A Note on the DIM Hypothesis

[Guyau]

Recent remark of Leonard Peikoff, concerning his DIM Hypothesis book (thanks to DH for this jot):

Philosophy is wide abstractions. That does not entail specific choices or specific interpretations of how they apply to concretes. For instance, take my theory of history presented in the DIM book. I make a definite distinction between official Objectivist doctrine and Peikoff's theory of history. Now, I believe that my theory is based on Objectivism, but it does not follow from Objectivism, it is not therefore Objectivism as such. It is my application and each person has to decide is this the correct application or not. It is not subjective, but it's still not a question of what is the philosophy, but what are its applications? And in that regard, Ayn Rand and I and others can disagree without anybody contradicting the philosophy.

The book will be issued in September.

[Brant Gaede]

Recent remark of Leonard Peikoff, concerning his DIM Hypothesis book (thanks to DH for this jot):

Philosophy is wide abstractions. That does not entail specific choices or specific interpretations of how they apply to concretes. For instance, take my theory of history presented in the DIM book. I make a definite distinction between official Objectivist doctrine and Peikoff's theory of history. Now, I believe that my theory is based on Objectivism, but it does not follow from Objectivism, it is not therefore Objectivism as such. It is my application and each person has to decide is this the correct application or not. It is not subjective, but it's still not a question of what is the philosophy, but what are its applications? And in that regard, Ayn Rand and I and others can disagree without anybody contradicting the philosophy.

The book will be issued in September.

The man's brain seems to be working okay. It's a long, complicated and coherent statement. (Click on the link.) Since his silly statement on whom to vote for referencing Objectivism was over five years ago, it would seem senility is not his problem.

--Brant

assuming an accurate transcription

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

I read that and was going to post it. I'm glad you beat me to it.

Oddly enough, without all the verbiage, this is, conceptually, my approach to Objectivism. I just don't bicker over the word, "Objectivism," like the fundamentalists do.

But I do try to make it clear that if a person calls himself an Objectivist in my meaning, this does not indicate an officially sanctioned intellectual soldier in the organized Objectivist movement to save the world. It indicates a person who is intimate with, and largely identifies with Rand's works.

Sort of like a person does when he says he is a Kantian. He means someone who has studied Kant and largely agrees with him. In other words, it is not an end point, like a badge you get from a superior for performing a set of steps. It is a beginning point you use to identify your intellectual context--to keep from repeating basic stuff over and over--as your own precious life unfolds and your journey takes you to wherever you guide it--or elsewhere when events intervene.

So I have a stickler for Peikoff and it relates to this difference in meaning. Peikoff makes a presumption that being "Objectivism as such" is important to people. But is it? Really? When I look around, I mostly see, "Who cares?"

This isn't snark. It's actually one of the presuppositions Objectivist fundamentalists harp on with ham-handed hostility that makes ARI unpalatable to intelligent people who would probably agree with much of Rand, but resist anything that smells like indoctrination as their default attitude.

I think the problem lies in trying to impose a single meaning for a word in the content of other people's brains. For example, I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that their work was done by Ayn Rand. Nor do I think they would preach that their work was officially approved by her if it wasn't.

But when they write something about Rand and Objectivism, or based on Rand's ideas, suddenly they are attacked as if these were precisely the things they were trying to accomplish. They are told to use this and that terminology. Then, if they don't obey, this morphs into lots of ink promoting them as enemies in a silly "us versus them" and "protect the purity of the doctrine" game.

Just look what happened to Chris Sciabarra when he wrote Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical or set up The Journal for Ayn Rand Studies to help get her work accepted in universities, for a totally innocent outsider.

So while I agree with Peikoff conceptually on keeping Rand's work separate from that of other people, I can't help but notice that this is something people already do. And I think his implementation stinks--including the implementation of his cohorts. He uses this method of overly-justifying and explaining something obvious to sneak in an intellectual club to beat people in line with, not provide a tool to help them grow--unless they want to grow into a "student of Objectivism" clone. In other words, a true believer.

Anyway, I hope his book ends up having some value in the world. From what I've seen, DIM is a frame that might be useful in certain cases. (I'm thinking specifically if the general approach can be used as a guide for setting up outlines and blueprints for new works.) Who gives a crap if it is considered as official Objectivism or just something written by Peikoff?

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

The current issue of ARI's "Impact" had this notice about Peikoff's Q&A session in July and the fuller title of his forthcoming book:

Leonard Peikoff to Host Q&A at Objectivist Summer Conference!

Impact is pleased to report that Leonard Peikoff will host a general Q&A session at the Objectivist summer conference, scheduled to take place June 30–July 8 in San Diego, California, at the Sheraton San

Diego Hotel and Marina.

Dr. Peikoff’s session will be held on Friday, July 6, from 11 AM to 12:15 PM. ARI will solicit written questions in advance. As of now, this event will take place via live video, but Dr. Peikoff may attend the event in person.

Keep up with Impact and the Objectivist summer conference Facebook page [(facebook.com/

objectivistconferences)] to find updates regarding this event and how to submit questions.

A close associate of Ayn Rand’s for thirty years, Dr. Peikoff is Rand’s legal heir. He is author of

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America and is editor of numerous Ayn Rand anthologies. He hosts a weekly podcast show on his website (peikoff

.com), in which he answers listeners’ questions about Ayn Rand’s philosophy. His latest book, The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out, hits stores later this year.

On his website, Dr. Peikoff describes the book as follows: “Integration is the process by which people interrelate concrete data to make a connected whole, data such as individual facts, values, laws, the events in a novel, the provisions of the Constitution and so on. In all these contexts and more, The DIM Hypothesis identifies three different methods of integration and their consequences for the West’s past—and for America’s future.”

