Ninth Doctor

You mean this? http://www.amazon.co...=charles murray I haven’t read it. It doesn't look good to me at all. Marie Curie scores an 40 to Newton's 100, and Beethoven outscores Bach? Come on. BTW, Joseph Campbell makes a fascinating case that Christianity was not individualistic until and where it blended with older European, particularly Celtic, myth. He traces the individualist element particularly to the rise of the Arthurian romances in the High Middle Ages, 1100-1200. His view is quite similar to Spengler’s in Decline of the West. He covers this in his book Occidental Mythology, and in other places, interviews and such. Here's a talk that I believe covers this ground: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEcRJNMkWtg&list=PLK4VrXG8z79oNtoHAIMLEx-l0Apvk0QEy&index=2

Alright, how to handle the slavery one. D’Souza will try to claim that individualism has its origination in Christianity, and this leads to opposition to slavery. Hey, at least he’s in favor of individualism, right? If you look up Rand’s letter to the Reverend Dudley you’ll find her agreeing with this interpretation, and I think you’ll find Peikoff stating it somewhere or other too, I think in one of his radio shows. I disagree, particularly about the origination part, but think it’s a better strategy to attack the claim that Christianity opposes slavery. This requires either taking a position on what Christianity teaches (and there’s a model of clarity!) or referring to history. Of the many many variations of Christian thought over the centuries, it took until the Quakers before one came along that was unambiguously opposed to slavery. Why did it take so long? The Quakers were founded about 1640, and Christianity attained political power about 340 (under Constantine’s sons, who were the first to impose it by force), so there’s 1300 years that need explaining. It would be good at this point to cite the New Testament material about slavery, that slaves shouldn’t try to improve their condition, yadda yadda yadda. Maybe bring in the fact that southern slaveowners used the Bible to justify themselves, just as the likes of Garrison used it to oppose them. Then play the Polycarp card. Polycarp was an early Christian martyr, who died in the middle of the 2nd century. He was a “companion” of the apostle John. According to the famous account of his martyrdom, written by contemporary Christians mind you, he was captured because, under torture, one of his slaves divulged his hiding place. The language is completely unambiguous, this very early Christian saint owned slaves. And his followers didn't think there was anything strange about it. Splain that one to me Dinesh. You also might try working in the fact there was serfdom in the medieval Papal states, but I think that’s an easier blow to dodge. Just say they didn’t know any other way to run a farm, this was how everyone was doing it. Besides, criticizing the Papacy won’t score you the right kind of points with the Protestants in the audience. Trouble is, in the final analysis, the most important abolitionists did base their arguments on their interpretations of Christian thought. Wilberforce, Garrison, and Stowe were very religious people. There were some secular Enlightenment thinkers too, but they weren’t as influential as those three. If I were Dinesh I’d try arguing that Christianity inherited slavery, in the same way the United States did, which is why I’d be sure to stress that it took over 1300 years, I mean how credible is that?

Here’s a link to the part with Doug Casey, go to about 26 minutes in to see D’Souza go after him, rather disrespectfully I’d say. The format, however, is awfully conducive to comedy and hamming it up. Still, plenty of good content makes it through by the end. http://www.c-spanvid...rogram/294549-1 Now, how to answer concerning the 30 Years War. I’d start by noting that it was, like the name suggests, a 30 year long series of conflicts. It wasn’t about one thing over its entire course. D’Souza disputes that it was a religious war, after introducing it as having been a religious war. Gaa!! Well, it certainly started over religion, with religious officials from the Holy Roman Empire going to Prague and declaring a crackdown on the Hussites. Not the Lutherans. So the town leaders showed them what a great view they could have from the window. But it soon developed into a conflict between Catholics and Lutherans in Germany. Not in France. France had long been in separate conflict with the HRE, and the enemy of one’s enemy, at least in wartime, is one’s friend. France was then operating under the Edict of Nantes, which granted religious toleration to the Huguenots, making France in effect a rogue nation by Catholic lights. France went to war against the HRE during the War of Mantuan Succession, which wasn’t a religious war but took place during the 30YW (more or less independently), and, after the HRE had brutally subdued Germany, France provided financial assistance to Lutheran Sweden to keep the war going, obviously so the HRE would be fighting somewhere other than on French soil. This proves…what again Dinesh? Looking over this and trying to condense it into a snappy one or two sentence summary, ugh, can’t. BTW I’m sure I’ve heard D’Souza use this in other debates, it’s not an unusual part of his repertoire. It’s so dishonest it ticks me off, which of course helps make it memorable. There’s little doubt that his debate with Bernstein will involve discussing history, and watch the video (linked above, it won't embed) to see how he acts when he catches an opponent unfamiliar with a subject. How does it look to people in the audience who don’t know the history either, and so don’t realize that he’s pulling one over on them? Looks like he’s winning big, that’s how.

I've heard him refer to David Hume, and to put this in Objectivist-ese, claim causality can only be held on faith. So, the sun coming up tomorrow is a matter of faith. That the laws of physics apply on another planet, or galaxy, one we haven't visited, is faith. But an Objectivist ought to be able to handle that. I was thinking of more factual matters, where either you know the role France played in the 30 Years War or you don't, and in that case the answer is far from simple which is probably why D'Souza likes to use it as an example. He'll talk about how many executions there were under the Spanish Inquisition, thus evading the fact that The Inquisition had a huge death toll particularly in the Albigensian conflict (kill them all, God will recognize his own), and that it was pretty hard to get executed by the Spanish Inquisition, you got tortured, your whole family's wealth would get confiscated, but it took a lot to actually get killed, and yet, thousands did.

Of course it did, it's on the Internet! What I can't believe is that they managed to film this: And they filmed it in color! This happened in the 1930's, and filming in color was a big deal then.

While I’m thinking of it, abolition of slavery is another issue that D’Souza tries to make out as being to the credit of Christianity. The big problem is it takes much longer to refute these claims than it does to make them, and in a timed debate it’s hard to do it convincingly, your opponent can throw a lot of balls in the air and there’s no way you can catch them all.

It might be fun/interesting to write out refutations of some of D’Souza’s material, then if Bernstein wants to use it, fine. There are a few unfair, arguably dishonest historical examples D’Souza has used repeatedly, which take time to answer and would require preparation, a bit more familiarity with the subject than even a well read person would have at his fingertips. The body count of the Spanish Inquisition, the record of 20th century “atheist regimes”, and the 30 Years War are the examples I’ve thought of. It would be more work than I see myself putting in to seek out at what point in which debate he used these examples, but hopefully I’ll figure a way. I do recall him using his 30 Years War interpretation on Doug Casey at an event in Vegas, Casey (not a historian) didn’t know what he was talking about and D’Souza jumped all over him. The other two (Spanish Inquisition and “atheist regimes”) I’m sure he used against Hitchens.

Back when I ran an Objectivist campus club, I was friendly with the leaders of the conservative club, so when they brought D'Souza to speak, they invited me to the pre-talk dinner. This was probably in 1993. The majority of the conversation was one on one between him and me, with the others just following along. He was working on a book where he was going to reference Rand, so he was taking notes as I was guiding him to sources, in which essay is such and such discussed, that kind of thing. He inscribed my copy of Illiberal Education with “To [me], who believes in freedom”. A few years later I sought out the resulting book, it was in a bookstore and I used the index to find what he’d written about Rand. I was disappointed, he was very dismissive in print and I didn’t think he “got” what she was saying on the topic. I didn’t buy the book and don’t recall what the topic was, something political no doubt. In person he seemed more knowledgeable, and overall I really enjoyed talking to him. You can see a lot of his debates on YouTube, there was one just a week or so back with Lawrence Krauss and Michael Shermer against Dinesh and someone else. He has an ability to utter howlers with not just a straight face, but with obvious conviction. He’s a very skilled debater. From my experiences with Andy Bernstein (there’s an abortion thread from not too long ago where I recount an experience or two) I predict that, in spite of Bernstein coming in with the superior philosophical “punching power”, D’Souza is going to use a rope-a-dope strategy on him, and if there’s a vote at the end, like in IQ2 debates, D’Souza will come out on top. That is, unless Bernstein has learned to deal with what he regards as “invalid questions”.

Why no answer to this? I used to work with an Indian guy, he was a Hindu and I gathered he was from one of the better castes. He exuded a sense of entitlement. He was short and pear shaped, nothing to look at. He would spend his spare time giving romantic advice on the internet, he used a catch phrase “in love with love”, he would be in chat rooms (when that was a new thing) doling out advice, I saw some of it, it was simply cringe-inducing. He was quite an expert on how sexual incompatibility could be overcome by people who really love each other. Anyway, it turned out he’d literally never been on a date in his life, age 30ish. We had a toothsome blonde working with us that he would gawk at, to such an extent that we finally had to keep them separated, no work task overlaps, and no sightline. He tried all kinds of passive aggressive ways of approaching her, and somehow thought it would be attractive to let her know that she’d have to convert to Hinduism to marry him, and quickly mind you, because his parents would be setting him up in an arranged marriage with someone from India soon. His cluelessness to the fact that she had zero interest in him was both comic and sad to observe. The point being: anyone can play Dear Abby on the internet. Why should the denizens of Objectivism Online be interested in the opinions of Kevin Delaney on romance? What data set are you working from? It’s quite another matter if you want to study the life and opinions of someone like "Roissy in DC", who for a long time gave advice on seduction/game techniques, and could speak to success rates for various strategies geared towards the short-term goal of getting someone in bed. Successful long-term romance is something that, from my experience and observation, calls to mind the metaphor from Nassim Taleb’s earlier book, The Black Swan (I’m working on his new one, Anti-Fragile, at the moment). This is contrary to Tolstoy’s notorious phrase about happy families being all the same (and unhappy ones being unhappy in their own way), but I digress. I know I don’t know enough to give advice on romance.

I found this interesting: Ya gut, zooper!

On the contrary, you can certainly work it in, depending on what subject you teach. If you teach English, obviously you can assign a Rand novel and use that as a springboard for communicating Objectivist ideas. Then when you're stuck assigning, say, The Great Gatsby, you can do a compare and contrast, Gatsby vs. Roark, Daisy vs. Dominique, that kind of thing. If history, the American Revolution will give you a good opportunity to discuss the Enlightenment and different theories of rights and Government, as will other periods. I've taken classes with overt Marxists, so why not Objectivists? Hell, I bet you could work it into shop class and marching band, however obliquely.

First of all, "Objectivism" is unambiguously pro-choice, so you’ve immediately gone way off the rails. Second, notice that 8 years of Reagan and 12 of Bush couldn’t make a dent in the right to abortion. This is not to say that one shouldn’t be concerned about the religious conservative rhetoric, but there needs to be a sense of proportion. Third, not all Objectivists supported Romney. A good number voted for Johnson, and I don’t doubt that some (very small) number even voted for Obama. My swing-state cast vote for Romney was motivated by his pledge to repeal Obamacare. How would you weigh the relative importance of one politician’s unfulfillable desire to deny one right, to another’s which is on the cusp of being implemented?

Socialism is for knuckleheads. Nazism is for twerps. Communism is for dorks. Synarchy is for pikers. Oligarchy is for weenies. Nyah nyah nyah. Convinced?

I highly recommend it. It's a transcription of the Basic Principles of Objectivism course given at NBI from the late 50's through 1968. It used to be distributed on tape to other cities. When it was given in New York, Rand would often take part in the question periods. I agree with Ted Keer's lengthy review on Amazon, so I'll refer you to that. I think it's the single most valuable book on Objectivism not written by Rand herself.

Follow the link to get it for a notably lower price: http://forum.objecti...430#entry292224

Then why not ask about 'real' people like Donald Trump or Gordon Ramsey? I put 'real' in scare quotes because I think they project exaggerated personae on their TV shows. The character of John Galt has nothing to do with it.

You mean if he acted in a way completely inconsistent with the character in the novel? Mmm, what would be my response… How about another ‘what if’? How about if you met Jesus and he told you there is no God, no afterlife, and that he was really a Hellenizing devotee of Aristippus and/or Epicurus, who only preached an opposite philosophy because it helped him get laid? And that Monty Python had it right, he really did say “Blessed are the cheese-makers”. All I can say is that I’d find it all most peculiar.

I thought he had a mandate to close Guantanamo…

I think it would be nice if people put down their state in addition to their vote. I'm in Florida, so I feel I have to vote Romney, even though I've voted Libertarian for decades. Someone in NY or California who votes for Johnson gets a thumbs up from me, but in Florida or Ohio, well, I'm not generally one to wag a finger at people over their voting choices but...

I'd like to suggest the following presentation, and particularly the second speaker, who starts at 13 minutes in, for another way of thinking about this. You being in Oregon, IMO, or rather if I were in your place, I'd be voting for Johnson. Since I'm in Florida I feel I'm pretty well stuck with voting Romney, and I'm someone who has voted Libertarian every time for decades. Your vote for Romney really doesn't count, in that he's not counting on it to win. Further, even if the polls are totally wrong and Romney pulls such a sweep that he even takes the left coast, it would be a bad thing because he'd then claim he has a mandate. For repealing Obamacare, ok, I want him to have a mandate, but for the rest I don't expect much that's good, so let's keep DC gridlocked like it's supposed to be. I'd like to see the Senate split exactly 50/50, while retaining the Republican majority in the House.

Voltaire is said to have drank over 30 cups of coffee a day. He was incredibly productive and lived into his 80's, this when life expectancy was much shorter than now. I know I can't handle that much, I'd be bouncing off the walls. Everyone's different.

Don’t worry, I was just messing with you. With the US elections coming up, Epimenides is often in my thoughts. Why do you think Adam Smith is Objectivism-unfriendly? As Enlightenment philosophers go, he’s about as good as it gets.

I got The Ideas of Ayn Rand when it first came out, I think it was the first independent survey of Rand's life and work that I read. I thought it was terrific, it was the right book at the right time, though I haven't picked it up again in a long time. I'd have to excavate for it, and that's assuming I didn't lend it out to someone who failed to return it. I wonder how much revision there has been to it. Amazon doesn't have a sample. Merrill died years ago. Nathaniel Branden republished his memoir, but acknowledged that it was 95% the same, so I didn't bother getting it since I already had Judgement Day. In any event, I certainly recommend Merrill's book, and I expect this new version is at least as good as the original, having read plenty of good material by Marsha Enright over the years.

No true Scotsman would fail to capitalize Scotland or misspell Scottish. You're cover is blown, Joshua. You'd have us think you hail from the land of the heroic Calcagus, when Epimenides is your true countryman, deny it all you like. In any event, Nicholas Dykes is from Herefordshire, that's pretty close to Scotland. Also, John Galt was Scottish, though I suppose that doesn't count for much.

Here's a good piece in Reason Magazine about this: http://reason.com/bl...for-teens-for-p Branden noted that Rand's detractors rarely deign "publicly to name the essential ideas of Atlas Shrugged and to attempt to refute them. No one has been willing to declare: 'Ayn Rand holds that man must choose his values and actions exclusively by reason, that man has the right to exist for his own sake, that no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force--and I consider such ideas wrong, evil and socially dangerous."