New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Xray]

Biddle lectures canceled by ARI.

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/craig-biddles-lectures-canceled-by-ari.html

From Craig Biddle' website: http://www.craigbiddle.com/misc/mccaskey.htm

Peikoff claims in his email that McCaskey’s (alleged) wrongdoing is sufficiently bad that even his enormous contribution to the spread of Objectivism only “raises him one rung in Hell.” At first blush, one might assume that Peikoff is exaggerating here, as people sometimes do in private emails, and that he doesn’t really mean to morally condemn McCaskey. But because Peikoff authorized McCaskey to post the email as a public statement of Peikoff’s position, and because Peikoff has not come forth to say that he did not mean to morally condemn McCaskey—which he could do easily and quickly were that the case—I must take Peikoff at his word.

Peikoff claiming that McCaskey's contribution to the spread of Objectivism only "raises him one rung in Hell" - priceless! For this of course raises the question: And who is the devil in command of that Hell?

Edited October 31, 2010 by Xray

[Reidy]

I see two problems in the deduction Xray presents in #722. She quotes Rand as saying "that which exists is concrete." A few lines later this morphs into "a concrete is that which exists" - i.e. a definition of "concrete," a claim that "concrete" and "what exists" are coextensive and that what goes for one invariably goes for the other. This is not what the Rand quote says. "That which exists is concrete" does not rule out the claim that "that which is imagined is concrete." "December is a month" is a not a definition of "December" or of "month," nor is it a claim that all months are December. Had Rand said "that which exists is concrete, and all concretes exist," the deduction would go through. But she didn't.

The second objection turns on what you mean by "exists." Rand was fond of saying that to be is to be something or other. Aristotle pointed out that being a physical entity is not the same as being an action or a state or a number and so forth. I see no obstacle to saying that to be an imaginary entity is to be thought of in some imaginer's mind or that an imaginary concrete is what an imaginer thinks of.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Reidy

[Dennis Hardin]

A permanent break between ARI and Biddle would be significant in view of Biddle’s position as editor and publisher of The Objective Standard. The magazine is highly professional and well edited, and it has earned Rand and Objectivism a measure of respectability among intellectual journals. Although it has only been publishing a few short years, its’ circulation is around 4000, which is pretty decent for a philosophical journal. Compare that to American Philosophical Quarterly (1700), The Review of Metaphysics (2900), Mind (3500) and The Monist (1800). TOS has also managed to find its way onto the magazine shelves of hundreds of bookstores nationwide, including Barnes and Noble.

If TOS collapses for lack of ARI support, it will be another setback for Objectivism as a serious intellectual movement—a standing its “official” leadership has not earned and probably does not deserve. Ayn Rand’s legacy—and her ideas--deserve so much better.

Hsieh on Noodlefood: “I can imagine some reasonable explanations for ARI's action.”

Me, too, although 'reasonable' might not be quite accurate. Biddle committed the unforgivable sin of openly evaluating Peikoff for his condemnation of McCaskey, rather than indefinitely deferring such judgment out of fear of “offending” anyone.

[Robert Campbell]

It's getting tense for Diana Hsieh now. But she keeps kowtowing to the ARI leadership.

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/craig-biddles-lectures-canceled-by-ari.html

At present, I'm not aware of any further public information on that decision. As much as that worries me, I'd recommend not leaping to conclusions, as I can imagine some reasonable explanations for ARI's action. Whatever those reasons, I very much hope that ARI explains its decision and its policies publicly. That strikes me as very important now.

Also, I strongly urge OAC students to take advantage of the upcoming OAC call in order to better understand ARI's position on this whole controversy. (Even though I'm still an OAC graduate student, I won't be on the call because I'm not currently involved in any OAC programs. They didn't offer any graduate classes last year, and they don't seem to have plans to do so this year.) I hope the call goes well, and that it's helpful to students.

As long as there still is an Objectivist Academic Center, Dr. Hsieh will be angling for paid employment from it.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

The most incredible thing are the posters (I don't know if Hsieh is one) who dispute or question whether Peikoff issued a "moral condemnation" of McCaskey. First, that's all Peikoff does. Second, what do they make of the "rung in hell" line?

-Neil Parille

[kiaer.ts]

It's getting tense for Diana Hsieh now. But she keeps kowtowing to the ARI leadership.

http://blog.dianahsi...led-by-ari.html

At present, I'm not aware of any further public information on that decision. As much as that worries me, I'd recommend not leaping to conclusions, as I can imagine some reasonable explanations for ARI's action. Whatever those reasons, I very much hope that ARI explains its decision and its policies publicly. That strikes me as very important now.

Also, I strongly urge OAC students to take advantage of the upcoming OAC call in order to better understand ARI's position on this whole controversy. (Even though I'm still an OAC graduate student, I won't be on the call because I'm not currently involved in any OAC programs. They didn't offer any graduate classes last year, and they don't seem to have plans to do so this year.) I hope the call goes well, and that it's helpful to students.

As long as there still is an Objectivist Academic Center, Dr. Hsieh will be angling for paid employment from it.

Robert Campbell

All the actual evidence you have points to irrational behavior and evil motives, but you can imagine why they might not be relevant? Might as well say that you don't so much mind the beatings because you can imagine that the makeup sex will be good.

[Robert Campbell]

Of course, Dr. Hsieh will never admit that the expulsion of John McCaskey upon Leonard Peikoff's personal demand reveals any flaw in "closed-system Objectivism."

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/craig-biddles-lectures-canceled-by-ari.html#comment-91960176

I stand by my repudiation of "open Objectivism" 100%. It's a disaster in theory and practice, and it leads to weird forms of dogmatism.

In sharp contrast, I continue to be impressed with the quality of scholars and scholarship around ARI, despite these present difficulties. I continue to think well of most ARI-friendly scholars. I don't think well of everyone, but that's hardly to be expected.

As always in the ARIan orbit, her less than 100% endorsement names no names.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Dennis,

I subscribed to TOS to read Fitts' review of PARC. I'm not impressed with the magazine.

So long as it's not subsidized by the ARI I think it will survive. I gather that most "journals of opinion" need contributions to survive.

-Neil Parille

[Starbuckle]

Betsy Speicher praises Craig Biddle for making a public statement on the McCaskey mess that states the obvious: "A real test of virtue is whether someone is honest, just, and acts with integrity when it is difficult to do so. In this case, Craig could have avoided judging altogether and not have to have come to the painful conclusion that at least one of the people he respected was wrong. He might also have kept his opinion to himself and not exposed himself to the public criticism of, and strained relationships with, people he valued. I don't see any reason for Craig to have gone public at all except that he wanted to prevent an injustice to an innocent man. Thus, Craig showed that he could not only think clearly and come to a rational conclusion, but that he is a man of justice and integrity."

[Starbuckle]

Neil wrote: "The most incredible thing are the posters (I don't know if Hsieh is one) who dispute or question whether Peikoff issued a 'moral condemnation' of McCaskey. First, that's all Peikoff does. Second, what do they make of the 'rung in hell' line?"

This is funny. There are ten-volume treatises out now about how there "must" be some reasonable explanation of Peikoff's conduct, hidden just under the surface, given the kind of man he is, which, let it be stressed, has nothing to do with previous manifestations of the same sort of loony dogmatism. Indeed, there are heated explanations on the Internet about why Peikoff's consignment of McCaskey to the second-lowest rung of hell does not mean what you think it means. Has Neil not read these proofs? Also, vis-a-vis widest context of valuing and facting here, Peikoff explained all about the facts and the values in "Fact and Value." But I guess, like so many who have failed to acquire omniscience before leaping to the only sensible conclusions on this matter, Neil doesn't have time to sift all the evidence. There is only one word for this kind of dropper of contexts, and that word is: context-dropper.

Look, if the Alpha Centurions have threatened to annihilate earth unless Peikoff declines to do any further "explicating" of his authoritarian power play, I think he's perfectly justified in keeping mum. And for all we know this is what happened. Here's another scenario for you leap-to-conclusioners: what if the real Peikoff has been abducted and some satirical knockoff has been substituted, just to see how the cultists would react if his premises and m.o. were logically reduced to absurdity? Then all the sniping about Peikoff's latest outbreak would be completely unfair. I am tired of persons like Neil rampantly "leaping to conclusions" about such matters based on "incomplete evidence." The point is, we don't know exactly what really happened in itself here, and we may never know so long as Peikoff keeps hiding the rest of the relevant evidence in his closet (which he may or may not have a perfect right to do, we just don't know, we don't know), AND THAT IS THE POINT. Wait until you have the full context of knowledge so that blah blah blah, etc., okay? Is that too much to ask?

Edited November 1, 2010 by Starbuckle

[PDS]

Of course, Dr. Hsieh will never admit that the expulsion of John McCaskey upon Leonard Peikoff's personal demand reveals any flaw in "closed-system Objectivism."

