The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out

by Leonard Peikoff

With his groundbreaking and controversial DIM hypothesis, Dr. Leonard Peikoff casts a penetrating new light on the process of human thought, and thereby on Western culture and history. In this far-reaching study, Peikoff identifies the three methods people use to integrate concrete data into a whole, as when connecting diverse experiments by a scientific theory, or separate laws into a Constitution, or single events into a story. The first method, in which data is integrated through rational means, he calls Integration. The second, which employs non-rational means, he calls Misintegration. The third is Disintegration—which is nihilism, the desire to tear things apart. In The DIM Hypothesis Peikoff demonstrates the power of these three methods in shaping the West, by using the categories to examine the culturally representative fields of literature, physics, education, and politics. His analysis illustrates how the historical trends in each field have been dominated by one of these three categories, not only today but during the whole progression of Western culture from its beginning in Ancient Greece. Extrapolating from the historical pattern he identifies, Peikoff concludes by explaining why the lights of the West are going out—and predicts the most likely future for the United States.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Politics, Cultural, Literature

320 pages, Hardcover

First published September 4, 2012

About the author

Leonard S. Peikoff (born October 15, 1933) is a Canadian-American philosopher. He is an author, a leading advocate of Objectivism and the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute. A former professor of philosophy, he was designated by the novelist Ayn Rand as heir to her estate. For several years, he hosted a radio talk show.

http://www.peikoff.com/bio.html

Reviews

[Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Next to Atlas Shrugged, the greatest book ever written that will not be understood by its readers until they live through it, and not even then. To be saved for future historians, assuming there are any left at some point when it will matter.

[Michael Mangold · Rating 5 out of 5]

An advanced philosophical presentation of Leonard Peikoff’s theory for cultural analysis. The theory holds that there are three primary modes of cognitive integration (Disintegration, Integration, and Misintegration—DIM), closely associated with the Big Three philosophers (Kant, Aristotle, Plato). For a shorthand representation of these three, it is useful to summarize that one either opposes integration (Disintegration), does it properly (Integration) or does it improperly (Misintegration). An even shorter heuristic would be nihilism (Disintegration), reason (Integration) and religion (Misintegration), although Socialism and Communism would largely fall under Misintegration as well.

Those practicing the mode of Disintegration view integration as pointless because reality either doesn’t exist or is unknowable. In physics, for instance, string theorists construct a mathematical model with no falsifiable connection to reality. Some quantum theorists abandon causality and, recognizing that you can’t eat your cake and have it too, replace the cake and the eating with a cake/eat waveform that is impossible to measure and both exists and doesn’t exist simultaneously.

Integration, in contrast, involves assigning meaningful relationships to the many concepts found in reality and tying these together into a cognitive whole. For example in the field of education, instruction in math, science, and grammar are meaningfully integrated into the overall value of life preparation. Classrooms are places for lecture, tied to a syllabus, itself part of a curriculum. An instructor practicing Integration would recognize that reality exists, time is scarce, and the class better get to it before the semester is over and the students haven’t learned the body of knowledge needed to progress.

Misintegration assigns the integrative theme a supernatural primacy above the concretes found in reality. For example in law, the Islamist sharia is viewed as God-given, absolute and completely detached from the needs, rights or nature of its subjects. The same could be said by North Korean Communists of the dictates issued by their supreme leader.

Most people don't fall under any of these modes, as they are without a philosophical system to guide their thinking, shambling from one concrete to the next. Intellectuals, politicians, businessman and other influentials are more likely to follow some philosophical guide, however shallow. In America today, these are overwhelmingly of the mixed variety that Peikoff identifies as M1, a mixture of religion with pragmatic materialism. Toward the end of the book, Peikoff's analysis extends to America's upcoming generations, and predicts the eventual takeover of the country by M2 in a theist dictatorship.

If that is to be prevented, this book is a necessary but insufficient first step. The total number of I-types in the country is estimated to be in the six figures, overwhelmingly outnumbered by those steeped in mysticism, hatred of materialism, or embedded in tribalism. I absolutely love this book, its ideas and its originality, and hope, but am not optimistic, for its future success.

[Tal Boldo · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." --George Santayana.

But remembering without understanding is useless. What the DIM hypothesis granted me is a key to understanding the link between ideas and their consequent actions, with which I can unlock the lessons of history.

