Where are the bloggers on Peikoff's election commentary?

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

These words aptly demonstrate that any attempt to defend the indefensible is doomed to failure; the argument begs the question. The fact of the matter is, no one denies that "Christianity is an all-encompassing philosophy with the power to drag America into a second Dark Ages if unchecked." At issue, however, is grasping the nature of the checks that are in place and properly assessing the facts of reality to measure the immediacy of the religious threat.

--------

I read what she wrote and was very surprised at her lack of evidence against the main issues brought up here in The Forum. Specifically, there was no evidence that a theocracy was imminent. A list of all the irrational things that religionist are doing does not constitute a theocracy or movement towards a theocracy. I was sadly disappointed in her argumentation.

[Paul's Here 0]

I have read most of the comments on Diana's website, and find some of the comments that are allegedly said in support of her presentation to be unfathomable. Her conclusions are agreed to with absolutely NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE other than an agglomeration of bad ideas and policies of the Republicans and their supporters. No one is debating the bad premises of the Republicans. The debate is about IMMINENT THEOCRACY, "not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner." Betsy's and a few others make excellent critical comments and NO REFUTATION is provided, other than being charged with being "concrete-bound."

I'm really at a loss and very disappointed.

[Mercury 0]

With all due respect to Dr. Peikoff, his election statement is embarrassing. It is an ugly sight indeed when the leading spokesman for a philosophy which demands that assertions be supported by facts, condemns the most brilliant students of that philosophy simply because they do not agree with his own (unproven) hypothesis.

Others have pointed out the fallacies in the statement, the two main ones being the arguments from ignorance and intimidation. Peikoff failed to provide the incontrovertible truths which would lead to such a serious moral judgment. This is worse than amateurish.

The DIM Hypothesis is not part of Objectivism and, in my opinion, in its application to this or any future election, is not consistent with Objectivism. Preliminarily, I would dispute the use of "epistemological mechanics," a deterministic conception on its face, as a predictive tool, since man has free will.

As for those "defenders" of the worst aspects of his statement, I have nothing but utter contempt.

[Free Capitalist 0]

While I'll hold off on responding to the rest of Diana's blog for the moment, I'd like to comment on the following excerpt from it now:

Dr. Peikoff has been attacked in the very same terms as I often heard in TOC circles, i.e. with the same casual disregard for facts and the same specious arguments about intimidation. Also like at TOC, many people have dismissed his arguments as absurd without any substantial effort to understand them.

While I sympathize with Diana's point and think that both sides have taken their positions too starkly, what she herself has added to this conundrum has been terrible. The last thing we need is a flame war amongst Objectivists. While the majority of Diana's post was informed and collected, the resort to inflamatory tactics and insinuations was completely out of line. If Dr. Peikoff's accusations of immorality are okay because they are merely "strong epistemological and moral judgments", then upset retorts of bullying ought to be okay too, on the same grounds. But insinuations of similarity to TOC, with all of the baggage that entails... that's just below the belt. Nothing less than a retraction of such an insinuation is necessary.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Er, to clarify, it is not with Diana's point in what I had quoted, but with her general lament over strong language, that I sympathize. I do not sympathize with the words that I had quoted.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Dr. Peikoff has been attacked in the very same terms as I often heard in TOC circles, i.e. with the same casual disregard for facts and the same specious arguments about intimidation. Also like at TOC, many people have dismissed his arguments as absurd without any substantial effort to understand them.

While I sympathize with Diana's point and think that both sides have taken their positions too starkly, what she herself has added to this conundrum has been terrible. The last thing we need is a flame war amongst Objectivists. While the majority of Diana's post was informed and collected, the resort to inflamatory tactics and insinuations was completely out of line. If Dr. Peikoff's accusations of immorality are okay because they are merely "strong epistemological and moral judgments", then upset retorts of bullying ought to be okay too, on the same grounds. But insinuations of similarity to TOC, with all of the baggage that entails... that's just below the belt. Nothing less than a retraction of such an insinuation is necessary.

What strikes me as particularly ironic is that Diana Hsieh, not the Objectivists she criticizes, devoted ten years of her own intellectual life to TOC. Such a necessary retraction would be one step towards showing that she has really broken with TOC and the unjust way they treat Objectivists.

[Arnold 0]

Early in my life, I thought that if everyone considered the same facts, they would come to agreement. After discovering Objectivism I realized that not everyone processed the facts the same way; that their epistemology differed. I then revised my opinion: that given Objectivist epistemology and facts, agreement was guaranteed. Over time I began to realize this was not so either. What happened to change my mind? Incidents of disagreement among knowledgeable Objectivists for one thing.

The problem is with those pesky facts; they have contextual glue on them. It was all very well to select the facts one wanted for processing with the epistemology one used, but often, unknown facts got dragged into the calculations. It was that damn contextual glue that all of reality seems to be stuck together with. It is impossible to isolate facts from their context, so it pays to learn the affect of context in one's considerations.

