Find on all DianaHsieh.comjust NoodleFood / Most Recent Comments / NoodleFood RSS Feed

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 Non-Appeasers in Poland By Paul @ 8:30 AM This advertisement campaign in Poland is showing some of the real martyrs of Islamic violence. As I read on one website, it's funny how there are chronic violent Muslim-vs-Jewish conflicts in Israel, Muslim-vs-Hindu conflicts in India, Muslim-vs-Western conflicts in Europe, and Muslim-vs-Animist conflicts in Africa, etc. But according to the Muslim fundamentalists, the problem is always those other people. There's no way that the cause is related to the obvious common denominator... Labels: Funny, Religion E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Overheard in New York By Diana Hsieh @ 7:08 AM I recently discovered Overheard in New York, thanks to Trey Givens. It's basically a blog of snippets of strange and/or stupid conversation overheard in New York City. Some are philosophical: Guy: Do you know what the word "ontological" means? Chick: Yeah...I have seen it before... Guy: Yeah. Me too. Chick: Is it like an orange? Guy: Yeah...Well, it's something weird like that. Chick: I know what you mean. --Hungarian Pastry Shop, Amsterdam Avenue Some are just funny: Professor guy: I was going to give you all a quiz today. But then I realized that it was Valentine's Day. You're supposed to do something for the people you love on Valentine's Day. And of course, I love all of you very much. So...I decided to give you the quiz on pink paper instead! --Columbia University Some reveal remarkable ignorance: Woman #1: So I decided to celebrate turning 50 by traveling to Tibet. Woman #2: Tibet? Where's that? London? Woman #1: ...No, it's near China and Russia. Woman #2: Oh. It's not like I don't like to travel but I went to Mexico once and it was stupid. --4 train And: Teen guy #1: Well, I'm French. Teen girl: I'm German. Teen guy #2: Well, I'm from Spain so I guess we're all from Europe. Teen guy #1: Spain isn't in Europe. Teen girl: Dude, yes it is. Europe is like its own continent. Teen guy #1: I was talking about Europe the country, not that little island with England on it. --McDonalds, St. Marks & 3rd Then there's my personal favorite example of subjectivist stupidity: Girl: I feel like if your vagina is wet enough, you won't get AIDS. --Kitchenette Uptown, Amsterdam Avenue I'd say that nothing could possibly top that, but I'm sure that I'll read worse soon enough. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Oops! By Paul @ 7:00 AM H&R Block messes up its own taxes. E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, February 27, 2006 Five Points By Diana Hsieh @ 6:48 PM Five points* to all who discern the trick of this fun little mind-reading game in one minute or less. * Points have no cash value. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Platonic Conservatism By Diana Hsieh @ 6:31 AM A few weeks ago, Paul sent me to a lengthy TCS article by philosopher Edward Fesser on "The Metaphysics of Conservatism." The article consists of some downright disturbing discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of the various forms of modern conservatism. Fesser clearly grounds the core of conservatism in Plato's mystical metaphysics and intrinisicist epistemology. Since I've heard the critiques of neo-conservatism from Objectivist scholars like Yaron Brook and John Lewis, that's not news to me. Still, I was pleased to hear those ideas from the horse's mouth. After some lengthy discussion of philosophy, the author distinguishes between three kinds of modern conservatism: Realist Conservatism, Reductionist Conservatism, and Anti-Realist Conservatism. "Realist Conservatism" ... affirms the existence of an objective order of forms or universals that define the natures of things, including human nature, and what it seeks to conserve are just those institutions reflecting a recognition and respect for this objective order. Since human nature is, on this view, objective and universal, long-standing moral and cultural traditions are bound to reflect it and thus have a presumption in their favor. ... Reductionist Conservatism ... might be defined as a variety of conservatism that agrees with Realist Conservatism in affirming that there is such a thing as human nature and that it is more or less fixed, but which would ground this affirmation, not in anything like an eternal realm of Forms, but rather in, say, certain contingent facts about human biology, or perhaps in the laws of economics or in a theory of cultural evolution. The Reductionist Conservative is, accordingly, more likely to look to empirical science for inspiration than to philosophy or theology. He is also bound to see grey in at least some areas where the Realist Conservative sees black and white, since facts about economics, human biology, and the like, while very stable, are not quite as fixed or implacable as the Forms. But he is less likely to see grey than is the Anti-Realist Conservative... .... [The Anti-Realist Conservative] might be characterized as someone doubtful that any relatively fixed moral or political principles can be read off even from scientific or economic facts about the human condition. Whereas Realist and Reductionist Conservatives value tradition because there is at least a presumption that it reflects human nature, the Anti-Realist Conservative values it merely because it provides for stability and order. As you might have noticed, this division of conservatives is itself highly Platonic, in that these three types of conservatism are defined in terms of Humean deviation from Platonism. Absolutism varies inversely with empiricism. Still, the categories do seem to capture the varieties of intrinsicism and subjectivism found in modern conservatism. Although I'm no expert on such matters, it does correspond to much of what I've seen from conservative intellectuals over the years. As for the substance of his argument that modern conservatism is rooted in ancient thought, let me indicate just some of the mental gymnastics required to make that case. For example, the article basically ignores the quasi-communist totalitarian dictatorship of The Republic, even though Plato regarded that state as the natural outgrowth of his mystical metaphysics and intuitionist epistemology -- and rightly so. As otherworldly entities, the Forms will be distant from the thoughts of most people. Lacking the special training of philosophy, ordinary people are easily deceived by the imperfect, changing, and sordid appearances of this world -- not to mention led astray by their passions. So a good society would have to be rule paternalistically by a special caste of those truly in touch with the Forms -- conservative intellectuals, no doubt. Although the details of Plato's ideal state -- such as women, children, and property in common -- would be rejected by modern conservatives, the basic ideal of a rigidly paternalistic state flows directly from Plato's metaphysics and epistemology. Fesser ignores that rather large element of Plato's philosophy, perhaps unwilling to admit just how paternalistic his conservative ideal would be. Even worse, Fesser grossly misrepresents Aristotle's philosophy so as to claim him as a source for modern theocratic politics. For example, he attempts to use Aristotle's hylomorphism (i.e. the idea that substances are unions of form and matter) to justify a total ban on abortion, euthanasia, and the like. When he makes this argument, he's already mentioned that "Aristotle also emphasized the idea that a substance -- a statue, a tree, a human being -- is a composite of matter and form... And the soul, on Aristotle's view, is simply the form of a living body. A human person, therefore, is on his view a composite of soul (or form) and body (or living matter)." That's accurate. Yet consider what he does with those ideas: ... a person, being on the view in question a composite of soul (or form) and body (or matter), cannot be identified with either his psychological characteristics alone or his bodily characteristics alone. Moreover, since the soul is just the form of a living human body, for a living human body to exist at all is for it to have a soul, so that there can be no such thing as a living human body -- whether that of a fetus, an infant, a normal human adult or a severely brain damaged adult -- which does not have a soul, and which does not count as a person. For while even a human being who is damaged or not fully formed might not perfectly exhibit the form of the human body (any more than a hastily drawn triangle perfectly manifests the form of triangularity), he nevertheless does exhibit it, otherwise his body wouldn't count as a living human body at all (just as a hastily drawn triangle is still a triangle, however imperfect). One corollary of this is that every single living human body, within the womb or without, severely damaged or not, counts as the body of a person and as a being having all the rights of a person, including the right to life. The first sentence and a half of that quote is accurate. The rest is a logical leap to Platonic and Christian garbage. Perhaps most obviously, the claims about damaged or immature humans "not perfectly exhibit[ing] the form of the human body" is a highly Platonic analysis -- and quite inconsistent with Aristotle's approach. Also, Aristotle would not even recognize all the talk about a fetus as a "person" with "all the rights of a person, including the right to life," since he had no concept of "rights." Yet even if we make some allowances on those scores, nothing in Aristotle's views about the metaphysical nature of the human organism supports the notion that abortion and/or euthanasia are morally wrong. If anything, Aristotle's discussions of these matters in De Anima (DA) or Generation of Animals (GA) suggests precisely the opposite view. As already mentioned, Aristotle does regard the soul as the form of a living human body. Yet souls are not limited to human beings, as in Christian dogma and as implied in the above passage. Rather, the soul is the form of any living body, whether human, animal, or even plant. Different kinds of living organisms have different kinds of souls, differentiated by natural capacities. So plants have a "nutritive soul" of growth and reproduction. Animals have a "sensitive soul" also capable of perception and locomotion. Humans have even more, namely the "rational soul" required for abstract thought. (See DA 2:3) Since souls are not uniquely human, the mere possession of a soul cannot confer any special moral standing upon all and only humans, as Fesser implies. Moreover, nor can the rational soul possessed by only humans do so, since not all humans have the capacity to reason. Some humans will only have a sensitive soul. Others are limited to a nutritive soul. As pertains to abortion, Aristotle explicitly says the soul of a human must develop from nutritive to sensitive to rational, albeit with some subtleties about actual versus potential. (See GA 2:1.) As for euthanasia, clearly a person suffering from degenerative brain disease may regress from a rational to sensitive to nutritive soul. That's why they're called "vegetables"! Given Aristotle's analysis of the metaphysical nature of organisms, it's hardly surprising that he was no opponent of abortion, but rather allowed it in the early stages of pregnancy due to his metaphysical views. In his discussion of the best state in the Politics, he writes: As to the exposure and rearing of children, let there be a law that no deformed child shall live, but that on the ground of an excess in the number of children, if the established customs of the state forbid this (for in our state population has a limit), no child is to be exposed, but when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation. (Politics 7:16, emphasis added) In contrast, Aristotle is opposed to suicide, but for reasons which have nothing to do with the nature of the human soul. (For more details on Aristotle on both abortion and euthanasia, including detailed textual references, see this helpful paper.) In short, by leaping from hylomorphism about humans to moral and legal opposition to abortion and euthanasia, Edward Fesser is engaged in that all-too-common practice in philosophy of "making stuff up." (Yes, that's technical terminology.) Even worse, he's obviously relying upon the ignorance of his audience to do so: Although his claims about Aristotle are little more than logical leaps based upon gross misinterpretations, few of his readers are likely to know those technical details of Aristotle's philosophy. Thus Edward Fesser, like the philosopher-kings of Plato's paternalistic totalitarianism, is perfectly willing to engage in whatever deceptions necessary to induce the rest of us lower beings to accept the rule of conservative intellectuals. Lovely. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, February 26, 2006 New Frontiers By Don @ 7:20 AM I am very pleased to announce that I will soon be joining the staff of the Ayn Rand Institute as their Writer and Research Coordinator. I will be responsible for writing Impact, the newsletter distributed to ARI contributers, and helping fact check op-eds and other writings distributed through ARI. I'm not sure I can effectively describe how excited I am by this opportunity. For the first time in my life, I will be making my living as a writer, which has always been my goal. And I will be doing so working at the place I've dreamed of working since I was fifteen and first became an Objectivist. The most I can say is that my benevolent universe premise has been confirmed in the most extraordinary way...this is life as it might be and ought to be. This Thursday, I will be jumping in my car and leaving D.C., along with my best friend, David Rehm. We're setting sail for Colorado, where I'll be spending the weekend with Diana, enjoying the Objectivist law conference, after which I will be driving to Irvine. It reminds me of a book I started but never finished: -- I leave a note. It's the least I can do. It doesn't say where I'm going. Just that I'm gone. The cab driver is white - who knew white guys were even allowed to drive cabs? He shows up late. The sun is starting to rise by the time we leave, and I tell him to slam the gas so I will not miss my flight. Less than an hour later, I'm at BWI airport. It has to be a record. "Twenty," he says. I open my backpack and throw him a fifty. "Keep the change." He looks at the bag and eyes me suspiciously. "I didn't steal it," I say. "Didn't say you did." "Okay." "Just don't think it's a good idea to take a bag of cash to the airport." I shut the door without a word, check my suitcase, and hustle to my gate. I haven't missed my flight - it's been delayed. I buy a Coke, a copy of USA Today, and settle in beside a grumpy fat man who I'm sure has been sitting here for days. "They won't let you on the plane if you're drunk," he says, his breath reeking of rotten bourbon. "Okay." "They got me once already. But this time I'm ready for them." He smiles a dirty smile, looks around to make sure no one is watching, and pulls something out of his pocket. "I've got a mint." He holds up a single Tic Tac. "Good luck with that," I say. The flight is ready to board, which is good because another minute beside Mint Man and I'm going to be drunk. They call first class first. They always call first class first. I'm riding first class. A skinny girl with a fake smile looks at my ticket and looks at me. I know what she's thinking. I don't look first class. Hell, I don't look business class. Probably I look like cargo. "I don't have a mint," I say, thinking that might be the problem. "Excuse me?" she says. "Never mind." She waves me through and I sit down at the back of the first class section. When I was a kid, I always wanted the window seat. I've learned my lesson. My bladder is small and I always have to pee. There's nothing worse than being stuck in a window seat when the stranger next to you is asleep and you really have to pee. I guess you could use the vomit bags, but I get stage fright, so now I make sure to always get an aisle seat. The seat is comfortable. It better be, right? I try to recline, but even in first class you don't recline so much as tilt slightly. So I tilt. It helps. "Eight C. Eight C. Oh, eight C." A woman who's probably thirty smiles at me and I stand up so she can take the window seat. I hope she won't have to pee. "This is my first time in first class," she says. She looks like a bird. Not an ugly bird. I mean, she's pretty. But still, she has bird-like features. Tight skin and a pointy nose and half a mouth. Good hair though. "I'm Phoebe," she says. "It means 'shining one.'" "I'm Ethan Allen," I say. "Like the revolutionary?" "Like the furnishing store, I think." She laughs. It's a good laugh. Light and airy. Too many girls have these weird giggles that make me squirm. I dated one girl who thought she sounded stupid when she laughed so she always tried to stifle it. It never worked - it would come out as an annoying snort. It's a good thing I'm not funny. We wouldn't have made it more than a week. Then again, we only lasted two weeks. "Is this your first time in first class?" she says. "Uh huh." "I guess it would be. You look young." "I'm twenty-two," I say, a bit incredulous. "I'm sorry," she says. "That probably sounded condescending. I didn't mean it that way." "Right." I wish she would shut up. I don't mind being social, I really don't. But I'm preoccupied. Everything is about to change and I want to be there when it does. Too many times I've missed out on important moments in my life. I don't want to miss this one. When the wheels leave the ground, that's when my life ends. I don't need bird girl taking that away from me. # "You should see this," Phoebe says, looking out the window. "The water looks so peaceful." "I hate water," I say. "It's beautiful. Everything is so tiny." "Not really," I say. "It just looks that way because we're up so high." It's an hour into the flight so it's okay Phoebe wants to talk. "How long are you staying?" Phoebe says. I shrug. Her brow furrows. "You don't know when you're coming back?" "Nope." "That's interesting," she says. Really I don't think she thinks it's interesting. Probably she thinks it's weird. But she's nice, even though she's bird girl. She doesn't want to offend me by saying anything. "Are you single?" I say, thinking Phoebe is cute so it's worth asking. "Divorced." "So you're single." She thinks for a second. "Yeah, I guess I am." She laughs. "That's funny. It's been a year since my divorce and I haven't thought about it that way. I just keep thinking 'I'm divorced. I'm divorced.'" "Do you always think it twice?" She looks at me funny. "I'm not sure how to take that. Should I laugh or be offended?" "You can laugh." She doesn't laugh. The flight is almost over. I can tell because the captain says so. He tells us to buckle up. Phoebe ignores him. She must be suicidal. We land and Phoebe and I get off the plane without saying goodbye. Now it starts. Here begins my new life. As my foot touches down fromt he ladder to the runway, I sense the possibility of a new world - after this, things will never be the same. "Hello," a smiling man says. "Welcome to Cancun." -- Anyway, I'm headed west, and I couldn't be more excited. However, I do want to stress one thing. Although I will be working for ARI, I do not speak for them. When I blog here, I will be speaking only for myself: not for ARI, for Objectivism, nor even for Diana. That said, congrats to me. :) E-mail Don    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, February 25, 2006 Feel-Good Story of the Weekend By Paul @ 9:55 PM This is an astounding story of an autistic high-school student who got to play a few minutes at the end of a basketball game. Senior Jason McElwain had been the manager of the varsity basketball team of Greece Athena High School in Rochester, N.Y. McElwain, who's autistic, was added to the roster by coach Jim Johnson so he could be given a jersey and get to sit on the bench in the team's last game of the year. Johnson hoped the situation would even enable him to get McElwain onto the floor a little playing time. He got the chance, with Greece Athena up by double-digits with four minutes go to. And, in his first action of the year, McElwain missed his first two shots, but then sank six three-pointers and another shot, for a total of 20 points in three minutes. Be sure to watch the video included in the news article. It would be interesting to know if his skill with the basketball is related in some fashion to his autism. E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Another Fan Letter By Diana Hsieh @ 10:18 AM Yesterday, in addition to this incomprehensible confusion about Marx, I also received yet another note from Mike Hardesty. You might recall that he declared me "Totally Ignorant Of The History Of The Middle East," recommended some books from various hard leftists, and then told me that I would "have to pardon the tone" of his email but that he found me to be "a nasty, loudmouthed asshole." So here's the latest: Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:42:18 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Hardesty To: diana@dianahsieh.com Subject: Response Just came across your response to my email of a month ago. One does not have to like or respect the recipient of their email. I am exercising the old American custom of setting the record straight. I doubt you've ever read Robert Fisk and an intelligent person would not confuse criticism of US State policies with "hating America," as if Bush and the shabby neocon liars represented all of America !!! Talk about epistemological collectivism ! [Various smears of Ayn Rand removed, since I do not wish to give them a forum.] It's not quite as bad as the first, but I really have no idea why he continues to write me. I'm clearly not listening, merely making fun. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, February 24, 2006 Report on Invitation to History By Diana Hsieh @ 8:52 AM Last night, Paul and I heard Scott Powell's teleconference lecture on his new history course for adults, as blogged here. Although I'm not yet sure whether I can fit the course into my schedule, given all the oppressive demands of graduate school, the course definitely looks interesting. I'm enthused about the thought Scott has put into the teaching of history. In particular, I like his reverse chronological approach, since I've often found that studying later events first helps shed light upon the significance of earlier events. (Once that foundation is laid, you can then further study whatever most interests you, since the before-and-after context is well-established.) I'm also enthused by Scott's enthusiasm for his subject, since I think that makes a world of difference in teaching. Scott is repeating last night's lecture, although the schedule has changed from the first announcement: The next and final session will be Sunday, Feb.26 at 12:00 p.m. (Pacific Time). E-mail powellhistory@powellhistory.com to sign up. If you're interested in history, I'd certainly recommend giving it a hearing. Update: After inquiring about the pace of the lectures, I'm confident that I can fit the course into my schedule. (I do prefer to be overwhelmed by the demands of work, after all!) So I'm signing up at this very moment. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis An E-mail By Diana Hsieh @ 8:29 AM I recently received the following e-mail, apparently a comment upon my undergraduate paper The Problem of Self-Referentiality in Marx's Historical Materialism: this sentence is circular, but to no ill effect, although the strong interpretation of historical materialism should not detract from the urgency of a necessary resistance at the time Marx and Engels wrote, as well as within the conflicts of today. All of the writings of Marx are not proto-anti-objectivist, as he recognized, in a Malthusian sense, that the teleological inevitability of historical transformation was, as you wrote, strictly a stage subject to the socio-economic pressures of the industry of intellectualism and the economy of production, which does not need to recognize the rights of people. Classic Communism in Russia was not the answer, but neither was its negation. The problem is simply in deeming a specific mode of economic life a historically bound mode. Now, these determinisms were not at all absolute; in fact, individual variation, or, more humanistically, creativity, was suppressed by the commodifications of human activity-production. The goal of this movement was not to destroy the heart of the Romantic, but to elevate the heart to an inviolable position within economic strata. Can we be capable of choices beyond or outside of materialistic accumulation-as-personal-identity? Is ther any incentive? Well, if we truly want to see a world of others, a world of unknowable contingency and illimitable communication (a human world), then a moral imperative must be shed in favor of a self-determining epistemological desire, especially in a world without god. People may desire power above us, but insistence on immortalization may not always prevail when one realizes that, no matter what we do, we will not be conscious of its final, or post-mortem, outcome. Your sentence (in your undergraduate paper "The Problem of Self-Referentiality in Marx's Historical Materialism") " This account of historical transformation is ultimately self-defeating, because any attempt to apply Marx's