The DIM hypothesis lays down three modes of human thought (from which two additional, mixed modes are derived). These then act as a truth serum for all ideas, past, present and future, in every human endeavor. How? Depending on whether an idea falls into the D, I, or M, category will automatically tell you if it is heading toward or away from the truth (and success).

In short, the DIM crystal ball can tell the future of an idea by testing whether it can really deliver on its promises. Can Communism really lead to heaven on earth for all men? Do kids fair better in life when their creative spirit is set free? Is the existence of man dooming the planet? Will mixing opposing ideas lead to the Golden Mean?

In that sense, the DIM hypothesis is as a kind of inductive Occam’s Razor.

Indeed, Peikoff has laid down the inductive groundwork for specialized philosophers to follow (i.e.: political philosophers, economics philosophers, physics philosophers, etc.) Each can then validate DIM with objective analysis in his field.

The weak elements in Peikoff’s book all appear in areas where he is not a sufficient expert—because to validate so abstract a concept as DIM, the thinker must be vastly knowledgeable in his field. For this reason when Peikoff applies DIM to physics or an analysis of our future, he has gaping holes in his facts. But when he talks of philosophy, he is brilliant.

The section on Egalitarianism alone makes reading this book worthwhile. Through it you’ll gain insight into the fallacy destroying Western culture. If equality is the standard of all that’s good, regardless of outcomes, then all humans must be equally the same for the ideal to be met—equally ugly (since all can’t be equally beautiful), equally stupid (since all can’t be equally smart), equally poor (since all can’t be equally wealthy), etc. Kurt Vonnegut explores this tyrannical idea in his short story, “Harrison Bergeron,” from his book, Welcome to the Monkey House.

On a personal note, I was disappointed at the end of the book for its failure to recognize the M1’s in our culture: conservative Christians who are staunchly fighting to rekindle, spread and teach the principals of The Founding Fathers. In this sense, I suppose I’m better off than the author, because my prediction for the future still has heroes in it.

Philosophical Note:
The trichotomy pertaining to the identity of integration is: Subjectivism, Objectivism, Intrinsicim. Its corollary, pertaining to the method (causality) of integration: Disintegration, Integration, Misintegration (DIM).

[Sandy Maguire · Rating 1 out of 5]

Picked this book up on a raving review from a friend, without knowing anything about it. Put it down again after slogging through the first 15%. DIM falls into the same problem as every philosophical treatise, namely that it argues by authority. "Plato thought this, but Aristotle thought that!" The argument is mainly one of linguistic games: "the OED says $x means this, and therefore we can deduce $y." Although it was pretty funny watching a philosopher trying REALLY HARD to grapple with the everyday ideas of mathematical composition and abstraction.

I didn't really understand the point that Peikoff was trying to make --- but I think it might have been "building models of systems is good." He makes the claim that Aristotle should be our role model in this endeavor, because he wanted to build, and... uhh.. believed in science? The argument is definitely that Plato believed too much and Kant too little, so I suppose it's that Aristotle believed just right.

Unfortunately, there is no predictive power here. Plato is wrong because he believed in some form of idealistic naturalism. Kant is wrong because he argued that arguments don't hold water (why does society take this guy seriously?). Aristotle is right because he built systems in exactly the right way, but right because he liked that we can reason from our subjective experiences and because he liked science (as best I can tell --- I was skimming at this point!). Some examples and counter examples would have really helped sell the idea he was hustling here.

I came away from this book with the feeling that Peikoff doesn't know what he's talking about, and furthermore that he's so tangled up that he has no idea that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The book comes off as intentionally dense; as in, if you don't understand it, you must be stupid. This is my best explanation for why everyone seems to rave about this book. Of course, I might just be missing something, but Peikoff really didn't try very hard to help me understand.

[Bruce · Rating 5 out of 5]

In The DIM Hypothesis, Leonard Peikoff claims a culture’s predominant method of integrating crucial cultural information in the areas of science, ethics, religion, esthetics, etc., ultimately determines its history. The integration he has in mind is in terms of answers to the two fundamental questions behind metaphysics and epistemology:

1)Metaphysics: Is the universe ruled by laws or is it an unpredictable flux?
2)Epistemology: Is the universe knowable, i.e., can it be made sense of through sensory perception and conceptualization?

