Donald Palmer: Philosophy Professor

 

When I returned to San Francisco from Dallas in 1988, I worked in a factory as a manual laborer for several months. The company was called O’Keeffe’s and they manufactured skylight windows and sunroofs. In the fall of 1989, at the age of 23, I became a full-time student at the College of Marin in Kentfield, California.

Studying Philosophy Under Professor Donald D. Palmer

One of the courses I enrolled in was an introductory philosophy class. The instructor was Donald Palmer, a great lecturer and professor. I felt lucky to be in his class. There was another remarkable instructor at the college named Peter Sharkey. He was a professor of English literature who also taught basic English courses. He too was highly distinguished, a worldly man with great literary knowledge and a flamboyant personality. Both he and Donald Palmer were like academic rock stars at the College of Marin. They each had their own dedicated fan base, especially among some of the female students.

Having been influenced by the novels of Ayn Rand, I had developed an interest in philosophy, and it was my good fortune that Donald Palmer taught such a wide variety of philosophy courses at the College of Marin. And because of him, I chose to major in the subject, signing up for at least one of his classes every semester. Around this time, he had published his first book, Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter. It was a book filled with illustrations that he had drawn himself, and it almost resembled a cartoon book. The book was very well written, very clear and comprehensible; the simplicity was pure genius. This book became an academic bestseller worldwide. 

Professor Palmer’s classes were mostly structured as monologues. He delivered his lectures with great skill. Of course, he took questions, and he would occasionally pose a question himself to demonstrate a point. Professor Palmer was a great lecturer, and never took the easy way out by turning his class into a round-table discussion. He was there to teach, and we were there to learn. His curriculum was organized like clockwork.

One day, during a lecture on epistemology, I raised my hand to ask Professor Palmer a question. When he responded, I pointed out a logical error in his argument, recognizing it as what Ayn Rand termed the "stolen concept fallacy." He attempted to clarify his point, but I highlighted the ongoing contradiction. Stumped and visibly irritated, Professor Palmer refused to acknowledge my critique and hastily continued his lecture to downplay the moment.

In the very next class, Professor Palmer suddenly brought up Ayn Rand, and he had never mentioned her name before in any of his classes. He then launched into a rant ridiculing "Ayn Rand followers." Although most of the students in the class knew nothing about Ayn Rand, they all laughed along as if prompted by a background laugh track. I still remember his face turning red; he smiled at his own jokes, but it clearly masked a release of pent-up anger. I felt like ducking under my desk, fully aware that he was using public ridicule to punish me for having challenged him in the previous class.

A week later, I decided to visit Professor Palmer during his office hours to establish a détente. This was the first time I had ever met a professor in an office. I was always able to get my questions answered right before or after class, so the idea of making an appointment to see an instructor in their office had never seemed necessary to me. Before I entered, I saw a female student leaving his office. I recognized her as Misa. I greeted Professor Palmer, and he told me to close the door and take a seat. As I sat down, I looked at the bookshelf behind him, and there it was: a brand-new edition of Ayn Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. The book from which I had learned about the stolen concept fallacy.

I asked Professor Palmer a few routine questions about the class curriculum, but the entire time I kept wondering if I should ask about the book behind him. Out of fear of being ridiculed again, I decided against it. After a few minutes of a meaningless discussion, I thanked Professor Palmer for his time and left. As I walked out, I noticed another attractive female student was waiting to see him. At the time I remember thinking, "Wow, I didn't know so many people take advantage of these office hours." But many years later, when recollecting this experience, I came to a very different conclusion.

The book with the stolen concept fallacy

Google AI Footnote:

The stolen concept fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone uses a concept while simultaneously denying or undermining the very foundations that the concept depends on. [1, 2]

This term was coined by philosopher Ayn Rand as part of her philosophy, Objectivism, and later popularized by brand-new applications in logic and rhetoric. [3, 4]

🧠 How It Works

The fallacy occurs when you "steal" the validity of a term to make an argument, but you simultaneously smash the support beams holding that term up. It is a specific type of internal logical contradiction. [5]

📋 Classic Examples

• "All property is theft."
  • The Stolen Concept: The concept of "theft" completely depends on the validity of "property" (you cannot steal something unless someone owns it). By denying that property exists or is legitimate, the concept of theft becomes meaningless.
• "Science proves that nothing is ever certain."
  • The Stolen Concept: "Proof" and "science" depend on the idea that objective certainty is possible through evidence. You cannot use scientific proof to claim proof itself doesn't exist.
• "We are all just brains in jars, and reality is an illusion."
  • The Stolen Concept: The concepts of "brains" and "jars" are physical objects derived from our perception of the real world. You cannot use physical anatomy to argue that the physical world is completely fake.

🔍 How to Spot It

Look for arguments where the speaker tries to stand on a platform while actively sawing off the legs of that same platform. If Concept A cannot exist without Concept B, but the person is using Concept A to destroy Concept B, they have stolen the concept.

To help you explore this further, let me know if you want to look at:

• How it differs from a standard self-contradiction
• More examples in modern political or philosophical debates
• How Ayn Rand originally used it to defend Objectivism

[1] https://courses.aynrand.org

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org

[3] https://courses.aynrand.org

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org

 

Dr. Donald Palmer's Examination Book