dianahsieh

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog This brief essay from the New York Times on a young girl who had open heart surgery in its infancy in the mid 1960s shows just how much medicine has progressed in the last 50 years. It's quite remarkable, actually. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002293.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog A few weeks ago, I told Boaz Simovici that I'd be interested in publishing an essay from him on Robert Tracinski's recent "What Went Right" series, if he were interested in writing something formal. (I was impressed by the perceptiveness of his comments in the sordid debates on SoloPassion.) He was able to write the following two-part essay before other matters demanded his attention. (I mention that only because the essay ends without a proper conclusion.) I did carefully re-read Tracinski's essay in preparation for posting this response. I noticed many of the same problems that Boaz explains below, problems that I didn't see so clearly initially. So that makes me particularly grateful for Boaz's contribution. So without further ado... In what follows, I'm presuming that the reader is well acquainted with Robert Tracinski's (still unfinished) essay, " What Went Right," enough to judge whether I interpret him fairly. Rational Egoism by Osmosis? By his own account, Robert" target="_blank">http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bi...id=1095">Robert Tracinski's working theory of history is consistent with the Objectivist view of the role of philosophical ideas in social change. But the core of his argument tells a different story -- and his story of the role of philosophy in the destiny of a culture is unconvincing. Tracinski argues that western institutions are the mechanism of philosophical change in today's world. The experience of scientific education, capitalism and liberal democracy leads to a wider acceptance of enlightenment ideals: reason, individualism, the pursuit of happiness. Men are "inducted" into a rational worldview -- they form new and better ethical concepts implicitly -- by experiencing the rewards of certain virtues (honesty, thrift, initiative). This mechanism constitutes nothing less than a "virtuous cycle," at the end of which a philosophy of reason takes over the culture. Western institutions --> implicit philosophy --> Moral revolution: ...But observation of today's world indicates that these institutions [scientific and technological education, global capitalism, representative government] are self-reinforcing and self-propagating. And I think the evidence suggests something more: that these institutions are not just a product of the influence of Enlightenment ideas across the world; they are the leading edge and specific mechanism of that influence... ...Both an individual and a culture have to learn a rational method and world view, not just from instruction in explicit philosophical tenets, but first from learning the specific methods and world view of the sciences and seeing the validity and power of that method in all of the myriad concretes it can explain to them and in all of the concrete problems it allows them to solve. If people who have been trained in a scientific education then encounter the basic tenets of a pro-reason philosophy, they will regard them as practically self-evident [italics mine]... because the broad philosophic truths are implicit in so many of the truths that the individual has grasped in his studies of mathematics, geometry, physics, engineering, medicine, and so on... ...Wherever it goes, and to the extent that it is adopted, global capitalism is not merely a practical or material force; it is a moral force. Capitalism does not have a moral impact by preaching any particular virtues; it is mute. It simply re-arranges the incentives that men face, lowering the resistance and massively increasing the reward for certain kinds of behavior... If the main effect of scientific and technological education is to induct men into a rational method of thinking, the main effect of global capitalism is to induct them into rational egoism [italics mine]. And in both cases, I mean the word "induct" in an epistemological sense: capitalism encourages individualism inductively, by giving men the experience of being independent agents seeking self-interest through rational, productive effort. ["The Metaphysics of Normal Life"] Much of this argument has the ring of truth. It's true, for instance, that existential and political conditions play an important role in the spread of ideas. This is hardly an original point -- within or outside of Objectivism. Leonard Peikoff made a similar argument about how values can spread indirectly, once explicit philosophy has set the stage for a given political system: ...Philosophy works in two ways to produce such a psychology [of dependence or independence]: indirectly, by shaping a nation's institutions, and directly, through the explicit statements of its intellectuals...Philosophy shapes a nation's political system. Then the political system encourages and appeals to a certain kind of psychology. For instance, under a statist system...the average man has less and less control over his life. He becomes increasingly dependent on the government and/or on a pressure-group simply to get by. At the same time, since statism doesn't work, he is confronted by one crisis after another -- inflation, depression, riots, war, etc. The average man soon comes to feel that he is out of control, that he cannot trust his judgment, that he cannot make sense of events, that he is helpless on his own...these consequences arise quite apart from any abstract message he is given explicitly...A rational philosophy works the same way, but in a positive direction. Such a philosophy leads to the establishment of a free country...the system demands and rewards independence. Men's daily existence is not dotted with inexplicable crises; the general standard of living and of well-being is constantly rising... ["Philosophy and Psychology," The Objectivist Forum (October 1985)] What is also true -- and, again, this is old and undisputed ground -- is that fundamental philosophical ideas penetrate the culture indirectly, inadvertently, by shaping how people are taught to think and giving rise to a characteristic pattern of life. So it's true that Aristotle's influence in India (and Lebanon and Iran and Iraq) comes in the form of scientific education and the benefits of an industrial economy, however tenuous (and quite possibly short-lived) such benefits have been. This does indeed constitute the spread of good implicit philosophy, and that's precisely the problem. Good ideas, so long as they remain unidentified and unintegrated -- so long as they remain deathly silent -- can only go so far. For if Tracinski were right, and the right existential conditions (politics) and the right combination of pajama epistemologists (people doing good work in specialized fields) could enact rational egoism on the scale of a whole culture (!!) -- if a thriving civilization could result from these factors alone -- then we should have expected our leaders to incinerate our enemies in the Muslim world long ago. For "What Went Right" to be right, we should expect Pakistanis in London and Moroccans in Amsterdam to wage war against Jihad -- not cheer it on, or (at best) acquiesce in their own slaughter. If Tracinski were right that an implicit rational method, embodied in scientific education, could render self-evident a rational, this-worldly philosophy, then our legions of engineers, doctors and scientists would long ago have thrown off the shackles of religion. Sure, most of them don't pray or believe in miracles, but they won't challenge those who do. They admit of the "possibility" that Jesus rose from the grave; that "meaning" transcends truth; that virtue is about giving things up; that killing our enemies is evil. What in the American experience, in the "induction" into freedom and (semi-)capitalism of our own citizens, is prompting our current healthcare policies? Has any of the inculcation of good values wrought by previous policy -- say, the 80's boom -- taught America anything important about what happens to any industry under "managed care"? Not in the least. Sure, people balk (and politicians bristle) at the phrase "socialized medicine," but the urge and political will to subsidize and regulate the field remains, accelerating with each attendant crisis. The economic arguments have been there for two hundred years; the "inductive" base of a capitalist civilization, decades of immersion in the glories unleashed by the unfettered mind...all for what? Mirabile Dictu! Socialized Medicine! Theory and Practice The salient, tragic truth about our culture is that we are heirs to warring traditions, theories about the meaning and purpose of life -- about where our loyalties should lie and our moral boundaries begin and end -- and these theories collide everyday. The result is an unstable mix, a civilization in profound tension with itself. So it is exasperating to watch Tracinski wax eloquently about the myriad strides forward in many fields, as if no Objectivist before him had recognized such developments, as if any Objectivist of note has even intimated that the work of philosophers is the fount of all knowledge or that Objectivism was an indispensable blueprint for innovation in the sciences. Is there any doubt that the veritable phalanx of new technologies (and massive profits) we've seen in the last decades represents progress? Don't Microsoft, Intel, Cisco and the Biotech industry move our civilization forward? Of course they do. Great minds and great new ideas can have an impact in almost any culture. The question is how -- and how deeply -- such strides would indicate meaningful cultural change, a change in philosophical outlook that can alter the course of a nation. And on this point I agree entirely with Noumenal" target="_blank">http://www.noumenalself.com/archives/2007/....html">Noumenal Self's analysis: "Insofar as special sciences make concrete discoveries that can improve human life, civilization will move forward in concrete ways." (italics mine) For it is precisely in the realm of all these discoveries and economic achievement that we see the nature of the clash between good implicit ideas and destructive explicit philosophy. Great businessmen can achieve much despite their casual adherence to bad moral precepts -- they operate on a good implicit philosophy -- and their accomplishments inspire thousands of new entrepreneurs in pursuit of their own happiness. But if these same men bow to affirmative action shakedown-artists on Monday and Tuesday, intone (on television and in their mission statements) on their fundamental duty to consumers on Friday and Saturday, endow environmental causes with millions on Wednesday, and applaud the president when he spits in their faces in public, they do nothing to halt the steady and stealthy pace of socialism. The implicit philosophy serving them well in one field -- where it doesn't overtly conflict with the bible -- is impotent when it comes to changing the deeper fundamentals of their culture. What applies for a philosophically mixed individual applies equally for a good country beset with philosophical poison. The story of Israel's war with Hezbollah in July of 2006 will reign forever in history as a spectacle of self-inflicted torture and humiliation. On one side, a largely pro-reason culture wielding superior technology, with all the resources of years of army intelligence in Lebanon and training in guerilla warfare in the stench of Gaza; on the other, men so cowardly they would stoop to firing on fleeing civilians in order to seal them inside their villages, the better to ratchet up the death-count on CNN. Israel knew where their enemies were; they knew they could bomb villages in the south and thus draw Hezbollah's foot soldiers out into the open, where they would stand no chance. They knew that bombing Hezbollah strongholds in Beirut wouldn't be enough, that only a significant invasion in the south (after using airpower to destroy village bunkers and soften up Hezbollah's supply lines) would ever eradicate their enemy. They did none of these things. They chose a political half-war, knowing full well that it would mean another flare-up in a year or two... They've chosen a permanent war of attrition. Israel isn't a methodically altruist country, not by a stretch -- not if the standard is implicit philosophy. Its better premises have preserved it largely intact, its economy has bloomed in recent years, its secular culture lends joy and excitement to many of its people. (At least for the moment.) But when push comes to shove, the same pattern emerges in each of its conflicts: fight only to survive and save face -- never to win. In doing so, the Israeli leadership genuinely believes it is being "realistic" -- which would be true, if realism meant that you could never indulge in mere "theory," that you have to play the game by the world's standards. But Israel has its own standards, too: their morality tells them they need to be humane, that they uphold the right cause by sacrificing their children to avoid civilian casualties. They say it openly -- and proudly. Now, I ask you: is it plausible that what Israel needs philosophically is more science, markets and democracy? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002292.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog A "Question for NoodleFood" from Ergo: I understand that Objectivism believes that sacrifices imply giving up a higher value for a lesser value, and that they are neither necessary nor moral under a rational moral code. But what is the moral course of action in a case where one is faced with having to choose between two (or more) equally valued and necessary options. For instance, having to choose between two equally close friends. In essence, I am questioning the premise that all values are hierarchical and that one can choose one over another based on how important or necessary the value is to their own lives. Could there not be a case wherein I value two things equally and thus having to choose between them necessarily demands a sacrifice from me (assuming there is no force acting upon me and that the situation arises from my own actions)? A few comments: First, I should mention that Leonard Peikoff talks about the problems associated with having to choose between friends in his short lecture course Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic. Although he's mostly concerned with cases in which two of one's friends are irreconcilably conflicted, it might still be a good resource. Here are my own thoughts on the matter, which may or may not be consistent with the Objectivist ethics: Strictly speaking, I'm doubtful that two substantially different goods (like people) can be genuinely equal in value to a person. It can be difficult to discern which is more valuable than another in the context of one's whole life. Yet I cannot imagine them to be equal, in substantial part because you won't value their different good qualities equally. (Plus, those qualities are ranked ordinally rather than cardinally, so it's impossible to conclude that both friends are worth 4.6 utils, for example.) When the choice is non-exclusive, minor differences between values are of little importance: it's perfectly reasonable to alternate between ordering your two favorite dishes at your favorite restaurant. However, sometimes the choice is exclusive simply due to the constraints of time: you can only work one job, pursue so many hobbies, enjoy one perfect friendship, etc. In those cases, you need to try to discern the greater value to you in the long run using your full context of knowledge -- and pursue that. (In keeping with Aristotle, I'd say that such weighing requires experience, skill, and judgment -- meaning that it gets easier with practice.) In that case, the lesser value is obviously not sacrificed, even though it's possible to regret your inability to pursue it. Even if two exclusive values seem equivalent to you, I don't think the choice of one over the other ought to be described as a sacrifice of any kind. Sacrifice is the deliberate renunciation of a greater value to a lesser value, but that's not what's happening in such hard choices. Thoughts? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002291.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog A while back, Ari Armstrong reported on Flemming Rose's December lecture in Denver. Even better, he posted the whole speech in MP3 format. Also, the full set of lectures from the fall 2006 Boston weekend conference "The Jihad Against the West" is now available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. That version of Flemming Rose's talk was definitely better than the one given in Denver. I really enjoyed talking to Flemming Rose while he was in Denver. He's a remarkable -- and very admirable -- man. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002266.html

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog So there I was, minding my own business quietly reading at a coffee store last weekend, when an acquaintance struck up an ideological conversation. It was entertaining enough and skipped around various mixed-economy things, but soon got goofy in the ways I've grown accustomed to seeing. Sadly, there seemed to be a tinge of anger behind his (understandable) frustration with being challenged in ways he didn't expect, and it snowballed from there before we pulled the plug. Very unsatisfying. In this instance, my delightful mate had been watching it unfold and later wondered aloud if I shouldn't carry around a little business-card-sized Agreement to try to forestall that sort of thing. Here's what she sent me as an example: I, _______________ [your name] do of my own free will, voluntarily agree to enter into an intellectual discussion with Greg Perkins. I acknowledge that Greg will use all of his knowledge and skills to present evidence and argument in support of his position. I agree to not be offended and angry, or to become upset and throw things at Greg when I cannot do the same. I agree to attempt to digest the evidence presented by Greg, in lieu of making unfounded assertion after unfounded assertion. I agree that when I begin to turn red and snap at Greg, that I should surrender my argument at that point and go learn more about the topic and what Greg has offered for my consideration. Finally, I agree to hold Greg's fiancée, Tammy Ryan, entirely harmless for any and all pissed-off feelings I have toward Greg following the discussion. Hilarious and flattering as it is, that may not be quite what is needed. Thinking over the common ways things go off the rails while talking with non-Objectivists, I put together the following to try to set expectations, keep things on the rails longer, encourage more seriousness and intellectual honesty, scare away the unworthy, and so on. (And yes, it is depressing that almost all of it should go without saying.) Ground Rules for a Rational Discussion Intellectual conversation has a purpose: to share, compare, and test our understandings of reality with the goal of our both better seeing the truth of the matter(s) under discussion. And perhaps more important, it constitutes training that develops our capacity for thinking and communicating well. First and foremost, evidence and reasoning shall be offered in support of assertions that are in doubt. If an objective case cannot be made, or the case runs contrary to other evidence and reasoning, then the commensurate level of qualification is expected in the presenter, along with an appreciation of an appropriate level of skepticism in the recipient(s). The same standards apply to everyone involved. If something is disallowed for one, it is disallowed for all; if something is required of one, it is required for all. In particular, reason is not a tool for merely convincing others of what we otherwise hold to because of feelings, tradition, faith, authority, "just knowing," or whatever. It is hypocrisy to expect the canons of reason to guide your partner in pursuing knowledge while not expecting the same for yourself. Finally, if the conversation does not proceed as expected and your position is not faring well, then your preexisting confidence does not warrant assuming that this surprising turn of events is due to mere rhetorical skill or sophistry in your partner; it could well be that your disagreement is with reality and that you are in effect shooting the messenger. Indeed, if you have been participating in an error so widespread and/or subtle as to evade identification up to this point, gratitude and happiness is warranted. Toward Beneficial Training Regarding the training mentioned above, for it to be beneficial requires internalizing the idea that while winning an argument can be a satisfying affirmation of prior work, letting a desire for victory take precedence over a commitment to correctness is a dangerous inversion of values -- a reversal of cause and effect -- as well as a recipe for a humiliating demonstration of weak character. First and foremost, relying on weakness in others' training, intelligence, knowledge, or psychology to maintain your position cultivates this inversion of values, and it corrodes the presumption of intellectual honesty (importantly, in your own understanding of yourself, but also in others' knowledge of you as such reliance is realized). Cultivating the opposite means always assuming (even eagerly hoping) that deficiencies in your reasoning and argumentation will be noticed and pointed out. If and when that happens, how you address such a report can speak volumes about your training, intelligence, character, and general worth as a thinker and discussion partner. This of course comes in degrees. For example, sustained failure to appreciate your dependence on a basic fallacy may result in termination of the exchange with the judgment that you are simply not equipped for such a discussion. But it would be far worse to evade acknowledging and correcting such a condition by throwing up rhetorical dust with, say, a clumsy accusation that your accuser is committing some conversational sin (all too often your own alleged sin) -- in which case you would be relying on his not having sufficient self-esteem and skill to clear away the dust, refute the smear, and add the incident to your snowballing list of unworthy moves. An evasive escalation like this can quickly destroy your credibility and result in termination of the exchange with the judgment that you are deficient both intellectually and morally. Finally, please note that sophomoric debate tactics only underscore desperation, immaturity, and blind commitment to the inversion of values mentioned above. For example, shifting from arguing some point to a position of extreme skepticism will be seen as transparent sophistry: if there is no reality, or there are no truths to know about it, or knowledge is generally unavailable to us, then there is no need for the conversation you were eager to undertake so long as you felt good about the direction it was headed. The same goes for other self-excluding gems from Philosophy 101 like disapproving of someone for making value judgments per se, clinging to the (black and white) idea that nothing is black and white, and so on. Appropriate analysis will follow and termination of the discussion may result. But the above is just what I quickly came up with. I imagine many here have had similar experiences to mine -- what would you put in a brief boilerplate for garden-variety intellectual conversations? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002267.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Mike of Primacy of Awesome is seeking suggestions for future posts. He writes: I got a lot of positive feedback from my post about children and Objectivism. I'd like to solicit any readers for ideas on possible similar posts. Posts on some stereotype about Objectivism or Objectivists or Ayn Rand etc. So you give me the stereotype, and then I bitch slap you with a bunch of contradictory facts. He then comments briefly on the charge that Objectivists won't cooperate with anyone. Since that sounds like a worthwhile series, if you have any suggestions, please post them to his comments. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002260.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Last week, I wrote a letter to the editor for the Rocky Mountain News responding to Paul Campos' column on "myths" about American healthcare. It was published in full on the web, albeit apparently not in the print version. Here it is: Paul Campos ("Our Sickly Healthcare," Jan 30) notes the enormous influence of the government on America's ailing market for medical care. Yet he misses the obvious: government meddling is the fundamental source of those ills. His proposal for more government-controlled medicine--for socialized medicine--would be a disaster for medical providers and patients alike. Already, government bureaucrats set prices by arbitrary fiat via the Medicare system, then overwhelm doctors with paperwork and regulations. Already, consumers are encouraged to pursue medical care without regard for cost, thanks to tax laws encouraging employers to provide medical insurance for even routine expenses. Already, taxpayers are burdened with the cost of ever-growing medical entitlement programs. Already, FDA regulations drive up the cost of life-saving drugs and prevent doctors from prescribing drugs known to be safe. The result of that government meddling is an expensive bureaucratic labyrinth that prevents healthcare providers--doctors, nurses, drug companies, hospitals, clinics--from providing the best medical care for the patient's dollar. The solution to these problems is not more paternalistic government regulations, bureaucracy, and entitlements. It is to allow--and require--people to take personal responsibility for their own health by separating medicine and state. Diana Hsieh Sedalia I was pretty pleased with the letter, particularly with the fact that it didn't take me too long to write. (RMN allows comments on letters; so please post away!) The forces of socialism are gearing up to impose government-controlled medicine on Colorado, so I expect to be writing more on this topic over the next year and a half. (I'll say more about all that later.) http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002254.html

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I just took a look at a brief overview of Rand and Objectivism authored by Greg Salmieri and Allan Gotthelf for a dictionary of modern philosophers. Wow! They accomplished so much in so little space, and so brilliantly. Reading it feels almost like reading a poem. One can tell that everything from the major structural decisions down to the last jot and tittle was carefully balanced and designed to work in concert to squeeze in maximal meaning and clarity for any engaged, attentive reader whose eyes might fall on those 2500 words. And while it is dense and aimed at distinguishing and explaining (and enticing further study of) Rand's system for an academically-trained audience in terms they can understand, it is nonetheless accessible to the rest of us. I could gush about its particular virtues for more than its own length, so I'll leave it at gesturing to just one of my favorite structural choices and the wonderful connections it supported. They closed out the metaphysics by pointing to the importance Rand placed on distinguishing the metaphysically-given from the man-made, and then as they worked upward through the normative branches of her system, they called on it in ways that would clarify what Rand was up to (always striving to distinguish her approach from others it might be superficially confused with). After all that, they strode into a conclusion that used the distinction to address the objectivity of values while reinforcing the integrated nature of her system by making a gigantic connection with references that resolved all the way down through metaphysics. This also set them up to credibly point to her distinctive conception of objectivity and its pervasive influence on her system. That gigantic connection appeared in the final two sentences of their penultimate paragraph, and I actually laughed out loud when I saw how they were cashing in on what they had set up: On her view values are objective. Values (like concepts) are formed by a consciousness in accordance with the facts of reality. To be a value something must be identified by an agent as furthering his life. The identification is man-made, as is the choice to live that gives it meaning. But the relationship between the value and the agent's life is metaphysically given, as is the need to identify this relationship conceptually. That's just righteously cool. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002246.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Trey Givens blogs a report on a recent debate on the UN between critic Dr. Yaron Brook and defender Dr. Gilligan. (One of these days, opponents of Dr. Brook in debate will realize that they must show up prepared!) Speaking of debates with Dr. Brook, Boulder's Philosophy Department (or more precisely, its Center for Values and Social Policy) will be hosting a debate on just war theory between Yaron Brook and Martin Cook on March 13th from 7:30 to 9:30 pm in the lovely Wittemeyer Courtroom of the Wolf Law Building as part of its "Think!" series. Martin Cook is a professor of philosophy at the Air Force Academy -- and one of the preeminent just war theorists in the country. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002243.html

Agreed, sort of. In my opinion, LP's statement presumes some general knowledge of and concern for the state of American politics, i.e. that of a voting American citizen. It was written as a recommendation on voting, after all. And anyone even considering voting ought to be familiar with major events in politics, e.g. the Terry Schaivo nightmare, Bush's spending spree, the religiosity of the Republican leadership, and so on. A person ignorant of those basic facts has no business voting at all. And yes, I do think a person ought to -- morally speaking -- follow the basic outlines of his country's politics so that he can vote intelligently. Also, if some Dutch Objectivist published a statement saying "If you vote for XYZ candidate [in Holland], then you don't understand Objectivism," I wouldn't dream in a million years that the statement applies to me -- or anyone else outside Holland. That's the basic situation for Objectivists outside the US.

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Not too long ago, Mike M posted a quick but good rebuttal to the standard complaint that Objectivism ignores children. It's worth reading, mostly as ammunition for the next time you hear that charge. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002239.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I refuse to comment on this letter on principle: I don't argue with threats, particularly not divine threats communicated by human proxy. Still, I thought it interesting enough to repost. (Since I haven't written anything on Islam of late, it must be in response to some earlier post.) From: mohamed sobah ([email protected]) Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Comments on your article Hey Diana I don't know who the hell you are, but one thing is apparent to me: You know absoulutely nothing about islam. First of all let me be very clear: European civilisation does not possess any respectable vaues at all. The values that you claim to be of European are lower than crap. In fact animals are far more civilised than you are. You are a nation full of evil, you all are so deviated from the path of God. You have no idea what's right and what is evil. You're so lost and all your damn values stand on materialism. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You have utterly failed to understand the basic reason why you are here, what you are supposed to do, how can you expect to understand the limits of freedom? Now stop crowing about your so called values before God's wrath befalls you. Repent now and think about Islam seriously. Ask yourself the question: what's Islam and what's it all about. What are islamic values. Believe me, you are going to regret what you said about Islam, you have no power over God, do you understand that? Do you think you will not die, and you will not go to the grave. Of course you will, and you can never tell when. And it's in the grave that things will start, rather as soon as you die. So find about islam and think about converting now, if you want to be successful, if you are so serious about your values. It's really simple: compare pure Islam with other religions and i'm sure you will understand the difference and you will be convinced that islam is the religion for you. Have you ever wondered about the Koran, what it says. i dont think you have. Get a transalation today, go through the contents, and ponder over what you read. If God wills you will be rightly guided. I pray that God guides you to the right path. Just keep in mind that you will be raised again after your death, and you will be questioned about your deeds. You can go ahead, laugh , poke fun at Muslims, but remember, you will regret that in your grave. If you don't believe me, read the Qur'an, its words from God. If you think it's not words of God, then prove that. I'm sure you will fail to prove, cuz you can't fight against God, can you? You will be the loser, so come back to the religion of GOD, dont be stubborn, it wont be of any use. And dont make hasty comments about islam without even a little knowlege about it. You're wrong, Diana, you're perception about islam is wrong. I hope you will think about this, and embark on finding about islam right away. I'm sure you will end up in finding the truth. may God bless you and guide you to the right path and forgive you of your sins. Good luck, Diana Lovely, no? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002238.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog This comic strip on Christianity is absolutely priceless. When I have an office, it'll be the very first thing I post on the door. (Via Glenn Friedman.) http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002235.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Hooray! The schedule for the 2007 OCON in Telluride, Colorado has been posted. Without a doubt, the highlight of the conference will be Leonard Peikoff's six lectures on "The DIM Hypothesis": Dr. Peikoff's forthcoming book, The DIM Hypothesis, identifies three different modes of integration, i.e., of interrelating concretes, such as individual percepts, facts, choices, etc. The book then demonstrates the power of these three modes in shaping Western culture and history. In his lectures, Dr. Peikoff presents and explains six of the chapters in his twelve-chapter book. The first three, dealing with epistemology, explain why there are only three possible interpretations of integration (symbolized by the acronym DIM), and which philosopher is the source of each. The second three illustrate the power of the DIM hypothesis to reveal the anatomy of Western culture, by considering the trends prevalent in literature, education and politics since the Renaissance. Students will receive well in advance a highly detailed outline of the material. Each lecture will be followed by a question-and-answer period. This course will not be a repetition of his earlier course by the same name, now available for free from ARI's web site. In fact, I'd highly recommend that first course as preparation for this summer's course. I'm also very excited by some of the optional courses, but I'll blog about those later. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002230.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog John Lewis will be in Colorado toward the end of this upcoming week. He'll be a busy man! (John is an insightful and vivacious speaker; I highly recommend any of his lectures.) Event #1 What: CU Boulder Campus Lecture "The Individualist Alternative to the Political Left and Right" by Dr. John Lewis When: Thursday, January 25, 2007, 7:00 pm Where: Wolf Law Building (WLFL 207) Contact: Jim Manley, Club Leader, [email protected] American politics is divided today, between the political left and the right-so goes the prevailing wisdom. But the wisdom is wrong: the conservatives' support for the welfare state at home and for "nation-building" overseas shows how close the traditional left and right really are. In this talk, Dr. Lewis will demonstrate how common principles of altruism and statism align both camps in opposition to the sovereign individual-and have offered Americans a false alternative between deadly socialist policies. A true alternative would understand the individual--ethically, politically, and economically--to be the starting point of a proper politics. It is only the individual which exists, and the protection of his rights is the only purpose of a proper government. This is because, ethically, life as a rational man is the only proper standard for a moral code, and individual happiness its only purpose. Event #2 What: Young Aristotle Competition and Dinner Lecture "Early Greek Lawgivers: Solon of Athens and the Discovery of Freedom under Law" by John Lewis When: Friday, January 26th, 2007, 5:30 pm Where: Ridgeview Classical Schools, 1800 South Lemay Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Cost: $10 per ticket, reserve with Joe Collins, [email protected] About the event: You are cordially invited to the third annual Young Aristotle Competition, Friday January 26 at 5:30 p.m. at Ridgeview Classical Schools, 1800 South Lemay Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. This year's event will feature a dinner talk by historian John Lewis Ph.D. of Ashland University. The title of the talk will be "Early Greek Lawgivers: Solon of Athens and the Discovery of Freedom under Law." Due to fundraising and a generous grant, we are able to offer the dinner and talk for $10.00. Tickets are expected to sell out and can be purchased from Joe Collins at Ridgeview. His contact is [email protected]. Please consider joining us for a night of ideas and scholarship and see why Ridgeview is, for the second year in a row, the top high school in the state of Colorado. Rational education is taking hold in northern Colorado. About the lecture: One of the great Greek discoveries is that of freedom: the right of each person to live his own life as he wishes, and to conduct his individual affairs free from the coercions of others. This discovery was incomplete, and limited to adult male citizens--yet it set the background for all later advancements in freedom. Part of this discovery was the need for laws: objective rules, justly created in open discussion, used to bring order to human life, and carved into stone for all to see. The men who brought these ideas, and these laws, to the Greeks were the lawgivers: men of wisdom and justice, who created just laws. Greek lawgivers understood an important truth: that freedom requires law, and proper laws can be created only by free men. This talk will focus on the figures of the lawgivers, and their deeds: who were they? What did they do? Why should we care about them? What is the connection between freedom and law? Is there freedom without law? If you can't make it up to Fort Collins by 5:30, you might still be able to attend the lecture, as that likely won't start until about 6:40. You can e-mail [email protected] about that. Event #3 What: Seminar on Fighting Socialized Medicine with Dr. John Lewis When: Saturday, January 27, 2007, 11:00 am to 2:00 pm Where: Dixon's Restaurant, 16th and Wazee, Downtown Denver Contact: For more information and to RSVP, please contact Lin Zinser, [email protected] About John Lewis John Lewis is assistant professor of history at Ashland University and contributing editor of The Objective Standard. He holds a Ph.D. in classics from the University of Cambridge, and is an Anthem Fellow for Objectivist Scholarship. His research interests are in ancient Greek and Roman thought, military history, and their connections to the modern day. He writes for The Objective Standard, and for Capitalism Magazine. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002229.html

You really ought not depend upon -- nor even ask for -- summaries of RT's views or the criticisms thereof. The sum total of articles isn't long: it could be easily read in less than an hour. If you don't have time for that, then you surely don't have time to even think seriously about these issues. (And yes, these issues deserve and require serious thought.) In fairness to both RT and his critics, any kind of judgment (even a preliminary one) should wait until you've read what he's actually written, as opposed to what others say he's written. And, I should say, I think it's very dangerous to read criticisms of some article (or thesis or whatnot) before reading the article itself. It can not only lead to major misunderstandings and skewed presumptions, but also wrongly color your view of the original material when you do read it. Undoubtedly, your gleaning from "the buzz at various sites" has not yielded an accurate picture of the debate. So please, go read the articles. Or set aside this issue until you have time to do so.

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog With the movie of Atlas Shrugged edging toward production, it is natural that we'll see articles about Rand and the book and its adaptation -- like the recent one that appeared in the NY Times and other rags, talking about the many abortive attempts at bringing Atlas to the big and small screen. What jumped out in that one was the writer pinning a lot of the trouble on Rand's supposedly conspiracy-tinged outlook. Not so good, but that was a veritable puff-piece compared to the most recent article I've seen float by. The sneering potshots are nonstop, beginning with the paranoia thing, moving to a hit on The Fountainhead's famous sex scene and "ironies" of the book's movie production, and then switching directions to launch into an extended riff on the Standard Litany of ugly, uninformed smears of Rand, Objectivism, and even O'Connor -- you know, the mythology spawned and tremendously reinforced by the Brandens, then uncritically swallowed and passed on by so many like this writer. (But please, let's all remember that the Brandens' viciously dishonest accounts are marginal and old news and aren't doing any any real damage. Not.) Oh, and along the way there was the routine condescension with a cute connection-by-nonessentials to Scientology: "Her essays and her novels appeal to people who might like to be intellectuals but lack the necessary curiosity and energy. My observation suggests that she attracts devotees who are also candidates for Scientology -- which, like Objectivism, was a novelist's creation." He wraps it up with another smirking bit of intimidation combined with a slap that contradicts Rand's enduring success: "Even the failures of Ayn Rand (such as her prose) have their own foolish charm. There's something persistently funny about Rand and Randians, though no Randian will ever quite see the joke. It is not possible to have a sense of humour and take Ayn Rand seriously." Wow, to pack so much ignorant garbage and content-free disagreement into so few words is quite an achievement. Now I'm morbidly curious to see if any piece on the way to the movie's release will somehow manage worse. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002222.html

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog You get a lot of stories about criminals with knives (and vigilantes with swords). http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002214.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Oh delightful: It's a "rational Christian" response to Ayn Rand's ethics. Here's my favorite bit: Ayn Rand rightly claims that "A" cannot be "non A" but she misapplies this principle in her critique of Christianity. For example, when Christ said that "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" there is no true contradiction (i.e. "A" being "non A"), as Ayn Rand claims, because the both cases in which the words "first" and "last" are used within the context of the passage have different applications and reasons for usage. Jesus was simply saying that in this world a person is considered "first" or "last" for different reasons than why a person is considered "first" or "last" in God's kingdom. Again, there is no real contradiction (i.e. there is no "A" equated with "non A"). Gee, I wasn't aware that Ayn Rand criticized Jesus on "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" on the grounds of the Law of Identity! Fancy that! Oh, and somehow, although the author does not specify how, Ayn Rand's ethics depends upon the theory of evolution. I never knew that either. Amazing! http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002210.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Last night, my pre-ordered copy of Robert Mayhew's new anthology Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead arrived. It looks quite excellent. Here's the table of contents from the publisher's web site: Part 1: The History of The Fountainhead "The Fountainhead from Notebook to Novel: The Composition of Ayn Rand's First Projection of the Ideal Man" by Shoshana Milgram "Howard Roark and Frank Lloyd Wright" by Michael S. Berliner "Publishing The Fountainhead" by Richard Ralston "The Fountainhead Reviews" by Michael S. Berliner "Adapting The Fountainhead to Film" by Jeff Britting Part 2: The Fountainhead as Literature and as Philosophy "The Fountainhead as a Romantic Novel" by Tore Boeckmann "What Might Be and Ought to Be: Aristotle's Poetics and The Fountainhead" by Tore Boeckmann "Three Inspirations for the Ideal Man: Cyrus Paltons, Enjolras, and Cyrano de Bergerac" by Shoshana Milgram "Understanding the "Rape" Scene in The Fountainhead" by Andrew Bernstein "Humor in The Fountainhead" by Robert Mayhew "The Fountainhead and the Spirit of Youth" by B. John Bayer "The Basic Motivation of the Creators and the Masses in ,The Fountainhead" by Onkar Ghate "Independence in The Fountainhead" by Tara Smith "Roark's Integrity" by Dina Schein "A Moral Dynamiting" by Amy Peikoff "Epilogue: An Interview with Leonard Peikoff" I was very impressed with the two prior volumes in the series -- Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem and Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living -- so I'm really looking forward to reading this new collection. Speaking of the other two volumes, I found their tables of contents on the publisher's web site too. Here's Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem: Part 1: The History of Anthem Anthem in Manuscript: Finding the Words" by Shoshana Milgram "Publishing Anthem" by Richard E. Ralston "Anthem: '38 and '46" by Robert Mayhew "Reviews of Anthem" by Michael S. Berliner "Adapting Anthem: Projects That Were and Might Have Been" by Jeff Britting "Anthem and 'The Individualist Manifesto'" by Jeff Britting Part 2: Anthem as Literature and as Philosophy "Anthem as a Psychological Fantasy" by Tore Boeckmann "Anthem in the Context of Related Literary Works: 'We are not like our brothers'" by Shoshana Milgram "'Sacrilege toward the Individual': The Anti-Pride of Thomas More's Utopia and Anthem's Radical Alternative" by John Lewis "Needs of the Psyche in Ayn Rand's Early Ethical Thought" by Darryl Wright "Breaking the Metaphysical Chains of Dictatorship: Free Will and Determinism in Anthem" by Onkar Ghate "Prometheus' Discovery: Individualism and the Meaning of the Concept "I" in Anthem" by Greg Salmieri "Freedom of Disassociation in Anthem" by Amy Peikoff "Anthem and Collectivist Regression into Primitivism" by Andy Bernstein "Epilogue: Anthem: An Appreciation" by Harry Binswanger "Appendix: Teaching Anthem: A Guide for High School and University Teachers" by Lindsay Joseph While I enjoyed the whole anthology, I thought the essays by Tore Boeckmann, Darryl Wright, Onkar Ghate, and Greg Salmieri in this volume were particularly excellent. I learned more about Anthem (and Objectivism) from reading these essays than I thought possible, and I appreciated the novella more than ever before. Last but not least is the anthology on my favorite novel by Ayn Rand: Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living. Part 1: The History of We the Living "From Airtight to We the Living: The Drafts of Ayn Rand's First Novel" by Shoshana Milgram "Parallel Lives: Models and Inspirations for Characters in We the Living" by Scott McConnell "We the Living and the Rosenbaum Family Letters" by Dina Garmong "Russian Revolutionary Ideology and We the Living" by John Ridpath "The Music of We the Living" by Michael S. Berliner "Publishing We the Living" by Richard E. Ralston "Reviews of We the Living" by Michael S. Berliner "Adapting We the Living" by Jeff Britting "We the Living: '36 & '59" by Robert Mayhew Part 2:We the Living as Literature and as Philosophy "We the Living and Victor Hugo: Ayn Rand's First Novel and the Novelist She Ranked First" by Shoshana Milgram "Red Pawn: Ayn Rand's Other Story of Soviet Russia" by Jena Trammell "The Integration of Plot and Theme in We the Living" by Andrew Bernstein "Kira's Family" by John Lewis "Kira Argounova Laughed: Humor and Joy in We the Living" by Robert Mayhew "Forbidding Life to Those Still Living" by Tara Smith "The Death Premise in We the Living and Atlas Shrugged" by Onkar Ghate "Selected Bibliography" While this volume didn't have as much new and exciting philosophy as the anthology on Anthem, I did very much enjoy many of the essays, particularly the literary analyses. (The historical essays on the publication of the novel weren't of much interest to me, I must admit. That's just a matter of my personal taste though, as those essays were well-written.) http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002204.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Now this blog post is interesting. In it, a teacher discusses her introductory lesson on Anthem. Yes, it's very confused by Objectivist standards. However, she's using the copies of the novel and lesson plans provided for free by the Ayn Rand Institute. Some of the comments on the post are from other teachers also using the book sets. I hope she'll post more as the students work through the text, as I really wonder what they'll say about the book itself. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002205.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I'm pleased to post this announcement for all kinds of reasons that I probably ought not specify in print: CALL FOR PAPERS 9th Annual Rocky Mountain Philosophy Conference University of Colorado - Boulder April 20-21, 2007 Keynote Speaker: Jaegwon Kim Jaegwon Kim is currently the William Herbert Perry Faunce Professor of Philosophy at Brown University. The RMPC is an open-submission graduate student conference -- all philosophical topics are welcome. Papers should be no more than 4000 words (suitable for a 20-minute presentation). Papers must be accompanied by a brief abstract (approximately 100 words in length). Both the paper and the abstract should be prepared for blind review. Papers should be submitted electronically in PDF or MS Word by January 29, 2007. Direct submissions to Kristin Demetriou at [email protected], using the subject title "RMPC07 Submission". Smart rooms with stadium seating will be provided for all presentations. There is no conference fee. Speakers will be invited to stay with local philosophy graduate students to help allay the cost of participation. (Other attendees are also invited to request local housing -- these requests will be granted as space permits.) Please visit our website: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/rmpc/rmpc.html http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002206.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog While I haven't been teaching long enough to notice any difference in the religiosity of my students over the years, this professor's observations are consistent with my general knowledge on the topic. He writes: More American college students seem to be practicing traditional forms of religion today than at any time in my 30 years of teaching. At first glance, the flourishing of religion on campuses seems to reverse trends long criticized by conservatives under the rubric of "political correctness." But, in truth, something else is occurring. Once again, right and left have become mirror images of each other; religious correctness is simply the latest version of political correctness. Indeed, it seems the more religious students become, the less willing they are to engage in critical reflection about faith. The chilling effect of these attitudes was brought home to me two years ago when an administrator at a university where I was then teaching called me into his office. A student had claimed that I had attacked his faith because I had urged him to consider whether Nietzsche's analysis of religion undermines belief in absolutes. The administrator insisted that I apologize to the student. (I refused.) My experience was not unique. Today, professors invite harassment or worse by including "unacceptable" books on their syllabuses or by studying religious ideas and practices in ways deemed improper by religiously correct students. Distinguished scholars at several major U.S. universities have been condemned, even subjected to death threats, for proposing psychological, sociological or anthropological interpretations of religious texts. In the most egregious cases, defenders of the faith insist that only true believers are qualified to teach their religious tradition. At a time when universities are obsessed with public relations, faculty members can no longer be confident they will remain free to pose the questions that urgently need to be asked. For years, I have begun my classes by telling students that if they are not more confused and uncertain at the end of the course than they were at the beginning, I will have failed. A growing number of religiously correct students consider this challenge a direct assault on their faith. Yet the task of thinking and teaching, especially in an age of emergent fundamentalisms, is to cultivate a faith in doubt that calls into question every certainty. Any responsible curriculum for the study of religion must be guided by two basic principles: first, a clear distinction between the study and the practice of religion, and second, an expansive understanding of what religion is and of the manifold roles it plays in life. The aim of critical analysis is not to pass judgment on religious beliefs and practices -- though some secular dogmatists wrongly cross that line -- but to consider the many functions they serve. It is also important to explore the similarities and differences between and among various religions. Religious traditions are not fixed and monolithic; they are networks of symbols, myths and rituals, which evolve over time by adapting to changing circumstances. If we fail to appreciate the complexity and diversity within, and among, religious traditions, we will overlook the fact that people from different traditions often share more with one another than they do with many members of their own tradition. If chauvinistic believers develop deeper analyses of religion, they might begin to see in themselves what they criticize in others. In an era that thrives on both religious and political polarization, this is an important lesson to learn -- one that extends well beyond the academy. Since religion is often most influential where it is least obvious, it is imperative to examine both its manifest and latent dimensions. As defenders of a faith become more reflective about their own beliefs, they begin to understand that religion can serve not only to provide answers that render life more secure but also to prepare them for life's unavoidable complexities and uncertainties. Until recently, many influential analysts argued that religion, a vestige of an earlier stage of human development, would wither away as people became more sophisticated and rational. Obviously, things have not turned out that way. Indeed, the 21st century will be dominated by religion in ways that were inconceivable just a few years ago. Religious conflict will be less a matter of struggles between belief and unbelief than of clashes between believers who make room for doubt and those who do not. The warning signs are clear: Unless we establish a genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly. Mark C. Taylor, a religion and humanities professor at Williams College, is the author of "Mystic Bones."(This op-ed was also printed in the NY Times a few weeks ago.) Many serious Christians are genuinely committed to replacing the political correctness of today's academia with their own Christian dogma. They are determined, they are numerous, and they are extremely well-funded. That's not good news: rule of academia by religious correctness would be no better -- and surely much worse -- than rule by political correctness. Sadly, my general impression is that the conservative criticisms of academia's closed doors will enshrine religious correctness, not merely overthrow political correctness. Too many in that movement aim to do just that. Personally, I do worry that I'll face serious student complaints someday, probably sooner rather than later, for my teaching of Christian ethics. I'm not similarly concerned about the leftists. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002196.html

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Which are you more interested in: what is actual or what is possible? In approaching others, is your inclination to be objective, or personal? Do you go more by facts, or by principles? Are you more comfortable in making logical judgments, or value judgments? Which rules you more: heart or head? Do facts speak for themselves, or illustrate principles? Is it a greater error to be too passionate, or too objective? Those are from a Myers-Briggs test for programmers that a friend sent my way. This is my second such test: maybe fifteen years ago, the head of the little company I was working at gave me the Myers-Briggs test he'd picked up at some management training program (I'm not sure why, maybe out of curiosity to see how I might contrast with him). I began taking it and was soon jammed up because of choices like the above. Impatient, he insisted that I nonetheless pick whatever answer was even a smidge better for me and just get through it without so darned much analysis. Pressing on, my concern grew as I noted an accumulation of basically arbitrary choices. After finishing, I explained that the more of those that went by, the less meaningful the results had to be for my case. Further, since many of the problematic choices seemed to be based in philosophically-unsound alternatives, I was a bit suspicious of the overall methodology (heck, anyone with a little exposure to Objectivism would have seen it like that). He was aghast that I would presume to second-guess the psychological authorities and their scientific techniques, and it seemed to boggle him the most to find a young know-nothing upstart like me saying there were obvious and flawed philosophical premises behind the carefully-designed questions of those experts. Throwing up his hands, he headed back to the management end of the building and I turned back to my work with a shrug. Fast-forward to now. Going through this test I noticed that a significantly higher percentage of the questions were unanswerable (as before, by being meaningless for lack of context, or for presenting a false alternative, etc.). Naturally, this leaves me with the even stronger impression that Myers-Briggs tests simply aren't worth much, at least for Objectivists. Well, I take that back: the formal results don't seem to be worth much, but a cool metric for Objectivists may lie in how many of the questions are honestly unanswerable and invite an arbitrary selection -- the higher the percentage, the better your level of integration! Way back when, I couldn't answer maybe 15% of the questions, but this time I genuinely couldn't answer 66%+ of them! Sweet, it looks like I'm growing. :^) Hence the question: How integrated are you? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002197.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I was recently forwarded an academic job announcement that began with the following preliminary note: I am writing to you because I hope you will bring the job advertisement below to the attention of qualified women and minorities who work in 18th and 19th century history of philosophy. Sheesh, that might as well say: "Don't bother forwarding this announcement to white males; we're not interested in them, no matter how qualified they are." The note definitely says more than the standard boilerplate at the end of job announcements to the effect that women and minorities are encouraged to apply. I still object to that version, particularly since it reflects academia's now-standard reverse racism and sexism in hiring. Still, it doesn't convey the impression that white males are unwelcome, as the above note does. Oh, but just imagine the uproar that this version would create: "I am writing to you because I hope you will bring the job advertisement below to the attention of qualified white males who work in 18th and 19th century history of philosophy." http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002194.html