Site Meter

 
  
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Conservative Judaism
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:34 PM PermaLink

This brief post on Conservative Judaism from the Volokh Conspiracy is a great example of the intellectual weakness -- and consequent lack of appeal -- of an inconsistent, unprincipled middle ground.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Domestic Terrorism
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:13 AM PermaLink

Bad news: A neurobiology professor at UCLA specializing in vision research just gave up his work on primates due to persistent threats from animal rights activists. If justice was a metaphysical law written into the fabric of the universe, those &%*^@! man-haters would all go blind. Then again, I'd be delighted if ophthalmologists simply refused to treat them for even routine vision problems. Better yet, doctors could refuse to treat any known animal rights activist. It's best not to pollute those noble idealists with the fruits of medical experimentation upon animals, right? Let's end the sanction of the victim -- and let the animal rights activists wallow in the plentiful, debilitating, and oh-so-natural diseases of this earth.

(Via Slashdot and Doug Peltz)
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Socialist Medicine
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:12 PM PermaLink

Paul just sent me the following:
The California legislature has approved a bill to mandate universal (state-run) health care in [California]; eliminating private insurance. We'll see if Schwarzenegger vetoes this one.

http://www.sfgate.com/...

"On a largely party-line 43-30 vote, the Assembly approved a bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would eliminate private medical insurance plans and establish a statewide health insurance system that would provide coverage to all Californians. The state Senate has already approved the plan once and is expected this week to approve changes that the Assembly made to the bill."
Holy socialism! I'm glad that Paul isn't practicing medicine in California any longer, because he certainly wouldn't practice under such a system.

As for the likelihood of a veto, the article also reports, "Schwarzenegger's office said it had no official position on the bill. The governor has said he would propose solutions to the state's health care crisis in his State of the State address next January if he is re-elected."

Labels:

E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Strange Acronym, Great Course
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:02 AM PermaLink

The Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivism Academic Center is officially accepting registrations to audit the excellent year-long teleconference course on Objectivism taught by Dr. Onkar Ghate, i.e. the "Seminar On Ayn Rand's Philosophy Of Objectivism" or SARPO. Classes are recorded and made available on the web, so you don't need to block off your schedule for the whole academic year. The cost is $1000 for both semesters. That's a steal for 26 weeks of a three-hour class taught by Dr. Ghate! I took the course two years ago. It was truly superb.

For more information, see this page. Classes will begin soon -- and space is limited. So don't delay!

Update: I fixed the number of sessions, as per Greg Perkins' comment. Also, if you want to know more about how auditing works, you should contact Lin Zinser at lin@zinser.com.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
The Jihad Against the West: The Real Threat and the Right Response
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:54 PM PermaLink

I've been eagerly awaiting this announcement from ARI for weeks!
The Jihad Against the West: The Real Threat and the Right Response

A three-day conference event including a lecture by Yaron Brook at the Ford Hall Forum Boston, Massachusetts, October 20-22, 2006

Featured Speakers:
  • DANIEL PIPES, director of the Middle East Forum
  • YARON BROOK, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute
  • FLEMMING ROSE, culture editor of Jyllands-Posten
  • ROBERT SPENCER, director of Jihad Watch
  • PETER SCHWARTZ, author of The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America
  • JOHN LEWIS, assistant professor of history, Ashland University
Al-Qaeda. Hezbollah. Islamic Jihad. The Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas ... In Lebanon, Syria and Egypt; in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia; in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, in Pakistan and Afghanistan--in almost every country from the Middle East to the Far East a gang of Islamic terrorists is fighting to advance its own "holy" cause. So many groups have declared jihad that it's hard to keep them all straight--or even to know how seriously to take each of them.

But the threat to the West is deadly serious. We only have to remember Sept. 11 to understand that.

Some analysts have declared that we have entered an "Age of Terror" and that there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups. But is the West really ready to concede victory so easily? Despite their sectarian differences, is there a common goal amongst the assorted terrorist groups? Who are they and what do they actually want? What accounts for the seemingly renewed sense of purpose amongst so many of them? What can and must the West do to ensure victory? Is peace possible?

Join us for a special conference to discuss "The Jihad Against the West." A distinguished panel of Middle East experts has been assembled to answer the most important questions of our time. While the experts will answer these complex questions from different points of view, they all agree on one thing: the real threat is Islamic totalitarianism and the right response necessitates engaging in a principled, ideological battle to defend the West from the jihad declared against it

Events will take place at Tufts University, Boston's World Trade Center and Faneuil Hall, concluding with a lecture by Yaron Brook at the Ford Hall Forum.

For more information: http://www.objectivistconferences.com/fordhall06/
As you can tell from the speakers, this conference will be of interest to a far wider audience than Objectivists. So spread the word!
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Too Damn Funny
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:59 PM PermaLink

A co-worker of Paul's forwarded this tidbit to him:
The British are feeling the pinch in relation to recent bombings and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved'. Soon though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross". Londoners have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorised from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance". The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.

Also, the French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Surrender" and "Collaborate". The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability. It's not only the English and French that are on a heightened level of alert.

Italy has increased the alert level from "shout loudly and excitedly" to "elaborate military posturing". Two more levels remain, "ineffective combat operations" and "change sides".

The Germans also increased their alert state from "disdainful arrogance" to "dress in uniform and sing marching songs". They have two higher levels: "invade its neighbors" and "lose".
Heh.

Sadly, I think we should rename America's alert levels to "refuse to identify the enemy," "demand concessions from your allies to your enemies," "fight half a war in the wrong place," and "appease while quaking in fear of barbarians at the gates."

Labels:

E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Monday, August 28, 2006
Is Vanity Not a Sin for Deities?
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:29 AM PermaLink

God must be even more vain than I thought: He caused a woman to have a painful bulging disc just so that He could see His own picture in an MRI. No, really.

Pre-posting update: Whoops! Paul already put this story in the queue. (He e-mailed the link to me.) He said: "The scanners we use in our radiology practice are pretty good, but obviously not as good as the ones in this story: 'Woman Sees Jesus in MRI Image'."
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Sunday, August 27, 2006
1 Chronicles
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:58 AM PermaLink

I think the author of 1 Chronicles must have been some kind of ancient Rain Man. Why would anyone normal person care about this X begat Y begat Z genealogy, let alone which sons got which suburbs of which cities?!? I've been listening for quite some time... and the lists of people just go on and on and on and on...
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
The Poor Professor
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:15 AM PermaLink

Professors live in fear of bad course evaluations from students. One poor fellow finally did the unthinkable:
Professor Pressured To Sleep With Student For Good Course Evaluation

FAYETTEVILLE, AR -- Alan Gilchrist, an associate professor of English literature at the University of Arkansas infamous for his tough grading standards and dry lecturing style, was coerced into sleeping with an undergraduate on Monday in order to earn a good course evaluation. "My tenure's on the line here, so I allowed a student to take advantage of me," said an emotional Gilchrist of the experience, which he hopes will earn him at least six "very much enjoyed" responses on the eight-item evaluation form. "I told myself it would be just this once, and that it would be over soon, and that it wouldn't be that bad, but I was used. And I can't stop showering." Sources said that the unidentified student is one of the most popular and charismatic on campus, raising questions about possible abuse of power.
Yes, that's from The Onion. (Via TJ Orson Olson, although I first heard about it from Robert Mayhew.)
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Self-Inflicted Torture
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:11 PM PermaLink

I'm currently watching that horrible bit of Soviet propaganda, Mission to Moscow. I've watched less than 20 minutes, but it's already far worse than Song of Russia ever aspired to be. At least the basic plot of Song of Russia revolved around an apolitical love story. Mission to Moscow has no such redeeming neutral qualities. Perhaps most offensive of all, Joseph Davies loudly proclaims his determination to judge Soviet Russia objectivity every few minutes -- even though the film is already revoltingly pro-Soviet.

Oh, and I'm watching this movie as my break after a grueling two hours paring down the second section of Kant's Groundwork into a form suitable for my students.

Yes, I am a philosophical masochist.

Update #1: Oh dear God. The Davies just arrived in Russia. The train station is overflowing with delicious foods... and equality of the sexes!

Update #2: Oh, those industrious Soviet workers undermined by evil saboteurs!

Update #3: Yes, Yes! Let's trust the Soviets not to bug the American Embassy! They'd have the right to listen in if they pleased. And America has no private business whatsoever to conduct in Russia! (Really, I'm not exaggerating. Those were the claims made by Davies when confronted with the revelation of Soviet bugging of another embassy.)

Update #4: Wow, the workers even have time to learn excellent English in night classes. They are just so friendly and happy too. Those Soviets just aren't terribly different from Americans -- except slightly superior in all ways. Oh, and Americans sure are stupid about Russia, caught up as they are in their myriad misconceptions.

Update #5: Oh, and let's just ignore that whole small matter of the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Update #6: Hooray! A defense of Stalin's purges! (Every time I think it can't get any worse, it does!)

Update #7: Davies speaking to Stalin, "I believe, sir, that history will record you as a great builder for the benefit of mankind." Stalin is humble in response, attributing his successes to the original plans of Lenin as carried out by the people.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Oh, Blech!
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:10 AM PermaLink

Someone sent this supposedly cutesy little story to me:
An elderly Chinese woman had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole which she carried across her neck.

One of the pots had a crack in it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water. At the end of the long walk from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full. For a full two years this went on daily, with the woman bringing home only one and a half pots of water. Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments. But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half of what it had been made to do.

After 2 years of what it perceived to be bitter failure, it spoke to the woman one day by the stream. "I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house." The old woman smiled, "Did you notice that there are flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other pot's side? That's because I have always known about your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you water them. For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table. Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house."

Each of us has our own unique flaw. But it's the cracks and flaws we each have that make our lives together so very interesting and rewarding. You've just got to take each person for what they are and look for the good in them.

So, to all of my crackpot friends, have a great day and remember to smell the flowers on your side of the path!
I think I wanna puke. When will people stop ignoring the line that divides basically harmless personality quirks and cultural mores from potentially dangerous character flaws? Oh right, when they reject altruism. I doubt that a person could lower himself to the pointless degradation of sacrificing himself to worthless and/or dangerous lowlifes -- without first accepting the immorality of drawing such moral distinctions in the first place. As Jesus said: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matthew 7:1-2).
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Friday, August 25, 2006
A Surprising Integration
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:27 AM PermaLink

A little while ago PhilosopherEagle posted a blog entry integrateing the conventions of modern logic with Ayn Rand's distinction between motivation by love and motivation by fear. No really, see for yourself:
Tonight, I resumed my study of modern symbolic logic, and I made an important integration with the distinction between motivation by love and motivation by fear. (Harry Binswanger criticized my presentation of Galileo for being motivated by the fear of criticism, so this distinction has been on my mind.) My observation is that the basic motivation of modern logic is the fear of slipping up and making a mistake rather than the value of coming to know the world. I have been puzzled for a couple of months now by many of the conventions of modern logicians. For example, any argument whose conclusion must be true is said to be deductively valid. So if our premise is that apples are delicious, we can validly conclude that John is either a carpenter or not a carpenter. I submit that this is not a valid deductive argument, because it is not an argument at all. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. In "The Logic Book," however, one finds this defense of the standard convention: "To put the point another way, this argument is truth-preserving. It will never lead us from truths to a falsehood because it will never lead us to falsehood--because the conclusion is logically true. There is no risk of reaching a false conclusion here precisely because there is no risk that the conclusion is false" (22). This point is true enough: if we have true premises, we will never deduce anything false from them. But the purpose of logic is not the avoidance any risk of falsehood. It is to guide us as we learn about the world and discover new knowledge. "Truth-preservation" is the wrong motivation for a system of logic. It is because of this motivation that modern logic is almost completely useless in real life.
Nice!
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Bible Blogging
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:26 PM PermaLink

Oh cool, it's irreverent but insightful Bible blogging! The chapter-by-chapter commentary by David Plotz is witty without either being preachy or hostile. The in-progress commentary on each book spans multiple pages, so you'll want to start with the first entries for Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. More will be forthcoming, I'm sure.

David Plotz has noticed some of the same delightful tidbits that I've noticed in my reading, such as:
"Creeping" is all over these last few verses of Creation. God tells His newly minted man and woman that they rule over world and its creatures, including, as the King James puts it--"every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." What a superb phrase! It's perfect for insects, terrorists, and children.
I also wondered about the sins worthy of the Flood:
The story of Noah: "The Lord saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on Earth, and His heart was saddened. The Lord said, 'I will blot out from the earth the men whom I created--men together with beasts, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I regret that I made them.' But Noah found favor with the Lord."

The mystery of this passage is: What has man done that's so terrible? There's no explanation here, or in the next chapter, which merely says: "The earth became corrupt before God; the earth was filled with lawlessness." What corruption? What lawlessness? It had been a very short time since Creation--how much evil could man have learned? Why would God give up on man so easily? Also, considering how detailed the Bible is about particular human crimes both before and after here, why is it so vague about the antediluvian wickedness?
Nothing could top this summary of the story of Lot:
This chapter makes the Jerry Springer Show look like Winnie the Pooh. The Sodom business is worse than I ever imagined. Two male angels visit Lot's house in Sodom. A crowd of men (Sodomites!) gathers outside the house and demands that the two angels be sent out, so the mob can rape them. Lot, whose hospitality is greater than his common sense, offers his virgin daughters to the mob instead. Before any rapes can happen, the mob is blinded by a mysterious flash of light. The angels lead Lot, his wife, and daughters out of the city, and God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone. Lot's wife looks back and is turned into a pillar of salt. (God may have listened to Abraham's rebuke, but He surely didn't heed it. What of all the innocent children murdered in Sodom and Gomorrah? What of Lot's innocent wife?)

But the chapter's not over. After the attempted mass gay rape, the father pimping, the urban devastation, uxorious saline murder, it looks like Lot and his daughters are finally safe. They're living alone in a cave in the mountains. But then the two daughters--think of them as Judea's Hilton sisters--complain that cave life is no fun because there aren't enough men around. So, one night they get Lot falling-down drunk and have sex with him. Chapter 19 poses what I would call the Sunday School Problem--as in, how do you teach this in Sunday school? What exactly is the moral lesson here?
The commentaries also contain some interesting and helpful discussions of themes and threads in the text.

I've only read the commentaries on Genesis and Exodus so far, but I'll be read the others soon enough. These commentaries aren't a substitute for reading the Bible, but they are a fun refresher thereupon!

Just remember: God created "every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth!"
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Magic
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:53 AM PermaLink

Paul is the person solely responsible for my small interest in magic. Since I found this amazing card trick via GeekPress, he's doubly responsible for this post.

Paul does have one card trick he does that "proves" another person to have ESP. He's only done the trick for/on me once about ten years ago -- and I'm utterly baffled as to how it works. He refuses to do the trick again, since he's sure that I'll figure it out the second time around. Not knowing still kills me.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Another Bizarre and Vague Mention of Ayn Rand
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:14 AM PermaLink

These kinds of random snide comments about Ayn Rand really annoy me:
Even today there are people arguing that Ayn Rand is a major "liberal" theorist, and fighting to preserve her holy memory on the internet. This from a philosophy that starts out from two questionable tautologies and worships getting cancer. No rhapsody anywhere in Rand's books surpasses her paean to smoking.
I'm not bothered by the author's strong objections to Ayn Rand's views so much as his method of expressing them. He wants to express his hostility without offering his readers the slightest chance to judge the facts for themselves. So what does he do?

First, he suggests that defenders of her ideas are actually religious zealots focused upon "her holy memory."

Second, he claims that Objectivism is based upon "two questionable tautologies," but never suggests what those are. Perhaps he's thinking of Objectivism's three fundamental axioms, but we don't know, since he doesn't say. The pairing of "questionable" with "tautologies" is quite Hegelian -- or an attempt to suggest that the basic ideas of Objectivism are (1) trivial and (2) false. If that were possible, it wouldn't get much worse than that, I suppose.

Third, Ayn Rand "worships getting cancer." That's downright obscene. Yes, Ayn Rand was a smoker. Yes, one of her minor characters briefly discussed the symbolic meaning of smoking. It was hardly a rhapsody, let alone noteworthy in comparison to Francisco's speeches on money and sex, Roark's courtroom speech, or Galt's radio address. If that small comment means that Ayn Rand "worships getting cancer" then anyone who thinks that married couples ought to have sex "worships the spread of venereal disease."

Sheesh.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Monday, August 21, 2006
Dr. Yaron Brook to Speak at the Ford Hall Forum
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:23 PM PermaLink

I'm so thoroughly pleased to see the tradition of Objectivist speakers at the Ford Hall Forum continue. I'm particularly pleased by the choice of speaker, since I can't imagine a better person for the job than Yaron Brook. Here's ARI's announcement:
Sunday, October 22, 2006
A Ford Hall Forum Event

Democracy vs. Victory: Why the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" Had to Fail
Yaron Brook

[After Sept. 11 the Bush administration declared that we must go on a mission to bring freedom to the Middle Eastern nations that threaten us; thus, the Forward Strategy of Freedom. According to this strategy, establishing democracies in key Muslim countries, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq, would spur a revolution in the rest of the Muslim world--a revolution that would bring free, pro-Western, anti-terrorist governments to power.

But the strategy has failed. With the rise of the religious Shiites in Iraq, of Hamas and of Hezbollah, and with the electoral victories of Islamic radicals elsewhere in the Middle East, the Muslim world has grown more militant.

Why has the Forward Strategy of Freedom failed, and why was failure inevitable? What are the flaws inherent in the strategy? How does it necessarily undermine victory? What motivates it and what strategy should replace it? These are the questions Dr. Brook will address in this talk.]

Established in 1908, the Ford Hall Forum hosts public lectures in Boston, Massachusetts, by leading cultural figures, politicians and intellectuals. From 1961 to 1981, Ayn Rand was a frequent invited speaker at the Forum. Several of her lectures were subsequently published as essays in such books as The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought. Since her death, Dr. Leonard Peikoff has spoken at the Forum on a number of occasions, most recently in 2003. Dr. Brook will speak at the Forum for the first time this year.

Dr. Brook's lecture... will be preceded by several lecture events and a panel discussion, beginning with a campus club talk by Dr. Brook at Tufts University on Friday evening; more details will follow.

Location:
Ford Hall Forum/Faneuil Hall
Boston, Massachusetts

Time:
6:30 PM
Paul and I will be traveling to Boston to attend.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Agreement with PETA
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:27 AM PermaLink

For once, I'm in agreement with PETA: A taxpayer-funder performance in which a naked woman spends four hours hugging and slicing a dead pig is not art but rather "a desperate cry for help that merits visits from mental health counsellors, not voyeurs." (Via Thomas Lee on SoloPassion.)
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Most Murderous Civilization?
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:45 AM PermaLink

Thanks to my "Ayn Rand" Google News Alert, I ran across this article by some doomsday environmentalist. I didn't read the whole article; I didn't have the stomach for that after reading this paragraph:
Before I read Derrick Jensen's "End Game," I was a "type A" pessimist. I believed humanity had had its "run," now Atlas would "shrug" in a way Ayn Rand never dared imagine, and in a few thousand, maybe even a few hundred years life would begin anew. But having read "End Game," I realize it's not "humanity" that's the problem, merely "civilization," which unfortunately, in its brief 6,000 years (humanity's been around for about 150,000 years), managed to usurp the cultures and traditions and land bases of nearly all of humanity. Before "civilization" (which includes any society living beyond its means, or "land base," as Jensen defines it, East and West, from China to Sumer to Egypt, Rome, Britain and the perhaps the most murderous, most wasteful civilization ever to have existed, the United States) and even during, even now, primitive cultures have lived on the same land base, followed the same culture and traditions for thousands of years and would have continued had not civilization, specifically European civilization, violently colonized the planet over the past 500 years.
The United States is "perhaps the most murderous... civilization ever to have existed"? Most so than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? So where are all the hundreds of millions that we've slaughtered?

The psycho-epistemology of a person who could make that claim is unimaginable: his words must have no concrete meaning for him whatsoever.

Oh, and as for his condemnation of civilization, perhaps I'll start a non-profit group to save these poor souls from the corruption of human civilization. Money would be raised to ship these environmentalists off to some remote island to experience the degrading and exhausting hardship of life in harmony with nature. No money would be made available for return trips.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Friday, August 18, 2006
Darryl-Wright-O-Rama
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:52 AM PermaLink

It's Darryl-Wright-O-Rama at the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

Dr. Wright's very fascinating -- albeit dense and technical -- lecture from the 2005 OCON has just been released:
"Ayn Rand and the History Of Ethics"

Can reason prescribe the ends human beings should seek in life, as well as the means to those ends? This has been a central question in the history of ethics, and it is also a central question in Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics. This lecture explores Ayn Rand's view on this question, bringing out its distinctive and important features and contrasting it with some of the most influential historical views, including those of Aristotle and Hume.

100 min., with Q & A -- Audio CD; 2-CD set: $23.95 or Audiocassette: $19.95
This lecture is fascinating, but also quite dense and technical. So if you don't have some familiarity with the history of ethics, including the standard categories of "consequentialism" and "deontology" and the standard questions about ultimate values, then you'll probably have trouble understanding it. However, if you have those meta-ethical basics, you're sure to find it worthwhile.

The lecture does have a particularly interesting discussion of how to think of Ayn Rand's metaethics inductively. That's helped me understand it better, since before it always had something of the feel of a floating abstraction.

Dr. Wright's other lecture courses are also on sale -- 50% off!
Bonus clearance sale: 50% discounts on four other Darryl Wright titles!

Offer good through October 1, 2006

Reason And Freedom

This course extensively analyzes Ayn Rand's groundbreaking principle that the mind cannot function under coercion--and uses this principle as a case study in philosophic methodology.

Audiocassette; 6-tape set; 7 hrs., with Q & A -- Regular price: $79.95, Sale price: $39.95

Advanced Topics In Ethics

This course develops new perspectives on key topics in the Objectivist ethics. It focuses on two broad issues: the significance of the fact that everyone acts on some philosophy, and the dependence of the concept "value" on the concept "life."

Audiocassette; 5-tape set; 6 hrs., with Q & A -- Regular price: $68.95, Sale price: $34.45

The Philosophy of Motivation

Is achieving a value equivalent to avoiding a disvalue? Is pursuing life the same as avoiding death? This course, given by Dr. Wright, explores Ayn Rand's important distinction between "motivation by love" and "motivation by fear."

Audiocassette; 6-tape set; 7 hrs., with Q & A -- Regular price: $79.95, Sale price: $39.95

Modern Political Philosophy: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau

This course contrasts Hobbes' and Rousseau's arguments for political absolutism with Locke's intransigent defense of individual rights and limited government. Dr. Wright corrects standard misinterpretations (such as the assertion that Hobbes' theory is egoistic and pro-capitalist, or that Locke endorses altruistic limitation on property rights), and compares their views with those of Ayn Rand.

Audiocassette; 6-tape set; 7 hrs.,with Q&A -- Regular price: $69.95, Sale price: $34.95
I can't say anything about Modern Political Philosophy: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, since I haven't listened to it yet. However, the other three courses are excellent. I would particularly recommend Advanced Topics In Ethics first and foremost, then Reason And Freedom, then The Philosophy of Motivation.

Labels: ,

E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Nicole Kidman is So Hot
By Greg @ 6:12 PM PermaLink

Weeks of hand wringing over tragic deaths. Weeks of calls for a ceasefire to shield aggressors from the consequences of their aggression and leave them free to regroup and cause more trouble. Oh so much effort expended to evade and even reverse the cause of those deaths, as with for example our ex-President Jimmy Carter saying, "...the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon. ... I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon."

Who would have expected a cadre of Hollywood elites lead by Nicole Kidman to take out a full-page ad in the LA Times and lay the blame for those deaths squarely at the feet of Hezbollah and friends?
[Nicole Kidman], joined by 84 other high-profile Hollywood stars, directors, studio bosses and media moguls, has taken out a powerfully-worded full page advertisement in today's Los Angeles Times newspaper.

It specifically targets "terrorist organisations" such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.

"We the undersigned are pained and devastated by the civilian casualties in Israel and Lebanon caused by terrorist actions initiated by terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas," the ad reads.

"If we do not succeed in stopping terrorism around the world, chaos will rule and innocent people will continue to die."

"We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs."
Wow, as if seeing her in Eyes Wide Shut wasn't enough...

[HT: LGF]
E-mail Greg    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Paul's Famous Brother
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:47 AM PermaLink

The man shown in the opening of this video clip winning mucho dollars on a game show -- a short-lived clone of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire"? -- is Paul's very smart brother Tim. (As of 2004, Tim was still #8 on the list of top TV gameshow winners.)
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
The Evils of Half-Fought Wars
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:46 PM PermaLink

Sadly, I couldn't agree more.
Lebanon Cease-Fire Is a Victory for Hezbollah

Irvine, CA--"The cease-fire is a resounding victory for Hezbollah and for Islamic fascism," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"How can President Bush declare that 'Hezbollah suffered a defeat' in Lebanon when it was neither disarmed nor disheartened by the fighting? How can President Bush declare that the resolution addresses the 'root cause' of Hezbollah's aggression when it does not even mention Iran and Syria for their support of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups?