historical materialism to his own theory leads to nothing but contradiction" is either circular (i.e. an intended meaning of the term "contradiction" as 'self-contradiction') or itself ambiguous, which may lead to one interpreting your use of your word "contradiction" to apply to Marx's ideological opponents, but I am sure you were aware of this. then again, it is possible to admit, even as a Randian objectivist, that elements of the logic Marx employed to support himself are indeed also correct in relation to specific tendencies among the political, religious, philosophical, and cultural writers of his day and our own. This is true also of Marx's urgency at his time, since real abuses of labor were prevalent. Without the paradigm established by socialists like Marx and Engels, reconciliation of many of these problems would have been deferred. I am including moderate reformists, anarchists, and syndicalists - who were instrumental in developing the libertarian view). Industrialists have ultimately benefited from adaptation to the (indirect) consciousness of labor of labor's specific class conditions. Imagine what would happen if people would only have recourse to paroxysmal violence? After all, violence in most of the world now, just like in the 19th and early 20th centuries, nationalistically and religiously based. -thaddeus Besedin I see nothing rational about individualism in every situation, unless we may be guilty of ideological error simply by being dependent on our families in our formative pasts. Babies are all communists. "Although being able to trace the development of history to one single cause would be convenient, such a simplistic model of history inevitably fails because it cannot possible capture all the complexity of the actual process of history." Do you mean processes? Singularizing history is just as simplistic as singular causality, which is indeed Hegelian. Poor Marx. Poor Rand. Can't we have dialogue? Uh, that would require some measure of comprehensibility, as opposed to the above sort of jibberish, I suspect. Update: I just received the following note from this fellow, in response to my telling him via e-mail that dialogue would require him to "say something comprehensible." I guess editing my message would have been the first step toward this naive idealist's fulfillment of a need for dialogue with opponents-who-are-not-truly-opponents. My point is that all elements of a philosophical system will never, in every context and in every predicament and especially when extended to practical things (as well as itself, as directly indicated only at the order of this particular 19th c. writer) be entirely self-consistent. Marx is a very easy target. Ah yes, logical consistency -- what a silly dream! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, February 23, 2006 Rules of Engagement By Paul @ 10:42 PM The US Army is trying to teach troops how to pick the right spouse, through a program known as "How To Avoid Marrying A Jerk". Given how stressful and unique the life of soldiers can be, I can understand the need for pre- and post-marital counseling to address the special circumstances of active duty military personnel. But what amuses me the most is the Army's inability to get away from acronyms: The "no jerks" program is also called "P.I.C.K. a Partner," for Premarital Interpersonal Choices and Knowledge. It advises the marriage-bound to study a partner's F.A.C.E.S. -- family background, attitudes, compatibility, experiences in previous relationships and skills they'd bring to the union. It teaches the lovestruck to pace themselves with a R.A.M. chart -- the Relationship Attachment Model -- which basically says don't let your sexual involvement exceed your level of commitment or level of knowledge about the other person. E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis An Update on Andy Bernstein Lectures By Diana Hsieh @ 2:58 PM As an update on this inquiry about the lectures by Andy Bernstein on sale at the Ayn Rand Bookstore this month, I thought I should mention that Andy was kind enough to reply to my inquiry. And based upon his recommendation, I've decided to buy: Kantianism vs. Objectivism in The Fountainhead -- Sale Price: $14.36 (List Price: $17.95) Ayn Rand's Characters as Philosophic Archetypes (Parts 1 & 2) -- Sale Price: $88.74 (List Price: $147.90) Atlas Shrugged as the Culmination of the Romantic Novel -- Sale Price: $14.36 (List Price: $17.95) Philosophic and Literary Integration in Atlas Shrugged -- Sale Price: $63.67 (List Price: $90.95) (I saved over $90!) I'm looking forward to listening to them, although I'll probably wait until I listen to The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. (I recently bought the unabridged audio books with my Audible subscription.) That might be a few months though, since I can't afford to lose myself in the pleasure of listening to Ayn Rand novels when I'm utterly swamped by graduate school. Labels: Announcements, Recommendations E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis How Times Have Changed By Paul @ 10:20 AM I've been listening to Leonard Peikoff's excellent lecture course "Understanding Objectivism", and I was struck by his assessment of the state of religion in the US back in 1983: Now almost nobody is religious today in the way it was once the rule to be. The whole West in the medieval period was tremendously religious and today the most religious zealot in the United States would have been drummed out in the Middle Ages because he would be hopelessly tainted with secularism. So religious is a dying phenomenon and I must confess I feel a certain sympathy or sorrow -- not sorrow -- but like I feel sorry for the way that these people are historically on the way out. Religion is fading all the time, so it's not that big a factor in most people's lives. It's a casual utterance which they don't really act on, although in some people absolutely it's a real factor. ("Judging Intellectual Honesty", Lecture 11, CD track 5, time index 3:22) Of course, since that time Peikoff has significantly revised his position. In his also-excellent "DIM Hypothesis" course, given in 2004, he makes a persuasive argument that religion poses the most significant (and still rapidly-growing) philosophical danger to the United States, far more than the discredited ideas of the secular leftists/collectivists. It's amazing how much things have changed in 20 years. E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Introducing The Objective Standard By Diana Hsieh @ 6:41 AM Craig Biddle's essay "Introducing The Objective Standard" is now online and accessible to all. It begins: It is widely believed today that our cultural and political alternatives are limited either to the ideas of the secular, relativistic left--or to those of the religious, absolutist right--or to some compromised mixture of the two. In other words, one's ideas are supposedly either extremely liberal or extremely conservative or somewhere in-between. We at The Objective Standard reject this false alternative and embrace an entirely different view of the world. I'm really looking forward to my first issue! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, February 22, 2006 Idle Threats By Diana Hsieh @ 7:12 AM Casey Fahey just posted a long essay to SOLO examining a variety of attacks upon Ayn Rand. Of particular interest: The essay includes some lengthy quotes from people determined to defend Nathaniel and Barbara Branden at all costs, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence of their dishonesty presented in Jim Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. And so they fling whatever mud they can muster at Ayn Rand. Although I've seen more than my share of nasty attacks upon Ayn Rand from her supposed admirers, the quoted comments from Mike Lee are worse than I could have imagined possible. Also, Barbara Branden's quoted comments are shockingly brazen lies. Her claim that Ayn Rand's personal journals are "tragic and twisted" and revealing of "her profound repression" bears no relationship to those heroically honest and benevolent writings. And her supposedly grand revelations about Leonard Peikoff's "love-hate relationship" with Ayn Rand bear no resemblance to the man either. Such inventions are to be expected from Barbara Branden, since that method of "Making Stuff Up Out of Thin Air" was so extensively used in her biography The Passion of Ayn Rand. Casey briefly mentions Robert Bidinotto's recent promise to reveal the "illuminating" history of "guttersnipes who fashion themselves as representing 'true' Objectivism." Yup, he's talking about me, among others. And boy oh boy, I'm just quaking in my boots! Or at least I might consider doing so just for fun, if I weren't comfortably ensconced on the sofa. I do not have the slightest worry about whatever Robert might say, since the only great and shocking revelations he could muster would have to be figments of his own imagination. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, my disassociation from The Objectivist Center, condemnation of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, and the like happened for exactly the philosophical reasons I've reported. Contrary to the arbitrary speculations of some former acquaintances of mine, I had no hidden personal, financial, or psychological motives for my actions. Rather, I was deeply unhappy with the lack of concern for Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism in and around The Objectivist Center -- and determined to understand its source. When I saw philosophic corruption at the root, I left. And since then, I've written much more on the nature and results of that philosophic corruption, both to understand it better myself, and in the hopes of explaining it to those who might be honestly confused by it. It's all quite boring, really. In any case, I'm certainly not worried about the possible revelations of a man who routinely avoids the trouble of rational argument in favor of these kinds of pathetic remarks about me: Oh, I suppose I could have taken the occasion of my leaving TOC to do a bit of guttersniping. I have a blog, after all; and I might have followed the heroic path pioneered by one or two former TOC hangers-on, who have transformed their departures from TOC into Extreme Makeovers, crafting entirely new public identities and even forging new social circles from these episodes. Ah, the things some nonentities will do to acquire Significance... That was, I believe, the very first gratuitous personal attack upon me in public for my departure from The Objectivist Center. And many ardent TOC supporters followed Robert's lead thereafter. I must admit, I simply cannot rouse myself to take such personal attacks seriously, particularly from people who refuse to engage my arguments. They deserve nothing but mockery -- and perhaps that's even too great an honor. You might notice that my dear friend Robert didn't see fit to mention me by name in that little jab. That's par for the course for him. In the comment thread on the post in which he promised to tell all about his critics, he had the following exchange with Bill Nevin: From Bill Nevin on 02/13/06 Robert, While I unfortunately have neglected to defend you lately, I did post a defense of David Kelley today on one site that had attacked him unfairly. Anyway, keep up the good work, good luck with your DSL problems, and give 'em hell. -Bill Robert Bidinotto replied: From Bidinotto on 02/14/06 Bill, I saw your post on that Web site. I'm grateful. That particular guttersnipe's response to yours was laughably lame, too. ... That's obviously referring to the comments on this post, yet neither Bill Nevin nor Robert Bidinotto saw fit to provide a link to the discussion in question, nor cite it in any other way. They didn't even mention my name. In contrast, I am extraordinarily diligent about properly citing (via link when possible) the material that I criticize, even when that means sending people to organizations I abhor. (I even had a very aggravating back-and-forth on the topic of such links with a troll on Objectivism Online a few months ago.) I provide such links out of respect for my readers -- because I would not ever wish them to accept my criticisms on faith, but rather to judge the matter for themselves. Robert Bidinotto doesn't have such confidence in his readers, not such consideration for the requirements of objective judgment. In perhaps the greatest irony of all, he claims to be ever so worried to shield the delicate minds of young Objectivists from people like me. So in a comment on that thread, he says: The problem is that younger kids come into this "movement" and get exposed to lies, distortions, and personalities that eventually turn them off. "If this is Objectivism," many decide, "who needs it?" And who can blame them? Objectivism holds far too much promise for the world that to let cheap pretenders sully its reputation in the courtroom of public opinion. What a delightful rationalization! By that logic, I ought to remove all the links to his site from this very post! I shouldn't even quote what he says, since some tender minds might be persuaded by his remarks. I'll just summarize instead -- or perhaps I should forgo even that in order to leave enough room for devastating counter-arguments like "laughably lame"! In keeping with his reluctance to deal with actual facts by naming names, Robert Bidinotto did decide that he'd best stick to generalities by his last post to that comment thread. From Bidinotto on 02/18/06 ... The generalizations I aim to discuss are, most broadly, principles of ideological cooperation and association (the subject of my lecture at the upcoming 2006 Summer Seminar of the Objectivist Center). More narrowly, they apply to the issue of the various, ever-shifting "litmus tests" that self-appointed guardians of Objectivist purity devise to determine who is, and is not, a "real" Objectivist. At the level of generalization I intend, what I have to say will apply to ideological groups and projects across the board, with Objectivism being a kind of "case study." While this exercise is prompted by those who have been smearing me (and others) recently, rather than respond to them directly with a personal rebuttal, I think it's far more productive to expose the fraudulent methods these sorts employ -- in light of general principles of when, where, and how it is proper or improper to cooperate with others in philosophical endeavors. Although I'm disappointed to miss Robert Bidinotto's Tall Tales About That Evil Wretch Who Shall Not Be Named, I eagerly await his justification for David Kelley's wholeheartedly endorsement and support for a Muslim organization that merely regards violent jihad as "obsolete," as well as for TOC offering friendly invitations to thoroughly dishonest critics of Ayn Rand and Objectivism to speak at their supposedly Objectivist seminar. TOC has much more appeasement and dishonesty to explain, but that would be a start. Of course, I'm sure that Good Old Bob will not sully himself by dealing with such concretes. That's just his (rationalistic, evasive, and cowardly) way. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Corruption of the Mixed Economy By Diana Hsieh @ 6:05 AM Another letter to the editor from ARI: Dear Editor: Washington's attempts to fight rampant corruption will amount to nothing unless they address its basic cause. The fundamental reason for today's rampant corruption is that our government has adopted a corrupt purpose. Once a protector of the life, liberty, and property of every American, the US government now uses its power to pursue an undefined "public good" by sacrificing some Americans to other Americans. If we want to get rid of the Jack Abramoffs and the "bridges to nowhere," we have to return our government to its sole legitimate purpose: the protection of individual rights. Dr. Yaron Brook Ayn Rand Institute Executive Director Irvine, CA 2121 Alton Parkway #250 949-222-6550 ext 226 Copyright (c) 2006 Ayn Rand(R) Institute. All rights reserved. If you would like to help support ARI's efforts, please make an online contribution This release is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute, and cannot be reprinted without permission except for non-commercial, self-study or educational purposes. We encourage you to forward this release to friends, family, associates or interested parties who would want to receive it for these purposes only. Any reproduction of this release must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or redistributing this release for any other purposes should contact media@aynrand.org. This release may not be forwarded to media for publication. Yaron Brook is echoing Ayn Rand's powerful comments on source of government corruption from "Pull Peddlers" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: So long as a concept such as "the public interest" (or the "social" or "national" or "international" interest) is regarded as a valid principle to guide legislation=lobbies and pressure groups