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

Sunday, December 31, 2006 Religion in College By Diana Hsieh @ 11:36 PM While I haven't been teaching long enough to notice any difference in the religiosity of my students over the years, this professor's observations are consistent with my general knowledge on the topic. He writes: More American college students seem to be practicing traditional forms of religion today than at any time in my 30 years of teaching. At first glance, the flourishing of religion on campuses seems to reverse trends long criticized by conservatives under the rubric of "political correctness." But, in truth, something else is occurring. Once again, right and left have become mirror images of each other; religious correctness is simply the latest version of political correctness. Indeed, it seems the more religious students become, the less willing they are to engage in critical reflection about faith. The chilling effect of these attitudes was brought home to me two years ago when an administrator at a university where I was then teaching called me into his office. A student had claimed that I had attacked his faith because I had urged him to consider whether Nietzsche's analysis of religion undermines belief in absolutes. The administrator insisted that I apologize to the student. (I refused.) My experience was not unique. Today, professors invite harassment or worse by including "unacceptable" books on their syllabuses or by studying religious ideas and practices in ways deemed improper by religiously correct students. Distinguished scholars at several major U.S. universities have been condemned, even subjected to death threats, for proposing psychological, sociological or anthropological interpretations of religious texts. In the most egregious cases, defenders of the faith insist that only true believers are qualified to teach their religious tradition. At a time when universities are obsessed with public relations, faculty members can no longer be confident they will remain free to pose the questions that urgently need to be asked. For years, I have begun my classes by telling students that if they are not more confused and uncertain at the end of the course than they were at the beginning, I will have failed. A growing number of religiously correct students consider this challenge a direct assault on their faith. Yet the task of thinking and teaching, especially in an age of emergent fundamentalisms, is to cultivate a faith in doubt that calls into question every certainty. Any responsible curriculum for the study of religion must be guided by two basic principles: first, a clear distinction between the study and the practice of religion, and second, an expansive understanding of what religion is and of the manifold roles it plays in life. The aim of critical analysis is not to pass judgment on religious beliefs and practices -- though some secular dogmatists wrongly cross that line -- but to consider the many functions they serve. It is also important to explore the similarities and differences between and among various religions. Religious traditions are not fixed and monolithic; they are networks of symbols, myths and rituals, which evolve over time by adapting to changing circumstances. If we fail to appreciate the complexity and diversity within, and among, religious traditions, we will overlook the fact that people from different traditions often share more with one another than they do with many members of their own tradition. If chauvinistic believers develop deeper analyses of religion, they might begin to see in themselves what they criticize in others. In an era that thrives on both religious and political polarization, this is an important lesson to learn -- one that extends well beyond the academy. Since religion is often most influential where it is least obvious, it is imperative to examine both its manifest and latent dimensions. As defenders of a faith become more reflective about their own beliefs, they begin to understand that religion can serve not only to provide answers that render life more secure but also to prepare them for life's unavoidable complexities and uncertainties. Until recently, many influential analysts argued that religion, a vestige of an earlier stage of human development, would wither away as people became more sophisticated and rational. Obviously, things have not turned out that way. Indeed, the 21st century will be dominated by religion in ways that were inconceivable just a few years ago. Religious conflict will be less a matter of struggles between belief and unbelief than of clashes between believers who make room for doubt and those who do not. The warning signs are clear: Unless we establish a genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly. Mark C. Taylor, a religion and humanities professor at Williams College, is the author of "Mystic Bones." (This op-ed was also printed in the NY Times a few weeks ago.) Many serious Christians are genuinely committed to replacing the political correctness of today's academia with their own Christian dogma. They are determined, they are numerous, and they are extremely well-funded. That's not good news: rule of academia by religious correctness would be no better -- and surely much worse -- than rule by political correctness. Sadly, my general impression is that the conservative criticisms of academia's closed doors will enshrine religious correctness, not merely overthrow political correctness. Too many in that movement aim to do just that. Personally, I do worry that I'll face serious student complaints someday, probably sooner rather than later, for my teaching of Christian ethics. I'm not similarly concerned about the leftists. Labels: Academia, Religion E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, December 30, 2006 The Meaning of New Year's Resolutions By Diana Hsieh @ 11:34 AM I really enjoyed this New Year's op-ed by Alex Epstein: The Meaning of New Year's Resolutions By Alex Epstein Every New Year's Eve millions of Americans make New Year's resolutions. Whether the resolution is to get out of debt, to spend more time with loved ones, or to quit smoking, these resolutions have one thing in common: they are goals to make our lives better. Unfortunately, this ritual commitment to self-improvement is widely viewed as something of a joke--in part because New Year's resolutions go so notoriously unmet. After years of watching others--or themselves--excitedly commit to a new goal, only to abandon the quest by March, many come to conclude that New Year's resolutions are an exercise in futility that should not be taken seriously. "The silly season is upon us," writes a columnist for the Washington Post, "when people feel compelled to remake themselves with new year's resolutions." But such a cynical attitude is false and self-destructive. Making New Year's resolutions does not have to be futile--and to make them is not silly; done seriously, it is an act of profound moral significance that embodies the essence of a life well-lived. Consider what we do when we make a New Year's resolution: we look at where we are in some area of life, think about where we want to be, and then set ourselves a goal to get there. We are tired of feeling chubby and lethargic, say, and want the improved appearance and greater energy level that comes with greater fitness. So we resolve to take up a fun athletic activity--like tennis or a martial art--and plan to do it three times a week. Is this a laughable act of self-delusion? Hardly. If it were, then how would anyone ever achieve anything in life? In fact, to make a New Year's resolution is to recognize the undeniable reality that successful goal-pursuit is possible--the reality that everyone at one time or another has set and achieved long-range goals, and profited from doing so. Indeed, not only is it possible to achieve long-range goals, it is necessary for success in life. To make a New Year's resolution is also to recognize the undeniable reality that rewarding careers and romances do not just happen automatically--that to get what we want in our lives, we must consciously choose and achieve the right goals. We must be goal-directed. Unfortunately, a goal-directed orientation is missing to a large extent in too many lives. It is all too easy to live life passively, acting without carefully deciding what one is doing with one's life and why. How many people do you know who are in the career they fell into out of school, even if it is not very satisfying--or who have children at a certain age because that's what is expected, even if it's not what they really want--or who spend endless hours of "free time" in front of the TV, since that's the most readily available form of relaxation--or who follow a life routine that they never really chose and don't truly enjoy, but which has the force of habit? Too often, the goal-directedness embodied by New Year's resolutions is the exception in lives ruled by passively accepted forces--unexamined routine, short-range desires, or alleged duties. It is the passive approach to happiness that makes so many resolutions peter out, lost in the shuffle of life or abandoned due to lost motivation. More broadly than its impact on New Year's resolutions, the passive approach to happiness is the reason that so many go through life without ever getting--or even knowing--what they really want. It is a sad irony that those who write off New Year's resolutions because so many fail reinforces the passive approach to life that causes so many resolutions--and so many other dreams--to fail. The solution to failed New Year's resolutions is not to abandon the practice, but to supplement it with a broader resolution--a commitment to a goal-directed life. This New Year's, resolve to think about how to make your life better, not just once a year, but every day. Resolve to set goals, not just in one or two aspects of life, but in every important aspect and in your life as a whole. Resolve to pursue the goals that will make you successful and happy, not as the exception in a life of passivity, but as the rule that becomes second-nature. If you do this, you will be resolving to do the most important thing of all: to take your happiness seriously. Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org. What concrete purposes would you like to achieve this year? What will you do differently to achieve them? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, December 29, 2006 Change of Plans By Diana Hsieh @ 7:58 AM Well, I won't be attending the Ayn Rand Society meeting (at the American Philosophical Association Eastern Division Meeting) today as planned. I was particularly looking forward to it since it was an "Author Meets Critics" session for Tara Smith's new book, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist. While in Maryland visiting my family the past few days, I grew increasingly worried about the reports of a major snowstorm approaching Denver: not just one to two feet of snow (again!) but winds up to 40 miles per hour and temperatures in the teens. I was seriously worried that Paul would get stuck at work (after his night shift) and Melissa (our in-neighborhood housesitter) would be unable to get to the house. With the high winds, I worried that my mare Tara might really suffer (if not die) without regular attention. (She's far less hardy than Jackson -- and both suffered in the last snowstorm.) So yesterday morning, I decided to change my flight so as to return home to Colorado as soon as possible. To my amazement, that worked: I arrived in Denver at 4:15 pm. The snow wasn't bad when I began driving at around 5:00 pm, but after my two and a half hour drive home (normally 50 minutes), the roads were as bad as I've ever driven. (My car, a four-wheel-drive Mazda Tribute, performed fabulously.) The snow continues to fall, although it's fairly light at the moment. According to the news, the roads are in generally good condition. Paul can't get home yet though, since the last mile and a half to our house hasn't been plowed yet. It's a road with steep hills and sharp turns, so his four-wheel-drive wouldn't be sufficient to navigate it safely, I don't think. I hope the Ayn Rand Society meeting goes well. I'd love to hear reports of the discussion from anyone who attends! Update: Hooray! I just walked down the driveway to Rainbow Creek Road. It's more plowed than I thought, so Paul is headed home! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, December 28, 2006 Women and Minorities By Diana Hsieh @ 9:35 PM I was recently forwarded an academic job announcement that began with the following preliminary note: I am writing to you because I hope you will bring the job advertisement below to the attention of qualified women and minorities who work in 18th and 19th century history of philosophy. Sheesh, that might as well say: "Don't bother forwarding this announcement to white males; we're not interested in them, no matter how qualified they are." The note definitely says more than the standard boilerplate at the end of job announcements to the effect that women and minorities are encouraged to apply. I still object to that version, particularly since it reflects academia's now-standard reverse racism and sexism in hiring. Still, it doesn't convey the impression that white males are unwelcome, as the above note does. Oh, but just imagine the uproar that this version would create: "I am writing to you because I hope you will bring the job advertisement below to the attention of qualified white males who work in 18th and 19th century history of philosophy." E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Question: The Third World By Diana Hsieh @ 7:13 AM I've been quite behind in posting my various "Questions for NoodleFood." On the principle of "better late than never," here's one: what would ayn rands' answer be re people in developing countries like south africa who have no income at all for reasons beyond their control,who require medical treatment, but can't afford even a token payment? also what about education for there children? i've tried hard to find the answer to this question in her writings, but am still no wiser. as an admirer of her ideas,i would like someone to give me an answer. could someone e/mail me to fallonstringer@yahoo.com i'd realy appreciate it. My quick answer: Ayn Rand's answer to your question would be the same as for any other question of charity. If individuals wish to freely donate their time and money to help such people, that's their right. They ought not do so at the price of their own welfare or happiness, nor are they morally obliged to do anything to help someone simply due to that person's need. One person's need is not a claim on the wealth or resources of another person. In any case, the condition of the third world will not change with some alms from the first world. To thrive, the third world needs capitalism, i.e. governments that secure the freedom of individuals to act upon their own independent, rational judgment for the sake of their own lives and happiness. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, December 27, 2006 Divine Command Theory By Diana Hsieh @ 4:50 PM As much reading as I've done on religious conservatism of late, I must admit that I'm still shocked to see a leading conservative intellectual -- Dinesh D'Souza -- openly defend divine command theory. (Divine command theory is the moral view on which God's will determines right and wrong. On that view, if God commands rape, pillage, and murder, then rape, pillage, and murder are morally obligatory.) In the course of his argument that the crimes of atheistic totalitarian governments vastly outstrip those of religious governments, D'Souza writes (with my emphasis added): The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people -- the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped -- have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is permitted." Without a doubt, communists slaughtered millions of people -- due to their communism, not their atheism. The slaughter was made possible by the idea that individuals can and ought to be sacrificed for the sake of the "higher ideal" of the collective. Notably, serious religionists share the same basic view, although their "higher ideal" is the Kingdom of God. If they fully accept that the good is defined by God's arbitrary will, they will commit any atrocity to achieve it, so long as they can find some rationalization in their barbaric holy texts. (Given what the Bible actually says, that's easy enough!) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Fantasy Football By Diana Hsieh @ 10:09 AM Hooray! I've made it to the finals in the Boulder Philosophy Department's fantasy football league! Just one more game to win to get to the Super Bowl! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, December 26, 2006 Arrian on Justice By Diana Hsieh @ 6:50 PM I recently read Arrian's The Campaigns of Alexander. I enjoyed it immensely, particularly for Arrian's concern to clearly portray Alexander's moral qualities, for better and for worse. I found much to admire, both in Alexander and Arrian. The following story is just a small example, at least of what I found admirable in Arrian. The basic context is that Arrian has just told the chilling tale of Alexander's murder of his beloved friend Cleitus in a drunken rage for insulting him. (Cleitus himself was justly peeved by the fawning flattery heaped upon Alexander by others in his entourage.) Alexander was immediately horrified by his action, so much so that he reportedly considered suicide in the moments immediately thereafter. He was disconsolate in his grief and guilt for many days, even refusing food and drink. Arrian then says: There is a story that Alexander sent for the sophist Anaxarchus, in the hope he might give him comfort, and was still on his bed, bewailing his fate, when he came in. Anaxarchus laughed. "Don't you know," he said, "why the wise men of old made justice to sit by the side of Zeus? It was to show that whatever Zeus may do is justly done. In the same way all the acts of a great king should be considered just, first by himself, then by the rest of us." This was some consolation, at any rate for a time--though in my opinion he did Alexander a wrong more grievous than his grief, if he seriously, as a philosopher, put forward the view that a king need not act justly, or labor, to the best of his ability, to distinguish between right and wrong--if he really meant that whatever a king does, by whatever means, should be considered right. That's a rather different view of justice in governance than found in the New Testament. For example, Paul writes: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (Romans 13:1-8). For Paul, subjection and obedience are themselves good. The rulers need not act justly; they need not earn obedience by governing well. God is in charge of such matters, since rulers only rule by His will. Moreover, according to Christian principles of judgment, mere mortals ought not dare judge the fitness of their rulers, lest they be judged for their inevitable faults in return. (On that point, see Matthew 18, for example.) Given these ideas, it's little wonder that Christian rule in Europe entailed a reversion to the very kinds of despotic and arbitrary rule so reviled in the Greco-Roman world. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Naked Animals By Diana Hsieh @ 7:31 AM Wow, I must admit that I never imagined the following scenario as a consequence of the claim of equality between humans and other animals. DEAR ABBY: Am I a "sicko" because I step out of the shower naked in front of our dog? My wife thinks so. The trouble started when we got a female dog, "Taffy," from the local animal shelter. Taffy sleeps in our bedroom and is there in the morning when I take my shower. My wife insists that I cover up in front of the dog and that Taffy is no different from a child. This has created a lot of stress between us because, to me, a dog is a dog. Is it wrong to be naked in front of a dog? -- IN THE DOGHOUSE, TEMECULA, CALIF. DEAR IN THE DOGHOUSE: Even though many people treat their dogs like children, the fact remains that dogs are canines -- not homo sapiens. Your wife appears to be either jealous or have an overactive imagination. It is no more wrong for a human to be naked in the presence of a dog than it is for a dog to be naked in the presence of a human. Really, that's just freaky. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, December 25, 2006 Merry Christmas By Diana Hsieh @ 7:16 AM Merry Christmas, NoodleFoodlers and NoodleFoodleDoodlers! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, December 24, 2006 More Snow By Diana Hsieh @ 3:39 PM Ugh! It's snowing again! Enough already! It's been snowing steadily for about the last hour. Here's the *@!&#* forecast for tonight: "On and off snow showers and windy this evening. Clearing skies and continued windy later. Low 12F. Winds W at 15 to 25 mph. Chance of snow 30%" E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, December 22, 2006 Dear Virginia in the 21st Century By Greg @ 5:59 PM [My own response to the Dear Virginia in the 19th Century challenge.] In 1897, Virginia O'Hanlon wrote to the editor of The New York Sun: I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, "If you see it in the Sun, it's so." Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus? Dear Virginia, Your eagerness to know is wonderful! Have you ever scooped up a lost nickel, only to discover that it is a quarter? Santa is like that, a thousand times over. No, there is no Santa outside imagination, but learning about him is greater than any gift he would bring were he really real. Santa is a playful fantasy full of hope and happiness, inviting you down the challenging path to true adulthood. Yes, he embodies good will and generosity and inspires children everywhere to appreciate the difference between Naughty and Nice. But there is so much more that you and your friends are just now glimpsing, hidden behind the tale's knowing wink. Santa helps us to learn the crucial lesson that sometimes what we are told just isn't so, no matter how splendid it sounds, who says it, or how tightly we might cling to the idea. He invites us to push through the veil of a child's blind acceptance to join the grown-up world of facts, thought, and independent understanding. Just as nobody can breathe for us, nobody can think for us -- not even The New York Sun. You have to see the truth of something to really know. Now, do not let slip fantasy and imagination, for even grown-ups love to play! There will always be costumes and paintings and stories to delight. But we have to distinguish between make-believe and reality, and use our intelligence and creativity to understand the world and make our place in it. This is how we sustain all those things that motivate and fulfill us: love, art, play, hope, romance, achievement, joy. The most exciting thing you can discover is that reality itself is infinitely more rich and interesting than our wildest fantasies. And Santa brings each of us a priceless gift: help in learning to face the vast wonder and glory of the universe like a hero, seeing by a light that is brighter than the brightest star, shaping and reshaping our world with a boundless engine of creation. No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. But important lessons and a sweet tale that makes glad the heart of childhood live on, at least until our imagination creates something even better. So celebrate the flowering of your intellect and pass Santa forward to the next generation with love -- and a wink. E-mail Greg    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, December 21, 2006 Blizzard Trauma By Paul @ 7:10 PM As a result of the blizzard, I've been stuck at work for the last 36+ hours. The ER's haven't been too busy yet, mostly because people aren't yet out and about. We haven't seen too many high-speed MVA's (motor vehicle accidents), probably because cars simply can't go that quickly. There are a lot of folks coming in with broken wrists, broken hips, etc., from slip-and-fall accidents. And starting this morning, we've seen several patients with this type of x-ray. Safety tip of the day: Don't stick your hand into a snowblower! E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis 2006 Blizzard By Diana Hsieh @ 9:24 AM Denver is presently in the midst of a small blizzard. It has snowed about two feet at our house so far. It is still snowing. It is expected to snow another few inches. Here's what it looks like so far: Today is quite lovely and peaceful, but that was not the case yesterday. It was blowing like hell, often forming rather large drifts, like this one right in front of our front door: As a result of yesterday's wind, the barn is full of snow. The horses, although blanketed in their high-tech winter gear, were completely miserable yesterday. I was so concerned about them that I trudged down to the barn last night at 11 p.m. to feed them some hot grain soup. (I just add hot water to their grain to make a hot mush. If they're chilly, it helps warm them up quickly.) By then, however, the wind had calmed down. Still, they're always happy to be fed. Here they are this morning, looking not-so-miserable: Abby and Kate have been enjoying the snow -- except when they get caught in a snow drift! The cats, although not permitted outside, have enjoyed the snow the most, I think. When it snows, the birds are far more active than usual at the bird feeders. Moreover, their fluttery dark colors really pop against the white snow. So the cats are glued to the windows, swishing their tails and chattering, just like Elliot is here: I'm feeling a bit stir crazy, particularly since Paul is gone. He slept at work last night; I'm pretty sure he'll do the same tonight. Ah well, I have plenty of work to keep my busy! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, December 20, 2006 Honesty About Relationships By Diana Hsieh @ 12:57 PM In a recent blog post on Rule of Reason, Nick Provenzo notes that the op-eds of Robert Tracinski posted on ARI's web site now appear with the following note in the tagline: "Robert W. Tracinski is no longer associated with the Ayn Rand Institute--neither as a writer nor as a speaker." I agree wholeheartedly with Nick's sentiments about the change: Objectivists are often criticized for their public break-ups, but I think being forthright when a relationship ends is the more honest approach. Reality demands an unflinching dedication to the truth, including the fact that some relationships deserve to end. In my opinion, Tracinski has publicly embraced a theory of history that rejects the importance of Objectivism and principled consistency in defining and defending the long term good. As such, it would be dishonest to claim that he continues to be a public advocate for Ayn Rand's philosophy. If the end of Tracinski's association with ARI was brought on by his recent thinking, I am glad for it, for it would be an honest end to recent events. If I can manage the time, I'd like to write a post or two on Robert Tracinski's significant departures from basic principles of Objectivism in recent years. In particular, I have much to say about his switch from rationalism to empiricism in his view of the role of philosophy in human life found in his not-yet-finished "What Went Right" series. At the moment, however, I'm intensely busy with real work. If I can find the time though, I'll write what I can. (And speaking of terminated relationships, I won't be posting further on SoloPassion for the reasons detailed in this post.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Ascetic Power-Lusters By Diana Hsieh @ 12:04 PM I've been a bit sparse in my blogging of late due to the temporary death of our high speed internet connection for almost two weeks. (A second story on a house was added in the very line of sight required for the neighborhood wireless. Understandably, it took a bit of time to identify and then fix the problem. Thankfully, it is now solved.) It's been hard enough just to publish the short posts in my queue -- and impossible to write anything new or check on suggestions from others. So in the interests of efficiency, I'm just going to directly quote this interesting tidbit from Jim May: You might remember Ivy Starnes from Atlas. Ayn Rand drew her as an ascetic, disdaining material wealth, to illustrate the sort of greed that really IS the root of all evil: the lust for power. I wonder if she knew that Stalin, too, fit that pattern. "You know who we're talking about: the meanest, most dangerous criminal that lived on the face of the Earth. The one who built a kingdom around himself and possessed almost unlimited power. "In his private life, however, he rarely used this power to get himself nicer things. His lifestyle was more of a soldier, of a man possessed... Except for a very few 'special' things, which he cherished almost to the point of a fetish." Such ascetic power-lusters make the hedonistic power-lusters seem downright healthy! (Jim also said that the site has "a ton of interesting stuff.") E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, December 19, 2006 Review of Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics By Diana Hsieh @ 6:05 AM The Notre Dame Philosophical Review has a review of Tara Smith's new book, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist. (I can't say anything about it at present: since I'm working on my own review, I don't want to read it yet. Still, that's no reason for you not to read it!) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, December 18, 2006 Dear Virginia in the 19th Century By Greg @ 7:18 AM In 1897, Virginia O'Hanlon wrote to the editor of The New York Sun: I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, "If you see it in the Sun, it's so." Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus? Frank P. Church wrote The Sun's famous, oft-reprinted answer: Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be that is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole truth and knowledge. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We would have no enjoyment, except in the sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished. Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world. You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside the curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood. Church's popular answer represents and advocates an utterly mystical worldview -- one where man is low, little, helpless -- one where the universe of science is barren, while what is really real and truly valuable is hidden behind the veil of the supernatural, accessible only by faith and feelings. It is a sustained attack on reality and reason, including the genuine spiritual values important to human life. Understandably, those lacking a mystical bent (like me!) do not smile on this answer to Virginia. Several years back, after seeing Church's response printed yet again, I thought about my young nieces and nephews and I wondered what better answer to Virginia I might send their way if the issue ever arose. Looking around the web, nothing I found fit the bill. Everything was either not focusing on the positive orientation to reason and reality that would be healthy, or was downright mean-spirited, and sometimes even destructive (as with those that urge Virginia to nurture thoughts of Santa as a vicious myth and sue her lying parents for deep psychic wounds caused by such child abuse). So I decided to try my hand at an answer: same length, similar style and language, equivalent unapologetic advocacy of a worldview (but a healthy one this time) -- ostensibly directed to a child in that age, but really designed to spark adult understanding in any age. How would you answer Virginia? (I'll share what I wrote next time.) E-mail Greg    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, December 17, 2006 The 25 Funniest Analogies Collected by High School English Teachers By Paul @ 2:56 PM Who says writing skills are on the decline, when students can come up with these? E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, December 16, 2006 The Rise of Totalitarian Islam By Diana Hsieh @ 8:44 PM Dr. Yaron Brook's course The Rise of Totalitarian Islam is now available for sale from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. Some of you might remember that I blogged about the course earlier: first here and then here. The course was excellent; I highly recommend it, particularly as a follow-up to Dr. Brook's also-excellent course A Brief History of the Middle East. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, December 15, 2006 In Praise of Chain Stores By Paul @ 7:23 AM Virginia Postrel has written a nice essay on the virtues of chain stores. E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, December 14, 2006 Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism By Diana Hsieh @ 3:17 PM The NY Sun recently published a nice article on Brad Thompson's founding of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism. The quotes by various high-profile philosophers on the morality of capitalism were ... um ... interesting. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, December 13, 2006 Happy Birthday to Me! By Diana Hsieh @ 6:59 AM I'm 32 years old today! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Ten Verses You Won't Hear from Your Preacher By Diana Hsieh @ 6:50 AM Oh, Biblical Fun: ten very odd Bible verses. The comments have even more. As I know well from my recent reading, the Bible is chock full of strange and wonderous verses. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, December 11, 2006 Open Letter to Republicans By Diana Hsieh @ 7:15 AM John Lewis has kindly allowed me to reproduce his excellent Open Letter to Republicans posted on Principles in Practice. I strongly recommend reading the whole thing -- and sending it to your state and federal representatives, whether Republican or Democrat. Open Letter to Republicans by Dr. John Lewis There are two things that all Republicans know today: that you lost the mid-term election, and that the loss was a repudiation of President Bush's policies. What you must now figure out is why. Why did Americans vote as they did? What specific policies did they reject? The answer you accept will determine whether you discover a road to victory for your country and your party, or whether you stumble further into defeat. You have heard--and will continue to hear--many explanations for the election results. You have been told, for instance, that Democratic obstruction stymied the president, and leftist defeatism undermined support for the war. These answers will not cut it. Republicans held a political majority in Washington for six years, and the President was given all the resources and authority he asked for--including a solid re-election two years ago. You have been told that Democrats wanted to spend like crazy on domestic programs, and that they turned on Bush because he sought to allow Americans greater choice in how they spend their money. But the president has increased spending to a degree not seen since LBJ and FDR, and has not vetoed a single spending bill. It has been said that the election was about values--meaning, religious values--and that you lost because you were not "Conservative" enough. But what does this mean? That you did not lobby strongly enough for government intervention in family affairs, education, and science? Religious conservatives--such as Senator Santorum--were also soundly defeated. The American people expressed no desire for more religious values in government. It remains telling that the American people were solidly on the president's side when he promised a reduction in government coercion at home, and a victory in the war overseas (over 80% supported the invasion of Iraq)--and that they withdrew their support only after he failed to follow through on his promises. I'll offer a different reason for your defeat. You lost because you ceased being Republicans, and became new, "Neo-," Conservatives. You were too Conservative, and not Republican enough. To earn my vote, it is Conservatism that you must reject, in favor of freedom, rights, and reason. You must once again become Republicans--the party of the American Constitutional Republic. What Republicans once stood for, despite many compromises and errors, was preserving and extending American freedom. But where in recent history have you upheld this value? Have you, for instance, defended America's freedom against foreign enemies? The "Forward Strategy of Freedom" uses our soldiers to dig toilets for foreigners, claims success when a hostile government is elected, and promises years of American casualties. The result has been permanent airport checkpoints at home and armed guards on our borders. Whatever happened to the idea of driving to victory over avowed enemies? Have you preserved freedom at home? Did you demand spending reductions along with your excellent tax cuts, or rather settle for deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars? Who doubled the size of the Department of Education, which some of us once hoped that Reagan would eliminate, and which is now pursuing a de facto federal takeover of the schools? Who enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley persecutions of businessmen? Who projected government power vigorously into bedrooms and marriage contracts? Who showered government money onto churches as replacements for the local welfare office? Fiscally, you have accepted without question a God-given imperative to distribute other people's money by force--not as a compromise with the Democrats, but with a commitment to outdo them. Every time you have set out to eliminate or reduce a government program, you have ended up energetically saving it. Social Security, for instance, once facing elimination, has been saved--by Republicans. You have surpassed the Democrats in spending other people's money. In no case have you been Republicans--meaning, defenders of the American Republic. You have been Conservatives--conservators of your vision of America, in the form of the liberal welfare state. The first cause of this problem is the moral premise that you share with the leftists: altruism. You have accepted that moral goodness means sacrificing for the (alleged) good of others, and you have worked to shape America in this image. This ideal has