Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Checking Premises . ORG Statements and My Position

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Way back on the 14th of February, I posted a comment acknowledging the fact that she thought that eating brainless babies was immoral. I'm just bringing up the topic again because I followed through with Dan Edge's suggestion to reconsider. As to the irony, at least I did correct my stance, which the subjectivist objectivist does not do on the long laundry list I gave about things they think are compatible with Objectivism.

Since the topic of this thread is the objective method and correcting one's errors, I did do that, so consider the irony if you will, but notice I did follow through with a correction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I did correct my stance, which the subjectivist objectivist does not do on the long laundry list I gave about things they think are compatible with Objectivism.

Well, your list of examples of the "subjectivist objectivst's" ideas, (converted to bullet-points) is:

  • Libertarianism (rights based on wants and desires),
  • anarcho-capitalism (competition of governments, which Miss Rand specifically rejected),
  • God (for which there is no evidence), rationalism as an ideal (logic not based on facts),
  • Sophism (using pseudo-logic to justify anything you want to do),
  • modern art ( no content smears on canvas),
  • determinism (which rejects reason is volitional)

Most folk who are arguing with you in this thread would agree with your list. Of these, it's easy to agree that sophism is wrong, but not so easy to agree on whether some particular argument is sophist. (And on modern art, Jonathan13 may disagree). Anyhow, in general it's a fair list. So, let's agree that "objectivists" standing up for these positions are the ones we'll call "subjectivist objectivists".

Surely, you're not claiming the Diana Hsieh supports libertarianism, anarchism, determinism, sophism or god. If so, would you agree that she is not a subjectivist-objectivist if we use your list as a razor?

Since the topic of this thread is the objective method and correcting one's errors, I did do that, so consider the irony if you will, but notice I did follow through with a correction.
Well, kudos to you for correcting yourself. And, using this standard, shouldn't you say, kudos to Diana for correcting herself? Instead, you say she deserves "scorn"?

Scorn? For what... for taking the risk of standing up and saying stuff to and among other Objectivists, and occasionally having the spontaneity backfire by mis-speaking or by not thinking something through, and then having to walk back something she said? Surely heaping scorn on such a person is a grave injustice.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bullet points were never intended to be a complete list of positions held that are contrary to Objectivism, but, no, I have not heard DH stating those sorts of conclusions and standing by them. However, there is one that I could add to the list, and that is the idea that the government (or the Supreme Court) determines or grants us our rights (which DH did use even in her long write up rebuttal). Here is her argument:

[The government determines our rights]

The Supreme Court has determined that brainless children do not have rights

Therefore we can conclude that there is a possibility that we could eat them (like cows or chickens)

But this would be immoral

It is the implied premise in brackets that she has not checked even in her long rebuttal to critics. Rights are not determined by the government -- they are determined by the nature of man and the requirements his survival in the context of a social system. Notice, also, that her last conclusion, that it would be immoral to eat them does not follow from her premises. It's like an aside added on. In fact, if one accepts the premises presented, then one could quite legitimately conclude that it would be OK to eat them; just as the Founders and the early Supreme Court determined that the negro does not have rights, and therefore it would be OK to enslave them. And besides all that, morality *precedes* the issue of rights. One has to understand not that man can think and therefore has rights, but rather that he *must* think in order to survive, and therefore must be free to think and to act on his thoughts in a social context. Now, I don't think DH really thinks that the SC determines our rights, but she also didn't explicitly reject that premise even in her long write-up. So, the scorn comes from her methodology, not her conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It explains in a sentence the reasoning. The reasoning does not include any mention of the Supreme Court. It would be arbitrary to suggest that Hsieh thinks the SC is the basis of her argument. You are misconstruing what is said. You may as well say [god determines our rights] in the brackets because Hsieh also didn't explicitly reject that premise even in her long write up. You probably don't think Hsieh believes that god determines who has rights, but hey, she didn't say she didn't! I have no issue with you questioning a conclusion, what I have issue with is you using an arbitrary idea, which is itself a methodology issue.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It explains in a sentence the reasoning. The reasoning does not include any mention of the Supreme Court. It would be arbitrary to suggest that Hsieh thinks the SC is the basis of her argument. You are misconstruing what is said. You may as well say [god determines our rights] in the brackets because Hsieh also didn't explicitly reject that premise even in her long write up. You probably don't think Hsieh believes that god determines who has rights, but hey, she didn't say she didn't! I have no issue with you questioning a conclusion, what I have issue with is you using an arbitrary idea, which is itself a methodology issue.