There are three basic answers to these questions, which Peikoff identifies with three philosophers who exemplify Disintegration, Integration and Misintegration (DIM):

Plato (Misintegration): The universe is comprised of two fundamentally different realms: 1) that of essences, which are undiluted reality, and 2) relatively unreal phenomena derived from these essences; knowledge is intuitional in nature, and can only be of the former.

Aristotle (Integration): There is only one reality comprised of many things which can be known by identifying their essential nature through conceptualization.

Kant (Disintegration): Reality is unknowable; what a person perceives is not reality, but constructs of his mind.

Peikoff holds that our culture, though its democratic institutions have roots in the integrated view of Aristotle, is now basically Kantian, wherein core concepts such as freedom, individual rights and private property have been progressively dissociated from their original philosophical base, and diluted and subverted by a pragmatism where philosophical principles lose their absolute character.

I find this hypothesis to be a very powerful analytic tool which I’m eager to use.

[Russ · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out, Dr. Leonard Peikoff puts forth his theory of how cultural change occurs, and, by illuminating the cause(s) of such change throughout the history of Western civilization, he finishes by giving a grave portrait of this country's future. Peikoff presents his case first by pointing out how the role of ideas, particularly the method of forming and using ideas, affects one's actions and, therefore, the actions of society--the actions of society being the sum of acts by individual men. With the importance of philosophy and its method of approach to ideas highlighted, three fundamental methods, including the philosopher responsible for each, are given; then two of the methods are broken down further, into sub-groups representing mixed methods. From here, Peikoff begins the analysis of cultural products from specific periods in Western history, identifying the method embodied in the creation of the product and/or the ideas of the product projected and absorbed by the public.

It is in the analysis of the significant cultural products of the various historical periods that relationships between changes in cultures begin to stand out. For example, without going into great detail, certain methods are shown to have a greater, longer strangle hold on a culture than others, and patterns emerge as to how methods defeat others and come to dominate a culture. Once these patterns are identified, attention is turned to the current culture of the United States, and, after identifying the dominant method therein, Peikoff makes a prediction about the future, based on the historical pattern.

The prediction reached by Peikoff is positive by any means. In fact, if it does occur, the destruction would end what is left of the country in its current state. Furthermore, the emergent, dominant philosophy and method could reign for hundreds of years; the Middle Ages lasted well over a thousand years. Of course, this shouldn't be surprising, our nation's founding--the ideas behind it--did not just spring up over night; it was the result of hundreds of years of cultural evolution. In somewhat DIM terminology, it was the result of transitioning out of the Middle Ages via a succession of changes in method and, subsequently, cultures, resulting in the Enlightenment period, which gave rise to the ideas of our nation's founding fathers. Once those ideas and the method of thought that gave rise to them disappear, as is currently happening, a culture cannot just instantly change its mind and revert back; they are gone, and for a very long time.

Of course, and I agree with Peikoff here, there is still time to prevent the certain occurrence of his prediction; however, there may be very little time left, and it simply may be too late.

[Kelly · Rating 1 out of 5]

I sat down this morning to give this book one more good college try. I just can't keep going, though I wanted to make it through a book that so many people I know are raving about, at least to be able to justify my dislike of it. But a little more than a quarter of the way through, I have realized that there are so many books to read and that DIM is not a good use of my time.

I tried to take the book seriously as a work of scholarship; I read with pen in hand and took copious notes. However, the author never justifies this project with any kind of review of literature, however short, or reasons why this question should be taken up using his method. It is poorly researched, poorly cited, and poorly written. I was horribly disappointed with how unscholarly it is, even compared with some of the popular non-fiction books I have enjoyed.

[Michael Malice · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some very good insights. Though his hypothesis needed to be a book because the argument is long and technical, at the same time the argument was neither important nor impressive enough to warrant being a book.

[Roshni Jhamtani · Rating 5 out of 5]

Slow long but reflective read. Helps understand when the future switched from being a promise to a threat.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Short version: what a white middle class frustrated male calls decline of the West is the normal state of affairs for the last two millennia. He just substitutes reason with the fallacy of the good old times and cherry picks a few abnormalities in a rather uniform history.