defined President Bush's policies overseas, which purport to wage war by bringing benefits to enemy nations. It has defined a domestic policy that sees moral goodness in expanding programs of redistribution. Whereas the Democrats do this in the name of socialism (a discredited doctrine that has wreaked havoc wherever it has been tried), Conservatives do it in the name of "compassion." Democrats base their vision on class warfare and revolution; Conservatives base it on charity. But the practical results are the same: Socialism, now anchored not in Marx, but in civic religion. Is this what you want for your party? If so, then stay the course, and continue your competition with the Democrats. But if you wake up one day and find that no area of life is beyond the reach of government power, and that we are all wards of the state, then you may rejoice. You will have reached the Promised Land. This is what you wanted. If, however, you want to restore and protect freedom in the Land of the Free, then you must see the error of your ways. The proper state of man is not that of a beggar, demanding handouts by coercion and moral blackmail. The proper state of man is that of a thinking being--a being free to act on his own judgment for his own sake--free to produce and to trade for what he needs--free to achieve his full intellectual and physical potential--free, that is, from coercion by others. This idea of freedom is based on a moral conception of man that is radically different from man the dependent. By this vision--the vision of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--each person is an autonomous moral agent, free to act as his nature requires, for his own benefit, without sacrificing self to others or others to self--free to deal with others voluntarily, by offering values, not by imposing "duties." But where, in our culture today, is this moral conception to be found? Leftists claim that moral principles--the broad generalizations that define the basic terms of right and wrong for every area of our lives--are not derived from facts. No "is" can lead to an "ought," they claim; moral principles are invented, culturally relative, subject to change, mere conventions that shift with the winds of the day. This premise led to the 1960s, freedom of speech as sit-ins on private property, and freedom from political authority as smashing "the system." The basis of this anarchy is subjectivism--the idea that we create reality in our minds, rather than grasp it through our senses and our reason. There are no absolutes, in this view; there is only man the follower of whims. Vox populi, vox dei. You were appalled at this, and rightfully so. But what was your answer? There are standards, you said, but they are not derived from facts. With this basic premise you agreed with the leftists: There is no "ought" to be derived from this world. Where then shall we find moral principles? In another world, you said. Moral principles are supernatural and beyond reason, but they are imbedded in society and tradition, and knowable by faith. The result is an undefinable feeling that tells you to give to the poor, to render unto Caesar, to turn the other cheek, and to lose your fortune--or to tax mine--if it benefits others. Vox dei, vox populi. The root of the moral views shared by leftists and Conservatives remains the conviction that the mind is incapable of grasping moral principles--and that we must rely on the authority of feelings, whether from the immediate consensus (vox populi) or from claims to divine sanction (vox dei). The clash between the leftists and the Conservatives is a clash of feelings. Neither side appeals to the mind; each wishes to impose its views by force. This elevation of Feelings over Reason is precisely what you must reject. You must learn that your emotions are not tools of cognition. Your feelings will not tell you how to run a business, how to protect freedom, how to win a war, or how to distinguish good from evil. If you, as Republicans, want to regain control of your party and end its malignant alliance with the looting left, then you must stop being looters yourselves, both in mind and in matter. Intellectually, you must grasp that rights and freedom can be discovered only through rational thought--individual thought--and that only the rational mind makes rights and freedom necessary. Materially, you must end your love affair with socialist redistribution, and become protectors of property rights--the practical expression of individual thought and freedom. Each man's rights are inalienable from his being. This is a fact of nature--not of "supernature." Since each man must act on his own judgment in order to live as a man, he must be free to do so. This is his basic right: The right to act on his best judgment--that is: the right to do what is right. It is right to identify the facts and think--and to act as reason dictates--because we can live only by using our minds. It is right to keep what we produce--and to trade in a free market--not because this embodies some mystical "invisible hand," but because our lives depend on it. It is right to interact with others by rational persuasion and values--because the alternative is the club. And it is right to use physical force to restrain--and, if necessary, to destroy--those who attack us. If you Republicans want to become true rightists--and a real alternative to the left--you must accept a morality of reason and become its advocates across the board: in classrooms, in newspapers, in board rooms, and in town squares. You must recognize that there is no dichotomy between what man is and what he ought to do, and no chasm between moral rights and practical consequences. The only true alternative to the left is a view of man as a rational being who owns himself and is the proper beneficiary of his own productive effort. Grasping this makes it easy to evaluate the numerous issues swamping political discourse today. Domestic programs? Redistribution means taking from one person by force because another (allegedly) needs it. The principle is not changed if extended to millions--only the scope of the destruction is broadened. What of Social Security, Medicare, and government funding of medical research, agriculture, and education? There is no basis in reason for making an employee, a CEO, a doctor, a researcher, a farmer, or a teacher, into a slave to others because he produces--nor to demand the enslavement of others to fund him. Republicans can seize the moral high road by opposing such redistribution forthrightly, as a matter of principle. The purpose of the government is to prevent criminals from preying on us. We need a domestic policy that does this and this alone--rather than turning police into social workers, and courts into moral censors and persecutors of businessmen. Republicans need to become voices for objective, rights-based, reason-based law, as a matter of principle. What of foreign policy? Support for the war in Iraq has collapsed because there are no goals being pursued except the sacrifice of our youth for strangers, and no accomplishments except a demonstration of America's weakness. Republicans need to become advocates of a foreign policy of self-interest, by which we fight to defend the freedom of Americans, and only the freedom of Americans, with the goal of a fast and decisive victory when we do fight, as a matter of principle. To preserve and extend the freedom of Americans was once the mission of the Republicans. But this mission was never properly understood. This is what you must discover. Your choice is: Conservatism (i.e., faith, self-sacrifice, and religion-inspired socialism) and its consequences of enslavement, self-loathing, and further defeat--or proper Republicanism (i.e., reason, self-interest, and individual rights) with its consequences of freedom, self-respect, and victory. I hope you Republicans--and all Americans--make the right choice: the rational choice. Dr. John Lewis is Assistant Professor of History at Ashland University. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, December 10, 2006 Accent Quiz By Diana Hsieh @ 8:22 AM Apparently, I have no accent: What American accent do you have? Your Result: The Midland "You have a Midland accent" is just another way of saying "you don't have an accent." You probably are from the Midland (Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and Missouri) but then for all we know you could be from Florida or Charleston or one of those big southern cities like Atlanta or Dallas. You have a good voice for TV and radio. Philadelphia The Inland North The South The Northeast The West Boston North Central What American accent do you have? Take More Quizzes In part, that might be due to all the moving around I've done. Here's where I've lived: 1974-1980: New Jersey 1980-1993: Maryland 1993-1997: St. Louis 1997-2001: Southern California 2001-????: Denver Actually, it's more than that: I generally dislike American accents. Strong accents can be incomprehensible, particularly when combined with mumbling. Even if comprehensible, they often make a person sound provincial. Perhaps that's why I find many accents charming outside their normal milieu, particularly from a younger person. It's a sign that they're getting out in the world. Then again, I find some adult accents charming too, if they're an integral part of an overall persona. That's pretty rare for me though. Of course, foreign accents are another matter entirely. (Oy, now I'm just rambling... Stopping now.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, December 09, 2006 Reverse Rejection Letter By Diana Hsieh @ 8:11 AM Too funny: Herbert A. Millington Chair - Search Committee 412A Clarkson Hall, Whitson University College Hill, MA 34109 Dear Professor Millington, Thank you for your letter of March 16. After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to offer me an assistant professor position in your department. This year I have been particularly fortunate in receiving an unusually large number of rejection letters. With such a varied and promising field of candidates, it is impossible for me to accept all refusals. Despite Whitson's outstanding qualifications and previous experience in rejecting applicants, I find that your rejection does not meet my needs at this time. Therefore, I will assume the position of assistant professor in your department this August. I look forward to seeing you then. Best of luck in rejecting future applicants. Sincerely, Chris L. Jensen Oh, and here's another damn funny rejection letter from a soon-to-be-divorced man. (Warning: It's quite raunchy.) Labels: Funny E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, December 08, 2006 Cell Phone Taps By Diana Hsieh @ 7:42 AM Wow, I never would have imagined that remote wiretapping using the microphones of turned-off cellphones was even possible. It's rather scary, actually. I have no objection to such wiretaps if approved and monitored by the courts. However, I fear the abuse of this technique by government officials unwilling or unable to obtain warrants, as it gives them the power to invade any seemingly private conversation. I also worry about the use of this technique by private individuals for unsavory ends like blackmail and corporate espionage. Here's the news story: The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations. The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him. Nextel cell phones owned by two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations. The FBI views Ardito as one of the most powerful men in the Genovese family, a major part of the national Mafia. The surveillance technique came to light in an opinion published this week by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan. He ruled that the "roving bug" was legal because federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect's cell phone. Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set. While the Genovese crime family prosecution appears to be the first time a remote-eavesdropping mechanism has been used in a criminal case, the technique has been discussed in security circles for years. The U.S. Commerce Department's security office warns that "a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone." An article in the Financial Times last year said mobile providers can "remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call." E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, December 05, 2006 Proselytizing for Atheism By Diana Hsieh @ 10:22 PM Damn Funny Video: Australian filmmaker John Safran is so fed up with [M]ormons ringing his doorbell early in the morning that he flies to Salt Lake City Utah and tries to convert Mormons to atheism. Needless to say, the locals were not pleased." (Via Dave Solsberg.) Labels: Funny E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, December