| Wednesday, September 10, 2008 |
 |
Another Objectivist at Ford Hall Forum?
By Greg Perkins @ 1:01 AM   
The Ford Hall Forum is a longstanding and prestigious platform for speakers with interesting things to say (like Objectivists Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and Yaron Brook). The Forum sent out an announcement that Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales of Wikipedia fame will be speaking on September 11 in Boston. This caught my eye, not only because I fondly remember Jimbo from Objectivisty circles many years back, but also because it advertises that he is going to talk about how "Objectivist philosophy guides his vision":
Free Speech, Free Minds, Free Markets: Competition and Collaboration
Across the globe we are building, editing, and contributing to a growing body of knowledge and tools at everyone's fingertips. Volunteers in leaderless organizations contribute to online initiatives and articles. Software developers spend their free time collaborating with complete strangers. Amazingly, these efforts are creating products of extraordinary quality, sometimes better than that of large for-profit organizations. Why do we do it? Why does it work? Join us tonight as Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales joins journalist Christopher Lydon to address these questions, where "web 2.0" will take us next, and how Objectivist philosophy guides his vision. I would love to ask some questions about how Objectivism guides his vision, but I can't be there. Maybe someone in the NoodleCaboodle could go and ask questions for us and report back! Here are the ones I am curious to hear addressed:
- You refer to Wikipedia as a way to give people free access to the sum of all human knowledge. Yet Wikipedia doesn't even aim to express what is true—it is focused on documenting what people believe, carefully including all the patently silly and downright vicious things people think. That is, Wikipedia strives for neutrality rather than objectivity with regard to the truth of what is claimed. Wouldn't Objectivism inspire you to characterize Wikipedia more accurately as a vast snapshot of what people currently think, good and bad?
- When you ask for contributions to Wikipedia, you seem to frame or at least decorate the appeal in altruistic terms. How does that square with the ethical egoism of Objectivism, which flatly rejects altruism as immoral?
- In your appeal for contributions, you wrote that "This is a radical strike at the heart of an increasingly shallow, proprietary and anti-intellectual culture. ... I hope [my daughter] will grow up in a world where culture is free, not proprietary... We're already taking back the Internet. With your help, we can take back the world." (Emphasis added.) Just what is bad about being proprietary? Wouldn't an Objectivist be supportive of the creator who chooses to profit from the sale of his work, rather than fight against him? And "taking back" seems to imply that something was unjustly taken. The Internet is physically composed of private property (computers, connections) and wasn't taken from you; the information communicated using it wasn't taken from you, either. Wouldn't Objectivism inspire clarifying and reinforcing the intellectual and physical property rights involved—including how they recognize and foster a deep harmony of interests—rather than this talk of "taking back" something that wasn't taken in the first place?
- You recently announced your launch of a Green Wiki. That site explains, "In light of the climate crisis and other ecological challenges increasingly facing us," that it hopes to serve the "people who want to inform themselves and live in a more sustainable way," because "the threats to our environment are real and that they require action." It will be "written from a green point of view," and will focus on detailing such helpful actions as "How to reduce your carbon footprint." How can this initiative of yours be informed by Objectivism, which repudiates the Environmentalist movement as epistemologically, morally, and politically corrupt?
Obviously, I don't understand how Jimbo's actions can be reconciled with Objectivist principles, so I'm surprised to hear that he thinks the philosophy guides his vision. It would be great to see how he addresses this.Labels: Objectivism, Technology, WTF
|
| |
 E-mail Greg Perkins
 PermaLink ( )
 Comments [26]
|
|
| Thursday, September 04, 2008 |
|
Objectivist Roundup #60
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:14 PM
Welcome to the September 4, 2008 edition of the Objectivist Roundup. The Roundup showcases the best posts by Objectivist bloggers each week. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. According to Ayn Rand:
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. ("About the Author," Atlas Shrugged, Appendix) ...drumroll please...
Peter Cresswell presents Time for an Olympian razor posted at Not PC, saying, "Too many sports at the Olympics? Time to apply an epistemological razor!"