Indeed, Thomas attributing views to me out of thin air... yet again. (That's why I unfriended him on FB. I was only willing to attempt to explain myself about 15 times.) I've never said that the courts determine what rights are, and I certainly don't believe that to be the case. (The courts can and ought to establish tests for the proper application and enforcement of rights, and clearly they have to do that in cases of mental incapacity, but that's not the same thing.) No one familiar with my extensive writings on abortion rights could possibly think that I hold the view that rights are determined by government fiat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, here is the podcast. From what I can tell of your arguments, you haven't even listened to it. So, at the risk of becoming this guy, here's all the facts to prove you are wrong about your arguments vs DH regarding this topic, no matter how much rationalization, argument from emotion, misrepresentation, and sophistry you use.

She begins to address anencephalics at 4:20.

She begins addressing anencephalic rights at 5:50.

Addressing eating anencephalics at 7:30.

Addressing morality of eating anencephalics at 8:40. Conclusion: immoral.

Possible legal prohibitions: 8:50.

Comparison to stem cell babies and medical experimentation: 8:56.

Addressing baby-back ribs: 9:30. Context: in jest and grossed-out, ie. dark humour.

Argument from repugnance (this is important for you): 11:00.

Discussing unsavory topics in philosophy discussions: 11:50.

Discussing basis for repugnance of eating anencephalics: 12:00.

Comparison to animal cruelty: 12:50

Pleasure in suffering of others and animal rights vs human rights: 12:30.

Cultural value of humanity vs indifference to eating anencephalics: 15:05

Eating human flesh vs violating rights: 15:30.

Quoting from her defense against CP:

I discussed the rights of the the severely mentally disabled in a May 2011 webcast. My basic view is that normal children, as well as mentally impaired children, have all the usual rights to care from their parents. However, in the rare cases of complete mental incapacity -- such as in the horrifically tragic cases of anencephalic babies, where only the brain stem exists -- rights cannot apply. Rights are not inherent in our DNA; they're based on the role of reason in man's survival. Hence, if a child is proven in court to have zero current or future capacity to reason -- or, as in the case of the anencephalic, not even the potential for consciousness -- then that child could be humanely enthanized by its parents.

On hearing this view, any thinking person will immediately inquire about the logical implications of saying that anencephalic babies have no rights. Consider the extreme cases: Does that mean that they could be treated like any other animal, e.g. used for medical experiments, kept as a pet, or even eaten for food? (UGH!) The thought is repulsive, undoubtedly, but that's not a reason to refuse to think about it. An honest person's thinking is guided by facts, not emotions, and refusing to examine the logical implications of views under consideration is just evasion. (I was asked about this very issue in a discussion over dinner with some Objectivist friends prior to the webcast. It's a natural question.)

Never does she imply that courts grant rights, only that if a legal case of "do anencephalics have rights based on the derivation of rights from man's capacity to reason?" was brought to court, and the court found that anencephalics in fact do not have rights because they don't have any ability whatsoever to reason, then it would be legally permissable to euthanize an anencephalic baby, if it even lives long enough to do it. Morally it would be permissible as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, time for a really big apology to Diana Hsieh. I went back and re-listened to the podcast in question (for about the third time) and also re-read that portion of her rebuttal to critics, think I misunderstood her statements about the court deciding that the brainless child could not reason, and therefore could be euthanized. Somehow, I took her statement to mean that the court grants us rights. She also clearly states that she thinks it would be immoral to eat them, though the "dark humor" of human baby baby-backed ribs (brought up several times) was misunderstood by me as her endorsement of actually eating them, especially since it went into having them in grocery stores and farms. I misunderstood her arguments several times.So,for that, I do apologize to her (since she is on oo.net and evidently listening it). But I will also send this note to her via email. Diana, I do apologize. It may very well have been my revulsion of eating human babies that led me to mis-interpret what you were saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations. You have shown yourself to be a better thinker, with more integrity, than I had previously imagined.

Given that your hangup over this issue seems to have been a key contributor to your conclusion that CP was doing right and good in attacking Diana Hsieh, what do you now think about CP?

Edit: cleaned up grammar, clarified my ending question.

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that your hangup over this issue seems to have been a key contributor to your conclusion that CP was doing right and good in attacking Diana Hsieh, what do you now think about CP?

I'm still thinking it through regarding CP now that I see that I was wrong about DH's explicit views that I have talked about(regarding brainless babies). John K seems to be more against her non-serious attitude and a certain amount of disrespect and possible misunderstanding of Dr. Peikoff's statements. There are a lot of Objectivists who jump on anything LP says, and many of them fail to take into account that his current means of communicating with students is through a 15 minute podcast that usually covers several topics, so he doesn't go into a lot of details; many times it is basically his answer with a very brief explanation.

I started off this thread being against the whole idea of a "subjectivist objectivist" because I misunderstood their position -- due to only Chip's essay being available, which wasn't very clear at all, and some very brief side comments John K made to me while friends on FaceBook. I understand their position better, and agree with them in principle -- that standing by a rationalistic position in spite of the facts being pointed out to one makes one a subjectivist placing an "I wish" over an "It is" (as in I wish my argument was as good as LP or Ayn Rand, though it clearly isn't because it does not follow an objective method). Whether this applies to DH or not is the issue.

I'll have to get back with you on that.

This thread has shown me that even after a great deal of context is given (Re NYC Mosque) some still don't get the argument, but is it rationalism while stamping one's foot at reality? I don't know at this point. Some issues are too serious (life or death) to leave much room for mere disagreements on applications of rational principles. For example, one might disagree with the manner in which one prevents the spread of Islamic Totalitarianism in the USA, but not over if it should be spread or not spread, since it is a direct threat to the Republic. Miss Rand held the view that the spread of communism (specifically official Communist Party affiliates) should have been prevented in the USA due to the fact that they wanted to take over the country by force, and the same argument can be made against Islamic Totalitarianism and radical imams. And clearly there are those who do not see it that way, though I'm not sure why.

So, I agree with the principle behind checkingpremises.org, but I am not sure about their specific applications to DH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I agree with the principle behind checkingpremises.org, but I am not sure about their specific applications to DH.
Here's the thing, imagine that I start a web-site that is "against all evil". Then, imagine I name you, Thomas, and an example of an evil person. Would you say "I agree with that site, in principle" ?

In a post above, I listed the concrete examples that you gave for "subjectivist Objectivists", and asked if you thought DH fit your own concretes. In essence, you've said she does not. Now, in contrast to this, the essay titled "Subjectivist Objectivists" on the CheckingPremises site says the following: "Dr. Hsieh seems to be the central [subjectivist objectivist]"

Obviously, the author's concept of "subjectivist objectivist" is not the same as yours if he holds DH to be "the central one". So, there is no real sense in which you agree with the principle he is espousing. The words may be the same, but the meanings are different. For instance, I would not say that I agree with Mother Teresa's because she praises good and denounces evil, and so do I.

Yes, that site does not dwell on Diana alone. They cover the Brandens and Kelly and Diana. However, for the first two we're given links to old stuff, and the only two (relatively) substantial posts talk about Diana.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a post above, I listed the concrete examples that you gave for "subjectivist Objectivists", and asked if you thought DH fit your own concretes. In essence, you've said she does not. Now, in contrast to this, the essay titled "Subjectivist Objectivists" on the CheckingPremises site says the following: "Dr. Hsieh seems to be the central [subjectivist objectivist]"

Like I said, I need to re-think through the issue as it relates to DH.

However, in my laundry list of things not compatible with Objectivism, it is not holding those concretes per se that would make one a subjectivist, but rather holding onto those ideas in spite of the fact that it can be shown not to relate to reality and not relate to Objectivism specifically. Methodology is the key, not the conclusion. The bad methodology led one to those false conclusions, and Objectivism is primarily about objectivity -- of arguing from the facts in a non-contradictory manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, time for a really big apology to Diana Hsieh. I went back and re-listened to the podcast in question (for about the third time) and also re-read that portion of her rebuttal to critics, think I misunderstood her statements about the court deciding that the brainless child could not reason, and therefore could be euthanized. Somehow, I took her statement to mean that the court grants us rights. She also clearly states that she thinks it would be immoral to eat them, though the "dark humor" of human baby baby-backed ribs (brought up several times) was misunderstood by me as her endorsement of actually eating them, especially since it went into having them in grocery stores and farms. I misunderstood her arguments several times.So,for that, I do apologize to her (since she is on oo.net and evidently listening it). But I will also send this note to her via email. Diana, I do apologize. It may very well have been my revulsion of eating human babies that led me to mis-interpret what you were saying.

