Boydstun

Where in that Peikoff article did he use Rand's analysis of concepts in terms of measurement-omission? That is, where does Peikoff maintain that the sharp divide of truths between analytic and synthetic is a false divide provided that with the suspension of which particular a particular is when subsumed under a concept is also (Rand's distinctive innovation) a suspension of particular measure value along a dimension(s) common to particulars subsumed under a concept? The following relation of Peikoff's article and Rand's ITOE does not invoke her account of concepts by measurement omission:

Bar Coding in Neuronal Activity Patterns May Be a Key Element in Episodic Memory Human Invention of Bar Coding for Efficiency in Commerce (from Morse Code to Checkout/Inventory to Marketing)

I was using the politician quoting merely as one public token. Another political token of the culture knowing something of Rand would be Obama's reference to "the virtue of selfishness" and his reliance on the public's widespread rejection of such a thing. A Sunday school teacher warding the students away from reading Rand would be a token of her becoming mainstream; I just don't have a public example of it. Protestantism is mainstream without having a politics. There is nothing inherent in Objectivism to take institution of its political philosophy as a necessary condition for rating the philosophy mainstreamed. Philosophy need not be primarily a tool for political aspirations. Aristotle was not championed by the founders of this country, I should say. Objectivism, by the way, is not going to have its Politics comprehensively applied in American culture. What is taken for just under the law changes here, but it is not going to land on Objectivist Politics, entirely coinciding. Not ever, while we are a democratic republic, and when we are not, we are no longer America. One can be successful and happy without the dream of perfect justice being taken for a real possibility. One might continue to march for it only by loving justice, all the same, I imagine.

The significant ideas Peikoff planted in Rand were in metaphysics and epistemology. They are disguised as simply Rand. When one reads Rand in her ITOE speaking of such things as logical empiricism and the synthetic-analytic dichotomy, that is surely input from recent Ph.D. Peikoff. She had her ITOE immediately followed in her journal The Objectivist by Peikoff's article "The Synthetic-Analytic Dichotomy." That was his most important original contribution to Objectivism that was out in the open. Rand mentioned that when she had written in GS the portion in which she said she was completing Aristotle (identity and identification), she did not know the full significance of what she had contributed in the history of philosophy. She had learned that significance only later from an associate, she said. Bet a coke it was Peikoff. Ditto for the book on Pragmatism from which she quotes in setting out the problem of universals in the intro to ITOE. When you read the appendix added to ITOE, transcriptions of her epistemology seminar, it is clear there are two "Professors" (B and E) who are on the intellectual dais with Rand (Gotthelf and Peikoff); she relied on them for understanding what others are getting at at times and for history of philosophy. All the while, from his time in grad school to the end of Rand's substantive output (her participation in Peikoff's 1976 lecture series "The Philosophy of Objectivism", Peikoff is raising issues in philosophy (theoretical philosophy, contemporary or classical) that Rand would otherwise know nothing of, and together they hammer out an Objectivist answer. Behind the mask of John Galt is Ayn Rand. Behind the mask of "Ayn Rand's Philosophy" is Ayn Rand and some helpers, most notably Leonard Peikoff. My point is not that you are incorrect if you buy the standard line on authorship of the philosophy Objectivism. My only point is that that line is implausible. (Independently, Robert Campbell reached the same conclusion.) I don't mean to be vindicating a widely unacknowledged contribution of Peikoff to what is, in the end, an amateur philosophy that addressed a number of standard issues in philosophy; he'd surely not like that. I'm just being realistic about the actual complexity that has been brushed under the rug. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For original or fairly original, for true or approximately true, and for important in this philosophy, I take these.

Good point. Hamas does not want to negotiate about anything. They want Israel gone. Israel must destroy Hamas in Gaza. Plan B – Direct Texas to become a new independent state of Israel. The relics of Jerusalem might be reassembled there. Many a political bible-thumper in recent decades has been aligned with Israel, and they could have Easter sunrise services at the new Jerusalem.

Pretentious balderdash like this you have with you always – etc. Leibniz was this fantastical, but with more interest and reasons. And when he posed that the cosmos was a watch in the pocket of a giant, he didn't suggest you take him seriously.

Trash to Steam

A poetic refreshment.

@tadmjones I was wondering. Did you take high school geometry? If so, did it go alright for you? Can you in your imagination draw a line segment with a straightedge? Can you imagine pegging a compass at one end of the segment, drawing an arc (say, a semicircle) by sweeping the free end of that compass through the line segment with the arc being large enough to be intersecting the line segment visually well beyond the midpoint of the segment? Then leaving the opening of the compass in the same, peg it at the other end of the line segment and draw another semicircle intersecting the segment? Can you now see that the two semicircles intersect each other at two points, one above the line segment, one below it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Two books of related interest about the spatial character of all reasoning and imagination in reasoning: Space to Reason – A Spatial Theory of Human Thought (MIT 2013)by Markus Knauff Thinking through the Imagination (Fordam 2014) by John Kaag

Rohin, My guess would be that Objectivism will become more mainstream only by borrowed pieces. Portions of Galt's Speech read by Sen. Cruz in a filibuster a few years back is an epitome. Individualism, self-sufficiency, and independence of mind are heritage in America, and that cluster can continue to be revived as a live ideal by its boost from Rand. However, the pervasive allegiances in America to (i) heart-over-mind and (ii) self-sacrifice for others or country as handy and highest moral ideal show no sign of weakening. I'd expect those, as well as appeal to them as justification for expanding government programs, to continue. On the personal-life side, I'd guess that religion, perhaps watered down, will continue in the main. But alongside that, inconsistent as it may be, individuals will continue benefitting from Rand's picture of the goodness of loving oneself and some keys from Rand on how to make that love doable. Overall, then, I do not expect Objectivism-for-real to become more mainstream. That it will continue benefitting minds and lives—that much—beyond mine is pleasing. If I were a praying man, I'd pray for just that much.

"Dr. Peikoff acted as tertiary philosopher to consolidate her ideas in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." Rohin, I know it is customary and the official line that Peikoff merely consolidated Rand's ideas in this book stating her philosophy. I for one do not buy it. Peikoff was a significant source of many of the ideas in Rand's philosophy (always conferenced with Rand for concurrence) as set out in his 1976 lecture series "The Philosophy of Objectivism" and in his OPAR. And the same was the case for N. Branden in stating the philosophy in his lecture series "The Basic Principles of Objectivism", which has a more psychological emphasis than the statements of the philosophy by Peikoff. OPAR is the primary systematic statement of the philosophy, and I expect it to retain that standing. Blackwell's Companion to Ayn Rand is an example, I imagine, of pure consolidation of that philosophy (leaving aside a few departures from Rand put forth as Rand in that tome).

"John Rawls the father of DEI as intellectual" John Rawls and Fair Equality of Opportunity "The Interpretation of Dreams by Freud applying Kantian ideas" Kant and Freud

Does anyone have a link to any of these podcasts?

I remarked: I should have mentioned right after that sentence: Rand, A. 1968. Basic Principles of Literature. O 7(Aug):497–504.

KyaryPamyu, thank you for these good objections an angles. The dark paintings of Ivan Albright may have been triggered by what he witnessed in WWI. We don't really know. In connection with your hypothetical suffering person, I naturally thought of the actual artist Nietzsche. He suffered so horribly physically all the years he was producing Daybreak, Gay Science, Zarathustra, and beyond, yet his works seem more like motion upward beyond his daily suffering. I'd conclude at least that one's condition and life course does not necessarily settle what from the creator will be important to communicate.