will necessarily continue to exist. Since there is no such entity as "the public," since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that "the public interest" supersedes private interests and rights, can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others. If so, then all men and all private groups have to fight to the death for the privilege of being regarded as "the public." The government's policy has to swing like an erratic pendulum from group to group, hitting some and favoring others, at the whim of any given moment--and so grotesque a profession as lobbying (selling "influence") becomes a full-time job. If parasitism, favoritism, corruption, and greed for the unearned did not exist, a mixed economy would bring them into existence. Since there is no rational justification for the sacrifice of some men to others, there is no objective criterion by which such a sacrifice can be guided in practice. All "public interest" legislation (and any distribution of money taken by force from some men for the unearned benefit of others) comes down ultimately to the grant of an undefined, undefinable, non-objective, arbitrary power to some government officials. The worst aspect of it is not that such a power can be used dishonestly, but that it cannot be used honestly. The wisest man in the world, with the purest integrity, cannot find a criterion for the just, equitable, rational application of an unjust, inequitable, irrational principle. The best that an honest official can do is to accept no material bribe for his arbitrary decision; but this does not make his decision and its consequences more just or less calamitous. A man of clear-cut convictions is impervious to anyone's influence. But when clear-cut convictions are impossible, personal influences take over. When a man's mind is trapped in the foggy labyrinth of the non-objective, that has no exits and no solutions, he will welcome any quasi-persuasive, semi-plausible argument. Lacking certainty, he will follow anyone's facsimile thereof. He is the natural prey of social "manipulators," of propaganda salesmen, of lobbyists. When any argument is as inconclusive as any other, the subjective, emotional, or "human" element becomes decisive. A harried legislator may conclude, consciously or subconsciously, that the friendly man who smiled at him at the cocktail party last week was a good person who would not deceive him and whose opinion can be trusted safely. It is by considerations such as these that officials may dispose of your money, your effort, and your future. Although cases of actual corruption do undoubtedly exist among legislators and government officials, they are not a major motivating factor in today's situation. It is significant that in such cases as have been publicly exposed, the bribes were almost pathetically small. Men who held the power to dispose of millions of dollars, sold their favors for a thou-sand-dollar rug or a fur coat or a refrigerator. The truth, most likely, is that they did not regard it as bribery or as a betrayal of their public trust; they did not think that their particular decision could matter one way or another, in the kind of causeless choices they had to make, in the absence of any criteria, in the midst of the general orgy of tossing away an apparently ownerless wealth. Men who would not sell out their country for a million dollars, are selling it out for somebody's smile and a vacation trip to Florida. Paraphrasing John Galt: "It is of such pennies and smiles that the destruction of your country is made." Although Republicans and Democrats periodically piss and moan about government corruption, special interests, and the like, not a single politician today genuinely opposes the purchase of government favors. That would require some considerable knowledge of and commitment to the principles of individual rights -- and none have that. Instead, they stridently defend the mixed economy, including its attendant warfare between pressure groups itching for government dough. That's why politicians today content themselves with bitter complaining about corruption -- when it involves the schmuck from the other party. So a few years ago, Republicans were bitching about Clinton and Gore's campaign finances. Today, Democrats are bitching about Republican involvement with Jack Ambramoff. A game of Pong would be more interesting -- and more honest. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, February 21, 2006 Information About What? By Diana Hsieh @ 7:05 PM On a mailing list to which I subscribe, Travis Norsen posted the following message: A friend of mine who does research on Bohm's version of quantum physics pointed me to a horrible article in Nature (Dec. '05) on "The message of the quantum." It's written by the prestigious Anton Zeilinger, and its core paragraph would be a strong candidate for inclusion in a top-10 horror file collection: "So, what is the message of the quantum? I suggest we look at the situation from a new angle. We have learned in the history of physics that it is important not to make distinctions that have no basis -- such as the pre-newtonian distinction between the laws on Earth and those that govern the motion of heavenly bodies. I suggest that in a similar way, the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made. There is no way to refer to reality without using the information we have about it." This is actually an expression of a semi-trendy movement in the foundations of QM recently -- the idea that QM is fundamentally about "information" (which concept thus evidently replaces "matter" as the basic referent of physical theories). [Physicist John Archibald] Wheeler's pithy name for this movement (which he supports) is brilliant (-ly bad): "it from bit." The full article is available online to subscribers. (Any educational institution worth its salt should have a subscription.) Travis submitted the following letter in response to the article to Nature, but it wasn't printed. He's graciously allowed me to post it to NoodleFood. Anton Zeilinger (Nature, Vol. 438, 8 Dec. '05, pg 743) claims that anti-realism is "the message of the quantum". He suggests that "the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made." This commits the error that philosopher Ayn Rand dubbed "the fallacy of the stolen concept". For example, one cannot validly argue against the institution of private property by claiming that "property is theft". The concept "theft" is rendered literally meaningless outside of a context in which property rights are considered valid. Equally vacuous is the idea that, really, there is no reality but only "information". "Information" means information about something. There can be no information without something real that the information is information about, no awareness without some object which is the object of the awareness. Or in Rand's words: "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms." This is the fundamental reason that any argument for anti-realism is unavoidably self-defeating. Zeilinger's rationale for his anti-realism also deserves comment. He advises that "We have learned in the history of physics that it is important not to make distinctions that have no basis -- such as the pre-newtonian distinction between the laws on Earth and those that govern the motion of heavenly bodies." Good advice. But rather than realism, isn't the obvious target here the orthodox quantum theory itself? That theory postulates two distinct laws governing the evolution of quantum states: one applying under "normal" circumstances, and the other applying when a "measurement" is made. Surely if ever there was a distinction without basis -- and hence with no place in the fundamental laws of nature -- it is this vague and shifty distinction between those physical interactions which are and aren't "measurements". If one wishes to avoid arbitrary distinctions -- and to avoid committing conceptual grand larceny -- one must uphold some version of quantum theory (such as the de Broglie - Bohm theory) which treats all physical processes in a uniform fashion and refuses to apologize for calling them "physical". Travis Norsen (If you're interested in such matters, Travis published a three-part article on physics in the first three issues of Axiomatic Magazine.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis For South Park Fans By Diana Hsieh @ 6:02 PM South Park is my guilty pleasure. Well, it used to be my guilty pleasure. Then I got over feeling guilty. For my fellow fans, here's a fun interview with Trey Parker and Matt Stone that Paul found for me. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Kant as Destroyer By Diana Hsieh @ 1:58 PM Someone who probably wishes to remain anonymous sent me the following comment on my post on David Kelley Versus Ayn Rand on Kant: [Your post] brought to mind a passage I discovered in a book by Heinrich Heine (a 19th century German poet). Speaking of Kant, Heine writes: What a strange contrast did this man's outward life present to his destructive, world-annihilating thoughts! In sooth, had the citizens of Konigsberg had the least presentiment of the full significance of his ideas, they would have felt a far more awful dread at the presence of this man than at the sight of an executioner, who can but kill the body. But the worthy folk saw in him nothing more than a Professor of Philosophy, and as he passed at his customary hour, they greeted him in a friendly manner and set their watches by him." [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, translated by John Snodgrass (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986), p. 109.] The "worthy folk" of Konigsberg had an excuse: They were not professional philosophers, had not seen the historical consequences of Kant's ideas, and had not read Ayn Rand. David Kelley has no such excuse. Indeed! David Kelley should know better than to think that the Marxist professors who advocate the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are morally better than actual dictators of that proletariat. Yes, those Marxist professors do merely attempt to persuade others -- but they attempt to persuade some to exercise brute force while rationalizing and/or denying the resulting rivers of blood to others. The fact that the professors wouldn't dream of bloodying their own hands does not exonerate them, but condemns them further. It shows that they wish for the illusion of civilization, even while obviously supporting the very opposite, including death camps for even suspicion of dissent, show trials against loyal communists, and starving whole peoples into submission. (Yes, Marxist professors did support such atrocities, not just by rejecting such "bourgeois" concepts as individual rights, objective law, and economic freedom, but also by defending the USSR and other communist regimes against almost any criticism.) To be unable to slit the throats of your ideological victims yourself, yet continue to preach the ideas which justify and inspire others to slit throats, is not a sign of any redeeming virtue but only of dishonest cowardice. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, February 20, 2006 A Note about The Objective Standard By Diana Hsieh @ 6:30 PM Here's a note from Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard: A quick update as our 130 page premier issue goes to press. We were able to extend the subscription deadline. If you have not yet subscribed and wish to do so (or if you want to give someone the gift of objectivity), please subscribe by *February 24th* to ensure that your first issue of TOS is included in our initial mailing, scheduled for early-March. My essay "Introducing The Objective Standard" will be posted to the website this week and will be accessible to subscribers and non-subscribers alike. Please feel free to forward this email to anyone who you think might be interested. Best regards, Craig Biddle, Editor The Objective Standard cbiddle@theobjectivestandard.com www.theobjectivestandard.com Phone: 804-747-1776 Fax: 804-273-0500 Craig has told me that I was the very first subscriber to The Objective Standard, since I subscribed just two moments after I received the announcement that such was possible. I'm very proud. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Cables Under the Sea By Diana Hsieh @ 6:05 PM Those of you who don't read GeekPress are in grave danger of missing this cool map of undersea data cables. I'd be interested to read an article or two on the mechanics of undersea cabling. Any suggestions? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, February 19, 2006 David Kelley Versus Ayn Rand on Kant By Diana Hsieh @ 11:56 PM Myfraf has blogged a bit about David Kelley. His question about whether Kelley's views on moral judgment can be reconciled with Ayn Rand's judgment that Kant was the most evil man in history is worth considering. Instead of offering some grand analysis of the issue, I'll simply quote the relevant texts, to let my readers just for themselves. Ayn Rand made the "most evil man in history" claim about Kant in the final issue of The Objectivist, in an article entitled "Brief Summary." Here's the relevant section: Those who are not willing to give up the world to mindless brutality, must learn that the battle is philosophical--and that there is no time for anything else. Suppose you met a twisted, tormented young man and, trying to understand his behavior, discovered that he was brought up by a man-hating monster who worked systematically to paralyze his mind, destroy his self-confidence, obliterate his capacity for enjoyment and undercut his every attempt to escape. You would realize that nothing could be done with or for that young man and nothing could be expected of him until he was removed from the monster's influence. Western civilization is in that young man's position. The monster is Immanuel Kant. I have mentioned in many articles that Kant is the chief destroyer of the modern world. My primary concern, however, was not to engage in polemics, but to present a rational approach to philosophy, untainted by any Kantian influence, and to indicate the connection of philosophy to man's life here, on earth--a connection which Kant had severed. It is useless to be against anything, unless one knows what one is for. A merely negative stand is always futile- as, for instance, the stand of the conservatives, who are against communism, but not for capitalism. One cannot start with or build on a negative; it is only by establishing what is the good that one can know what is evil and why. Kant was opposed in his time and thereafter, but his opponents adopted a kind of Republican Party method: they conceded all his basic premises and fought him on inconsequential details. He won--by default and with their help. The result was the progressive shrinking of philosophy's stature in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. All the irrational twistings of contemporary philosophy are Kantian in origin. The ultimate result is the present state of the world. If, on the positive basis of my philosophy, I may be permitted to express a negative consideration, as a consequence and a side issue, I would like to say, paraphrasing Ragnar Danneskjold in Atlas Shrugged: "I've chosen a special mission of my own. I'm after a man whom I want to destroy. He died 167 years ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men's minds, we will not have a decent world to live in. (What man?) Immanuel Kant." It is, therefore, appropriate that in the last issue of The Objectivist, I should offer you Leonard Peikoff's brilliant presentation of Kant's views on some of the central questions of morality. It is a condensed presentation, especially since it is excerpted from a fuller discussion, but it will be sufficient to give you a clear image of Kant's mentality and of its product. You will find that on every fundamental issue, Kant's philosophy is the exact opposite of Objectivism. You may also find it hard to believe that anyone could advocate the things Kant is advocating. If you doubt it, I suggest that you look up the references given and read the original works. Do not seek to escape the subject by thinking: "Oh, Kant didn't mean it!" He did. Dr. Peikoff's essay will help you to understand more fully why I say that no matter how diluted or disguised, one drop of this kind of intellectual poison is too much for a culture to absorb with impunity- that the latest depredations of some Washington ward-heelers are nothing compared to a destroyer of this kind--that Kant is the most evil man in mankind's history. It will also help you to see what enemy I am fighting and have been fighting all these years. In contrast, here's what David Kelley said in "A Question of Sanction": The concept of evil applies primarily to actions, and to the people who perform them. [Peter] Schwartz asserts that we should not sanction the Soviets because they are "philosophical enemies." This is a bizarre interpretation of their sins. Soviet tyrants are not evil because they believe