Noah Stahl presents Enforcing 'Constructive Behavioral Change' posted at The Undercurrent, saying, "This post points out a fundamental error in nearly all public policy discussions today: choosing policies according to which policy will bring about 'constructive behavioral change' in people. Lost from discussion is any consideration of individual rights."
Burgess Laughlin presents Study Groups for Objectivists (SGO) posted at Making Progress, saying, "Study Groups for Objectivists (SGO) offers an opportunity to study a certain history or philosophy text or lecture more productively--using a slow, scheduled pace, optional study questions, and trading problems and insights with other students of the same text."
Stephen Bourque presents The Obsolescence of the Fifth Column posted at One Reality, saying, "There may have been a time when to weaken a free country, it was advantageous to infiltrate the workings of its government, to steal its military secrets, to quietly sow ideas that could destroy it from within, and to break its laws and escape detection. But that sounds downright old-fashioned today."
Myrhaf presents Republican Convention Day 2 posted at Myrhaf.
Andy Clarkson presents The Sun, The Climate, And Other Things posted at The Charlotte Capitalist.
Ari Armstrong presents Why Harry Potter Fans Should Read Ayn Rand posted at FreeColorado.com, saying, "Despite their differences, Ayn Rand and J. K. Rowling share some intriguing similarities in literary style and themes."
Nicholas Provenzo presents The Conservatism of Robert W. Tracinski posted at The Rule of Reason, saying, "In this post, I critique Robert Tracinski's essay on Barack Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination and the illogic of Tracinski's tacit call to people to vote for conservative John McCain."
Valda Redfern presents Nothing new under the sun1 posted at Valzhalla, saying, "The ancient Greeks have always been ahead of us."
Paul Hsieh presents Panhandling 2.0 posted at NoodleFood, saying, "Why are panhandling techniques suspiciously similar in major American cities? Find out why in this blog post."
Edward Cline presents Demagogues and Circuses posted at The Rule of Reason, saying, "Whether McCain or Obama wins the White House in November, there would be no "change" and no "new direction," but more of the same movement in the same direction, which is statism."
Adam Reed presents Sarah Palin: Still a Reality-Proof Advocate of Abstinence-"Education" posted at Born to Identify.
Shea Levy presents Lack of Specialization Within Academia posted at Cogito's Thoughts.
That concludes this edition of the Objectivist Roundup. Objectivists, submit your blog posts to the next edition of the Roundup using the carnival submission form.Labels: Objectivism
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [3]
|
|
| Wednesday, July 30, 2008 |
|
Individualism, America, and Ayn Rand
By Paul Hsieh @ 1:00 AM
The following letter appeared in the online edition of the July 13, 2008 Denver Post, with negative reference to individualism and Ayn Rand. Since her name doesn't frequently appear in our local paper, I took this as an opportunity to set the record straight.
Here is the original letter:It wasn't individualism that settled the West
Re: "The Cowboy Myth," July 6 Perspective article.
There are two problems with Jeffrey Lockwood's support of the Cowboy Myth. First, we are constantly told that it was reality, that cowboys were the essential ingredient in the winning of the West. Truth is, the average cowboy was about as significant as today's parking lot attendant.
Perpetuating the Hollywood/dime fiction image of the cowboy propagates the false belief that Ayn Rand individualism was the historical way and will be the best future way to solve our nation’s problems. Truth is, the sodbusters were the key, the heroes: risking all, sticking determinedly in their forlorn shacks to raise their crops and banding together to raise their barns, build their schools and defend their homes.
The key to our nation's past successes was Americans joining together in common cause, not individualism. Working together will also be the key to our future.
Bill Belew
Boulder, CO My response was as follows:America was made by great individuals working under a system which (albeit imperfectly) protected their right to use their rational minds to create value and advance their lives. Where would we be without the likes of Thomas Edison, Westinghouse, and Henry Ford? This was a key insight of Ayn Rand and she deserves tremendous credit for promoting a philosophy that celebrates individual achievement -- the philosophy that underlies the positive and optimistic "can do" American sense of life.
Of course individuals can and should band together voluntarily when it suits their purposes. I have no problem with "working together" with others for mutual benefit as a voluntary arrangement, as many did in the Old West.
However, this notion is too-often corrupted into a vicious morality which preaches that the collective should take precedence over the individual, that individuals should be coerced to help one other, and that therefore we need massive government intrusions into the economy (such as “universal health care”) to automatically provide for everyone’s needs at taxpayer expense.
This approach will destroy the sorts of individuals who made America great, and will eventually destroy America. We need to celebrate and support the individuals who embody the American spirit and work-ethic, not punish them.
Paul Hsieh
Sedalia, CO Labels: History, Objectivism
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [8]
|
|
| Friday, July 25, 2008 |
|
Reminder: Objectivism Seminar Resuming This Sunday
By Greg Perkins @ 3:00 PM
Just a reminder that The Objectivism Seminar will be resuming its tour of Dr. Leonard Peikoff's seminal book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. We're about to begin Chapter 2, so if you aren't already participating, now is a great time to catch up and join in!
(From last time:)
Veteran or newbie, fan or critic, here's your chance to enjoy a real upgrade to your personal understanding of Rand's philosophy, your ability to live like ideas matter, and your facility in helping change our culture for the better!
I have to say that I'm really pleased with how our new meeting format is shaping up. Everyone seems to be growing and sharpening their understanding -- newer and more experienced students of the philosophy alike. Basically, we have been discussing just one section of the book each week (maybe 5-15 pages of reading), and then working over the material from several angles in discussion. Each meeting runs for about an hour and a half, and if you want to see (hear) what it is like, just visit the Objectivism Seminar's page at TalkShoe to listen or even subscribe to the podcasts for past sessions.
If you want to jump in, now is a great time: all you have to do is read Chapter 1, hopefully listen to the podcasts of the sessions for it, read at least the first section of Chapter 2, and show up for the next session this Sunday!Labels: Announcements, Objectivism
|
| |
E-mail Greg Perkins
PermaLink ()
Comments [0]
|
|
| Thursday, July 17, 2008 |
|
The Objectivist Roundup: First Anniversary Edition
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:25 AM
 Welcome to the First Anniversary Edition of the Objectivist Roundup. Yes, the Objectivist Roundup -- the weekly review of posts from Objectivist bloggers -- is one year old. The very first Objectivist Roundup was hosted on Kim's Play Place on July 19th. It was a small beginning, with just four submissions. Now, one year later, the Roundup has more submissions than I care to count. (I'll let the HTML do the counting for me.)
So without further ado, it's time to whack the birthday piñata to see what Objectivist goodies burst forth:
- Jeff Scialabba presents The Next Hot Career Choice: Self-Immolation posted at The Undercurrent.
- Guy Barnett presents Ending Racism through Racism posted at The Undercurrent.
- Gideon Reich presents Armchair Intellectual posted at Armchair Intellectual, saying, "Here's my review of the Summer 2008 issue of The Objective Standard."
- Paul Hsieh presents A Conversation With My Dentist posted at We Stand FIRM, saying, "It's important to spread good ideas. And it's equally important to give our moral sanction and support to others who spread good ideas. In both cases, you may make more difference than you realize."
- Burgess Laughlin presents Quality Control in Movements? posted at Making Progress, saying, "How have movements of the past--such as the movement to abolish slavery in the USA--succeeded? One element of the answer might be quality control. Did members of successful movements of the past attempt some sort of quality control? This article offers preliminary notes for such an investigation."
- Monica presents Environmentalists vs. The Environment posted at Spark A Synapse, saying, "This week, I discussed the Objectivist view of environmentalism and contemplated the question, 'Are hard-core environmentalists really pro-environment or are they are just anti-man?' I concluded that hard-core environmentalists aren't pro-environment any more than hard-core animal rights activists such as PETA are pro-animal, as evidenced by their desire to destroy all domesticated species. Likewise, hard-core environmentalists are nihilistic. Rather than seeking a positive value, they seek a negative: the complete absence of man's influence on the world. This is why viable solutions to the putative problem of global warming, such as nuclear power and forestry, are rejected."
- Khartoum presents Enforcing Vegetarianism posted at Philosophy, Law and Life.
- Ari Armstrong presents Denver Post's Crack Economic Team Strikes Again posted at FreeColorado.com, saying, "I poke holes in the claim that energy controls and subsidies are responsible for Colorado's economic success."
- Stephen Bourque presents The Rescue of Ingrid Betancourt posted at One Reality.
- Roderick Fitts presents The Importance of the Subject posted at NoodleFood, saying, "Tara Smith's paper, 'The Importance of the Subject in Objective Morality: Distinguishing Objective from Intrinsic Value' elaborates on philosopher Ayn Rand's view that the individual (the "subject") plays an important role in the generation and the instructions of an objective morality."
- Myrhaf presents Sui Generis posted at Myrhaf, saying, "In this episode Myrhaf is asked to name authors who write like Ayn Rand, but fails to think of any."
- Ken presents To the Republican Platform Committee posted at Ad Hoc, saying, "Here's my advice to the Republican Platform Committee regarding the religious right's threats to the separation of church and state."
- Gus Van Horn presents Prager's False Equation posted at Gus Van Horn, saying, "The religionists are trying to keep us from realizing that the gay marriage debate is really about individual rights."
- C. August presents Book Review: The Sparrowhawk Series posted at Titanic Deck Chairs, saying, "Do you long for new novels that live up to and reflect your sense of life? Are you tired of modern fiction that wallows in the mundane and profane, as if that's all there is in the world? Read this review to find out if you should add Sparrowhawk to your reading list."
- Valda Redfern presents The Solution to the Food/Energy/Whatever Crisis posted at Valzhalla, saying, "'In the house of the wise are stores of choice food and oil, but a foolish man devours all he has' (Proverbs 21:20)."
- Peter Cresswell presents Chrysler Building - William van Allen posted at Not PC, saying, "New York's Chrysler Building is now Abu Dhabi's Chrysler Building -- an unintended consequence of Keynesian economics and environmentalist anti-development policies."
- Nicholas Provenzo presents Five Great American Paintings: Part III: Lincoln the Railsplitter posted at The Rule of Reason, saying, "This post discusses "Lincoln the Railsplitter," one of five paintings that I consider to be among American painter Norman Rockwell's greatest artistic achievements."
- Edward Cline presents John McCain: Pseudo-Maverick II posted at The Rule of Reason, saying, "Senator John McCain is a political pseudo-maverick because, in reality, he subscribes to every major fallacy at large in contemporary Western culture."
- Darren Cauthon presents Radio Royalty Rates Jumped? In Comes the Free Market! posted at Darren Cauthon.
That concludes this Anniversary Edition of the Objectivist Roundup. Now that you've gotten your fill of 19 (!) posts, it's time to pack up the birthday cake and head home from the party. On your way out, remember to give all due congratulations and thanks to the women of Kim's Play Place and Rational Jenn for creating and sustaining a fantastic carnival every week for a whole year!Labels: Objectivism
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [3]
|
|
| Sunday, July 13, 2008 |
|
The Importance of the Subject
By Roderick Fitts @ 6:04 PM
The January 2008 issue of the journal Social Philosophy and Policy had numerous papers focusing on the "Objectivism, Subjectivism, and Relativism in Ethics."[1] Among them was Objectivist philosopher Dr. Tara Smith's "The Importance of the Subject in Objective Morality: Distinguishing Objective from Intrinsic Value."
In this paper, Dr. Smith elaborates on philosopher Ayn Rand's view that the individual (the "subject") plays an important role in the generation and the instructions of an objective morality.
To appreciate what Dr. Smith is pointing out, consider the following examples:
(1) Tiger Woods and his accomplishments. Woods has deliberately sought a particular type of life as a professional golfer, and as we can all attest, has had an extraordinary amount of success in his efforts. He paid attention to facts relevant to his goal as a great golfer, such as the value of practicing his golf swing and buying effective golf equipment (or even changing his swing when it injures him).[2]
(2) John Allison, the chairman and CEO of BB&T bank. Allison drove towards a particular career, and, like Woods, is also very successful in his field, the banking industry. He identified certain business actions as practical, and engaged in them, including teaching his employees his personal value system, and funding courses and organizations in support of Capitalism.
