 |
Comments |
|
 | Friday, October 16, 2009 at 11:26:06 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Jared Seehafer
E-mail: jared(at)seehafer.net
URL: http://twitter.com/seehafer
That Stewart:
1) Got her name right.
2) Treated her with respect.
and 3) Knew about Objectivism and seemed at least somewhat informed as to what it was (although mistaken on many things)
really brightens my day. I know that the 18-25 year old's that make up the bulk of The Daily Show's audience were not expecting that reaction from their beloved host.
Diana is quite right: this interview is a huge win. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 11:34:30 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Dan G.
She handled the elitism charge quite well (i.e. independence), but it seems that Jon didn't quite get it. Has anyone here read the book yet? |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 11:49:19 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Sidney Cammeresi
E-mail: sac(at)cheesecake.org
I second Jared. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 11:56:02 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Richard
Wow. That was handled with some actual intelligence and maturity! More than Rand got from his companion news host Colbert. I wonder if she'll make the rounds to his show as well. It's too bad she couldn't offer some advice on the Rights reluctant acceptance of her intellectuality. I mean isn't it obvious they're just hopelessly desperate? |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 12:25:13 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Ryan M
One of the major times that I remember hearing about Rand before I read Atlas Shrugged was from a bit where Colbert pretended to read from Atlas to his audience. Ironically, his snide comments at the expense of Objectivism just left me intrigued. When I later read the book and realized that Colbert hadn't even represented it well, I was rather disappointed in him. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 12:25:23 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: pomponazzi
E-mail: invinoveritas1976(at)yahoo.com
They asked satan to review the bible, and guess what?? He had some good things to say. The implication that Ayn Rand's works were just a rationalization for the loss of her father's Apothecary was the only real sore point for me. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 14:08:12 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Anthony
E-mail: paladin713(at)yahoo.com
Pomponazzi makes a good point but this interview is still a HUGE win. Pardon the expression but, thank God. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 15:27:36 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
Anthony:
In Dr. Peikoff's podcast #82, he said that Objectivists shouldn't apologize for using colloquial phrases like "bless you" or "Jesus Christ". Such phrases are now understood to have meanings that don't necessarily imply endorsement of religion or a deity. Presumably, your use of "Thank God" falls in the same category.
http://peikoff.com/podcasts/82.mp3 |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 15:37:55 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Mel McGuire
Pros: - atheist, brilliant, intellectual
- provider of personal ideals
- not a good fit with conservatism
Cons: - Missing concepts: philosophy, reason, self interest, individual rights, capitalism (i.e., Ayn Rand)
- When Burns answered "right" to the "totalitarian" comment.
- Since the book's title indicates that it's about Ayn Rand's relation to the right,
the questions about why Rand's atheism and intellectualism are being ignored are things Burns should be able to answer.
(Stewert's answer is about the same as mine with the addition that Rand has good ideas--scripture just doesn't cut it.
Perhaps, though, the view of the left in Atlas is providing a motivational resource. Also, when rereading Atlas recently, I noted
that "college boys" took a hit many times. I know that Rand supports higher (rational) education, but many on the R.R. could love these
jabs. So, perhaps the support for Rand on the right has less to do with what she supported and more to do with what she hated.
Objectivists support reason, science, atheism, selfishness, individual rights (capitalism), judical independence, separation of church and
state, abortion rights, doctor assisted suicide, evolution, and an "old Earth" .... I don't see any conservatism here.)
As for what Objectivism's relationship with conservatism should be, I can support the idea of talking to anyone who will listen; maybe the "Christian Nation" cult can be made a little less toxic; same for the Obama cult. Then again, injection into the culture of ideas such as "separation of economics and the state" is invaluable for the future. (BTW, I love the new "Principles of a Free Society" ARC web site; what a great (linkable) integration. I wonder if the same thing could be done for ethics?)
Burns seems to admire Rand, and, overall, this was far and away the most positive view I've seen. Would I recommend the book as an intro to Ayn Rand? From what's in this interview, I'd have to say "No." |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 15:55:21 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Mel McGuire
Something I didn't mention above: What should Ojectivism do about religion? Several years ago, L.P. mentioned that he thought it was time for a book directly attacking religion. That hasn't been done and the "New Atheism" is bankrupt (they can't define and defend either reason or a secular metaethics: both of which are desperately needed. Also, such an attack would mean (I think): no more appearances on conservative media. But, it's reason that needs to be a recoginzed virtue. The pious are running wild and their chatter about free markets isn't going to fix that. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 15:58:19 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Paul,
I have no objection to the use of metaphorical expressions, but I personally prefer to say "Thank the gods," much of the time. It's clearly not Christian, and in fact I enjoy Greek and Norse mythology more than Christian mythology. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 16:05:24 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Mel,
I think I would suggest that it's less important to offer an intellectual criticism of theistic beliefs than to demonstrate that we can have meaningful ethical values that aren't grounded in theism or religious revelation. Many people turn to religion less because they are rationally convinced it's true than because they think that giving it up leaves them with no moral compass.
Of course, at the level of ethical theory, much of this has been done. But I think more could be done to convey a rational ethical perspective on specific values and spheres of human activity: to show, for example, values that work for business activity, for professions such as medicine, for friendship, for sexual love, for raising a family, and so on. That is, a richer vision of concrete values would be a good thing. Most people know Objectivism as "a set of ideas people use to justify some weird political ideas," but not so much as "a pattern for living." |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 16:19:09 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Lemuel
E-mail: synthesist(at)ymail.com
I was pleasantly surprised, too. Stewart impresses me as one of the best interviewers on TV; even when he has on someone he disagrees with completely, he treats his guests with respect.
I'd really like to see Yaron Brooke go on the show; it could do a lot towards dispelling some of the ridiculous assertions about Objectivism, should the questions be the right ones. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 16:22:05 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Mel McGuire
William H Stoddard,
"Thank the gods." I like that!.
Sometimes I'll say "Jeus H. Christ" or "goddamn" if I'm furious--I mean really furious--about something; that's about it. Basically, I don't want to give the pious even an inch of ground--including using their lanquage. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 16:28:03 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: C Andrew
E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com
William,
The pagan gods certainly had more fun. Interestingly enough, my mother introduced me to Bulfinch's Mythology at the same time I was reading the scriptures. I was 8 or 9 years old at the time. But I was in my late 20's before I realized they shared similar structures. I'm still enthralled by epic mythologies even if I find their basis pernicious.
For instance, I think that the Dune series was masterfully done and still get a great deal of enjoyment out of re-reading them on occasion, even though it's P of C, mystical and collectivist. While the prequels tend to be less clear on the matter, it appears, metaphysically that Frank Herbert started with a competing groups P of C metaphysics that turned into an individual P of C which morphed into the Divine version by the fourth book. Heretics of Dune culminated in the extinction of the Divine P of C and turned to the personal P of C with some group flavorings thrown in.
I even liked the first 3 successor "prequel" novels that Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson did from Herbert's original notes. Unfortunately their narrative skills did not match the original author's and their subsequent efforts have been more and more two dimensional. And the final confrontation between the machines and humans (6th prequel by publication date, the latest of the earliest by internal universe date) was nothing but sanction of the victim writ incompetently large.
Of course, Tolkien's Arda universe is spectacular. If anyone understood mythic narrative, it was Tolkien as he demonstrates in "The Silmarillion." I even like the "Unfinished Tales" while there is still a coherent narrative. When Christopher Tolkien starts breaking it down into alternative versions and dates of revisions, I find it passing interesting technically, but it doesn't entertain and can become very tedious.
Oddly enough, I thought that the narrative of the "Children of Hurin" was actually better in the short Silmarillion version than in the book-length treatment.
