dianahsieh

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Tomorrow evening, April 17th, Lin Zinser will speak to the Colorado Springs Republican Women about the pernicious influence of government in healthcare and the current proposals for reform. The event is free and open to the public. For more details, see the announcement. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002461.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I'm presently reading the excellent history of the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason by Charles Freeman. I have much to say about the matters discussed in the book, but for the moment, I'll confine myself to one tangential but shockingly blunt tidbit. Toward the end of the chapter on "The Ascetic Odyssey," Freeman observes that "one can never know whether one is truly saved" in Christianity because "there is no way to judge objectively just how guilty one is in the eyes of God." Consequently, "the only true way to secure a rest from tension on earth is to escape completely from the exercise of moral responsibility; here the 'virtue' of obedience becomes crucial." He then quotes the first paragraph of the following passage from an account of moral responsibility in the life of a Jesuit monk found in William James' Varieties of Religious Experience: One of the great consolations of the monastic life," says a Jesuit authority, "is the assurance we have that in obeying we can commit no fault. The Superior may commit a fault in commanding you to do this thing or that, but you are certain that you commit no fault so long as you obey, because God will only ask you if you have duly performed what orders you received, and if you can furnish a clear account in that respect, you are absolved entirely. Whether the things you did were opportune, or whether there were not something better that might have been done, these are questions not asked of you, but rather of your Superior. The moment what you did was done obediently, God wipes it out of your account, and charges it to the Superior. So that Saint Jerome well exclaimed, in celebrating the advantages of obedience, 'Oh, sovereign liberty! Oh, holy and blessed security by which one become almost impeccable!' "Saint John Climachus is of the same sentiment when he calls obedience an excuse before God. In fact, when God asks why you have done this or that, and you reply, it is because I was so ordered by my Superiors, God will ask for no other excuse. As a passenger in a good vessel with a good pilot need give himself no farther concern, but may go to sleep in peace, because the pilot has charge over all, and 'watches for him'; so a religious person who lives under the yoke of obedience goes to heaven as if while sleeping, that is, while leaning entirely on the conduct of his Superiors, who are the pilots of his vessel, and keep watch for him continually. It is no small thing, of a truth, to be able to cross the stormy sea of life on the shoulders and in the arms of another, yet that is just the grace which God accords to those who live under the yoke of obedience. Their Superior bears all their burdens... A certain grave doctor said that he would rather spend his life in picking up straws by obedience, than by his own responsible choice busy himself with the loftiest works of charity, because one is certain of following the will of God in whatever one may do from obedience, but never certain in the same degree of anything which we may do of our own proper movement." (Alfonso Rodriguez, S. J.: Pratique de la Perfection Chretienne, Part iii., Treatise v., ch. x.) After quoting the first paragraph, Freeman concludes the chapter with the apt comment: "Here, the abdication of the power to think for oneself is complete." Exactly. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002455.html

While I think you could speak of Christian-influenced (or Muslim-influenced) deists, a deist is someone who accepts the "God of the Philosophers" (i.e. an omniscient omnipotent creator) while rejecting the personal and miracle-making God of the Hebrew Bible, the Greek Bible, the Koran, etc. In other words, it's a kind of religious belief on par with Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc -- so it cannot be a subtype thereof. As for atheists who regard Jesus as a moral ideal, that would be most secular humanists.

I wrote: "For whatever reason, the Roman emperors always seemed to choose the most theologically absurd of the available alternatives to impose on Christians." Um, I really didn't mean that statement to be taken literally, as if it were some kind of absolute rule. That would be silly. No, that was often not the case. In fact, it couldn't have been since majorities were regional and local, not empire-wide. And exactly how would calling politically-charged councils of bishops to settle doctrine for the whole empire have helped emperors avoid assassination? That doesn't make any sense to me. From the sources I've read, one common motive was a desire to unify the empire (and so halt internal religious strife) by settling contentious matters of doctrine. I think that's too wide. Many atheists uphold Jesus as a moral ideal. They're altruists, but they're not religious. (Or did you mean something more substantial by referring to him as "Christ" rather than "Jesus"?)

No, I'm not saying that at all. All that I'm saying that the category "Christian" encompasses a substantially wider variety of views than merely those commonly found today. For example, I think that the legions of early Christians who denied the Trinity were genuine Christians, just as today's Baptists and Catholics are genuine Christians. Also, I'm not saying that a Christian must be consistent with Scripture. As anyone who has read the whole New Testament knows, that's completely impossible. The texts are flatly contradictory on more than a few major issues. However, a Christian must regard the New Testament (or the earlier traditions) as authoritative (in some sense). Does that seem more clear? (You may not agree with it, but that's another matter!)

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog This NY Times article "Lessons of Heart Disease, Learned and Ignored" has some really valuable information on the common confusions about heart attacks that lull people into complacency, such that they don't avail themselves of the proper treatment options. It's well-worth reading, particularly if you have family history of heart disease, as I do. A few days ago, Paul told me of a woman who failed to check out chronic belly pain for months until it became unbearable. At that point, the CT and MRI scans showed colon cancer, already spread to the liver. That's not good: a friend of ours died about 18 months after a similar diagnosis. (She suffered no symptoms until she fainted on the subway.) On hearing the story, I suddenly struck by an indirect health benefit of my daily course of vigorous exercise: I would never endure such pain for more than a few days (if that) -- not just due to general worry about the cause of the pain but also due to very specific annoyance with my inability to exercise as usual. The same is true of the fatigue that often comes with heart attack mentioned in article above: the problem surely wouldn't be quite so clear or so pressing to me if I were a couch potato. In other words, exercise doesn't promote health merely by making the body more fit; it's also an important daily test of one's health. That's kinda cool, I think. P.S. Happy Friday the 13th! It's my lucky day... I was born on Friday, December 13th, 1974. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002453.html

David, as I mentioned in my first post, my general view of these matters is exactly that of PMB posted in the NoodleFood comments. In short: Religions are sets of often-conflicting and often-changing dogmas, so a particular religion cannot be defined in terms of fundamental principles or systems of thought. The fundamental difference between the major religions is largely one of accepted Scripture or tradition. That's why I think that the Mormons are a borderline case, since they have an additional scriptural text, yet also still rely heavily on the New Testament. They're rather like the early Jewish Christians, i.e. those who kept the Mosiac law yet regarded Jesus as the Messiah. If memory serves, the Apostles James and Peter were probably in that camp.