I appreciate the correction and apology. However, I wish that you'd realized this months ago, when I repeatedly told you that you were grossly misrepresenting what I'd said in the webcast. Unfortunately, at this point, you can't un-do the damage that you've done to me by spreading this awful lie about me to countless unknown people on various corners of the internet.

Still, I'm relieved that this won't be an issue any longer, and I appreciate the public correction. That's something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, I'm relieved that this won't be an issue any longer, and I appreciate the public correction. That's something.

Well, it is definitely true that I should have made sure I was right about your actual position before spreading false ideas about you, which is why I offered the apology. It is understandable that it doesn't heal things between us. As to various corners of the internet, it was only on FaceBook and oo.net, which is bad enough, but I did post the apology to FB, here, and on Dan Edge's blog regarding that controversy.

I'm not sure how much of a following I have, so I'm not sure how much damage I did, but it certainly makes the point that one ought to know what one's intellectual opponent is actually saying before being against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You ought to do a lot more than that. People who paid attention to you back then may not be doing so any more... in particular the people who de-friended you over Checking Premises. Figure out who has in fact listened to you and proactively find them and tell them you were wrong on an individual basis.

Yeah that's a lot of work, but you did a lot of f*ckup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally disagree with that project. I posted it to three public places, and I also made it into a FaceBook Note, which I can refer to if anyone is curious about my position. There is no way I can hunt down everyone who may have been involved in that thread on FaceBook, and while DH did say that wasn't her position, no one else went through the trouble of listening to the podcast first-hand and telling me I was wrong until this thread a few days ago. In other words, most of my readers did not think it was such a big deal, which rather floored me. A few did, and they are still FB friends and I mentioned the issue twice. There is no need to contact the CP persons, since they do not hold the position that DH advocated eating brainless babies anyhow, they have different concerns about her methodology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to find a direct quote from Ayn Rand on keeping the Communist Party out of the United States, since they advocated overthrowing the government with force (and actually acting on it would be a high crime, treason for an American citizen and espionage for foreigners); however, I couldn't find it just yet. I did, however, come across an interesting quote regarding smear campaigns and double standards specifically related to the Communist Party and its affiliates in the United States:

"The Communist Party openly advocates the overthrow of the government by force and violence, but an individual member, who knew it when he joined the party, is not presumed to share this view, unless it is proved that he personally advocated it. Yet a rightist is presumed to share the views of an organization on the basis of a mailing list or a panel discussion." [from "The Disfranchisement Of The Right" The Ayn Rand Letter]

In other words, the fact that Raul, the former head of the NYC Mosque project, is not to be presumed to share the views of radical Islamic Totalitarians, who want to take over the world by force and destroy the United States in the process, even though he studied under them and clearly associates with them whenever he can. If he were serious about rejecting Islamic Totalitarianism, then he should come right out and condemn them as being evil and not want to run a mosque in their name and their policies, and would totally disassociate himself from them. But we don't see even "moderate" Muslims doing this. They say it is crazy to fly an airplane into a building and killing 3,000 Americans, but they won't say it is evil and disassociate themselves from Islam in the name of rationality and civilized behavior. This is considered to be a smear campaign against Islam means peace advocates.And yet, the radical Muslims are free to condemn anyone living under a capitalist or even a semi-free country, and are not considered evil by the Main Stream Media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In her HUAC testimony, Miss Rand held that the US government could not stop communist propaganda [during times of peace], but that they could investigate any and all communists, since they advocated the use of force to overthrow the government. She held that this would not be a violation of either free speech or the right of association or any other right, because the government's job is to protect American's from acts of force. And this was during the time when the Soviets had not even attacked us physically, like flying airplanes into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.

In time of war, I do think it is appropriate to stop enemy infiltrators into the USA, which means preventing the building of a mosque near their destruction sight for the purpose of spreading radical Islam or Islamic Totalitarianism. So, I completely agree with Dr. Peikoff on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, your list of examples of the "subjectivist objectivst's" ideas, (converted to bullet-points) is:

Most folk who are arguing with you in this thread would agree with your list. Of these, it's easy to agree that sophism is wrong, but not so easy to agree on whether some particular argument is sophist. (And on modern art, Jonathan13 may disagree). Anyhow, in general it's a fair list. So, let's agree that "objectivists" standing up for these positions are the ones we'll call "subjectivist objectivists".

Surely, you're not claiming the Diana Hsieh supports libertarianism, anarchism, determinism, sophism or god. If so, would you agree that she is not a subjectivist-objectivist if we use your list as a razor?