These examples illustrate that seeking life makes certain actions, objects, and positions objective values or disvalues relative to certain facts of life's requirements and to an individual's goals and purposes. Not adequately practicing before an upcoming golf championship would be a disvalue for Woods, because it would decrease his chance of winning, possibly lessen his endorsements, and reduce his general ability as a golf player--which means: all things considered, it would be bad for his life. Increasing the economic value of BB&T's products would be a value for Allison, by contrast, because it would likely increase his company's success, increase shareholder value, and allow his company to buffer any future losses--meaning that it would be good for his life, fully considered. Objective values are needs that we should pursue because they are conducive to our lives, and they allow us to succeed at our chosen goal of living--this is Rand's basic depiction of objective values.
Another element of the objectivity of values Smith points out is that it is relational: while things or practices can benefit us, such as a better golf swing in Woods' case, they can only function as values if the person identifies them as beneficial--as worth the effort of gaining. This relational aspect of objective values highlights the crucial role that our free will plays. Certain biological facts make certain things beneficial and other things harmful regardless of our own thoughts and opinions towards them, but our thoughts do matter in regards to considering some benefits as "values," because our conclusions will determine if we act towards what we believe to be values.
We need to seek beneficial objects to enhance our lives, and many of these beneficial things can only be gained by our deliberate choices and actions--meaning that in order to be successful, we must know how to choose and what to choose. In Smith's (and Rand's) view, this is precisely why we need morality. "A moral code," Smith writes, "identifies the kinds of ends that a person should seek (values) and the kinds of actions that he should take to secure values (virtues)."[3]
This understanding of how the individual's choice to live and his pursuit of identified beneficial things is (partly) what gives rise to objective values (and morality) is one of Smith's points in the essay.
The other point highlighting how pivotal the individual is in an objective morality centers around the concept of "objectivity" itself.[4] In short, our thoughts and choices don't automatically conform to reality, and so we discover that it is necessary to identify methods of thinking which take the facts into consideration (objective) and contrast them with methods which ignore or evade relevant facts (non-objective). For example, Woods changing his swing when it injured him is a professionally objective approach insofar as he paid attention to relevant facts (his physical condition, his previous golf approach, negative consequences of not changing his swing, etc.) in order to succeed in his goals.
The need to pursue values, coupled with the facts that we don't automatically pursue them and don't automatically know how to succeed, are the grounds for an objective morality--a morality that makes possible systematic guidance in determining if our actions conform to the facts and our goals, or if they don't.
It is the deliberate choice to live, the identification of certain beneficial things which one should pursue (objective values), and an objective approach to one's life-decisions that demonstrates the importance of the subject in an objective morality.
Before concluding, I'd like to point out one of the implications of this view of moral objectivity.[5] Namely, that Smith-Rand's view of morality places its function solely in the advancement of one's own life--it is egoistic.[6] This moral code is concerned with one's self-interest and how to realistically accomplish it. As Smith notes:
The question that a person faces, in aspiring to moral objectivity, is not how to escape his vantage point, either literally or figuratively, but how to make his view conform with reality. What is the nature of this thing that I am considering? And what sort of impact is it most likely to exert on my life? These are the principal questions that a person must address.[7] A very illuminating essay, which may be of particular interest to those who think of an "objective morality" as a set of duties to be fulfilled in total disregard to one's interests.
References and Notes
[1] All of the essays in the January issue are available for free
viewing, and no registration required.
[2] The Truth About Tiger
[3] Tara Smith (2008). The Importance of the Subject in Objective Morality: Distinguishing Objective from Intrinsic Value. Social Philosophy and Policy, Cambridge University Press, 25: p. 132.
[4] For more on the concept of "objectivity," the Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on objectivity.
[5] Another implication Smith points out in the paper is that Rand's view of moral objectivity rejects a single list of values, identical for everyone (which is usually a characteristic of the moral objectivism position in philosophy). Many of the things Tiger Woods pursues in connection to his profession as a golfer are values for him, but probably are not values for John Allison, since he is in a different line of work. Similarly, the values they both pursue (organizations they support and career) legitimately differ. By "legitimate," I second Smith's remark that the "parameters defining the permissible range are themselves objective insofar as they are grounded in the natural requirements of human life" (Smith, "The Importance of the Subject," p. 143).
[6] See more on egoism in chapter 6 of Smith's book, Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality, and in this Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on Selfishness
[7] "The Importance of the Subject," p. 146Labels: Ethics, Objectivism
|
| |
E-mail Roderick Fitts
PermaLink ()
Comments [10]
|
|
| Thursday, July 10, 2008 |
|
Think You Understand Objectivism?
By Greg Perkins @ 5:48 PM
Veteran or newbie, fan or critic, here's your chance to enjoy a real upgrade to your personal understanding of Rand's philosophy, your ability to live like ideas matter, and your facility in helping change our culture for the better!
The Objectivism Seminar is currently working its way through Dr. Leonard Peikoff's seminal book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. After wrapping up Chapter 1, we took a little break for OCON and assorted schedule interference, so now is a great time to catch up and jump in! Our next session will be Sunday July 27, 7:30pm Mountain.
I have to say that I'm really pleased with how our new meeting format is shaping up. Everyone seems to be growing and sharpening their understanding -- newer and more experienced students of the philosophy alike. Basically, we have been discussing just one section of the book each week (maybe 5-15 pages of reading), and then working over the material from several angles in discussion. Each meeting runs for about an hour and a half, and if you want to see (hear) what it is like, just visit the Objectivism Seminar's page at TalkShoe to listen or even subscribe to the podcasts for past sessions.
If you want to jump in, now is a great time: all you have to do is read Chapter 1, hopefully listen to the podcasts of the sessions for it, read at least the first section of Chapter 2, and show up for the next session in a couple of weeks!Labels: Objectivism
|
| |
E-mail Greg Perkins
PermaLink ()
Comments [3]
|
|
| Thursday, July 03, 2008 |
|
OCON: Q&A Session with Leonard Peikoff
By Paul Hsieh @ 11:01 PM
As many readers know, Dr. Leonard Peikoff gave a special Q&A session for attendees of OCON 2008 on July 2, 2008. I've chosen to summarize a few selected questions, not necessarily in the order that they were asked. These are paraphrases from my notes and not verbatim quotes, so any errors or inadvertent inaccuracies are purely my own, not his. He took a mixture of nearly 40 written and spoken questions. The session lasted 90 minutes, with a 5 minute intermission halfway through.
He and the ARI established a few ground rules ahead of time. In particular, he stated that he wouldn't comment on the 2008 Presidential election. He also gave an update on the status of his forthcoming book on the DIM hypothesis as well as his podcasting activities. Overall, he was in an cheerful benevolent mood, and there were many touches of humor that I can't easily capture in this blog post. His mind was razor sharp, and it was good to see him at his best.
I don't know if an audio recording of this session will be subsequently released as a CD from the Ayn Rand Bookstore or on his podcast. If I learn more, I'll post an update.
My own comments will be in square brackets ("[]").
=====
Book update: The book is going both "badly" and well. It is going "badly" in the sense that he has completed a preliminary draft of the entire book, but now has to do a lot of heavy editing of the earlier chapters.
It is going well in the sense that he is now fully convinced of the correctness of his DIM hypothesis, based on the research he has done. And he is enjoying the writing process and is happy with the quality of the work. The book should be completed by Christmas 2010 at the very latest.
Podcast update: He enjoys doing the podcast tremendously. He is pleased with the quality of the questions and believes that the questions submitted are of better quality than in the past. He is also happy with the improved audio quality. He hopes that his answers are spurring his listeners to pursue some of these ideas in greater depth by looking for more information in the rest of the Objectivist literature. Also, he finds the podcasting to be a nice break from his book writing.
The podcasts will now be available on iTunes, which any users can subscribe to for free!
[I think this is terrific news, since this will make it easier to transfer files back and forth from my iPod, rather than having to do the downloads through the Peikoff.com website.]
Q) What philosophical or cultural trend is the most dangerous?
A) Religion.
Q) Will the rise of environmentalism and the subsequent loss of freedoms bring us to a society like that portrayed in Anthem?
A) Yes and no. Environmentalism does pose a danger to our freedoms. But the society depicted in Anthem is a fictional one which projects the idea of collectivism in its purest form. In our case, he believes that a different bad outcome would be more likely -- one in which we are ruled by a Pope rather than a "Council of Scholars".
Q) Who are the "low hanging fruit" most likely to be receptive to Objectivist ideas, i.e., the best targets to reach?
A) In his experience, young people between ages 17-29. Before age 17, they are generally too young and not ready to digest these ideas. After age 30, they are more likely to stop thinking as they will have finished deciding their basic values. With respect to specific professions, he's noticed that engineers, computer people, and doctors seem to be disproportionately represented in Objectivist circles.
Q) What are your favorite artworks in the following specific categories -- novel, play, painting, sculpture, and song?
A) His favorites are:Novel - Atlas Shrugged
Play - Cyrano de Bergerac
Painting - The Creation of Adam (Michelangelo)
Sculpture - The Dying Slave (Michelangelo)
Song - He doesn't know which is his favorite, but it's not "God Save the King" (the first song title that popped into his head when he heard the question). Q) As a gay Objectivist, there seem to be a disproportionate number of other gays in the Objectivist community relative to the population at large. Is there an explanation for this?
A) "Is that a problem?" [Lots of laughter, and the questioner said, no that wasn't a problem at all for him.] Basically, it's hard to know if there actually is over-representation or under-representation given the small numbers. Perhaps if there were 20 million Objectivists we could ask the question and attempt an answer. But the numbers are currently too small to attempt to answer this question or even to know if the premise is true.
Q) Is there a proper role for government in environmental issues where there are collective action questions -- for instance, issue of pollution where no single source causes a provable harm, but the aggregate of millions of polluters is a source of harm?
A) If a single polluter can be shown to be the cause of a provable harm to another, then this should be addressed through the courts -- i.e., the polluter can be sued for damages.
On the other hand, in the cases where an industrial society inherently generates in aggregate a level of pollution that may cause harm, but no single individual's pollution is a provable source of harm, then there is no role for government intervention. A person can't take the benefits of living in an industrial society (such as advanced medical technology that lets people to live to age 75 rather than dying at age 25), then also complain that the government should stop the Los Angeles smog that causes his eyes to water.
If you don't want to live in LA, then the proper response is to move away, not ask the government to impose environmental regulations.
[Obviously this opens up a number of interesting secondary issues, but he did not pursue this further.]
Q) Is the word "Shrugged" in "Atlas Shrugged" a verb or an adjective?
A) It's a verb. "I can't imagine a sentence in which 'shrugged' would be used an adjective."
Q) Is it legitimate for a person to make a career of theoretical science, without regard to practical application? Or must there be some attempt at application for this to be a legitimate activity?
A) As an individual scientist, this can be a totally legitimate activity. This can be part of a division of labor where someone pursues advances in theory without necessarily concerning himself with how it can be applied, whereas others use their minds to develop applications.
In a free society, someone concerned purely with theory might find it difficult to obtain funding, since most businesses would want to pay for research with some eventual practical applications. But if he had his own source of private funding or if that was how the division of labor was made, then this is fine.
From the perspective of man as such, it is not a legitimate endeavour to pursue pure theory without regard for any practical application that would benefit man's life in some way. But from the perspective of the individual scientist, a division of labor into theoreticians vs. applied scientists can be entirely legitimate.
Q) What is your favorite episode of The Twilight Zone?
A) The episode "A Nice Place to Visit", because of the deep philosophical content presented in an engaging way accessible to all viewers. He also likes the Twilight Zone series as a whole due to the good dialogue and characterizations, as well as brilliant plot twists.
[Larry Salzman notes that the full 30-minute episode can be found here on the CBS website. Thanks, Larry!]
Q) Do you have any advice on how to achieve cultural change for the better?
A) Nothing more than Ayn Rand has already said in her essay, "What Can One Do?". Namely, to write, speak out and advocate good ideas in the appropriate contexts.Labels: ARI, Objectivism, OCON
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [16]
|
|
|