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/craig-biddles-lectures-canceled-by-ari.html#comment-91960176

I stand by my repudiation of "open Objectivism" 100%. It's a disaster in theory and practice, and it leads to weird forms of dogmatism.

In sharp contrast, I continue to be impressed with the quality of scholars and scholarship around ARI, despite these present difficulties. I continue to think well of most ARI-friendly scholars. I don't think well of everyone, but that's hardly to be expected.

As always in the ARIan orbit, her less than 100% endorsement names no names.

Robert Campbell

I don't fault her for not naming names, although, admittedly, I have never been on the receiving end of her moral certitude, so I understand your lack of patience. At the end of the thread you link to, by the way, there are very interesting comments (pro and con) about the source of this dilemma for the ARI folks: i.e., the box Peikoff created 20 years ago when he deemed Objectivism "closed."

[Xray]

I see two problems in the deduction Xray presents in #722. She quotes Rand as saying "that which exists is concrete." A few lines later this morphs into "a concrete is that which exists" - i.e. a definition of "concrete," a claim that "concrete" and "what exists" are coextensive and that what goes for one invariably goes for the other. This is not what the Rand quote says. "That which exists is concrete" does not rule out the claim that "that which is imagined is concrete." "December is a month" is a not a definition of "December" or of "month," nor is it a claim that all months are December. Had Rand said "that which exists is concrete, and all concretes exist," the deduction would go through. But she didn't.

Reidy,

You forgot to take into account what I also quoted in # 722, namely that Rand stated: "To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units)" (Rand)

So she is clear as a bell about concretes being ‘distinct perceptual units’.

The implication of a conrete as a distinct perceptual unit is that this unit must exist (because a distinct perceptual unit cannot not exist).

Edited November 2, 2010 by Xray

[merjet]

Reidy,

You forgot to take into account what I also quoted in # 722, namely that Rand stated: "To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units)" (Rand)

So she is clear as a bell about concretes being ‘distinct perceptual units’.

Xray is wrong again. She quoted Peikoff, not Ayn Rand.

[Reidy]

And in addition, I see nothing in the Peikoff quote that rules out the concretes' being objects of imagination. We can't imagine particulars until we've learned to perceive them, but this doesn't rule out our imagining them once we've acquired the faculty.

Working philosophers use what they call the principle of charity: when in doubt, interpret a text in the way that makes it come out best. If reading Objectivism's use of "concretes" to actual, physical things leads to a wrong conclusion, as you've shown it to do, the principle would enjoin us not to read it this way.

[sjw]

Working philosophers use what they call the principle of charity: when in doubt, interpret a text in the way that makes it come out best. If reading Objectivism's use of "concretes" to actual, physical things leads to a wrong conclusion, as you've shown it to do, the principle would enjoin us not to read it this way.

Holy hell, did an Objectivist just say to read other philosophers with charity?!

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

And in addition, I see nothing in the Peikoff quote that rules out the concretes' being objects of imagination. We can't imagine particulars until we've learned to perceive them, but this doesn't rule out our imagining them once we've acquired the faculty.

Working philosophers use what they call the principle of charity: when in doubt, interpret a text in the way that makes it come out best. If reading Objectivism's use of "concretes" to actual, physical things leads to a wrong conclusion, as you've shown it to do, the principle would enjoin us not to read it this way.

I make it a policy not to read Xray's posts. She is incapable of presenting Objectivist doctrines like the stolen concept accurately in her own words.

Rand claims that to be is to be something specific, and that concrete entities are the primary existents. See her claim that there is no such thing as Objectivism in The Art of Nonfiction.

[Rich Engle]

(italics mine)

I stand by my repudiation of "open Objectivism" 100%. It's a disaster in theory and practice, and it leads to weird forms of dogmatism.

Is it just me, or when anyone who knows anything about this whole dealio looks at that sentence, they are waiting for it to implode into the swirling vortex? Or for lightning to strike her down. Something. I mean, really now. Closed vs.Open: see parallel between that and in religion, Creed vs. Covenant. In either, which one naturally requires dogma (as far as "weird" goes, I guess that is just a matter of taste)? I'm going with door number 1.

Definitely getting her freak on these days. I'm thinking either Ibogaine, or human adrenal gland (bet she could eat a whole one of those).

Judas Priestess!

r

[kiaer.ts]

(italics mine)

I stand by my repudiation of "open Objectivism" 100%. It's a disaster in theory and practice, and it leads to weird forms of dogmatism.