in Marxian collectivism. They are evil because they have murdered millions of people and enslaved hundreds of millions more. An academic Marxist who subscribes to the same ideas as Lenin or Stalin does not have the same moral status. He is guilty of the same intellectual error, but not of their crimes (unless and to the extent that he actively supported them, as many did in the 1930s, although even here we must recognize a difference in degree of culpability). On David Kelley's view of moral judgment, no mere intellectual could even aspire to be "the most evil man in history," let alone achieve that distinction. As a commentary on both Ayn Rand and David Kelley, let me quote Leonard Peikoff's comments in "Fact and Value": Now consider the case of Kant, whom I take to be the negative counterpart of Ayn Rand. To anyone capable of understanding Kant's ideas, the first thing to say about them is: "false." But implicit in the all-embracing war on reality they represent is a second verdict: "wicked." The cause of such ideas has to be methodical, lifelong intellectual dishonesty; the effect, when they are injected into the cultural mainstream, has to be mass death. There can be no greater evasion than the open, total rejection of reality undertaken as a lifetime crusade. And only evasion on this kind of scale, evasion as the motor of an entire philosophic system, makes possible and necessary all the atrocities of our age. (For details, see The Ominous Parallels.) Whoever understands the Critiques, yet urges "toleration" of Kant (or his ilk), or tells us to practice cognition on his ideas but not moral evaluation, has rejected self-preservation as a goal. He has rejected the principle of justice and the entire realm of moral value. He has said that man's life or death should not be a ruling concern in anyone's mind. In the final issue of The Objectivist, Ayn Rand described Kant as "the most evil man in mankind's history." She said it knowing full well that, apart from his ideas, Kant's actions were unexceptionable, even exemplary. Like Ellsworth Toohey, he was a peaceful citizen, a witty lecturer, a popular dinner guest, a prolific writer. She said it because of what Kant wrote--and why--and what it would have to do to mankind. She held that Kant was morally much worse than any killer, including Lenin and Stalin (under whom her own family died), because it was Kant who unleashed not only Lenin and Stalin, but also Hitler and Mao and all the other disasters of our disastrous age. Without the philosophic climate Kant and his intellectual followers created, none of these disasters could have occurred; given that climate, none could have been averted. The dishonesty central to Immanuel Kant's philosophy is not some self-evident primary. I've certainly questioned it myself. To arrive at that judgment, a person must firmly grasp that intellectual honesty fundamentally consists of actively working to rationally conform one's ideas to the facts of reality. He must clearly understand the fundamental principles of Kant's philosophy -- as learned from Kant himself. And he must be familiar with the metaphysical and epistemological works of at least some major Enlightenment philosophers, not just to understand the bright intellectual milieu in which Kant worked and which Kant destroyed, but also to provide more than a few clear contrasting examples of clearly honest but also thoroughly erroneous attempts to defend reason and understand the world thereby. (Locke's Essay is an excellent example, since he's wrong on almost every substantive point, yet also clearly honest. Looking back, I think that I wasn't quite certain of Kant's dishonesty in that old blog post because I wasn't sufficiently familiar with the shining honesty Enlightenment philosophy.) With that background, a person can understand that Kant's philosophy constitutes a thorough, blatant rejection of reality and reason, not just some misguided attempt to understand reality by means of reason. As an aside, let me add that I absolutely do not think that Kant's dishonesty can be directly inferred from his horrendously crow-busting writing, as many try to do. While I think that his style of writing is dishonest obfuscation, plenty of basically honest intellectuals are horrendous writers of various kinds. (Sadly, most of those today are the confused children of Kant, I think.) The judgment of dishonesty cannot be based upon a reader's inability to easily understand Kant's ideas; it must be based upon those ideas themselves. And that requires wading through all his jargon and untangling his obfuscation, no matter how hard that might be. Yet once that is done, his style of writing does take on new meaning, since it is clearly his method of concealing his pathetically bad arguments for his shocking conclusions. Of course, none of that matters for David Kelley, since "in judging an individual... one cannot go merely by the content of what he believes" (T&T 44). Rather, "one must have some independent evidence about his motives for believing it" (T&T 44). So while both Stalin and the Marxist professor willingly adopted anti-life ideas, perhaps even by evasion, Stalin "intended to kill," whereas the Marxist professor merely "engaged in persuasion" (T&T 36). And so we are supposed to fix our gaze upon the thin veneer of civilization to which so many intellectuals cling, ignoring the obvious fact that they are openly calling for the destruction of all that civilization requires. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Invitation to History By Diana Hsieh @ 11:38 AM Although I don't know anything about Scott Powell, this announcement of free lecture on studying history looks very interesting. I'd like to extend a special invitation to you to a free teleconference lecture I'm offering that highlights a new history program I've created specifically for Objectivist adults. As a history teacher at VanDamme Academy for the past three years, I've worked extensively on creating an integrated history curriculum for children, and in the process I've made wonderful breakthroughs in own studies of the past. Like most of you, I was not taught history, and my early attempts to learn it as an adult were frustrating, to say the least. Indeed, it's entirely understandable to me that most Objectivists, who are highly intellectual and committed to the value of philosophy, still find history, by contrast, to be inaccessible and even boring. In my lecture, "Invitation to History," I will discuss the present state of history from an Objectivist perspective, and I will introduce a new lecture series in the history of Western civilization, entitled "A First History for Adults," which I am confident will inspire you to include the study of the past in your intellectual pursuits. Three sessions of "Invitation to History" are currently planned. Feb. 23, 24, and 26. Please visit my website, www.powellhistory.com/invitation, for more details and to register. You can also learn more about "A First History for Adults" by navigating through the site. Best regards, Scott Powell. scott@powellhistory.com Paul and I have already signed up for the February 23rd session. Personally, I've really grown to love history over the past few years. It's a grand stage in which the basic lines of action are silently driven by the principles of philosophy -- for better or worse. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, February 18, 2006 The Undercurrent By Diana Hsieh @ 10:22 PM The Undercurrent, the Objectivist campus newspaper, is seeking submissions for its sixth issue: After publishing over 20,000 copies of our fifth issue--and distributing it on over 32 campuses across North America--we are excited to begin work on our sixth. The next deadline for submissions is March 1st. At present, we are anticipating that the next issue, due out in April, will focus mainly on foreign policy. As usual, however, we are interested in looking at submissions on all topics, so please feel free to submit anything you think may be of general interest to a college audience unfamiliar with Objectivism. Whatever your idea, it also helps to email an abstract of your topic in advance of the deadline. This way we can let you know if yours is the kind of piece we're interested in running. Send your inquiries about submissions to mail@the-undercurrent.com. If you wish to distribute copies of The Undercurrent at your campus, you can order them online for the bargain price of about $8.75 for 250 copies. Oakes suggests distributing them via guerilla marketing: