eudaemonia

Hang on a minute. My attitude is no where close to what you imply. Not by a long shot. In terms of making waves, line starts behind me.

Thanks to both Diana and Michelle for the edification. I understand your positions better now. Michelle, I'm sorry you've chosen to withdraw from the Summer Seminar. I would have enjoyed participating in your session precisely for its challenge to thinking about objectivity. Again, I wish you the best. -- E

Two questions: 1) Do you mean rationalist in the "rationalizing" sense or the Descartes/Spinoza/Leibniz sense, as I'm not really sure of your meaning; and 2) How is Huemer's position on direct realism of perception only a superficial likeness of the Objectivist view? Not attempting to agitate here, but some clarification about your meaning would be appreciated, either publically or privately. ...E

Michelle, I don't have the desire to verify anything with TOC. That's beside the point. But I do think it's a shame you've chosen to withdraw your paper, not only because if your criticisms are valid then TOC needs to hear about them, but also because you'll deny yourself the opportunity to receive what could potentially be constructive criticism. On that count, I'm just speculating. Keep in mind, not everyone attending the Summer Seminars considers themselves Objectivist but are nonetheless very close allies -- Michael Heumer (one of Diana Hsieh's professors) for example. Not only does Michael lecture and attend the summer seminars, he has at times been extremely critical of particular points of Objectivism. Michael is an excellent mind as well as being well-acquainted with current topics in philosophy, some of which Objectivism has failed to address adequately, if at all. If Objectivism is to spread and gain significant credibility in academia beyond the handful of scholars that include Tara Smith, James Lennox, Lester Hunt and a few others, *I* think it's imperative that scholars seek critical feedback from both Objectivism's supporters as well as its opponents. It's precisely this failure to meet our opponents head-on on their own turf that keeps this movement marginalized. I don't see how retreating to the insular world of a closed system will further your scholarly thinking, Michelle. But I wish you the best. Eudaemonia

Fair enough. I guess I don't understand what basis you have for thinking TOC would pull an 11th-hour stunt such as you suggest above. You submitted your paper months ago (December?), and you've been on the schedule since, what, mid February or early March (when I first saw it at their Web site)? Seems the question of TOC's tolerant position towards you as a scholar has been settled for some time. Especially so given the fact that you've been a lecturer at their seminars in the past and have been specifically asked to comment at the Advanced Seminar as well. From where I sit, they've been extremely generous toward your scholarship in the past. So why the guarded stance of "wait and see" now? I don't see the justification. Something isn't adding up here.

Curious. Are you the same Michelle Fram Cohen who is presenting a paper at The Objectivist Center's Summer Seminar in July? http://objectivistcenter.org/events/sem200...m05-tuesday.asp Sparrow, how are we to assess ~your~ current support of TOC by the fact of your giving a paper there? You speak so disparagingly of the very organization that you seek scholarly feedback from. The hypocrisy is stunning.