Long version: So there's a table there. Greece Democracy. Only it does not mean ANYTHING like today. By all standards that "Democracy" was an Oligarchy of the Slave Owners. And I am sure Peikoff has watched all the remaining TV footage of the Athenian PBS to know THAT slavery had nothing to do with what it meant in the Southern States.

Next, like all White Superiority supporters, Rome is Empire. Just that. Not Totalitarian. Just Empire. The Totalitarianism is reserved for the "Middle Ages", although that Middle Ages "Totalitarianism" meant way more freedom than Seasteading crowd hopes for.

Better yet, there are two eras named the same: Modernism, and although they start at different times, they both go up to the present, yet they have different characteristics. Better yet, there is a third, also modernism, that ends precisely in the year 2000, probably the only victim of the Y2K computer issue.

What about before Greece? Well, the Conservative god has not spoken to him on this issue, and the White Superiority starts from Greece and continues with Rome as any Colonialist would be indoctrinated during the early days of the mandatory government schooling.

In theory, Randians are supporting Capitalism and base their thoughts on reason. Yet, this is my second Peikoff book and the result is the same: deception and misuse of terms. Because the reason turns out to be the same white middle class male fallacies about the good old times. And Randian Capitalism smells like a more liberal version of a Fascist Government.

Sure, Aristotle is associated with the Ancient Greece. But Ancient Greece gave the World Platonism. Later derived into Christianity. Another blessing of the West that lead to pain and suffering for most of the Earth's population. Which, in turn, mutated into Marxism, yet another contribution made by the Peikoff's West to the creative killing of more people. And that in turn mutated into Ecology, and we are yet to see the consequences of the treaties signed in the small African country called Paris.

[Private Account · Rating 3 out of 5]

The conclusion: we are headed for another dark ages--ruled by the church again!

This book was interesting and it did not need to convince me that we are headed for collapse BUT, even with all his over-proofing, I remain unconvinced that it will really be the church that rules the masses.

I gave it three stars because 1) it was a pleasure to read someone working hard to be rational BUT Peikoff seems to have to work really really really hard to use his mind, which made his book a little laborious to read. and 2) because he offers no solution. At the end he basically says we're all screwed, it's pretty much certain, he says there is time left in the last sentence but... I don't buy it. It's over. It's time for the 100,000 rational Americans who love freedom to agree on a place to go and go there. Nicaragua anyone?

[Alexander Temerev · Rating 5 out of 5]

Peikoff certainly does present a compelling hypothesis, but he lacks brilliant style of Ayn Rand. This book might be a little hard to read, and requires some previous understanding of philosophy. And I don't agree with certainty with Mr. Peikoff's final prediction.

But I still enjoyed the book.

[Matthew Squire · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book keeps the same premise of Ominous Parallels but offers a more clear cut argument for those that might not agree with Peikoff's historical interpretation of the causes of national socialism, or prosperous states.

[Greg Hadaller · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book in four parts. I enjoyed the first two so much they carried me through the third, which I found less interesting. The fourth I found insightful, to say the least, but still not as engrossing as the first two parts. Highly recommended as a philosophy, political, and history book.

[Ron Housley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review Pending

[Luke · Rating 3 out of 5]

My whole formal education was heavily marginalized from it being compartmentalized subjects. This book is both a theoretical model and historical examination for the power of integrating concepts into larger objective generalized principles (i.e. what are the relationships and underlying truths between science, art, politics, and education using both induction and then deduction) and their impact on cultures over time.

Reading through, his conclusions of the different time periods seemed too generalized and cherry picked, but the summarized sections were insightful and I actually got quite a bit more out of it revisiting all the highlighted sections on a second review.

“Even the best sense of life is not enough; explicit philosophy is necessary to give it historical power. Without an identified overall viewpoint men can react only to concretes while being ignorant of their interrelationships and implications”

More from the book:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-...

[Nate Reynolds · Rating 4 out of 5]

In what is basically Ayn Rand fan-fiction, perhaps fan-philosophy, Peikoff portrays compelling ideas through complicated means. I found the semantics of his invented terminology (I's, M2's, etc) to be somewhat distracting from the actual core of what he is exploring, which is the philosophical consistencies between various great thinkers and eras of art, literature, physics, and education in the last three thousand years of Western civilization. At times, I found this exploration to be fascinating and insightful. I would safely write off the whole book as a "simply a theory" or "one man's idea", however, the predictions that Peikoff writes at the end of the book (in 2009) are frighteningly accurate of what has since become of U.S. politics - and demands respect for his analysis of the patterns of history. Unfortunately for us, his "what we can do about this" epilogue was at best emptily idealistic and at worst, fatalistic.