Is it just me, or when anyone who knows anything about this whole dealio looks at that sentence, they are waiting for it to implode into the swirling vortex? Or for lightning to strike her down. Something. I mean, really now. Closed vs.Open: see parallel between that and in religion, Creed vs. Covenant. In either, which one naturally requires dogma (as far as "weird" goes, I guess that is just a matter of taste)? I'm going with door number 1.

Definitely getting her freak on these days. I'm thinking either Ibogaine, or human adrenal gland (bet she could eat a whole one of those).

I had to laugh when I read that line last night. I don't think she actually knows what the words weird and dogmatism mean.

[sjw]

(italics mine)

I stand by my repudiation of "open Objectivism" 100%. It's a disaster in theory and practice, and it leads to weird forms of dogmatism.

Is it just me, or when anyone who knows anything about this whole dealio looks at that sentence, they are waiting for it to implode into the swirling vortex? Or for lightning to strike her down. Something. I mean, really now. Closed vs.Open: see parallel between that and in religion, Creed vs. Covenant. In either, which one naturally requires dogma (as far as "weird" goes, I guess that is just a matter of taste)? I'm going with door number 1.

Definitely getting her freak on these days. I'm thinking either Ibogaine, or human adrenal gland (bet she could eat a whole one of those).

Judas Priestess!

r

Yeah it's hilarious. I'm all for "closed" -- if that means Objectivism is a dead philosophical system and that we must move on, that Objectivism is literally what Rand said and only what Rand said. The minute you have a single individual who claims to actually be an Objectivist, then by the nature of philosophy, it can't be "closed", as every individual brings their own context and understanding. They are what they are, which includes being philosophically influenced by Rand, but a lot of other things as well. (I don't think any self-respecting person ought to adopt much other than "rational individualist", as it is generic enough of a term to not start smelling like religion. Leave the term "Objectivist" for the zealots.)

This is why Diana has learned to be so insanely polite and so incredibly deferential to authority figures these past several years. She has learned that dissent leads her right back to where she started: a concept of "open" Objectivism. So she's learned to tiptoe, to pretend to the maximum possible extent that there is no dissent, by dressing it up in a nice polite outfit.

Shayne

[Xray]

Xray is wrong again. She quoted Peikoff, not Ayn Rand.

I just looked it up, thanks for pointing out the error: It was Peikoff, in the article he wrote in ITOE. But unless you can make your case in demonstrating that what Peikoff said is not in sync with Objectivist epistemology, I'll rephrase the sentence:

You forgot to take into account what I also quoted in # 722, namely that it is stated in ITOE, p. 97 (Leonard Peikoff):

"To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units)"(LP)

If you think that what Peikoff said is not in sync with Objectivist epistomology, please demostrate why.

A direct quote from Rand precedes Peikoff's sentence: ITOE, p. 97 [According to Objectivism], "concepts represent classifications of observed exsitents according to their relationships to other observed existents".

Here we have it again: observed existents.

And in addition, I see nothing in the Peikoff quote that rules out the concretes' being objects of imagination. We can't imagine particulars until we've learned to perceive them, but this doesn't rule out our imagining them once we've acquired the faculty.

Imo the Rand quote "concepts represent classifications of observed exsitents according to their relationships to other observed existents" makes it very difficult to interpret "concretes" as objects of imagination.

I make it a policy not to read Xray's posts. She is incapable of presenting Objectivist doctrines like the stolen concept accurately in her own words.

You call the stolen concept a "doctrine"?

I recall making a little satirical fun of the formulation 'stolen' concept a couple of times, and it seems you didn't like it. Lighten up a bit.

Working philosophers use what they call the principle of charity: when in doubt, interpret a text in the way that makes it come out best. If reading Objectivism's use of "concretes" to actual, physical things leads to a wrong conclusion, as you've shown it to do, the principle would enjoin us not to read it this way.

Holy hell, did an Objectivist just say to read other philosophers with charity?!

Shayne

Imo this was a very impressive comment by Reidy. It shows a non-dogmatic attitude.

I basically would have no problem reading philosophers with interpretative charity but then this charity would go for e.g. Heidegger as well. For one can explain as well what he meant by "Nothing noughts", although it is a logically incorrect formulation.

Rand was quick to attack Heidegger, accusing him of the "reification of the zero" here, but isn't her "Consciousness is conscious" a reification as well? A reification not of the zero, but of an abstract noun which in itself can't be conscious? For only living beings can be.