"A U.N. resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah in Lebanon is not the same thing as the actual disarming of Hezbollah in Lebanon--let alone the defeat of Hezbollah throughout the Middle East. And by urging Israel to end its military offensive, the administration has ended any possibility that Hezbollah will actually be destroyed.

"The only way to end the threat from Islamic totalitarian groups like Hezbollah and their state sponsors is to inflict crushing devastation upon them by aggressive military action."

Copyright (c) 2006 Ayn Rand(R) Institute. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Without a doubt, any supposed military victory in which the enemy is also capable of declaring victory to the world is no victory at all.

I have only vague ideas about how elections work in parliamentary systems, so can someone tell me when I might hope to see that spineless swine of appeasement Ehud Olmert booted out of office? And are the Israelis in a mood to vote in someone who might at least slow rather than hasten the destruction of their country?

Sadly, this aborted war in Lebanon is a perfect example of why fighting half a war is often worse than fighting none at all. If Israel hadn't invaded Lebanon, Hezbollah and other Islamic fundamentalists would have continued to wonder: When will Israel rain down fire and brimstone upon us? How awful will it be? Will we all be destroyed? Will the United States support them, join them -- or urge restraint?

In contrast, now Hezbollah and other Islamic fundamentalists know that they can survive an onslaught from Israel. They know that the surrounding Muslim governments will support them rather than fight them or cut them off. They know that Muslims will rally to their cause, not disown them. They know that Western governments, including the United States, will urge restraint, diplomacy, cease-fires, and the like. They know that Western news media will be a conduit for their propaganda. They know that Western intellectuals will be wringing their hands over the deaths of civilians -- and blaming Israel for those deaths.

How do Hezbollah and other Islamic fundamentalists know all that? They know all that because that spineless swine of appeasement Ehud Olmert chose to fight a war yet refused to win it.

At this point, I fear that the Muslim world would need to experience all the horror of overwhelming shows of force in multiple hot spots to even consider abandoning the jihad against civilization. The West has shown too much weakness for the jihadists to be easily convinced of any new-found determination to crush Islamic totalitarianism that the West might exhibit. That'll be the true legacy of decades of appeasement: the mass destruction required to destroy the threat of Islamic totalitarianism. It's a horrifying prospect.

Even worse, it's a moot point at present: I have little hope of any Western power rediscovering the moral courage required to defend itself from the barbarians at the gates -- at least not until Objectivism gains a greater foothold in the culture.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Dr. Brook on CNBC on Passenger Profiling Again
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:35 PM PermaLink

From ARI: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, is scheduled to appear on CNBC's "On the Money" tomorrow, August 17, at 7:00 pm Eastern (4:00 pm Pacific), to participate in a special hour-long program on passenger profiling.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Palm T|X Versus Dell Axim
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:50 AM PermaLink

Now that I've sold my Dell Axim -- for a considerable loss, unfortunately -- I'm happy to indicate what I found so utterly intolerable about it. For comparison, I'll use my much-beloved Palm T|X that I bought as a replacement.

First: The Axim wasn't terribly portable. That's particularly important to me since my primary computer is a slim and light laptop with a five hour battery. So my handheld must be uber-portable to be of value to me, since I can easily upgrade to full functionality with my laptop.

The Axim itself was larger and heavier than the Palm T|X. It felt bulky and unwieldy. It didn't have the minimal side-flip cover standard on the Palm, but instead came in a humongous padded case. When I searched online, I couldn't find a minimal case of the kind I like, i.e. like the Palm. That's not a trivial issue for me: space in my bags is always at a premium, precisely because I hate to haul around more than absolutely necessary. So I'm downright offended at the prospect of allotting extra inches for an mongo case for a handheld.

As if all that's not bad enough, the problem of bulkiness was seriously compounded by the power supply. It was massive: it had a thick, inflexible cord and large converter in the middle. Frankly, it wasn't much better than my laptop cord -- and I already regard that as unbearably bulky.

Even worse, the USB connector required for syncing wouldn't charge the Axim: a power supply was required. So if I was traveling, I'd have to bring the power supply for the Axim, not just the USB cable. In contrast, my Palm T|X does charge through the computer. I have a lovely little zip cable to do that -- and if I want the capacity to charge from the wall, I only need to bring my small iPod USB charger.

Second: The Microsoft Windows Mobile operating system was a nightmare. It was unbearably slow: I'd often have to wait five seconds or more to do something basic like open up my tasks or calendar. I've never experienced anything like that on the Palm.

Moreover, although I'm always quick to adopt new interfaces, I found Windows Mobile to be an incomprehensible labyrinth. It was simply impossible to remember where to find settings and even programs, since they weren't all grouped together as in the Palm.

Also, I expected the integration with Windows, particularly Outlook, to be significantly better than it was. That was a disappointment. The Palm does fine on that score, however. In general, Palm has much more software available for it.

