| Friday, June 30, 2006 | |
 |
Light and Fluffy
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:59 AM   
Since OCON starts today, expect NoodleFoodling to be light for the next week.Also, I've decided that I need to be much more selective about the correspondence to which I devote my time. I've been particularly overwhelmed by e-mail since this spring, in that I've had 50 to 120 messages in my inbox awaiting reply instead of the usual 20 to 30. I'd like to get the number of languishing e-mails down to zero. And I want to leave myself good time to keep up with particular friends. So feel free to write me as you please; I will read all my mail. However, please be aware that I might write you back saying that I simply don't have time to reply. I figure that's better than doing what I do now, namely seeming to ignore e-mail even while hoping for some few spare moments in which to reply to it months later.  E-mail Diana Hsieh
 PermaLink
 Comments (Popup)
 BloggerThis
|
| Thursday, June 29, 2006 | |
|
The Sea Hawk
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:04 PM
An announcement from David Hayes to the DC Objectivist Salon:Near the top of Ayn Rand's list of favorite silent film actors was Milton Sills. (See the ARI book "Russian Writings on Hollywood.") Among the films she gave a high rating to was "The Sea Hawk" (1924), which she graded 5 -- where 0 was lowest and 5+ highest. (See also "Russian Writings.") This "Sea Hawk," starring Sills, will be shown in the Capitol Hill area on July 12 at 7 p.m. (Actual start time will be later, owing to the feature being preceded by a short not yet announced.) E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Unfathomable Ignorance
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:13 AM
I don't always read "Best of the Web," but Tuesday's lead story was too good (in an insane way) to pass by without note. (I've added the link to the quoted op-ed.) Here is the whole entry; read it and weep:Great Moments in Higher EducationNothing, absolutely nothing, can be said about an op-ed by a political science professor apparently ignorant of the fact that constitutional amendments are not subject to judicial review. Well, I can say this: The bozos actually advocating this anti-flag-burning amendment are more contemptible, and probably more ignorant, than even Dr. Susan Roberts seems to be. Oh, and someday, I'd love to live in a culture where stories like the above are relegated to the Weekly World News. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Wednesday, June 28, 2006 | |
|
Village Objectivist
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:52 AM
In writing up my comments on the "village atheist" epithet this past fall, I noticed a striking similarity between that smear of the intellectually serious atheist and the common smears of principled, committed Objectivists as hysterical, moralizing, unthinking, cultish Randroids typically offered by many supporters of Nathaniel Branden, David Kelley, Chris Sciabarra, and the like. In many cases, this kind of smear is broadly applied to long-time Objectivists, usually supporters of the Ayn Rand Institute, simply based upon their condemnations of and/or refusal to associate with people like David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Chris Sciabarra, and the like. Such judgments are often treated as absurd on their face, without regard for the cited facts about the philosophic ideas or moral history of the person. Apart from the laughable hypocrisy of that smear from those who so loudly proclaim tolerance as a virtue, the "Randroid" smear unjustly dismisses anyone who agrees with the whole of Objectivism as the intellectual equivalent of the overly-enthusiastic neophyte with all his bizarre misunderstandings and misapplications of Ayn Rand's ideas. The smear implies that rational, thoughtful, independent, and honest agreement with Ayn Rand's philosophy is not possible, not even an option. On that premise, any person who claims that for himself must be hopelessly deluded; he's actually nothing more than a raving lunatic, dogmatic cultist, and abject slave to "Pope Lenny." Of course, no good reason for dismissing committed Objectivists on such outlandish terms is ever offered; it's just asserted as a self-evident fact. Based upon stories I've heard over the years, I suspect more than a little projection -- and shame -- at work. Many such people once swallowed Objectivism whole in a rather dogmatic way, then later puked it up when it didn't sit so well with them. They probably engaged in a great deal of "me-too" moralizing along the way. They are deeply ashamed of this "Randroid" phase, so much so that they cannot bear to examine it in the bright and honest light of reason. Instead, like Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, they blame Objectivism for that unpleasant time in their lives. They never consider whether they ought to have chewed the philosophy a bit rather than swallowing it whole. They never imagine that anyone might accept Objectivist principles except by their own dogmatic methods. Or rather, they refuse to consider and refuse to imagine that, since doing so would require them to take responsibility for their past dogmatism and moralizing, even if it was no more than an innocent error. However, following Ellsworth Toohey's advice, let's not examine this folly further, but instead consider what it accomplishes. In essence, the "Randroid" smear of long-time Objectivists offers a false alternative of either (1) dogmatic agreement with every word that Ayn Rand ever wrote or (2) thoughtful criticism of various aspects thereof. Notice the major missing alternative: considered, thoughtful agreement with the philosophic principles that constitute Objectivism. In fact, Objectivism is not even understood by such people as a system of philosophy at all, i.e. as an integrated sum of interrelated principles. (That coheres well with David Kelley's open system in which Objectivism is reduced to an arbitrary list of disconnected principles.) Usually, Objectivism is regarded as a grab-bag of assertions by that Ayn Rand on any topics whatsoever. (Inexcusably, Chris Sciabarra characterized the closed system view in those concrete-bound terms, saying that "many orthodox adherents seem to [believe] that Objectivism is strict adherence to every proposition ever uttered by Rand." Chris continued to misrepresent the view of his opponents in various ways in the ensuing debate with Don Watkins, finally sort-of excusing his misrepresentations as part of the "give-and-take" of dialogue.) The general smear of serious Objectivists as "Randroids" also helps people excuse their own intellectual vices. First, the smear rationalizes an unserious, careless approach to ideas by associating a solid commitment to principles with a rationalistic detachment of ideas from reality. (After all, philosophy is just an intellectual exercise with no serious real-life consequences for which intellectuals should be held responsible, right?) Second, the smear makes a virtue of disagreement with Ayn Rand by treating agreement with her as a sign of unthinking dogmatism. (After all, intellectual honesty and independence can be measured by the depth and breadth of your disagreements with another person, right?) Third, the smear denigrates a passionate commitment to objective morality by denouncing it as hysterical moralizing. (After all, we shouldn't get all upset about the moral failings of others, since we're not perfect either, right?) Of course, I have something of a personal stake in exposing the nature of these kinds of smears, since I'm now a routine target of them. I don't mind that much: mere insults don't even register with me these days, except as a source of amusement. I'm more worried by the various fabrications about me circulating in dank corners. For example, that I must have some mysterious personal reasons for breaking with David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden since I've never bothered to explain any substantial philosophic reasons for doing so; that all my writings on the various false friends of Objectivism are nothing more than frantic attempts to ingratiate myself with ARI; that ARI and/or its associates demanded that I publicly denounce Chris Sciabarra; that I decided to live off the fat of the ARI hog TOC refused my demands for money and a job (!!); that I embraced the Objectivist orthodoxy because I couldn't handle my own disturbing doubts about Objectivism raised in graduate school; that I baited Chris Sciabarra into giving me the name of the particular ARI scholar (about whom he lied for years) for the first time just recently; that I left TOC due to petty sulking over cuts to my favorite programs; that I'm seething with hatred for homosexuals despite my clear statements in "Dialectical Dishonesty"; that I'm unwilling to consider any philosophic issue unless discussed by Ayn Rand since I accept Objectivism as a "closed system"; that I'm the obedient slave of Linz Perigo (or vice versa); and so on. Yes, those are all real-life examples. And they are not just false, not just arbitrary, but outright fabrications. They're vice united with fallacy: dishonest poisoning the well. According to these "critics," I didn't actually change certain philosophic views on the basis of any semi-thoughtful reconsideration of the issues and texts, nor did I change my moral judgments of certain people in the light of new evidence and principles -- not even mistakenly so. Instead, I somehow transformed myself from a reasonable, knowledgeable, and friendly intellectual into a half-crazed, deeply confused, and dogmatically moralistic Randroid. And I've somehow bullied my reasonable husband into agreeing with me, along with some other good folks. These "critics" are unwilling to consider any other option. Why? Because they are unwilling to seriously consider my arguments -- and they need some convenient excuse not to do so. And perhaps they'll be able to bamboozle some confused newbie with all their bluster if they refuse to acknowledge any legitimacy to my views. A person relatively new to Objectivism, particularly if embarrassed by some of his own "Randroid" phase upon discovering Ayn Rand's ideas, might be (mostly) honestly sucked into moral and intellectual unseriousness by the false alternatives presented by these "critics" of mine. He might conclude that unserious games are the only alternative to heavy rationalism, that disagreement is the only alternative to dogmatism, and that tolerance is the only alternative to moralizing. Unless such a person questions those false alternatives, he is sure to drift away from Objectivism in short order, likely thinking upon his brief brush with the philosophy as some embarrassing mistake. That was the standard pattern at The Objectivist Center. Happily, it seems to be happening less often these days. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Tuesday, June 27, 2006 | |
|
Maine Lobsters
By Paul @ 7:45 PM
I enjoy good seafood, so our trip to Maine has been a culinary delight. The lobster dishes, in particular, have been some of the best I've ever eaten in my life because the restaurants in Bar Harbor know how to prepare it so well. So it was with great amusement that I read this passage from a history of lobstering in New England:Long ago, lobsters were so plentiful that Native Americans used them to fertilize their fields and to bait their hooks for fishing. In colonial times, lobsters were considered "poverty food." They were harvested from tidal pools and served to children, to prisoners, and to indentured servants, who exchanged their passage to America for seven years of service to their sponsors. In Massachusetts, some of the servants finally rebelled. They had it put into their contracts that they would not be forced to eat lobster more than three times a week.Ah, the law of Supply and Demand... E-mail Paul
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Colorado Books Project Two-for-One Matching
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:20 AM
I've heard of some excellent people donating to the Colorado Books Project due to my announcements on NoodleFood and/or my thread on SoloPassion, including some folks from out-of-state. I'm extraordinarily super-super grateful for that. Now, as part of the final push, three donors are offering two-for-one matching (!!). It's a great opportunity for those who haven't yet donated to throw in their two cents -- and transform them into six cents! Here's Lin Zinser's final fundraising letter.We are closing in on the goal of $14,000 - which is approximately 1750 books. We are $3,125 from our target -- and you have 4 days to PLEDGE money so that WE can make our goal of providing Anthem or The Fountainhead books to any Colorado teacher willing to teach Ayn Rand in the schools. Our last week's pledge drive did wonders, and this week's offer is even better. I want to thank each of you who have already donated. If you have sent your money to ARI directly, ARI has told me the total amount they received, but not who the donors were or the individual amounts, so if you gave money to ARI, and I haven't personally thanked you, I am thanking you now.If you wish to donate, don't delay! E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Monday, June 26, 2006 | |
|
Procrastination
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:48 PM
If you are in danger of spending too much time in productive work, I highly recommend this online version of Boggle. (People play the same games at the same time, so you can easily compete with friends and enemies!)
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Paul's Sharp Mishap
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:43 AM
Paul and I are in Bar Harbor (Maine) for a few days of hiking and biking before OCON. We flew to Boston on Saturday morning, drove a few hours to Freeport (Maine). We spent the night, then indulged in the glory of the L.L.Bean flagship store. (Yes, that's why we decided to stop in Freeport. It was well worth it.) We arrived in Bar Harbor on Sunday (yesterday) afternoon, quickly checked into our lovely accommodations at the Greycote Inn, then headed out to one of the trailheads for a four mile hike.That didn't work out quite as planned. While in the parking lot, Paul cut himself while attempting to remove the tag off of his new hiking hat with his pocketknife. The cut wasn't life-or-limb-threatening, but it was bleeding quite profusely. It was clearly deep enough to need stitches. Happily, I remembered the location of the hospital in town, since we passed it while searching for our lodgings. So I drove him the mere ten minutes to it. Paul was stitched and bandaged up within the hour. (I've never been in and out of an ER so quickly!) He got just three stitches, a tetanus shot, and a huge bandage. The bandage looks much worse than the wound: it's extra insurance against bumps and scrapes. Paul felt fine thereafter, so headed out for our hike, albeit a bit later than expected. We opted for an easier but longer route along one of the wide gravel carriage roads, so that he wouldn't bump his wound while scrambling. So... without further ado... here's my uber-bandaged husband at the trailhead.  I've promised to buy Paul a pair of kiddie-style blunt-end scissors once we return home. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Sunday, June 25, 2006 | |
|
Cheaper Titanium
By Paul @ 9:18 AM
Yet another story on the power of the rational mind, in this case in the field of metallurgy:Titanium is as strong as steel, but weighs only about 60 percent as much. It's also highly resistant to corrosion, and handles temperature extremes well. So, not surprisingly, the aerospace industry wants to use much more of it in the next generation of planes, making them lighter and reducing fuel costs.This reminds me of the scene from Atlas Shrugged, where Hank Rearden is describing Rearden Metal to the newspaper reporters: "Yes, gladly," said Rearden. "Inasmuch as the formula of Rearden Metal is my own personal secret, and in view of the fact that the Metal costs much less to produce than you boys can imagine, I expect to skin the public to the tune of a profit of twenty-five per cent in the next few years."If only there were more such capitalists to "exploit" consumers like me!(Via /.) E-mail Paul
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Saturday, June 24, 2006 | |
|
Aristotle on Diviners
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:01 AM
Skeptics -- in the sense of debunkers of paranormal claims -- often observe that supposed psychics usually speak in vague generalities, subtly allow their audience to fill in the details, then claim to have divined that information. So the psychics seem to know a great deal that they couldn't possibly know -- at least to the gullible eager to believe. To my delight, Aristotle makes the same basic point in his Rhetoric. In the course of offering five elements of the "correctness of language" at "the foundation of good style," he says:(3) The third is to avoid ambiguities; unless, indeed, you definitely desire to be ambiguous, as those do who have nothing to say but are pretending to mean something. Such people are apt to put that sort of thing into verse. Empedocles, for instance, by his long circumlocutions imposes on his hearers; these are affected in the same way as most people are when they listen to diviners, whose ambiguous utterances are received with nods of acquiescence-The line about Croesus refers to this great story recounted by Herodotus. As for those who "definitely desire to be ambiguous," such as "those do who have nothing to say but are pretending to mean something," I'd like to nominate the academic work of Chris Sciabarra. For example, consider the "Dialectics in Rand's Philosophy" section of "this essay. (It's a slightly edited version of the initial discussion of Ayn Rand's supposed "dialectics" from the introduction to The Russian Radical, pages 16-18.) Here's a taste: It is this emphasis on the totality that is essential to the dialectical mode of inquiry. Dialectics is not merely a repudiation of formal dualism. It is a method that preserves the analytical integrity of the whole. While it recommends study of the whole from the vantage point of any part, it eschews reification, that is, it avoids the abstraction of a part from the whole and its illegitimate conceptualization as a whole unto itself. The dialectical method recognizes that what is separable in thought is not separable in reality.Translation from Polish: Ayn Rand integrated her knowledge. Analytic philosophers are often terrible writers, often to the point that their basic ideas cannot be understood. However, the brazen assertion of deliberate obfuscation as complex and difficult thought requires the slippery goo of postmodernism. And that's exactly what Chris Sciabarra uses to conceal the lack of substance in his academic writings. And yes, I do think the impenetrable style of the above passage -- and the rest of The Russian Radical -- is deliberate obfuscation rather than incompetence or laziness. The tip-off is not merely the lack of substance underneath all those fancy words, nor the careful consistency of the style, but the simple fact that Chris routinely writes clearly and forthrightly in other contexts. So he can do better, but chooses not to. Thankfully, most academic philosophers disdain the bullshit style practiced by Chris Sciabarra and his postmodern brothers. If they didn't, I surely would have quit philosophy long ago. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Friday, June 23, 2006 | |
|
Fred Said...
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:08 AM
Fred Weiss wrote me about this story, saying "You and Paul are gonna LOVE this one. It totally cracked me up." I saw it a few days ago, but he's right: a story about modern art experts being unable to differentiate display items from artwork is just too perfect to pass up.
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Thursday, June 22, 2006 | |
|
Yaron Brook on CNBC
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:42 PM
From ARI:Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, is scheduled to appear on CNBC's "Closing Bell" today, June 22, 2006, between 4 and 5 pm Eastern time (1 to 2 pm Pacific time) to discuss Wal-Mart's new employee health and environmental policies.When I saw Yaron in Denver in May, he specifically mentioned that these announcements are sent out as soon as the engagement is known. And I usually post them as soon as possible too. So no griping about the (very) short notice! E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
What Onomatopoeia Sounds Like
By Greg @ 8:44 AM
 It can't all be wrestling over philosophical issues -- one of the other things that keeps me sane is playing sax in the local jazz scene.I was working around town in a jazz-standards duo, and pianist/composer/producer Kevin Kirk heard me and quickly pulled me into Onomatopoeia, the instrumental band that brings his award-winning music to life. Print reviews described their first CD as, "rhythmically diverse, musically challenging and eminently listenable... a melding of rock, jazz, Latin, and classical, and it has surprises around every corner. This is not casual music." Thr!ve magazine said their second CD, "showcases some of the best Boise's jazz scene or any jazz scene has to offer: expert timing, daring, spontaneous scores, saturating instrumentals. Sheer talent aptly describes [this music] and decades of Kirk compositions." What I know is that audiences seem to love the music, but internalizing 20 or 25 of Onomatopoeia's mind-bending arrangements for my first concert with them -- with no scores and only a few weeks' evenings to pull it off -- was the biggest strain my musical memory has ever faced! (Yes, I loved the challenge, and we earned an enthusiastic standing ovation.) Those CDs were before my time, but I am on the new one we are about to release: Some Assembly Required. Recording with Onomatopoeia has been eye-opening -- I really had no idea how much work goes into a project like this, and sometimes the process made it surprisingly difficult to pull off musical effects that would be automatic and easy on stage. (A lot of it has to do with the serialization of recording everything separately, which can be especially challenging for jazz guys who depend heavily on subtle, reciprocal realtime influences among all the players.) In any event, the mixed tracks have finally been sent off to the mastering engineer and it is about to be printed. Whew! If you want to hear the kind of fun we have in Onomatopoeia, I put together a little sneak-preview CD "trailer" for family and friends who have been impatiently waiting for the CD they ordered a few months back at our last big concert (the concert program has some more pictures and personnel info). E-mail Greg
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Wednesday, June 21, 2006 | |
|
Some Reason to Hope
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:12 PM
Wow, I now have some small reason to hope for the future of the University of Colorado at Boulder: The new President, Hank Brown, will be the keynote speaker of the annual conference of the National Association of Scholars. (It's in Boston in November. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend.)For those unfamiliar with National Association of Scholars, their mission is: The National Association of Scholars (NAS) is an organization of professors, graduate students, college administrators and trustees, and independent scholars committed to rational discourse as the foundation of academic life in a free and democratic society. The NAS works to enrich the substance and strengthen the integrity of scholarship and teaching, persuaded that only through an informed understanding of the Western intellectual heritage and the realities of the contemporary world, can citizen and scholar be equipped to sustain our civilization's achievements. In light of these objectives, the NAS is deeply concerned about perspectives within the academy that reflexively denigrate the values and institutions of our society. Because such tendencies are often dogmatic in character and indifferent to both logic and evidence, they tend to undermine the basis for coherent scholarly dialogue. Recognizing the significance of this problem, the NAS encourages an assertiveness among academics who value reason and an open intellectual life.With a mission like that, Hank Brown's choice to speak at their conference is hugely significant! And welcome news! E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Profit Motive
By Paul @ 6:55 AM
"Going Places" is a surprisingly good short video from 1948: "Cold War cartoon defending the profit motive against anti-capitalist critics." (Via David Veksler and The Simplest Thing.) E-mail Paul
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Tuesday, June 20, 2006 | |
|
Aristotle on Pity
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:10 PM
Aristotle's discussion of various emotions is perhaps the most fascinating part of his Rhetoric. In the case of pity, I'm struck by the difference between his concept of pity and our modern concept thereof. In particular, notice that Aristotle holds that the object of pity must be morally good -- and thus not deserving of his fate. (I've added paragraph breaks for readability.)Let us now consider pity, asking ourselves what things excite pity, and for what persons, and in what states of our mind pity is felt. Pity may be defined as a feeling of pain caused by the sight of some evil, destructive or painful, which befalls one who does not deserve it, and which we might expect to befall ourselves or some friend of ours, and moreover to befall us soon.In contrast to Aristotle's definition, Dictionary.com simply defines pity as "sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another." No innocence or goodness required for the object of pity. That's why it's perfectly sensible in contemporary usage to pity the person who suffers through his own faults, e.g. the alcoholic bum living in a cardboard box or the dishonest woman estranged from all her friends. I'm intrigued by these kinds of conceptual differences in moral terms from the Greeks and Romans to today, largely because those differences often indicate just how thoroughly our culture has been saturated by altruism. A justice-oriented culture cares whether a person suffers by his own hand. It scorns such voluntary suffering, reserving pity for the innocent. In contrast, an altruistic culture cares for nothing but the suffering, ignoring the cause or justice thereof. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Monday, June 19, 2006 | |
|
Hazy on Death
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:07 PM
A while ago, Tom Bowden wrote the following letter to the editor for ARI:Dear Editor:Here's the copyright information: "Copyright (c) 2006 Ayn Rand(R) Institute. All rights reserved. If you plan to use this letter, please let us know. Thank you." Just off-the-cuff, I wrote the following as a comment upon the letter: Of course, I would be very much in favor of an assisted suicide law, but I do fear abuses by medical staff and family members, even if well-meaning. Death devices like those constructed by Jack Kevorkian -- where the doctor sets up the death machine, then the patient actually initiates his own death -- would largely eliminate that worry. Of course, reasonable exceptions could be made for permanently unconscious patients, as well as for the rare patients unable to move, preferably via the sort of given-in-advance instructions found in living wills, medical power of attorney, and the like. As for the sick and aged who would allow themselves to be pressured into suicide by others, so long as they're competent adults, that's entirely their own damn fault. And they will pay the ultimate price for that last act of spineless second-handedness, pathetically enough. Of course, the detailed workings of an assisted suicide law should be hammered out by lawyers and philosophers of law, whereas I'm just speaking here as a barely informed citizen! Not long thereafter, I read Ayn Rand's own off-the-cuff comments on euthanasia in the excellent Ayn Rand Answers: Euthanasia is more complex [than birth control, abortion, and suicide], because the life of another person is involved. If a man makes arrangements stating that he does not want to feel unbearable pain, and it can be proved that this was his desire, in principle I'd say it is his right and the doctor's right to perform euthanasia. But it would be difficult to put this into law, because of the safeguards needed to prevent unscrupulous doctors in cahoots with unscrupulous relatives from killing somebody who is not dying and in pain. The danger here is legally giving to the doctor the arbitrary power of killing. I suspect, however, that there are many cases of euthanasia about which we do not know and probably shouldn't know; in such cases, it is up to the doctor involved. Only he can know if a terminally ill patient is suffering truly unbearable torture. I feel like saying that I would not assume to pass judgment on him. I don't know. The situation is too horrible. I sympathize with the doctor who helps the patient die, but I would not advocate euthanasia as a law.I'm very hazy on Ayn Rand's view on this issue. With that last sentence, is Ayn Rand contradicting, modifying, or qualifying what she says at the beginning of the quoted passage? Is she saying that a man has a right to arrange for his own death with his doctor in the case of unbearable pain, but that the law ought not allow for that? If so, wouldn't that expose honest doctors who choose to relieve the unbearable suffering of terminally ill patients to criminal prosecution for murder? Or does she mean something else by "euthanasia" in that last sentence than what she described in the second sentence? E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Poppycock!
