| Friday, February 21, 2003 | |
 |
Kelley on Lee
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:02 AM Arthur Silber has posted David Kelley's letter (apparently published in today's WSJ) in response to Susan Lee's article advocating a subjectivist variety of libertarianism. Political Versus Moral Tolerance Yup! |
 | |
|
Allahu Akbar!
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:44 AM Lileks saw the same horribly disturbing broadcast of Friday's sermon from Iraq that I saw on Brit Hume last night. Lileks writes: I just saw a video of one of the sermons, carried on prime-time TV in Iraq. Same old same old, with a twist: Usually the text says that the very trees will cry out there is a Jew behind me, kill him. This video had a new version: even the stone will say "a Jew is hiding behind me. Come and cut off his head." In listening and watching this spew of hatred, I could almost smell the gas chambers of Auschwitz bellowing out smoke again. Then again, I'm not sure that Islamic Jew-haters would be quite so neat and orderly about their genocide of the Jews; a plain old bloodbath would do quite nicely for them, I suspect. Such thoughts make me ill. The video did have one interesting oddity: Many listeners were clearly visibly excited and cheering, but many were also completely still and silent. Let's hope that means something. |
| |
| Thursday, February 20, 2003 | |
|
Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:09 PM According to some Saudi apologists, forbidding women to drive is all well and good, but the fact that Saudi women are also forbidden from running businesses they own is a great embarrassment. This restriction is so bad that it might just render such apologists incapable of "present[ing] convincing reasons for what women are not allowed to do in the country that is the birthplace of Islam." Heaven forbid! |
| |
| Wednesday, February 19, 2003 | |
|
A Worthy Cause
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:18 PM Hey folks, Arthur Silber needs some help keeping the light of reason shining brightly! |
| |
|
My Intellectual Laziness
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:48 AM While feeding the beasts, I had some meta-thoughts about my present debate with Julian Sanchez over the interpretation of the Susan Lee's article on libertarianism. |
| |
|
Stretching Charity
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:40 AM Julian Sanchez argues that I have exhibited a neurological deficiency in my critique of Susan Lee's op-ed advocating a subjectivist version of libertarianism: The first of these is Lee's contrast between libertarians, who "are not comfortable with normative questions," and conservatives eager to codify their value hierarchies in law. The knee-jerk reaction from some quarters is the true-but-obtuse observation that, of course, full-blown moral relativism is normatively inert -- you cant use it as a foundation for a political theory, in its strong form. Obviously, if you're going to deny that we can be confident about any moral principles, you don't have much ground to stand on when you object to government encroachment on your liberties. The problem is, you pretty much have to assume, in violation of basic standards of interpretive charity, that Lee is a full-out imbecile if you think that such an obvious point somehow escaped her. In other words, you need to calm your twitchy knee for long enough to inquire whether that's what she's really saying. I find it interesting that Julian Sanchez takes me to task for failing to be charitable to Susan Lee, while at the same time failing to be charitable with me. But as I have noticed over the years, people tend to tolerate such contradictions fairly easily. So no, Julian, I did not presume that Susan Lee was an "imbecile" (let alone a "full-out imbecile") -- but rather just an average non-philosopher with the usual below-average skills of contradiction-detection. Intelligent people don't always make intelligent arguments. The principle of charity does not magically transform arguments into rubber, allowing them to be stretched into favorable interpretations. In any interpretation, our first priority should be to look for the clear and coherent meaning, only using the principle of charity when doubts about that meaning remain. Susan Lee's article left little doubts. For example, she writes, "Libertarians are not comfortable with normative questions. They admit to one moral principle from which all preferences follow; that principle is self-ownership--individuals have the right to control their own bodies, in action and speech, as long as they do not infringe on the same rights for others. The only role for government is to help people defend themselves from force or fraud. Libertarians do not concern themselves with questions of 'best behavior' in social or cultural matters." If these statements had been qualified with the very short and simple "in politics," most of my objections would disappear. But Lee made no such qualification, not here, not elsewhere in the article. So why should we read her as if she did? Why shouldn't we take her to mean exactly what she says? As libertarians, we might really really want Lee to make good arguments, particularly on the pages of The Wall Street Journal. But such a desire doesn't justify reading qualifications into the text that don't exist. People make bad arguments all the time, including for viewpoints with which we agree. By supporting these bad arguments rather than noting their failures, we weaken the power and appeal of libertarianism in the long run. So why bother? |
| |
| Tuesday, February 18, 2003 | |
|
A B D I C A T I O N
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:06 PM I heard on "Special Report with Brit Hume" tonight that our friend Chirac wants Hans Blix to tell us when (if ever) to go to war with Iraq. Worse yet, Bill Clinton apparently agrees with him. |
| |
| Monday, February 17, 2003 | |
|
Peikoff On Top -- But Why?
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:45 PM For various silly reasons, I'm signed up to most of the various discussion groups related to Ayn Rand on Yahoo. A few days ago, someone named Vimaladitya Putta sent this message to Rand-Discussion: This is Vimaladitya, new to this group. Thanks to the owner of this group for starting a group of this type to pool up the ideas on Rand... I am interested in Philosophy but didnt took it as a part of formal education... So today, someone named David replied thusly: I suggest you read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand BY LEONARD PEIKOFF in order to get an idea of what Rand thought about knowledge. The first few chapters dive right in to the philosophy concerning how Rand views epistomology of knowledge, etc. In my opinion, no paragraph written by any of us will do justice to the complexity of such an issue as knowledge. I then replied with this (perhaps a bit more cantankerous than necessary) note to the suggestion of OPAR: Why not instead read what Rand herself wrote about the subject in the very clear and accessible _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_? I must admit to getting a bit tired of hearing Objectivists recommend reading Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand rather than Ayn Rand's own essays. (Peikoff should certainly be read, but not until after Rand's major works.) Why is recommendation of Peikoff over Rand so common these days? Granted, Peikoff's OPAR is a systematic presentation of Objectivism, but Rand is superior on all other points: 1. Rand originated the philosophy. Her writings form much of the primary source material of Objectivism, while OPAR is (supposedly) purely secondary source material. 2. Rand presents her ideas clearly and persuasively. On a superficial reading, Peikoff's OPAR seems like pretty decent presentation of Objectivism. But almost every time I have returned to that book for an in-depth look at some issue, comparing his writings with those written by Rand and by others under her direction, I am dismayed at the confusions and serious errors in Peikoff's presentation. (For example, see his discussions of honesty, free will, and philosophy of mind.) 3. Rand is an excellent writer. Peikoff is an excellent lecturer, but only a mediocre writer. (In particular, Peikoff is a very humorous lecturer, but he comes off as a fairly strident writer.) 4. Over the years, Rand's writings have convinced countless people of the truth of her ideas. But I've never known anyone to be convinced of the truth of Objectivism by reading OPAR. So why is Peikoff being recommended over Rand? |
| |
