The Ominous Parallels: Introduction

[Bowzer]

Rather than let the idea peter out, I thought that I might take the liberty to begin a thread on the first part of the book, Ayn Rand's Introduction.

I just have two points that I want to make. There are two things that should be kept in mind while reading this book. This is, of course, in addition to the book's factual and philosophical substance.

• Psycho-epistemology
  Dr. Peikoff illustrates connections between the broadest abstractions and historical concretes. Reading The Ominous Parallels (henceforth OP) can be considered a psycho-epistemological exercise. In reading OP, you are moving your mind through the steps that a great philosopher has/would make. Miss Rand writes:
  

  He gives a virtuoso performance of shuttling effortlessly between abstractions and concretes—keeping the first tied firmly to reality and thus illuminating the second.

• Relevance to current events
  This book couldn't be more relevant than it is today. Again, Miss Rand:
  

  It is a tragic irony of our time that the two worst, bloodiest tribes in history, the Nazis of Germany and the Communists of Soviet Russia, both of whom are motivated by brute power-lust and a crudely materialistic greed for the unearned, show respect for the power of philosophy (they call it "ideology") and spend billions of their looted wealth on propaganda and indoctrination, realizing that man's mind is their most dangerous enemy and it is man's mind that they have to destroy—while the United States and the other countries of the West, who claim to believe in the superiority of the human spirit over matter, neglect philosophy, despise ideas, starve the best minds of the young, offer nothing but the stalest slogans of a materialistic altruism in the form of global giveaways, and wonder why they are losing the world to the thugs.

  There is a third tribe: Islamists. And the United States continues to bathe in self-abrogation.
  

Thoughts?

[Edit Note: it's bathe not bath...I hate spelling errors. ]

Edited May 20, 2004 by Bowzer

[stephen_speicher]

There is a third tribe: Islamists. And the United States continues to bath in self-abrogation.

Thoughts?

I would say that the Islamists represent a greater threat to humanity than either the Communists or the Nazis. The latter two were content to just kill vast numbers of people who stood in their way, while the former is dedicated to the destruction of life, per se.

[dark_stranger]

Finally picked up my copy, and read the introduction. How about the others who were going to read along? Are we all caught up?

Anyway, as for the 'third tribe'... I would agree with Stephen that the Islamists are more dangerous. Their committment to the destruction of life as a whole is reflected in the fact that their war on the West is not fought by any particular army representing any particular government; it is waged by small cells using terror tactics. Their goal appears to be sheer nihilism - of anything that fits into the category of 'other'. This sort of thinking will inevitably lead to the end of even themselves if left unchecked. If ever the enemies to Islam as a whole were crushed, then the factions would fight over which strict interpretation of Islam is correct, and on and on. Their radical mysticism makes it inconsequential to them if the whole world dies in the process.

Thanks for keeping the 'read and discuss' idea alive, Bowzer.

[Elle]

I'm caught up now, this end of quarter school stuff is a time consumer though.

I hope this thread doesn't die out, but unfortunately I can't get in depth about what I've read thus far because of time constraints...

perhaps we could select a point to read to and then make another thread?

[khaight]

perhaps we could select a point to read to and then make another thread?

This point wasn't made in the introduction to the book, but it came to mind in relation to the Islamicists. Peikoff wrote that one of the effects of Germany philosophy was that it allowed Naziism to present itself as a form of moral idealism. Opponents of the Nazis characterized Hitler as 'misguided' and 'extreme', but they couldn't reject him as fundamentally wrong because they shared the same underlying premises. Being misguided or extreme just indicates a political dispute, but being accepted as moral idealists is a tremendous sanction.

A similar dynamic exists today between the 'moderate' Muslims and the Islamicists. Bush keeps trying to claim the Islamicists are 'hijacking' Islam, but this isn't really true. The Islamicists are in many cases simply more faithfully executing religious dogma which even the moderates accept as valid. This results in the moderates condemning terrorism as an ineffective means, but not attacking it as morally unacceptable or un-Islamic. And just as in the case of the Nazis, a dispute over means within the context of deeper shared moral premises plays into the hands of the more consistent advocates.

[stephen_speicher]

A similar dynamic exists today between the 'moderate' Muslims and the Islamicists.  Bush keeps trying to claim the Islamicists are 'hijacking' Islam, but this isn't really true.  The Islamicists are in many cases simply more faithfully executing religious dogma which even the moderates accept as valid.  This results in the moderates condemning terrorism as an ineffective means, but not attacking it as morally unacceptable or un-Islamic.  And just as in the case of the Nazis, a dispute over means within the context of deeper shared moral premises plays into the hands of the more consistent advocates.

I think this is an excellent identification. The facts become so clear once they are illuminated by the underlying ideas. I wish more of those on talk radio, those whose words reach many, many millions of people, better understood even a portion of this issue.

[AshRyan]

I think this is an excellent identification...

I agree.

[AshRyan]

perhaps we could select a point to read to and then make another thread?

What we need is a schedule. Say, one chapter a week shouldn't be too much for anyone to handle. Then, every Sunday (or whatever day everyone would like to select) someone can start a new thread for that week's scheduled chapter.