So, why this disagreement with LP? Is it epistemology or context or both that are the source?

I will speculate, and I emphasize speculate. The old saying that when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, comes to mind when I think of LP and his DIM hypothesis. Is it possible that the delight of his new ideas has made him try to fit the facts accordingly? That maybe certain facts cannot be cleanly categorized as either DI or M. I don't know enough to consider this, and I may be way off base even for suggesting such a thing. Nonetheless, there is a reason for this disagreement, and it would be a positive to find it.

[Paul's Here 0]

Early in my life, I thought that if everyone considered the same facts, they would come to agreement. After discovering Objectivism I realized that not everyone processed the facts the same way; that their epistemology differed. I then revised my opinion: that given Objectivist epistemology and facts, agreement was guaranteed. Over time I began to realize this was not so either. What happened to change my mind? Incidents of disagreement among knowledgeable Objectivists for one thing.

The problem is with those pesky facts; they have contextual glue on them. It was all very well to select the facts one wanted for processing with the epistemology one used, but often, unknown facts got dragged into the calculations. It was that damn contextual glue that all of reality seems to be stuck together with. It is impossible to isolate facts from their context, so it pays to learn the affect of context in one's considerations.

So, why this disagreement with LP? Is it epistemology or context or both that are the source?

I will speculate, and I emphasize speculate. The old saying that when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, comes to mind when I think of LP and his DIM hypothesis. Is it possible that the delight of his new ideas has made him try to fit the facts accordingly? That maybe certain facts cannot be cleanly categorized as either DI or M. I don't know enough to consider this, and I may be way off base even for suggesting such a thing. Nonetheless, there is a reason for this disagreement, and it would be a positive to find it.

I don't think you can speculate on whether someone has tried "to fit the facts accordingly." This amounts to pschologizing. You can only speculate on the facts before you. If a theory is put forth, it has to be explained how it fits the facts. If there are people who don't see the connection, that becomes a point of disagreement. There is no set philosophic principle that says if I grasp a principle with certain information, they you will be able to grasp it the same way. Each individual has a context of knowledge that he cannot step out of. The function of discourse is to enable one person to grasp another point of view. If the point of view cannot be explained clearly, then there is a disagreement over the meaning of the theory.

[Arnold 0]

I don't think you can speculate on whether someone has tried "to fit the facts accordingly." This amounts to pschologizing. You can only speculate on the facts before you. If a theory is put forth, it has to be explained how it fits the facts. If there are people who don't see the connection, that becomes a point of disagreement. There is no set philosophic principle that says if I grasp a principle with certain information, they you will be able to grasp it the same way. Each individual has a context of knowledge that he cannot step out of. The function of discourse is to enable one person to grasp another point of view. If the point of view cannot be explained clearly, then there is a disagreement over the meaning of the theory.

The consideration of a question, is not an assertion; I was careful not to draw conclusions.

You say there is no set philosophical principle that will allow two people to see something the same way with certain information. I thought there was: logic. If you both have the same epistemology, and deal with the same information, you should come to an agreement. Does the problem lie with the information we process, as I mention above?

The facts cannot be separated from context, and I believe it is context that is usually behind disagreement. You seem to agree with that, although I don't know what you mean by "Each individual has a context of knowledge that he cannot step out of." Every bit of information can change the context of our consideration, so perhaps you meant something else.

Your last sentence is not clear to me. There are other reasons a point of view cannot be explained; poor communication or comprehension skills for example.

Anyway, the point of my post was to try and pin down the source of disagreement among very bright people. I can't make out if you agree with anything I said.

[SHerry 0]

I attended a talk that Craig Biddle gave last night on Living Purposefully. It was wonderful.

The reason I bring it up here is because he was asked about voting, and Dr. Peikoff's comments.

He gave his own reasons as to why he was voting Democrat (which you can read on his blog over at TOS site).

HOWEVER, he strongly encouraged those in the audience to make up their own minds regarding whom to vote for. AND he also didn't condemn anyone for voting a way different from his or Dr. Peikoff's. AND he also said that he was a little dismayed by the comments that there have been on the internet regarding what Peikoff has stated, that he wasn't saying that if you voted another way you weren't a good Objectivist.

What he said was that we all need to re read that statement from Dr. Peikoff, and not leave out any words. That he chose his words carefully, but if we read it more carefully we would come to the conclusion that Peikoff isn't saying we are bad Objectivists for not voting the way he does.

Personally, I will re-read it with that in mind. If this is the case, I do still think it was an unfortunate choice of words on Dr. Peikoff's part. But, I thought it was interesting to get another Objectivist

heavy hitter's" opinion on that subject in person. A rare thing I normally would get to do.

Anyway, I just thought I would pass of what I heard last night at the talk. I wish I had brought a tape recorder so I could directly quote how he put it, but Craig Biddle did do a good job of making me reconsider whether or no Dr. Peikoff is actually laying down judgement against those that vote another way.