Overall, I can't possibly express how happy I am to be back with Palm. Unlike the Axim, my new T|X does all that I ask of it -- with ease.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Dr. Yaron Brook on Terrorism on CNBC
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:21 PM PermaLink

From ARI: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, is scheduled to appear again tonight on CNBC's "On the Money," August 15, 2006, at 7:00 pm Eastern (4:00 pm Pacific), to discuss racial profiling. This is the same program Dr. Brook appeared on last night. Tonight's expanded discussion of the same topic will include a four-person panel.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
FDA Nonsense, Libertarian Nonsense
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:14 AM PermaLink

A recent press release from the Ayn Rand Institute, "Medieval Sexual Morality at the FDA," says:
Irvine, CA--"The FDA must stop the stalling tactics that have prevented over-the-counter sale of the 'morning-after pill,'" said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"There is no question about the safety of the drug. The FDA's own advisory panel endorsed it three years ago for over-the-counter use. The delays are clearly an attempt by conservative FDA officials to impose their brand of medieval sexual morality on Americans. Such an egregious violation of the separation of church and state is unacceptable in a free country."
Personally, I'm baffled as to why we have a system in which I need a prescription for birth control at all. I've been on the pill more-or-less continuously since I was a teenager. So why exactly do I need my doctor to authorize my taking it for yet another year? Oh right, it's because government bureaucrats think me incompetent. Silly me, I forgot!

These days, religious conservatives are more than happy to use that regulatory structure to force their values down our throats. And liberals might scream and stamp their feet about some particular policy, but they'll never entertain the idea that the FDA itself ought to be abolished. That's because statists of all stripes are fundamentally allies. Sure, they'll viciously fight for power -- or for this rather than that concrete proposal. Yet they all agree upon the propriety -- even necessity -- of tangled masses of business regulations, paternalistic laws against vices, expensive welfare programs for the poor, elderly, and otherwise downtrodden, and so on. The only disputes are the form of these laws -- if even that. Today, new programs are supported or not solely based upon party loyalties -- as in the prescription drug benefit for the elderly. The power-lusters on both sides are well-aware that expansions of power by their opponents can be molded to serve their own ends once they regain power. So the liberals will use the power of the FDA to reign in those evil drug companies, while the conservatives will use it to control contraception.

To put the point another way, this simple example clearly illustrates the absurdity of Randy Barnett's attempt in "The Moral Foundations of Modern Libertarianism" to portray libertarianism as a second-best alternative for pragmatic statists, whether liberal or conservative. Here's the abstract of his paper:
Libertarians no longer argue, as they once did in the 1970s, about whether libertarianism must be grounded on moral rights or on consequences; they no longer act as though they must choose between these two moral views. In this paper, I contend that libertarians need not choose between moral rights and consequences because theirs is a political, not a moral, philosophy; one that can be shown to be compatible with various moral theories, which is one source of its appeal.

Moral theories based on either moral rights or on consequentialism purport to be "comprehensive," insofar as they apply to all moral questions to the exclusion of all other moral theories. Although the acceptance of one of these moral theories entails the rejection of all others, libertarian moral rights philosophers on the one hand, and utilitarians on the other, can embrace libertarian political theory with equal fervor. I explain how can this be and why it is a strength rather than a weakness of libertarian political theory.

Conservatives, neoconservatives, and those on the left who seek to impose by force their comprehensive conception of "the good" neglect the problem of power - an exacerbated instance of the twin fundamental social problems of knowledge and interest. For a comprehensive moralist of the right or left, using force to impose their morality on others might be their first choice among social arrangements. Having another's comprehensive morality imposed upon them by force is their last choice. The libertarian minimalist approach of enforcing only the natural rights that define justice should be everyone's second choice. A compromise, as it were, that makes civil society possible. And therein lies its imperative.
This abstract is overflowing with obvious disdain for the philosophic foundations of political theory: Philosophic debates between libertarians are of no significance today. Truth need not be considered, since opposing philosophic foundations can produce "equal fervor" for liberty. Liberals and conservatives should embrace libertarianism not for its truth, but for its capacity to optimize the satisfaction of their desires.

In fact, Randy Barnett's pragmatism seems to run so deep that he's unable to see the obvious fact that none of the many varieties of statists are fundamentally opposed to each other. Although statists often viciously fight for power, they share basic principles. That's why they can and do build upon the "achievements" of the statists who come before them, of whatever stripe. That's why both George Bush and Ted Kennedy are committed to government welfare programs: the only difference between them is the particular form of those welfare programs. Ted wants monolithic state control, while George demands the illusion of choice in which all options are helpfully pre-screened by the government. Yet somehow, in the rationalist dreams of a libertarian, both Ted and George might instead opt to totally eliminate government welfare so as to prevent themselves from being "oppressed" by the statism of the other.

Oh please. Will the pope have an abortion next week too?

If libertarians paid more attention to philosophical principles underlying political theory -- particularly to the facts about human nature and about the world that make freedom necessary to human life -- these rationalistic absurdities might be avoided. If Randy Barnett did that, he wouldn't be able to trot out the standard contemporary divide between "moral rights" and consequences" as if an ironclad brute fact of nature, as he so often does. Nor could he think of politics merely in terms of the satisfaction of magically-given and unquestionable desires. Nor could he offer a string of abstractions wholly disconnected from the facts about the conflicts between statist politicians. And so on.

Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath waiting for such a change.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Monday, August 14, 2006
Dr. Yaron Brook on Terrorism on CNBC
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:01 PM PermaLink

An announcement from ARI: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, is scheduled to appear on CNBC's "On the Money" tonight at 7:00 pm Eastern (4:00 pm Pacific) to discuss racial profiling to stop terrorism.
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
A Prediction
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:38 AM PermaLink

Within five to ten years, I predict that substantial numbers of seriously Christian women will opt to veil themselves in church (if not elsewhere) as a symbol of modesty and submission. Why? The question of veils is a much-discussed topic in relation to Islam at present. Not all of it is negative: I remember reading reports of fashion designers influenced by Muslim dress in their designs for women a year or so ago. Serious Christians are also increasingly concerned with modesty in dress for women -- and where better to look than Islam? Moreover, Paul (of the Bible, not of GeekPress) clearly requires women to cover their heads in church in First Corinthians 11:2-16:
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
I must admit, I find the logic of all that a bit baffling. That's not important for Christian though, since the instructions are clear enough.

In the course of searching for commentaries on this passage, I quickly found this lengthy defense of women veiling themselves in church. (See the "In Modern Times" section.) If I'm right, expect to see more debate on this topic from Christians in coming years.

Labels:

E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Moral Cowardice
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:17 AM PermaLink

Oh, the rationalizations of moral cowards!
DEAR ABBY: I have a good friend who owns a prosperous business. I'll call him "Oscar." Oscar has no clue that one of his employees, "Shirley," is stealing big chunks of money from him.

I feel bad for the friend who is being taken, and also for the person doing the stealing. I know them both well, and if I were to tell him, Oscar would lose both a friend and an employee. Shirley has worked for him for more than a dozen years. Her son and her brother now work for him, too. If I blow the whistle, Shirley could lose her home and other investments.

This could get very ugly, and I don't want to be in the middle. Please tell me what to do. -- IN THE MIDDLE IN PHOENIX

DEAR IN THE MIDDLE: You were put in the middle the minute you learned about the thefts. You must tell the employer what is going on. To do otherwise makes you an accessory to the crime.

It will then be up to Oscar to decide if he wants to press charges. And please remember that the friendship between Oscar and Shirley ended when she started stealing from him. Friends don't steal from their friends. Opportunists do.
I'm not sure that the woman is legally an accessory to the crime; I suppose that depends upon whether she has a duty to her employer about such thefts. She certainly has a moral obligation to do so, whatever the law says. Oh, and I'm delighted that Abby added the last bit about the already-dead friendship, since that was extra-offensive!
E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Memory Exercises
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:20 AM PermaLink

I'm happy to report that I'm doing well in my progress through the memory exercises from the Memory Master web site. That's good, since I need to get to the section on remembering names and faces before classes begin! (I discussed my reasons for developing these skills of memory in this post.)

It's thoroughly fascinating to experience the development and working of these techniques. They're not hard at all, although they do require generally untapped skills of transformation, imagination, and association. Once I cultivate those skills, the process of memorization will be downright easy.

To practice the "Substitute Words and Phrases" section, I decided to memorize the order in which the states joined the union. So far, I've pretty solidly memorized the first sixteen, i.e. those that joined before 1800. From memory, they are:

  • Delaware
  • Pennsylvania
  • New Jersey
  • Georgia
  • Connecticut
  • Massachussets
  • Maryland
  • South Carolina
  • New Hampshire
  • Virginia
  • New York
  • North Carolina
  • Rhode Island
  • Vermont
  • Kentucky
  • Tennessee

    Since I can spit those out pretty quickly now, I'll learn the next fifteen (i.e. those that joined between 1800 and 1850) over the next day or so. I'll also probably add the dates later, once I learn the technique for remembering numbers.

    It's fun and useful and easy! So if you wish to improve your skills of memorization, I'd highly recommend using these techniques. (As the introduction says, you need to do the lessons in order, as they build upon each other.)
    E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis
    • Friday, August 11, 2006
    Tooth Paste and Shaving Cream
    By Diana Hsieh @ 11:29 AM PermaLink

    Oh oh oh! A letter to the editor from our very own Don Watkins!
    Dear Editor:

    It is disgraceful that, five years after September 11, our government's response to a foiled terrorist attack is to stop airline passengers from boarding planes with tooth paste, shaving cream, and bottled water. Such measures, while inconveniencing millions of Americans, will only cause the terrorists to change their tactics. It will do nothing to quell the threat of Islamic totalitarianism.

    As we've seen in Israel's struggle against its enemies, national security cannot be achieved through homeland defense or an endless cycle of diplomacy. It requires waging war to crush the hostile groups and dictatorial regimes that threaten us, so that they no longer have the capacity or willingness to do so. Only that, not screening bags and banning beverages, will make us secure.

    Don Watkins
    Ayn Rand Institute
    Copyright (c) 2006 Ayn Rand(R) Institute. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
    E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    <