A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

Friday, October 23, 2009 Kant Versus America By Greg Perkins @ 5:00 AM The Objectivism Seminar is working through Dr. Leonard Peikoff's all-too-topical book, The Ominous Parallels. In it, he explores what gave rise to to the fascist, totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany -- and analyzes whether and how a fascist, totalitarian regime could emerge here in America. Our focus this week was Chapter 6, "Kant Versus America" -- a reference to the fundamental opposition between core American ideals and German ideological imports. Topics we discussed included: German metaphysical idealism coming to America via the transcendentalism of Ralph Waldo Emerson et. al -- an eclectic "literary" version of German romanticism. Then decades of Hegel's purified Kantianism dominating American philosophy departments. How some advocates of these ideas were open and clear about their rejection of reason for emotion/intuition/will, while others took the tack of presenting themselves as champions of rationality even while undercutting every essential element of it. How advocates of the American system of rights and capitalism tried to find ideological support in classical economics and evolutionary biology -- and how this was ultimately a doomed effort because these are not philosophically fundamental. Mill, Smith, Say, and the rest of the classical economists tried to defend an individualist system while accepting the fundamental moral ideas of its opponents (altruism, collectivism). And on the biological evolution front, Herbert Spencer tried and failed to defend capitalism while adhering to more fundamental ideas which clash with it (advocating a species-based collectivist approach that would be inspiration for Eugenicists, and thinking evolution would eventually eliminate egoism in favor of altruism in humans). What Pragmatism is and how it became the main American manifestation of the Kantian trend. Why Pragmatists adopt codes of values and political ideas designed by others (non-pragmatists), usually without consciously acknowledging this, through cultural osmosis. How Pragmatism was the only 20th century philosophy to gain broad, national acceptance in America (and how this happened through Orwellian twists of meaning and language to sell it to an audience who would otherwise recoil). How it enjoyed a disastrous acceleration by taking over the educational system (Dewey), its prevalence in politics, etc. How academic philosophy then all but disappeared in America -- as the "dead end" of the Kantian dichotomy between thought and reality, with the public rightly rejecting the field of philosophy as worthless (even though they nonetheless remained powerfully influenced by philosophy). And a lot more... If this sounds interesting, you can listen in on the podcast -- just download the session's MP3 directly, or listen to it with the little player on the right, or subscribe to the podcast series over on the Seminar's TalkShoe page. And if you have something to ask or add, please do pick up the book and join the discussion! We meet at 8:00pm Mountain on Mondays, for about an hour. Labels: History, Objectivism Seminar, Philosophy, Politics Share |    E-mail Greg Perkins     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)   Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

Comments
	Friday, October 23, 2009 at 13:41:20 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: Richard E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca I listened part of an earlier podcast of your O.P. meetings. Whilst what you are doing is good, may I make a suggestion for a more ambitious and challenging approach, that arose from my OPAR group (I set it up). We had all agreed to work with Gary Hull's Study Guide. On our own time, during a week, we all answered the upcoming section questions, in writing. The first person (however chosen) answered the first question, and then anyone who had a difference of opinion or an additional point to make, be it supporting fact or principle, spoke up. Sometimes an answer would entirely miss the point, but always someone corrected it. This encouraged us to delve as deeply as we could into each section, and it really helped us integrate and retain the principles and their supporting concretes. Here comes the interesting part. When we came to the point in OPAR, where Dr. Peikoff suggests reading Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", we agreed that we should use the same approach that Gary Hull's Study Guide required of us. We would, however, have to create the questions. Once a week someone would have an extra job: answer the questions to be discussed next meeting _and_ prepare questions for the meeting after that. This approach was fantastic. Of the seven or so members, each produced highly challenging questions, or proved their lack of intellectual commitment (we lost two of nine members). From that point on, the questions were challenging, and we all benefited, as if it had been Gary Hull posing the questions. in short, our procedure was head and shoulders above any, ordinary, Objectivist discussion. Our focus was remarkably, intellectually, more beneficial. I quite hope you will try it.
	Saturday, October 24, 2009 at 8:03:25 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: JJ E-mail: zerosontheloose(at)gmail.com So, the fact that Dewey was highly critical of Kant and of German thought more generally; was that on your agenda? And the way that academic philosophy in the U.S. largely ignored pragmatism starting in the 1950s - some argue in response to the attack of McCarthy-ites on on pragmatists as un-American? I suppose you discussed that too. I could offer more inconvenient topics, but I'm sure you get the point. Seems to me that you went into the discussion "knowing" that pragmatism is "evil" and read some stuff to confirm that prejudice. Now THAT is the way good philosophy ought to be done!
	Saturday, October 24, 2009 at 13:44:12 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: Greg Perkins E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog Hi, Richard! Thanks for sharing how you did your discussion -- the Seminar used Hull's questions for OPAR, but we've been winging it on Ominous Parallels. I'll make it the first order of business next meeting!
	Saturday, October 24, 2009 at 14:02:57 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: Greg Perkins E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog JJ, it seems to me that you decided to assume folks in the Seminar wouldn't want to discuss such things, somehow despite hjavin read our standing open invitation for anybody to bring any such contribution. Rational discussion was offered, but you chose sniping about baseless conclusions instead.
Post Your Comment
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 6 plus 1 equals 377243676720202645