[J.J. Kelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

An exquisite description of the most important process operating in America today.

Second only to the process of evolution, the process of learning how to use his rational faculty is the most important to mankind’s survival. Peikoff convincingly describes man’s advances and setbacks in this challenge and our present precarious position. The most important book for understanding the future your children may face.

[Josiah R · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting ideas, it is just dense and written way too long.

[Vincent V · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mind altering! Now I understand so much more!

[Jack Gardner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Integration of History

"History is philosophy teaching by example." -Dionysius

An enlightening survey of Western Civilization’s historic periods. The focus is on influential literary works, views of physics, educational practices, and political theory, rather than wars and conquest. Peikoff argues that distinct types of intellectual integration predominate in the cultural products of distinct historic periods, relating to overall social development and essentially defining the periods. Of course, there are transition periods, such as between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and not every period is consistent in all areas.

Peikoff’s goal is to understand how historic period’s progressed and why they have evolved or devolved into another, with an eye to understanding our own time and direction. He references many historians to ensure that he is not cherry-picking his examples. His primary contribution is relating the cultural products to each other and to the philosophic ideas of the times. Very interesting.

Confident in his conclusions, Peikoff admits to not being entirely satisfied with his presentation. As with any history some points may be argued, such as degrees of influence, but this approach is definitely informative. Good history of the popularity of works and ideas.

The basic concepts of DIM (Disintegration, Integration, Misintegration) are relatively obvious. The challenge is recognizing which, in which combination, apply to which cultural products. Peikoff begins with an Aristotelian oriented discussion of Integration, interesting in itself. (Plato’s process is labeled Misintegration, so he might prefer a different moniker? I agree with Peikoff and Aristotle.)

Integration - distinguishing and relating experience, induction. Assumes that reality exists and our senses and reason are the means of knowledge. Aristotle.

Misintegration - denigrates experience in favor of imaginative thought, such as supernaturalism. Focuses on deduction. Reality is questionable at best. Rationalism and intuition are true sources of knowledge. Plato.

Disintegration - skeptic of both experience and knowledge. Leads to compartmentalization at best; at worst to nihilism. Kant.

Nine periods are recognized and illustrated with far more richness than I can give here.

The Enlightenment, for example, shows the practice of Integration in the emergence of individual rights, modern science, plot driven novels, etc.

The Dark Ages reflect Misintegration, a popular influence during most of history. Secular variations underlie socialism’s many forms. Religious themes, morality plays, miracles, divine right of kings, duty to the state, the public will, etc.

Today’s Postmodern cultural elements, rising since the mid-19th century, express Disintegration’s denial of actual experience and knowledge, favoring socially constructed experience and limited rationalism. Abstract art, deconstructed history, quantum events without causes, identity politics, extreme naturalism in literature, etc.

Peikoff notes, as have others, that the Postmodern’s chaos implies the need for strong government, the egalitarian “fairness” of which results in loss of liberty, economic decline, and failing education. Today, people are again looking for answers. Unfortunately, many are turning to religion rather than reason, tribalism rather than independence. So, what is the future? Is reversal possible?

[James Tomasino · Rating 2 out of 5]

Objectivism is an interesting subject, and Dr. Peikoff's method of addressing Integration as a means of promoting it seemed equally interesting. For the most part, this holds true throughout the book, but it couldn't completely overwhelm the author's aggressively apologetic tone or the occasional blaring misinterpretations.

I picked up this book on a late-night whim. I'm not a particularly big fan of Ayn Rand, and I tend to agree with most popular assertions that her work is the perfect subject of high school philosophers; of people who will grow out of it. I suppose some of it boils down to my problems with Objectivism itself. The philosophy has (if I borrow from Wikipedia) about 6 key components:

(A) - reality exists independent of consciousness
(B) - that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception
(C) - that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic
(D) - that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest)
(E) - that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism
(F) - that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally

Of these six, I can follow the logic and agree with only one (A). Call me a neoplatonist (though I don't take that too far either), but each jump from point to point seems a stretch. This is not the place for me to argue for or against Ayn Rand, though, so I digress.

