Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dianahsieh

New Intellectual
  • Posts

    1850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by dianahsieh

  1. dianahsieh

    A Dilemma

    Oh dear, think about that a bit more, as that choice could be the cause of great heartache: If you do grow seriously attached to her, what will happen when your (irresponsible) brother wishes her back? Will you be willing to throw her back into his household, knowing that she might be destroyed by it? (If you do grow seriously attached to her, your brother might let you adopt her. Without that, he can take her back when he pleases.) Given your description of your brother, I wouldn't recommend involving yourself in his mess, except perhaps peripherally. It's one thing to rearrange your life to help a genuinely good family member caught in unexpected distress. It's quite another to do that with someone who lives poorly -- and is now reaping the consequences of his past choices. It sounds like your brother is in the latter category. As someone else noted, I suspect that the youngest would be in better hands than she is now if she were adopted.
  2. By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog A few months ago, Paul pointed me to this interesting post by Steve Pavlina on how to get up right away when your alarm goes off. His discussion of the basic problem of the standard approach -- willpower and commitment -- is basically right, I think: First, let's consider the way most people tackle this problem -- what I consider the wrong way. The wrong way is to try using your conscious willpower to get yourself out of bed each morning. That might work every once in a while, but let's face it -- you're not always going to be thinking straight the moment your alarm goes off. Your may experience what I call the fog of brain. The decisions you make in that state won't necessarily be the ones you'd make when you're fully conscious and alert. You can't really trust yourself... nor should you. If you use this approach, you're likely to fall into a trap. You decide to get up at a certain time in advance, but then you undo that decision when the alarm goes off. At 10pm you decide it would be a good idea to get up at 5am. But at 5am you decide it would be a better idea to get up at 8am. But let's face it -- you know the 10pm decision is the one you really want implemented... if only you could get your 5am self to go along with it. Now some people, upon encountering this conundrum, will conclude that they simply need more discipline. And that's actually somewhat true, but not in the way you'd expect. If you want to get up at 5am, you don't need more discipline at 5am. You don't need better self-talk. You don't need two or three alarm clocks scattered around the room. And you don't need an advanced alarm that includes technology from NASA's astronaut toilets. You actually need more discipline when you're fully awake and conscious: the discipline to know that you can't trust yourself to make intelligent, conscious decisions the moment you first wake up. You need the discipline to accept that you're not going to make the right call at 5am. Your 5am coach is no good, so you need to fire him. To put the points in Objectivist terms: When you first wake up in the morning, particularly in response to an unexpected alarm, you are not even remotely in focus. Consequently, you cannot consider your agenda for the day, including the importance and consequences of failing to rouse yourself at this painful hour. If you haven't slept enough, your consciousness is probably entirely consumed by the unpleasant feelings of desperately wanting to sleep more. Moreover, focusing your mind enough to remember and examine the purpose of waking up now rather than later requires effort -- and that's hard to do under such circumstances. So you're liable to simply groggily half-think that nothing could have warranted such pain -- and return to the to-be-regretted bliss of sleep. I do like Steve Pavlina's suggestion for overcoming this problem, namely that of automatizing a happy and well-rested wake-up. (He offers specific instructions.) And I might follow his plan, particularly since I'm going to be waking up at some obscene hour like 5:30 am twice a week next semester to teach an 8:00 am ethics course at Boulder. However, I should at least mention my own alternative, developed while in high school. If my alarm clock is within reach on my nightstand, I will turn it off immediately, often without any memory of doing so. After too many late mornings, I realized that moving my alarm across the room would allow me to be awake enough by the time I reached it to rouse myself into full wakefulness. That does work quite well. When I hear the buzz of the alarm clock, I leap out of bed to turn off the offending noise. After about three seconds and four steps across the room, I'm far more capable of thinking. It also helps that I'm no longer enveloped in the snuggly warmth of the covers. Although I'll sometimes hit the snooze, I can exercise semi-reasonable judgment in doing so. That's good. However, more extreme measures might be required this upcoming semester! Update: Steve Pavlina has also written two posts on how to become an early riser, as well as on his own experiment with polyphasic sleep. (I've been intrigued by polyphasic sleep ever since I first heard about it a few years ago, but I just don't have the time required to adjust to it -- at least not right now.) http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001836.html
  3. dianahsieh

    A Dilemma

    Before you decide one way or another, I'd recommend carefully considering all possible options. Can you help him and his kids out without moving in with him? Does he have other possible sources of help, e.g. other family? Has he looked into private charity? Or an au pair? If you did move in with him, could you arrange to have a few hours each day of uninterrupted time (preferably away from the house) for your writing? In what ways don't you get along with your brother -- and can those problems be resolved or worked around... or will they just fester? Also, your brother's attitude toward any help that you might offer is critical. In particular, does he regard it as your duty? (If so, then I can guarantee disaster. He'll feel like you're never doing enough -- and you'll feel like he's using you.) Also, does your brother take responsibility for the mess into which he's gotten himself? Will your brother pay you back for your expenses you incur to support his family? Will he be responsible with the money he has?
  4. By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog A few nights ago, Paul and I watched Chocolat. Given all the recommendations I've heard over the years, I expected a compelling and dramatic story. I wasn't expecting such a strong theme against duty, particularly not religious duty. (My only small complaint concerned the Easter Homily: The pro-life sensuality of Vianne was not tolerated but embraced.) I also recently watched The Miracle Worker -- and let me simply add my voice to the chorus of recommendations for that excellent movie. I am presently on the hunt for This Land is Mine, a movie recommended as their absolute favorite by both Yaron Brook and Lisa Van Damme. Since its only available on VHS at present, I'm going to see if I can find it via TiVo. I've never been much of a watcher of old movies, so I'd appreciate any strong recommendations from my readers. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001826.html
  5. By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Example #63,922 of why you can't trust government censors: ErgoSum reports that "India has banned blogs hosted on Blogger, Blogspot, Typepad, and Geocities." (Visit the link for more information on the reasons -- with updates!) http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001821.html
  6. By Don from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog A few days ago, Diana recommended Scott Powell's First History for Adults. I want to second her recommendation. I cannot say enough good things about this course and about its teacher. Scott's course has many virtues, but the greatest, in my estimation, is that it not only teaches us history, but how to understand history. To take just one example, a mistake many Objectivists make is to try to jump from the concrete events of history to broadest philosophic causes of those events. But that is like trying to jump directly from the observation that apples fall to Newton's laws--you can't do it, and if you try to, all you'll be left with are random concretes and floating abstractions. Scott's course shows us the proper historical hierarchy in a way that is clarifying and captivating . And that is the most thrilling aspect of Scott's class to me: to see the Objectivist epistemology applied to history in a way that illuminates both. No matter how rich (or poor) your knowledge of history, you will benefit from this course. Update from Diana: Scott Powell tells me that Session 4 of the course begins Wednesday. It will run Wednesday and Thursday nights at 7:00 PM Pacific for the duration of the summer. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001822.html
  7. Hunterrose: If you wish to know my views on the open system, you should read the two essays to which I linked earlier -- along with Chapter 5 of David Kelley's T&T. Then we could talk. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time, including yours and mine. Update: It's not merely a matter of knowing my views, but understanding what DK's views are -- and what the inherent problems of the open system are, including the untenable arbitrariness of his limits upon change to the system -- and why, in practice, that leads to people replacing almost any tenet of Objectivism with their own pet ideas (e.g. volition with determinism).
  8. As far as I recall, the IOS/TOC/TAS web site has never published "A Question of Sanction." Here's what I was told about it by an IOS-employee: "1. 'A Question of Sanction' - an out of date, 4 page essay circulated in March 1989. We do not want to encourage its continued circulation because _Truth and Toleration_ gives a more thorough treatment of the issues and that is where interested people should look. (AQOS is reprinted at the end of _T&T_.)" My personal judgment is that the philosophic errors of T&T are stated far more clearly in AQOS, i.e. without all the extra verbiage.
  9. There is no live version on the web right now, as far as I know. However, that link (to the web archive version) still works just fine for me. If you still can't get it working, send me an e-mail. I'll e-mail it to you.
  10. David Kelley's departures from Objectivism are massive -- hardly a mere 2%. (That's a flabbergasting mis-characterization.) David Kelley's philosophy might seem like Objectivism on the surface, particularly to newcomers. That appearance is deceiving: the core (including the concept of 'objectivity') has been rotted away. Yet those superficial similarities are precisely why his errors can be difficult for newcomers to Objectivism to identify, particularly since they often play right into the wrong ideas people often bring to Objectivism. The people sucked into that will learn a philosophy that isn't actually Objectivism -- and the best and brightest will ultimately reject what they think is Objectivism for its mess of problems. Or, as more often happens now, the watered-down nice-nice peddled by TOC is simply of no interest to anyone with half a brain. And so those people might never seriously look at Objectivism again. So no, exposure to that superficial semblance of Objectivism peddled by David Kelley and company is not "far, far better" than no exposure at all. Moreover, as has already been noted, David Kelley is not just some guy claiming to be an Objectivist. He's a Ph.D in philosophy and founder of an institute that claims to promote Ayn Rand's philosophy. So to someone new to Objectivism, he's got credibility. Not only did you just misrepresent what I said about Kelley's open system, but you also just whitewashed its actual meaning. However, since you ever-so-strenuously don't care, I won't bother saying more. If you wish to be an ill-informed apologist for David Kelley -- as in this post -- that's your business.
  11. By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Three important announcements for students from Matt Davis, Campus Clubs Coordinator, Ayn Rand Institute: (1) The deadline for the 7th annual essay contest on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is fast approaching! We are now accepting essay entries through September 15. Entrants to our college contest will compete for one of 49 prizes and a top prize of $5,000. If you are enrolled in a college or university at least part-time this fall, or if you were enrolled last spring, then you qualify for this contest. For further information on the essay topics and contest rules and guidelines, please visit our website at www.aynrand.org/contests, or write to [email protected]. (2) The Objective Standard is a quarterly journal of culture and politics written from an Objectivist perspective. The journal is available to students at substantial discounts. A one-year student subscription to the print version (which includes online access) is $49 per year; a one-year student subscription to the online-only version is $39 per year. While supplies last, you can still begin your subscription with the inaugural issue, sample articles from which are accessible online for free here. TOS also has a blog, Principles in Practice, where you will find principled commentary on cultural issues and current events. Craig Biddle, Editor The Objective Standard www.theobjectivestandard.com Phone: 804-747-1776 Fax: 804-273-0500 (3) The deadline for submitting an application to the Objectivist Academic Center (OAC) is July 30, 2006. This program, designed for college students seeking a deeper understanding of Ayn Rand's principles, offers students the unique opportunity to study with Objectivist experts and learn the essentials of Objectivism in an exciting and challenging way. OAC students also have the exclusive eligibility to receive scholarships to attend ARI's summer Conferences free of charge. We are also putting into place a program whereby students can get college credit for OAC courses, which could lighten the course load required by universities and colleges. For more information on the OAC, as well as for a link to the online application, please visit www.aynrand.org/academic. We're looking forward to hearing from you. I've never entered the Atlas Shrugged essay contest, but I can highly recommend such contests as a means of earning much-needed extra dough in college. (My earnings from essay contests were critical when I was an undergraduate!) The Objective Standard is fantastic: I'm eager to read the second issue. And, as I've said before, I cannot recommend the Objectivist Academic Center highly enough. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001811.html
  12. Neither ARI nor the Estate can do anything about the seemingly forthcoming movie, so don't bother writing to ask them. As Leonard Peikoff said in a lecture once, he sold the rights to someone he thought he could trust, someone he thought committed to Ayn Rand's philosophy. He was wrong -- but now he cannot do anything about that. At OCON, Yaron Brook reported that they're already planning an anti-tie-in tie-in with the books in case the movie is actually made. (Instead of the ordinary tie in of "you loved the movie, now read the book," the campaign would deliberately highlight the differences between the movie and the book -- and the superiority of the latter.) Moreover, although the movie is further along than it has ever been, I wouldn't get too worried until you hear that filming has begun. (That was another recommendation from someone who knows about such matters at OCON.) If that happens, then you'll want to think about writing letters to the editor and so on.
  13. If you are "unaware of the basis of a lot of those things anyway," then perhaps you ought not comment upon them without a bit of further study. All of the relevant sources are available online: David Kelley first suggested the open system in A Question of Sanction. In his response, Leonard Peikoff rejected it, defending Objectivism as a closed system in Fact and Value. David Kelley then elaborated upon his "open system" view at length in the fifth chapter of Truth and Toleration. I've written two essays analyzing that chapter in detail: Ayn Rand on David Kelley and The Open System, One More Time. I do think the major danger of David Kelley's involvement with the Atlas Shrugged movie will be his watering down of the philosophical message, e.g. Hank Rearden forgives rather than abandons his family, Dr. Stadler is redeemed somehow or portrayed as less evil than he is, the strong rhetoric of Galt's speech is watered down, Objectivism is presented as compatible with religion et al, and so on.
  14. Well, "any other non-Objectivist" probably wouldn't be pretending to be an Objectivist, now would he? He wouldn't claim his disagreements with the philosophy to be part of the philosophy. He wouldn't be advocating a pragmatist view of sanction, injecting the mind-body dichotomy into moral judgment, offering Kantian views of objectivity, embracing dishonest critics of Ayn Rand under the banner of openness and tolerance, substituting statistics for principles in ethics, grossly misrepresenting the views of genuine Objectivists, endorsing Muslim organizations, or rejecting the fundamentality of philosophy -- at least not under the banner of Objectivism. He might misunderstand the philosophy at various points, but he wouldn't represent himself as an expert, nor rationalize his claim to the title "Objectivism" with an appeal to an "open system" according to which Objectivism can mean pretty much whatever anyone wants it to mean. A reasonably honest non-Objectivist would also not publish blatantly false attacks upon the Ayn Rand Institute and its scholars. In short, he wouldn't be the mind behind an organization that consistently misrepresents and betrays the basic principles of Objectivism. Need I continue?
  15. Is the title of this thread intended as irony? I can only hope so, since David Kelley has been deliberately and actively undermining the basic principles of Objectivism for years now.
  16. By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog My 2006 OCON has finally come to a close. The end was a bit delayed for me by the extra day-and-a-half Teaching Workshop for graduate students. That was definitely the extreme highlight of the conference for me: I learned oodles that will be so helpful for teaching philosophy, points that I would not and could not learn from regular academics, points with which I was struggling on my own. (Thank you, ARI!) Most of the lectures and courses were good to great. However, I'd like to particularly highlight a few that were beyond fantastic. Without a doubt, my award for Best OCON 2006 Lecture goes to C. Bradley Thompson for his general lecture "Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea." Here's the abstract: During the 1930s a group of young Trotskyists at Brooklyn College advocated Marxism and worldwide communist revolution. Today, those same men dominate conservative political thought and politics. Known as the neoconservatives, they control the leading conservative think-tanks and magazines, they hold prestigious university positions and they are credited with defining Republican domestic and foreign policy, from Reagan to Bush. But just who are the neoconservatives and what do they really stand for? At first blush, the "neocons" are impressive: they take ideas seriously, they're pro-American, they're critics of the New Left and they support capitalism. In this lecture, Dr. Thompson will examine the ideological origins of neoconservatism, the neocons' intellectual method and their plan for governing America. He will demonstrate that the neoconservatives are altruists in ethics and pragmatists in politics and are, therefore, a threat to a free society. I simply cannot recommend the lecture highly enough: you will learn more about the nature and extent of the conservative threat to America than you thought possible in the span of a mere 90 minutes. Tara Smith's general lecture "Unborrowed Vision: The Virtue of Independence" wins my honorable mention. I particularly enjoyed its perfect blend of the theory and practice of this virtue. As for the optional courses, I most enjoyed Yaron Brook's course "The Rise of Totalitarian Islam" and Robert Mayhew's course on Descartes's Meditations. However, John Lewis' The Greco-Persian Wars was an intellectual delight from beginning to end. And I learned so much about literary analysis from Dina Schein's Savoring Ayn Rand's Red Pawn. Paul also had high praise for Greg Salmieri's Objectivist Epistemology in Outline, but I won't be able to hear that until the recording I ordered arrives this fall. With rare exception, I thought my optional courses were exceptionally good this year. Despite taking copious notes, I decided to order recordings of all of the above. Overall, I had a fantastic time at OCON -- and I'm really looking forward to Telluride next year! http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001800.html
  17. By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog One cliche of popular conventional ethics is, "Integrity is doing the right thing even if no one is watching". (For the record, this is quite different from the Objectivist concept of the virtue of integrity, which is more akin to "the principle of being principled".) But in an interesting experiment, scientists have found that people are nearly 3 times more likely to be honest about paying into the "honor system" office coffee fund if there is a large photograph of a pair of eyes mounted just above the collection box, apparently looking at the payor. Presumably this taps into some subconscious element of human psychology. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001792.html
  18. By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Yet delightful tidbit from Aristotle's Rhetoric, this time on trust: There are three things which inspire confidence in the orator's own character--the three, namely, that induce us to believe a thing apart from any proof of it: good sense, good moral character, and goodwill. False statements and bad advice are due to one or more of the following three causes. Men either form a false opinion through want of good sense; or they form a true opinion, but because of their moral badness do not say what they really think; or finally, they are both sensible and upright, but not well disposed to their hearers, and may fail in consequence to recommend what they know to be the best course. These are the only possible cases. It follows that any one who is thought to have all three of these good qualities will inspire trust in his audience. The way to make ourselves thought to be sensible and morally good must be gathered from the analysis of goodness already given: the way to establish your own goodness is the same as the way to establish that of others. Are Aristotle's three qualities to inspire trust -- good sense, good character, and goodwill -- genuinely exhaustive? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001785.html
  19. By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I've heard of some excellent people donating to the Colorado Books Project due to my announcements on NoodleFood and/or my thread on SoloPassion, including some folks from out-of-state. I'm extraordinarily super-super grateful for that. Now, as part of the final push, three donors are offering two-for-one matching (!!). It's a great opportunity for those who haven't yet donated to throw in their two cents -- and transform them into six cents! Here's Lin Zinser's final fundraising letter. We are closing in on the goal of $14,000 - which is approximately 1750 books. We are $3,125 from our target -- and you have 4 days to PLEDGE money so that WE can make our goal of providing Anthem or The Fountainhead books to any Colorado teacher willing to teach Ayn Rand in the schools. Our last week's pledge drive did wonders, and this week's offer is even better. I want to thank each of you who have already donated. If you have sent your money to ARI directly, ARI has told me the total amount they received, but not who the donors were or the individual amounts, so if you gave money to ARI, and I haven't personally thanked you, I am thanking you now. This week, for four days -- from now until midnight, June 30, two other donors and myself will match all PLEDGES or DONATIONS -- $2 for every $1.00 contributed.*** (Up to a $2,500 maximum). So, if you pledge to donate $10 now, we will contribute $20 more, for a total of $30 contributed. If you pledge to donate $100, we will donate $200 -- for a total of $300 contributed. And if all of you together donate another $2,500, the three of us together will donate another $5,000. This year's pledges to contribute money to the Colorado Book Project by December 31, 2006, mean that ARI again send out brochures to Colorado high school teachers, which will result in more teachers requesting more books, thus giving another 1750 students the opportunity this coming spring to read Anthem or The Fountainhead in their high school classrooms. In addition, this year's contributions together with the past year's success (of more than 3600 books sent to teachers, means that more than 5,300 Colorado students could read Ayn Rand during the next school year. All of your contributions to this project go to ARI and are tax-deductible as charitable contributions. However, most importantly for you, these donations can help better your life here in Colorado by deliberately creating the opportunity for Miss Rand's genius to once again light up the minds of a new generation --- but, with the specific intent to cultivate and develop rational, capitalistic egoists in this state. One last time, send your contributions to ARI this week -- OR -- send them to me (Payable to the Ayn Rand Institute) -- OR pledge to me whatever amount you would like to see tripled and sent to ARI for this project. Please -- note on any check or money order that it is for the Colorado Book Project. Remember, I need your pledge by Friday, June 30, for the matching contributions. And I want to thank each and everyone of you for your support and cooperation in making this idea reality. Lin Remember, there are now four ways to contribute -- 1) Send a check or money order directly to ARI and indicate on it that this money is for the Colorado Book Project; 2) Send a check or money order to me, payable to ARI; 3) donate stock shares to ARI (contact Kathy Cross at ARI, at 310-876-1633 or [email protected]); or 4) contact me by phone, e-mail or letter with your pledge amount -- to be donated later this year. ARI's Address -- The Ayn Rand Institute 2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 250 Irvine, California, 92606-4926 My address 8700 Dover Court Arvada, CO 80005 Lin Zinser Front Range Objectivism www.FrontRangeObjectivism.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 303.431.2525 If you wish to donate, don't delay! http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001778.html
  20. By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Skeptics -- in the sense of debunkers of paranormal claims -- often observe that supposed psychics usually speak in vague generalities, subtly allow their audience to fill in the details, then claim to have divined that information. So the psychics seem to know a great deal that they couldn't possibly know -- at least to the gullible eager to believe. To my delight, Aristotle makes the same basic point in his Rhetoric. In the course of offering five elements of the "correctness of language" at "the foundation of good style," he says: (3) The third is to avoid ambiguities; unless, indeed, you definitely desire to be ambiguous, as those do who have nothing to say but are pretending to mean something. Such people are apt to put that sort of thing into verse. Empedocles, for instance, by his long circumlocutions imposes on his hearers; these are affected in the same way as most people are when they listen to diviners, whose ambiguous utterances are received with nods of acquiescence- Croesus by crossing the Halys will ruin a mighty realm. Diviners use these vague generalities about the matter in hand because their predictions are thus, as a rule, less likely to be falsified. We are more likely to be right, in the game of 'odd and even', if we simply guess 'even' or 'odd' than if we guess at the actual number; and the oracle-monger is more likely to be right if he simply says that a thing will happen than if he says when it will happen, and therefore he refuses to add a definite date. All these ambiguities have the same sort of effect, and are to be avoided unless we have some such object as that mentioned. The line about Croesus refers to this great story recounted by Herodotus. As for those who "definitely desire to be ambiguous," such as "those do who have nothing to say but are pretending to mean something," I'd like to nominate the academic work of Chris Sciabarra. For example, consider the "Dialectics in Rand's Philosophy" section of "this essay. (It's a slightly edited version of the initial discussion of Ayn Rand's supposed "dialectics" from the introduction to The Russian Radical, pages 16-18.) Here's a taste: It is this emphasis on the totality that is essential to the dialectical mode of inquiry. Dialectics is not merely a repudiation of formal dualism. It is a method that preserves the analytical integrity of the whole. While it recommends study of the whole from the vantage point of any part, it eschews reification, that is, it avoids the abstraction of a part from the whole and its illegitimate conceptualization as a whole unto itself. The dialectical method recognizes that what is separable in thought is not separable in reality. Moreover, dialectics requires the examination of the whole both systemically and historically. From a systemic perspective, it grasps the parts as structurally interrelated, or "internally related," both constituting the whole, while being constituted by it. For example, Rand, as a dialectical thinker, would not disconnect any single theoretical issue, such as the problem of free will, from its broader philosophic context. She necessarily examines a host of connected issues, including the efficacy of consciousness, the nature of causality, and the reciprocal relationships between epistemology, ethics, and politics. From a historical perspective, dialectics grasps that any system emerges over time, that it has a past, a present, and a future. Frequently, the dialectical thinker examines the dynamic tensions within a system, the internal conflicts or "contradictions" which require resolution. He or she refuses to disconnect factors, events, problems, and issues from each other or from the system which they jointly constitute. He or she views social problems not discretely, but in terms of the root systemic conditions which they both reflect and sustain. The dialectical thinker seeks not merely to understand the system, but to alter it fundamentally. Hence, a dialectical analysis is both critical and revolutionary in its implications. Thus, Rand, as a dialectical thinker, does not analyze a specific racial conflict, for example, without examining a host of historically-constituted epistemic, ethical, psychological, cultural, political, and economic factors that both generate racism--and perpetuate it. In Rand's view, racism--like all vestiges of statism--must be transcended systemically. Translation from Polish: Ayn Rand integrated her knowledge. Analytic philosophers are often terrible writers, often to the point that their basic ideas cannot be understood. However, the brazen assertion of deliberate obfuscation as complex and difficult thought requires the slippery goo of postmodernism. And that's exactly what Chris Sciabarra uses to conceal the lack of substance in his academic writings. And yes, I do think the impenetrable style of the above passage -- and the rest of The Russian Radical -- is deliberate obfuscation rather than incompetence or laziness. The tip-off is not merely the lack of substance underneath all those fancy words, nor the careful consistency of the style, but the simple fact that Chris routinely writes clearly and forthrightly in other contexts. So he can do better, but chooses not to. Thankfully, most academic philosophers disdain the bullshit style practiced by Chris Sciabarra and his postmodern brothers. If they didn't, I surely would have quit philosophy long ago. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001775.html
  21. By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog It can't all be wrestling over philosophical issues -- one of the other things that keeps me sane is playing sax in the local jazz scene. I was working around town in a jazz-standards duo, and pianist/composer/producer Kevin Kirk heard me and quickly pulled me into Onomatopoeia, the instrumental band that brings his award-winning music to life. Print reviews described their first CD as, "rhythmically diverse, musically challenging and eminently listenable... a melding of rock, jazz, Latin, and classical, and it has surprises around every corner. This is not casual music." Thr!ve magazine said their second CD, "showcases some of the best Boise's jazz scene or any jazz scene has to offer: expert timing, daring, spontaneous scores, saturating instrumentals. Sheer talent aptly describes [this music] and decades of Kirk compositions." What I know is that audiences seem to love the music, but internalizing 20 or 25 of Onomatopoeia's mind-bending arrangements for my first concert with them -- with no scores and only a few weeks' evenings to pull it off -- was the biggest strain my musical memory has ever faced! (Yes, I loved the challenge, and we earned an enthusiastic standing ovation.) Those CDs were before my time, but I am on the new one we are about to release: Some Assembly Required. Recording with Onomatopoeia has been eye-opening -- I really had no idea how much work goes into a project like this, and sometimes the process made it surprisingly difficult to pull off musical effects that would be automatic and easy on stage. (A lot of it has to do with the serialization of recording everything separately, which can be especially challenging for jazz guys who depend heavily on subtle, reciprocal realtime influences among all the players.) In any event, the mixed tracks have finally been sent off to the mastering engineer and it is about to be printed. Whew! If you want to hear the kind of fun we have in Onomatopoeia, I put together a little for family and friends who have been impatiently waiting for the CD they ordered a few months back at our last big concert (the concert program has some more pictures and personnel info). http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001272.html
  22. By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Aristotle's discussion of various emotions is perhaps the most fascinating part of his Rhetoric. In the case of pity, I'm struck by the difference between his concept of pity and our modern concept thereof. In particular, notice that Aristotle holds that the object of pity must be morally good -- and thus not deserving of his fate. (I've added paragraph breaks for readability.) Let us now consider pity, asking ourselves what things excite pity, and for what persons, and in what states of our mind pity is felt. Pity may be defined as a feeling of pain caused by the sight of some evil, destructive or painful, which befalls one who does not deserve it, and which we might expect to befall ourselves or some friend of ours, and moreover to befall us soon. In order to feel pity, we must obviously be capable of supposing that some evil may happen to us or some friend of ours, and moreover some such evil as is stated in our definition or is more or less of that kind. It is therefore not felt by those completely ruined, who suppose that no further evil can befall them, since the worst has befallen them already; nor by those who imagine themselves immensely fortunate--their feeling is rather presumptuous insolence, for when they think they possess all the good things of life, it is clear that the impossibility of evil befalling them will be included, this being one of the good things in question. Those who think evil may befall them are such as have already had it befall them and have safely escaped from it; elderly men, owing to their good sense and their experience; weak men, especially men inclined to cowardice; and also educated people, since these can take long views. Also those who have parents living, or children, or wives; for these are our own, and the evils mentioned above may easily befall them. And those who neither moved by any courageous emotion such as anger or confidence (these emotions take no account of the future), nor by a disposition to presumptuous insolence (insolent men, too, take no account of the possibility that something evil will happen to them), nor yet by great fear (panic-stricken people do not feel pity, because they are taken up with what is happening to themselves); only those feel pity who are between these two extremes. In order to feel pity we must also believe in the goodness of at least some people; if you think nobody good, you will believe that everybody deserves evil fortune. And, generally, we feel pity whenever we are in the condition of remembering that similar misfortunes have happened to us or ours, or expecting them to happen in the future. In contrast to Aristotle's definition, Dictionary.com simply defines pity as "sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another." No innocence or goodness required for the object of pity. That's why it's perfectly sensible in contemporary usage to pity the person who suffers through his own faults, e.g. the alcoholic bum living in a cardboard box or the dishonest woman estranged from all her friends. I'm intrigued by these kinds of conceptual differences in moral terms from the Greeks and Romans to today, largely because those differences often indicate just how thoroughly our culture has been saturated by altruism. A justice-oriented culture cares whether a person suffers by his own hand. It scorns such voluntary suffering, reserving pity for the innocent. In contrast, an altruistic culture cares for nothing but the suffering, ignoring the cause or justice thereof. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/000972.html
  23. By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog A while ago, Tom Bowden wrote the following letter to the editor for ARI: Dear Editor: In upholding Oregon's assisted suicide law, the Supreme Court reached the right result for the wrong reasons. The law should have been upheld on the grounds of an individual's right to his own life. The right to life includes and implies the right to commit suicide. To hold otherwise is to deny the right to life at its root. If we have a duty to go on living, despite our better judgment, then our life does not belong to us, and we exist by permission, not by right. Individuals have a moral right to seek assistance in committing suicide. And if a doctor is willing to assist, based on an objective assessment of his patient's mental and physical state, the law should not stand in his way. There is no rational basis upon which the government can properly prevent an individual from choosing to end his life. The choice is his because the life is his. Religious conservatives, supported by the Bush administration, want to ban assisted suicide because it defies God's will. Such conservatives crave to inject religion into the bloodstream of American law, thereby assisting in our own national suicide. People of reason must refuse their consent to the religious conservative agenda. Thomas A. Bowden Ayn Rand Institute Irvine, CA 2121 Alton Parkway #250 949-222-6550 ext 226 Here's the copyright information: "Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved. If you plan to use this letter, please let us know. Thank you." Just off-the-cuff, I wrote the following as a comment upon the letter: Of course, I would be very much in favor of an assisted suicide law, but I do fear abuses by medical staff and family members, even if well-meaning. Death devices like those constructed by Jack Kevorkian -- where the doctor sets up the death machine, then the patient actually initiates his own death -- would largely eliminate that worry. Of course, reasonable exceptions could be made for permanently unconscious patients, as well as for the rare patients unable to move, preferably via the sort of given-in-advance instructions found in living wills, medical power of attorney, and the like. As for the sick and aged who would allow themselves to be pressured into suicide by others, so long as they're competent adults, that's entirely their own damn fault. And they will pay the ultimate price for that last act of spineless second-handedness, pathetically enough. Of course, the detailed workings of an assisted suicide law should be hammered out by lawyers and philosophers of law, whereas I'm just speaking here as a barely informed citizen! Not long thereafter, I read Ayn Rand's own off-the-cuff comments on euthanasia in the excellent Ayn Rand Answers: Euthanasia is more complex [than birth control, abortion, and suicide], because the life of another person is involved. If a man makes arrangements stating that he does not want to feel unbearable pain, and it can be proved that this was his desire, in principle I'd say it is his right and the doctor's right to perform euthanasia. But it would be difficult to put this into law, because of the safeguards needed to prevent unscrupulous doctors in cahoots with unscrupulous relatives from killing somebody who is not dying and in pain. The danger here is legally giving to the doctor the arbitrary power of killing. I suspect, however, that there are many cases of euthanasia about which we do not know and probably shouldn't know; in such cases, it is up to the doctor involved. Only he can know if a terminally ill patient is suffering truly unbearable torture. I feel like saying that I would not assume to pass judgment on him. I don't know. The situation is too horrible. I sympathize with the doctor who helps the patient die, but I would not advocate euthanasia as a law. I'm very hazy on Ayn Rand's view on this issue. With that last sentence, is Ayn Rand contradicting, modifying, or qualifying what she says at the beginning of the quoted passage? Is she saying that a man has a right to arrange for his own death with his doctor in the case of unbearable pain, but that the law ought not allow for that? If so, wouldn't that expose honest doctors who choose to relieve the unbearable suffering of terminally ill patients to criminal prosecution for murder? Or does she mean something else by "euthanasia" in that last sentence than what she described in the second sentence? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/000968.html
  24. By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog A few months ago, I listened to Aristotle's Rhetoric. (It's available from Audible.com, packaged with his Poetics and Topics.) Although I've read it before, it has been some years. The work contains a great deal of interest beyond the narrow topic suggested by the title. For example, it includes some helpful discussion of voluntary action in relation to luck, a topic on which I've written some and expect to write more. And here's a little gem: We shall learn the qualities of governments in the same way as we learn the qualities of individuals, since they are revealed in their deliberate acts of choice; and these are determined by the end that inspires them. Ah, how simply put! We can infer the desired ends of a person based upon the actions he chooses over time, precisely because those actions aim at those desired ends. And a person's desired ends reveals much about his character. In determining the goals which motivate a person, actions speak much louder than words. So a Marxist professor may claim as loudly as he likes that he's deeply concerned for the plight of the world's poor, but his persistent advocacy of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" responsible for killing, starving, and torturing hundreds of millions of people tells us much, much more about his actual desires -- and his character. Or an self-described Objectivist organization may claim to promote Ayn Rand's philosophy, yet offer the originators of unjust and dishonest attacks upon her person and philosophy platforms upon which to do even more damage. Although they claim to be promoting "open and honest discussion of ideas" amongst "honest individuals" so that "truth win out in the end," their refusal to even read The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics speaks volumes. In all of these cases, and so many others, the person's actions tell us so much more his goals and his character than do his empty words. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/000967.html
  25. By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I've never thought John Stossel to be a deep thinker, but this interview bit is just pathetic: Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is an endless book with some too-long speeches about how the creeping regulation destroys opportunity in America. A group of the most creative people decide they will move to a remote part of the country and start over. Without their contribution, much of modern life, which is taken for granted by the smug regulators, falls apart. Augh! I don't care so much that he dislikes the book, although that is rather disappointing. It's the intensely superficial summary that really annoys me. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/000958.html
×
×
  • Create New...