Zeus
-
Posts
180 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Zeus
-
-
Zeus, thank you for confirming the memories of a busy man. (me)
You're welcome.
If that doesn't qualify as a "bash," then I don't know what does. We now have quotes of Miss Rand speaking unfavorably of folk music both implicity in fiction and explicitly in non-fiction. As the point of this thread was to discover her opinion of folk music, I believe we have our answer.If people want to disagree with, agree with, or discuss the merits of her opinion, might I suggest another thread?
Since I wasn't one of the initiators of this thread, I have to defer to other contributors on this one.
Best wishes!
-
I finally found exact quotes of Ayn Rand's position on the epistemology of folk music, which I had said I would return with. I think the thread has moved on since then, but, for what it's worth, I'll make my "case."
Atavistic remnants and echoes of those ages have always existed in the backwaters of civilized countries, particularly in Europe, among the old, the tired, the timid, and those who gave up before they started. Such people are the carriers of "ethnicity." The "ways of living" they transmit from generation to generation consist in: folk songs, folk dances, special ways of cooking food, traditional costumes, and folk festivals. Although the professional "ethnics" would (and did) fight wars over the differences between their songs and those of their neighbors, there are no significant differences between them; all folk art is essentially similar and excruciatingly boring: if you've seen one set of people clapping their hands while jumping up and down, you've seen them all.Now observe the nature of those traditional ethnic "achievements": all of them belong to the perceptual level of man's consciousness. All of them are ways of dealing with or manipulating the concrete, the immediately given, the directly perceivable. All of them are manifestations of the preconceptual stage of development.
I quote from one of my articles: "The concrete-bound, anti-perceptual mentality can cope only with men who are bound by the same concretes - by the same kind of finite world. To this mentality, it means a world in which men do not have to deal with abstract principles: principles are replaced by memorized rules of behavior, which are accepted uncritically as the given. What is 'finite' in such a world is not its extension, but the degree of mental effort required of its inhabitants. When they say 'finite,' they mean 'perceptual.'" (This is from "The Missing Link" in [Philosophy: Who Needs It]. That article deals with the psycho-epistemological roots of modern tribalism.)
[bold emphases added.]
As can be gleaned from the above, Ayn Rand was not merely expressing a disdain for the boring nature of folk art (which includes folk music), but also highlighting the essence of its non-method: concrete-boundedness.
Since I do not want to use the folk music I grew up with as an example [not international enough], I enjoin my fellow contributors on this board to take pure folk music in any culture and check Miss Rand's assertions against the evidence.
The folk music I grew up around corroborates her statements; and I would like to here give credit to my younger brother, who brought my full attention to this issue about two years ago - which is why I was able to remember the context of the quote (though not the quote) with the degree of accuracy I did.
-
In America, the revolution was financed and fought by farmers. Slavery was part of this past that Colonialists inherited. The fact remains that slaves is something that white people had to accept and deal with. There seems to be two options: free the slave or integrate him into the productive process. The former is clearly not in the best interest of the slave at that time; and even if it was, how would they cope--would the slave deserve a sort of welfare check without work? Or you can keep them working, and try to treat them as best as possible.
So, by this reasoning, why should we have (had) an anti-slavery movement at all? Why not just continue with the whipping and toiling? Why bother to spread individualism? Why praise America, the land of individual rights? On your premise, why study Objectivism at all?
To boot, you have the gall to ask "would the slave deserve a sort of welfare check without work?" i.e., does a man deprived of his rights deserve any part of the reward of his toil?
And you say you're a student of Objectivism?
But just like the American Indians, the slaves were intellectually savage. There is an obvious diference between a farmer like Washington's intellect and that of a slave. This is not by nature but by culture.Even if the slaves were intellectually savage, does that justify slavery?
The white man is not responsible for the intellectual state of the slave. (I would though have to take a closer look at the actual life of the working slave at that time). The difference is evident in intellect and morality: I doubt whether a slave like Washington or Jefferson would have let themselves be captured; they would have committed suicide instead of being dragged across the ocean to breathe a life that is not life. This is where "psycho-epistemology" comes in.Why bring physiology into the issue? What difference does it make whether the slave or master is white or black? Blacks have enslaved both blacks and whites in history, just as whites have enslaved both blacks and whites, so this attempt to make the issue of slave and master a "black-man-white-man" thing won't fly. It is only the ignorant people who never read history who propagate these lies.
And are you saying all the people who are slaves are those who are stupid enough to be captured? Ok, what about Ben-Hur, to use a fictional example? or Maximus in Gladiator? Or Spartacus?
And what about the real-life examples of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington, who are just two examples of many former slaves who made good? Have you even bothered to read anything written by former slaves? Do you know that a leading Stoic philosopher was a slave? Or do you think you can "figure it out" all by yourself?
And psycho-epistemology cannot be used to justify your odious claims. By your standard, why bother trying to change our mindsets? Why not allow the culture to remain as it is? After all, psycho-epistemology has rendered us incapable of change hasn't it? After all, a person's pre-existing psychology is impervious to change, right?
And following from this, why free a slave if his thinking is already conditioned by his intellectual savagery? After all, the education or re-education of a slave is impossible, since psycho-epistemology has already had its say.
This view of yours is inane, to say the very least. And it is in direct conflict with all that individualism entails. So, please say you like to spend time on this board because no-one anywhere else will humor you; but please do not call yourself a student of Objectivism.
-
A clue when a certain mind gets far enough: could a free Negro support the products of a farm? Jefferson or Washington is not to blame for the essential psycho-epistemology of the Negro Slave.
A call all of you to take a closer look at the new science of Psycho-Epistemology because it has a philosophical nature--and thus, a BIOLOGICAL nature.
Could you kindly explain what you mean by the preceding?
-
I would appreciate any book recommendation on the subject of ancient Greek philosophy with a critical and objective eye. There are many books on the subject and reading through them and the reviews on Amazon is too tedious a task to discover the bias of the author.
While not in (full) agreement with Objectivism, I found Anthony Gottlieb's The Dream of Reason a very readable history of philosophy.
Then, if you can afford it, buy Dr. Peikoff's course on the history of philosophy. This is the best gateway into the subject for someone who has some knowledge of Objectivism.
Between these two, you should be able to get a good overview of the main issues. As you go on, you'll find yourself more able to grasp (if you don't already) the more technical analyses (such as Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics, etc.).
Also, visit bookstores, new and old, and browse the shelves. You might come across interesting but little-known work like this one.
-
I recently went to see the movie and I have to say I quite liked it. It is sad that he had that mental illness and I agree with Stephen on the lack of explanation but overall I still found it inspiring for the portrayal of him fighting against the politicians. Other than the line already mentioned ...I also liked the line where the Senator talks about Pan Am not caring about making money and Howard retorts with "i'm sure his stockholders would like to know that".
Oh yes, Howard Hughes was one hell of a man. I was stunned by how much he accomplished in his life and how noble he was.
Throughout the movie, you could see him knocking down obstacles, reaching for new heights, and battling his enemies (including his illness). The film can be seen, from one perspective, as an accurate portrayal of the spirit and life of a creator.
However, when Scorcese chooses to end the movie the way he does, it seriously undercuts Hughes memory. And because of this, Scorcese cannot be forgiven.
-
In that essay Miss Rand referred to folk art as "essentially similar and excruciatingly boring." Why do you think this is a "point of contention?"
Well, I did not read the entire thread. I read it up till Tryptonique's first post (Jan. 18, 1:37p.m.) - the one right after WilliamB's first long post. (Jan. 17, 11.36p.m.) I had thought to provide more facts from which readers could make an evaluation, nothing more. I myself have no rock-solid view on folk music. Or even on the morality of the arguments made on this thread. In all honesty, I have not read it thoroughly.
I considered Ayn Rand's view on folk a point of contention because these two contributors had mentioned it in their posts and Mrs. Speicher had taken issue with their assertions.
In any case, what I remember her saying - and I'm still not sure if I'm correct [i'll have to wait a while to confirm this] - is that folk music does not say anything. It is intellectually contentless. She may have been talking about the lyrics. Although I do not recall her saying very much, she seemed to have said more than what you have quoted from "Global Balkanization." As I said, I may have the essays mixed up.
I will return when I have verified the source of my recollection.
-
I do not have a firm opinion of Ayn Rand's view of valid music but would like to illuminate a point of contention on this thread.
I am away from my books right now, so I cannot provide an exact quote; but I seem to remember her criticizing the epistemology behind folk music in an essay published in The Voice of Reason. I think it was in "Global Balkanization," but I'm not sure.
-
He chose to defend them and leave Romans to fend for themselves, did he not? Unless he was an altruist, he chose to defend who in his view were the the better people, and left to die the worse people.
No. This is a misreading of events: Arthur, commander of all the armed forces at the Great Wall, had been abandoned in the most ignominious manner by the government he had long cherished and championed. Rome had sent word of its intent to abandon a semi-civilized Britain through a consul, a man who also served new, dangerous, and unforeseen orders to Arthur and his men.
Rome had betrayed this champion. And it had betrayed his men.
So, what was the man to do? Betray his men? Or worse: betray his ideas? i.e., betray himself?
Absolutely not.
Ideas are eternal and do not inhere in people. They need to be sowed, and to sow them, the planter requires only one thing: a willing audience. Which he had in the Woads. You will recall the Woad who said to Arthur at point of death, "[strike me with] Excalibur, and make this ground holy."
Arthur realized that his faith in humans had to be grounded in reality and not remain a floating abstraction. [i have validated this truth first-hand myself, e.g., I had thought that all Objectivists I met would be as I was in temperament, but was seriously disappointed.]
He thought very deeply about the issue of his 'nationality,' and realized that his interests were better served with the Woads. After all, their leader and their leader's soldiers were solidly in his corner, as I have pointed out above.
The Romans no longer needed his services; they had said so themselves.
And as far as Arthur's lecturing goes, yes it's true that he only lectures a few Romans here and there - that's because Romans were abandoning Britain, and there weren't that many left! He lectured as many as could listen, and what's more important, he lectured the movie's audience that he was a proper, moral man, as opposed to these primitive Romans who respect no one's rights. This is the whole justification for Arthur's primary choice in the movie: the Romans are incapable of understanding his vision of human equality and individual rights, so he abandons them and their brutish ways to lead the pure and noble Celts, whose minds and culture are more receptive to his enlightened ideals.As I said, above, puh-lease.
Ah!, I see you are cognizant of the abandonment of Britain by the noble Romans.
For the rest of my response, see above.
-----------------------------------------------------------
All in all, we can agree to disagree on 'King Arthur." I will still read your posts, FC.
Cheers!
-
Well, regardless of how plausible it might have been for Arthur to just break out into lectures on rights, the other reason for my contention still stays. The fact that he chooses primitive Celts as most worthy of his protection, rather than civilized (not just semi-civilized) Romans, is infuriating to me. In a modern context, that's like choosing to build a free state in Iraq and leave America to crumble. Arthur likes to lecture the Romans on how far short they come of his ideal, and believes the Celts are better. Puh-lease.
Hold the phone, brother...
The Romans were on their way out of civilization: Augustine had had his say and the Catholic Church held full sway. It was the 5th century A.D. A "Rome, right or wrong" attitude cannot change the facts of reality.
Your analogy once again drops context, and would only seem plausible were the leader of Irag Objectivist, and had invited ten thousand American Objectivists to Iraq, and Leonard Peikoff or Harry Binswanger were of Iraqi descent.
Arthur gave one (two?) speeches to individual Romans (gathered in small groups) - there is no evidence that he was lecturing Romans in general. And I'm sure he killed many more Woads than he did Romans, whom he killed on behalf of for many years.
Please provide evidence that Arthur believed the Woads were better.
-
Yes, in my post I was writing about the Director's Cut, sorry that I was not clear. I did not see the film when it was in release, so I'm curious whether that version has less of a dark tone than the director's cut. I may just be curious enough to get both DVD's to check out the editing decisions.
No, no, there's no call for apology. I even thank you for re-awakening this thread.
Someone went to some trouble to do the homework on Pelagius, and to add the free will philosophical overlay to the more basic issue that the original Arthur could have been a Roman. I gather that the research for Arthur being a Roman has some basis in fact, but I'm not aware that the free will / Pelagius connection with Arthur was anything other than the writer's injection -- in fact I think I read somewhere on a page about the movie that they knew they were compressing time (or moving it around) in the storyline.That person's name is David Franzoni, the man responsible for the Gladiator, Amistad, and highly-anticipated (at least by me) Trial of Socrates screenplays.
Aside of Andrew Niccol, and perhaps the work of Brad Bird and Tim McCanlies (between them responsible for The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Secondhand Lions), no one else in Hollywood is creating such dramatic yet philosophically-challenging material.
If we are to be just, we cannot shrug off what he has done here; his hard work must be recognized.
I agree with you that the free-will/Pelagius connection to the Arthurian legend is the writer's injection. But, what an injection!
Just consider what it must have taken. A solid grasp and appreciation of history, which many people today think is unnecessary. A solid grasp of different philological threads: the Stoics, the Christians, and the British Magna Carta (the first famous document to give property rights some recognition). And the volition to lace all these together using one of the greatest British legends.
Bravo!
So it sounds like the screenwriter was consciously injecting the philosophical angle, and I wonder if the director's decisions aren't to blame for watering that down. The writer made Arthur almost a philosopher-king, which was great. On the other hand, the knights, even Lancelot, were portrayed as good men, but not shown as having any personal interest or participation in Arthur's free will ideas.Ahhhh....this is where my disagreement (which is amicable, mind you) begins.
If you watch the movie again, you'll see where Lancelot says he
*************** SPOILERS****************************
knows he will die in battle, but "let it be a battle of my own choosing..." Also, the crude knight with many children uses the word "free" many times, especially after his best friend, Dag, is killed in the battle on ice.
Then, in the minutes preceding the last battle, Arthur delivers one last speech on Baden Hill which makes clear that this battle wasn't one imposed upon the knights but rather one of their own choosing.
****************************************************
My point is, yes, they shared his ideas, but in the way that only somewhat-cynical, indentured servants could. Remember, they, unlike Arthur, were in the service of Rome. They had been pledged to this service since early youth. So, you will forgive their disdain for what they considered Rome's pretensions. And because of this disdain, they fought, not for Rome but for Arthur. Check out Dag's speech before they set out to get the boy.
Even Guinevere, who would have been a natural character in whom to display appreciation and increasing devotion for Arthur's ideas, is used only to set up the immediate problem of the Saxon invasion, rather than to give any kind of definition to a world of freedom and individual improvement worth fighting for regardless of the enemy. So to some extent we were left with the shopworn (to be charitable) Americans-in-Vietnam viewpoint that Fuqua apparently intentionally applied (as he states in the DVD director commentary overlay).I didn't see the director commentary, unfortunately.
My grouse with Guinevere (a fantastic performance still by Knightley) stems from the somewhat neo-conservative strain running through the movie: the notion that freedom will take 'automatically' take root anywhere it is sowed. She talks continually about Arthur's killing of his "own people" - a barbaric phrase on its own terms.
However, the Woads are barbarians blessed with very moral leadership - Merlin - who flatly tells Arthur that he, Merlin,
******************* SPOILERS *******************
requires a "master of war," and "my men, Arthur, think you can do anything."
*************************************************
So, Arthur makes the tough decision to try to spread freedom amongst the barbarian Woads instead of the semi-civilized Romans. Why? Because he had more influence with the Woads. But the movie does not say this - I am extrapolating from observation and experience here.
I kept thinking to myself as I watched this that if the Pelagius part of the script had been pushed just a little harder, and if the knights (and Guinevere) had been given more than just a hint of interest in those ideas, the movie would ended with a "glow" even better than Lord-Of-The-Rings -- a glow based on a vision of a leader working to promote the adoption of clear and correct ideas. As it was, I thought the grim Vietnam analogy obscured that result. But again, all in all, wade through the unnecessary grimness and there's a very good movie.I see what you mean: that the movie could have been more benevolent had it been more clearly focused. I agree. But, I guess if that were the case, we - Objectivists - wouldn't be in such thorough conflict with the culture.
Enjoy the weekend!
-
Well, I see what you're saying. But imagine a story where Howard Roark learns to fly like Superman. One could use your argument to say that this is also a story not about how man is, but how he ought to be.
No, you're dropping context. Superman violates the laws of physics. Arthur, on the other hand, was a lifelong student of the philosopher Pelagius. Just as some of us here are, and will be, lifelong students of the philosopher Ayn Rand.
I might have been a bit negative in my last post, King Arthur isn't a terrible movie, but all I could think about during it was how cheap his ideas were, how easily they came to him, how 'obvious' they were. This is different from We The Living, because the latter set of ideas are of a different nature. The moral lesson about integrity and values doesn't require a lot of intellectual progress, just honesty mainly. The moral lesson about rights requires an unbelievable amount of intellectual progression, and it's treated like it's just another obvious moral lesson that requires only honesty to realize."Isn't a terrible movie" ? King Arthur is a wonderful movie!
No. His ideas were not cheap - they were long-studied from his mentor Pelagius, who was murdered by the Church. And what price is higher than death? The 'condemnation of Pelagius' is an actual historical event, I'm sure you realize. Arthur himself killed hundreds of men in his quest to actualize his ideal.
And before Pelagius, there had been the Stoics who had given us a glimpse of rights, and Christianity, which had given us a glimpse of the sanctity of the individual. For more of this, please see Leonard Peikoff's Religion vs. America in The Voice of Reason where he writes:
The early Christians did contribute some good ideas to the world, ideas that proved important to the cause of future freedom. I must, so to speak, give the angels their due. In particular, the idea that man has a value as anindividual - that the individual soul is precious - is essentially a Christian legacy to the West; its first appearance was in the form of the idea that every man, despite original sin, is made in the image of God (as against the pre-Christian notion that a certain group or nation has a monopoly on human value, while the rest of mankind are properly slaves or mere barbarians). But notice a crucial point: this Christian idea, by itself, was historically impotent. It did nothing to unshackle the serfs or stay the Inquisition or turn the Puritan elders into Thomas Jeffersons. Only when the religious
approach lost its power - only when the idea of individual value was able to break free from its Christian context and become integrated into a rational, secular philosophy - only then did this kind of idea bear practical fruit.
The 'Director's Cut' is up there with Ridley Scott's Gladiator, I dare say. In sense of life terms, it actually beats Gladiator hands down.
I rest my case.
-
*SPOILERS*
.... what I liked the least about it: a Roman centurion who is preaching about human rights and equality, first of all, and a twenty year old barbarian girl being the one who originates these ideas and and plants them in his mind. I absolutely hate how remarkable and spectacular ideas are trivialized in movies like Spartacus, and now King Arthur, where plain unedicated and unenlightened slaves or random Roman battalion-commanders suddenly break out into preaching about how human beings have rights, and how these are inalienable, and how everyone is equal. Well with geniuses like that, who needs John Locke and Ayn Rand? Also, Aristotle by comparison looks like a moron, if a barbarian Celtic girl barely old enough for marriage, can already figure it out, while he can't. What an idiot!
Well, FC, while I really enjoy your posts on this site, I must remind you of a young, 31 year-old writer who told the tale of a 20-something year-old girl who imbued a Communist operative with ideas concerning the sanctity of "man's mind and his values."
Even if one were to complain that this writer's creation was fictional, one might also recall that art is life, not as it is, but as it ought to be.
And this writer's name? Ayn Rand. The book? We The Living.
-
I noticed that this movie was just released on DVD, and since I missed it at the theatre I picked it up. Just got finished watching it.
I generally agree with those who've praised it on this forum, but I also agree with the comments that it is uneven and a little slow in parts. I caught myself thinking a couple of time "What Ayn Rand could have done with the dialogue in this movie!" Even as it was, it was still head and shoulders above most current movies.
As I write this I realize too that parts of it remind me of Mark Twain's "Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court" -- especially the part about freeing the prisoners from the dungeon. I've always liked that book -- it had a very similar take on the negative influence of the church.
One of the things that bothered me about the movie (maybe I'm just dense) was that it left some things ambiguous that I wanted to know more about. Best example: Who was this "Pelagius" (sp?)? A Greek tutor? Was he Christian or Aristotelian or both? Was he murdered in Rome by the Church? (I heard the dialogue with the Pope's godchild so I picked up that he had been killed, but I missed it if there was any more detail than that.) Is there some historical character he was based on? And was Guenivere supposed to be Merlin's daughter? Or to have been captured from anywhere or from anyone in particular? And the long-haired child who attached himself to one of the knights -- was he anyone in particular, or was he there just to serve as a human interest focus?
Maybe all those questions were answered and I missed them, or maybe the movie didn't consider them important enough to be answered. Regardless, still a good movie.
[Edit - I see Pelagius was a historical figure who was considered a heretic because he emphasized free will and questioned the doctrine of original sin.]
I saw this film twice when it was in still in the theatres, and rented the DVD last weekend.
I now understand that you are writing about the 'Director's Cut,' which is superior to the studio-influenced cinema release.
Owing to this fact, I highly recommend this DVD to everyone. Even those who saw it while it played on the big screen.
-
Are there any Objectivists (or people who make almost-good films) out there working on original material?
Well, once in a while, a diamond is found amidst the crap.
One of these has already been mentioned here: Gattaca. Try also Andrew Niccol's other film, S1mone (with Al Pacino). Very high quality, both of these.
Also see, Secondhand Lions (with Robert Duvall and Michael Caine). I saw this two months ago. It left me feeling very energized. One scene in particular, I rewatched about fifteen times.
I actually enjoyed Hellboy. In its seeming disintegration, I was able to make out its essential theme: Even if a man were to be spawned by the Devil (the worst possible being) in Hell (the worst possible of origins), it's not his background that makes him a man, but his choices. This is spelt out in the script, so I'm not revealing anything.
I found that quite powerful. I also liked the way he laughed off big problems, making them seem trivial to him, as they ought to be, in his widest frame of reference, i.e., in his metaphysics. The artwork suggested a grim universe, yet this guy walked defiantly right through it all.
As for Closer, I think that Mr. Speicher is being too civilized in responding to any comparison of an Atlas Shrugged hero to any participant in that drivel called Closer.
But, altogether, I agree with nemethnm's comment about the cultural bleakness, a bleakness which, I confess, I may not have seen through without Ayn Rand's benevolence.
I saw Ben-Hur again over the weekend and was struck yet again by how moved I was by the tightness of the script and the beauty of the production, inasmuch as I disagreed with the philosophy.
A young Charlton Heston has been my first choice to play John Galt ever since I read Atlas. I chalk that up to pre-existing psychology. My first notion of a hero owes to his portrayal of Rodrigo De Bivar in El Cid which I saw when I was very, very young.
My yearnings for Sophia Loren are another story entirely.
-
I'm a big supporter of family values and I'm no Christian -- but then again I define "family values" as they can and ought to be.
A family CAN be a wonderful place where a mother and father pursue happiness by being parents and children are loved, protected, respected, and guided toward rational lives.
In this respect, I'd like to say that I used to think that "family values" was a totally corrupt concept until I saw "The Incredibles."
I remarked to a friend, who is Objectivist (and has an adorable one-year-old daughter), that I now had some concretized insight into why many people value their families.
*******************SPOILERS*******************
When Mr. Incredible lamented the loss of his family, I was able to picture myself in the same situation, as Bob Parr reminded me in some ways of myself.
It is very possible that my appreciation of his family depended on their being valuable to him: his wife and kids were not strictly dependents in any sense of the word; they were latent geniuses who could not exist, in reality, as they did in the movie.
Does that mean I may be unrealistic in this respect [marriage]? Yes.
But, that does not mean I neither approve of, nor seek, marriage. A good marriage, in my opinion, is almost a necessary ingredient of an individual's existence. Possibly only the most integrated individuals can do without it. Marriage settles the self by providing a worthy, conscious catalyst for one's immediate and intermediate happiness - whch amortizes into one's long-term happiness.
And this valuation is true: after all, there is no free value, even in Freetown.
-
I would suggest the approach should be a mixture. First is hierarchical and second is enumerative. One can first identify a hierarchy of rights, with three basic rights (life, liberty, and property) at the foundation, and other rights (such as a right to a fair and objective trial) being derivative from that base. Second is a count, such as: Two out of three basic rights violated? Seventeen derivative rights violated?
This approach is analogous to the process of measuring concepts of cognition. (See ITOE, p. 32.) There, one measures such concepts in two ways: "breadth," that is, scope of referents, and "depth," that is, hierarchical length of the conceptual chain required to reach that concept from its referents.
I am unsure of this approach. As always, consider this to be a target for rejection, correction, or elaboration.
Mr. Laughlin,
My post will be unhelpful, as I am not responding to the gist of your post but to an inessential part of it.
I just want to say that, yes, there might be a "right" answer to your question; but, since your approach is objective, and since you wouldn't have posted this much had you not thought the matter through to a good degree, you have no reason to be "unsure." Since you're being objective, you can be certain.
Your statements, since they derive from the facts of reality, are implicitly prepended with a caveat to the effect, "from all the evidence available to me..."
And so, even if you were to change your mind through the introduction of new evidence by yourself or by someone else, there is no loss of objectivity.
Thank you very much.
-
I would send the Muslims back to the middle east and the Christian back to the Dark Ages, were it possible.
And what about the pragmatist, existentialist, and positivist intellectuals in the universities? Where would you send those? Into the noumenal world?
I think you may be making an error in equating will-breaking with terrorism. When you fight a war you fight to win; will-breaking, civilian killing, city levelling, and all. There can not be some half-way point. We can not be so concerned about protecting human life, regardless of the values those independent minds hold, that we forget what the objective of a war is. It is to win, and if that is not the objective then the war should not be fought to begin with.Actually, there is no error to be found: terrorism is a military tactic. The legitimacy of its use lies, not in military strategy, but in philosophic principle. When America used it in the examples you mention, it was perfectly legitimate because America is perfectly (morally) legitimate. And it would be legitimate today. However, a technical tactic cannot be used as philosophic justification. The latter determines the former, not vice versa. Which was the point of my post.
If there are a great majority of freedom-loving Iraqi's, Ukrainians, South Korean's, Chinese, Afghani's, they really have two options. Either they can sanction their government and the way they live (explicitly or simply through their apathy) or they can fight against it, as the founding fathers of our country fought for theirs. Those in our enemy countries who yearn for freedom have the oppurtunity to be benefactor's to mankind in the same way George Washington, John Locke, and many more great men are the benefactors of our lives. These heroic men did not fight because they were interested in being heroes. The spoke out and fought because they refused to live in a world where men were reduced to slavery, dogma, economic misery, political injustice and more.While I'm not saying that every civilian living under dictatorship is a moral person, or that the US military should be deployed to any and every hellhole that "needs freedom," you must realize that the United States of America does not exist in isolation.
In any clash between the US and some foreign evil, it is the US that has much to lose, hence the need to put pressure where it counts: the US intellectual class. The dictatorships of the world will exploit every instance of altruism they find, and the US, like virtually every great society in history, has her fair share of altruism in foreign policy. [There was yet no Ayn Rand with the Objectivist Ethics.]
Even if we were to ignore the latest case, i.e., the appeasement of Iran (in spite of a very vocal and semi-rational internal opposition), we can see the vacillating support given to Israel and India (against Pakistan). See also the appeasement of Gaddafi when he should have been destroyed all those years ago. And what about the money given to the PLO? And the support - even if minor - given to Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war? And the insanely ridiculous sanction of OPEC, allowing some gutter gangsters to determine prices of a commodity produced by Americans???!!!!
Whenever you pay that high price to fill your car tank, just remember that it needn't be so.
There are other examples in history - lesser known - of some dubious practices in American foreign policy. One example that comes to mind is the curious death of a Nigerian politician who had been popularly elected president of that country but was denied office by the Nigerian military and thrown in jail. On the eve of his release 5 years later, he dies after drinking a "cup of tea" in the presence of Thomas Pickering and Dr. Susan Rice, both high-ranking U.S. officials. In fact, it was Pickering who broke the news to the numb Nigerian populace. The politician was a very successful businessman with the potential to take that country out of its misery by bolstering enterprise and pro-American feeling. His death was glossed over in the American press - who cares what happens in some African backwater?
And most of us are aware of the (pragmatically proper) US Cold War strategy of deposing any pro-Soviet government in the Third World. The biggest errors committed here lie in the kind of cretins substituted for the pro-Soviet regimes. The worst of the worst were used, thus giving capitalism a bad name.
One may argue that "the majority of people in these Arab countries were not on the verge of becoming Objectivists or anything, so what's all the fuss about?" But the point can be made that neither are Americans.
America has to set an example by not tolerating any kind of nonsense. For, even with all the problems I have listed, her foreign policy is still the best. Virtually no other country on earth would stand up today for any kind of life-enhancing principle.
The US need not go around freeing the world. But where it is in her interest to do so, she must work to do so properly and if need be, ruthlessly.
-
I'm not exactly certain how you are defining "faction" Burgess, but there are clearly at least two different organizations promoting Objectivism, each with a different understanding of the philosophy and different approaches. There is also another upstart Objectivist organization, namely SoloHQ. There is also an "independent" "Randian scholar" in Chris Sciabbarra (complete with his own philosophical journal, The Journal Of Ayn Rand Studies). Now for my part, as interesting (and amusing) as some of these non-ARI entities can be, ARI is far superior both in their grasp of the philosophy and in their strategy for promoting it. [see Diannah Hessiah's writing on her blog concerning her reasons for leaving TOC.] But that being said, both these organizations are legitimate institutions with an underlying support base. A support base that for the most part does not respect (to put it mildly in some cases) each other. In fact, I think if you put Leanord Peikoff, Nathaniel Branden, David Kelly, Chriss Sciabbarra, and Lindsey Perigio in the same room, there might be a mercy killing
In my opinion, I would say if they aren't factions, they are pretty close.
So, you are saying that what Kelley, Sciabarra, and Perigo write about is Objectivism?
-
Bravo!
And thanks...
-
I don't think the principle of "will-breaking" (i.e., terrorism) should determine whether - or how much - force should be brought to bear on enemy civilians. The decider is the value of American life, i.e., the American soldier. If one soldier may perish unnecessarily in some strike plan, that plan is no good.
So, why don't U.S. government officials see this truth more clearly? What are the facts that make this position contentious in their minds apart from a faulty epistemology?
I believe it has to do with guilt arising from the altruistic protection of Western businesses who deal with corrupt governments, thereby strengthening the dictatorships and dooming any internal opposition to evil.
I am speaking here specifically of the US (and Western) sanction of the oil cartel OPEC and all of its tributaries. When an Elf or Shell or Exxon-Mobil agrees to "share" its profits with the gangsters who rule the "oil-producing" nations, they are arming these governments, who use the money to buy weapons (to eliminate dissidents) or fund terrorists (to destroy America).
So, in countries where a freedom-loving opposition exists, their fight is now much harder. In the past, a government could be toppled almost solely by internal opposition, since such a government usually did not have the enormous sums that crude oil "profit-sharing" has made available.
Western governments ought to reclaim their absolute rights to the oil produced by their citizens, and refuse any payments to rights-denying governments.
Because of the present sanction of dictatorships, the heroes in bondage (and that is what it is) are sacrificed. This then leads, logically, to American life being sacrificed: September 11. The roots of a tree cannot ignore the handiwork of any of its branches.
-
I too had some difficulty with Hugo. I bought Toilers of the Sea, The Man Who Laughs, and Notre Dame De Paris. In all cases, although impressed by his majestic style, I couldn't get past the winding pedagogical(?) essays.
Then, a noted Objectivist, whom I won't name here, gave me a book which contained the early work of Hugo: Hans of Iceland, Bug-Jargal, and Claude Gueux, in that order.
Thoyd Loki expressed it best:
I will say however that, even in the English, if you keep with it through the end you will have an experience that is unparalelled in literature. You won't even experience them in Ayn Rand's works because Hugo's works tend to end tragically, and they pack a strong emotion punch usually in the last dozen pages.While Ayn Rand's work in We The Living and some select parts of her other work come close, Thoyd Loki's evaluation is exactly right. My wanting - even if certified - French, also added to my appreciation of the material, as I would translate the grandest passages and phrases into Hugo's native tongue, in order to grasp the work at its best.
