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

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Spam Assassin By Diana Hsieh @ 11:28 AM Thanks to my change of servers, I'm now able to run SpamAssassin on my DianaHsieh.com mail. After a bit of testing, I decided to allow it to delete the spam from the server, rather than just marking it as such. The results are fantastic. Instead of well over over 200 spam e-mails per day, I got just over 200 over the course of seven days. (Much of that was from my Colorado.edu address, actually.) The vast majority of the remaining spam is caught by my collaborative filtering "Cloudmark" spam filter for Outlook. That makes dealing with my mail, particularly downloading it on a slow connection or in a hurry and viewing it on the web, just so much easier. Hooray! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Jewish Taliban By Diana Hsieh @ 7:15 AM I don't know much about the politics of the various sects of Judaism in Israel, but this NPR story about the demands of the ultra-Orthodox was eye-opening. (I'm not going to recount the story; it's too detailed. I highly recommend reading the article. It's short and interesting.) The description "Taliban-like" does indeed fit these zealots, not just because their demands are borne of insane religiosity that they wish to impose on everyone else by force, but because the particular demands (e.g. for "modesty" and segregation of women) are so similar to those instituted by radical Muslims. According to the article, these ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel are becoming more radicalized -- and more insistent in their demands on everyone else. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ever-more people are taking the irrational demands of their religion ever-more seriously -- and threatening the rest of us with earthly punishments if we fail to submit. Given the way of Islam and Christianity, I'm not surprised to see this trend in Judaism. Still, it's downright frightening. (Via iFeminists.net weekly newsletter.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, February 27, 2007 Dhimmi at GMU By Diana Hsieh @ 4:45 PM I just got this announcement from The Objective Standard: Subject: GMU Goes Dhimmi: John Lewis Talk Cancelled George Mason University has abandoned its commitment to freedom of expression on campus. At the last minute, GMU has caved-in to pressure from Muslim groups and has cancelled Dr. Lewis's talk, which was scheduled for tomorrow night, Wed, Feb 28, 2007. This is all we know right now. We will post details as soon as we have them. Please spread the word. The scheduled talk was "'No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism, as blogged here. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, February 26, 2007 LaLoonies By Diana Hsieh @ 10:33 AM Over the past few months, ARI speakers have occasionally endured some crazed heckling from conspiracy-mongering LaRouchites. (The LaRouchites seem to be completely deranged and insensitive to reality, not to mention thoroughly uncivilized.) Since I hadn't heard about LaRouche for some years, I was curious. I poked around Wikipedia for information about Lyndon LaRouche and his LaRouche Youth Movement. The most interesting source I found was this lengthy article from the Washington Post. If you might run into one of these loonies, it's worth reading in full. Personally, I hope to never see one again. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, February 25, 2007 Pas Deja Vu By Diana Hsieh @ 10:30 AM I experienced the feeling of "pas deja vu" this morning when I put the laundry detergent in my second load of laundry this morning. My thought was something like, "Hmmm... this doesn't seem familiar. Oh shit." If my (lack of) recollection is right, then I didn't put any detergent in the first load. It was a funny way to realize something. I'm too lazy to wash the load again, plus I remembered that the difference between washing a load of laundry with and without detergent is negligible, at least in the short term, according to Straight Dope. (They suspect that's due to residual soap.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Battle over Sex By Diana Hsieh @ 7:10 AM If you're interested in keeping up with news about the battle over sex, marriage, and abortion between religionists and secularists in America today, I'd recommend subscribing to the weekly newsletter of Ifeminists.net. (After registering at the site, you need to subscribe yourself to the newsletter with the "subscribe" button at the bottom of the left-hand column.) The newsletter consists of a listing of noteworthy news stories and opinion essays on sexual issues, each well-summarized in a paragraph. For example: Tenn. proposes death certificate for aborted fetuses http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/enews/enews.php?item.5764 Rep. Stacey Campfield, a Republican, said his bill would provide a way to track how many abortions are performed. He predicted it would pass in the Republican-controlled Senate but would have a hard time making it through the Democratic House. The number of abortions reported to the state Office of Vital Records is already publicly available. The office collects records _ but not death certificates _ on abortions and the deaths of fetuses after 22 weeks gestation or weighing about 1 pound. (02/14/07) Lovely, no? (The links from the newsletter all go through the ifeminist site, perhaps as a way of circumventing censorship.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, February 24, 2007 Critique of Objectivism By Diana Hsieh @ 9:06 AM Someone recently e-mailed me to ask me about this critique of the Objectivist ethics by University of Michigan philosophy graduate student John Stephen Ku. I've not looked at it in any detail, but I vaguely recall that someone wrote up some substantial comments in reply. Am I right? If so, are they still available? If so, where? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis LePort Schools in Search of Teachers By Diana Hsieh @ 8:31 AM While I have no personal familiarity with LePort Schools, I've heard good things. They are looking for teachers: LePort Schools is seeking full- and part-time teachers for a variety of subjects in our upper elementary and junior high division (Grades 4 – 8) to join our staff in September, 2007. A thriving private school with 200 students, LePort Schools operates three campuses in beautiful Southern California. Our website is www.LePortSchools.com. LePort Schools is a warm learning environment that attracts bright, well-mannered students and informed parents. The right candidate can anticipate training and on-going mentoring; a well-prepared, stimulating curriculum; and small class sizes. LePort Schools offers health and dental coverage, generous vacation time, and competitive salaries. Ideal candidates will possess: An interest in mastering a rigorous academic curriculum A desire to convey knowledge to young minds Strong communication and interpersonal skills An enthusiastic and productive work ethic Teaching certification is not required, but preference will be given to candidates who have experience working with children. Familiarity with Objectivism is also preferred, but not required. While all applicants are thanked for their interest, only those chosen for interviews will be contacted. No