Atlas51184

I disagree strongly with every single sentence in that post. However, this thread isn't about homosexuality, so I'll drop the topic.

Firehammer Noodlefood thread. Re homosexuality: Rand expressed her opinion decades ago, when homosexuality was still widely thought to be a psychological disease. From what I know, the psychologists around her were telling her homosexuality was a product of choice and could be cured. All of that is false, though was widely believed by psychologists (Objectivist or not) until the last 30 years or so. In the 21st century, the average person should know that homosexuality is not a choice, and hence can not be immoral, even if it is damaging (I don't believe it is). (Such information is readily available in any library). For that reason alone, I think any attempt to argue for the immorality of homosexuality is nothing but an attempt to rationalize pre-conceived prejudices. Firehammer does so in the name of "defending" Objectivism, and so should not be promoted.

Firehammer is the loon who wrote a series of articles arguing that homosexuality is immoral. He was banned from NoodleFood for advocating the death of millions of people to reach his individualist goals. The philosophy articles he has on his site are not good guides to studying Objectivism. For example, how is his article about 'metaphysical hierarchy of existence' going to help you understand Objectivist metaphysics, given that Objectivism rejects those kind of hierarchies? He's a homophobic nut who should not be promoted. If you're trying to study OPAR, the study guide sold through ARB is a far better way to navigate through the book.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond. If there is interest, I'll post something more about why I'm asking the question. Until then, here is (6). (6) If you have not heard Understanding Objectivism or Objectivism Through Induction, are you familiar with the concepts "rationalism" and "empiricism"* as used by Objectivism? If so, from where? *Objectivism uses "rationalism" and "empiricism" to refer to false methods of thinking. You might be familiar with rationalism and empiricism from the history of philosophy, Leibniz being a rationalist, Hume an empiricist. I'm not interested in this second use of the terms. Thanks again!

I'm writing something about studying and understanding Objectivism. If you'll give me two seconds of your time, answering the poll would help me to get a rough estimate of what percentage of Objectivists are familiar with these courses. If you're feeling very generous, I'm interested in the following follow up questions. (1) If you've listened to more than one, which did you find most helpful in better understanding Objectivism? Why? (2) If you've intentionally neglected one of them, which one and why? (3) If you haven't listened to any of them, why not? (4) If you've listened to one or more, did you just listen, or did you study it? Meaning did you take detailed notes, do the homework, relisten to segments you found confusing, etc. (5) How important do you think these courses are to fully understanding Objectivism? Thanks.

I'm writing something about effectively communicating Objectivism to non-Objectivists. If you'll give me two seconds of your time, answering the poll would help me to get a rough estimate of what percentage of Objectivists are familiar with this course. If you're feeling very generous, and your answer is "no," I'm interested in the following follow up questions. (Here is the link to the course page on ARB.) (1) If your answer is something besides "too expensive" or "just haven't gotten to it yet," why haven't you listened to it? (2) Do you know anything about the course at all, or has it been recommended to you? (3) I'm posting another poll with the following question: "Which major Peikoff lecutre courses have you studied?" Thanks.

Several people have jumped on Travis for insulting Little. This is a gross evasion of everything Travis has written. Sure, he STARTED his post by calling Little a crackpot. But then he went on AT LENGTH explaining WHY he has this evaluation. To conclude that someone is a crackpot is a legitimate conclusion, provided one justifies it. JUST AS TRAVIS DID in his original post, in many subsequent posts, and even with a generous promise to stick around and answer questions. To focus on Travis's dismissal of Little as a crackpot, while wholey ignoring his given reasons, is dishonest.

Are you in high school? College? A grad student? The job market NOW might not be great. But what will it be like when you have your PhD? I just started grad school. Optimistically, I won't be looking for a job for 6 years (most likely more). So it's not a big concern to me that the economy sucks today. Will it suck in 6 or 7 years? If the economy is on the rebound then, I might come on the market at a time when hiring is spiking. It also depends where you got your degree. A PhD from Princeton or any top 5 program will get you a good job no matter what the market is like. Even people from lower ranked programs get good jobs in tough markets. IF they do good work. IF you think you can get into a competative program and IF you think you are capable of good work, then go for it. You might not get a job at a top university, but you won't be flipping burgers.

I don't know how to summarize without spending more time that I want to. This is a good two volume book on philosophy from 1900-1975. Something shorter is Dummett's book Origins of Analytic Philosophy. Those two give a great picture of what motivated philosophy pre 1970s. If you want to see the actual stuff they put out, read Saul Kripke's book Naming and Necessity. It is the most influential book of the last 50 years, and changed the direction of the last 30 or so years (changed for the slightly better I think). I was assigned it FOUR times as an undergrad at a top department, so its importance can't be exaggerated. It's short, very readable, and there are some very interesting parallels between the theory of reference he develops and what Rand/Peikoff have to say in ITOE. Those books will give you a glimpse of the kind of issues of concern, and how they go about philosophizing. As for specific conclusions they reach, the conclusions are sooo distinct and widespread that it brings into doubt the legitimacy of even asking what assumptions unify current philosophy. Its common for two philosophers (who are supposedly working within the same tradition) to reach diametrically opposed conclusions on some question.

To say a little about the "how effective is engaging the academics" question: I say very, very effective. I've heard through the grape vine (HBL, OCONs, Anthem newsletters, etc) that as a result of interaction with Objectivist philosophers a certain giant of contemporary philosophy now teaches VoS to his students. That's just one guy, but the impact is large. Something like half of all professors come from the top 10 PhD programs, if I'm remembering that stat correctly. This prof teaches at a top department, so extrapolating that means 5% of philosophy profs come from his program. And because they are introduce to Rand fairly by someone they esteam highly, this trickles down. Now maybe they teach VoS to their students. That's scenario is maybe a little contrived, but I hope it communicates the message. If just one person at each of the top 10 programs taught Rand basically fairly the impact would be HUGE. That translates into hundreds of thousands of students reading VoS (or ITOE or whatever) a year. And not just reading it but discussing it and writing about it (i.e. thinking about it carefully). And even if zero of them are convinced it is still a victory. Why? Because now Objectivism is part of legitimate intellectual discource. Now as a corallary to that, imagine what happens when some philosopher has a bad encounter with Objectivism. Philosophers have a lot of stuff to read. Dozens of books and hundreds of articles are written a year on their sub field alone. So if they're going to read Ayn Rand, they need a compelling reason to do so. Now if you're a philosopher, and your only encounter with Objectivism is through someone who appears to know next to nothing about non-Obectivist philosophy, and who can't defend himself adequately in a philosophical debate, where are you going to put Ayn Rand in your "to read" pile? At the top? At the bottom? Probably in the trash.

What do you mean by post-modernism? If you mean the kind of stuff lampooned on the post-modernism generator website, then philosophers are not post-modernists. At least, the ones at leading departments aren't post-modernists. In my experience most philosophers think post-modernism is a dishonest scam. Those gibberish Derrida types are not popular in philosophy departments. English departments maybe. Not philosophy. More generally, not just addressing sanjavalen, I see a lot of Objectivists claiming that academic philosophers are all relativists, or skeptics, or subjectivists, or Kantian, or some other type of bad guy. To be honest, I cringe when I read this stuff. It's not accurate. Of course there are philosophers who are like that. But they don't dominate the profession. There has been a huge backlash against skepticism in the last 30 years or so. I've never encountered a skeptic professor, though I've had many who were passionate about refuting skepticism. There's been a huge backlash against Kuhnian relativism about science and anti-inductivism. There are plenty of moral realists (believe there are objective moral truths) at leading departments. There are plenty of Rawlsian liberals, but nobody is a Marxist and there's not to many socialists, either. That's not to say that any the ideas of these philosophers are right, or even close to being right. What I am saying is that if your impression of philosophy was formed by reading/listening to presentations Objectivists gave 20 or more years ago, you are very out of date. So it's not a good idea to say things like "All (most, many) philosophers are x" unless you, ya know, actually know first hand what current philosophers believe.

It's not the case that most mainstream academic philosophers are deep rooted Platonists, or Kantians. The core of mainstream analytic philosophy is a mixture of some really bad stuff, and some good stuff. Maverick philosopher seems to be a philosopher of fairytales religion. I searched for his publications, and they are mostly related to arguing for the existence of god. So in the end Maverick may not be worth talking to (though some of the people participating in the comments may be). So I'll use my Chalmers example. He is famous for his total rejection of materialism, and his endorsement of what is called property dualism. (This is contrasted with Cartesian dualism, which holds that the mind is some kind of distinct substance). Since Objectivism is supposed to be a type of property dualism, he is someone worth dialoguing with. There are other prominent philosophers who on some issues may find Objectivism appealing. That's been the case with some virtue ethicists and some moral realists, as well as some philosophers who defend direct realism about perception. So should there be a chance to talk about Objectivism on the blog of someone like Chalmers, it should be done by someone like Binswanger, and only someone like Binswanger. Let me say that having productive conversations with these guys is not going to win us converts. But if they interact with someone who can defend Objectivism on level that Binswanger and Norsen can, it may persuade them to let students write papers on Rand. Or include her on the syllabus. If it suddenly becomes OK for students and professors to do research on Rand without controversy, that's a major achievement. And if they include her in their teaching that's a triumph. As I've heard reported at past OCON academic panels, these types of changes in attitude do happen. But they happen as a result of the style of communication exemplified by Binswanger/Norsen. Why is it generally a bad idea for us amateurs to get into these types of conversations? Here's one really good reason: Philosophy isn't special; it's an expertise like any other. For every book you've read about philosophy, the professional has read a hundred. For every hour you've spent thinking about philosophy, he's spent a hundred. You can answer a couple dozen objections to Objectivism? He can come up with a hundred new ones on the spot. That's what philosophers are trained to do. So even if you are right, and even if you know you are right, you're going to lose. He's going to come up with objections you've never thought of based on theories and concepts you've never heard of. If you admit to never having heard of these ideas you look clueless. And if your response is lacking it looks like you are being dogmatic. And if you get defensive and start name calling you've undercut yourself completely. Philosophers have a strange attraction to blogging, btw. I've had blogs listed on syllabi. They are followed by a LOT of people in the profession. Numerous leaders in the field blog. So if some academic philosopher writes a post about Objectivism, don't think about it as a blog post. Think about it as a presentation at the American Philosophical Association. Sure it's open to the public, but the vast majority of the audience is composed of other philosophers. So who do we want giving the commentary? You? Me? Or Binswanger?

Kainscalia & John, So I think there are two issue here. (1) How/when to engage with academic philosophers? and (2) is the Maverick worth engaging? Maverick may well be small potatos. But what if the philosopher were, for instance, David Chalmers? (Chalmers is a very influential philosopher who also blogs). We can abstract away from the fact that maybe Maverick isn't worth talking to and still use the episode as a learning example, so that we can apply what we learn in the future when someone worth talking to writes about Rand. Given that a helluva lot of famous philosopher run these kind of websites, and even more follow these sites, it is likely the situation will arise again. Who should participate in these discussions when they arise? How should they conduct themselves? My opinion is that, unless you have a strong grasp contemporary philosophy to go along with your strong grasp of Objectivism, don't participate in philosophical debates with professional philosophers. Leave it to the pros like Binswanger and Norsen. That's why I didn't participate in the discussion.

To add to what West said re Kant. I've heard many well known analytic philosophers refer to Kant as a bad philosopher. I've even heard analytic philosophy refered to as philosophy's recovery from Kant. I believe Russell had a negative view of Kant. So now if you come into a discussion with this tradition and accuse them of being devilish Kantians, they are going to have not one clue as to what you are talking about. Unless you have the chance to explain yourself at length (which you won't, because people don't read 10,000 word blog comments), such comment come off as a kooky, Rand-parroting, mystery. So if your goal is to dialogue with them, you will fail. If your goal is to impress the audience, you will fail. If your goal is to let off some steam and impress the already converted Objectivist audience, maybe you will suceed. But that's not a valid goal. In contrast, Norsen and Binswanger's comments are spot on, excellent examples of how we should be communicating with people from an alien philosophical context.

West, I agree with you on this. It's not a good idea for people unfamiliar with the analytic tradition to engage these kind of debates with analytic philosophers. You're more likely to come accross as ignorant of philosophy than anything else. Communication between Objectivists and analytics is near impossible without that kind of knowledge. And pot shots... if you think you're being treated unfairly, just leave. Complaining about Kantians or accusing your opponent of evasion or whatever just comes of as completely strange to people who aren't very familiar with Objectivism. Which means you come of as kooky to most of your audience. As a graduate student in philosophy, let me just add my name to West's and Binswanger's as one who found some of the comments on that thread embarassing.

Morris Kline's Calculus: An Intuitive and Physical Approach is the best math text I've ever used. I tried several calc books before settling on it. He's written quite a few non-text math books as well, including a three volume history of math. If they are as good as his calc book they are worth reading.

The Branden book claims, without evidence, that O'Connor was a drunk. I don't know if Branden wrote or was involved in writing the screenplay, but she was involved with making the movie. She is the one who claims the character in the movie "was Frank." You think the scene should show him mixing paint in the bottles. Why would it? This movie is based on Barbara Branden's book. The same Barbara Branden who scoffs at the idea of mixing paint in bottles.

The most offensive scene involves Frank O'Connor passed out drunk in a phone booth. It's downright wicked that Barbara Branden would portray O'Connor in such a way, just so that Barbara can go on blaming other people for her own ruined life.

To add to what Kendall said about gains made by religion in the culture, the "ivory tower" of academia has not been immune. Belief in god by philosophers is now far more respectable than it was 40 or 50 years ago. This 1980 Time Magazine article mentions Alvin Plantinga, a very respected epistemologist. In fact many leading virtue epistemologists are using that program to justify religious beliefs (eg Zagzebski). Religious belief isn't popular amongst mainstream philosophers, but it is more widespread and respectable now than it was say in the 60s. And the idea that religion is retreating is total fantasy. Every major region of the world is experiencing problems related to the growth of fundamentalist religion. In India Hindu nationalists are rioting and killing Christians. In China the government is threatened by Christianity and has outlawed Falun Gong. Europe is being swallowed by Muslim immigrants. In South American countries like Brazil protestant evangelicalism is rapidly growing in popularity. In our own country, the Republican party chose a PENTECOSTAL VP condidate. (Pentecostals are the ones who speak in tongues, if you didn't know.) Obama's own strange religious associations are well known. And let's not forget that most American's do not believe in evolution.

ARI needs more money to do that stuff. Which is a good reason to donate. Here is info on ARI's revenue. Here is info on CATO. CATO has almost four times the money.

The term rationalism, in the relevent sense, first appears in the literature in Peikoff's lecture course "Objective Communication" from 1980. In 1983 Peikoff gave an entire lecture series on rationalism, why it is a mistaken way of thinking, how it stunts ones understanding of philosophy, how to avoid the error, etc. The lecture course is "Understanding Objectivism." The course is sold through Ayn Rand Bookstore. Campus clubs can borrow copies for free. It's also part of the OAC curriculum. It should be required listening for all Objectivists.

There are plenty of things you should not do, which do not affect other people. Wanting to smoke crack with hookers is not a valid aim in life. If Objectivism simply said do whatever you want so long as it doesn't affect others, it would be nihilistic. Howard Roark would be morally no different than a crack head; both are doing what they want to do, without harming other people. In fact, Objectivism proves that "doing whatever you want" is not egoistic. Being an egoist means following certain principles, and often times finding out that your desires are not valid. Maybe you know all that. But if you were arguing with a sane person (as opposed to someone who thinks Russia was fake communist (wtf!?)), you sunk yourself when you conceded his characterization of Objectivism as "do what you want."

This is a recurring thread topic. I think poster "GCS" answered the question best in this thread from 2004.

Back issues of The Objective Standard (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/back-issues.asp) have some good articles about the visual arts (painting, sculpture). Most are by Dianne Durante, I think there is one or two by Tore Boeckmann. "How to Analyze and Appreciate Paintings” by Dianne Durante in Vol. 2 No. 3 comes to mind. "Outdoor Monuments of Manhattan," a book by Dianne Durante, is supposed to have some good sections on the nature of art.

The "Rape" Scene Everyone should buy a copy of "Essays on The Fountainhead." In it, there is a chapter by Andrew Bernstein on the "rape" scene. Bernstein argues that it in fact was not rape. Kendall mentions Dominique herself thinking "I was raped." But at this point in the novel Dominique is still a very confused and conflicted character. How well can we trust Dominiques's evaluation of some event, especially when it conflicts drastically with her own actions? Bernstein has some good answers. It's a fascinating article in an excellent anthology, well worth the money.