Mr. A
Member
The DIM Hypothesis: Why The Lights in The West Are Going Out by Leonard Peikoff
In this recently published work (Sept. 2012), Objectivist philosopher Dr. Leonard Peikoff presents his DIM Hypothesis, which is epistemological in that it deals with chosen methods of thought, integration. There are three such methods that make up the base of the DIM Hypothesis: Integration(I), Valid Integration (M), Non-Integration (D). He explains what exemplifies each of those alternatives by writing in depth about the three archtypes they represent, which are the three greatest of Western philosophers, which would be that of Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, which are referred to as the “Big Three“, and how those Big Three serve and represent the base of DIM: Plato (Invalid Integration)(mis-integration)(M), Aristotle (Valid Integration)(integration)(I), Kant (Non-Integration)(dis-integration)(D). He also mentions two mixes among the M’s and the D’s, which are denoted M1, M2; D1, D2. These are the five dominant modes in the DIM Hypothesis. What makes them the Big Three, is that each provided (whether valid or not) a new integration of philosophic fundamentals, how to use our minds in regards to the world (epistemology/psycho-epistemology).
Once these are established in the readers minds after Peikoff discusses what each mode signifies, we come upon the full definition of the DIM Hypothesis, which I will just quote the basics of it, which is “a mode of integration derived from philosophic fundamentals that, when it guides a creative cultural process, leads to a product recognizably reflecting it.”
It can be quite complex in the beginning of this book establishing all this for the reader before we can go mode hunting through history. During the hunting trip, we are taken through Literature, Physics, Education, Politics, and how the DIM Hypothesis applies to each of those subjects. Take Literature for an example, during mode hunting (which he describes each in depth in the book) we see:
Classicism (M1)
Romanticism (I)
Naturalism (D1)
Modernism(D2)
Social Realism(M2)
In another post sometime, I will briefly go into that subject of Literature and describe as to why each area is assigned the mode that it has been and why.
So when on our mode hunting trip, we find DIM in Literature, but also in Physics, Education, Politics. Mode hunting is not limited to just those fields, but it has to be limited in this book, because of length of the book.
Now I am not going to claim that I’m a ‘DIM-wit’ like Peikoff, (he was said to be wearing a shirt that says that when lecturing about the hypothesis, he also says in the book that that is what his license plate says), but let‘s look at some questions you may be asking - why the hypothesis, why the modes… Well, let’s define two terms first, hypothesis means, from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED): “ a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.” Let’s look at what integration means here, too. He goes by what Ayn Rand said in regards to integration being the key to understanding human knowledge, as such, all of it, in any field, era, or stage of development. This work is Dr. Peikoff’s final, overall integration, in all that he has learned of philosophic importance. It pretty much is using what evidence he provides to us as a good basis for his hypothesis, which I would say at this point, is basically that ideas, philosophy shapes cultures, the primary shaper of it - evidenced from the dominant philosophy of the time periods we are taken to, and their products - products being those that we find evidence for in our mode hunting trips through Literature, Physics, Education, Politics.
After we went mode hunting in those subjects, taking a look at each subject in isolation across cultures, now the “next step is to study the four subjects together - that is, as they exist at the same time in a single culture - and see what relationships their modes bear to one another. If the products are representative and we find a mode common to all four of our subjects, that mode may validly be taken as defining the mental processes not merely of individual creators, but the method of thought of the culture as a whole.”
I will explore the rest of this work in a later post, as I am still reading it currently, and that‘s where I‘m at in the book.
In this recently published work (Sept. 2012), Objectivist philosopher Dr. Leonard Peikoff presents his DIM Hypothesis, which is epistemological in that it deals with chosen methods of thought, integration. There are three such methods that make up the base of the DIM Hypothesis: Integration(I), Valid Integration (M), Non-Integration (D). He explains what exemplifies each of those alternatives by writing in depth about the three archtypes they represent, which are the three greatest of Western philosophers, which would be that of Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, which are referred to as the “Big Three“, and how those Big Three serve and represent the base of DIM: Plato (Invalid Integration)(mis-integration)(M), Aristotle (Valid Integration)(integration)(I), Kant (Non-Integration)(dis-integration)(D). He also mentions two mixes among the M’s and the D’s, which are denoted M1, M2; D1, D2. These are the five dominant modes in the DIM Hypothesis. What makes them the Big Three, is that each provided (whether valid or not) a new integration of philosophic fundamentals, how to use our minds in regards to the world (epistemology/psycho-epistemology).
Once these are established in the readers minds after Peikoff discusses what each mode signifies, we come upon the full definition of the DIM Hypothesis, which I will just quote the basics of it, which is “a mode of integration derived from philosophic fundamentals that, when it guides a creative cultural process, leads to a product recognizably reflecting it.”
It can be quite complex in the beginning of this book establishing all this for the reader before we can go mode hunting through history. During the hunting trip, we are taken through Literature, Physics, Education, Politics, and how the DIM Hypothesis applies to each of those subjects. Take Literature for an example, during mode hunting (which he describes each in depth in the book) we see:
Classicism (M1)
Romanticism (I)
Naturalism (D1)
Modernism(D2)
Social Realism(M2)
In another post sometime, I will briefly go into that subject of Literature and describe as to why each area is assigned the mode that it has been and why.
So when on our mode hunting trip, we find DIM in Literature, but also in Physics, Education, Politics. Mode hunting is not limited to just those fields, but it has to be limited in this book, because of length of the book.
Now I am not going to claim that I’m a ‘DIM-wit’ like Peikoff, (he was said to be wearing a shirt that says that when lecturing about the hypothesis, he also says in the book that that is what his license plate says), but let‘s look at some questions you may be asking - why the hypothesis, why the modes… Well, let’s define two terms first, hypothesis means, from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED): “ a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.” Let’s look at what integration means here, too. He goes by what Ayn Rand said in regards to integration being the key to understanding human knowledge, as such, all of it, in any field, era, or stage of development. This work is Dr. Peikoff’s final, overall integration, in all that he has learned of philosophic importance. It pretty much is using what evidence he provides to us as a good basis for his hypothesis, which I would say at this point, is basically that ideas, philosophy shapes cultures, the primary shaper of it - evidenced from the dominant philosophy of the time periods we are taken to, and their products - products being those that we find evidence for in our mode hunting trips through Literature, Physics, Education, Politics.
After we went mode hunting in those subjects, taking a look at each subject in isolation across cultures, now the “next step is to study the four subjects together - that is, as they exist at the same time in a single culture - and see what relationships their modes bear to one another. If the products are representative and we find a mode common to all four of our subjects, that mode may validly be taken as defining the mental processes not merely of individual creators, but the method of thought of the culture as a whole.”
I will explore the rest of this work in a later post, as I am still reading it currently, and that‘s where I‘m at in the book.