[piz 0]

[...]AND he also didn't condemn anyone for voting a way different from his or Dr. Peikoff's. AND he also said that he was a little dismayed by the comments that there have been on the internet regarding what Peikoff has stated, that he wasn't saying that if you voted another way you weren't a good Objectivist.

What he said was that we all need to re read that statement from Dr. Peikoff, and not leave out any words. That he chose his words carefully, but if we read it more carefully we would come to the conclusion that Peikoff isn't saying we are bad Objectivists for not voting the way he does.

Personally, I will re-read it with that in mind....

I've read Dr. Peikoff's quote many times (it's been reposted here a lot), and the rest of his reply to the original question almost as much. Seems crystal clear to me: if I don't vote Demoratic then the best understanding of Objectivism that I can possibly have is a rationalistic one and I have no understanding of the role of philosophy in man's life. I won't claim to grasp Objectivism nearly as well as others who have lived the philosophy much longer than I have (though I will claim to have put as much effort into understanding it since I found it eight years ago as anyone who isn't a professional philosopher), but I most definitely know the role of philosophy in man's life. Dr. Peikoff doesn't know me or the extent of my knowledge, so his evaluation of my understanding has no basis.

Even if I agreed with his voting recommendation, I'd find his assertions on this matter ridiculous.

[RickWilmes 0]

What he said was that we all need to re read that statement from Dr. Peikoff, and not leave out any words. That he chose his words carefully, but if we read it more carefully we would come to the conclusion that Peikoff isn't saying we are bad Objectivists for not voting the way he does.

I have reread his answer several times and the conclusion I drew was that he has written that response for a specific purpose.

Why? I do not know at this time.

I know he is in the process of writing a book on the DIM hypothesis. Based on all the responses and arguments that I have seen on this issue, I can not help but think that maybe he will address these issues in the book.

[Paul's Here 0]

I attended a talk that Craig Biddle gave last night on Living Purposefully. It was wonderful.

The reason I bring it up here is because he was asked about voting, and Dr. Peikoff's comments.

He gave his own reasons as to why he was voting Democrat (which you can read on his blog over at TOS site).

HOWEVER, he strongly encouraged those in the audience to make up their own minds regarding whom to vote for. AND he also didn't condemn anyone for voting a way different from his or Dr. Peikoff's. AND he also said that he was a little dismayed by the comments that there have been on the internet regarding what Peikoff has stated, that he wasn't saying that if you voted another way you weren't a good Objectivist.

What he said was that we all need to re read that statement from Dr. Peikoff, and not leave out any words. That he chose his words carefully, but if we read it more carefully we would come to the conclusion that Peikoff isn't saying we are bad Objectivists for not voting the way he does.

Personally, I will re-read it with that in mind. If this is the case, I do still think it was an unfortunate choice of words on Dr. Peikoff's part. But, I thought it was interesting to get another Objectivist

heavy hitter's" opinion on that subject in person. A rare thing I normally would get to do.

Anyway, I just thought I would pass of what I heard last night at the talk. I wish I had brought a tape recorder so I could directly quote how he put it, but Craig Biddle did do a good job of making me reconsider whether or no Dr. Peikoff is actually laying down judgement against those that vote another way.

Why not quote Dr. Peikoff's statement here, in full, and then demonstrate how his very clear words have been misunderstood? Which words have been left out in any of the criticisms? I'd be interested in reading what you have to say on this.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I attended a talk that Craig Biddle gave last night on Living Purposefully....

What he said was that we all need to re read that statement from Dr. Peikoff, and not leave out any words. That he chose his words carefully, but if we read it more carefully we would come to the conclusion that Peikoff isn't saying we are bad Objectivists for not voting the way he does.

Leonard Peikoff wrote:

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

When looking at these words, and assuming that what you have presented is in fact Craig Biddle's view, I agree completely, totally and fully with Biddle's comment. In those words Peikoff isn't saying we are bad Objectivists for not voting the way he does; he is saying we are not Objectivists at all!

[Wolfgang 0]

"Where are the bloggers ...", Stephen asked. For all German speaking readers I cited one of Stephen comments on my blog (objektivist.blogspot.com). I think, that Dr. Peikoffs remarks are very unappropriate and itself rationalistic.

[SHerry 0]

Leonard Peikoff wrote:

When looking at these words, and assuming that what you have presented is in fact Craig Biddle's view, I agree completely, totally and fully with Biddle's comment. In those words Peikoff isn't saying we are bad Objectivists for not voting the way he does; he is saying we are not Objectivists at all!

I agree with Craig Biddle's comments as well, and was moved to re-reard the statement, keeping what he said in mind. But, I have to say...well...yeah, I still get that understanding from reading it (again) too.

(Sorry I didn't reply to your earlier response; I haven't had time to come back here and post again until now.)

I wish Peikoff would issue another statement if what he wrote just didn't come out right. I know, I know: if he didn't mean it, he shouldn't have worded it that way. Ah well....