Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. What Do We Need to Know?Robert L. Campbell - 2018 - Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 18 (1):118-163.
    How We Know is intended as a summary (and a modest extension) 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Return of the Arbitrary: Peikoff's Trinity, Binswanger's Inferno, Unwanted Possibilities—and a Parrot for President.Robert L. Campbell - 2019 - Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 19 (1):83-134.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Reply to the Critics of Russian Radical 2.0: The Dialectical Rand.Chris Matthew Sciabarra - 2017 - Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 17 (2):321-357.
    Sciabarra responds to critics of the second edition of his book, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical: Wendy McElroy, who reviewed the book for The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (July 2015), and Shoshana Milgram and Gregory Salmieri, whose most recent criticisms appear in A Companion to Ayn Rand (2016). Sciabarra defends both his historical and methodological theses, situating the book within a trilogy of works that define and defend “dialectical libertarianism,” which eschews utopian thinking and embraces a fully radical mode (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation