West
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by West
-
-
Genetics are everything. Virtually all aptitudes, from athletic talent to mathematical ability, are determined by genetics. Extrinsic factors are almost trivial in comparison to intrinsic ones. You absolutely cannot train yourself to do anything well.
Based on what evidence? (I'm asking for every sentence above)
-
My assessment of the film is different, but my first question is what makes you think that his actions were self-sacrificial? I ask because my first reaction to the ending was a negative one, but after thinking about it, I didn't think as ill of it. Considering the fact that
Eastwood's character was showing symptoms of something potentially life-threatening (coughing up blood, etc.)
, and the fact that he's a very cognizant character (which is another plus for the film) it makes me see even more that his actions are in promotion of his (recently) identified values (which makes up the plot of the film). In addition, instead of having the Spaghetti-Western style of just taking out the bad guys (explicating the need for justice), there was something much more personal at stake, which was a bonus.
-
West,
As I just posted elsewhere I am currently in suspension of my 'strike at the root' approach in the academic blogs and currently listening to your points.
I also have learned a lot reading the responses from the various academic-speaking Objectivists. I agree it is good that there is at least exposure for the books.
Appreciation that you just laid out the idea that there is more than one way to accomplish {A}; ironically that opens the door for me to consider that arguing with the Orthodox Academic Platonist in their jargon can actually do some good, as well as opening the possiblity to others that perhaps my direct approach might have some value.
I will continue to think about if polemic in the blogs of the enemy does no harm
Thanks
John Donohue
Yes, there is more than one way to accomplish {A}, but to bring back the issue I raised before, who derives value from your approach? From a strictly psychological perspective, what kind of person will even respond (and not merely ejaculate insults in kind) to your kind of approach? After considering the question, I can only think that the answer is fellow Objectivists, since we share the proper context. Therefore this is a value only to the extent that there are Objectivists visiting the blog, weighed against the judgments and opinions of those unfamiliar with the Objectivist context (whom I think will have no interest upon coming into contact with the prevalent polemical approach). I would argue that the approach is more of a dis-value since the broader purpose is not accomplished by these means.
edit: I wanted to add that HB and Norsen's approach has a blanket effect that covers your intended audience (the "open-minded") substantially. (I don't share the comment made earlier about longer posts being necessarily bad, if that was the message intended)
-
Can someone, especially West, explain to me benefit of accomplishing the goal he (West) laid out earlier that HB is supposedly trying to accomplish (I only say supposedly because HB has not been here stating his own goals explcitly, though that does seem to be his likely goal)?
I'm really not certain what spending lots of time and mental effort (assuming one will succeed!) getting such people to say "Okay, maybe Rand wasn't COMPLETELY whacky and there are SOME semi-respectable Objectivists" accomplishes that is worth the time and effort displayed in this entire chain of events.
Something I want to say at the outset is that I think it's important to consider the personal contexts involved in these exchanges. What may seem like a lot of time and mental effort to you or I might not be much to HB or Norsen. This is not merely to criticize you or I, but instead to say that everyone has their own values and time with which to achieve them. Engaging academic philosophers may not be the most palatable (or practical) thing for most people, and that's okay. Also, there isn't just one or two ways to change the philosophy of the culture. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that "getting a hearing in academia" is the only way to change the philosophy of the culture. We are instead suggesting that it is one of the many ways to change the philosophy of a culture, and it's most effective when done by professionals due to the context.
To continue, I can't speak for what HB is aiming to accomplish specifically, so I tried to cover as many bases as I could think of. I went along with John Donohue's proposal for a purpose [".. to dethrone Kantianism and all forms of neo-Platonism from running the universities and intellectual establishment and replace it with Objectivism (by that name or any other)"], since it's broad enough that I don't particularly disagree, and I don't think it would be dishonest to say that HB wants this too.
As for what HB and Norsen are actually accomplishing, I tried to detail that before, but I'll recapitulate the essentials as concisely as I can. The first thing that I think should be taken into consideration is something Atlas51184 stated before: these blogs have heavy traffic. They are widely read by not only other philosophers, but also by students of philosophy. The second thing to be considered is the fact that Rand is otherwise obscure within academia. It's not just that she's attacked, she's largely not even being discussed.
Taking those into consideration, the fact that Rand is being discussed (albeit in a negative light) shows that there is some interest, which I think is better than no interest and no discussion. You'll notice that the academic types (Tara Smith, Allan Gotthelf, Eric Daniels, Amy Peikoff, etc.) have been engaging non-Objectivist academics more and more, whether it's at philosophy conferences, law conferences, and others, which helps bring Ayn Rand and her ideas to the forefront of the discussion. What this actually accomplishes is the facilitation of awareness and understanding of Objectivism, whether that be the main philosophers on the blog (doubtful), or the numerous viewers from wide backgrounds (which range from doubtful to very promising)
Some smaller points that are worth mentioning:
- HB got to put in a substantial plug for his Consciousness book he's in the process of writing, in addition to multiple plugs for the collaborative volume being assembled and edited by Gotthelf and Salmieri.
- When the conversation began to derail into the realm of physics (when these philosophers had no business speaking on the subject), Norsen had an opportunity to provide a substantial account of not just the history of physics and QM (and the interpretations thereof), but the interfacing that occurs between physics and philosophy. Just on a personal level, this was highly stimulating. It opened my eyes to a lot I didn't know--I would not have been aware of it had the issues not been raised by those who were either dishonest/ignorant/mistaken about the subject. It would be nice to have someone like Norsen to bring with you into awful physics classes, but this acts as a good substitute for now. From responses I've seen both public and private, I see evidence of a similar spark in others (to varying degrees) regarding Norsen and Binswanger's excellent posts, on both sides.
-
To use your terminology, scarcity is axiomatic in the field of economics, so the definition is the same. I don't think you need the complication of restricting scarcity to property, since potential property (for ex, unexplored oil fields) is scarce as well. Scarcity just means "both material entities and our time are finite, so we can't get everything we want."
I disagree that scarcity is axiomatic within economics--we're only limited by our capacity for production (our mind, at root). I think Julian Simon addressed the topic of scarcity of resources pretty well in 'The Ultimate Resource', by pointing out that we have no shortage of inputs, but instead are only limited to the extent that our minds are able to translate those inputs into valuable outputs, as well as improve technology and efficiency to increase the yield of these outputs. It seems strange to start the science with what we don't have (infinity minus a few?).
I think if we are to come up with a reasonable idea of "scarce" or a status of "scarcity," I think we have to treat it as derivative or emergent, like the status of "cold" or "warm," instead of as a starting point for economics. Starting with "we can't get everything we want" is deriving a concept based on our whims; it makes us sound like we are perpetually unsuccessful.
-
West,
I reject the emotion of your "embarrassing", Binswanger's "potshots", your "screeching about "Kantians!, Primacy-of-Consciousness-ers!, Hegelians!," and "name calling" and especially your patronizing "good intentions". It is unfortunate you people are embarrassed by me/us and have to totalize as above. You are actually looking at fellow Objectivists, who posted no actual errors, from the point of view of the Kantians.
You can reject the emotion of what I said all you want, but having inspected the reasons why I have those feelings, I've found those quick judgments to be correct. You did in fact have good intentions, but your actions do not support the purpose that you outlined, and I will point out why.
I'll take the Ayn Rand stance of, to paraphrase, 'it used to be that philosophers would step onto the field of battle and lay down their axiomatic propositions and fight over them' and also on her courage to tell it like it is, in the open: The Kantian Apparatus is a hippo doing the mambo with grotesque gyrations of the belly.It's true that she told it like it is, but you have to consider the various contexts with which she engaged, and how she presented her philosophy. When she was writing or speaking for an Objectivist audience, her tone and characterizations (and the terms she uses at times) are vastly different than when she engages a broader audience that is predominantly non-Objectivist. You'll see the same difference between Harry Binswanger's (HB from here on) posts on HBL and his posts on the Maverick Philosopher blog (or any other public forum, such as his comments on Time's website).
What are we trying to accomplish?{A} We want to dethrone Kantianism and all forms of neo-Platonism from running the universities and intellectual establishment and replace it with Objectivism (by that name or any other).
You said:
"Taking the fact that they will ultimately disagree on a fundamental level into consideration, you can choose two different purposes: to be polemical, or to attempt to create a bridge to foster understanding. The former isn't constructive per the context (it's not ObjectivismOnline.net), but the latter may be, since in the end, they may ultimately disagree, but may find that they understand and agree on more than they would on their own. "
So to accomplish {A} by getting those who will never fundamentally yield an inch to "understand and agree on more than they would on their own" -- is this actually productive? What, exactly, do you think it accomplishes? They reduce the degree of slur and hate? They get bored since we are not the buffoons we seem to be and thus less fun to skewer and therefore they don't bother?
You don't have to get people to yield on a fundamental level for an intellectual discussion to be productive. If you look at the posts in response to yours and others, you'll see that no real understanding occurred, and they only grew more rabid and insulting. Your actions actually emboldened them. In the end, they stuck to their guns and you guys ended up in a name-calling mire (to paraphrase, "You guys spout nothing but analytic mumbo jumbo and Kant informs you of everything you should think," with the other side saying "Objectivists have no skill for debate, cannot be taken seriously, are a joke, etc.").
Contrast that with the responses to Travis Norsen and HB's posts. You see substantially more understanding, good will, and even agreement. This accomplishes a great deal--going from "all Objectivists are ridiculous and Ayn Rand is a complete joke" to "there are some respectable Objectivists out there and Ayn Rand may deserve more attention" is a good thing. Which result do you think does better in accomplishing {A}, yours or HB's, if your intended audience is the people running the blog?
Just because they understand a little more does not mean they will cease indoctrinating freshmen into the Apparatus. If anything, they will have been put on notice and be craftier. "Yes, I looked into this and satisfied myself I really did understand what she meant. One of their better people came by. Needless to say, even though she is a little more interesting than I thought, she is wrong. Dismiss dismiss. You students don't need to check it out, I did it for you, thoroughly. Now back to teaching that induction is a fallacy.My purpose in these fights is: Anyone reading the blog not completely indoctrinated into Platonism will see that another thinker challenges them at the root, at the common sense root that not-yet-destroyed young mind already suspects might be better than the Hippo. In other words, I wish to "scream" [irony intended] that the emperor has no clothes. I acknowledge that you said "per context". Does that mean you think no open minds read these Kantian blogs; that they are read only by the choir?
If your intended audience is instead the people reading the blog, is your method really that much more effective? I contend that the people who will understand your criticisms (or screaming) are only going to be well-read Objectivists. I don't think that the idea that Kant is evil and pervasive is common sense--it's a MASSIVE integration. This idea (and many others expressed) are completely alien to those outside of Objectivism. How does this sound to those who are unfamiliar with Objectivism (much more, those few within Objectivism who actually understand these ideas in their full contextl)? In short, it sounds crazy.
To continue, HB/Travis Norsen take the time to not only address errors, while showing that they understand the philosophy that they are challenging (without resorting to question-begging and name-calling), but explicate Objectivism to a significant degree in the process. I think that a disagreement qua disagreement with some name-calling looks worse to the on-lookers than a substantive explication of Rand's philosophy with a respectful addressing of errors does. HB/Norsen address the blog in a way that's not only for Objectivists, but for any thinker, whereas you address the blog in a manner that I personally can understand (since I'm an Objectivist), but isn't fit for a non-Objectivist venue. I therefore think that HB's approach is far more effective at achieving {A}.
Much as I hate to say it, I would cease my efforts on the Kantian blogs if you or Mr. Binswanger or anyone can explain to me how attempts to create a bridge to foster understanding with the rabid enemy actually, strategically and tactically, advances {A} and a root contrarian attack at the base to raise the eyebrows of the not-already-lost does not.For me, it boils down to the fact that Ayn Rand isn't just criticized in academia, she's hardly even mentioned. This is slowly starting to change, with the publishing of academic texts by Gotthelf, Smith, etc., but Rand is still widely unknown/unread within this context. If academic philosophers began to get the sense that Rand "had something to her" and began to discuss and criticize her, I would be happier than if she remained in obscurity. I'm reminded of Jean-Baptiste Say, who had faded into obscurity, but upon being vehemently attacked by John Maynard Keynes in the 20th century, came back into serious discussion. So, in a sense, I think that all publicity is good publicity.
This leads me to consider how I would want the purveyors of Objectivism to come across in content and tone, if I weren't an Objectivist. Would I be more convinced and interested from coming into contact with someone who slings around terms that come from an esoteric context, or would I be more comfortable and receptive to someone who spoke my lingo and could show a significant exposition of what they mean and why? (Let's set aside disagreement for the time being and consider the approaches, which are prior to the disagreement)
edit: Got rid of what could be misinterpreted as "scare quotes".
-
Right, but it is not axiomatic in the broader context of morality.
I agree, though I'm somewhat confused about whether the discussion is on scarcity in the economic sense or the metaphysical sense. In the economic sense, the scarcity of goods is derivative of production (and therefore property), since property has to be in existence before it can be considered scarce. If the other usage of 'scarcity' is what's being discussed, then isn't it just a substitute for 'need'? In the sense that we aren't born with material values and have to produce them gives rise to the 'need' for production, and we're just calling this "scarcity"?
-
You may not have been aware of this, but Binswanger sent out a message on the HBL that he didn't want non-academic Objectivists to engage them, because it wouldn't be productive for Objectivists who didn't speak their lingo to join in. I agree with this. The "inadequate potshots" (as Binswanger puts it) from the people who posted before Binswanger and Travis Norsen arrived are rather embarrassing.
As good-intentioned as you and others may have been, in the end I don't think your posting contributed anything meaningful or productive. You have to understand that with these academic philosophers, they have read/understood very little of Objectivism, and generally take a small aspect (or article) of Rand's and run with it, using their particular methodological framework to critique it. Taking the fact that they will ultimately disagree on a fundamental level into consideration, you can choose two different purposes: to be polemical, or to attempt to create a bridge to foster understanding. The former isn't constructive per the context (it's not ObjectivismOnline.net), but the latter may be, since in the end, they may ultimately disagree, but may find that they understand and agree on more than they would on their own. I contend that this does more to service Objectivism than any screeching about "Kantians!, Primacy-of-Consciousness-ers!, Hegelians!," etc. does. Doing this only further solidifies the general notion that Objectivists can't engage in philosophical discussion properly and have to ultimately resort to name-calling.
-
This is picking the nits, but the concept of 'property' is axiomatic within the context of the science of economics, since it has to be assumed before any discussion within economics can occur. It's the same with the concepts of 'production', 'good', 'consumption', 'time' and 'trade'. For another example, the concept of 'reason' is not axiomatic within metaphysics (it can be broken down further to the senses, percepts, and concept-formation), but it is axiomatic within the science of epistemology since it has to be assumed prior to any further discussion within epistemology.
-
I think there's some conflation between being 'productive' (and therefore being moral) and 'creating material goods' (or sharing in it by way of betting on it). Since we live in a society with an advanced division of labor, many opportunities open up for making a profit without resorting to farming or manufacturing. How do they create this profit? By means of information. In principle, there's no difference between investigative journalists, investors, traders, or even more broadly, teachers/professors (philosophers, historians, economists, etc.). All of these professions seek out knowledge about the world and make a profit on this knowledge, whether it's negative or positive. In the act of trading, value is created since it is to mutual benefit--both parties get something that they value more.
It's true that short selling doesn't represent the material creation of goods, but the information that short sellers ferret out, upon which they trade, represents the creation/preservation of values in the objective sense of the term.
If a moral man produces more than he consumes, a man betting on the failure of production, by selling short is producing what? How can he be producing more than he consumes?He's producing in the sense that he is gaining knowledge that has a price. The profit that he gains from this knowledge constitutes his demand (and is where his consumption derives from). Philosophers do the same thing. This particular form of being productive is entirely moral.
edit: for clarity.
-
I was thinking more specifically of Ellsworth Toohey, but those are all excellent parallels as well. Sometimes I forget that these people really exist.
-
From Robert Reich, economic advisor to Barack Obama:
In Reich's worldview, it's groups that matter and individualism that's the enemy. "The American myth of the triumphant individual may have outlasted its time," Reich has explained. "The story of the little guy who works hard, takes risks, believes in himself and eventually earns wealth, fame and honor" is outmoded.Instead, "we must begin to celebrate collective entrepreneurship," states Reich. In place of individuals who "buck the odds" with "drive and guts," Reich argues for a world where the central planners right the wrongs, determine the production, distribute the rewards in a "fair" manner, i.e., with "only modest differences in income," and knock the rough edges off anyone who doesn't demonstrate sufficient obedience to the collective.
"Success can be measured only in reference to collective results," Reich asserts, warning against an economic system that encourages "individualistic endeavor."
Remind you of someone?
Full Article: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...318554025794932
-
In his lecture 'Understanding Objectivism', Peikoff answers a question about circularity, noting the difference between "bad circularity," which is fallacious, and "good circularity," which is merely an extension of the law of identity. This is just an example of the latter.
-
Or just something other than fiction writing.
If only there were an oversupply of great fiction!
-
In the first sentence, the first thing he has to do is equate Obama with something negative. This is tone for the entire article. Could it be that the media is just doing their job, which is to report stuff? No, it's "mindless happy talk"! Well guess what? It's Inauguration Day. It's a celebration, and a ceremony it's time to have more positive talk. It's like New Years, except it only happens every 4 to 8 years, which makes it historically significant and thats why they have generally positive commentary about the history of the event. Are people not allowed to be interested or happy about that? I'm not for sure what would make Cline happy here. If the commentary was something a long the lines of "Obama blinked twice in 10 seconds, that means he wants to enslave America!"... Which is actually, pretty close to his own commentary!
Where to start.. I'm assuming Cline sets the tone of the article as negative because Obama is something negative. If you disagree, I'd be really curious to know why. As far as celebrations go, it really depends just what someone is celebrating. People lining up in droves to usher in a president who does not have my rights in mind is not something that I think should be praised and acknowledged in a positive light. Hence the negative tone of the article, starting with the first sentence.
A lot of people showed up to this and watched it. Yes, that's true. Because it's not something that happens every day. Are people not allowed to be interested in something rare and historic? Are they not allowed to show support for their country by watching it's elected leader get sworn in? At the last sentence here shows the answer is "NO!" ... If you watched the Inauguration you have to be someone who wants to be ruled over. Really? Here is where Cline begins to make himself up to be an omniscient deity. He knows what's going on in the heads of millions of people. It just so happens that all these people are wrong. Unlike the Enlightened Mr. Cline who bestows his wisdom down on us mere mortals in even more projections, free interpretations and postulating.I can't figure out what you are referring to that is rare and historic, unless you are referring to the fact that the new president is black (is that really an important point to make?). I'll give partial credit to another poster in this thread, and agree that Obama has a lot in common with Hoover, FDR, Carter and the two Bushes. It's not anything new, and it's not something that I think one should be excited about. If one chose instead to do something more important than show up in freezing weather to watch this particular president get sworn in, I wouldn't think that they "supported their country" any less. In all likelihood, they were probably more cognizant of the meaning behind his words than those who did show up.
Here is where I discovered the problem. He can't discern fact from fiction here. He can project his fantasies all over the world here and can't see past them. He needs to cast someone as the villain of the story he's making up in his head. So of course it's our newly elected Democrat President. Let us keep this in mind as we read further.I think in order for me to understand your posts better, I need to understand why you think Obama is not as bad as I think most judge his words and actions to be. Otherwise it sounds like your argument is such:
P1: Person A writes fiction as well as nonfiction.
P2: Person A judges Person X to be evil.
P3: Person X is therefore the villain of the "story".
P4: Person X is not evil (does he really mean the things he says?) by Person B's standard.
C1: Person A cannot discern fact from fiction and is living in a fantasy world.
You took personal offense because someone didn't say the words you wanted to hear? Cry me a river.He quite obviously took offense at the words Obama did pronounce. Again, I need to understand why you think Obama deserves such a defense from the supposed fantasies of Ed Cline.
Of course, of course... just read his transcripts. Make sure you interpret them to mean whatever you feel like. As long as you interpret it to mean that Obama want's to be some sort of evil tyrant, dictator, or overlord then your correct. It can't be anything good or positive.Those ambiguities and populist parts are meant to appeal to a wider audience. The speeches are designed that way. You can project what you want onto Obama. In the case of Cline it's "BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!" Again, Cline is omniscient and knows what Obama is really thinking, which is naturally the absolute worse things. Again, he asserts Obama wants to rule, but where does he back any of this up? It's just pure speculation, postulating and projecting.
I think Ed Cline is interpreting what Obama says just fine--if you came out with something good and positive, I'm not sure what to say, except that those ambiguities and populist parts really struck the intended note. For the things that were explicit and unambiguous, I have to know by what standard you judge them to be positive, worth of celebration, and unjustly criticized.
I could write like this guy,"Edward Cline is a racist and a Republican talking head. All one has to do is look at everything he says. All of his books have always been broth with inflammatory and accusative language addressed to the worst in men, concealing an intention to be a cool leader of the new Revolution against the new Tyrant-in-chief and to be loved and worshiped as a freedom-fighting hero!"
If I wrote that, the member of this board and the saner people in the world would probably scold me for it. Yet this guy can get away with it.
Isn't that what you're doing? I have to ask: have you listened to Obama's speeches? It would make sense to make this point if what Ed Cline said wasn't actually true, but if you listen to what Obama says, it's not really a joke. It'd be like criticizing someone for saying, "All you have to do is listen to FDR's speeches; he's trampling our rights, pushing the welfare state, and ultimately reducing us to the status of incapable infants."
And it gets worse and worse. Here he throws everyone into a big group which, of course, has to be thoughtless. He knows the minds of millions of people apparently. And this the only reason to like Obama. If your a horribly stupid human being. It can't be for any other reason, can it Mr. Cline?I couldn't find you making any positive statements about Obama yet, and I think everything comes down to why you think Obama gaining a major post in the entity whose sole purpose is to protect individual rights warrants celebration. I want to hear you out.
-
Don't forget how much of a role protein played in the whole scenario! Materialist/Intrinsicist/Determinists (what a mouthful!) could get pretty silly with this idea: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncateg...quer-the-world/
Still an interesting observation though.
-
So those "goal-directed" actions would include glaucoma, arthritis, arteriosclerosis, acne and flatulence... Hmmm.... I'll have to ponder that one.
None of the examples above represent "goal-directed" actions, with the exception of flatulence, but only if you take it to mean the actual action of passing gas (which is both goal-directed and purposeful!).
-
It's strange for me to hear about traders who have hard-ons for John Kenneth Galbraith and his ilk. For a profession that requires a solid understanding of economics and the markets, is it just a serious case of compartmentalization, or what?
-
For fiction, may I suggest "Scaramouche" by Rafael Sabatini? As a kid, I grew up with the adventure novels of Salgari and Sabatini, but I never got around to reading "Scaramouche."
. . .
Any takers on the idea?
I read it a long time ago, but I'd love to read it again. I've had a streak of romantic historical fiction recently including Sabatini's Captain Blood as well as Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel, and I can always go for more. Let me know when you think you'd want to start Scaramouche (It might be a little while for me since I want to finish Economics and the Public Welfare first).
-
Great suggestions, West. His "The Wild Duck" I also liked. I read only about ten or so plays of his, but there are many that I haven't yet read. Not only his works, but he as a person, interests me, too. I think I read two or more books on him. I didn't even know she was doing an optional course there titled "Ibsen the Iconoclast"! Thanks for mentioning the course. I didn't look further into the conference than what the email showed. If I were going to that state in the summer where the conference is in, I doubt I could pass by Amherst without going there instead... But anyways, if you are bringing up these two plays, there are also two that I would like to add for future readings, that I recently read, and they would be Moliere's The School of Husbands, and The School for Wives. But they must be the Donald M. Frame translations though, because he keeps them in verse.
I really want to read more of the books that are on the lists at VDA, so I'm starting Pimpernel now, not sure if it's officially chosen for the January read or not, but I'm not waiting.
Thanks for the Moliere translation recommendation! I've been told that Moliere has a savage wit; I look forward to picking up a copy of his works. I might have said it already, but I really enjoyed Scarlet Pimpernel and highly recommend it.
-
Well, maybe Obama is the guy of the year.
Has the political and media process gone so far away from reality that it is logical and reasonable now to elect one with few qualifications?
Yeah, not many people in the field that are extremely valuable. But does his election further show that government is becoming irrelevant to the people? Government for the existance of government in the US? Too much thought about "common good" from those that should not be forwarding such ideology.
So, based on the poor choice of a US President, maybe that makes Barry Obama a man of history.
I don't think this election shows that government is becoming irrelevant to the people. I think it shows that a certain number of people think that the government is that much more important, according to their standard of what the proper role of government should be. I think 'the people' are less concerned with qualifications qua qualifications, and more concerned with the policies of the elected president, and whether it furthers the goals of their supposed interests.
-
Oops, you're both absolutely right about my misinterpretation. After reading it again, I'm clearly in error.
So, you don't give the Founders credit for fighting for freedom and against slavery and setting up the first and only country based on rights. Rather, you vilify them for being born into a system where there was slavery, and where there was slavery world wide.I mean, the whole world is stained, then.
America is a great country, with a great foundation that spread freedom and ended slavery. This is America's legacy and this is what makes it unique. It is because of the courage of the founders, and the ideas of men like John Locke, that we today enjoy freedom. They fought the good fight for our liberties and it was not we who ended slavery. Jefferson, Madison, and up to Lincoln, they ended slavery.
Also note, Jefferson did try to end it right away in 1776, and was rebuffed by certain southern senators, so it was a tough battle. They weren't able to snap their fingers and end it, and I think it's ridiculous to hold them to such a standard.
This is ridiculous. Of course I give them credit for all of their accomplishments. However, I also acknowledge their errors while studying their actions/ideas in order to form my overall judgment of them. My conclusion is no different than yours. To draw a parallel, consider the status of Hank Rearden through most of Atlas Shrugged. Hank is a moral giant, in addition to being the most productive genius within the entire work. One could say that like the Founders, Rearden "inherited" many of the ideas from the culture that surrounded him, including his dichotomous acceptance of the looter's standard of morality (which he later corrects, mind you). Stating that this was clearly an error is not an attempt to destroy his image as the productive genius that he is. If anything, it shows how much of an accomplishment his overcoming it was (just as the abolishment of slavery was such an accomplishment), due to the prevalence and popularity of the ideas he rejects. I'm in complete agreement with your judgment of the Founders and the status of America as a country, I just don't think that mentioning a fact such as Powell did represents a complete repudiation of all that they ultimately stand for.
Just to personalize it, so that you can concretize it better, could you be as heroic?In principle, absolutely. In terms of concretes, if there is to be a Second Renaissance during my lifetime, I will have contributed to it. To be just, I have benefited from the ideas and actions of Locke and the Founders, but there's one thing that we have that they didn't: Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
-
But, again, this is not the point. The point is that America came into existence in a world replete with slavery and with the mission of upholding and spreading freedom, which included ending slavery. This is why America stands out. This is the way in which America stands out.
This is true, and I don't think that Powell would disagree. However, the abolishment of slavery came years after the founding of America (which is why I asked when you thought it came about, because your statement that slavery ended before America came into existence doesn't make any sense).
He is judging America from a Platonistic standard. I've seen some very good things from Powell, but he is completely wrong on this oneHow is he judging America from a Platonistic standard? I agree with Featherfall on the point that Powell is making an accurate observation about American history, which sticks out (and is repeatedly used as criticism against the Founders in that many personally owned slaves), particularly because it was the first nation to be based on the idea of individual rights.
Here is the point, if you are going to say it's a "stain on America", then you have to say it was a stain on much of the world, but it is not a stain. Slavery was not understood to be wrong for most of mankind's history. It was often defended. People had to come to the conclusion it was wrong and only then could they fight it morally. Epistemologically, if you don’t know, you don’t know, and magic won’t give you the answer. If you want to appreciate what a great achievement the concept of rights was, then you need to realize it wasn't obvious. In fact, it took a great mind to come up with the concept and lots of courage and intellect to defend it.I don't think Powell or anyone else here would disagree with this, especially considering Powell's prior statement about the incomparably glorious history of individual rights. However, It is a stain because slavery persisted for so long. An error is an error and should be identified as such. I would think it would be Platonic to consider America as the ideal conception of individual rights. Objectively, it was the most moral and the most profoundly radical country in terms of the ideas it was based upon, which includes taking into consideration the errors and compromises that mark its history (commerce clause, slavery, etc.).
I'm saying the exact opposite of Powell. America deserves credit for spreading freedom and vanquishing slavery. This is America's original virtue. It took time, but, historically speaking, not that much time.I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of Powell's post. I have never seen Powell say anything that suggests America doesn't deserve this (in fact, he repeatedly refers to America as the "most important, most free country with a glorious history of individual rights in just this post. Elsewhere in his blog he's not even this modest.). Powell's point is that Obama represents a tremendous shift in the ideas held in the culture, on a number of levels. Politically, he's the antithesis of the constitutional republic that the Founders pushed for. Secondarily, he's black, which marks another historically significant event due to the views about race having changed as well. As Featherfall also noted, Powell was not attempting to denigrate the historical/moral status of the US.
-
America is not "stained by black slavery and racism". America ended slavery that existed before America came into existence. Rights are built into its very founding ideals and America came through. As to racism, well that still exists in America and the world, but America at foundation is about the individual, not any race.
When, in your estimation, did America come into existence?
"One Problem With Objectivism"
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
Yes they still exist, but I contend that it isn't really an issue for HB or Norsen (where it is for me--just answering posts on oo.net recently has taken far more time than I had expected or wanted). HB has been duplicating the posts on HBL for some time too, so they are being channeled to more than just that specific context.
It may be interesting to some to explore whether this is an effective use of HB's time, but I personally don't have much interest in questioning HB, Peikoff, and others' effective use of time. The individuals of that caliber that are professors already spend the bulk of their time lecturing and grading papers. Meanwhile, all of the rest are writing books, articles, running/participating in email discussion lists, attending academic conferences, Objectivist conferences, as well as running conferences specifically aimed at students (Clemson Summer Conference comes to mind). This list isn't exhaustive, it's just to give an idea that they are working pretty hard to saturate the culture (which was the theme of the last OCON).
Consisting of a great number of units (as distinguished from not many, or few). For concretes, the exact conference or website traffic figures can be dug up, I just don't have them easily on hand.
I'm sure they could answer the question more in depth to provide a more satisfactory answer, but from various responses I've heard (one venue being the academic panel at this last OCON, which had Tara Smith, Allan Gotthelf, John Allison, John McCaskey, Eric Daniels, and possibly a few others producing the responses), I get the sense that it's effective in some places, and not so effective in others. I think the idea is diversification, broadly.
I think in the end this can best be answered by HB and others, but I still think that HB and Norsen aren't put out much by those posts, and the websites themselves have a lot of traffic. I think the particular concrete of the participation on the Maverick Philosopher blog is in principle the same as the point/counterpoint exchanges going on on websites such as this: http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/sho...ce-against-iran