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:22 AM
This short essay debunking the entrenched myths of heroin addiction is yet another reason to appreciate the thoughtful clarity of Theodore Dalrymple. (His book of essays Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass is fantastic.)
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Sunday, June 18, 2006 | |
|
Matching Funds for the Colorado Books Project
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:24 AM
I just posted the following bit about the "Colorado Books Project" to SoloPassion. Please notice the great opportunity to double your donation with matching funds!A few years ago, the Ayn Rand Institute surveyed high school teachers and discovered that the major reason many don't teach Ayn Rand's fiction in their English classes is the simple lack of books. The bureaucracy makes it difficult to obtain them from the school, and they are expensive to buy out-of-pocket. So ARI started its "Free Books for Teachers" program to remedy that problem.Also, Here is Lin Zinser's latest letter on the current funding drive: We are closing in on the last 2 weeks of this drive. We need your support. I have received a challenge from 2 supporters -- who will match any contribution over what was made last year -- up to $1,000. So, if you have not given any monies before, then any contribution by you to the Colorado Book project will be matched by them -- up to $1,000.00. If you did make a contribution last year, then any contribution over and above what you made last year will be met by them up to this same limit. This includes pledges. So, if you can't write a check for that amount in the next week, but can do so in the next few months, this counts.Objectivists often lament the awful state of the culture, including the erosion of our liberties. I'm telling you: talk is cheap. Actually changing the culture is not hard, nor even terribly expensive. ARI's "Free Books for Teachers" program can make huge inroads, but that requires money from donors like you and me. So if you do care about the state of the culture, don't content yourself with idle complaints and wishes. Take action! Put your money where your mouth is! E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Saturday, June 17, 2006 | |
|
Aristotle's Rhetoric
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:05 PM
A few months ago, I listened to Aristotle's Rhetoric. (It's available from Audible.com, packaged with his Poetics and Topics.) Although I've read it before, it has been some years. The work contains a great deal of interest beyond the narrow topic suggested by the title. For example, it includes some helpful discussion of voluntary action in relation to luck, a topic on which I've written some and expect to write more. And here's a little gem: We shall learn the qualities of governments in the same way as we learn the qualities of individuals, since they are revealed in their deliberate acts of choice; and these are determined by the end that inspires them.Ah, how simply put! We can infer the desired ends of a person based upon the actions he chooses over time, precisely because those actions aim at those desired ends. And a person's desired ends reveals much about his character. In determining the goals which motivate a person, actions speak much louder than words. So a Marxist professor may claim as loudly as he likes that he's deeply concerned for the plight of the world's poor, but his persistent advocacy of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" responsible for killing, starving, and torturing hundreds of millions of people tells us much, much more about his actual desires -- and his character. Or an self-described Objectivist organization may claim to promote Ayn Rand's philosophy, yet offer the originators of unjust and dishonest attacks upon her person and philosophy platforms upon which to do even more damage. Although they claim to be promoting "open and honest discussion of ideas" amongst "honest individuals" so that "truth win[s] out in the end," their refusal to even read The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics speaks volumes. In all of these cases, and so many others, the person's actions tell us so much more his goals and his character than do his empty words. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Leprechaun
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:41 AM
Sometimes, life imitates art. Other times, life wholly surpasses any possible art -- as in this insanely hilarious news report about a supposed light-shy leprechaun in a tree. I particularly enjoyed the man with such excellent teeth surrounded by women, as well as the man with the ancient leprechaun flute. Oh, and the drawing was fabulous!Via the damn funny Trey Givens. Labels: Funny E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Friday, June 16, 2006 | |
|
A Nonpartisan Farce
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:54 AM
Chris Sciabarra's Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (a.k.a. JARS) describes itself in the following terms:The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is a nonpartisan journal devoted to the study of Ayn Rand and her times. The journal is not aligned with any advocacy group, institute, or person. It welcomes papers from every discipline and from a variety of interpretive and critical perspectives.Is JARS the nonpartisan scholarly forum it claims to be? Should serious Objectivists publish in it? I think not. A few months ago, someone noted that none of the three editors and eight advisors to JARS consider themselves Objectivists. Since many to most of the top-notch experts in Ayn Rand's philosophy are Objectivists, that fact is a warning flag for Objectivist scholars. After all, the absence of Objectivists, particularly in the editorial staff, renders misrepresentations by attempted critics and defenders of Objectivism far more likely to be accepted without adequate challenge. So Objectivist scholars have reason to worry about whether Ayn Rand's ideas will get a fair hearing in