| Sunday, July 31, 2005 | |
 |
Much Ado About Nothing
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:47 PM   
I'm presently watching Kenneth Branagh's 1993 production of Much Ado About Nothing. Although I've seen it multiple times before, I am thoroughly enjoying it yet again. (I'm in the middle of the very funny -- and superbly well-acted -- machinations to trick Beatrice and Bendick into love.)The Colorado Shakespeare Festival is currently running in Boulder. Since I'm always saying that I'd like to see more productions of Shakespeare and since David Koppel reports that Twelfth Night is fantastic, I just bought two tickets for the August 12th performance. It should be fun!  E-mail Diana Hsieh
 PermaLink
 Comments (Popup)
 BloggerThis
|
|
Harry and Jesus
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:26 AM
Don recently commented upon the disturbing way in which Christianity commands belief for salvation:One of the most disturbing features about Christianity is that the way to save your soul is to believe in God and in Jesus. The problem is, we cannot choose our beliefs. It isn't possible. If it was, people with low self-esteem could simply choose to believe they were efficacious and worthy. Our only choice is to think and accept whatever conclusion we are led to by reason, or to evade and accept whatever beliefs happen to be in our subconscious. This is a religion of love? Condemn man at birth for a sin he did not choose to commit, condemn him while he is alive for not living up to a moral code he cannot live up to, and condemn him for eternity after he dies for not making a choice he was incapable of making. As JS would say: Give me a break.Not long after reading that post, I was reminded of the explicit way in which Christians require such belief with this proposed prayer on the fundamentalist "Truth for Youth" web site: Dear Jesus, I know I am a sinner and cannot save myself. I believe that you are the only son of God. You died on a cross and gave your precious blood so that I could be saved. I am willing to turn away from my sins. Jesus, right now, I invite you to come into my heart and life and be my personal savior. Wash my dirty sins away with the blood you poured out when you died for me on that cross. Thank you, Jesus, for saving my soul. Since you died for me, I will live for you!Wow, I feel dirty just reading that. By the way, that "Truth for Youth" group seeks to smuggle Bibles into the public schools, rid the internet of pornography, and so on. Here's the general method they propose using: God spoke it bluntly to the Prophet Ezekiel: He declared, "Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word of my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, thou shalt surely die; and thou givest them not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, BUT HIS BLOOD WILL I REQUIRE AT THINE HAND. Yet if thou shall warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou has delivered thy soul! (Ezekiel 3:17-19)Lovely. I found them via a link to this truly bizarre comic warning children away from the evils of Harry Potter. Labels: Religion E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Saturday, July 30, 2005 | |
|
Formal Logic
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:01 AM
Sheldon Richman recently asked me:Can you recommend a good book or article on what's wrong with the last century's work in formal logic? I am curious about this, but don't want to waste time reading stuff that is better bypassed.I don't know of any good sources offhand, although I suspect that Brand Blanshard's Reason and Analysis might be on-point. (I haven't read it yet, although it's definitely on my list.) So... any recommendations? E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Today's Quiz
By Paul @ 10:48 AM
Which Firefly character are you?
E-mail Paul
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Friday, July 29, 2005 | |
|
Farewell, Mysterious Stranger
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:05 PM
My comments software allows people to post anonymously if they so choose. Until recently, if a person didn't fill in a name, his comments would appear to be from a "Mysterious Stranger." However, to prevent one Mysterious Stranger from being confused with another Mysterious Stranger, I've decided to change that feature of the software. Those who wish to remain anonymous may still do so, but they must pick some handle for themselves so that they are not confused with other anonymous posters. Obviously, I hope that any mysterious strangers will consistently post under a single handle. Pretty much any handle will do, although I do ask that people not use the names of Ayn Rand's fictional heroes, as I find that rather presumptuous, even when not intended as such. Personally, I like it when unnamed commenters use initials, as that renders them anonymous to Google searchers and strangers, but identifies them to friends. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Gary Hull on C-Span
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:08 PM
I'm very glad to see that C-SPAN is broadcasting more Ayn Rand Institute events. (I'm sure I'm not alone. In fact, perhaps I should write them to tell them how pleased I am about it!) Here's the announcement from ARI:Dr. Gary Hull, long-time speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute, will present a lecture on his recently released book, "The Abolition of Antitrust," on Book-TV C-SPAN 2.In fact, I just sent the following letter to Book-TV (booktv@c-span.org): I just wanted to let you know how pleased I am to see Ayn Rand Institute events played on Book-TV -- like the past Peter Schwartz lecture on "The Virtue of Selfishness" and the upcoming Gary Hull lecture on "The Abolition of Antitrust."Please do write them a pleasant note if you'd like to see more! Update: I got a pleasant e-mail in return within the hour from a Senior Executive Producer at Book-TV. Cool! E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Ayn Rand on Sex, Drugs, and Ronald Reagan
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:54 PM
As Noumenal Self recently noted in the comments, the forthcoming book of Ayn Rand's Q&As, Ayn Rand Answers, is now listed on Amazon for publication on November 1st. (It's edited by the amazingly productive Robert Mayhew.)Here's Amazon's description of the book: After the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957, Ayn Rand occasionally lectured in order bring her philosophy of Objectivism to a wider audience and apply it to current cultural and political issues. These taped lectures and the question-and-answer sessions that followed not only added an eloquent new dimension to Ayn Rand's ideas and beliefs, but a fresh and spontaneous insight into Ayn Rand herself. Never before available in print, this publishing event is a collection of those enlightening Q & As.At OCON, Robert Mayhew was kind enough to let me take a look at the proofs in the few minutes before a lecture. Just from reading a small semi-random sample of questions, I was amazed by the range of topics covered. So I'm very much looking forward to reading the book in full in just a few months. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
It's Moral To Explore Space
By Paul @ 6:21 AM
X-Prize founder Peter Diamandis argues that it is moral to explore space, and cites some of the following reasons:"If you think about space, everything we hold of value on this planet is in infinite supply there," Mr Diamandis explains. E-mail Paul
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Thursday, July 28, 2005 | |
|
Ayn Rand at the Ford Hall Forum
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:10 PM
