 |
A Critical Account of Anthony Daniels on Ayn Rand |
 |
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM   
NoodleFood reader Paul Marshall posted the following essay in the comments a few days ago. When I read it, I thought it far to good for a mere blog comment. So with his permission, I'm posting it here. Of course, it's also far too good for a mere NoodleFood post, but that's the best I can offer. Without further ado...
A Critical Account of Anthony Daniels
By Paul Marshall
I was taken aback by Anthony Daniels's superficial analysis of Ayn Rand in his article "Ayn Rand: Engineer of Souls," which appeared in the February edition of The New Criterion. And this is coming from someone who is enamored of Daniels's excellent writing in Life at the Bottom, where he illustrates his critique of modern British society with superbly wrought first-hand observations.
I am not, however, shocked. In contrast to his encyclopedic dissection of the culture of the British slums, Daniels has long taken a nonintellectual approach to cultural criticism, eschewing the daunting task of identifying the ideas that move the culture--a daunting task Rand excelled at like no one else.
Take his article, "Trash, Violence and Versace: But Is It Art?", which attacks the infamous "Sensation" show at the Royal Academy--a piece in which he never bothers to address the philosophic morass that led to that deplorable exhibition.
To write an article that illuminated the nihilism of the Young British Artists, one would need to do a lot more intellectual legwork. To get to the marrow, one would need to address the arc of art history, which has led us from the brilliance of the Renaissance and the technical mastery of the French Academy in the 19th century to the dismal state that we are in today. Moreover, one would need to analyze the people who conditioned "taste" makers like Charles Saatchi--the art critics of the contemporary scene, from Clement Greenberg to Arthur Danto. Most importantly, one would then need to identify the philosophic ideas that conditioned these conditioners--that is, look at the ideas that shape society. People do not just make and admire sculptures like Dinos and Jake Chapman's deformed, sexualized children without philosophic conditioning.
Daniels, however, demurs from looking too deeply into the matter. But while he steers clear of the ideas in the cultural milieu that caused "Sensation," he does so with grace and eloquence par excellence. He movingly describes the cruelty of artist Marcus Harvey subjecting the mother of one of Myra Hindley's child victims to a portrait of the murderer made with the handprints of a small child. He quotes the vapid justifications of the Royal Academy's chief of exhibitions. And he ends by delightfully turning a quip by Joshua Reynolds--about the desire of youth to find a shorter path to excellence than hard work--into an indictment of a culture that does this through the nihilism of "Sensation." All of these points are excellent, but they do not explain the phenomenon of "Sensation."
Daniels is quick to place the blame for society's ills not on ideas that people choose to live by, but on something akin to an innate bestial drive in human nature. In his article, "Nick Berg's Executioners All Too Clearly Enjoyed Beheading Him," he writes: "My vision of man has darkened ... since I began to investigate the lives of ordinary British people ... I have come to the conclusion that the default setting of man is to evil and that, if not all, then many or perhaps most men will commit evil if they can get away with it ... Both self-examination and my experience of others tells me that evil lurks within all of us, waiting for its opportunity to spring. Civilisation may be a veneer, but it is the veneer that separates us from barbarism. Never forget Original Sin and its consequences." He tends to leave his explanations there.
What he omits to note here, however, is that Nick Berg's murderers were motivated by their wicked ideology. While they may have "all too clearly enjoyed beheading him"--the thought of which makes me want to vomit in rage--they were also all too clearly willing to sacrifice everything for their faith in Allah, which our Air Force pilots valiantly delivered to them with their laser-guided bombs. Radical Islam is a theology that creates sadists, not one that simply acts as a cover for them.
When Daniels tries to make sense of "Sensation," all he can do is chalk it up to "intellectual snobbery" in a democratic age, in which the intellectual tries to prove "the freedom of his spirit by the amorality of his conceptions. Not surprisingly, in this atmosphere artists feel obliged to dwell only upon the visually revolting: for how else in a world of violence, injustice and squalor, does one prove one's bona fides than by dwelling on the violent, the unjust, and the squalid." To Daniels, the modern artist tries to impress by imitating the brutish squalor of the slums (where, he believes, man's default setting of evil is allowed to go unobstructed).
Daniels, however, does not attempt to identify or explain why the current fad of intellectual snobbery is an obsession with nihilism, and a belief that one's class, culture, race or gender inevitably distorts one's worldview. These philosophic ideas do not originate on the street but in the ivory towers of Oxford and Cambridge. Artists have seized these ideas and run with them, creating malevolent works of art, and turning their field into a proxy war where they break taboos to further the cause of their culture, race or gender. Or, as the throngs who flocked to "Sensation" experienced it, Ron Mueck sculpts his "Dead Dad" and Tracey Emin appliques the names for "Everyone I Have Ever Slept With (1963-1995)" on the inside of a tent.
To understand "Sensation" requires an analysis of how these philosophic ideas became injected into Western culture. Artists didn't make such art five hundred years ago, because these are not the ideas that dominated the culture during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, when man's life on Earth was viewed with the benevolent wonder of the Ancient Greeks and reason was venerated as an efficacious instrument. Compare the art of our era and theirs, and note what philosophy can make or destroy.
Daniels's cultural critiques have not improved over the decade. In "The Architect as Totalitarian," he takes on the loathsome architect Le Corbusier. Noting the architect's elitist and cryptic writing style, Daniels finally zeros in on what he believes is his major fault: Le Corbusier's "totalitarian mindset." To defend this claim, Daniels produces a number of quotes from the architect, where Le Corbusier intones the imperative "we must ..." in a ridiculous but alarming manner. But the closest Daniels gets to making his case is quoting the "program of the International Congress for Modern Architecture, of which Le Corbusier was the moving spirit, [which] states: 'Reforms are extended simultaneously to all cities, to all rural areas, across the seas.' No exceptions. 'Oslo, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Algiers, Port Said, Rio or Buenos Aires.'"
Daniels never examines what ideas the "totalitarian mindset" consists of, or what philosophy underlies it. In fact, apart from vague notions of "inhumanity" and "authoritarianism," I don't believe that Daniels knows what a "totalitarian mindset" is, which is why he can be so flippant with the label.
The program dictated by the International Congress for Modern Architecture, as quoted by Daniels, would imply a totalitarian mindset, a desire to override the property rights of citizens and forcing Le Corbusier's whims on them. But, in his article on Rand, Daniels actually seems sympathetic to this mindset when he writes: "I own my house and the land on which it stands outright, but this (in my opinion) does not give me the right, even if the law granted it, to knock my house down and build a brutalist construction of reinforced concrete in its place, however much it might be in my individual financial interest to do so. A single such construction would ruin the whole once and for all; where architecture is concerned, the public or collective interest really does exist."
Of course, Daniels is sure that he is right and Le Corbusier was wrong, so it is just fine that his impeccable aesthetic judgment should dictate how others live. This is first step down the road to totalitarianism.
Daniels needs to ask himself: Could a "totalitarian mindset" have anything to do with the aim of shaping minds in the tradition of Marxist dialectical materialism? What philosophic assumptions gave rise to Marx? Was it Hegel's ideas? Was it Kant's Copernican Revolution? What lies at the base of the politics of totalitarianism? The abrogation of individual rights? Collectivism? Is modernist architecture also a nihilistic attack on the bourgeoisie and their beaux-arts standards? What gives rise to nihilism?
Mr. Daniels does not ask such questions nor offer answers. He does not write about ideas.
Such articles are the equivalent of junk food: high in calories, low in nutrition.
But they are works of intellectual rigor compared with Daniels's "Ayn Rand: Engineer of Souls," a critical account of a subject he seems to know next to nothing about.
Daniels does appear to have read The Fountainhead (alas, apart from skimming The Virtue of Selfishness that seems to be the extent of his reading from Rand), but he is unable to name its theme: individualism as intellectual independence--specifically, the first-handed thinker against the second-handed thinker. In the book, Rand portrays people who are the embodiment of these ideas. Take the main character, Howard Roark, who defies the conventions of Beaux-Arts historical forms (a style of architecture I often find delightful), because he is an originator of ideas. Here, Rand does not mean an original in the cliched sense of one who merely flaunts convention. Rather, Roark fashions his creations from whole cloth relying on his first-hand observations of the building's setting and its requirements. In other words, he is not a classicist; he does not take the architectural forms of others and recycle them (forms which are often at odds with the function of a modern building). This separates Roark from second-handers like Peter Keating who copy styles from Beaux-Arts to modernism--the latter of which she trenchantly critiques as well. Rand repeats the theme--self-guided, rational thought over intellectual parasitism and conformity--in various permutations and with a variety of characters throughout the novel.
What is clear in his analysis of The Fountainhead is that Mr. Daniels can't get past his hang-up on the details of architecture to evaluate the ideas at its core. I too prefer the Queen Anne style to Le Corbusier, but this did not blind me to the intellectual theme of the book.
(And an aside, Howard Roark was inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright not Le Corbusier--and both used reinforced concrete, but to entirely different effects.)
More fundamentally, Rand's advocacy of rational certainty seems to irk Daniels. He appears to mistake a certainty born of the Enlightenment (Newton's scientific certainty, not Robespierre's authoritarianism) for dogmatism, writing that she "hardened her ideas into ideology." "In Loose Ends in Liverpool," he writes of his own "preoccupation--anti-ideology" and his "great surprise and pleasure" when the curators at the Walker Art Galley "appeared to make no point at all" in what could have been an ideologically polarizing exhibit. Elsewhere, he attacks Le Corbusier because he "believed there was a 'correct' way to build and that only he knew what it was." And in "Trash, Violence and Versace: But Is It Art?", he writes of a crudity that results from an "ideologically inspired (and therefore insincere) admiration for all that is demotic."
Rand's certainty was based on evidence and logic. If Daniel's had read her works or listened to her lectures, he would have observed that she made her case by laying out the evidence that led her to draw the abstract conclusions that became her philosophy. But why bother thoroughly investigating someone you are going to critique when you believe that ideology as such is just window dressing for dark, bestial impulses?
Daniels has the bad habit of trying to throw around his erudition in the free and easy manner of one who is itching to use it, but just can't quite find the right place to make it work. It is absurd for him to dub Rand as the "Chernyshevsky of individualism" without pointing out even the most cursory ideological similarity between her and the Russian tradition of "angry literary and social critics, pamphleteers and ideologues." Daniels does so based solely on what he takes to be her "vehemence, moral fanaticism and mediocrity as a thinker," and on his evaluation that she "was neither fully a philosopher, nor fully a novelist, but something in between the two" and her "speechifying." And yes, I have quoted the whole of Daniels's case. I suppose then that Newton is the "Stalin of science" for his heavy-handed political maneuvering at the Royal Society. You see the absurdity of not thinking in essentials? (One has the sense that Daniels's editors at The New Criterion are his fan-boys and they are not doing him any favors with their uncritical pens.)
What Daniels takes to be the tone of Rand's writing, that it "bores you like a drill," the fact that she held that her ideas were unprecedented (they were), her striking a dedication from Atlas Shrugged, and her "admiration bordering on worship of industrialization and the size of human construction" is enough evidence for him to repeatedly link her to Stalin--even though philosophically, were he diligent enough to investigate the matter, he would find them to be diametrically opposed: reason vs. dialectical materialism, individualism vs. collectivism, individual rights vs. class warfare. Again, this is the whole of his case. And again Daniels does not write about ideas, but superficial non-similarities--Stalin also spoke Russian and had a respiratory system, don't you know. Such a baseless comparison is chillingly unjust and it is reprehensible given that Daniels must know that Rand's parents died in the prison that was Stalin's Russia.
Such "downright cruelty," to use the doctor's own words, along with his bizarre psychologizing of Rand (based on a single distorted biographical detail and a misreading of a once mentioned character in The Fountainhead) is emblematic of a nasty streak in Daniels's writing, one illustrated in his reflections on the Walker Art Gallery, "Loose Ends in Liverpool," where he gratuitously pokes the corpse of the earnest but mediocre artist Benjamin Haydon, who took his own life in a fit of despair.
Daniels passes over some of the finest art in the world (the Walker collection includes J.W. Waterhouse's "Echo and Narcissus," Paul Delaroche's "Napoleon Crossing the Alps" and Hamo Thornycroft's "The Mower") to mock Haydon whom he coldly dubs a "tragicomic character." Here Daniels displays a shocking lack of regard for the extremely sad, but all too common phenomenon of earnest over-reachers. A soul who earnestly struggles to be good, but lacks the ability to do so is tragic. To exhume Haydon as an object of ridicule when it has nothing to do with the theme of one's piece--other than to pretentiously display your grasp of a minor player in the history of art--is shameful, even if the person is long dead. (And this from the same man who writes so tenderly and beautifully about those sensitive souls who have to live amongst the brutes in the British slums.)
If I were to tear a page from Daniels's playbook, I would wonder whether such callousness showed a psychopath lurking beneath his eloquent prose (and I get the inkling that he may even agree). But that would be just as unfounded and supercilious as when he implies the same about Rand.
Such superficial and baseless evaluations are the closest Daniels gets to Rand's ideas. He spends the rest of the article attacking a straw man. He declares that Rand divides "mankind into two categories," that she rejects compassion, that her philosophy "would seem to justify the reign of philosopher-kings," that she "suggest that people are to be judged mainly by reference to their brain power," that she holds that the marketplace is the proper judge of value, that "she never expresses any sympathy or understanding for the weak or ill" and treats it as a "sign of their moral and human worthlessness," that "Romantic Realism is virtuously indistinguishable from Socialist Realism." All of this is not just mind-bogglingly false, but absurd. Daniels should be ashamed of reviewing someone whom he doesn't have the foggiest grasp of, and someone whom he has not read more than a smattering from. This is a schoolboy's paper of confusions spun around the flimsiest of out of context quotes. That's when he supplies any quotes by Rand at all, which is a grand total of six times (and two of which he is admiring). You cannot quote what you do not read.
Daniels is not even familiar enough with Rand's oeuvre to make a pretense of addressing what she wrote. I think he would be astonished to realize the true depth of her thought from her metaphysics and epistemology to her ethics, politics and aesthetics--something one doesn't get from reading Anne C. Heller's embarrassingly trite book. (She is a "fair-minded biographer?" Listen to the bitter, mocking tone and pot shots she takes at Rand when she is interviewed by The New York Times or NPR. Contrary to her meek protestations, she is not "something of an admirer of her subject." She hates her subject.)
But Daniels will never spend the time to actually read Rand and that's just fine with The New Criterion.
Anthony Daniels's writing can sparkle. He can entertain with erudite and obscure trivia. But he seems unwilling to think deeply about ideas. Consequently, his intellect is as wide as an ocean, but as shallow as a puddle.Labels: Art, Objectivism, Philosophy
| | |  E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
Friday, January 29, 2010 |
|
Philosophy and Sense of Life |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
Back in December, Front Range Objectivism created a third FROG discussion group. 2FROG was just too large, and we're trying to keep the FROG groups at about twelve plus/minus two people. I've opted to join 3FROG. Officially, that's because I want to help steer this newer group in the right direction in my capacity as Overall FRO Leader. Honestly though, I'm not too worried about them. Mostly I'm just enthused to spend some time discussing Objectivism with some of the newer folks in FRO.
3FROG just began Ayn Rand's anthology on aesthetics, The Romantic Manifesto. I'm pleased by that choice, as that covers a great deal of material that I'm just not terribly familiar with. More particularly, the essays often concern more psychological issues -- like sense of life and emotions -- that clearly bear on my own deep interest in Aristotle's moral psychology.
On Saturday, I lead the discussion on the second essay, "Philosophy and Sense of Life." Here are questions that I posed to the group.
- What is sense of life? How is it formed? How does it function in a person's life? How does it relate to a person's explicit philosophic principles? How does it relate to psycho-epistemology?
- How does a person identify his own sense of life? Why and how might that be difficult? What might be some clues? What is my own sense of life?
- Can a person change his sense of life? Why might he want to do so? How might he do so? Why might that process be difficult or even unpleasant? How might a person psychologically retrain himself?
- How can a person learn to better identify the sense of life of other people he knows and meets? Why and how might that be important?
What would you say in answer to those questions? They seem simple, but they're actually quite involved! We discussed them for quite a while in 3FROG, and I'm happy to say that I have a better grip on the topic now than when I read the essay last week. As for my own answers, that will have to wait for some future day.Labels: Objectivism, Psycho-Epistemology, Sense of Life
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
Thursday, January 21, 2010 |
|
Objectivist Roundup |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:00 PM
Erosophia has the latest Objectivist Roundup.
Here's how Jenn Caset of Rational Jenn recently explained the Objectivist Roundup -- and what you might do to promote it -- on OActivists :
In case you're not familiar with the Objectivist Round Up, a "blog carnival" is a regular compilation of blog posts by different authors on a particular subject or theme or other criterion. The only requirement for participation in the Objectivist Round Up is that the author of the blog post be an Objectivist. (That requirement also applies to the weekly hosts.)
Bloggers take turns hosting the carnival each week, and the edition goes up on Thursdays. The topics vary from week to week, based on the posts submitted by the bloggers who choose to participate that week. Some bloggers participate pretty regularly; others infrequently. A typical edition of the carnival has about 16 - 25 entries.
Check out the Objectivist Round Up if you haven't had a chance to before now! And pass the links along to others--either a specific post that may have captured your attention, or the link to the carnival edition itself. I know that many of us OBloggers have non-Objectivist readers who enjoy reading the carnival. So in that way, I think the carnival might be considered an activism tool. We generally announce the new edition of the carnival on our own blogs, and post links to Facebook and Twitter, too--where we all have non-Objectivist friends, family, and followers. So if you'd like to do the same, that would be wonderful!
If you have a blog and are interested in participating in the carnival, you can find more information at our carnival homepage. Or you can email me personally, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thanks for reading, and thanks for spreading the word!
~Jenn Casey, administrator of the blog carnival Again, here's the latest edition of the latest Objectivist Roundup.Labels: act, Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
|
Tips for Leading Discussions |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
Shortly after Lin Zinser created Front Range Objectivism's second FROG study group, she posted the following helpful suggestions for leading a discussion based on an assigned essay. I dug up the e-mail because FRO recently created a third FROG study group. (Hooray!) I wanted to post it here, as I think her suggestions might be of use to others seeking to create (or improve) their own study groups.
Notably, while Lin's comments pertain to studying Objectivist essays, they'd apply to almost any discussions of readings. Also, more advice and help for Objectivist study groups can be found on the uber-useful web site of the Objectivist Club Network.
Without further ado, here's Lin's e-mail:
These are suggestions I have regarding leading a discussion group -- Take this for what it may be worth to you.
The point of the discussion group is to discuss articles, teasing out and chewing the ideas in a way that crystallizes them so that they can be understood and integrated by each individual. The discussion group premise is that anyone who attends has something to contribute in most discussions, and we are seeking a better understanding and development of the ideas based on the broader context of knowledge provided by all of the participants.
It is expected that everyone comes to the meeting having read the material. Occasionally, someone will not be able to complete the readings, but the presumption should still be made. Therefore, the idea is not to prepare an outline or book report or detailed summary of what the article said. The idea is to present a short synopsis of the article in 3 to 5 minutes to remind everyone of what the article was about, and to set the context for the discussion.
This synopsis could be a short summary and also might include specific phrases or sentences or parts that you, the leader, might have found particularly noteworthy for some reason. Or you might simply isolate the theme and purpose of the article and then identify the main parts that support the theme.
To then start the discussion, the leader could come prepared with either points or questions from the article that were confusing, puzzling or problematic. Or, the leader could prepare a few questions for discussion. One way to figure out some questions is to use the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" questions, or the "as opposed to what?" question. (Some of you may recognize these from Jean Moroney's course... or from journalism courses)
In reading any of Ayn Rand's works, it helps to ask -- what is the point here? Why is this included? How does Ayn Rand make this point clear? How does this apply to my life? When or where do I see this viewpoint being expressed -- at work, on TV, where? Do I know people who act like she describes? How should I act or behave towards them? How is the best way to respond to this behavior? Is there a better way to react to people who are saying, doing or advocating wrong ideas than the way I have reacted to them in the past? How can I use this information to better my life? I am sure you can come up with many more questions along these lines. Our group seems very disposed to discuss issues, so I think that only a few questions are necessary.
As a reader and discussion member, but not the leader on a particular article, I think it helpful, while reading the material, to figure out one question or point to discuss from each article. If most people in the group do that, there will be more than enough material for a discussion. Think about discussion points as you read the material.
These are some of my general observations and suggestions to facilitate the discussion. I want to state that I have no criticisms of anyone who has led the group. In fact, just the opposite. I am very pleased with the enthusiasm, the interest, and competence of all involved. I am very pleased, as you must be also, for the interest and discussions that have been generated.
Finally, I want to reiterate that the above are suggestions because some people have specifically asked for assistance. The point of having a leader is to guide the group to a profitable, productive discussion that will enhance your understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and thereby enhance your life. For those of you involved with Objectivist study groups, what have you found most helpful in terms of facilitating good discussion? What mistakes have you made that you'd recommend others avoid?
Last year, I posted on the three major benefits of participation in an Objectivist study group. Unbeknownst to me, Ben B. posted something for the Objectivist Club Network just a few days earlier: 3 Selfish Reasons for Running a Campus Club. Our posts were totally independent, yet our three points were remarkably similar.
(Some morons would point to that similarity as evidence of some kind of insidious group-think. That's absurd. The real explanation is far simpler: armed with similar experiences and values, Ben and I recognized the same basic facts of the matter.)Labels: Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 |
|
An Objectivist Recants on IP?? |
|
By Greg Perkins @ 8:00 AM
Over at the anarchist-libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute, intellectual property lawyer Stephan Kinsella posted " An Objectivist Recants on IP." The posting describes how someone named Bala was mixing it up in their discussion threads and eventually came to conclude that "An Objectivist cannot and should not support the notion of Intellectual Property because it violates fundamental Objectivist principles."
Unsurprisingly, the culmination of Bala's odyssey and the central point that cemented the illegitimacy of intellectual property in his mind is a common one voiced by libertarians opposed to intellectual property: the notion that intellectual property rights inherently conflict with material property rights. Ideas and patterns, on the other hand, presented a problem when I tried to treat them as "property". While there is no denying the value of ideas in human advancement, exclusion of other individuals from an idea or pattern necessarily involves the initiation of force. For instance, how else is A to prevent B from incorporating A's idea in his B's product other than to force himself upon B's property and coerce B to prevent him from doing so, thus violating B's Liberty? In effect, recognising ideas and patterns as property is tantamount to saying that A has a moral right to initiate force against B simply because he has coined an idea. Thus, as an Objectivist, classifying ideas and patterns as "property" takes me into dangerous territory where I am ready to label the initiation of force as legitimate. This is ultimately based on confusion about which kinds of ideas do and don't properly count as intellectual property, as well as confusion about what does and doesn't constitute a rights-violation. I addressed this (and more) a few years back in " Don't Steal This Article!", an analysis of the strongest libertarian arguments I could find against the legitimacy of intellectual property: The first thing to note is the plain fact that people are routinely prevented from using their material property when it would violate any right -- so the protection of intellectual property rights would not be unique in so "controlling" other people in their use of their material property. For example, my neighbor's person and property rights are not violated when he is not allowed to spontaneously whack me in the head with his fully-owned two-by-four. His rights are not violated in preventing him from using his tangible truck to pull up to my house and drive off with my entertainment center. We are all restricted from using our persons and property to violate the rights of others, and such restrictions do not themselves constitute an infringement of rights because nobody has the right to violate rights.
It is bad enough that these libertarian scholars ignore such an obvious point, but the evasion reaches full bloom in Kinsella's explanation of the alleged "taking" caused by the appearance of intellectual property. The charge is that, as intellectual property comes into existence, liberty is lost in a magical transfer of partial ownership from the owners of material property to an author or inventor, thereby unjustly preventing them from doing something they were otherwise free to do with their own property. But in no sense is any ability, permission, or liberty lost. Recall that intellectual property rights protect the manufacture of creations -- objects which did not and would not otherwise exist. Before a novel has been written, absolutely nobody has the power to publish it, so its being authored cannot remove any liberty previously enjoyed by printers. And before some better mousetrap is invented, nobody has the power to produce it -- so its being invented cannot deny manufacturers any previously enjoyed freedom.
Indeed, far from losing any power or liberty, the options available to owners of material property only increase with the appearance of intellectual property: they are presented with at least the potential to use their property in the production of new, life-serving objects in collaboration with an inventor or artist. Bala's friends there at LvMI are definitely not helping him out. How many of the other issues with his account of Objectivism and IP can you see and (constructively) address?
Labels: Intellectual Property, Libertarianism, Objectivism
| | | 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
|
|
Thursday, November 12, 2009 |
|
Objectivism Versus Humanism |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:00 PM
William Schultz -- who I had the pleasure of meeting at the summer undergraduate conference of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism a few years ago -- e-mailed me yesterday to ask for my feedback on his defense of the Objectivist ethics in a discussion with a humanist. I didn't have time to do that for him, but I told him that I'd post a link with that request to NoodleFood, if he posted the exchange somewhere on the web.
Happily, he's done that: An Objectivist and Humanist in Discussion.
Here's the first exchange, to whet your appetite:
Humanist to William:
"i imagine that the value of food is generalized to all humans in the same way that objectivists generalize the value of non-coersion, or that everyone has the obligation to let others follow their own rational self-interest. i might ask you.. "what fact of reality could possible [sic] give rise to such an obligation?" what's to prevent yaron brook from becoming a serial murder if killing is one of his 'standards of happiness'?"
William to Humanist:
My suspicion is that you miss the fact that non-coercion is a *principle* not an *obligation* granted by some outside source.
Missing this principle would make sense if you didn't understand the foundation of the Objectivist ethics. For OE, the first question of ethics is not "which ethical code should I accept" but "why should I accept *any* ethical code." Long story short: An ethical code is a hierarchy of values. Values are things you act to gain or keep. But value is only intelligible for living organisms. Inanimate matter has no values. It is only life that makes values possible. Thus, the life of each individual organism is the standard (as well as what makes possible) the very concept of value and thus the very concept of morality. For a human being, his mind -- thought -- is his primary tool of survival. This means recognizing a whole host of implications (one of which is the principle of non-coercion) that I'm not going to elaborate on here, but I hope you get the basic thrust. If you are interested or opposed, I recommend reading Rand's much better display here.
On to your example: "what's to prevent yaron brook from becoming a serial murder if killing is one of his 'standards of happiness" The objectivist view is that happiness can only be achieved via an objective set of standards. Thus, the short answer to your question "What's to prevent Yaron....?" is, *reality*.
Of course, I could talk to a strung-out, starving, drug addict on the street and he could parrot the words "I'm happy." But my contention is that such a statement is just as valid as someone pointing at a triangle and exclaiming "circle!" The same pattern of thought applies to a thief or murderer -- they may feel, believe and say their action is in their interest but that has nothing to due with the fact of whether or not it is *objectively* selfish. If you're interested, please go read the whole thing. You're welcome to post any comments here on NoodleFood, but please do also post them to William Schultz's blog too.Labels: Ethics, Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 |
|
Response to Intellectual Smears |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:00 AM
Back in September, I received the following e-mail from some random guy "alan" in response to some promotion I was doing for the Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups:
Date: 11 September 2009 9:18:54 AM MDT
From: alan
To: Diana Hsieh
Subject: I know some about A.R., but have a question or 2
Hello Diana,
I have read that the fittest survive, that the best get the most, that those who deserve more get more (sports players, CEO, etc.), but is there not a place for compassion in her teaching? Noblese Oblige (sp.?) Take of the least of you? You are your brother's keeper? Moral obligation? And the like? Is there not a sense of greater responsibility in the Rand teaching? If not then is anyone responsible for the pressing (planetary, national, social) needs of the moment, or is it merely me, me, me? I get that some have been given the ability to develop their intelligence ( & have a "big" brain), but how about a "big" heart. Would that not be crucial in these day especially? And if we are not "balanced" like that, ie. wise & prudent, then is there any chance of human or planetary survival? Maybe humans have a death wish individually AND collectively. And who would want to live in a world of no love anyway? No compassion? No openness to the sweetness of the connectedness/oneness of life? That WOULD be delusional, & most sad. You'd think there'd be a lesson there.Â
Ya thank?
Sincerely, A. Here's my reply:
Date: 11 September 2009 9:44:18 AM MDT
From: Diana Hsieh
To: alan
Subject: Re: I know some about A.R., but have a question or 2
[quoted text omitted]
Ayn Rand does not advocate the "survival of the fittest." Â She advocates each person pursuing his own life and happiness by reason, with the voluntary, non-sacrificial cooperation of other rational people.
Compassion and kindness are part of AR's values, albeit not primary virtues. Â You see them in her heros in Atlas Shrugged, and she practiced them in her own life. Â In contrast -- and just as in real life -- the people who claim to be motivated by such feelings are often indifferent to the sufferings of innocent people. Â Plus, kindness towards others is a very different matter than sacrificing yourself to them -- or thinking yourself obligated to "keep" them.
If you want to discuss these issues more, I'd definitely recommend that you join one of the Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups, if you can. Â I think you'd find much of interest in AR's views -- as opposed to these common misconceptions about them.
-- DMH Then the conversation went downhill:
Date: 14 September 2009 12:06:28 AM MDT
From: alan
To: Diana Hsieh
Subject: Re: I know some about A.R., but have a question or 2
Who are these people you mention that claim to be motivated by compassion & kindness & are indifferent to the suffering of innocent people. Would they be religious fundamentalist conservative politicians who are all so keen to kill people all around the world & let them be killed & suffer in Africa? Possibly like Hitler & the like who are elitists, which reminds me of libertarians. The only reasonable thing to know is that very intelligent people are all so rational just like the Nazis in their zeal for a better more pure world free of racial "impurity". And so it would be more rational to realize the folly of anything other than to follow the heart, or as I say mind your heart. A common saying is that the mind is a terrible master, but an wonderful servant (of the heart). The longest distance is between the head (mind) & the heart. I ask questions to hear your response - that's all. Many/some would follow their bliss, & advise to be in one's heart, in one's body, in the (holy) moment or present. A common misconception is that we as people are our mind, & it is essentially worshiped.
AKG My reply wasn't so friendly. (I decided to ignore the difference between libertarianism and Objectivism in this context, as I just didn't think it relevant.)
Date: 14 September 2009 7:49:09 AM MDT
From: Diana Hsieh
To: alan
Subject: Re: I know some about A.R., but have a question or 2
[quoted text omitted]
Wow, you just likened me to Hilter. Â I suppose that's where "following your heart rather than your head" takes you. Â Who cares about the lack of any actual connection? Â Who cares about the fact that I'm explicitly opposed to every philosophical principle and action of the Third Reich? Â Why bother with pesky things like facts? Â You just feel that I'm mean -- and Hitler was mean too, right?
That's not just absurd; it's crazy-talk. Â One cannot have a sensible conversation on that basis. Â That's where your distain for reason takes you: you cannot muster the semblance of rational exchange.
In fact, Hitler was an ardent proponent of following the heart rather than the head. Â Reason would never sanction his racism, nor his brutality, nor his totalitarian state, nor killing a single innocent person. Â He did that by that preaching exactly what you preach: ignore facts, reason, and logic; indulge the emotions; the heart is superior to the head. Â The result -- the inevitable result of that -- is killing fields.
I'm sure you won't worry about that very real connection between Hitler's views and your own. Â After all, you're full of warm and fuzzy emotions -- not mean ones like Hitler! Â That's why you likened me to a mass murderer in your second e-mail. Â Yeah, that was very nice, very warm and fuzzy. Â Not.
Civilization requires people to deal with each other as rational persons. Â Since you reject that -- not just in the abstract but in your very method of spewing words without thought -- this conversation is over.
-- DMH Looking back on it now, I'm not happy with that response. Sure, the guy deserved all that. He deserved plenty more. Yet I cannot imagine that my words did any good whatsoever. So I ask: Should I have responded differently? Or not responded at all? And why?
I try to avoid such exchanges as much as possible. Yet when I find myself in them, I often feel like I ought to say something. I hate to leave such awful and wrong claims about Ayn Rand's views unchallenged. Yet everything that I might say either seems too soft to be just -- or too harsh to be of any use.
What do you think?Labels: Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
Thursday, November 05, 2009 |
|
Objectivist Roundup |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:00 AM
Welcome to the November 5th, 2009 edition of the Objectivist Roundup. This post presents insight and analyses written by Objectivist bloggers over the past week. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and Atlas Shrugged. As she explained:
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) Without further ado, here is the roundup:
Noah Stahl presents From Guilt to Good posted at The Undercurrent, saying, "Guilt is often portrayed as a healthy emotion--is it?"
Rational Jenn presents More from Ayn Rand about Childhood posted at Rational Jenn, saying, "Still believe that Ayn Rand viewed children negatively? This post includes two examples to the contrary from Atlas Shrugged."
Grant Jones presents Again With This Degenerate and Herbert Hoover: The Progressive Interventionist posted at The Dougout.
John Cox presents Attacking Capitalism? posted at John and Ansley, saying, "Jeb Bush recently stated that Obama is using the presidency to attack capitalism. While that statement is undoubtedly true, Republicans have been attacking capitalism with their deeds, if not their words, for years. Sadly, they have conned the rest of the country into believing they are defenders of the free market. That is simply not the case."
Ari Armstrong presents Rosen 0, Longo 0 posted at FreeColorado.com, saying, "The problems with pragmatic and dogmatic strains of libertarianism."
Paul Hsieh presents PJM OpEd -- "ObamaCare: A National Version of RomneyCare" posted at We Stand FIRM, saying, "My latest PajamasMedia OpEd discusses three things Americans should know about Congress' plan to impose a Massachusetts-style health care system on all of America."
Daniel presents Red Bull for Your Soul, Cont'd posted at The Nearby Pen, saying, "Here's a great poem that poetically states the importance of being true to yourself and of living in such a way that you can judge what you have done as unquestionably good--by the standards you yourself have set."
Amy Mossoff presents A Different Audience posted at The Little Things, saying, "An experience with the difficulties of blogging for both a general audience and Objectivists at the same time, and what I learned about fiction writing from it."
Rational Jenn presents On Children, Parents, and the Use of Force posted at Rational Jenn, saying, "This post describes the principles I use for setting rational limits for children and how (and when) to enforce them, without using parental-imposed punishments and reward systems."
Diana Hsieh presents NoodleCast #21: Design Arguments, Part 3 posted at NoodleFood, saying, "In this podcast, I present William Paley's classic design argument for the existence of God."
Stella presents Praying won't make it so posted at ReasonPharm, saying, "If Congress has its way, we'll soon be paying for prayer."
C. August presents The Essence of the Thing posted at Titanic Deck Chairs, saying, "Under the guise of attacking the "sin" of homosexuality, an archbishop clearly states the essential conflict of altruism vs. egoism. And in the process he cheers Islamist fundamentalists, saying, "any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers... is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice.""
Greg Perkins presents Libertarian vs. Objectivist Thinking posted at NoodleFood, saying, "Libertarians seem mystified by Rand's flat refusal to be classified as libertarian in her politics, even though she obviously fits their definition. Here is an explanation that goes to the epistemological roots of the issue and underscores the dangers of the libertarian way of thinking about politics."
Stephen Bourque presents Too Big to Fail - Addendum posted at One Reality, saying, "When a company accepts money from the government, is it henceforth beholden to that government?"
Adam Reed presents Life on the Edge of Implosion of Democracy posted at Born to Identify, saying, "I'm posting this because the sudden silence from my end of the wire may have made some readers of this blog uncomfortable, and I don't want anyone to think that I have a problem beyond serious overwork. I'm typing this as an otherwise-I-would-go-insane break from grading 100 midterm exams."
Doug Reich presents The Thyratron posted at The Rational Capitalist, saying, "Sometimes it takes a thyratron to remind us of a simple and wonderful truth." Submit your blog article to the next edition of Objectivist Roundup
using the carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our
blog carnival index page.Labels: Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
Wednesday, November 04, 2009 |
|
Libertarian vs. Objectivist Thinking |
|
By Greg Perkins @ 2:00 PM
The Cato Institute recently hosted a book forum with the authors of the two new Rand biographies, Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne C. Heller, and Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns. Cato's David Boaz ran the forum, setting the context, introducing the authors, and running the Q&A.
I am interested in the two books, so I wanted to hear the authors as they presented some of their thoughts and showed their mettle in the back-and-forth. The bottom line? Burns seems honest in her scholarship and sincere in her engagement. She said a lot of interesting things, and I want to hear more from her despite some weaknesses due to a lack of grounding in Rand's system of thought. Heller didn't come across nearly as well, which left me much less interested in her work. And then there's Boaz.
Boaz began by speaking of the enduring influence of Rand, especially on libertarians and conservatives, and about the recent surge in interest in her and her work. He agreed with a Liberty magazine review of Heller's book, saying that "There can be no question about the fact that Rand remains America’s most influential libertarian, with the possible exception of Milton Friedman, and America’s most influential novelist of ideas." Extending this, Boaz characterized Atlas Shrugged as a libertarian book, and Rand as a libertarian who has done more than anybody in our time to introduce people to libertarian ideas.
What got my attention was Boaz's treatment of the elephant in the room: he chuckled that many listening may wince at his talking that way, that indeed Rand would have disagreed with being classified as a libertarian (this would be an understatement) and that "many of her fans maintain that point even now." He dismissed all of this, saying in effect that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. You see, "anybody who believes in individual rights, free enterprise, and strictly limited government is a libertarian. And Ayn Rand certainly did." QED. Yet, he informs us, somehow this impeccable logic is lost on the "high priests" of Rand's estate, who refused to let any of her material appear in his book, The Libertarian Reader.
As an Objectivist, I see a different puzzle here: Many people, libertarians in particular, clearly admire and profit from Rand's ability to analyze and integrate, to identify widespread and longstanding false alternatives and package deals time and again, and to then offer something better. So I find it odd that when they see Rand apparently ignoring the incredibly straightforward point that she fits their definition, that they don't pause to consider whether there might be some more basic reason for her balking so.
And of course there is. Here's a hint: it's an epistemology thing.
Concepts are important. They are how we organize our knowledge of the world so we can act in service to our lives. Good concepts are immensely helpful (see the basic ideas that ushered in the fruits of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution), and bad ones can really hurt us. What if, for example, your moral system left you seeing the bully and the victim who fights back as morally indistinguishable? As we've seen with pacifism, the result of such thinking is unjust and destructive to all concerned, both personally and socially: victims are morally if not legally discouraged from defending themselves, predators are only emboldened, and this view naturally translates to unjust and destructive cultural sentiments, laws, and policies like those against simply "violence". So it makes all the difference to distinguish sharply between aggressive and defensive use of force because these are in fact morally opposite things with existentially opposite effects on human lives. Examples abound, but the general point to appreciate is that Objectivists are methodologically careful about this sort of thing because they grasp that accepting any concept which treats essentially identical things as opposites, or opposite things as essentially identical, ultimately means inviting difficulty if not disaster in our efforts to successfully navigate reality.
Now consider the libertarian way of thinking about political classification. Rejecting the generally useless left-right spectrum, they offer a two-dimensional approach based on degrees of personal and economic freedom which is often shared via their educational and recruiting tool, the Nolan Chart. In this view, libertarianism is neither left nor right, and it stands fundamentally opposed to totalitarianism. This sets up the natural axis of size or extent of government as their key normative criterion, which is pretty easy to pick out in their policies and rhetoric and reactions to world events. This is also why libertarians have always had influential anarchists in their ranks: even those who might be wary of the "extreme" of anarchism have no principled objection to it because, in their own basic way of thinking, anarchism is the natural full opposite of the evil of totalitarianism -- indeed, they have framed it as the pinnacle of libertarianism.
We can now appreciate what Rand was signaling with her outrage at being grouped or associated in any way with anarchists in particular and libertarians in general: she was refusing the mental, personal, and social chaos that flows from a fundamentally flawed way of seeing things. Rand understood that the essential concept in politics is individual rights, and so she identified totalitarianism and anarchism as indistinguishable in what's important: their complete lack of an objective recognition and systematic protection of man's rights. In contrast, as noted above, the libertarian way of thinking mis-classifies totalitarianism and anarchism as moral opposites by focusing on the inessential characteristic of size. If the purpose of politics is to sort out and enact the conditions required for people to successfully live among one another, this kind of confusion is about as disastrous as it gets -- even while self-consciously seeking the good, the conceptual lens of libertarianism will drive you to its opposite.
And conversely, the libertarian framework fails to capture crucial differences. Consider a powerful government that performs all and only its proper functions in the defense of man's rights, and one that happens to have all the same laws and institutions but also has, say, conscription on the books just in case war breaks out. These two governments are all but indistinguishable (and neither is smiled on) in the libertarians' basic classification scheme based on size. But Objectivists see these two as moral opposites because one is committed to the essential task of the defense of man's rights and the other is not. Even though not currently violating any rights, the government with conscription laws clearly rejects the key principle of the field. It has no principled defense against the slippery slope to serfdom we've seen play out in history all too many times.
The politics of liberty that Objectivism advocates really does depend on a particular philosophical foundation. The Libertarian movement might be in a better position to understand this if they weren't so eager to set aside the fact that fundamental ideas are critically important.
While scholarly leaders like Boaz should surely know better, there are plenty of people who innocently adopt the libertarian way of thinking about government because it seems to line up reasonably well with fundamental American values like strictly limited government, respect for rights, and capitalism. (Indeed, I was just such a person.) But even innocent use doesn't mitigate the very real problems and dangers discussed above. So Objectivists will continue to pointedly reject the libertarian label and its conceptual basis in the interests of moving our culture toward one that genuinely values liberty.Labels: Epistemology, False Friends of Objectivism, Libertarianism, Objectivism
| | | 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
|
|
Tuesday, September 15, 2009 |
|
The Objective Standard: Fall 2009 |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:00 AM
Yet another great issue of The Objective Standard will be arriving at my door soon:
Dear Subscribers and Friends of The Objective Standard,
The print edition of the Fall issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning September 20. For promotional purposes, we are making John David Lewis's article "Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda" available on our website early and for free.
[Note from DMH: Craig Biddle has also made Paul's article How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability available for free too. Thanks, Craig!]
 The contents of the Fall issue are:
From the Editor
Letters and Replies ARTICLES
Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David Lewis
America's Self-Crippled Foreign Policy: An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein
An Unwinnable War?
by Elan Journo
The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
by Craig Biddle
The Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
by Michael Dahlen
How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul Hsieh
How Morality is Grounded in Reality
by Craig Biddle BOOKS REVIEWED
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Reviewed by Dina Schein Federman
The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
Fred Astaire by Joseph Epstein
Reviewed by Scott Holleran
The Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, why not subscribe today? You can do so online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Yours,
Craig Biddle, Editor
The Objective Standard
www.theobjectivestandard.com Labels: Announcements, Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
Monday, September 07, 2009 |
|
Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:00 AM
I know that many of you heard about these new Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups starting in Colorado this fall on my first podcast, but I thought I should post a text announcement too. Please feel free to spread the word!
Hence:
Front Range Objectivism is pleased to announce a new project: Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups (ASRG). Groups are now forming in Longmont, Colorado Springs, and Denver.
In these reading groups, members read and discuss Ayn Rand's epic novel Atlas Shrugged over the course of twenty weekly meetings. Each meeting lasts ninety minutes; it covers about sixty pages of the novel. Discussion is guided by questions prepared by me (Diana Hsieh) and given to members in advance.
FRO's Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups are open to not just to Objectivists but to any fan of the novel interested in discussing the characters, events, and ideas of the novel in greater depth. Based on the group that we ran over the summer, I'm willing to guarantee that participants will learn more than they thought possible -- and have lots of good fun.
About the three groups:
Please don't sign up to any of these mailing lists unless you plan to attend at least some of the meetings. You need not be able to attend every meeting, however.
If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to e-mail me.Labels: Announcements, Literature, Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
Friday, August 28, 2009 |
|
The Objectivism Seminar: Past and Future |
|
By Greg Perkins @ 12:01 AM
The Objectivism Seminar just wrapped up its intensive tour of Dr. Leonard Peikoff's seminal book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It was great!
We got to chew on the entire system and its distinctive methodology in the course of some 53(!) sessions, going section by section from metaphysics to esthetics. Some of the participants already had a decade or three of study under their belts, while others were brand new -- but we all came away with a more grounded, integrated understanding relative to where we started (that whole "spiral theory of learning" thing :^).
But  it's much better to actually be a part of the conversation, so please join in on our next adventure: Dr. Peikoff's other book, The Ominous Parallels! It seems so fitting with our current political trajectory and speed. Is the freest country on earth moving toward totalitarian dictatorship? What were the factors that enabled the Nazis to seize power in pre-war Germany? Do those same conditions exist in America today?
These are the questions raised -- and answered, with frightening clarity -- by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's intellectual heir, in his powerful book The Ominous Parallels.
"We are drifting to the future, not moving purposefully," Peikoff warns. "But we are drifting as Germany moved, in the same direction, for the same kind of reason."
The first session will be in about two weeks (September 7), so you have plenty of time to order your copy and be ready to bring your knowledge and questions to the conversation! This isn't as technical a work as Objectivism, so we're planning on moving at the rate of about a chapter each week or two. Please visit www.ObjectivismSeminar.com for more information.
Hope you can join in!
Greg
Labels: Announcements, Objectivism, Politics
| | | 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
|
|
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 |
|
Craig Biddle in Denver on Principles |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
On September 19th, Craig Biddle will be in Denver to speak to Front Range Objectivism about "What Principles Are and Why We Need Them." Here's the announcement:
FROST Supper Talk: Craig Biddle on "What Principles Are and Why We Need Them"
Date: Saturday, September 19, 2009
Time: 6:00 pm social hour (cash bar); 7:00 pm dinner; 8:00 pm talk
Location: West Woods Golf Club, 6655 Quaker Street in Arvada, Colorado
Cost: $60.00 per individual, $35.00 for students
RSVP: To Ann Williams by September 14th via e-mail (ann6031@msn.com) or by phone at 720-363-0345. You can pay at the door; send a check to FROGS c/o Betty Evans, 1140 US Hwy 287 STE 400-283, Broomfield, CO 80020; or use Paypal to send your payment to betty@frontrangeobjectivism.com.
 Mr. Biddle will present material from chapter one of his book in progress, "Good Thinking: The Science of Selfishness." He will examine the nature and need of principles, show that they are essential guides to good thinking, discuss the dual standard of validity and its significance with respect to principles, examine the relationship of principles and egoism, and discuss why acceptance of altruism proportionally precludes the possibility of principled thinking. The talk will be followed by a Q&A, during which Mr. Biddle will answer questions relating to this material and other aspects of his book.
Craig Biddle is the editor of The Objective Standard and the author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It . He is currently writing a book about the principles of rational thinking and the fallacies that are violations of those principles, which is tentatively titled "Good Thinking: The Science of Selfishness." I have nothing but the highest expectations for this talk. Please join us, if you can!Labels: Announcements, Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 |
|
John Galt Speaks |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
I've been re-reading Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged this summer, as part of a whirlwind ten-week Atlas Shrugged Reading Group for members of Front Range Objectivism. I've learned so much more about the novel than I expected. I have enjoyed the process of finding so many new delights in it. In addition to releasing my discussion questions, I hope to blog about some of what I've learned this upcoming fall and spring, as I work through the novel again in a slower-paced reading group in Colorado Springs.
For the moment, I just wanted to note my particular pleasure at this near-final passage from Galt's Speech:
In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours.
But to win it requires your total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is a sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence of that which is man: for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the Morality of Life and that yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth. Given the sordid state of the world today, I felt like John Galt grabbed me and shook me when I read those words.Labels: Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
|
Winning the Unwinnable War |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
Here's a sweet announcement from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. A new book -- Winning the Unwinnable War, by editor and lead contributor Elan Journo, with additional essays by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein -- is now available for preorder from the Ayn Rand Bookstore for expected delivery in November. Here's the description:
Eight years after 9/11 and in the shadow of two protracted U.S. military campaigns in the Middle East, the enemy is not only undefeated but emboldened and resurgent. What went wrong--and what should we do going forward?
Winning the Unwinnable War shows how our own policy ideas led to 9/11 and then crippled our response in the Middle East, and it makes the case for an unsettling conclusion: By subordinating military victory to perverse, allegedly moral constraints, Washington's policy has undermined our national security. Owing to the significant influence of Just War Theory and neoconservatism, the Bush administration consciously put the imperative of shielding civilians and bringing them elections above the goal of eliminating real threats to our security. Consequently, this policy left our enemies stronger, and America weaker, than before. The dominant alternative to Bush-esque idealism in foreign policy--so-called realism--has made a strong comeback under the tenure of Barack Obama. But this nonjudgmental, supposedly practical approach is precisely what helped unleash the enemy prior to 9/11.
The message of the essays in this thematic collection is that only by radically re-thinking our foreign policy in the Middle East can we achieve victory over the enemy that attacked us on 9/11. We need a new moral foundation for our Mideast policy. That new starting point for U.S. policy is the moral ideal championed by Ayn Rand: rational self-interest. Implementing this approach entails objectively defining our national interest as protecting the lives and freedoms of Americans--and then taking principled action to safeguard them. The book lays out the necessary steps for achieving victory and for securing America's long-range interests in the volatile Middle East. The 250 page softcover will be selling for $27.95. Preorder now!Labels: Announcements, Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
Tuesday, August 11, 2009 |
|
Three Bits on OGrownups |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:01 PM
I'm pleased to report three bits of news about the new OGrownups e-mail list.
First, list manager Jenn Casey of Rational Jenn has a partner in crime: C. August of Titanic Deck Chairs. Thank you, C!
Second, non-Objectivists are now welcome to subscribe to the list, but as lurkers only. In other words, they can read posts to the list but not post themselves. Such people need only be interested in parenting and education based on the principles of Objectivism. If you're one of those people, please indicate when you subscribe that you're requesting to join as a non-Objectivist lurker. (Bosom buddies of David Kelley, Chris Sciabarra, Nathaniel Branden, and the like are still unwelcome.)
Third, the list has nearly 100 subscribers already, and good discussion is already underway. Hooray!Labels: Objectivism, Parenting
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
|
The Relevance of Ayn Rand |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
The New York Times published an excellent letter from Daniel Schwartz in response to its article on Ayn Rand and BB&T, Give BB&T Liberty, but Not a Bailout. It reads:
Re "Give Me Liberty, but Not a Bailout" (Aug. 2), which described how the chairman of BB&T, the banking company, is a proponent of the Objectivist ideas of Ayn Rand:
The article quotes one of Ms. Rand's detractors as calling her "irrelevant." Given that Ms. Rand described Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth," this claim is ironic indeed. No other philosophy is as focused on dealing with the needs of real people. This is clear from the case of BB&T. Could Plato or Kant take credit for the success of a business in the way that Ms. Rand could take credit for this bank's success?
Objectivism, as a philosophy which upholds rationality, honesty, justice, and pride -- not as duties, but as tools for success -- is very relevant.
Daniel Schwartz
San Diego, Aug. 3
The writer is a graduate student in philosophy at the University of California, San Diego. Nice! The other published letter was offensive, in that its basic point was to suggest that Ayn Rand's political views were the product of her experience with the Soviets. Yet even that could have been worse.Labels: Activism, Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
Monday, August 03, 2009 |
|
NYT on John Allison |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
The August 1, 2009 New York Times has published a major article on John Allison, with extensive discussion of Allison, Yaron Brook, and Ayn Rand, entitled, "Give Him Liberty, But Not A Bailout".
Here is an excerpt:...Speaking at a recent convention in Boston to a group of like-minded business people and students, Mr. Allison tells a story: A boy is playing in a sandbox, only to have his truck taken by another child. A fight ensues, and the boy’s mother tells him to stop being selfish and to share.
"You learned in that sandbox at some really deep level that it’s bad to be selfish," says Mr. Allison, adding that the mother has taught a horrible lesson. "To say man is bad because he is selfish is to say it's bad because he’s alive."
If Mr. Allison's speech sounds vaguely familiar, it's because it's based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand, who celebrated the virtues of reason, self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism while maintaining that altruism is a destructive force. In Ms. Rand's world, nothing is more heroic — and sexy — than a hard-working businessman free to pursue his wealth. And nothing is worse than a pesky bureaucrat trying to restrict business and redistribute wealth.
Or, as Mr. Allison explained, "put balls and chains on good people, and bad things happen." Overall, the article is fairly positive towards Rand's ideas.
The more people who read it and then decide to read (or re-read) Atlas Shrugged, the better!Labels: Media, Objectivism
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh 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
|
|
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 |
|
Monica Hughes in The Objective Standard |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
Dr. Monica Hughes has an article in the Summer 2009 edition of The Objective Standard (TOS) entitled "A Brief History of U.S. Farm Policy and the Need for Free-Market Agriculture".
I just read it, and I found it very informative. I know very little about farm and agriculture policy, so her article filled in a big gap in my knowledge. If you're not a subscriber, you can purchase a PDF of the article from TOS for $4.95 at the article link.
She also runs a website devoted to free market agricultural policy, Free Agriculture - Restore Markets (FARM).
Congratulations, Monica!
As a side note, this the fifth Objective Standard article written by members of our local Front Range Objectivism Group, all done pretty much by people working in their spare time on top of their regular day jobs.
The list of TOS articles from FROG members includes:Monica Hughes, "A Brief History of U.S. Farm Policy and the Need for Free-Market Agriculture", Summer 2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Lest We Be Doomed to Repeat It: A Survey of Amity Shlaes’s History of the Great Depression", Spring 2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America", Fall 2008.
Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'", Winter 2007.
Diana Hsieh, "Egoism Explained: A Review of Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist", Spring 2007. I'd especially like to thank Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard, for his hard work in publishing such a consistently strong journal, as well as for providing a great platform for new writers such as me.Labels: Activism, Objectivism
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh 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
|
|
|
What is Objectivism to You? |
|
By Roderick Fitts @ 12:01 AM
"What is Objectivism?" A couple of years ago, I asked this question shortly after reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Later, I would hear and read about future students of Objectivism asking the same question, and I often would assist them in finding the answer. For that question, Ayn Rand herself gave several answers of varying length and complexity, spanning from John Galt's lengthy speech and a plethora of non-fiction essays, all the way down to single, concise sentences packed full of meaning.
My personal favorite of her answers is that Objectivism is "a philosophy for living on earth." Honestly, the first time I read that sentence, I was simultaneously amazed and amused. Amazed, because I had never heard anyone advertise a set of ideas as being needed to live on Earth -- that kind of thing was unheard of in my experience. Amused, because at the time I thought it was a silly thing to say or write down. (With the level of sarcasm-lovers in our postmodern society, I seriously doubt I was the only one who had that reaction to it.)
Of course, it's not my favorite description of Objectivism because of my initial reaction to it -- rather, it's my favorite because as I learned more about it, amazingly enough, I started to believe that the sentence was true. By reading and talking about the philosophy over time, I became convinced that ideas and the subject of philosophy was important for everyone to learn about, and that Rand's philosophy was the most important of all for people to recognize and consider. As I thought about the distasteful state of the world, and of the tenets of the philosophy, I came to personally believe that it was necessary in order to live in the world, almost as if my thinking were paying homage to her own.
As I start my third year as a student of Objectivism, I once again ask myself what Objectivism is. I think John Ridpath gave an interesting indirect answer, in the Q & A of his 1989 lecture "Religion Vs. Man": "[Objectivism] is [a] really honest and serious attempt to understand the world and what the implications of all of our understanding are." What he said is almost exactly how I would describe Objectivism now, and will probably do so for some time into the future.
And so now I ask: what is Objectivism to you?Labels: Objectivism
| | | E-mail Roderick Fitts 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
|
|
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 |
|
Happy Blogiversary to Jenn! |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:06 PM
Sunday was the four-year blogiversary of Rational Jenn. Jenn's blogging has become a favorite of mine. She's funny, she's smart, and she interesting. I particularly enjoy reading about her kids and her approach to parenting, particularly because it's quite different than anything that I'm doing in my own life. So congratulations on your four years, Jenn!
I was delighted to read the following in her announcement:
However, the blog has developed into more than just an outlet for my daily thoughts about mommydom and the kids. My writing on the blog had ebbed and flowed without real direction until I joined OBloggers. So many things changed after I joined that group. I have been able to get to e-know many other bloggers who share my philosophical views. Joining that group made me eager to write posts of more substance, to share a bit more about what I think and why, and to enter into the Great Bloggy Conversation, if you will. So if I haven't said it before, thank you, Diana, for starting OBloggers! That's exactly what I wanted to happen with OBloggers, and I'm delighted by its good effects in this case. Hooray!Labels: Objectivism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh 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
|
|
|
| | |
|
