tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post116302959942655832..comments2024-01-29T17:58:00.974-05:00Comments on Galileo Blogs: Galileo Blogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-58178651219579409762006-12-19T20:18:00.000-05:002006-12-19T20:18:00.000-05:00Burgess,
Thank you for your guide to the lectures....Burgess,<br />Thank you for your guide to the lectures. I haven't decided yet whether I will listen to them, but if I do, your suggestions should be very helpful.Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-83375150334250906392006-12-19T18:49:00.000-05:002006-12-19T18:49:00.000-05:00I said: "It's about 40 or more hours, so it's a ma...I said: "It's about 40 or more hours, so it's a major investment of time, ..."<br /><br />The actual running time of the lectures is far less than 40 hours. However, I had to stop and start a lot, so I would say 40 hours for anyone taking fairly detailed notes. Also I invested another 10 hours in reviewing some of the lectures, to tweak my notes.<br /><br />Burgess Laughlin<br />www.aristotleadventure.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-67287355468887033122006-12-19T18:37:00.000-05:002006-12-19T18:37:00.000-05:00Here is part of the outline I wrote in my notes:
...Here is part of the outline I wrote in my notes:<br /><br />1 Why trichotomy (D and I and M) rather <br /> than some other split?<br />2 Integration versus Analysis.<br />3 DIM itself. General comments on DIM.<br />4 DIM in W. Philosophy. A DIM matrix of essential features (criteria for assignment of D, I, or M).<br />5 DIM in literature.<br />6 DIM in physics.<br />7 DIM in historiography.<br />8 DIM in politics and law.<br />9 "<br />10 DIM in child-raising and education<br />11 "<br />12 DIM in psychology.<br />13 DIM in history, up to US revolution. Onward.<br />14 Questions for whole series.<br />15 Future of USA. Grounds for hope, but ...<br /><br />(There are Q and A sessions in many of these lectures, but I didn't gain much from them, except there was some clarification for me of a few minor points.)<br /><br />RECOMMENDATION?<br />The only lecture I did not audit was 12. By that time, I understood the main points of DIM. I didn't need another field as illustration of how the hypothesis might apply.<br /><br />I recommend nearly the whole course for a few people, such as professional philosophers and professional historians. It's about 40 or more hours, so it's a major investment of time, but at the moment, it's free at ARI's site.<br /><br />For some professional intellectuals and serious amateurs, I recommend the intro lectures (1-4), probably 8 and 9, and the final lectures (13 and 15, though perhaps not 14); and then pick one of the intermediate lectures according to your field of interest (historiography, for example, for me).<br /><br />For "lite" students of Objectivism, I would not recommend the lectures. <br /><br />Cautions: <br /><br />1. These lectures are very rough. I would call them "a rough draft of an outline for a prototype." <br /><br />2. These lectures are designed for "graduate-level" students of Objectivism, that is, people who have already thoroughly understood Objectivism's main elements (such as the nature of integration in cognition).<br /><br />3. The purpose of the lectures was not, apparently, primarily dissemination of the DIM hypothesis (which Dr. Peikoff was still formulating to some extent, at this time, 2003-2004), but ... <br />- to give him a chance to present a nascent hypothesis so that he might get negative feedback (that might overthrow his hypothesis).<br />- to allow him to see what areas students had the most trouble with understanding. (A lot of students apparently never understood the DIM concept -- as revealed by their off-target questions.)<br /><br />4. Also, the accoustics are unpleasantly rough and the content is not polished -- especially, unfortunately, at the beginning. For example, the material is so preliminary that Dr. Peikoff is unsure of the pronunciation of some specialized names and terms (such as the pronunciation of "Lao-Tse").<br /><br />Nevertheless, having said all that, I can attest that I gained value enough to justify the 50 hours or so I have invested. (I listened to some of the lectures again while adding to my 15 pages of notes, and narrow issues became much clearer on the second time around.)<br /><br />Questions?<br /><br />Burgess Laughlin<br />www.aristotleadventure.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-24449525002567204222006-12-19T11:27:00.000-05:002006-12-19T11:27:00.000-05:00Thank you for your observation. I haven't taken t...Thank you for your observation. I haven't taken the DIM course. Do you recommend it?Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30495100.post-89551181808561086242006-12-19T09:42:00.000-05:002006-12-19T09:42:00.000-05:00I agree overall with your analysis. More important...I agree overall with your analysis. More important, I would suggest, than identification of the Republicans and Democrats <i>politically</i> is to identify the roots of the movements that stand behind them. <br /><br />In his DIM Hypothesis lectures, Leonard Peikoff points out (Lecture 15, I recall) that the philosophical essentials underlying much of the conservative (which largely means Republican) movement are, in hierarchical order: God (ontology), faith (epistemology), altruism (ethics), and statism (politics). <br /><br />The leftists (Democrats) are rootless. They have the altruism and statism parts, but without an "integration" to God and faith. Ergo the conservatives, as a movement, are more dangerous -- because better "integrated" philosophically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com