The DIM Hypothesis holds three methods of Integration as the key components for, well, pretty much everything:

1. Dis-Ingegration
2. Ingetration
3. Mis-Integration

Acronym Explained.

It was an interesting take and not altogether worthless. There's definitely a great deal of insight to be garnered, but at no point was I convinced of the end-all-be-all nature of this philosophy, or even of its proper relationship to Objectivism. It seemed tantamount to saying, "There are two methods of thought: Positive and Negative" and then proceeding to show how history came to be because of one of those two forms. There's a chorus behind you singing the obvious song, but when you do it with credentials like Dr. Peikoff, it is taken a bit too seriously.

The other major issue I had was the introduction's tone. I felt at once that the author was going to take a clever, scientifically detached viewpoint on the work--the thought being dashed violently when he reached his reminiscing upon Ayn Rand and things got personal. No, this book was poisoned in its voice by a sort of "child of God" syndrome where the author felt it necessary to point back to his own validity as it relates to another. This came up again and again, leaving me constantly wishing he'd just get to the point.

With all that aside, the book had some interesting thoughts and clever methods of induction. The call to action at the end was extremely heavy-handed, and altogether inappropriate given the objective logic of the situation. It would be the moral and just thing to allow the philosophy to fail, not to fight a losing war. But that's just one specific thing.

If you are a fan of Ayn Rand, then this book may be a good fit for you. If you roll your eyes when people talk about the Institute, move along.

[J.D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The worse the coming future, the more it should motivate its opponents." That phrase I read a lot of times before getting the book and it never meant anything to me nor seemed interesting one bit--by the time I finished the book, that changed drastically. I never really knew much about this book, but it always remained in my mind because of its author. I'm a bit familiar with his work. One of his books takes the task of explaining the whole Objectivist system--a book I have read many times. So, knowing very little I bought it a while ago and finally had some time. I think it is a wonderful book with so much to offer.

On the book per se:

The author details the philosophical progression of the West through the study of modern times and ancient cultures in several categories: literature, physics, education, and politics (the physics section of modern times I found particularly fascinating and well written--a section maybe someone may want to take a look before getting the book). He surveys all of these by his own DIM theory, which defines the essential epistemological archetypes (modes of integration of knowledge) which have appeared in history. The three basic archetypes are based on Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, and from the relationships of these modes of integration, two additional modes are identifiable as mixtures (the author provides essential information on each of these and other thinkers). On this basis, I think it is a very good book and accomplishes its purpose--if you're interested in the history of philosophy, Objectivism, Kantianism, Aristotelianism, the study of ideas and their influence on historical and cultural development, and maybe even if you're interested in historical data on any of the categories of study, you should probably read this book.

My opinion:

The ability of the author to condense and handle with success so vast quantities of information never ceases to amaze me. I could imagine complaints to his style or certain opinions of his, but never doubts on his knowledge and ability to express it. For me, at least, it was mostly fascinating and smooth in reading (assuming one knows enough not to look for references outside of the text). At times, particularly in the analysis of some cultural aspect, I thought some things were not quite right, but eventually, and particularly later when he revises the whole progression of the West, I dismissed my earlier doubts. Aside from the very informative nature of this work, it gives the reader so much to think about--particularly as one nears the end and the tone starts getting more serious by the page. When I finally encountered the quote used in the books publicity strategy: "The worse the coming future, the more it should motivate its opponents," I could not believe the weight it came to have upon my mind--weight I mean because of its profound significance for those interested in ideas, particularly those fond of Objectivism. On the basis of my personal views, I think it is one of those books that, at some point, everyone should read.

No other book, I think, has inspired me as much as this one.

[Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

A Fun book, do not take it too seriously though. Peikoff made it very clear from the start that he believes this book to be groundbreaking. It is not.

How can you put a book down when the author claims to see the future? You can't. So I got stuck reading a book which I now regret wasting the time. Peikoff does not claim to see or know the future but he claims to know WHEN it is going to happen. So according to Peikoff we are now entering a different phase in history which will bring about great change of some sought. Well, I think most of us agree with him on that.

His predictions are limited to the western world only because his method takes into account only the cultures which have been effected from the two giants of ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle. These two very different schools of thought collide at different places in history and bring about a new era.

For instance, the christian church used Plato thought to strengthen their position (Plato begins his thoughts from the abstract as opposed to Aristotle who began from the concrete) and weaken the Christian masses by removing their desire for worldly goods. This was a great success for the church and worked very well for hundreds of years.

However, the church needed Aristotles concrete thinking back. This eventually turned into their demise. PLato philosophy gave the church the ability to control what the populace inquired into. If the populace decided to slightly step out of the norm and study some sought of science then they had better use plato as the mainframe. In other words, the science in question better not contradict the main tenets of the bible, or else.

This book made me appreciate the authors intelligence. His insightful thoughts on thoughts in other times and places made me think quite a bit (Just a bit). But his predictions I believe are utterly incorrect. He comes crashing down hard when he starts in on Obama and his prediction on who will be the king of the hill in the very near future. He took a leap when he spoke of history and then cheapened it with newspaper politics





The author begins the book by declaring that any criticism of it should not be a mark against his mentor, Ayn Rand. Yet at the beginning he sought of tells us that she would love the book. So how can we not hold it against her?

[D. B. · Rating 3 out of 5]

In a telling section in The DIM Hypothesis, Peikoff essentially dismisses the Renaissance, because it doesn't conform to the oversimplified tenets of his theory. This is a major flaw in the overall presentation of his theory and predictions, because essentially what he's arguing is that the world--specifically the U.S.--needs a dramatic change in its philosophical underpinnings. He attributes the Enlightenement to the rediscovery and spread of Aristotle, which he also believes was a driving force in the numerous cultural shifts (many of them for the better) that occurred during the Renaissance.

Instead of arguing, "It happened once--it can happen again," and using that thesis to explore the numerous factors (it wasn't just Aristotle) that drove the Renaissance, Peikoff minimizes it as a transitional period that is incompatible with DIM because the aspects of culture he is exploring weren't as firmly fixed as in other historical periods. Rather than acknowledging this as a shortcoming of the hypothesis altogether, Peikoff moves briskly along to the Enlightenment, as if the Renaissance that spawned it was little more than a fart in the historical wind.

Finally, he gives a compelling doomsday prophecy: that this country will be overtaken by a Christian totalitarian regime overseen by born-again madmen. I'd be lying if I said I haven't had the same fear at times, but Peikoff also predicted in The Ominous Parallels that the U.S. would be overtaken by a nationalist totalitarian regime. The intervening 30 years has revealed a nation that resembles the slow, agonizing decay of Atlas Shrugged's dystopia than a rapid slide into totalitarianism.

Fearing full-on totalitarianism in the United States is not unwarranted; drawing spurious conclusions from selective evidence, and using that to "predict the future," is not. Peikoff's passion for past history and culture is quite apparent throughout, which made The DIM Hypothesis an enjoyable read. The theory itself is interesting, particularly the idea of trying to define past cultures' philosophical underpinnings in order to understand why we are where we are today. I just couldn't buy into his conclusions or predictions. He gets an A for effort and ambition, at least.

[Cassandra Troy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great insights and another view on Western civilization and culture. Identification of thought on the DIM scale: Disintegration, Integration and Misintegration. Mixed forms: Worldly Supernaturalism (Stoics) and Secular Mysticism (rationalism, Platonists Spinoza and Descartes).
Addresses denial and evasion of induction in (post)modern thought. The result is evastating egalitarian nihilism (disintegration). It rejects: universals, generalizations, concepts, abstractions, fundamentals, standards, principles, science, rules and objective law (anything fixed).
Idealism and rationalism imply each other. Induction is rejected and and knowledge is a priori and inate.
Hume/Kant: logic and causality are baseless.
Kant: reality is a projection of our own mental machinery and is therefore subjective. Science is organizing our projections. Logic is subjective, an agent of distortion, trapping man in logicicentric predicament. Kant is entirely anti reason, the father on Nihilism and therefore of Disintegration. Reality is denied, not in the service of heaven, but of the inconceivable, of Nothing. Knowledge acquired by any means is rejected. Everything is disconnected from reality. To Kant Integration is the original sin of cognition. Dewey translated Kant into postmodern Pragmatism.
Hume was a Skeptic. They regret their impotence of knowledge. Kantians reject knowledge and celebrate this: not to know becomes an end in itself.
Kant's nihilism works by anti integration: both are the same process. Nihilism is the goal. It is the removal of the arrangement of the elements that give an entity it's identity. The bits no longer add up to anything.