JARS. That absence of Objectivists also suggests that the journal likely has an implicit editorial slant critical of Objectivism, rather than neutral toward it. Even worse, the primary editor and driving force behind JARS is Chris Sciabarra, a man whose "scholarship" deliberately mutilates and gibberizes Ayn Rand's ideas in high postmodern fashion. His own work is a perfect expression of what he preaches: total subjectivism in the interpretation of Objectivism. Sciabarra explicitly rejects the idea that Ayn Rand's works can be interpreted objectively -- or even that the principles of the philosophy can be differentiated from concrete examples, judgments, and opinions. So the study of Ayn Rand's philosophy is just the application of interpretative lens or another: dialectical, feminist, analytic, jungian, orthodox, religious, tolerant, or whatever. That Ayn Rand's actual ideas are lost in the process is of no concern to Sciabarra. He just wants to make room for "more and more opportunities for different interpretations and developments within the paradigm provided by Rand." Predictably, those subjectivist principles are the principles by which Sciabarra edits JARS. As the mission statement says, JARS "welcomes papers ... from a variety of interpretive and critical perspectives." Translation: Anything goes. The results can be found within the pages of JARS: a hodgepodge of decent articles, superficial analysis, misguided criticisms, unjust interpretations, confused defenses, inane claims, and worthless crap. Sciabarra often stresses that JARS is "nonpartisan" -- in the sense of ideologically neutral, including independent of the views of its editors. However, the simple fact is that every publication, including academic journals, must be selective in the articles chosen for publication. And as the primary editor, Sciabarra' his subjectivist approach to the interpretation of Objectivism clearly influences his selections for and editing of the journal. So when a scholar publishes in JARS, he may not be endorsing the views of the other scholars who also publish therein, but he is endorsing JARS's anything-goes approach to Rand scholarship. (He may be doing so unwittingly -- or voluntarily.) And that's a good reason for serious Objectivist scholars to avoid and ignore JARS as disreputable. Plenty of other venues for publication, including academic philosophy journals, at least attempt to adhere to basic standards of scholarship, including fair interpretations of texts. Moreover, Sciabarra does permit gratuitous and partisan swipes at ARI and its affiliated scholars in the pages of his journal. Consider the following two examples: First, in an reply to an Aesthetics Symposium, Lou Torres responds to John Enright's appeal to some ideas of Sherri Tracinski on architecture (JARS, Fall 2003, pg 129). He's critical of Ms. Tracinski's ideas -- and that's fine. However, in the corresponding footnote, he writes that Ms. Tracinski is "listed as one of the doctrinaire Ayn Rand Institute's 'speakers and writers'" (pg 144n32). Yup, "doctrinaire." That's certainly no plain descriptive term meaning "strict in interpretation" or whatnot. It means: "adj : stubbornly insistent on theory without regard for practicality or suitability n : a stubborn person of arbitrary or arrogant opinions [syn: dogmatist]." As far as I can tell, the whole footnote serves no purpose other than to identify Ms. Tracinski with ARI. Second, in an article on "Ayn Rand in England," Nicholas Dykes speaks of John Webb, whom he identifies as the President of the U.K. Objectivist Association (JARS, Spring 2004, pg 378). In the footnote, he then says of Mr. Webb, "Although associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, Webb has none of the aloofness that mars 'official' Objectivist organizations in the United States. He immediately offered help when he heard about my research project" (pg 398n4). This example is even more egregious, since Mr. Dykes insults a person who rendered him valuable assistance, not just some random ARI scholar. No editor worth his salt should allow such swipes to be published in his journal, not even when hidden in the endnotes. I've never seen the like in any philosophy journal, not even in the midst of heated debate amongst people who hate each other passionately. Such insults ought to be excluded from the pages of any reputable journal, precisely because they discourage those insulted from contributing to the journal in the future. That Chris Sciabarra permits insults of ARI and its scholars suggests yet another way in which his personal views influence his editing of JARS. So what is Sciabarra' view of ARI and its scholars? Let's see... He charged Leonard Peikoff with "unprofessional, unscholarly" and "completely disgusting" "airbrushing" for omitting Nathaniel Branden's name from a reference in The Voice of Reason. (In contrast, he refuses to even acknowledge the extent and gravity of Barbara and Nathaniel Branden's lies about Ayn Rand.) In an article for Full Context entitled "Orthodox Interpretations of Ayn Rand," he claims that the work published by "the orthodoxy" (i.e. the Estate, ARI, and ARI scholars) is usually only a "regurgitation of everything that Rand has said before." He accuses "the orthodoxy" of "engag[ing] in the rewriting of reality" and "airbrush[ing]." And he concludes by saying that "the orthodoxy remains so hermetically sealed from any other influences, so fearful of 'impurities,' so careful to erase mistakes and personal foibles, that it risks marginalizing whatever legitimate contributions it might offer." Those claims are false and/or unjust, as Sciabarra well knows. In an essay on "Objectivism and Academe," he misrepresents the motives for refusing to engage in the debates in JARS (and the like) as nothing but party loyalty. He writes: "Ambrose Bierce once defined politics not as 'the art of the possible,' but as 'a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.' Some of Rand's more orthodox followers give substance to Bierce's insight. What I mean by partisanship here is not