phone calls, please. Resumes and cover letters should be emailed to: Lindsay Journo Executive Director, LePort Schools' Upper Elementary and Junior High E-mail: LJourno@LePortSchools.com E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, February 23, 2007 Colbert the Objectivist? By Greg @ 11:06 AM John Stewart and Stephen Colbert have back-to-back shows on Comedy Central, and they can be really funny even though they are pretty hard Left. At the end of Stewart's show, he checks in with Colbert for a few seconds to keep the viewers from drifting away between the two. These exchanges are most often random silliness, and one such bit a few nights ago surprised me by being entirely focused on Rand and Objectivism: we come across Colbert in a situation that shows him in agreement with and even teaching others about Rand (but a horrible mischaracterization of her). My best guess on motivation is that Colbert -- himself a parody of arch-right-wing hosts like O'Reilly -- is portrayed as a screwy Rand fan because many on the Left regard her as some sort of hard-core Conservative. Apparently the little detail that Objectivists and Conservatives are not exactly chummy, and that they strenuously disagree with the association by pointing to fundamental philosophical differences, has still not registered in the world of such writers. Labels: Funny E-mail Greg    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, February 22, 2007 Spartacus By Diana Hsieh @ 9:31 PM I am presently watching Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus. It is painfully, unbearable slow. I've lost track of the number of scenes in which ten seconds is spent watching people walk into a room from a still camera. And oh, the montages! The slave army hard at work. The slave army in inclement weather. The slave army training for battle. The slave army marching through the mountains. The slave army marching through a field. The slave army enjoying wholesome fun. Apparently, living the brutal and degraded existence of a gladiator-in-training is good for the soul. Although they go a bit wild in their initial revolt, after about two minutes of exhortation by Spartacus, all the gladiators become paragons of respectable virtue. The same is true of the other freed slaves. As a result, camp life is perfectly harmonious and productive. Apart from a few good but anachronistic lines about slavery and freedom, the characters are utterly dull. Kirk Douglas, the supposed hero, is particularly awful. His acting is wooden, he's far too old for the role, and his face is painfully ugly. I think I have about another hour to watch. Ah well, at least my suffering will be over soon. At this point, I might just have to cheer for the scheming, decadent Romans. At least they're interesting. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Clemson Summer Conference By Diana Hsieh @ 9:55 AM This summer conference at Clemson promises to be an excellent opportunity for undergraduates to learn about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the moral foundations of capitalism from some of its most knowledgeable and engaging experts. (And, it's free!) So please forward this message to any undergraduates you think might be interested in applying. 2007 Summer Conference: Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism What is the moral basis for the free market? How do individual rights function in a capitalist society? What does the history of capitalism teach us about its moral basis? How is Ayn Rand's view of capitalism unique? The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism is pleased to announce its first summer conference for college students. We invite you to join us for an exciting program of lectures, seminars, and discussions from June 1-5, 2007. Students will participate in an intensive and exciting program exploring the moral foundations of capitalism and Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Students will attend lectures, participate in small-group seminar-style discussions, and question and answer sessions. Outside of class, students can relax and socialize on Clemson's campus. Evening activities will include an Atlas Shrugged casting party, a barbecue dinner, and a career advice discussion. The Clemson Institute will be accepting twenty undergraduate students to participate in the summer program on full scholarships. All housing and meals will be provided on the campus of Clemson University. Attending students are eligible for up to $450 for travel. Reading materials will be provided. Direct any questions about the conference or our programs to edan@clemson.edu. To apply to the Clemson Institute's Summer Conference, simply download and fill out the application form and return it by March 5, 2007 to edan@clemson.edu or via postal mail to: Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism Summer Conference 165 Sirrine Hall - Box 341310 Clemson, SC 29634-1310 The Clemson Institute has assembled a faculty of leading scholars and teachers who study the moral foundations of capitalism, specializing in fields ranging from history and literature to philosophy, political science, and economics. Our faculty join students for meals and interact with them outside of class for informal discussions and questions. The faculty will be: Andrew Bernstein, Ph.D., Visiting Professor, Marist College Yaron Brook, Ph.D., Executive Director, The Ayn Rand Institute Eric Daniels, Ph.D., Visiting Scholar, Clemson University Onkar Ghate, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, The Ayn Rand Institute C. Bradley Thompson, Ph.D., Executive Director, Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism, Clemson University When I first heard about this conference, my immediate thought was "Wow, I wish I could sit in on that, as I'd really love to see those guys teach Atlas." Then, much to my surprise and delight, I was asked to serve as the graduate assistant for the conference. (Of course, I accepted eagerly!) Given the faculty, I expect the conference to be an excellent opportunity for students to expand and deepen their understanding of the moral foundations of capitalism. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, February 21, 2007 The Progress of Medicine By Diana Hsieh @ 7:45 AM This brief essay from the New York Times on a young girl who had open heart surgery in its infancy in the mid 1960s shows just how much medicine has progressed in the last 50 years. It's quite remarkable, actually. Labels: Health Care E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, February 20, 2007 March 13th Debate in Boulder: "Justice in War" By Diana Hsieh @ 11:44 PM I am sooooooo looking forward to this debate: America is often harshly criticized at home and abroad for its conduct in war, not just by "doves" hoping to restrain American military might but also by "hawks" seeking more vigorous military action. So what does morality require of America in war? Is a vigorous defense of American interests abroad compatible with justice? What are the military's obligations toward the civilians of an enemy nation? What is the moral response to today's pressing problem of global terrorism? On Tuesday, March 13th, Dr. Yaron Brook (Ayn Rand Institute) and Dr. Martin Cook (US Air Force Academy) will debate these questions at the University of Colorado at Boulder. What: Debate on "Justice