How We Know is intended as a summary of Objectivist epistemology. Binswanger's treatment of a wide range of epistemological issues is examined. Because his theory of propositions is inadequate and his philosophy of mind is an extreme form of dualism, Binswanger has added little to previous efforts by “official” Objectivists. As a work of epistemology in the broad sense, Binswanger's effort is fatally impaired. It is undone by his bifurcation between consciousness and the physics of the brain, which, if accepted, (...) would largely deprive psychology and even computer science of their subject matter. (shrink)

The prohibition against psychologizing has been a source of confusion to many Randians. Psychologizing is the practice of incorrectly or improperly inferring motives in other people instead of rendering moral judgment. Rand thought that it could manifest in two ways: inquisitorial and excuse-making. However, Rand's concrete examples are preponderantly of the excuse-making type; her bright line between psychology and philosophy is unsuccessfully drawn; and in offering extended, strongly condemnatory analyses of the supposed motives behind psychologizing, she yields to the very (...) temptation she claims to warn against. “Psychologizing” turns out to be an anticoncept. (shrink)

The interactivist approach to development generates a framework of types of constraints on what can be constructed. The four constraint types are based on: (1) what the constructed systems are about; (2) the representational relationship itself; (3) the nature of the systems being constructed; and (4) the process of construction itself. We give illustrations of each constraint type. Any developmental theory needs to acknowledge all four types of constraint; however, some current theories conflate different types of constraint, or rely on (...) a single constraint type to explicate development. Such theories will be inherently unable to explain important aspects of development. (shrink)

Two complementary biographies of Ayn Rand were published in 2009: Goddess of the Market, by Jennifer Burns, and Ayn Rand and the World She Made, by Anne Heller. Burns focuses on Rand's influence on American political thought, while Heller's concern is Rand the screenwriter, novelist, and author of her personal mythos. Both books are meticulously researched and well written; neither author espouses Rand's philosophy or agrees with her politics. Such books establish that Rand's ideas have become part of American culture (...) and are no longer set over and against it. (shrink)

This bibliography constitutes the most extensive compilation of references on Nathaniel Branden yet published.

Think as If Your Life Depends on It puts Barbara Branden’s lectures on the Principles of Efficient Thinking in print at last, along with three later lectures. In Roger Bissell’s excellent transcription, the ten lectures introduce readers to psycho-epistemology, the difference between directed and undirected thinking, the role of the subconscious in problem-solving, common faults in thinking, and motivational issues that interfere with thinking. Her contributions were effectively erased from Objectivism after the Nathaniel Branden Institute closed; the original lectures were (...) the most significant part of the Objectivist corpus that remained to be recovered. (shrink)

Leonard Peikoff brought into Objectivist epistemology the doctrine that what is asserted arbitrarily cannot be true or false. In 2008 the author gave a detailed critique of the doctrine; it has not received a published response. But there have been restatements by Harry Binswanger, Ben Bayer, and Gregory Salmieri. Their re-presentations do not refute any old arguments; their new arguments make the doctrine worse. The doctrine is being used to justify ignoring known possibilities, and to “prove” that the current president (...) of the United States has a parrot's mind in a human body. Its public retraction is overdue. (shrink)

. The coeditors of this special double issue of the journal focus attention on the need to reassess the work and legacy of Ayn Rand's friend and collaborator Nathaniel Branden. This introduction explains why they asked a diverse group of scholars to examine Branden's entire body of work—from his Randian period through his years as the “father” of the self-esteem movement.

This paper offers a defense of naturalism, which might improve its chance of being adopted as a direction, both for theory and for empirical research. This defense responds in particular to three themes:: the emergence of mind , the pervasiveness of nonlinearity in biology and psychology, and the need for levels and degrees of self . Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; (...) mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}. (shrink)

ROBERT L. CAMPBELL replies to commentary on his article, "Ayn Rand and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychology" . He comments briefly on Richard Shedenhelm's historical analysis of the "counting crows" experiment. He agrees with Barry Vacker's view that nonlinear dynamics are required in any analysis of skill and implicit knowledge, but contends that Rand's explicit epistemological formulations exclude these dynamics and prevent her from offering an adequate treatment of the implicit. Campbell also responds to Will Thomas's comments made in the (...) journal, Navigator. He finds that Thomas has accepted the critical role that psychology must play in an epistemological theory of concepts. (shrink)