simply the taking of a strong position in the intellectual give-and-take. It is support of a position based not on the correctness of the ideas, but on the source of those ideas -- the group, the faction, or the party from which the ideas emanate. Partisanship is the opposite of objectivity." In fact, ARI scholars do have principled reasons for their actions -- and Sciabarra is aware of them. Oh, and let's not forget that he calls ARI scholars "prostitutes" in private discussion. More recently, Robert Campbell (the associate editor of JARS) has been busy posting digs at ARI, including bizarre conspiracy theories. His misrepresentations of the closed system view of Objectivism are almost as absurd as those of Sciabarra. Ask yourself: Would I like to work with editors who publish such claims about me -- and my colleagues? Could I expect them to treat my views fairly -- or insist that others do so? Even if we set aside the most serious complaint about JARS, namely that the journal fails to uphold basic scholarly standards (like objective interpretation), the fact remains that Sciabarra' invective against ARI scholars, particularly when coupled with the publication of unwarranted and unprofessional snide remarks about them in JARS, is reason enough for those scholars to refuse any dealings with him and his journal. When queried about this general issue by Jim Valliant, Sciabarra said, "But, yes, James, I agree that it is a problem that a number of ARI-affiliated scholars have not published in JARS. It is not because they have been shunned." In fact, no ARI-affiliated scholars have published in JARS at all, with the exception of Andy Bernstein's quickly-retracted two sentences. So the problem is not just "a number of ARI-affiliated scholars have not published in JARS," as Sciabarra put it, but that none have (really) published. True enough, those ARI scholars have not been "shunned" by JARS -- merely vilified beyond all civil bounds by the very people who would be editing their articles. For any ARI scholars familiar with Chris' charges against them, to publish in JARS would be an act of enormous self-abasement. Somehow, I doubt they're eager for that. Since that's how Chris Sciabarra wants to run his Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, he could at least be honest enough to drop the "nonpartisan" label, instead of routinely hiding behind it. He ought to admit that while JARS is not positively aligned with "any advocacy group, institute, or person," it clearly is aligned against some. And perhaps he could follow IOS/TOC/TAS's lead by renaming his journal to something more appropriate. Don't worry: I won't hold my breath for that slightly refreshing breath of honesty. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Thursday, June 15, 2006 | |
|
John Stossel on Ayn Rand
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:20 PM
I've never thought John Stossel to be a deep thinker, but this interview bit is just pathetic:Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is an endless book with some too-long speeches about how the creeping regulation destroys opportunity in America. A group of the most creative people decide they will move to a remote part of the country and start over. Without their contribution, much of modern life, which is taken for granted by the smug regulators, falls apart.Augh! I don't care so much that he dislikes the book, although that is rather disappointing. It's the intensely superficial summary that really annoys me. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
More on OCON 2006
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:28 AM
Ms. Think asked for recommendations for particular OCON lectures to attend, since she lives in the Boston area. I presume that ARI offers some à la carte options for OCON, but you'd have to contact them to find out for sure.I've already blogged about the Optional Courses I'll be attending, so I don't need to say more about that. Of the General Sessions, I'm particularly looking forward to:
Most importantly, I highly recommend that anyone remotely interested in ARI's activities attend the free presentation on the "State of ARI" on Wednesday evening, July 5th, as well as the free "Academic Panel" on Friday evening, July 7th. If you've not attended those presentations before, prepare to be amazed, inspired, and generally blown away. That was certainly how I felt in 2003 when I first heard it! And that's a pretty common reaction! Update: Just as a side note, I am delighted to discover fans of NoodleFood at OCON... or anywhere else. However, please remember that, unless you comment regularly under your own name, I might have no idea whatsoever who you are. And so you probably know lots more about me than I know about you. That's always a bit odd for everyone, but it gives you an excellent opportunity to bypass my fumbling chit-chat to talk about what interests you! Also, I should warn that I'm not just terrible at remembering names, but also at remembering faces. (Yes, it's quite pathetic!) My memory dramatically improves once I have something substantial upon which to hang a name and face though, e.g. that we discussed Tolstoy versus Dostoyevsky, the limits of forgiveness, Nathaniel Branden's slippery mysticism, a person's moral responsibility for his emotions, an objection to a recent lecture, the psychology of addiction, whether genetic-based homosexuality requires innate ideas -- or even whether you also happen to call your cats "fluffy little lovemuffins." (I suppose that last is pretty improbable, but that's surely because no kitties are as thoroughly fluffy-little-lovemuffin-like as my Elliot and Oliver!) E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Wednesday, June 14, 2006 | |
|
Fun with Scientologists
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:41 PM
Finally, Hollywood has produced a director I might be able to like:Scientologists may want indie director John Roecker to "Live Freaky Die Freaky" after an explosive encounter with Jenna and Bodhi Elfman, two promient members of their Church. |