I recently finished listening to the entire set of Ayn Rand's lectures to the Ford Hall Forum. Although most of those lectures are reprinted elsewhere, I cannot recommend this collection highly enough.In listening to these lectures, many of which contain Q&A sessions, I got to spend nearly 23 hours with Ayn Rand. Although I've seen/heard various interviews with her and heard her answer questions for some of Leonard Peikoff's lecture courses, I've never had a full dose before. It was a wondrous delight. Even though I was familiar with many of the lectures in essay form, Ayn Rand's tone and emphasis added richness to the bare words on the page. (I also like consuming intellectual material in both written and audio formats, as I find that I glean new insights from each.) The reactions of the audience to Ayn Rand's sharp rhetorical points are also absent from the printed page. As periodic lectures in chronological order, the set was something of a lesson in the modern political history of America. Ayn Rand's clarity of thought, passionate commitment to ideas, and respect for her audience were evident in her answers to questions. Ayn Rand's first two lectures, "The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age" and "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business," were particularly well-suited to her (initially) liberal audience. So I decided to listen to them with my pre-Ayn Rand high school ears. In many ways, I was so very ripe for Objectivism in high school: I was committed to reason and to individualism, albeit in a clumsy way. I was a life-long atheist seeking a better morality than the watered-down Christianity of secular humanism. I had no altruistic impulses, nor altruistic guilt. However, I was also a committed liberal. I even bordered on socialism at times. I had no understanding of capitalism whatsoever; if anything, I associated it with the corrupt dictatorships of Latin America. I was also completely ignorant of the economics and history of socialism; I thought that it would bring the sort of wealth and prosperity that we enjoy in the United States to all (!!). So in listening to these two lectures, as well as the somewhat later "What is Capitalism?" lecture, I tried to put myself in my own past shoes, to gauge how I would have reacted to these lectures had I heard them in high school. Without a doubt, I would have been completely and totally blown away. My liberalism would have been destroyed forever in just fifty minutes. My trek to Objectivism would have only been a matter of time. I must admit, that very much surprised me. (It was a discovery worth the price of the lectures, I think.) As smaller gems, all of the questions that Ayn Rand answered year after year on abortion finally helped me understand why she placed so much emphasis on abortion rights. He answers to the always-asked questions about the Libertarians were also illuminating, although usually quite brief. In one of the later lectures, she spoke about how they stole her ideas, ripped them from their philosophic foundation, and then attacked her more viciously than anyone else. She discussed the primitive subjectivism underlying their advocacy of liberty. She also mentioned the danger of being associated with "cranks," which reminded me of this excellent post by the now-more-noumenal-than-ever Noumenal Self. Her final lecture on "The Age of Mediocrity" struck a very contemporary chord, in that she spoke at length on the long-term danger posed by Ronald Regan's embrace of religion, despite some likely short-term economic and foreign policy gains. (Sound familiar?) Finally, I should say that those who wish for some small first-hand glimpse of the real Ayn Rand, undistorted by ax-grinding critics, will find these lectures to be an invaluable treasure. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Good Stuff, Bad Stuff, Yummy Stuff
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:36 AM
Tara Smith doesn't often write op-eds, but since she's been working in the philosophy of law, I'm very pleased to see this clear contribution to the debates about the proper standards by which to judge judicial nominees. I found that via Don Watkins, who also has a good piece on the epistemology behind psychological egoism up and running. Don also links to this article on "successful losers," i.e. people who have lost mucho pounds and kept them off. Much of the advice resonates with what I've found in the course of trying to shed my extra pounds. (I still have about 10 to go, I think.) My current baseline of exercise is a bit more than 4 miles/40 minutes of rowing or running per day, every day. Interestingly, I found that increasing it substantially (with my long bike rides) had no impact on my weight. Diets don't help either, although I am far more careful about what I eat these days. Here's what does work: Hunger. To lose weight, I must be somewhat hungry for significant portions of the day. (To foster that, I try to eat small snacks rather than big meals.) On some days, that's relatively easy to bear. It's impossible torture on others. (I don't push myself on those impossible days, since it's hard enough on the easy days.) Hey, maybe I could write the next fad diet book: The Hunger Diet. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Wednesday, July 27, 2005 | |
|
Ayn Rand on David Kelley
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:33 PM
In the course of listening to Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum Lectures, I swear I heard her speak from the grave directly to David Kelley:There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings -- or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods? (From "The Moratorium on Brains," Question and Answer Period.)Although Ayn Rand's "Why?" question is obviously rhetorical, I think we can learn something by answering it in the case of David Kelley. By now, it's fairly plain that the philosophy advocated by The Objectivist Center bears little more than a superficial connection to Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. These days, pretty much anything goes. However, I think that David Kelley once had a fairly grand vision of what Objectivism might and ought to be -- if reshaped in his own image. The open system was his justification retaining the banner of "Objectivism" for his makeover of Ayn Rand's philosophy. So let us examine the basic folly of the open system -- and then ask ourselves what it accomplishes. On Kelley's view, as stated in Chapter 5 of Truth and Toleration, the inadequacies of Objectivism as a philosophy are substantial. It does not range over enough territory, in that it fails to "address a wide range of specific issues" (T&T 61). It does not dig as deeply as it should, in that Ayn Rand had "great insights that are partially developed in some directions, not at all in others" (T&T 62). It is not technical enough, since Ayn Rand "did not develop her ideas in the form of detailed treatises" (T&T 61). In general then, David Kelley regards Objectivism as "no more (though no less) than the foundation and outline of a system [of philosophy]" (T&T 61). Kelley is certainly wrong in his claims about Objectivism's defects as a philosophic system. However, I will leave that point aside, since our concern lies with his response to this supposed problem. To transform Objectivism into a full-fledged philosophy on par with the grand systems of Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, Kelley claims that ...it must attract philosophers who will build on Ayn Rand's discoveries, using them as a base for an assault on specific problems in philosophy and drawing out their implications for other disciplines such as economics, psychology, or literary theory. And Objectivism is more than a theoretical structure; it is a philosophy to live by. Over time, the accumulated experience of those who practice it will produce a moral tradition, a body of reflection about the issues that arise in applying the principles. As this happens, the philosophic content of Objectivism will become more complex and detailed. Philosophers who specialize in various fields will address issues that Ayn Rand did not consider, and put forward ideas that were not hers (T&T 62).Certainly, the need for active scholars, intellectuals, and otherwise thoughtful folk to extend our knowledge in accordance with Objectivism is genuine. To spend all our days poring over the same Ayn Rand writings again and again for some as-of-yet overlooked