The Trinity just as much a break from "Semitic theology" -- if by that you mean the Hewbrew Bible. So is the worshipping of saints, the rejection of the Mosiac law, etc. That's why Christians aren't Jews. They claim to accept the OT as scripture, but they don't really mean it. Moreover, I don't see this Mormon view as so terribly far-afield from Christian views of divinity, particularly of the divinity of Jesus.

As as general remark, I think that most people commenting in this thread have an overly-restrictive view of what constitutes Christianity. I held similar views, until I began researching the history of early Christianity over the past year. The early Christians did not all believe in the Trinity nor in the dual natural of Jesus as fully human and fully divine. Those views have no significant support in the Scriptures. They were imposed -- often with great resistance from large majorities -- on genuine Christians by the Roman emperors centuries after the death of Jesus in the hopes of eliminating the doctrinal squabbles that were fracturing the already fragile empire. (For whatever reason, the Roman emperors always seemed to choose the most theologically absurd of the available alternatives to impose on Christians. That's the source of at least many of the Christian "mysteries.") You can find tons of details on that in the really, really, really excellent book The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason by Charles Freeman. As for judging adherents of religion, I've been completely convinced by this general argument posted by PMB in the NoodleFood comments. In the case of the Mormons, they do have new Scripture. That makes them a boderline case, I think. They might really break off from Christianity at some point, as the early Christians did from Judaism. Or they might fold themselves back into ordinary Christianity by emphasizing their own Scripture less and less. Or they might persist as they are.

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Paul Revere (not the original one, obviously) asks: Objectivism states that, among the purposes of government, it acts as an objective arbiter between men by enforcing contracts and laws. Individuals as such are free to make any contract between them, the integrity of which is ensured by the courts. I'm a little foggier on laws. Here's an example: for whatever reason, your city has zoned a specific section of road with a low speed limit compared to those before and after it. Is it moral to disobey the speed limit if you choose? It would seem trivial, but you'd be breaking the law regardless. My thinking is: laws are instituted by some objective process, and by living in this city with other men you've agreed to abide by them. Of course, some laws are unjust (e.g. speed limits apply to public roads, thus being based on another unjust law) but since laws are objectively decided, an individual man cannot morally, or legally, spurn those he disagrees with. Clear enough, right? Now, what if the law in question would be dangerous to obey? (Assume for this example that there is no alternative route and you're forced in some way to make this choice, by previous ignorance or whatnot.) Say this section of low-speed road comes right after a high-speed one, around a blind corner for kicks. Following it would surely, to your reasoning, result in a rear-ending. Is it moral to obey the law then? If you've misjudged and it really isn't as dangerous as imagined, does that change anything? And if it would be moral to disregard the law in those circumstances, based on your own judgement, why does the degree of danger matter? (From no ill effects, to losing your job for being late, to being rear-ended, to dying in an accident.) Where is the line at which it becomes an "emergency situation", if at all? Finally, does the logic here change with isolated and harmless lawbreaking, such as drinking booze during the 1920's Prohibition? What about harmless, but mutually agreed lawbreaking, like performing banned sex acts (e.g. sodomy in Texas)?" First, a warning: It's my understanding that it's a crime to advocate breaking the law. So please keep that in mind as you post in the comments. Now onto the substance of the question: The Objectivist view is not that "laws are instituted by some objective process, and by living in this city with other men you've agreed to abide by them." Laws in this country are instituted by pull-peddling majority rule, with scant respect for individual rights, even those explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. The resulting laws are often grossly non-objective -- in the sense that you cannot know in advance whether you are breaking them or not. (The worst example is antitrust law, although I'd say that tax and regulatory law is too bizarrely complicated to be knowingly obeyed.) Moreover, a person does not consent to the laws of a given government simply by choosing to live within its territory -- particularly not when significantly better alternatives are nowhere to be found. He never agreed to abide by the laws; he may have even resolved to do the opposite in some cases. Moreover, the Objectivist ethics would never endorse the command "obey the law" as a binding normative principle, as the question suggests. Barring metaphysical emergencies, we are obliged to respect the rights of others. That respect for the independent judgment of others is a matter of self-interest: it is a means of advancing our lives. (For a detailed discussion of what counts as a metaphysical emergency, see Tara Smith's new book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.) In a fully free society, respecting the rights of others means obeying the law, precisely because those laws are just protections of rights. However, when laws violate rights, they can imperil the fundamental values of life, e.g. health, wealth, happiness. In that case, a person cannot be morally obliged to obey them. Of course, it may be prudent for him to obey them nonetheless, given the likelihood of detection and punishment. Yet it would be incoherent say that a person must sacrifice his highest value, i.e. his own life, for the sake of the ill-conceived and unjust products of majority rule. However, that doesn't morally justify disobeying every unjust law. Not every wrong law threatens your basic values. Moreover, in a basically free society, the rule of law is an important principle to respect and uphold, particularly when free to agitate for the repeal of those laws. (Tara Smith spoke persuasively on the importance of rule of law in her lecture How "Activist" Should Judges Be?.) Unfortunately, campaign finance laws dramatically limit the freedom to agitate for the repeal of bad laws in this country today. So where is the line between justifiable and unjustifiable law-breaking properly drawn? I don't have any more of an answer to that question than found in Leonard Peikoff's course "The DIM Hypothesis." (It's available for free to registered users of AynRand.org.) In lecture 8, he discusses the question of the obligation to obey unjust laws twice: first during the lecture itself (about 14 minutes into it) then during the Q&A (about 10 minutes from the end). Undoubtedly, more work remains to be done on this topic: Dr. Peikoff's remarks are only an outline of an answer. They're a good beginning though. Thoughts, NoodleFoodleDoodlers? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002449.html

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog "For conservative computer users who find the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to harbor too many values that conflict with their own, a new site awaits," says an NPR interview with the founder of Conservapedia, a 'conservative alternative' to Wikipedia. Sure, we can talk all day about the egalitarian, distributed, unowned nature of Wikipedia that translates to inconsistent coverage, errors forever being introduced and corrected, encouragement of a chopped up style, how all this is discouraging of work by top experts, how that all complicates effective use of the site. But none of that is Conservapedia's beef. No, they think that Wikipedia has a liberal bias while they prefer an encyclopedia with a conservative bias. And note that bias per-se isn't in fact a sin to be avoided, as some of their rhetoric would imply -- no, bias is wonderful according to Conservapedia. Just so long as it is conservative bias. Looking at Conservapedia's entry for "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" (note that spin on the sin), there are endless examples of errors and oversights which Wikipedia's fundamental principles would guide treatment of (in particular, writers must always cite sources and in cases of disagreement 'present the debate’ from a 'neutral point of view'). Even their anxiety over the demographic composition of Wikipedia writers (lots on the Left, lots who are not Christian or theistic or whatever) is no big deal because Wikipedia's fundamental operating principles point to an obvious solution: anybody can be a writer, so go get more of the "right" people to pile on and make sure your perspective is accurately presented when there is disagreement. In that NPR interview, however, Conservapedia's founder didn't give any whiff of appreciating how these principles relate to the issues he cites. If there were a genuine bias problem for Wikipedia, he would be talking about an inability or refusal to recognize a dispute or to accurately represent the sides, and he would be calling for Wikipedia to simply adhere to its fundamental principles. So this fellow's real trouble lies elsewhere: if I had to guess, I would say his authority-based epistemology recoils at the idea of letting competing views sit side-by-side with The Answer as he sees it, as if people might have to do some work to know reality rather than simply hear the Truth and be enlightened. Which brings us to appreciating Wikipedia for what it is. As best I can tell, Wikipedia is not really about capturing objective knowledge, but about chronicling the current beliefs of mankind. In any given topic, to the degree people have decent epistemologies and are grounded in reality, it will point toward useful facts -- but to the degree that people don’t and aren’t, it will reflect their confusion. Such a chronicle is certainly useful, but even at its most excellent it would not make people more rational or knowledgeable. Merely seeing what other people hold to be true only constitutes knowledge of what is held to be true, and having access to accurately-presented positions in disputed cases will not automatically improve anyone's epistemology: rational people will focus and sort the facts out, and irrational people will evade; second-handed minds will look for something to faithfully follow (whether it is an authority like Billy Graham, the Institute for Creation Research, or simply tradition or the majority opinion) -- while independent minds will look for grounded approaches to engage, without regard to tradition or majority status. Consider Conservapedia's founder: Wikipedia has certainly not made him more knowledgeable or rational regarding, say, biology. And indeed, easy inspiration for him to create Conservapedia is found in the (appropriate) double fear that people who are not as steeped in his authority-based style of thinking could wander from the flock if exposed to those competing views, while others who are as authority-based might stumble into trusting the wrong authority and likewise wander. In short, peoples' epistemologies are the cause of how they use Wikipedia, not the other way around. This is why think of Wikipedia as primarily an effect rather than a cause -- as descriptive rather than prescriptive -- much like dictionaries. Dictionaries primarily tell us how we do use words, not how we should use them. And realizing this profoundly shapes how we confront their contents. When we see something conceptually horrid in the dictionary, our natural reaction isn’t to twist the arm of the editor or to go off and start our own competing dictionary: we understand that it is a reflection of the culture, so we go spread a better concept or usage via education and so on. Likewise with Wikipedia, our natural reaction to something horribly confused in it should be to make sure our perspective is clearly presented and to get to work in the culture, enjoying Wikipedia's utility in indicating when the confusion has shrunk to a meaningless minority of minds. So Wikipedia can be valuable as a cultural barometer for those in the know, and as a starting place for those who aren't. It is not primarily a substitute for thinking or a repository of knowledge, even though the Conservapedians -- and apparently even some Wikipedians -- wish that it was. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002445.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Eric Daniels will be speaking at Tufts University on Monday, April 16th on "The Morality of Capitalism." Eric is an excellent speaker, so I recommend attending if possible. Here's the official announcement: The Morality of Capitalism Who: Dr. Eric Daniels, speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute What: A talk explaining why capitalism is the only moral social system When: Monday, April 16, at 7:30 PM Where: Tufts University, Barnum 104, 163 Packard Avenue, Medford, MA 02155 Admission is FREE. Description: Despite the enormous success of American capitalism at producing material abundance and political freedom, critics continue their assault on the system, calling it immoral. In this lecture, Dr. Eric Daniels makes the case that capitalism is the only moral social system. He also examines the conventional defense of capitalism, which relies on the practical, economic argument, and illustrates why only a defense of pure laissez-faire capitalism can succeed. Bio: Dr. Eric Daniels is a visiting scholar at Clemson University's Institute for the Study of Capitalism. He taught for five years at Duke University, in the Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace, and at the University of Wisconsin, where he earned his doctorate in American history. He has lectured internationally on the history of American ethics, American business and legal history, and the American Enlightenment. Daniels's publications include a chapter in "The Abolition of Antitrust" and five entries in the "Oxford Companion to United States History." http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002446.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I'm currently listening to Flavius Josephus' classic work The Jewish War. It's a history of the Jewish-Roman war fought from 66 to 73 AD, with substantial background. Although I originally wanted to read it as historical context for the development of early Christianity, I'm finding it a very interesting and engaging work in its own right. (I'm in Book 2 right now; the war has yet to begin.) The work vividly portrays the dangerous political instability of that time -- not just in the highest political offices of Rome, but also the regional and local powers. (That sheds light on the enormous challenge faced by the American Founding Fathers in their quest to create a stable system of republican government.) Moreover, even today's most experienced soap opera writers could learn a thing or two from the lengthy story of King Herod's treacherous family life. (Lies, murders, manipulations, treacheries, paranoia, and more!) The work also offers much of interest regarding religious fanaticism. For example: Now there followed after this another calamity, which arose from a tumult made by robbers; for at the public road at Beth-boron, one Stephen, a servant of Caesar, carried some furniture, which the robbers fell upon and seized. Upon this Cureanus sent men to go round about to the neighboring villages, and to bring their inhabitants to him bound, as laying it to their charge that they had not pursued after the thieves, and caught them. Now here it was that a certain soldier, finding the sacred book of the law, tore it to pieces, and threw it into the fire. Hereupon the Jews were in great disorder, as if their whole country were in a flame, and assembled themselves so many of them by their zeal for their religion, as by an engine, and ran together with united clamor to Cesarea, to Cumanus, and made supplication to him that he would not overlook this man, who had offered such an affront to God, and to his law; but punish him for what he had done. Accordingly, he, perceiving that the multitude would not be quiet unless they had a comfortable answer from him, gave order that the soldier should be brought, and drawn through those that required to have him punished, to execution, which being done, the Jews went their ways. Sound familiar? It should: it's awfully similar to the "pissing on the Koran" story that dominated the news a few years back. These fanatical Jews, like today's Muslims, demand death for blasphemers. (That is the punishment required in the Hebrew Bible, Leviticus 24 Josephus' lengthy description of the Essene sect in Book 2, Chapter 8 was also of great interest to me, particularly for the parallels between the doctrines of the Essenes and those of Christianity. To take a small example, Josephus describes the Essenes as follows: They are eminent for fidelity, and are the ministers of peace; whatsoever they say also is firmer than an oath; but swearing is avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury for they say that he who cannot be believed without [swearing by] God is already condemned. Similarly, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus admonishes: Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord." But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No"; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. ( Matthew 5) If Jesus actually taught this view of oaths, he might have gotten it from the Essenes. (It's less likely that it was a common Jewish teaching at the time, since Josephus is concerned to explain all the strange and unique practices of the Essenes in this chapter.) Alternately, early Christians might have imputed this view of oaths to Jesus based on some familiarity with Essene teachings. From all I've read, I'd have to say that tracing the historical lineage of that idea into Christianity would be impossible: our knowledge of what Jesus actually taught is too uncertain to judge such matters. In fact, I'd say that we really can't know that Jesus taught anything at all -- or even that he existed as anything like any of the various men portrayed in the Gospels. Still, it's interesting that the idea has some historical precedent in Judaism. Of course, the full meaning of Jesus' command against oaths is widely ignored by Christians today. They routinely swear on this and that and the other thing. I'd like to know: How do Biblical literalists justify such selective obedience to Scripture? It's as if -- so long as you renounce reason to make room for faith in Jesus -- the commands of a truly merciful God become mere suggestions. Yet other commands, like the injunctions against homosexuality in the Law of Moses, are somehow still in full effect. So what do contemporary evangelical Christians say about that? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002440.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Paul and I had a short discussion a few weeks ago about Mormonism. After I posted my entry on Mark Skousen's essay on Ayn Rand, Paul discovered that Skousen is Mormon. He suggested that I change the entry to reflect that, but I replied that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, so my description of him as Christian was fine. Paul mentioned the new covenant of Mormonism. I suggested that Mormons accepted the Apostles' Creed, so that made them Christian, whatever silly stuff they added to it. Neither of us cared too much, nor knew too much, so that was pretty much the end of the discussion. Three questions: Do Mormons consider themselves Christians? (I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes.) Do other Christians consider Mormons Christians? (I suspect that varies greatly. Some Protestants probably don't consider Catholics Christian and vice versa. That's the fallacy of the frozen abstraction, I think.) Most importantly: Are Mormons properly classified as Christians? In other words, do their core doctrines vary fundamentally from those of Baptists, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Quakers, etc, such that their religion should be considered an alternative to Christianity rather than just a form of it? (I don't know enough about Mormonism to say.) I don't care much about the particular case of Mormonism, but I am interested in the conceptual classification of systems of belief, as well as the core principles and boundaries of Christianity. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002441.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Originally, this was a short post from Paul. However, the short comment I wanted to add to it turned rather long, so I made it my own post. Paul originally wrote: Here are some strange statues from around the world. A few are actually clever and/or cool; others portray human beings in odd or grotesque ways. The link is now to a different page. Apparently, the post was so popular that they've now moved it to its very own web site. Many of the sculptures are so bizarre as to be rationally incomprehensible, e.g. the space cow and the square head. Most are recognizable human figures deliberately made grotesque, primitive, and deformed, as is characteristic of the lower forms of naturalism. Interestingly, a few of the bizarre statues do show some serious talent. The running knot of legs (no longer available, apparently), for example, really seems to be in motion. The few better statues are a higher form of naturalism: they are refreshingly ordinary-looking people well-blended into their surroundings, as in the elegant woman on the bench and the photographer peering around the building. They are so realistic that the viewer often does a double-take in recognizing the sculpture as such. The more imaginative ones are even funny, as in manhole prankster. These kind of double-take statues seem more common these days; I expect that people like them far better than the alternatives offered. However, it goes without saying that the purpose of art is not the surprise of realizing "Oh, that's a statue!" The voluminous comments on the now-defunct page were very revealing of people's views of art today. Here are a few that stood out to me. (Each paragraph is a new comment.) What a collection! All sorts of adjectives could apply, in my opinion: beautiful, moving, weird, ugly, shocking, obscene, hugely imaginative, humorous, thought-provoking, depressing, and so on. It all depends on one's point of view. This collection is a good illustration of the fact that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder..and to criticize any type of art form, well, just shows your narrow mindedness. Just say you don't understand and be done with it! Human sexuality, and all it entails, is a beautiful and wonderful thing. Maybe if people were more open minded & less self centered, the world would be a better place to live in. Two observations: Beauty (and/or art) is in the eye of the beholder, and judge not lest you be judged (yes, you can be judged by your judgement). All artists make an emotional or intellectual statement through their medium, so only the artists know if they have made that statement and thus made art. Only the art dealer knows whether he or she thinks it will sell or not. Only the buyer knows if he or she likes the work enough to pay out money for it. Or not. Only you know whether you like it or not. It's dull, it's disgusting, it's not "highbrow," it's juvenile. It's fun, it's fascinating, it's provocative, it's art. Who cares? Utterly and gloriously wonderful ! The art stimulated an amazing range of emotional spectrums from me …from a full throated laugh of pleasure to a gasp of surprise and a thousand other feelings ! Some of the comments here surprised me…some people seem personally affronted as if the artist has set out to provoke them specifically .Art does affect each viewer in a very personal way BUT the important thing to remember is that other people will respond completely differently to you and that is is the beautiful and incredible experience of viewing ANY art(from the simple sketch a child may draw with it's toe in the sand to the traditional oil by a master) ! Some people also seem to take the unusual view that *art* must be both beautiful and pleasing…it may be both of these and more …and it may not. Sometimes art may shock and startle but this isn't a bad thing (in my opinion) .I personally will look at this site often and feel inspired and amazed .(p.s I would love to add some photoghraphs of some incredible statues if anyone can provide the email address in order to submit them) I love "public art". It is an emotional high for me. The artist feels inspired and makes a statement. We either like it or not, but anyhow, we have to admire and respect talent, magnificent or not. We need this kind of exposure. It opens our minds, develop new ideas and help us understand diversity better. Thanks for this collection. It gives us a chance to "better explore the world." after struggling with the many definitions of art put forward, the only one that seems to function in all situations for me is that art is art when the artist declares it to be so. We might disagree, but our disagreement is one step removed from creation… Course I've seen things that seem artistic that the creator didn't think were, but still think the creator's definition trumps my own:) Excellent collection. Every piece thought provoking and able to engender some sort of gut reaction. We all need more whimsy in our lives, not to mention more public displays of oversized genitalia. From the sublime to the ridiculous…..it's all there. Some great, some ordinary even pedestrian, but all art. Maybe a little more discrimination in the choice of work. Soooo many images, many kinda repetitious, but let's face it, its certainly ALL art. It gets your brain up and running after all. Bravo for undertaking so ambitious and brave a project. Some are funny, some are gross, some show great talent, some are abstract, some are novel, some are unique, some are artistic, some are not, some show greatness, some are shallow, some are ideal, some are stupid, some are of humans, some are of animals. But all are of humanity. Just a wonderful collection! Inspiring, frightening and stimulating. Some fine work from Australia, but disappointed you missed the leaping sheep from the Melbourne Performing Arts Centre. Just remember, Ginger and other nay-sayers that art is MEANT to confront us! Take a good hard look at the world around you-it's much uglier than the sex organs of human beings It is a shame that your shallow perception only permits you to see things such as "A man on an upside down horse." That your prudish upbringing has stunted your abilities to perceive beyond the simple surface reaction. If you are unable, or unwilling, to seek the artistic in what may initially appear to be un-artful to you, as it may not fit in with your predefined notions of what art is, then perhaps you are best to stick to soap operas and american tv. Someday, I'll no longer be amazed by how quickly the staunch defenders of grotesque and bizarre modern art resort to belligerent and nasty insults. The practice does fit their souls... like a damn ugly glove over a monstrousouly defective hand. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002432.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Paul and I recently listened to Dave Harriman's course The Philosophic Corruption of Physics. We found the course enormously interestingly. Although I'm pretty well familiar with Kant's metaphysics and epistemology, I wasn't aware of the myriad ways in which those ideas, in various modified forms, have played themselves out in fundamental physics. It was yet another important lesson in the power of philosophy. (I should note that Harriman posted an update to that course regarding his positive comments about Lewis Little's "Theory of Elementary Waves" therein.) After listening to that course, I found a good example of bad physics providing cover for mysticism. Here it is: In my experience, most Christians haven't the faintest clue what the Holy Spirit is. That's hardly surprising: it really makes no sense. It's not a semi-comprehensible divine "person" like the Father and the Son, yet it's somehow on par with them in the Trinity. It's an active force in the world in the Christian scriptures, so it can't just be ignored. But what the heck is it? In the Teaching Company course Jesus and the Gospels, the lecturer Luke Timothy Johnson routinely describes the Holy Spirit as "God's Energy Field" to make that mysterious whatever-it-is comprehensible. That's a great explanation. It might not make full sense of the Holy Spirit's place in the Trinity, but it does fit well with the Holy Spirit doings in the scriptures. In fact, I'd say that it makes the Holy Spirit seem perfectly ordinary and reasonable! There's a catch though: that's only true if you think of fields as modern physicists and most people now do, i.e. as abstract, non-physical, and mysterious sum of forces. If you think of them as having some definite physical basis, then it makes no sense to describe the Holy Spirit as "God's Energy Field." In other words, bad physics provides a veneer of rationality to particularly stupidly irrational theology. Of course, Johnson's description is still helpful to me: I now think of the Holy Spirit as "God's Energy Field, as Fields Are Wrongly Understood Today, Also Somehow a Distinct Person" That works well enough. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002429.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog This NYU event -- "50th Anniversary of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day" -- looks promising! (Note the revised schedule from my posting this morning: Dr. Milgram will be speaking before Dr. Bernstein.) The 50th Anniversary of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day in New York City Who: Dr. Andrew Bernstein, Dr. Shoshana Milgram, Dr. Harry Binswanger, Dr. Allan Gotthelf... and you! What: A day-long celebratory event in honor of the 50th anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged. When: Saturday April 7th 2007, ALL DAY Where: Kimmel Center, Room Shorin Auditorium (8th Floor), New York University, 60 Washington Square South, New York, NY 10012. Also, the Empire State Building (!) Registration: Non-NYU guests must register by e-mailing [email protected]. Admission: The club is asking for a suggested donation of $20 from non-students in order to cover our expenses. (Also, please note that all meals and the Empire State building tour are to be paid on your own.) SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 9am - 10:30am: Dr. Milgram, "Writing and Re-Writing Atlas Shrugged: Ayn Rand's Mind at Work" 10:30am - 11:30am: Snack Break (provided by the Club) and The Atlas Shrugged Trivia Game 11:30am - 1pm: Dr. Bernstein, " Atlas Shrugged as the Culmination of the Romantic Novel" 1pm - 2pm: Lunch Break (on your own) 2pm - 3pm: Open Mic: come up and share your favorite passage from the novel and/or your reason for wanting to come celebrate Atlas Shrugged. 3pm - 5pm: Drs. Binswanger and Gotthelf, "General Q&A on Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, and Objectivism" 5:30pm: Dinner and Drinks at the Heartland Brewery, Ground Floor, The Empire State Building 9pm: Trip up to the Observation Decks of The Empire State Building FURTHER DETAILS Dr. Milgram's lecture, Writing and Re-Writing Atlas Shrugged: Ayn Rand's Mind at Work: "In this lecture, as we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged, we will go back in time to the years before the novel became fixed and final. Ayn Rand's manuscripts demonstrate -- in the words of Richard Halley, a character in her novel -- "what discipline, what effort, what tension of mind, what unrelenting strain upon one's power of clarify are needed to produce a work of art." After a survey of her philosophical and literary preparations, we will examine, selectively, her small-scale and large-scale editing, with special emphasis on sequences of romantic relationships and philosophical discourse." Dr. Bernstein's lecture, Atlas Shrugged as the Culmination of the Romantic Novel: "Romanticism champions free will, holding that men can transform their lives by choosing proper principles and values. This is certainly true of the three greatest Romantic novelists: Hugo, Dostoyevsky, and Ayn Rand. Each -- in Les Miserables, The Brothers Karamazov, and Atlas Shrugged, respectively -- seeks to dramatize the world-changing potential of his particular philosophy. But only Ayn Rand presents a triumphant vision. In the other novels, the good, by the author's own standards, is not embraced. The power to choose the right ideas thus seems illusory in the very works of the advocates of volition. What, then, are the deeper premises held by Ayn Rand, but not by the others, enabling her to fully project man's capacity to shape his own soul?" Dr. Binswanger and Dr. Gotthelf were both friends and associates of Miss Rand and are recognized leading experts on her philosophy. Dr. Binswanger has been professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn Rand Institute since 1994 and is currently writing a book on the causal nature of consciousness. Dr. Gotthelf is a visiting professor at the University of Pittsburgh where he holds a fellowship for the study of Objectivism, and he is also an authority on the philosophy of Aristotle. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002426.html

Gary, I think you've seriously misunderstood my post, as well as the Objectivist view of psychological judgments. (1) I don't condemn either NB to TH on the basis of a psychological analysis. I condemn them for their massive schemes of deception. So my post was not psychologizing. I was merely concerned to point out a certain apparent similarity in the basic psychology of two men who have been caught in major deceptions concerning the ideals they advocated and claimed to uphold. (2) Objectivism doesn't hold that any kind of psychological judgment requires a psychological examination by a psychotherapist (or somesuch). It couldn't hold that; it's not a philosophic principle. While obviously *diagnoses* should be left to competant professionals, humans cannot live in society without forming psychological judgments of the people with whom they deal, e.g. that Joe is fearful of taking chances, Sally is always comparing herself to others, John takes pleasure in lying, etc. We can't treat people's inner lives as black boxes, as behaviorists do: that would make other people's actions incomprehensible, seemingly random. Of course, any psychological judgments must be based on evidence, i.e. the person's actual words and deeds. However, that evidence need not be gathered in a psychologist's office. In fact, I suspect that people like NB and TH would be extremely adept at fooling a psychologist: only someone aware of their full range of behavior (as opposed to what they chose to reveal in therapy) could understand the depth of their pathology.

You'd need to read what the relevant parties actually wrote, particularly AR's "To Whom It May Concern," the two replies by the Brandens, the biography by BB, NB's memoir, and Valliant's book (particularly for AR's journals, but also for his analyses of NB's and BB's own writings). If you do that honestly, the judgment you asked about isn't hard at all. If you're interested in the topic, I'd highly recommend that you do that reading. You'll find examples in spades then.

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Ed Cline recently posted a positive review of Jim Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics on Rule of Reason. It's worth a look. Let me digress for a moment... A few days ago, I watched an HBO documentary by Alexandra Pelosi entitled "Friends of God." (The video showing an evangelical anti-evolution seminar that I blogged a few weeks ago was from this documentary.) Ted Haggard is featured prominently in the documentary. His downfall from high influence due to his meth-and-gay-sex scandal broke just as the documentary was wrapping up filming, if I recall correctly. In one interview, he speaks passionately of the need for religious leaders to be moral exemplars, not just for the sake of their own flock, but for everyone. Notably, he said that -- with earnest sincerity and perfect ease -- while actually indulging in his own dark vices. Ted Haggard could not have said what he said in the way he said it -- not if he valued moral honesty. I don't think that mere repression would allow a person to become so very comfortable with that gross contradiction between his own preached ideals and his own behavior. More would be required to seem so sincere, particularly a positive pleasure in the capacity to deceive anyone and everyone. Any guilt he felt was thoroughly suppressed in public; he assumed a persona of his own creation, based on the expectations of others. And that's why he was so very charismatic. When exposed as a moral fraud, the enormous evil of Haggard's actions probably crashed down on him -- at least for a time. I don't think he just regretting getting caught, as so many criminals do: Haggard wasn't that kind of deliberate con artist. He was a sincere believer in Christian ideals, at least at one time. However, I'm sure that three weeks of therapy can't even begin to scratch the surface of his twisted character, meaning that Haggard's self-excusing and/or self-righteous facade will soon return. A person cannot live in the face of utter moral failure; unless he conceals himself with self-deception, he would be driven to suicide. I mention the case of Ted Haggard in this post for one simple reason: I suspect that his psychology is fundamentally like that of Nathaniel Branden. Despite the radical differences in the ideals in question, the basic pattern is strikingly similar. If that doesn't seem plausible to you, then you might wish to read Jim Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. It's very revealing, to say the least. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002408.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Colorado's political machine is poised to institute socialized medicine in the state in the next year or so. Lin Zinser is fighting that ominous prospect with FIRM, a new organization devoted to promoting Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. FIRM's statement of principles reads: We stand for Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. America was founded on the principles of freedom and individual rights. Applied to medicine, the law must respect the individual rights of doctors and other providers, allowing them the freedom to practice medicine. This includes the right to choose their patients, to determine the best treatment for their patients, and to bill their patients accordingly. In the same manner, the law must respect the individual rights of patients, allowing them the freedom to seek out the best doctors and treatment they can afford. Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) promotes the philosophy of individual rights, personal responsibility, and free market economics in health care. FIRM holds that the only moral and practical way to obtain medical care is that of individuals choosing and paying for their own medical care in a capitalist free market. Federal and state regulations and entitlements, we maintain, are the two most important factors in driving up medical costs. They have created the crisis we face today. What does FIRM do? researches and studies the work of scholars and policy experts in the areas of health care, law, philosophy, and economics to inform and to foster public debate on the causes of rising costs of health care and health insurance. sponsors and holds public educational programs, lectures and town hall meetings on issues regarding the causes of the crises in health care and health insurance, and on the morality and economic costs of various health care programs and proposals. makes speakers available for radio and television interviews, for professional conferences or symposiums, and for local, private or public meetings and talks in Colorado. FIRM provides you with information about how to protect freedom and individual rights in medicine, and you decide how to use it. FIRM is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization; it does not endorse any health care treatment, product, provider, or organization. Membership levels begin at $35 per year and are tax-deductible, as provided by law. On the FIRM web site, you can sign up to the "News" and/or "Activists" list. You might also want to read the updated version of Leonard Peikoff's essay "Health Care is Not a Right" and Linda Gorman' informative report "The History of Health Care Costs and Health Insurance." Also, don't miss FIRM's blog: We Stand FIRM. (If you have a blog, please add that to your blogroll.) Please help me spread the word about FIRM! In speaking to ordinary people, I've found strong opposition to socialized medicine, but little knowledge of the already-in-motion plans to institute that in Colorado and other states. So please encourage people to write letters to their state and federal representatives opposing socialized medicine, including its modern incarnations in euphemisms: single-payer, comprehensive, universal, and/or mandatory healthcare. If you live in Colorado, you should also write the 208 Commission, i.e. the body charged with soliciting and evaluating proposals for comprehensive healthcare reform. It is possible to stop the spread of socialized medicine, I think. Now's the time to do it. If you wait now, you'll be waiting much more in the future... in lines for your substandard medical treatment, that is. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002409.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog A link to this 1-minute video proving "the genius of God's creation" via the analysis of a banana was posted to the comments by "rootie." It was just too good not to make into its very own NoodleFood post. Update: I forgot to add that malaria, bubonic plague, and breast cancer are also remarkably well-suited to humans! Those delights must be due to our sinful nature though. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002402.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Wow, I'd really love to see Wafa Sultan speak in this upcoming panel discussion: Totalitarian Islam's Threat to the West Who: Dr. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum; Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute; Dr. Wafa Sultan, outspoken critic of Islam and author of the forthcoming book "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster" What: A panel discussion on the threat of Islamic totalitarianism and how to deal with it Where: UCLA Campus: Moore 100, Los Angeles, CA When: Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 7:00 PM Admission is FREE. Description: From the Iranian hostage crisis to September 11 to the London subway attacks to the Iraqi insurgency--it is clear the West faces a grave threat from a committed enemy. Conventional wisdom holds that the enemy is a rogue group of fanatics, who have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their crimes. It tells us there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups, that we have entered an "age of terror" and that we must give up the desire for a decisive victory. But is the conventional wisdom right? A distinguished panel of Middle East experts will provide new and illuminating answers to the most important questions of our time: Is the West ready to concede victory so easily? Are the terrorists a fringe group of fanatics, or are they part of a much wider ideological movement? What threat do they pose to the West? What can the West do to ensure victory? Is peace possible? While the experts will answer these complex questions from diverse points of view, they all agree on one thing: Islamic totalitarianism is a real threat, and the right response necessitates engaging in a principled, ideological battle to defend the West from the jihad declared against it. Speakers' Biographies: Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a recognized Middle-East expert who has written and lectured on a variety of Middle-East issues. Dr. Brook has served in the Israeli Army and has discussed the Israeli-Arab conflict and the war on Islamic totalitarianism on hundreds of radio and TV programs, including FOX News (The O'Reilly Factor, Your World with Neil Cavuto, At Large with Geraldo Rivera), CNN's Talkback Live, CNBC's Closing Bell and On the Money, and a C-SPAN panel of experts on terrorism. Dr. Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. He taught history at the University of Chicago and at Harvard University, and lectured on policy and strategy at the Naval War College. He currently teaches at Pepperdine University. Dr. Pipes is the author of twelve books and numerous articles. He is a columnist for the New York Sun and he appears weekly in Israel's Jerusalem Post, Italy's L'Opinione, Spain's La Razón, and monthly in the Australian and Canada's Globe and Mail. His Web site, DanielPipes.org, is among the most accessed Internet sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. Mr. Pipes has appeared on ABC World News, CBS Reports, Crossfire, Good Morning America, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, O'Reilly Factor, The Today Show, the BBC and Al Jazeera. Dr. Wafa Sultan is a secular Syrian-American writer and thinker, Dr. Sultan is known for her participation in Middle East political debates, widely circulated Arabic essays and television appearances on Al Jazeera, CNN and Fox News. Dr. Sultan was shocked into secularism by the atrocities committed against innocent Syrian people by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1979, including the machine-gun assassination of her professor in front of her eyes at the University of Aleppo, where she was a medical student. On February 21, 2006, she appeared on Al Jazeera, where she scolded Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently and for not acknowledging the accomplishments of non-Muslim societies, including their greater freedom and capacity for producing wealth and technology. She named the Islamic threat to the West as "a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose." A video of her appearance, widely circulated on Web logs and through e-mail, has been viewed an estimated 12 million times. Her outspokenness has brought her both threats and praise. Dr. Sultan is currently working on a book to be called "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster." http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002401.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Eugene Volokh just posted a blog entry entitled "Who Should Pay for Security at Controversial University Events? on the canceled UCLA debate between Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute and Carl Braun of the Minutemen sponsored by the UCLA Objectivist club, LOGIC. He has a nice summary of the facts, then an analysis of the First Amendment issues. However, I was most interested in his discussion of the the basic moral issue: 3. But it seems to me that regardless of the First Amendment outcome, academic freedom principles should lead the university to pay all the security costs itself. It looks like L.O.G.I.C. will be able to pay for the private security; but many groups might not be able to, and even L.O.G.I.C. might not be able to pay if the expected counterprotest is large enough. Sometimes, the thugs' threatened disruption would get the event shut down, or at least moved off campus to a park. So the question is: Should the university let the thugs drive debate on important and controversial issues off the university campus? I think the answer is that it should not. I sympathize with the desire to save money that could be used for other academic purposes. I sympathize with the concern about violence (though I think it's to the university's credit that it will pay the great majority of the costs of deterring and containing the possible violence, rather than blocking the event or requiring student groups to pay for police protection). Still, it seems to me most important that the university take a stand, even at some cost, in favor of protecting free speech and against those who are threatening to disrupt the speech. If the university doesn't do it, and the thugs win, that will just promote more thuggery in the future. Behave that gets rewarded gets repeated. Recall also that, thanks to Chancellor Abrams' sound decision to provide police protection at UC expense, the debate now is over sums that are relatively modest for the university. But the sums are not modest for the groups involved, and may in fact lead to some events' being canceled. If $1000-2000 extra for the relatively rare event that requires a good deal of security is the price to be spent for defending free debate at the university against the goons, that seems to me a price the university should be willing to pay. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002395.html

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Some Seattle schoolchildren are being taught the evils of private property and property rights by banning Legos. Here are some excerpts from this chilling (mostly pro-property rights) article: According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation." The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive." They claimed as their role shaping the children's "social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity ... from a perspective of social justice." So they first explored with the children the issue of ownership. Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying. The teachers then explored with the students concepts of fairness, equity, power, and other issues over a period of several months. At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children: "A house is good because it is a community house." "We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes." "It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building." By the way, this was at a private school, not a public school. The teachers explained their philosophy in great detail in their recent article, "Why We Banned Legos". Here is what the children naively believed about the concept of "ownership" before the Lego incident: If I buy it, I own it If I receive it as a gift, I own it If I make it myself, I own it If it has my name on it, I own it If I own it, I make the rules about it And after the "re-education", they learned the following: Collectivity is a good thing Personal expression matters Shared power is a valued goal Moderation and equal access to resources are things to strive for These principles were then concretized into the following rules for Lego play: All structures are public structures. Everyone can use all the Lego structures. But only the builder or people who have her or his permission are allowed to change a structure. Lego people can be saved only by a "team" of kids, not by individuals. All structures will be standard sizes. As the teachers happily noted: With these three agreements -- which distilled months of social justice exploration into a few simple tenets of community use of resources -- we returned the Legos to their place of honor in the classroom. The school is the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. The two teachers who co-authored the article are Ann Pelo and Kendra Pelojoaquin. Ann Pelo's e-mail address is: <[email protected]>. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002396.html