that I was missing something.

That Rand article is certainly not as I remembered your article. I thought the problem was with my memory, or an excessive amount of edits (as is usual with Wikis), or whatever. Now I know you didn't write it, so I can let out a sigh of relief.

This has been echoing in my mind for a couple of days now. I'm more than pleased to say, "Boy, did I blow that one," to get that little voice in my head to shut up.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

...the book has many logical faults, and Dykes didn't bring these up in his review.

For instance, Chapter 5 contradicts Chapter 1 on the status of assertions about the supernatural.

And Chapter 5 contradicts itself (on one occasion, it does this in the space of a single paragraph) about what to do when faced with an (allegedly) arbitrary assertion.

Then there is the moral condemnation of anyone who makes the (premoral) choice not to live.

I can't believe that no one noticed these contradictions before the manuscript went to the publisher. More likely, those who did notice didn't dare point them out to Leonard Peikoff.

Another glaring contradiction is his mangling of the application of the concepts of "axiom" and "corollary" to the issues of volition and validity of the senses.

In his discussion of causality (p. 15), he defines "corollary" as: "a self-evident implication of already established knowledge," and he clearly states that: "A corollary of an axiom is not itself an axiom."

However, in discussing volition, he first says: "The principle of volition is a philosophic axiom, with all the features this involves" (p. 70). Then, one page later, he blatantly contradicts himself: "Volition, accordingly, is not an independent philosophic principle, but a corollary of the axiom of consciousness."

Similarly, in discussing validity of the senses, he first says: "The validity of the senses is an axiom" (p. 39). Then, two paragraphs later, on the same page (!), he writes: "The validity of the senses is not an independent axiom; it is a corollary of the fact of consciousness." (Another booboo here is referring to validity of the senses as a corollary of a ~fact~. Corollaries are implications not of facts, but of ~recognitions~ of facts, i.e., propositions, whether axiomatic or less general.)

Now, Rand was Peikoff's role model in many things, and it is possible that he took to heart her mangling of the discussion of architecture in "Art and Cognition" (The Romantic Manifesto, chapter 4)--thinking that if ~that~ example of "logic" was acceptable, then calling things axioms and not-axioms within mere paragraphs was acceptable, too.

On p. 45, Rand defines "art" as: "a selective re-creation of reality...," then on the following page lists and discusses architecture as one of the arts, saying however that architecture "does not re-create reality." Oooooo-kaaaaaay. Architecture is art, art re-creates reality, therefore architecture re-creates reality -- but, oops, architecture does ~not~ re-create reality. Hmmmm. "Architecture is in a class by itself..." No kidding! What class would that be? It's certainly not art!!! (Unless you want to throw the Objectivist epistemology and especially its theory of definition onto the scrapheap.)

[...]

As for ways in which Rand left Objectivism incomplete, I don't know why Dykes didn't mention some. I'm reasonably sure he and I would have some of the same issues in mind. For instance, proof for propositions gets what the Wikipedians call a "stub"—a treatment that takes up 2 pages in OPAR.

The theory of propositions in Objectivism, including Kelley's textbook, is woefully inadequate. Someone should do something about that...

In my experience, the more often and the more closely one reads OPAR—and this applies to any part of the book—the worse it turns out to be.

Agreed.

REB