tidbit of insight would be silly, if not suicidal. That's not in dispute though -- contrary to the strawmen accusations about the closed system leveled by various critics of ARI. (In light of the flurry of scholarly activity around ARI, those critics no longer have the excuse of misunderstanding Leonard Peikoff's comments in "Fact and Value." As I've said before, it's long past time to check those premises!) My critical point of dispute with the above passage is that such new work, even if true, ought to be acknowledged as separate from (albeit related to) the philosophy of Objectivism developed by Ayn Rand. Apart from some semantic differences, such is standard practice in the study of intellectual history. In teaching Aristotle, for example, philosophers recognize that any given interpretation stands or falls based upon its coherence with the text, even if contrary to fact. The substantive developments of Aristotle's ideas offered by later thinkers are considered part of an Aristotelian tradition, but not an addition to Aristotle's philosophy. Philosophers are even careful to note later terminological additions (such as the naming of the various forms of the syllogism or parts of the soul by medieval scholastics) as just that in their teaching. Speaking generally, good scholars carefully distinguish the original system of ideas developed by one pivotal figure from the mix of derivative work produced by others in its wake. They also distinguish a discipline's current body of truths from its historical development. Such distinctions are necessary for cognitive clarity; without them, our understanding of a given field would disintegrate into a mess of contradictory confusions. Such cognitive clarity is precisely the function served by the "closed system" view of Objectivism, in that it clearly distinguishes Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism from both later developments based upon it and from general philosophic truths. In contrast, Kelley's open system deliberately conflates those critical distinctions. Far more important than any of that, however, is that fact that David Kelley regards Objectivism as inadequate in a more substantial way: it is not merely underdeveloped, but also likely marred by flaws. That is why, on his view, we must allow scholars to "reformulate principles, or qualify them, or reconceive the hierarchical relations among them" (T&T 62). Even "points that [people] previously took as settled" must be open to revision (T&T 62). In other words, Objectivism shall not merely be augmented by logically consistent additions, but also subjected to all manner of revisions. Kelley claims that such changes to Objectivism are "to be expected in light of the Objectivist theory that knowledge is contextual" (T&T 62). In a similar vein, he argues that "the very nature of inductive knowledge" means that all philosophic principles except the axioms are "subject to further confirmation, qualification, or revision" (T&T 63). However, these arguments are deeply confused. How so? To put the point bluntly, no augmentation of context or additional inductive data can justify change to well-grounded philosophic principles. What new information might justify qualifying or revising principles like that knowledge is hierarchical, that rights can only be violated by force, that capitalism is the only moral social system, and that existence is identity? Might we discover that some abstract truths may be intuited directly by the eye of the soul? that rights are also violated when feelings are hurt? that communism is good for developing countries? that some existents have no identity? I think not. Contra Kelley, we need not leave the door open for such "discoveries" because well-grounded philosophic principles are already formed in their full context of inductive data. Such is the case with philosophy (but not with the special sciences) because, as Peikoff notes in "Fact and Value," philosophy "deals only with the kinds of issues available to men in any era" (F&V). Kelley wholly misconstrues this point as implying the obvious falsehood that the principles of philosophy are self-evident (T&T 63). The true point is that all the required data for any given philosophic induction is accessible to any person in any age -- provided that he already understands the logically prior principles. So when a person does truly grasp a philosophic principle (as opposed to holding it as a floating abstraction), he need not worry that it might be overturned, revised, or qualified in the future. In fact, well-grounded philosophic principles are not even further confirmed by additional data, as Kelley claims. Certainty is the end point of an evidentiary continuum of possibility and probability; it does not admit of degrees. So when a person grasps the principle that justice is a virtue, he is certain of it. When he later discovers a connection between justice and pride, its applications to forgiveness, or its importance in marriage, he is certain of more about the virtue of justice, but not more certain that it is a virtue. In short, David Kelley seriously misunderstands the structure of knowledge, particularly philosophic knowledge. As a result, he lapses into skepticism, charging those who defend certainty with dogmatism. Even if such skepticism were justified, it would only imply that philosophers must free themselves from their ties to historical systems, not that they have license to covertly update those established systems as they please. Ultimately, so much of the motivation for the open system seems to boil down to the tired skeptical refrain of "But what if you're wrong?!?" -- only now it's "But what if Ayn Rand was wrong?!?" and "Ohmigod, what will we do then?!?" Obviously, the fact that Ayn Rand was fallible does not prove that she erred. And in my experience, those who criticize her (including myself at times) have usually failed to carefully study her arguments, to understand relevant underlying principles, and/or to employ proper methodology. However, if Ayn Rand did err, if her philosophic system contains serious flaws, then the proper approach is to "take what you want, and pay for it," where the payment is the relinquishing of the title "Objectivism," while still crediting Ayn Rand where appropriate. That's exactly what she requested -- and it's what honesty, justice, and pride demand. (Why? Because Objectivist scholars, by carefully distinguishing their own philosophical work from that of Ayn Rand, also distinguish their own successes or failures from hers.) Notably, David Kelley does not push his skepticism to its logical conclusion by subjecting all non-axiomatic principles of Objectivism to reformulation, revision, and qualification. (That sort of subjectivism would be too blatant to be misunderstood, overlooked, or ignored.) Instead, he limits the identity of Objectivism by appealing to a set of principles supposedly fundamental to and/or distinctive of Objectivism (T&T 66-8). I will examine that aspect of the open system in a later post. At present, my only concern to emphasize the far more basic point that Kelley cannot rationally justify revising Objectivism -- or any other philosophic system -- even if for the better. Objectivism is not some loose school of thought to which Kelley and his followers might contribute. It is the work of a single philosopher: Ayn Rand. Like other philosophical systems, it stands or falls as it was created by her. Let us now return to our original question: Why would David Kelley wish to retain the title "Objectivism" for work that substantially departs from Ayn Rand's philosophy? Based upon what I saw in my ten years at IOS/TOC, I cannot believe that Kelley was ever seriously interested in creating a lively and productive community of (vaguely) Objectivist scholars, as claimed (T&T 76-7). His longstanding unwillingness to offer young scholars any guidance, education, or even encouragement too clearly contradicts that claimed motive. Nor did he make any effort to stem the slow hemorrhage of smart, knowledgeable, and committed Objectivists drifting away from