So a satirist might use both Heidegger and Rand to create the sentence "Existence exists (or Consciousness is conscious) until it is noughted by Nothing". ;)

So maybe one should not apply at all the same analytical strictness to philosophers' language as one does to scientific texts?

Edited November 2, 2010 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

This is why Diana has learned to be so insanely polite and so incredibly deferential to authority figures these past several years. She has learned that dissent leads her right back to where she started: a concept of "open" Objectivism. So she's learned to tiptoe, to pretend to the maximum possible extent that there is no dissent, by dressing it up in a nice polite outfit.]

You know, there's a slang name for people like that which stems from a very old profession, and outside of using it to refer to certain people in fields like politics, etc., I tend to avoid invoking in in polite company. The only main difference in subcategories are that some go after higher-end clients than others.

I mean, you can always say things like "the only thing missing here is a totally flat head so you would have somewhere to put down your beer while they're . . ."

But anyway I'm sure y'all get the picture.

rde

Edited November 2, 2010 by Rich Engle

[George H. Smith]

Imo the Rand quote "concepts represent classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents" makes it very difficult to interpret "concretes" as objects of imagination.

The claim that Rand cannot account for concepts of imaginary entities is quite possibly the dumbest criticism of ITOE I have ever heard. Can you not even guess how Rand would explain, say, our concept "unicorn"? Have you no inkling of how she would explain that our concepts "horse" and "horn" are derived from perceptual concretes, and that we combine these concepts into a single a mental unit to form the concept "unicorn"? Locke and other empiricists, many of whom expressly addressed this issue, had no problem with imaginary entities, and neither would Rand.

What may we expect from you next? The criticism that Rand tended to overuse dashes in her writing?

Ghs

[merjet]

If you think that what Peikoff said is not in sync with Objectivist epistomology, please demostrate why.

A direct quote from Rand precedes Peikoff's sentence: ITOE, p. 97 [According to Objectivism], "concepts represent classifications of observed exsitents according to their relationships to other observed existents".

Here we have it again: observed existents.

Observe, as used by Rand and most people, includes more than perceive. For example:

Observe that the concept "furniture" is an abstraction one step further removed from perceptual reality than any of its constituent concepts (ITOE2, 22).

But volition in the full sense of a conscious choice, and a choice which he can observe by introspection, begins when he forms concepts ... (ITOE2, 150).

[Xray]

Imo the Rand quote "concepts represent classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents" makes it very difficult to interpret "concretes" as objects of imagination.

The claim that Rand cannot account for concepts of imaginary entities is quite possibly the dumbest criticism of ITOE I have ever heard.

The issue was about concretes.

Rand, ITOE, p. 10: "Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e. that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind." (Rand)

This statement by Rand works quite well with e. g. tables and chairs, but what are the unlimited unlimited number of "concretes" terms like "unicorn" "pixy" and "angel" stand for?

Edited November 2, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Imo the Rand quote "concepts represent classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents" makes it very difficult to interpret "concretes" as objects of imagination.

The claim that Rand cannot account for concepts of imaginary entities is quite possibly the dumbest criticism of ITOE I have ever heard. Can you not even guess how Rand would explain, say, our concept "unicorn"? Have you no inkling of how she would explain that our concepts "horse" and "horn" are derived from perceptual concretes, and that we combine these concepts into a single a mental unit to form the concept "unicorn"? Locke and other empiricists, many of whom expressly addressed this issue, had no problem with imaginary entities, and neither would Rand.

What may we expect from you next? The criticism that Rand tended to overuse dashes in her writing?

Ghs

I was merely running a little test applying Rand's own premises and got the surprising result "angels exist". If you find fault with the way I conducted the syllogism, feel free to look up my post in question and and point it out.

But as I wrote in my latest post, maybe we should not be that strict with philosophers' use of language anyway. Thus we could even rencocile a sentence like "Nothing noughts" with "Existence exists".

I would rather scrub my genitals with a Brillo pad than wade through your posts looking for a specific point.

Do angels exist? An creations of the imagination, yes. As real entities, no. If every concept needed to have an existential referent, then Rand could never speak, as she often does, of invalid concepts.

Rand's point is that the elements of a concept ultimately originate in our perceptions of concretes. After we abstract certain features of our percepts, however, there is no reason why we cannot combine these abstractions to form concepts of imaginary entities. Since we do not immediately perceive imaginary entities, they, unlike many real entities, fall into the category of abstractions from abstractions.

Lastly, you are as clueless about why Rand used the tautology "Existence exists" as you are about other aspects of her epistemology.

Ghs