Well, kudos to you for correcting yourself. And, using this standard, shouldn't you say, kudos to Diana for correcting herself? Instead, you say she deserves "scorn"?

Scorn? For what... for taking the risk of standing up and saying stuff to and among other Objectivists, and occasionally having the spontaneity backfire by mis-speaking or by not thinking something through, and then having to walk back something she said? Surely heaping scorn on such a person is a grave injustice.

This whole thread reminds me of the Peikoff Rape thread. When people are speaking extemporaneously, in the ring, so to speak, even if they are professional philosophers with something of a duty to accuracy in their thoughts, they're still human and their previous opinions simply must be held in mind when deciding if your own understanding of what they said in the spur of the moment is a reasonably accurate representation of what was actually going on in their minds. If you get to the point where Leonard Peikoff advocates rape and Diana Hsieh advocates eating babies, look back at their record and actually check your premises before you check theirs. If they have what appear to be contradictions in their thoughts, feel free to ask for clarification, but when you assume the worst and the worst is almost patently absurd, your accusations say much more about you then they do about them to anyone caring enough to listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, the fact that Raul, the former head of the NYC Mosque project, is not to be presumed to share the views of radical Islamic Totalitarians, who want to take over the world by force and destroy the United States in the process, even though he studied under them and clearly associates with them whenever he can. If he were serious about rejecting Islamic Totalitarianism, then he should come right out and condemn them as being evil and not want to run a mosque in their name and their policies, and would totally disassociate himself from them.

Hang on. Will you please provide your source on how "[Rauf] studied under [islamic totalitarians] and clearly associates with them whenever he can,"? Also, in regard to this line, "If he were serious about rejecting Islamic Totalitarianism, then he should come right out and condemn them as being evil and not want to run a mosque in their name and their policies, and would totally disassociate himself from them," I am pretty sure I saw somebody post a link to him being interviewed on TV where he stated he rejected that stuff, but I must admit I'm having trouble finding it again now. :( If whoever posted it before sees this and can point me back to their post again I would really appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure I saw somebody post a link to him being interviewed on TV where he stated he rejected that stuff, but I must admit I'm having trouble finding it again now.

Post 135 links to the interview. I've not seen the video myself yet, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on. Will you please provide your source on how "[Rauf] studied under [islamic totalitarians] and clearly associates with them whenever he can,"? Also, in regard to this line, "If he were serious about rejecting Islamic Totalitarianism, then he should come right out and condemn them as being evil and not want to run a mosque in their name and their policies, and would totally disassociate himself from them," I am pretty sure I saw somebody post a link to him being interviewed on TV where he stated he rejected that stuff, but I must admit I'm having trouble finding it again now. :( If whoever posted it before sees this and can point me back to their post again I would really appreciate it.

I provided a link to a long investigation by PJ Media regarding Rauf, and his associations with radical Islamic Totalitarians is well documented. "However, Rauf directly contradicted his conciliatory behavior [claiming he was against 911] with a firebrand interview with the Sydney Morning Herald. Terrorism, he stated, will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims." He makes references to WWII and to the US supporting dictators against Muslims, though he doesn't mention that Islamic Theocracy of Iran is far worse, if freedom is his standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read that link to the interview. It isn't apparent that he thinks such actions are proper, just that it seems he can understand why some would be angry (though not necessarily approving of what they may do about that anger) and expects that the same kind of (what he hopefully acknowledges as bad) responses are likely to keep happening (even though they shouldn't) as long as things pretty much stay the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is absurd to think that the Muslims (radical Muslims) ought to still be so angry at the fire bombings of Dresden during WWII (in which the Muslim population of Germany sided with Hitler because he was against the Jews), that they would attack the USA as if the war is still going on. I've heard similar things from radical Muslims that take the fight all the way back to the Christian Crusades!

And this is being said by those who routinely riot and try to kill as many Westerners as they can when a Koran is said to have been burned, including four Americans just this week in Afghanistan when it was reported that a Koran was "accidentally burned" on our military base in Kabul. It's just absurd to think that such mentalities are keeping some sort of rational context for the harm done to Muslims by the USA over the past 60 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The anger cited in that link isn't about the WWII stuff, that was just citing other stuff America had done before that involved civilian targets. The anger he is talking about is about the stuff mentioned like support for dictators where these people live during their life times. I'm not saying anything about whether he is right or not about anything to do with those people's motives, if that kind of thing has anything at all to do with it, but I am saying there is another explanation for his words than that he is agreeing with and cheering on the acts of terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...