IOS/TOC over the years. If Kelley cared about that intellectual community, he would do more than neglect it. Moreover, Kelley's argument for the open system has easily predictable consequences that even he must regard as pernicious -- like determinists, animal rights advocates, and anarchists claiming that their views deserve the title of "Objectivism" too. (Even if such views are outside the scope of Objectivism as defined by Kelley, he set the precedent by claiming that revisions to Objectivism are not just permissible, but also healthy and good, while only limiting those revisions by demanding adherence to an arbitrary collection of supposedly core principles. That's a topic for that later post, however.) Kelley surely knew that his open system would unleash, attract, and even encourage all manner of stupidity, carelessness, and ignorance in the name of open debate and inquiry. Then again, perhaps he does not mind those results, since otherwise he would attempt counteract them by upholding some basic standards. So why develop this theory of Objectivism as an open system? What is the purpose of this folly? My general suspicion is that David Kelley had a vision of what Objectivism might and ought to be -- if only written by a serious academic philosopher rather than some half-crazy Russian novelist. Perhaps he was genuinely concerned that Objectivism would fail to realize its potential as a major philosophical force in our culture unless fleshed out, toned down, and corrected for errors (T&T 60-2). Whatever the reason, Kelley clearly sought a philosophy like Objectivism in general outline -- but one more technically developed as a system and in its details, more tolerant of opposing views and open to new ideas, less passionate in its moral judgments and fiery polemics, and more capable of fitting comfortably in the world of academic philosophy. Such is the basic plea of "A Question of Sanction" and Truth and Toleration that has set the direction of the work produced by David Kelley and IOS/TOC over the years. For example: Kelley's monograph Unrugged Individualism elevated benevolence to the status of a major virtue. In TOC's mission statement, non-controversial "achievement" replaces controversial "egoism" as a core value of Objectivism. Kelley has attempted to broaden the tent by appealing to a vague set of "modernist" values. He welcomes critics of Objectivism (like Mike Huemer), altruistic welfare statists (like Brink Lindsey), and far worse to speak at its summer seminars, without identifying them as such. Kelley warmly embraced Nathaniel Branden, along with his dishonest warnings about the hazards of Objectivism. His long-stagnant book, The Logical Structure of Objectivism, was supposed to offer a systematic and technical presentation of his vision of Objectivism-as-it-ought-to-be. (It's worth perusing the complete draft of the book from 1999 to get a sense of the scope of favored revisions to Objectivism. Although it's been many years since I read it, I particularly recall the reduction of Ayn Rand's theory of concepts to almost nothing and the bizarre division of virtues, particularly the supposedly social virtues. Perhaps the only good news about that book is that it has floundered in recent years, likely due to Kelley's declining interest in philosophy.) Such is David Kelley's vision of a new and improved Objectivism. In case you hadn't noticed, it's failing miserably. Notably, to even attempt his project of reconstructing Objectivism, David Kelley needed to retain title to "Objectivism." After all, if he designated his new hash of a philosophy with some new name, few (if any) people would have paid it any attention whatsoever. Objectivism might not be revered or even respected in academia, but it is at least known to exist. The name is also a substantial draw for regular folks interested in Ayn Rand's fiction and philosophy. It's not the don't-mean-nothing-to-nobody that something like "Kelleyectivism" would be. (Somehow, I doubt that an Institute for Kelleyectivist Studies would have ever gotten off the ground!) So by the method of cost-benefit analysis advocated and practiced by David Kelley, the term "Objectivism" had to be preserved, even if the principles of Objectivism itself are sacrificed in the process. And thus the open system was born. Like with Nathaniel Branden's memoir and Barbara Branden's biography, David Kelley would not have dared promulgate his idea of Objectivism as an open system during Ayn Rand's lifetime. She would have shot him down in an instant. In fact, we know exactly what she would have said: There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings -- or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods? (From "The Moratorium on Brains," Question and Answer Period.)She would have been right. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Coma and Death by Public Schools
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:41 AM
Here's some good news via Joanne Jacobs:Hundreds of diabetic students in Texas public schools will be able to check their blood sugar and administer insulin this school year without having to miss class time or sneak around campus.If this news doesn't seem particularly noteworthy, consider the problem that it fixes: Prior to the law, some schools didn't allow diabetic students to attend certain extracurricular activities or to check their blood glucose levels in class. Some students couldn't carry monitors or medication to class. And, in severe cases, parents had to take their children off campus several times a day to administer insulin, advocates said.As if the intellectual and moral death inflicted upon students in government schools weren't enough! Now we have coma and death! The mind boggles. While much blame falls upon the heads of teachers and administrators, I must wonder whether parents who send their children into these death-traps year after year are in any substantial way concerned for their welfare. Their actions suggest that they are not. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Tuesday, July 26, 2005 | |
|
Danica McKeller, Actress and Mathematician
By Paul @ 5:22 PM
The NY Times has an excellent profile of actress Danica McKellar, who played Winnie on The Wonder Years. Some excerpts:Ms. McKellar, now a semiregular on "The West Wing" playing a White House speechwriter, Elsie Snuffin, is probably the only person on prime-time television who moonlights as a cyberspace math tutor.Those who want to know more about the Chayes-McKellar-Winn theorem can read her paper, "Percolation and Gibbs States Multiplicity for Ferromagnetic Ashkin-Teller Models on Z^2" (.pdf format). Too bad none of my math instructors at MIT looked like her... (Via Tom McMahon.) E-mail Paul
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Travelling Backwards in Time
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:37 AM
Last night, I noticed that the server was having some strange problems, e.g. the web site disappeared entirely, I couldn't send mail, I received some old duplicate mail, and so on. Perhaps because of that, although goodness only knows how, the blog travelled backwards in time back to July 14th. Actually, I suspect that the site crashed and was restored. However, it's strange that the blog was stuck on July 14th, whereas the comments were up-to-date.Whatever the cause, the main page is now current, but Blogger is still chugging through the process of republishing the entire blog. Many thanks to those who e-mailed me about the problem. Since I couldn't send mail until just recently, I couldn't reply that I was working on it. It was quite frustrating! Also, please drop me an e-mail if you notice any other strange errors on the site. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Monday, July 25, 2005 | |
|
Strange Mail
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:14 PM
Sometimes I think that I get more than the usual share of strange mail. That might be true, but I surely don't get as much freaky mail as the good folks at Snopes. Really, go read some of it for yourself. It's quite entertaining.
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Evading the Moral Question
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:28 AM
Anne Applebaum has an interesting op-ed on US technology companies (like Microsoft) helping repressive regimes (like China) control and limit the free exchange of ideas in order to prolong the rule of those regimes. Like Ms. Applebaum, I'm struck by the lack of concern these companies show for the morality of such actions.Until now, most of these companies have defended themselves on the grounds that there are side benefits -- a Microsoft spokesman has said that "we're helping millions of people communicate, share stories, share photographs and build relationships" -- or on the grounds that they can't control technology anyway. A Cisco spokesman told me that this is the "same equipment technology that your local library uses to block pornography," and besides, "we're not doing anything illegal."Oy, that's pathetic. (I wonder how much altruism is to blame for such attitudes. It is, after all, the source of the view that morality has nothing to do with business.) E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
The Downward Spiral
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:31 AM
A few months ago, The Barely-Pretending-To-Be-Objectivist Center announced two major changes: (1) the change in office from Poughkeepsie, NY to Washington, DC and (2) the change in leadership from David Kelley to Ed Hudgins as Executive Director. I didn't directly comment on the news at the time, although I hoped to do so. Although both of those changes have now taken place, I would like to offer a few observations on them.First, on the physical move itself. Although the announcement says only that "the Center will continue its political and cultural advocacy, its educational and scholarly programs, and its development of the Objectivist community," clearly the primary goal of the move is to become more involved with national politics. That's the only reason to move to the dangerous, corrupt, expensive, and decaying city of Washington, DC -- rather than, say, Boston or New York. Yet what is the point of that political activism supposed to be? TOC will advocate the same basic political positions as the existing libertarian think tanks, most notably the Cato Institute. So can TOC supporters expect some added value, like solid analysis of the philosophical ideals underlying current political debates? Surely not, as evidenced by Ed Hudgins' routinely tepid, appeasing, and wrong op-eds such as The Human Spirit of Christmas, The Problems with The Passion's Moral Message, and Flushing the Koran or Reason Down the Toilet?. Moreover, TOC has nothing like the large talent pool of smart, motivated, and committed experts which drive libertarian engines like Cato, thanks to its 15-year failure to cultivate Objectivist intellectuals. (Instead, TOC just recently re-hired Bob Bidinotto, the man who pioneered the colossal and expensive failure that was The Atlas Society.) So why did TOC choose to move to DC? Because such is what TOC's Trustees have wanted for many, many years. I suspect more than a few large donors were ready to pull the plug unless TOC attempted to give itself a Cato-style makeover. It will fail. TOC's philosophical wrongs have already created insurmountable practical problems. The move to DC will only compound those problems, not solve them. (Certainly, TOC will burn though donor money much faster.) A few months ago, after hearing the news of the move, a friend of mine predicted that TOC would cease to exist and that David Kelley would be working at Cato within 5-10 years, if not sooner. I think she's right. Second, on the change in leadership. By all accounts, including from multiple TOC staffers, David Kelley was an truly terrible executive. (According to one staffer, a standard pattern went as follows: (1) some ill-conceived program would be launched, (2) it would fail, and (3) any similar but better proposals would be automatically rejected on the grounds that "We tried that and it failed." That pattern makes sense of some of what I saw while involved with TOC.) So purely qua manager, Ed Hudgins is likely to be something of an improvement over David Kelley. Yet the fact that a man with such an inadequate understanding of Objectivism is now the Executive Director of The Objectivist Center speaks volumes about the lack of standards in the organization -- and perhaps about its desperation too. Freed from the burdens of management, David Kelley will now "devote most of his time to cultural analysis and philosophical research" -- or so the announcement reads. He is even quoted as saying that he is "eager to focus now on writing, research, and working with students and other scholars." If that is true (and I'm sure it's not), it would be a dramatic departure not just from the standard practice of neglect of students at IOS/TOC, but also from David Kelley's explicit claims to me about his lack of interest in mentoring students or even writing philosophy. Happily, I've been gone from TOC for long enough now that I'm no longer privy to the current insider information. Yet even from my outside perspective, I can see that the organization has only gotten worse. That's just what I expected. This move to DC is little more than a Band-Aid and a lollipop for appendicitis. By two years ago, I was totally fed up with TOC's hands-off approach to students and scholars, not to mention baffled by David Kelley's resistance to addressing those problems. So I committed myself to honestly re-evaluating TOC's founding philosophy by carefully carefully re-reading Truth and Toleration in light of my knowledge of the practical failures of the organization. When I finally did so a few months later, I could see that TOC's major failures could be traced back to its founding principles. For example, the unwillingness to hold students and scholars to even basic standards of scholarship, e.g. by demanding that they understand the relevant principles of Objectivism before criticizing them, finally made sense, as that would be regarded as authoritarian, dogmatic, and generally contrary to the friendly tolerance of open-system-Objectivism. After that initial discovery, it wasn't long before I realized that I couldn't ever wish to be involved with such an organization. My purpose here is not to pat myself on the back: I hardly think that I deserve praise for finally getting it right after ten years of being so horribly wrong. Rather, my point is that too many supporters of TOC, even though unhappy with the organization, seem unwilling to check their premises all the way down, as I was. Quite a few once-strong supporters of TOC have drifted away over the years due to discontent over the inept management, poor publications, and general floundering of the organization. Others continue some level of involvement, yet claim to be substantially worried. However, to my knowledge, none of these discontents have ever seriously reconsidered the founding philosophy of TOC by scrutinizing it with fresh and careful eyes in light of TOC's history. (I do know of two former supporters of TOC who have seriously committed to doing so, once they have the time. I have no worries about either of them.) Of course, even for a honest person committed to Objectivism, such might not be enough. David Kelley's errors are often cleverly concealed, particularly in Truth and Toleration. They can be difficult to discern for a person without an adequate understanding of Objectivism, without finely-tuned skills of philosophic detection, without a commitment to straight rather than charitable reading, and so on. But for those unhappy with the practical results of "A Question of Sanction," a brutally honest second look is long overdue. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Sunday, July 24, 2005 | |
|
Poisoning the Well
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:01 AM
A "charity refutation" is a refutation of an arbitrary claim, offered in generous kindness to the poor souls possibly taken in by epistemological hucksters. (The term is not my invention; I've heard that it traces back to Ayn Rand.) Consider, for example, the Objectivist arguments against God as the creator of the universe. Because the theist can cite no genuine evidence for it, the claim is arbitrary. So the atheist has no obligation to refute it. Rather, the epistemological burden rests entirely with the theist. However, regular folks are often confounded by such arguments. A person may be innocently confused by the heavy metaphysics if unskilled in the fine art of tracing implications. Or he may only implicitly grasp the need for solid evidence for claims, such that he cannot explicitly identify and reject the argument as arbitrary. In such cases, explaining how God-as-creator as merely pushes the problem back one more step or endorses the primacy of consciousness can be worthy kindness to offer. Certainly, I have gratefully received many such kindnesses myself. In general, as Ayn Rand clearly recognized, it is far easier for a basically rational person to get suckered into a bad argument than to originate it himself. That's one of the reasons why I'm far less likely to offer a charity refutation to the originators or pushers of arbitrary theories. Either such people know well enough that their stated reasons are no more than rationalizations or they are too psycho-epistemologically screwy to grasp the point at hand. That's been my experience, at least. Unsurprisingly, Don Watkins offers more than a few charity refutations in his dissection of Neil Parille's article "Ayn Rand and Evolution." In reading that article, I'm quite blown away by the fact that Neil never actually considers Ayn Rand's own perfectly reasonable explanation for her hesitancy about the theory of evolution, namely inadequate study. Instead, he engages in baseless speculations about the supposed implications of evolution she wished to avoid, e.g. instinctual knowledge, determinism, and original sin. The underlying premise of the whole discussion is that Ayn Rand was not an honest intellectual. That's why we need not consider the possibility that she accurately reported the reasons for her hesitancy or that she grounded her philosophic views in observed fact rather than desired conclusions. Particularly as applied to Ayn Rand, that's a disturbingly false premise. Unfortunately, the philosophic style of this article is not an anomaly. Too much published on Ayn Rand in recent years has all the illusion of scholarly inquiry without any of its substance. It is pseudo-scholarship: it substitutes superficial understanding, invented controversy, and detached cynicism for the clarity, depth, and care of good study. (Certainly, my own essay in the Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand anthology betrays far too much of that kind of pseudo-scholarship. Given my skewed standards at the time, the fact that I very much wanted to write a fine essay had little bearing upon the quality of the work I produced.) The serious study of Ayn Rand's work -- in and out of academia -- is only in its nascent stages. If stillborn, our culture is doomed. (So the stakes are high, to say the least!) Whether Ayn Rand's ideas take hold in academia and the wider culture or not will largely will largely depend upon the work produced in the next few decades. That work will consist of a relatively small number of influential publications produced by a relatively small number of scholars and intellectuals. So at this point, and for many years to come, even a few pseudo-scholars pose a grave danger, as do those who tolerate them. After all, today's intellectuals would love nothing more than to be able to dismiss Objectivism by means of strawmen erected by its supposed defenders. (Oh, what a sad time that would be!) Such is why promoting the highest standards of objectivity in scholarship on Ayn Rand and Objectivism is not just important, but of particular pressing importance at present. It's not just some academic game: it's literally life and death. Neil's article represents no great danger by itself, of course. It's a essay for SOLO -- not some massive tome, journal article, or even newspaper column. Yet its unserious intellectual style is a symptom of the very serious problem of pseudo-scholarship on Ayn Rand and Objectivism, a problem very much worth our attention. Update: Don Watkins offers some further thoughts on Ayn Rand scholarship. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Saturday, July 23, 2005 | |
|
Advice on Dishwasher Soap
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:29 AM
Paul and I don't use our dishwasher very often. Washing the dishes is Paul's job -- and he prefers to wash by hand. So unless we have company or Paul is away, the dishwasher sits idle. That's not a problem for the dishwasher, but it does seem to be a problem for the dishwasher gel soap. It tends to harden or crystalize over time for some inexplicable reason. (It is stored in the cabinet below the kitchen sink, under very ordinary conditions.) I'd rather not switch to powder soap, as I don't like it as much as the gel. Yet I'm tired of replacing barely-used bottles of dishwashing soap.So I wonder: Why does the gel harden over time? Is that a common problem? (I did google, but found nothing relevant.) Also, it is preventable? If so, how? E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Friday, July 22, 2005 | |
|
More Than Tepid and Ambiguous
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:23 PM
Bob Bidinotto, who is once again working for The Objectivist Center, recently posted a link to Ed Hudgins' op-ed "Flushing the Koran or Reason Down the Toilet?" on SOLO. In so doing, he offered this introductory comment:I've posted this link to a fine recent commentary on the evils of mysticism by Ed Hudgins, new executive director of The Objectivist Center, for two reasons. Not only does it speak bluntly on a vitally important issue, but it also refutes those who claim that his public position, and TOC's, is tepid or ambiguous on the issue of reason versus religious faith.That last bit, as you might have guessed, obliquely refers to my various criticisms of Ed Hudgins' op-eds. It's also a non sequitur. Even if Ed wrote a solid, uncompromising op-ed on faith versus religion this one time, that would not wipe clean TOC's record of timid appeasement. Just as a reminder, that record includes such gems as the op-eds "The Human Spirit of Christmas" and "The Problems with The Passion's Moral Message," as well as the policy forum on Islam in America and American Values: Are They Compatible?. Unsurprisingly, the new op-ed so highly praised by Bob Bidinotto is a philosophical disaster, as noted by Tom Rowland two posts. Let me add a few comments of my own. Ed Hudgins starts with a short summary of the "Koran abuse" story. In so doing, he grants almost all of the standard premises of the current debate. Most notably, he concedes that "abuse" of the Koran is possible in writing: "But apparently there were abuses of Islam's holy book, some intentional, some accidental. Many Muslims have strict rules concerning its handling." Then, in the very next paragraph, he refers to those "abuses" as "desecration." The only premise of the debate that he even begins to question is the idea that the Gitmo prisoners ought to have access to the Koran. So in a fairly snappy line, he observes that "the reason there were opportunities for abuse is that the administration bent over backwards to make sure that the terrorist fanatics held at Gitmo whose goal it is to kill Americans all had copies of the texts they use to justify their murderous ways." Yet he never follows up on that by explicitly stating the Koran ought to be forbidden to Gitmo inmates. And notice that the "terrorist fanatics" merely "use [the Koran] to justify their murderous ways." Hudgins' implication (whether intentional or not) is that the Koran doesn't actually justify their murderous ways. All of that is a concession to not just religion, but to the most irrational and destructive religion of our time: Islam. Hudgins then tells us that the "real story" behind the fuss over Koran abuse concerns "the nature and danger of religious fanaticism." So he's already told us that religion itself isn't the problem, but only "fanaticism" -- a.k.a. extremism. (Hmm... Did Ayn Rand have something to say about the use of that kind of term?) By limiting the problem to religious fanaticism, Hudgins gives a free pass to the seemingly "moderate" Muslims who silently support their mad-bomber brothers in faith. (Ironically, this point finally seems to have dawned upon Bob Bidinotto with the London bombings.) Hudgins then offers this not-exactly-bold claim about religion: "By definition all religions have some or many tenets that must be accepted on faith, not on rational or objective, philosophical grounds. Thus each religion has many interpretations." Most obviously, Hudgins is here downplaying the role of faith in religion, since all the core tenets of a religion -- not merely "some or many" -- must be accepted on faith. Yet we ought to take note of strange emphasis on multiple interpretations in that second sentence, as it drives the next paragraph: In the case of Islam there are those adherents today who maintain that their religion teaches peace and tolerance and bans murder as contrary to the will of Allah. They tend to be in the tradition that flourished in the Islamic world a millennium ago that respected open inquiry, scholarship and reason. Of course today the most serious international threat to peace and freedom comes from radical Islamists who commit the most heinous crimes -- who strap explosives to their own children in order to kill innocent individuals -- in order to terrorize others into mindless obedience to a primitive, repressive theocracy. Those who rioted, burned and destroyed at a possible insult to their holy book fall into this group.I'm certainly no expert on the Koran or the history of Islam. However, I know enough to say with confidence that the single bright spot of civilization in the whole history of the Islamic world was due to the strong influence of Aristotle, not some alternative reading of the Koran. (In fact, it was a return to the Koran that extinguished that bright spot of rationality.) Moreover, it's also clear that the Koran sanctions and encourages conversion by the sword, violent martyrdom, hatred of the infidel, and so on. So Hudgins' claim that the religion itself is ambiguous on such grand-scale values is absolutely false. It's a falsehood that whitewashes the true nature of Islam. (It's also a falsehood that TOC saw fit to promote in the policy forum mentioned above in which, as TOC itself reported, "Imad ad Dean Ahmad of the Minaret for Freedom Institute maintained that Islam supports free exchange, private property and tolerance.") The rest of Hudgins op-ed concerns the clash between Western values and Muslim fanaticism. It is a confused and confusing philosophic disaster. He appeals to the value of tolerance, not reason, as the foundation for the rights like freedom of expression. He never tells us why tolerance is a value; he only suggests that its acceptance put an end to the bloody religious wars in Europe. He never even clearly states what tolerance is, so it's wholly unclear whether he means it in the sense of not initiating force against those with opposing views (i.e. respecting rights) or in the sense of refusing to judge those with opposing views (i.e. ideological skepticism and egalitarianism). He even says that "truth is obtained ... through open discussion and debate" -- meaning that truth is a social product, not the result of a man's independent exercise of reason. (I'm not surprised by that, since it's also Kelley's view of objectivity found in Truth and Toleration.) He offers no solution to Muslim irrationality and death-worship except tolerance. So does this op-ed, as Bob Bidinotto so boldly claimed, "speak bluntly on a vitally important issue" and refute "those who claim that [Hudgins'] public position, and TOC's, is tepid or ambiguous on the issue of reason versus religious faith"? At this point, I don't think that I need to dignify that question with an answer, except note that "tepid" and "ambiguous" are seriously inadequate descriptions of the problem. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Fantastic News from ARI
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:56 AM
Earlier this year, Front Range Objectivism raised enough money to "buy" Colorado (except for a few already-claimed portions) for ARI's "High School Book Project." It was a very exciting accomplishment for all of us, as it means that Colorado high school students will be reading Ayn Rand's Anthem and The Fountainhead in class.Happily, we're not the only ones who think that the Book Project is a fabulous idea. At the conference, Yaron Brook announced that one million dollars (yes, $1,000,000!) was anonymously donated for the Book Project. (Although that's a huge chunk of change, it is not enough to blanket America's high school in Ayn Rand's fiction. And more money will be needed next year and the year after and so on. So I hope that at least some will be used as matching grants or the like to help raise more of the needed money.) These are very exciting times for Ayn Rand's philosophy. ARI's Book Project will expose hundred of thousands of teenagers to Ayn Rand's fiction, year after year. The Anthem Foundation has created a flurry of serious academic interest in Ayn Rand, so much so that the demand for scholars outstrips the supply. As expected, ARI works on supplying them: the Objectivist Academic Center just graduated its first undergraduate class with four years of rigorous education in Objectivism, logic, writing, history of philosophy, and more. Thanks in part to book grants from Anthem, so many serious books on or related to Objectivism have been published in the last year by ARI scholars that I have trouble keeping up with my reading. (I bought Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem and Abolition of Antitrust at OCON, in fact.) I see a tipping point approaching, I think. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Blizzard Warning