To register for Dr. Peikoff’s Q&A session and to check out the full conference schedule, visit [objectivistconferences].

[Brant Gaede]

The "lights of the West are going out"(?) because special interests are robbing the public purse expanding their base and getting stronger taking even more and more. Improved philosophical reasoning won't change anything as the power mongers in government and the media monger on.

--Brant

same mistake in his first book--over-valuing the influence of philosophy

I will buy and read it

The last time the lights were going out (in Europe) came WWI

Edited February 22, 2012 by Brant Gaede

[Dennis Hardin]

Recent remark of Leonard Peikoff, concerning his DIM Hypothesis book (thanks to DH for this jot):

Philosophy is wide abstractions. That does not entail specific choices or specific interpretations of how they apply to concretes.. .

.

The book will be issued in September.

Hsieh’s post quotes Peikoff as follows:

. . .A philosopher can hold views that do not necessarily follow from the philosophy, but are its application to a realm where facts are established by science, or observation, or some other appropriate means. Philosophy is wide abstractions. That does not entail specific choices or specific interpretations of how they apply to concretes. For instance, take my theory of history presented in the DIM book. I make a definite distinction between official Objectivst doctrine and Peikoff's theory of history. Now, I believe that my theory is based on Objectivism, but it does not follow from Objectivism, it is not therefore Objectivism as such. It is my application and each person has to decide is this the correct application or not?

She says this is a clear explanation of the meaning of Objectivism as a closed system. Really?

To begin with, where do we draw the line between ‘wide abstractions’ and ‘applications’? His "DIM Hypothesis" is not merely a juxtapositon of concretes. The concretes are tied together by an elaborate abstract theoretical analysis.

Is measurement omission an ‘application’ of objective epistemology? Are the specific virtues (e.g., productiveness, integrity, et. al.) ‘applications’ of rational self-interest? Is rights theory an ‘application’ of the principles of freedom and noncoercion? Is limited government a specific ‘application’ of objective law? Obviously Ayn Rand would say that all these ‘applications’ follow from more basic principles and are indeed part of Objectivist philosophy ‘as such.’

The abstraction/application distinction is, well, arbitrary, Dr. Peikoff. Most of what Ayn Rand described as “Objectivism” consisted of applications derived from basic principles. But as she said in an interview, there is simply no way that one person can elucidate all the applications of the basic principles in his/her lifetime, so much of that task must remain for others to complete. Which is why a philosophy based on reason can never be “closed.”

Peikoff says ‘applications’ are the realm of facts established by science or observation. Gee. Do you suppose Ayn Rand would say the “wide abstractions” that constitute the most fundamental Objectivist principles are not facts established by observation (with the empirical backing of science)?

Peikoff’s DIM theory is “based on” Objectivism, but does not “follow from” Objectiviism. Huh? Either it is based on Objectivism, and therefore follows from Objectivist principles, or it is not. That’s what it means to say that a theory “follows” from certain principles: It is based on those principles. If facts and observations are insufficient to establish the theory, then the theory is merely a hypothesis (ergo, the “DIM Hypothesis”). When and if facts and observations do fully establish the truth of his theory—and his theory is based on and “follows from” Objectivism—then it should become a part of Objectivism "as such."

Facts and observations confirmed by science apply to every premise of a philosophy, not merely “applications.” To say that “official Objectivism” is what Ayn Rand said in her various writings, regardless of “science, facts and observations,” is to say that, if one of her “applications” is ever disproven by new evidence, Objectivism cannot be altered to accommodate that integration. Since every principle in a philosophy is inherently connected, we must then conclude that “official Objectivism” is false, since we cannot alter it. Objectivism must, therefore, remain permanently “closed” and invalid.

Yeah. Peikoff’s explanation is real clear. If a huge splattering of mud in your eyes is your idea of clarity.

[Reidy]

I don't see a problem distinguishing between "based on" and "follows from." In the first case you need additional data or premises; in the second, the underlying theory is sufficient. If I design a car that uses Newtonian mechanics, metallurgy and product design, the result is based on Newton's discoveries. If I solve a logic problem in which all the needed premises are on the page before I start to work, the result follows from the premises.

[Brant Gaede]

Re DH and "official Objectivist doctrine": that's dogma.

--Brant

that's also what Nathaniel Branden spoke, wrote and published in the 1960s before The Break--at least according to Ayn Rand

[Dennis Hardin]

I don't see a problem distinguishing between "based on" and "follows from." In the first case you need additional data or premises; in the second, the underlying theory is sufficient. If I design a car that uses Newtonian mechanics, metallurgy and product design, the result is based on Newton's discoveries. If I solve a logic problem in which all the needed premises are on the page before I start to work, the result follows from the premises.

You could say that “follows from” means that a conclusion is implicit in the premises, whereas “based on” allows us to introduce something new into the equation, but I’m not sure that distinction is really meaningful. The phrases represent two different ways of saying that a new principle is consistent with prior principles.

For instance, David Kelley argues that the virtue of benevolence is implicit in the Objectivist view of rational self-interest. Therefore, benevolence as a moral principle “follows from” rational self-interest. At the same time, benevolence as a moral principle is also clearly ‘based on’ the Objectivist view of rational self-interest.

A new application entails a new identification that was not there before. If it is based on Objectivism, then it follows from Objectivism, and vice versa. To say that a given application is based on Objectivism, but does not follow from Objectivism, strikes me as playing with words to defend a very dubious point of view.