I'm waiting to pass judgement on Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series. I hope his notes were comprehensive because he has a lot of loose ends to tie up even if Brandon says they're going to take a trilogy to do it. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 16:44:51 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: SurahAhriman
C Andrew, what does "P of C" mean, assuming it's not a Dune specific reference (I have not read anything in the setting). |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 17:01:10 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: C Andrew
E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com
SurahAhriman,
Sorry about that. We just got finished with OPAR and I still have a tendency to throw around acronyms. P of C is Primacy of Consciousness, the identification of the metaphysical premise that consciousness CREATES reality. The objectivist metaphysics is Primacy of Existence (PoE) which states that existence exists and that consciousness is metaphysically impotent, as in, can't create its own reality. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 18:24:27 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Mel McGuire
William H Stoddard,
I agree. The goal is a rational healthy ethics and that isn't a direct result of atheism; I seriously doubt that the new high school atheist clubs--a worry to the Catholics--will be studying Rand. However, the holy men have spent several thousand years developing a vast and formidable arsenal of dirty intellectual tricks that have been working quite well. They attack at the epistemological level and work to rid people of confidence in their own minds--as evil a program as I can imagine. To make it even worse, they indoctrinate at an early age. According to a recent poll, only 2.3% of the population is atheist. Even if the poll is wrong (under reported), religion has a serious grip on the American mind. There seem to be lots of people who will flat reject ANYTHING that contradics "scripture". The religious apologetics used to lock people into religion is trash to Objectivists but others are buying it. If the more rational young people don't see religion seriously challenged, I see little hope; they need intellectual ammunition that only Objectivism can provide. Objectivism's view of reason and it's rational metaethics both need promotion. Although I haven't read it, Craig Biddle's "Loving Life" and his next book "Good Thinking" look like a great direction. However, a book that attacks religious apologtics, via definition and defense of reason, still could be a valuable resource and I think the New Atheists are not coming through on this point; note the agnostic backpeddling of Dawkins at times. Another angle in my mind is that religion needs and perpetuates a culture of unreason. Ungluing the American mind from the holy books would gives us a chance.
I was thinking about these issues recently and looking at how the New Atheists tell people something like "you don't really get morality from religion anyway so why not just keep the morality you have and give up religion. It sounds plausable that this strategy might work, then I realized that the Christians do, in fact, have a metaethics, "it's good because God says it's good", but the New Athists don't have a metaethics at all. The pious would lose a sense of being "grounded". But, is it ethics that the religious are concerned with or is it Christian "salvation"? I've been reading the book "The Reason For God" by the holy man Timothy Keller (I've been interested in looking a Keller's attacks on reason). He points out that "God's grace does not come to people who morally outperform others, but to those who admit their failure to perform and who acknowledge their need for a Savior. ...expect to find nonbelievers who are much nicer, kinder, wiser, and better than we are. Why? Christian believers are not accepted by God because of their moral performance, wisdom, or virtue... (page 19)" I don't see a serious concern with ethics here. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 18:39:25 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Jeff Montgomery
E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/
Jon Stewart behaved himself as much as possible considering he's a rabid liberal. Nonetheless, his self-imposed ignorance is boundless when it comes to important issues like economics and Ayn Rand, as is evident in his jokes/comments about populism and totalitarianism. He has no clue.
I'm nearly finished with Burns' book and I've enjoyed it a lot. It is a true biography (not a thinly disguised smear campaign), and while there may be details or interpretations one might take issue with, I think she has attempted to be as impartial as possible. This sincerity and decency comes through clearly in the Daily Show video.
I'll post a review when I'm done. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 19:51:04 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Trey
Stewart's been uncharacteristically more reasonable of late. Perhaps things have reached a far enough point of deteroiration that he was forced to see his hand in it, and now he's trying to atone (or at least cover his tracks). |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 20:12:42 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Gaspar
Jennifer's hot. |
|
| Friday, October 16, 2009 at 21:00:58 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: W.C. Varones
E-mail: wcvarones(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://wcvarones.blogspot.com
I'm glad I found this blog via Paul's last post.
I'll confess I haven't been able to work my way through much of Ayn Rand's writings, but I'm on the same team. |
|
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 1:00:37 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Daniel
URL: http://thenearbypen.blogspot.com
I've read some things that made me not want to read the book--notably the negative review of the first chapter by someone I respect and the positive blurbs by people I don't--but this interview was surprisingly good. (Am considering doing a full review of the book for publication.)
|
|
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 10:26:08 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Joshua Lipana
E-mail: joshualipana(at)yahoo.com
I feel the same way Diane! Jon Stewart did surprisingly well in his interview with Jennifer Burns. I was ready for 5 minutes of rage; I experienced 5 minutes of elation. |
|
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 18:47:43 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Brian T. Schwartz
E-mail: btschwartz(at)gmail.com
URL: http://wakalix.com
Indeed, a pleasant surprise. |
|
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 19:06:50 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
C Andrew: Both Tolkien and Lewis tell the story of Tolkien's conversation with Lewis, in which Lewis referred to the Gospels as a fairy story, and Tolkien said, in effect, "Well, all right, but tell me: is there any other myth, legend, or fairy story that would give you more joy if it turned out to be true?" Apparently this was a big step toward Lewis's returning to theism and become a major Christian apologist. But I've been struck lately by the ironic thought that if Tolkien had asked me that, I would have a different answer: "Yes, professor, I would feel a much deeper delight to learn that your stories of Middle-Earth were true, because I much prefer them to the Christian mythology." Of course, that's Middle-Earth as it emerged in Tolkien's subsequent fiction, not the form that existed when Tolkien and Lewis had that conversation, though I do cherish the story of Beren and Luthien. |
|
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 21:43:49 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: C Andrew
E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com
William,
I agree that Tolkien's universe was far superior to the gospel narratives despite his own assertion that "The Lord of the Rings" was Catholic in it structure and motivations. And I don't think that he meant catholic as universal, which would be true enough, but Catholic as in his own religion.
I found the whole saga of Beren and Luthien fascinating. And all of the dilemnas of the Half-Elven. The episode of Finrod Felagund most of all. We've touched on the subject previously but the connection between honour and self-interest or the military and commercial would be interesting to explicate. Can they be integrated? Historically, Republics have either been commercial or military. The United States is probably the best example of a nation with both aspects but our rise toward military dominance co-incided with the rise of the Progressive Movement and their "moral equivalent of war" (Courtesy William James) with Teddy Roosevelt being a case in point. And, incidentally this also marked the beginning of our march toward the total state.
America has retained the civil society because of a rigid separation between the civil and military with the civil in political control. Since even a liberty loving civilization would still need protection from enemies foreign, a military would be an essential part of a free nation. So is separation the only practical means toward that end? Could you integrate the military and the commercial in a society? Or would that be the pre-cursor to the military-industrial complex? Could both mindsets be integrated into one man? Or would he have allow one or the other precedence based on what role he was in?
I've just started reading Elizabeth Moon's works; I've finished "Speed of Dark" (not part of Vatta's War) and her "Trading in Danger" and I can see the roots of what you referred to earlier. But I'll have to finish the rest to know for certain if she addresses the questions in the paragraph above.
On a different note; popping the stack to what started this comment:
Although not as comprehensive as Tolkien, I like the re-working of the Arthurian legend that Mary Stewart did with her trilogy. Her fourth book was not up to the same level as the original three but still well worth reading. I particularly like the fact that her setting was quasi-historical; during the decline of Rome after She told the Romanized Britons to "look to your own defences," but before Her outright fall. It shows the encroachment of Christianity on the old gods but while the pagan influence is still uppermost. It adds grounding that the various other workings like l' mort de arthur and those based on it don't have. (Excluding Monty Python's treatment, of course!) |
|
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 22:36:36 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
C Andrew: The problem of the relationship between the military and the industrial values is a major topic of Jane Jacobs's Systems of Survival, one of the most interesting books on ethics that I've read . . . not least because Jacobs views ethics not as a luxury or a duty but as a means to human survival, which is an admirable starting point. I recommend giving it a look. I don't imagine you'll agree with everything she has to say, but you may find some good insights. In particular, she talks about the American "citizen army" where the same person may function at one time as a soldier, under military discipline, but at another time as a civilian, free to criticize the conduct of a war.