[Stephen Bourque · Rating 5 out of 5]

Apart from Ayn Rand’s body of work itself, this is the single most remarkable feat of integration (i.e. of methodical, hierarchical conceptualization from innumerable particulars) I have ever encountered. It will take me years to fully digest it, but my estimate after my first careful reading is that Dr. Peikoff’s hypothesis is exactly--profoundly--correct.

Having just read the final chapters in one big gulp, I am astonished to find that my mental state is one of agitation and reeling, exhibiting the persistent, soul-quaking urgency that I have found only in the rare work of literature (or, even more rarely, in certain essays). I hardly expected to find my pulse rate quicken in response to a work of technical philosophy that reads like a university text book. But there it is.

Ironically, having just praised this book, I am led by my grasp of the material to suspect a certain futility in recommending it to a general reader. To use Dr. Peikoff’s terminology (and I apologize for having to resort to terms that requires reading the book to understand), only an “I” mentality would accept the task: to a “D” the reasoning is bootless, to an “M” inimical. Despite this sense of futility, though, I wholeheartedly--no, wholeMINDedly--recommend this to anyone who is even remotely interested in ideas and their role in history. Who knows? Occasionally, sparks ignite what might have seemed to be unlikely tinder.

[Jenna · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was excellent. I highly recommend it.

The objective of "DIM Hypothesis" was to show the different time of field, and how the three system was devising from the past, the aftermath, and the prediction of the America's future. On the first part, Peikoff discussed epistemology, and clarified what integration's intent. Why, it's very important in our process of thought.

[Integration Ayn Rand said, was the key to understanding human, knowledge as such, all of it, in any field, era, or stage of development. Knowledge is the grasp of reality, is that which exists, it is not supernatural dimension, but this world in which we live].

He also mentioned, about four dissimilar characteristic of classicism, romanticism, naturalism, and modernism, and how it varies each thesis. Furthermore, breaking down the deduction of the DIM's classification of politics, education, literature, and physics.

[The man of the Renaissance century, however, the nature of literacy ambition changed; the classics, it came to be thought, could never be equaled, let alone surpassed. The artist function then is to imitate the Greeks, and Romans by adhering to the esthetics values and principles embodied in their works].

Lastly, Peikoff specified history and sequence of events in Western culture.....the America's destiny on how the conflicts of men revolves around their ability to integrate on their ideas.

[Michael Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Summary: Breaking new ground.

Ayn Rand's longest-tenured and most deeply devoted student, Leonard Peikoff breaks into entirely untrodden ground in this, his life's masterwork. There is an ease in his introductory walk-through the philosophy of Objectivism's theory of concepts and their relationship to human survival and thriving that is distinctive in the literature of this most distinct (and newly controversial) philosophy. That groundwork is extended through unexpected connections and insights in a contrapuntal fashion throughout. Dr. Peikoff sounds telling warnings against the Scyllae and Charybdii of the modern and post-modern fallacies of thought: misintegration, and disintegration.

An intriguing theory and one that will not only be debated, but may - and should - prompt a new way of looking at history and the influence of ideas in historical development.

This reader was reminded of the words of Dionysius of Helicarnassus: "History is philosophy, teaching by examples."

For those who mistake Objectivism for arrogance, the striking modesties of the author's Introduction - they were almost too much - will provide food for thought, if not reconsideration.

Well-recommended!

[DrEyescope · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating.Philosophy as the basis for culture; Looks at cultural history through the lens of "modal analysis": dividing the method of epistemological/Metaphysical integration into three main types: Integration (as exemplified in the philosophy of Aristotle:I) Misintegration (Plato:M), and Disintegration (Kant:D), and whereby a given era's cultural products (Literature,Physics,Education, and Politics) can thus be contextualized.
Traces ways in which movement from one mode to another can occur ("Triggers") and predicts the future course of the US based on the resultant hypothesis.
A bit difficult (for this reader) to keep all the philosophical points of origin in mind at times, but a second read should correct that.
I thoroughly enjoyed it and can imagine referring to it often.
Scary conclusion.