I won't say any more because it will ruin your experience. I just want to tell you this: if you wish to experience emotions you have never felt before - short of childbirth or fatherhood - you must read Victor Hugo today.
-
With all due respect to Burgess -- and, I must admit I have not read his book, but this statement of yours has piqued my interest and I will order a copy now -- this is a theme that certainly has been touched on before. For a prime example I refer you to John Herman Randall, Jr's classic paper, "The Development of Scientific Method in the School of Padua," Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 177-206, April 1940, and to the references therein. (Incidentally, as much as I enjoyed Randall's book on Aristotle {reviewed by Ayn Rand}, I personally think of this paper by Randall as his greatest work.)
Thank you for the reference, Mr. Speicher. I will follow-up on your recommendation.
-
Thank you for the valuable reference to OPAR, p. 150 -- which I had forgotten. I have learned from part of what you have said.
Thank you for your fidelity to reality. [i want to say, in passing, that I have read your book, The Aristotle Adventure and enjoyed it very much. Although I am not a historian, I think it may be safe to posit that your work there may well be the very first time that anyone, anywhere, has shown, by explicitly tracing the relevant historical figures and institutions, how Aristotle's epistemology was accepted and utilized by Galileo, i.e., how inductive logic unites ancient and modern physics.]
First, you are saying that an "objectivist" is one who has an objective epistemology, that is, an epistemology which (in my words) produces ideas that have a certain relationship to the facts of reality, a logical relationship. (Your summary -- "an unceasing mental oscillation between concretes and abstractions in the formulation of actionable principles, whilst keeping context and hierarchy" -- is very apt.) I can agree with this definition of "objectivist" in this epistemological context.I do not agree that anyone who has an objective epistemology (an explicit theory of how we know things) necessarily would have an Objectivist epistemology. The latter is a particular formulation of some areas of epistemology by one objective person, Ayn Rand.
I agree with you that there is no such thing as "an objectivist," if that is used to refer to an individual (in any context). What I did say was that a person can be "objectivist." I did not mean "an objectivist." The small "o" here serves to obliterate Miss Rand's property rights. For "empiricism" and "rationalism," however, there were no claims on these concepts -- which makes sense, for neither of these schools' philosophers subscribe(d) in full to egoism. Auguste Comte, who coined "altruism," performed the most unselfish deed, indeed.
Second, if an "objectivist" is someone who holds a theory of objective epistemology, that fact says nothing about that person's metaphysics, ethics, politics, or esthetics. If his philosophy is inconsistent (for example, severing his epistemology from his ethics), he could have a wildly mystical ethics. I have met scientists like this: They advocate objectivity for the study of facts (sciences), and then fall back on revelation as a source of values (ethics)
I agree with this, which is why I wrote that anyone who claims to be objective today must necessarily be an Objectivist. Prior to Ayn Rand, a fact-based writer could be a Christopher Hitchens, a rather objective fellow who is, however, wrong on some important issues.
So, an "objectivist" is not necessarily an Objectivist, that is, one who agrees with Ayn Rand's whole philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics.
I would amend this to read: "So, being "objectivist" was not necessarily being an Objectivist, that is, one who agrees with Ayn Rand's whole philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics." Then, I'd add: being "objectivist" would mean applying an objective approach to ideas in ALL facets of one's life - to all of objective reality.
In other words, objective, objectivist and Objectivist are not fully synonyms, although in certain uses and in certain contexts they are certainly compatible.
I agree entirely.
Also, one needs to keep in mind the distinction between "objective" (a concept of method) and "correct" (a concept of result). There can be many slip-ups in the process of reaching a conclusion. Two are errors in knowledge (for example, insufficient knowledge) and innocent errors in logic (especially in induction, the least developed area of logic).
This is a very interesting formulation you've made here. This very issue has been at the forefront of my mind for months but remained unnamed till now. I think this is the true test of an Objectivist, and of a person's objectivity: understanding this distinction. Which is why I do not consider simply agreeing with Ayn Rand's conclusions (while I agree now with a great many of them) the mark of objectivity.
Ultimate Constituents and their Actions
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
I just want to add (even though I'm sure Mr. Speicher is aware of this) that metaphysics does not say that (only) a physical world exists. (See Leonard Peikoff's OPAR, Chapter One.) In reality, there is also consciousness, which is not material, i.e., not physical.
Matter might substantiate consciousness, but it is not consciousness. That is to say, consciousness qua consciousness falls outside the domain of matter and, thus, of physics.
Consciousness may be produced by chemophysical components and processes, but, to quote Harry Binswanger, "what is produced is produced." (The Metaphysics of Consciousness.)
Consciousness is an irreducible primary.