I think that one of Tolkien's great merits was his intellectual integrity. He was unwilling to impose his own Christian faith on a fantasied historical era centuries before the time of Christ, or even before the founding of Israel; he wanted to tell a story in a way that made sense for that era . . . which meant that at the most he could portray his heroes as "virtuous pagans." In this he may well have been influenced by Thomas Babington Macaulay, one of the great liberal thinkers of the nineteenth century, whose "Lays of Ancient Rome" Tolkien had read as a schoolboy (they are sadly neglected now, but I find them worth reading); Macaulay wanted to tell ancient Roman stories as they might have been told by a Roman who knew nothing of Christian beliefs.
And I think it goes deeper than simple integrity: I think that Tolkien dearly loved those stories of a pre-Christian past, that they gave his imagination freedom. And in particular they gave him freedom to explore the theme of human mortality, which mattered to him a lot, not least because of the early deaths of two of his dearest friends in the Great War. The whole theme of the deathlessness of the elves gave him a way to look at death from the perspective of a different metaphysical reality. I don't feel that Tolkien was a systematic philosophical thinker, but I think there is more depth to his view of the world than there is to that of a lot of the literary critics who hold him in contempt. Verlyn Flieger's A Question of Time has some very interesting things to say about all these issues. |
|
| Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 23:26:59 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: garret seinen
E-mail: seine44(at)gmail.com
URL: http://seine.thinkertothinker.com/
Thanks for posting the interview. As Jon Stewart is a comedian, I'm sure some of his comment where attempts to get laughs. I all I got a sense that he did admire Ayn Rand but didn't understand her well.
Could you clarify your own position on Ayn Rand as an ‘elitist’? I personally think there is no substance to that widely spread smear.
I consider a number of factors from memory.
She wrote a novel, aimed at the general public, with the specific intention of rescuing the world from a 2000 year old mistake. She knew full well, only by making a case so strong that a majority would support it, would that novel have the desired effect. By itself, that shows a tremendous and truly, at that time, an unfounded belief in the intelligence and the sense of life of her audience.
I believe she was generous to a fault, if she thought a mistaken premise was due to a lack of knowledge. Counter to that, she was brilliant in her recognition of evil and ruthless in her condemnation of it. Her sense of justice shows a compassion for innocent victims.
She supported capitalism. If there is any system of social organization that is not elitist, it is capitalism. History is replete with examples of foolish individuals who traded their full wallets for empty beggar cups.
I rest my case, garret seinen
|
|
| Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 7:33:52 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Galileo Blogs
E-mail: rayniles(at)rcniles.com
URL: http://galileoblogs.blogspot.com
Very encouraging to see Ayn Rand discussed on the Jon Stewart show. She just gained a lot of new readers, and among the "left", not just the "right." |
|
| Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 20:23:46 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Ellsworth Toohey
E-mail: amadeus56(at)gmail.com
What have you got against Stewart? He's not a idealogue blinded by a fixed point of view, and he's a lot more balanced than the commentators on the right who see everything in black and white. If the right really understood her they wouldn't want a bar of her, she's too demanding. Far easier to cherry-pick your ideas to suit your bias. |
|
| Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 21:06:10 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: Anthony
Paul: Thank you! I haven't gotten around to all of his podcasts. I should know better though.
William: I used to use "thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster" but I've been turned off by followers of his Holy Noodly-ness. I may very well use your suggestion. Thank you. |
|
| Monday, October 19, 2009 at 15:37:36 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: Bil Danielson
E-mail: bil.danielson(at)comcast.net
The first steps towards cultural change often begin by identifying perceived contradictions, and then working them out to see that, in reality, no contradictions are possible... If I am not mistaken, such intellectual maneuvering was implicit in the Renaissance. Stewart's comment/question about Glenn Beck, and others on the right, willing to cite her notwithstanding her atheism was very interesting in this regard, and Burns' response: "I don't know why" was very interesting to me. This is really quite important to consider, and in fact ought to be the subject of some lengthy discussions.
Notwithstanding some intellectual clumsiness on the part of Stewart, this was a positive interview. |
|
| Monday, October 19, 2009 at 19:20:02 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Bil Danielson
E-mail: bil.danielson(at)comcast.net
And for the pure entertainment of it all, one can go and see the comments section out at Amazon over Ms Burns book. I was mildly surprised, but of course I rarely look at the comments. Fascinating.
Now I may have to read the darn book! |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
