Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

An Open Letter To Craig Biddle

Rate this topic


MisterSwig

Recommended Posts

In essence, his behavior amounts to: Peikoff is misguided, Harriman is misguided, M knows Objectivism better than either. Or else: Objectivism on these issues is inadequate, and M is the one pointing the flaws out.

Objectivism has its "spiral theory" for the gaining of knowledge over time. Harriman's book doesn't acknowledge that or how it integrates, even though Harriman and Peikoff both know it. That they published the essence of the theory but not everything that could be written is not some moral deficiency on the authors' part, nor a boast by the critic, nor a flaw in Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swig, your argument makes very little sense to me. Perhaps I'm too dense. It doesn't look to me that Biddle implies the things you're accusing him of implying. Could you simplify this for me without the use of a hypothetical?

Instead of analyzing the facts and arriving at a reality-based conclusion, some evaluators make an assumption that there is or is not a "good reason" for someone's questionable behavior. This notion of a "good reason" replaces, in the evaluator's mind, the need for real evidence to support his conclusion. It is a foggy, subjective notion that means something akin to an "explanation" or "excuse," which is the best idea he can come up with since he has dismissed the actual facts as irrelevant. As long as this evaluator maintains his original assumption-based premise, he will simply invent new assumptions that build off the original one. And, furthermore, he will continue to evade the evidence, as long as he fails to check his use of the phrase "good reason."

I hope that helps. It is a complex issue that involves introspection, and I'm not sure I can sum up my view any more succinctly. However, if you have a specific question about my excerpt or what I said above, I'll try to answer it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swig, your premise that "good reason" is an anti-concept is false.

"Good reason" isn't replacing Biddle's need for evidence. It is a phrase that refers to Biddle's call for the evidence. You claim that he will cling to this alleged anti-concept to evade evidence once it is given. But at present, Peikoff hasn't offered further evidence for Biddle to evade. When Biddle says that he hasn't been shown Peikoff's "good reason," he is saying that he wants to see Peikoff make explicit the causal chain from evidence to premise to conclusion. Therefore, Biddle didn't make a conclusion assuming the absence of a reasoned explanation. He actually doesn't have a reasoned explanation from Peikoff and, unless you're holding back, neither do you.

I think it's just fine that Biddle asked for some extra information. Peikoff apparently isn't providing his reasons in private and Biddle has public ties to the ARI. People who follow his paper and respect his opinion have an interest in knowing that Peikoff isn't using strongarm tactics in the place of reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Biddle says that he hasn't been shown Peikoff's "good reason," he is saying that he wants to see Peikoff make explicit the causal chain from evidence to premise to conclusion.

In short, this is Peikoff's argument as I understand it from his email:

1. Evidence: An ARI board member is denouncing an ARI-sponsored book that is being championed by the founder of ARI.

2. Premise: One of ARI's and the founder's greatest values is under attack from within the Institute itself at the highest level.

3. Conclusion: If there was a Hell, this board member would go there, and ARI needs to decide which side to take: either remove the board member or watch the founder of ARI disassociate himself from the Institute.

You can disagree with Peikoff's entire argument, but you can't claim that he lacks one, because it is essentially all right there in the email. Obviously we got the short version of his thinking process, but I don't see how more elaboration is going to change Peikoff's essential argument.

You can also demand that Peikoff and Harriman publicly respond in detail to McCaskey's criticisms, but you can't deny that they have written an entire book explaining their views to you. And if they think the book speaks for itself, then that's that. You'll have to judge for yourself who is correct on the history and the philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criag Biddle just published a follow-up to his previous article.

You can also demand that Peikoff and Harriman publicly respond in detail to McCaskey's criticisms, ... ...
The main reason this issue is still smoldering is not so much that LP has said nothing more, but that ARI has not done so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swig, from the McCaskey comments that I've read, I can't conclude that he was "denouncing" the book. You have yet to support the claim that his criticisms amount to such. So what I'd like to see is either an explanation for how the publicly available material amounts to more than helpful criticism, or statements of a different nature that McCaskey made.

Regarding the historical record: Perhaps someday soon I will have time to read The Logical Leap, but considering how closely timed this controversy is with the release of the book I doubt that the book directly addresses McCaskey's criticisms. Because I lack a historian's body of knowledge, it would be difficult for me to come to a conclusion without such an explicit case. I am certain that the book doesn't address how such criticisms amount to "denunciation".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...