in War" with Dr. Martin Cook and Dr. Yaron Brook When: Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 8:00 to 9:30 p.m. Where: Wittemeyer Courtroom, Wolf Law Building, University of Colorado at Boulder *** About the Debate *** Dr. Martin Cook: For centuries the "just war tradition" has provided a moral framework for assessing the justification for the use of military force and also the methods for its application. The "sole remaining superpower" status of the United States, coupled with the exigencies of the "war on terror" (or "the long war") raise questions about the continued applicability of that tradition. Dr. Cook will examine this question and note areas where existing just war standards (especially as codified in International Law) are challenged by this new strategic environment. Dr. Yaron Brook: America's failed "War on Terrorism" is the result, not of any practical inability to defeat the Islamic Totalitarian movement and its state sponsors, but its leaders' moral unwillingness to wage all-out war in self-defense. American leaders accept the altruistic code of "Just War Theory," which demands that a nation follow self-sacrificial restrictions for the sake of its enemies and their supporters. Dr. Brook will advocate an alternative theory of war based on Ayn Rand's ethics of rational egoism, arguing that a government is right to go to war whenever the rights of its citizens are threatened by a foreign aggressor and to do anything necessary to defeat the enemy and return to normal life. This debate is free and intended for the public. Members of the media are encouraged to attend. For further information on the series or to arrange interviews of the speakers, contact Dr. Robert Pasnau at (303) 492-4837 or Robert.Pasnau@colorado.edu. *** About the Debaters *** Dr. Martin L. Cook is Professor of Philosophy and Deputy Department Head at the United States Air Force Academy. He has lectured widely in the United States to military and civilian audiences, as well as delivered invited lectures to the military educational institutions of the United Kingdom, Ecuador, Norway, Singapore, and Australia. His most recent book is The Moral Warrior: Ethics and Service in the US Military. Dr. Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. A former finance professor, he has published in academic as well as popular publications. In addition to his frequent interviews by the media, he lectures on Objectivism, business ethics, and foreign policy at college campuses and for corporations across America and throughout the world. He is the co-author of "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense" published in The Objective Standard, Spring 2006. *** About Think! *** This debate is sponsored by "Think!" -- a public lectures series of the Center for Values and Social Policy in the Philosophy Department of the University of Colorado at Boulder. For more information about "Think!" please visit: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/center/think.shtml All "Think!" events are funded through the generosity of The Collins Foundation. Please forward that announcement to anyone you think might be interested in attending, particularly active or former members of the military. It should be excellent! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis John Lewis at GMU By Diana Hsieh @ 1:18 PM As a general note, I'm usually happy to post announcements of talks by Objectivist intellectuals, particularly for speakers I particularly like. The problem is sparing the time to format the announcement. (It's really boring work.) So if you'd like an announcement posted on NoodleFood, please send me a nicely formatted announcement for your event -- like in the "press release" format below -- with all the relevant information. If you do that, I'm pretty likely to post it. Otherwise, whether I post it or not depends on luck. "No Substitute for Victory": The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism Who: Dr. John Lewis, historian at Ashland University What: A talk on how we can and why we must defeat Totalitarian Islam--first and foremost by destroying the current regime in Iran When: Wednesday, February 28, 7:30 PM–9:30 PM Where: George Mason University, Fairfax Campus, Johnson Center, 3rd Floor, Meeting Room C The public and media are invited. Admission is FREE. Summary: In the wake of 9/11, and in the face of rising threats to their freedoms and rights, Americans are uncertain about what a proper foreign policy should be. The uncertainty arises from the philosophical influences of pragmatism and altruism, which have misguided Americans and their leaders for decades. Mentally crippled by this uncertainty, America has failed to address the cause of the threats against her and, in so doing, has bolstered it. This talk consults the historical precedent of American policy towards Shintoism in post-1945 Japan to show that a proper policy today would first identify Islamic Totalitarianism as the cause of the threat facing the West, and then direct American resources toward eliminating the political imposition of Islamic Law. If Americans want to end the threats against their lives and liberty, they must first identify the advocates of political Islam (those who seek to impose Islamic Law by force) as the true enemy, and then destroy that enemy--beginning with the Islamic State of Iran. This is the only way to reestablish American security. For more information on this talk, please email info@theobjectivestandard.com. To read the article on which the talk is based, click here. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, February 19, 2007 Boaz Simovici on Robert Tracinski By Diana Hsieh @ 4:46 PM A few weeks ago, I told Boaz Simovici that I'd be interested in publishing an essay from him on Robert Tracinski's recent "What Went Right" series, if he were interested in writing something formal. (I was impressed by the perceptiveness of his comments in the sordid debates on SoloPassion.) He was able to write the following two-part essay before other matters demanded his attention. (I mention that only because the essay ends without a proper conclusion.) I did carefully re-read Tracinski's essay in preparation for posting this response. I noticed many of the same problems that Boaz explains below, problems that I didn't see so clearly initially. So that makes me particularly grateful for Boaz's contribution. So without further ado... In what follows, I'm presuming that the reader is well acquainted with Robert Tracinski's (still unfinished) essay, "What Went Right," enough to judge whether I interpret him fairly. Rational Egoism by Osmosis? By his own account, Robert Tracinski's working theory of history is consistent with the Objectivist view of the role of philosophical ideas in social change. But the core of his argument tells a different story -- and his story of the role of philosophy in the destiny of a culture is unconvincing. Tracinski argues that western institutions are the mechanism of philosophical change in today's world. The experience of scientific education, capitalism and liberal democracy leads to a wider acceptance of enlightenment ideals: reason, individualism, the pursuit of happiness. Men are "inducted" into a rational worldview -- they form new and better ethical concepts implicitly -- by experiencing the rewards of certain virtues (honesty, thrift, initiative). This mechanism constitutes nothing less than a "virtuous cycle," at the end of which a philosophy of reason takes over the culture. Western institutions --> implicit philosophy --> Moral revolution: ...But observation of today's world indicates that these institutions [scientific and technological education, global capitalism, representative government] are self-reinforcing and self-propagating. And I think the evidence suggests something more: that these institutions are not just a product of the influence of Enlightenment ideas across the world; they are the leading edge and specific mechanism of that influence... ...Both an individual and a culture have to learn a rational method and world view, not just from instruction in explicit philosophical tenets, but first from learning the specific methods and world view of the sciences and seeing the validity and power of that method in all of the myriad concretes it can explain to them and in all of the concrete problems it allows them to solve. If people who have been trained in a scientific education then encounter the basic tenets of a pro-reason philosophy, they will regard them as practically self-evident [italics mine]... because the broad philosophic truths are implicit in so many of the truths that the individual has grasped in his studies of mathematics, geometry, physics, engineering, medicine, and so on... ...Wherever it goes, and to the extent that it is adopted, global capitalism is not merely a practical or material force; it is a moral force. Capitalism does not have a moral impact by preaching any particular virtues; it is mute. It simply re-arranges the incentives that men face, lowering the resistance and massively increasing the reward for certain kinds of behavior... If the main effect of scientific and technological education is to induct men into a rational method of thinking, the main effect of global capitalism is to induct them into rational egoism [italics mine]. And in both cases, I mean the word "induct" in an epistemological sense: capitalism encourages individualism inductively, by giving men the experience of being independent agents seeking self-interest through rational, productive effort. ["The Metaphysics of Normal Life"] Much of this argument has the ring of truth. It's true, for instance, that existential and political conditions play an important role in the spread of ideas. This is hardly an original point -- within or outside of Objectivism. Leonard Peikoff made a similar argument about how values can spread indirectly, once explicit philosophy has set the stage for a given political system: ...Philosophy works in two ways to produce such a psychology [of dependence or independence]: indirectly, by shaping a nation's institutions, and directly, through the explicit statements of its intellectuals...Philosophy shapes a nation's political system. Then the political system encourages and appeals to a certain kind of psychology. For instance, under a statist system...the average man has less and less control over his life. He becomes increasingly dependent on the government and/or on a pressure-group simply to get by. At the same time, since statism doesn't work, he is confronted by one crisis after another -- inflation, depression, riots, war, etc. The average man soon comes to feel that he is out of control, that he cannot trust his judgment, that he cannot make sense of events, that he is helpless on his own...these consequences arise quite apart from any abstract message he is given explicitly...A rational philosophy works the same way, but in a positive direction. Such a philosophy leads to the establishment of a free country...the system demands and rewards independence. Men's daily existence is not dotted with inexplicable crises; the general standard of living and of well-being is constantly rising... ["Philosophy and Psychology," The Objectivist Forum (October 1985)] What is also true -- and, again, this is old and undisputed ground -- is that fundamental philosophical ideas penetrate the culture indirectly, inadvertently, by shaping how people are taught to think and giving rise to a characteristic pattern of life. So it's true that Aristotle's influence in India (and Lebanon and Iran and Iraq) comes in the form of scientific education and the benefits of an industrial economy, however tenuous (and quite possibly short-lived) such benefits have been. This does indeed constitute the spread of good implicit philosophy, and that's precisely the problem. Good ideas, so long as they remain unidentified and unintegrated -- so long as they remain deathly silent -- can only go so far. For if Tracinski were right, and the right existential conditions (politics) and the right combination of pajama epistemologists (people doing good work in specialized fields) could enact rational egoism on the scale of a whole culture (!!) -- if a thriving civilization could result from these factors alone -- then we should have expected our leaders to incinerate our enemies in the Muslim world long ago. For "What Went Right" to be right, we should expect Pakistanis in London and Moroccans in Amsterdam to wage war against Jihad -- not cheer it on, or (at best) acquiesce in their own slaughter. If Tracinski were right that an implicit rational method, embodied in scientific education, could render self-evident a rational, this-worldly philosophy, then our legions of engineers, doctors and scientists would long ago have thrown off the shackles of religion. Sure, most of them don't pray or believe in miracles, but they won't challenge those who do. They admit of the "possibility" that Jesus rose from the grave; that "meaning" transcends truth; that virtue is about giving things up; that killing our enemies is evil. What in the American experience, in the "induction" into freedom and (semi-)capitalism of our own citizens, is prompting our current healthcare policies? Has any of the inculcation of good values wrought by previous policy -- say, the 80's boom -- taught America anything important about what happens to any industry under "managed care"? Not in the least. Sure, people balk (and politicians bristle) at the phrase "socialized medicine," but the urge and political will to subsidize and regulate the field remains, accelerating with each attendant crisis. The economic arguments have been there for two hundred years; the "inductive" base of a capitalist civilization, decades of immersion in the glories unleashed by the unfettered mind...all for what? Mirabile Dictu! Socialized Medicine! Theory and Practice The salient, tragic truth about our culture is that we are heirs to warring traditions, theories about the meaning and purpose of life -- about where our loyalties should lie and our moral boundaries begin and end -- and these theories collide everyday. The result is an unstable mix, a civilization in profound tension with itself. So it is exasperating to watch Tracinski wax eloquently about the myriad strides forward in many fields, as if no Objectivist before him had recognized such developments, as if any Objectivist of note has even intimated that the work of philosophers is the fount of all knowledge or that Objectivism was an indispensable blueprint for innovation in the sciences. Is there any doubt that the veritable phalanx of new technologies (and massive profits) we've seen in