abanger

Dissertation and Online papers Introductory logic textbook, in progress.

Ayn Rand on Concepts: Another Approach to Abstraction, Essences, and Kinds

Has anyone read A Theory of Propositions by Ron Pisaturo? I'm looking for reviews.

Anabolic Pharmacology by Seth Roberts

Ayn Rand remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend "three A's"—Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand. In physiology qua body recomposition, I can recommend "The Four Horsemen:" Lyle McDonald: Generic Bulk, The Baseline Diet Alan Aragon: Girth Control Borge Fagerli: Myo-reps, The Fruit Diet Martin Berkhan: High Frequency Training, Intermittent Fasting Note: This is an informative thread, not an argumentative one. I will not be engaging in debate.

I don't wish to sanction the Brandens et al., but the BPO chapters in this book rival OPAR: The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism

I have a copy to sell. Please PM to discuss.

Having known Greg Salmieri via the CMU Objectivist Club, I can say w/ full confidence that he's the future of Objectivism.

CMU Objectivist Club

Mentzer was a long-term rationalist, therefore he never matured intellectually. Mentzer's maturity is relevant "in coming to a moral evaluation" of him. My posts (not to mention mountains of research) are littered w/ ample proof that Mentzer was wrong, though it's interesting to note that Mentzer (& his ilk) never proved that he was right. Mentzer was guilty of rationalism (by evading physiology), & do I really need to refute that on this forum? I don't see how conceptualization is fradulent, in fact your argument stinks of an anti-conceptual mentality. The analogy to Kelley serves the master premise of the primacy of induction. You have to choose b/w induction (science) & rationalism (pseudo-science) - “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” Ever hear of the idiom "reinventing the wheel?" If it's been said better before, why say it again? Trying to evade all the inductive science against HIT might prove problematic in light of the inherent dishonesty required for such an approach. The essay was originally my way of giving back to the Objectivist community, but given the evasive mentality encountered in this thread, I'm beginning to doubt its value. Speaking of ad hominem...

Mentzer's writing skills do not validate HIT. Mentzer is a dangerous introduction to Objectivism, because he leads to rationalism. Mentzer tried to deduce HIT from philosophy instead of inducing it from physiology. Starting Strength: A Simple and Practical Guide for Coaching Beginners is a superior source for exercise technique. HST is one of many programs that justify its variables: You tell me which is the pseudo-scientific system. The difference is Mentzer never matured. You'll see why the analogy is accurate if I ever get around to writing that essay... All of the above apply equally to Mentzer.

You don't need to be a physiology expert to dismiss Mentzer based on his philosophic methodology. I'm judging someone as not understanding Objectivism based on his inability to distinguish b/w rationalism & induction. I quoted Tore to refute the notion, alluded to earlier, that being "guided by the greater knowledge of others" is tantamount to an appeal to authority: Try actually reading Maximum Muscle: The Science of Intelligent Physique Training before dismissing it as "technical jargon:" Likewise, there are HIT Jedi who do not see that their philosophy leads to rationalism. In addition to the books I already posted, PubMed contains mountains of evidence against HIT (& for HST for that matter), regardless of your inability to understand it. I don't recall threatening you, & let me know where I can be more clear. I suggest studying Understanding Objectivism before replying further.

For the same reasons, in my judgment, anyone who follows HIT - in light of the overwhelming evidence against it - does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism. Summary of HST principles, described in non-technical terms I'm not prolific by any stretch of the imagination, but I fall into the latter category.

There's really no argument; it's either inductive science (HST) or rationalistic deduction (HIT) - the answer is clear to any Objectivist. If you wish to understand bodybuilding, you must understand physiology - this is something that Mentzer never understood. With that in mind, I can recommend some books: MaxStimulation.pdf Maximum Muscle: The Science of Intelligent Physique Training I'd also wait for Bryan Haycock's (HST) & Borge Fagerli's (Myo-Reps) magnum opuses. After reading these, it would take evasion on a massive scale to continue to accept Mentzer & his ilk.

My post was meant to be a teaser - the essay will be more informative. However, if you've read the essays against Kelley (The ARI-TOC Dispute), my essay against Mentzer will be similar in nature. In fact, anyone talented in philosophical detection can do this on your own; substitute HST (Bryan Haycock, Dan Moore, Borge Fagerli, etc.) for ARI, & HIT (Mike Mentzer, Arthur Jones, Ellington Darden, etc.) for TOC, then digest the arguments against Kelley & see if you can notice the parallels against Mentzer. I used to post as 'BIGBANGSingh,' where I previously argued against Mentzer.