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:47 AM
Over the next two weeks, I'll be publishing a small flurry of posts on the various pretend-friends-but-actual-enemies of Objectivism, including Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, David Kelley, The Objectivist Center, SOLO, and so on. Not to worry, I'm not in the grip of some terrible obsession. Quite the contrary, in fact: I'd like to finally lay these matters to rest. Before I can do that, however, I have a few more observations to post. (In fact, most are already done, just waiting patiently in the queue.)Now does seem to be a good time to wrap up my discussions of these once-consuming issues. Quite a bit of time has passed since my disassociation from David Kelley's Objectivist Center (almost a year and a half) and since my condemnation of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden (almost a year). In both cases, my actual decision proceeded the public announcement by weeks, if not months. Way back then, I'd hoped to write up a long commentary on Kelley's substantial philosophic departures from Objectivism in both theory and practice. That turned out to be impossible, in part due to the pressing demands of graduate school, in part due to the substantial evolution of my own views in those early months. Nonetheless, I do think that the multitude of shorter posts to NoodleFood has brought more than enough evidence to light concerning TOC's rejection the core principles of Objectivism, in both word and deed. Those who choose to sanction, support, and promote TOC despite all that must now enjoy exactly the sort of pretend-Objectivist organization they truly want. Personally, I've grown weary of swatting down the slow and ponderous flies published by The Objectivist Center. Its pattern of philosophical betrayal has clearly been established: my pointing out one or two or ten or twenty more examples would serve no worthy purpose. I do still plan on writing up analyses of the critical arguments in David Kelley's Truth and Toleration. Yet my purpose in doing so will be to ensure that I fully understand the depth of his errors, not to illuminate them to others. So I'll get around to writing those when and as my schedule permits. As for Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, I'll be posting a fair bit of commentary on them in the upcoming flurry. After that, I don't expect to say much more. Those disturbed by TOC's trajectory but not yet convinced of its philosophic corruption should not passively wait for me to reveal all, plain and clear. That's not going to happen; that could not happen. If you are such a person, you need to take the initiative, as I did two years ago: Reacquaint yourself with the principles of Objectivism by seriously studying Ayn Rand's writings. Cultivate your skills of straight reading and philosophical detection. Perhaps listen to some of Leonard Peikoff's major lecture courses. Then carefully reconsider the philosophic foundation of The Objectivist Center laid down by David Kelley in "A Question of Sanction" and Truth and Toleration. Of course, I'm not completely closing down my anti-anti-Objectivism shop. I'll surely post on these matters on occasion, as I see fit. I'm also happy to answer e-mail inquiries. (In fact, I would very much prefer that people ask me directly, rather than speculating and wondering and supposing.) In short, my past association with false advocates of Objectivism and pretend friends of Ayn Rand is no longer a live issue for me. It's history. I want to clearly set my sights on the future. I want NoodleFood to reflect all that -- and so it shall, once this temporary blizzard of posts dies down. Until then, brace yourself! E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Thursday, July 21, 2005 | |
|
Life Under Dictatorship
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:47 PM
I found these simple vignettes on life under the tyranny of Castro quite compelling. Here's one, titled "In the park":There in the park the days all seemed the same. It was almost a boring routine. The same corner, the same policeman looking at everyone and once in a while searching those who passed by the place. The brutal simplicity of style reminds me of Varlam Shalamov's often heart-wrenching Kolyma Tales on life in the Soviet Gulag. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Vague Muddle
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:01 AM
I must admit, I wasn't favorably impressed with this commentary on "the enigma of the moderate Republican judges" that I found via my "Ayn Rand" Google News alert. (That's hardly surprising, since it is posted on Alan Keyes' Renew America site.) Nonetheless, I found its method of argumentation rather revealing. Consider this mention of Ayn Rand:Libertarian ideas have steadily increased in influence since Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead in 1943. Libertarian concepts have infiltrated both conservative and liberal thought. Sometimes both the ACLU and Evangelical pastors slip onto Ayn Rand's turf without realizing it. The infectious power of her ideas are in their elemental simplicity. However, God's creation is anything but simple, and man--who is part angel and part devil, part spiritual and part worldly--is a mass of contradictions.As far as I can tell, those last two sentences say absolutely nothing meaningful. The author does not bother to say in what way Ayn Rand's ideas have an "elemental simplicity." (And that matters, since they are essentialized to fundamentals but not simplistic.) Nonetheless, the supposed complexity of the world refutes her. Yet no particular instance of such complexity is offered in comparison to Ayn Rand's thought, merely a string of references to God the creator, mind versus body, and contradictions in reality. Thus is Ayn Rand dismissed. The rest of the essay seems to be written in the same basic vein. Overall, it seems to be little more than a bumbling attempt to dress up an appeal to Christian faith with the veneer of rational argument. Personally, I suspect that the "mass of contradictions" in question exists in the mind of the author, not reality. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
"Failure" Is Not An Option
By Paul @ 10:00 AM
At least not according to these British educators:The word "fail" should be banned from use in British classrooms and replaced with the phrase "deferred success" to avoid demoralizing pupils, a group of teachers has proposed. |