the last decades represents progress? Don't Microsoft, Intel, Cisco and the Biotech industry move our civilization forward? Of course they do. Great minds and great new ideas can have an impact in almost any culture. The question is how -- and how deeply -- such strides would indicate meaningful cultural change, a change in philosophical outlook that can alter the course of a nation. And on this point I agree entirely with Noumenal Self's analysis: "Insofar as special sciences make concrete discoveries that can improve human life, civilization will move forward in concrete ways." (italics mine) For it is precisely in the realm of all these discoveries and economic achievement that we see the nature of the clash between good implicit ideas and destructive explicit philosophy. Great businessmen can achieve much despite their casual adherence to bad moral precepts -- they operate on a good implicit philosophy -- and their accomplishments inspire thousands of new entrepreneurs in pursuit of their own happiness. But if these same men bow to affirmative action shakedown-artists on Monday and Tuesday, intone (on television and in their mission statements) on their fundamental duty to consumers on Friday and Saturday, endow environmental causes with millions on Wednesday, and applaud the president when he spits in their faces in public, they do nothing to halt the steady and stealthy pace of socialism. The implicit philosophy serving them well in one field -- where it doesn't overtly conflict with the bible -- is impotent when it comes to changing the deeper fundamentals of their culture. What applies for a philosophically mixed individual applies equally for a good country beset with philosophical poison. The story of Israel's war with Hezbollah in July of 2006 will reign forever in history as a spectacle of self-inflicted torture and humiliation. On one side, a largely pro-reason culture wielding superior technology, with all the resources of years of army intelligence in Lebanon and training in guerilla warfare in the stench of Gaza; on the other, men so cowardly they would stoop to firing on fleeing civilians in order to seal them inside their villages, the better to ratchet up the death-count on CNN. Israel knew where their enemies were; they knew they could bomb villages in the south and thus draw Hezbollah's foot soldiers out into the open, where they would stand no chance. They knew that bombing Hezbollah strongholds in Beirut wouldn't be enough, that only a significant invasion in the south (after using airpower to destroy village bunkers and soften up Hezbollah's supply lines) would ever eradicate their enemy. They did none of these things. They chose a political half-war, knowing full well that it would mean another flare-up in a year or two... They've chosen a permanent war of attrition. Israel isn't a methodically altruist country, not by a stretch -- not if the standard is implicit philosophy. Its better premises have preserved it largely intact, its economy has bloomed in recent years, its secular culture lends joy and excitement to many of its people. (At least for the moment.) But when push comes to shove, the same pattern emerges in each of its conflicts: fight only to survive and save face -- never to win. In doing so, the Israeli leadership genuinely believes it is being "realistic" -- which would be true, if realism meant that you could never indulge in mere "theory," that you have to play the game by the world's standards. But Israel has its own standards, too: their morality tells them they need to be humane, that they uphold the right cause by sacrificing their children to avoid civilian casualties. They say it openly -- and proudly. Now, I ask you: is it plausible that what Israel needs philosophically is more science, markets and democracy? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, February 17, 2007 NoodleFood Question on Sacrifice By Diana Hsieh @ 5:22 PM A "Question for NoodleFood" from Ergo: I understand that Objectivism believes that sacrifices imply giving up a higher value for a lesser value, and that they are neither necessary nor moral under a rational moral code. But what is the moral course of action in a case where one is faced with having to choose between two (or more) equally valued and necessary options. For instance, having to choose between two equally close friends. In essence, I am questioning the premise that all values are hierarchical and that one can choose one over another based on how important or necessary the value is to their own lives. Could there not be a case wherein I value two things equally and thus having to choose between them necessarily demands a sacrifice from me (assuming there is no force acting upon me and that the situation arises from my own actions)? A few comments: First, I should mention that Leonard Peikoff talks about the problems associated with having to choose between friends in his short lecture course Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic. Although he's mostly concerned with cases in which two of one's friends are irreconcilably conflicted, it might still be a good resource. Here are my own thoughts on the matter, which may or may not be consistent with the Objectivist ethics: Strictly speaking, I'm doubtful that two substantially different goods (like people) can be genuinely equal in value to a person. It can be difficult to discern which is more valuable than another in the context of one's whole life. Yet I cannot imagine them to be equal, in substantial part because you won't value their different good qualities equally. (Plus, those qualities are ranked ordinally rather than cardinally, so it's impossible to conclude that both friends are worth 4.6 utils, for example.) When the choice is non-exclusive, minor differences between values are of little importance: it's perfectly reasonable to alternate between ordering your two favorite dishes at your favorite restaurant. However, sometimes the choice is exclusive simply due to the constraints of time: you can only work one job, pursue so many hobbies, enjoy one perfect friendship, etc. In those cases, you need to try to discern the greater value to you in the long run using your full context of knowledge -- and pursue that. (In keeping with Aristotle, I'd say that such weighing requires experience, skill, and judgment -- meaning that it gets easier with practice.) In that case, the lesser value is obviously not sacrificed, even though it's possible to regret your inability to pursue it. Even if two exclusive values seem equivalent to you, I don't think the choice of one over the other ought to be described as a sacrifice of any kind. Sacrifice is the deliberate renunciation of a greater value to a lesser value, but that's not what's happening in such hard choices. Thoughts? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis John Lewis Lecture in Michigan By Diana Hsieh @ 4:57 PM I'm in Los Angeles right now -- with minimal internet access -- but I did want to announce that John Lewis will be speaking on "No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism" at the University of Michigan (Angell Hall Auditorium B) on Tuesday February 20 at 7:30pm. That's an excellent talk; I found it extremely illuminating and clarifying when I heard it in Boston this past fall. (Then again, any talk by John Lewis is a good talk! He's one of my favorite live speakers.) More information about the talk can be found here. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, February 15, 2007 More Ick By Diana Hsieh @ 10:15 AM I couldn't manage to do more than skim this article. The author has no serious criticisms of Ayn Rand's ideas or novels, just a series of snide comments: When I first picked up The Fountainhead in the public library, at age fifteen, I was attracted to its length, in an Infinite Jest sort of way. This was during the phase that I now dub my "god-awful pretentious period." It was the same year I tried, and failed, to read Thackeray's Vanity Fair because it had been written in another century and it was long. It must also have been a year in which my political ideals were either refreshingly unformed or willfully naive -- that same year I argued, quite convincingly I thought, that Social Security should be privatized, an idea that I had dropped by age seventeen. Oh yes, people who like Ayn Rand's novels are immature, pretentious, and stupid -- just like the author was those many years ago! (Otherwise, why bother discussing her own personal motivations?) And surely it's just plain obvious to all but the "refreshingly unformed or willfully naive" that privatizing social security is the height of absurdity! Instead of actual arguments, the false portrayals of Ayn Rand by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden provide all of the "facts" for the author's trashing dismissal of Ayn Rand as a person, a novelist, and a philosopher. I won't repeat them here; you can go read them for yourself if you have the stomach. (I must add: Every time I read yet another one of these articles, my mind boggles at the evasion required (particularly from self-professed Objectivists) to maintain that Barbara Branden's biography and Nathaniel Branden's memoir don't negatively impact the spread of Objectivism, that they aren't the significant fodder for vicious criticisms of Ayn Rand, that they aren't any kind of reason to bar the Brandens from the platform of a supposedly Objectivist organization, nor to refuse to involve oneself with that organization.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, February 14, 2007 Bubble War By Diana Hsieh @ 7:56 AM I must admit that I was pretty well-entertained by this video of fun with a zero-gravity water bubble. The final experiment with the Alka Seltzer was particularly exciting. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Advice from a Former Criminal By Diana Hsieh @ 7:26 AM A former burglar gives some good advice on where and how to hide your valuables in your house to keep them safe from burglars. (Via GeekPress.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, February 12, 2007 Ground Rules for a Rational Discussion By Greg @ 6:40 AM So there I was, minding my own business quietly reading at a coffee store last weekend, when an acquaintance struck up an ideological conversation. It was entertaining enough and skipped around various mixed-economy things, but soon got goofy in the ways I've grown accustomed to seeing. Sadly, there seemed to be a tinge of anger behind his (understandable) frustration with being challenged in ways he didn't expect, and it snowballed from there before we pulled the plug. Very unsatisfying. In this instance, my delightful mate had been watching it unfold and later wondered aloud if I shouldn't carry around a little business-card-sized Agreement to try to forestall that sort of thing. Here's what she sent me as an example: I, _______________ [your name] do of my own free will, voluntarily agree to enter into an intellectual discussion with Greg Perkins. I acknowledge that Greg will use all of his knowledge and skills to present evidence and argument in support of his position. I agree to not be offended and angry, or to become upset and throw things at Greg when I cannot do the same. I agree to attempt to digest the evidence presented by Greg, in lieu of making unfounded assertion after unfounded assertion. I agree that when I begin to turn red and snap at Greg, that I should surrender my argument at that point and go learn more about the topic and what Greg has offered for my consideration. Finally, I agree to hold Greg's fiancée, Tammy Ryan, entirely harmless for any and all pissed-off feelings I have toward Greg following the discussion. Hilarious and flattering as it is, that may not be quite what is needed. Thinking over the common ways things go off the rails while talking with non-Objectivists, I put together the following to try to set expectations, keep things on the rails longer, encourage more seriousness and intellectual honesty, scare away the unworthy, and so on. (And yes, it is depressing that almost all of it should go without saying.) Ground Rules for a Rational Discussion Intellectual conversation has a purpose: to share, compare, and test our understandings of reality with the goal of our both better seeing the truth of the matter(s) under discussion. And perhaps more important, it constitutes training that develops our capacity for thinking and communicating well. First and foremost, evidence and reasoning shall be offered in support of assertions that are in doubt. If an objective case cannot be made, or the case runs contrary to other evidence and reasoning, then the commensurate level of qualification is expected in the presenter, along with an appreciation of an appropriate level of skepticism in the recipient(s). The same standards apply to everyone involved. If something is disallowed for one, it is disallowed for all; if something is required of one, it is required for all. In particular, reason is not a tool for merely convincing others of what we otherwise hold to because of feelings, tradition, faith, authority, "just knowing," or whatever. It is hypocrisy to expect the canons of reason to guide your partner in pursuing knowledge while not expecting the same for yourself. Finally, if the conversation does not proceed as expected and your position is not faring well, then your preexisting confidence does not warrant assuming that this surprising turn of events is due to mere rhetorical skill or sophistry in your partner; it could well be that your disagreement is with reality and that you are in effect shooting the messenger. Indeed, if you have been participating in an error so widespread and/or subtle as to evade identification up to this point, gratitude and happiness is warranted. Toward Beneficial Training Regarding the training mentioned above, for it to be beneficial requires internalizing the idea that while winning an argument can be a satisfying affirmation of prior work, letting a desire for victory take precedence over a commitment to correctness is a dangerous inversion of values -- a reversal of cause and effect -- as well as a recipe for a humiliating demonstration of weak character. First and foremost, relying on weakness in others' training, intelligence, knowledge, or psychology to maintain your position cultivates this inversion of values, and it corrodes the presumption of intellectual honesty (importantly, in your own understanding of yourself, but also in others' knowledge of you as such reliance is realized). Cultivating the opposite means always assuming (even eagerly hoping) that deficiencies in your reasoning and argumentation will be noticed and pointed out. If and when that happens, how you address such a report can speak volumes about your training, intelligence, character, and general worth as a thinker and discussion partner. This of course comes in degrees. For example, sustained failure to appreciate your dependence on a basic fallacy may result in termination of the exchange with the judgment that you are simply not equipped for such a discussion. But it would be far worse to evade acknowledging and correcting such a condition by throwing up rhetorical dust with, say, a clumsy accusation that your accuser is committing some conversational sin (all too often your own alleged sin) -- in which case you would be relying on his not having sufficient self-esteem and skill to clear away the dust, refute the smear, and add the incident to your snowballing list of unworthy moves. An evasive escalation like this can quickly destroy your credibility and result in termination of the exchange with the judgment that you are deficient both intellectually and morally. Finally, please note that sophomoric debate tactics only underscore desperation, immaturity, and blind commitment to the inversion of values mentioned above. For example, shifting from arguing some point to a position of extreme skepticism will be seen as transparent sophistry: if there is no reality, or there are no truths to know about it, or knowledge is generally unavailable to us, then there is no need for the conversation you were eager to undertake so long as you felt good about the direction it was headed. The same goes for other self-excluding gems from Philosophy 101 like disapproving of someone for making value judgments per se, clinging to the (black and white) idea that nothing is black and white, and so on. Appropriate analysis will follow and termination of the discussion may result. But the above is just what I quickly came up with. I imagine many here have had similar experiences to mine -- what would you put in a brief boilerplate for garden-variety intellectual conversations? E-mail Greg    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, February 10, 2007 Flemming Rose By Diana Hsieh @ 7:36 PM A while back, Ari Armstrong reported on Flemming Rose's December lecture in Denver. Even better, he posted the whole speech in MP3 format. Also, the full set of lectures from the fall 2006 Boston weekend conference "The Jihad Against the West" is now available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. That version of Flemming Rose's talk was definitely better than the one given in Denver. I really enjoyed talking to Flemming Rose while he was in Denver. He's a remarkable -- and very admirable -- man. Labels: Announcements, Recommendations E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Migration By Diana Hsieh @ 6:43 PM I am in the process of migrating DianaHsieh.com and all the other domains I oversee to a new hosting provider. So while the DNS change propagates over the next few days, you might notice a few bumps and hiccups. I'll try to keep the files on both the servers up-to-date over the next few days. More importantly, I'll be sure to add all comments posted to the old site to the files on the new site. If you have any problems, please e-mail me at diana@dianahsieh.com. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, February 09, 2007 Request for Suggestions By Diana Hsieh @ 4:04 PM Mike of Primacy of Awesome is seeking suggestions for future posts. He writes: I got a lot of positive feedback from my post about children and Objectivism. I'd like to solicit any readers for ideas on possible similar posts. Posts on some stereotype about Objectivism or Objectivists or Ayn Rand etc. So you give me the stereotype, and then I bitch slap you with a bunch of contradictory facts. He then comments briefly on the charge that Objectivists won't cooperate with anyone. Since that sounds like a worthwhile series, if you have any suggestions, please post them to his comments. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, February 08, 2007 The Need for Speed By Diana Hsieh @ 4:16 PM Finally! I have a fast internet connection again! Hooray! After nearly two months of inconsistent then non-existent service -- and dialing up to CU Boulder for a 28.8 connection -- I switched to the newly-available DSL. Life is worth living again! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Hoohaa Monologues By Diana Hsieh @ 3:57 PM Trey Givens actually has some serious points about this story, but I can't manage to stop laughing at the thought of "The Hoohaa Monologues." E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis UCLA versus LOGIC By Diana Hsieh @ 9:43 AM If the facts are as reported, I dearly hope to see UCLA eat its shorts for this bit of idiocy: Ayn Rand Institute Press Release UCLA Penalizes Student Group's Exercise of Free Speech February 6, 2007 Irvine, CA--UCLA has cravenly scuttled a student-sponsored forum on U.S. immigration policy--and revealed the administration's contempt for freedom of speech. The administration not only refuses to protect free speech, but also penalizes those who wish to exercise it on campus. Scheduled for Feb. 6, the canceled event was to feature a debate between Carl Braun of the Minutemen and Dr. Yaron Brook, an open-immigration advocate and president of the Ayn Rand Institute. The forum, sponsored by the UCLA student group L.O.G.I.C., was approved by the administration weeks ago. When the student group learned that protesters from outside the university threatened to disrupt the event, it asked UCLA to protect the group's exercise of free speech by providing security for the event. UCLA refused either to let the student group pay for its own security--claiming not enough security would be available--or to hold the event without security. "The administration's decision is a double injustice," said Dr. Yaron Brook, "In the face of threats, UCLA refused to protect the student group's free speech--that's bad enough. But when the student group offered to pay for its own protection, UCLA put up further obstacles. UCLA is punishing the victims of intimidation. Instead of forbidding the protesters who threatened violent disruptions, the university is penalizing the student group for being a victim of threats. "By preventing the event from taking place, UCLA apparently hopes to appease the protesters by doing their work for them. That an American university is suppressing, rather than enshrining, freedom of speech is a moral travesty." Moreover, adding to the injustice, the university wants to burden the student group with the costs involved in canceling the event and turning away audience members and protesters. UCLA's line is that because the student group wanted to host a controversial forum--which the group had the right to do--it thereby created a problem and now must pay for resolving it. "Free speech protects the rational mind: it is the freedom to think, to reach conclusions and express one's views without fear of coercion of any kind. And it must include the right to express unpopular views. UCLA--which like other universities grants tenure to protect intellectual freedom--ought to recognize the crucial importance of this principle and defend it," said Brook. More details are available from the club web site. If you're somehow connected to UCLA, you might want to write a letter to the University. Updates: News about this case is being posted to the club's web forum. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, February 06, 2007 Letter to the Editor on Health Care By Diana Hsieh @ 6:53 AM Last week, I wrote a letter to the editor for the Rocky Mountain News responding to Paul Campos' column on "myths" about American healthcare. It was published in full on the web, albeit apparently not in the print version. Here it is: Paul Campos ("Our Sickly Healthcare," Jan 30) notes the enormous influence of the government on America's ailing market for medical care. Yet he misses the obvious: government meddling is the fundamental source of those ills. His proposal for more government-controlled medicine--for socialized medicine--would be a disaster for medical providers and patients alike. Already, government bureaucrats set prices by arbitrary fiat via the Medicare system, then overwhelm doctors with paperwork and regulations. Already, consumers are encouraged to pursue medical care without regard for cost, thanks to tax laws encouraging employers to provide medical insurance for even routine expenses. Already, taxpayers are burdened with the cost of ever-growing medical entitlement programs. Already, FDA regulations drive up the cost of life-saving drugs and prevent doctors from prescribing drugs known to be safe. The result of that government meddling is an expensive bureaucratic labyrinth that prevents healthcare providers--doctors, nurses, drug companies, hospitals, clinics--from providing the best medical care for the patient's dollar. The solution to these problems is not more paternalistic government regulations, bureaucracy, and entitlements. It is to allow--and require--people to take personal responsibility for their own health by separating medicine and state. Diana Hsieh Sedalia I was pretty pleased with the letter, particularly with the fact that it didn't take me too long to write. (RMN allows comments on letters; so please post away!) The forces of socialism are gearing up to impose government-controlled medicine on Colorado, so I expect to be writing more on this topic over the next year and a half. (I'll say more about all that later.) Labels: Health Care E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, February 05, 2007 Who Is a (Non-Final) Authority in Philosophy? By Diana Hsieh @ 3:37 PM I'm delighted to present this post: it's an original essay by Tore Boeckmann on the importance of and respect due to experts, including the minimal demands of objectivity in criticizing them. (I have some comments at the end.) Who Is a (Non-Final) Authority in Philosophy? Tore Boeckmann A couple of years ago, a question was raised on Harry Binswanger's moderated email list: Is participation in unmoderated internet discussion groups a good way to learn the philosophy of Objectivism? I replied that it was not (though I didn't claim it could not have any value). The effective way to learn Objectivism, I indicated, was from experts in the field: first reading Ayn Rand's books, then listening to lectures by Dr. Peikoff, taking classes from Dr. Ghate--or participating in email lists moderated by a genuine authority on the philosophy like Dr. Binswanger. I made the point that any instruction one receives from others must be accompanied by one's own independent thinking. And I contrasted this approach (to learning Objectivism) with participation in internet forums with a very low general level of understanding. My old statement has been dug up by Stephen Speicher, who replies thusly on his "The FORUM": "Any man who uses reason and whose frame-of-reference is reality possesses the key to understanding Objectivism--or anything. Those who would have us defer to 'intellectual superiors' and 'genuine authorities' instead of reason and reality, are dead wrong." The subjectivism and anti-intellectualism of Speicher's reply is obvious. In his view, to recognize some individual as an expert in a field, and to seek to learn from him, is ipso facto to "defer" to authority and to abandon reason and reality. (Otherwise, what is the relevance of his reply to my original statement?) As Ayn Rand describes this mentality: "Only a subjectivist, who equates facts with arbitrary assertions, could imagine that to 'learn' means to 'accept on faith.'" ("Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?") It is interesting that Speicher should associate the idea of teachers being authorities with the idea that they are the "intellectual superiors" of their students--which may be, but is not necessarily, true (in any sense more fundamental than knowledge of a specific subject matter). He even puts this phrase in quotation marks, as if it came from me, which it did not. (The one time I recall using this phrase is in a recent discussion, not of the relationship of students to teachers, but of the resentment and envy of a mediocrity toward his betters.) In combination with Speicher's characterization of learning from experts as "deferring" to them, this view of being a student as being an intellectual inferior makes one think that he regards learning as humiliating. Speicher's mentality is common enough to merit a response. Take the following example (also relating to Speicher)--a small one, but symptomatic of the wider error. Robert Mayhew recently published his article "What went wrong with Tracinski's account of the ancient Greeks?" on this blog. He included the following sentence: "Thales predicted an eclipse--something inconceivable on the mythological world view, which held eclipses to be omens from the gods (and in one archaic poem, proof of the feebleness of man's mind)." Speicher replied, on his forum, that while he was "glancing through Mayhew's article," he "stumbled over a couple of apparent discrepancies in Mayhew's 'correcting [of] Tracinski's presentation.'" He went on: "The last paper I read on this (Thales' Eclipse, A.A. Mosshammer, Transactions of the American Philological Association, Vol. 111, pp. 145-155, 1981) made a very strong case in demonstrating 'how fictional the story of Thales' prediction is.'" Based on this, Speicher "can't help but wonder what corrections are necessary for correcting Mayhew's 'correcting [of] Tracinski's presentation.'" Of course, it is irrelevant to Mayhew's thesis whether Thales successfully predicted an eclipse--or merely tried to, and had the reputation, in the classical period, for having done so. But let us leave that aside and ask what is going on with Speicher's reply. He skims, not reads, Mayhew's article. He spots a reference to Thales' having predicted an eclipse. This raises a question in his mind, and he goes, presumably, on Google and searches for Thales+eclipse. The TAPA article is the third hit (try it yourself). Speicher reads (skims?) the article, sees that it concludes against Thales having predicted an eclipse, and uses it (as "the last paper I read on this") to snidely question Mayhew's scholarship. Now, there is a large scholarly controversy over this matter, of which Speicher knows nothing and Mayhew knows everything. As Jonathan Barnes, in The Presocratic Philosophers, says of the many scientific achievements attributed to Thales (including the eclipse): "the heated controversy they have aroused will deter all but the most reckless from advancing an amateur opinion." Wise words; but not to Speicher. He is quite prepared to con