Regarding the intellectual calibre of "ARI Objectivists" (some questions)
Chris Cathcart
and/or ARI here in this newsgroup, regarding the intellectual calibre of
those to whom they are claiming intellectual allegience.
First, do you find it all troubling that there seem to be few established
intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals, that is,
intellectuals who've had a major impact in their field (particularly the most
important field from an Objectivist's point of view, i.e., philosophy)?
Do you find this this particularly troubling considering that Objectivism has
been around as a *cultural* (as distinct from intellectual) influence for more
than 40 years now, and considering that Objectivism is purportedly such a
revolutionary and pathbreaking philosophy that has solved the central problems
of philosophy?
Do you find it troubling that many very bright minds -- a very considerable
number of them compared to what remains -- are for some reason or other no
longer in good standing with the the principles of ARI, its allied
organizations, etc.?
How might you account for this rather significant lack of established
intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals?
Would you consider the publishing record of the people allied with the ARI
and/or its principals to be an important indicator of the kind of impact that
they are having in their field?
Do you consider the publishing record of these people to be particularly
impressive? Is it a disturbing sign to you that with only a few exceptions,
the publishing record of these people is almost non-existent outside of books
with the name "Ayn Rand" featured prominently on or within them or books
published by Ayn Rand Institute Press (a sign that it might have been
difficult to find any other publishers for them)?
--
Chris Cathcart
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Anthony Argyriou
>I have some questions, primarily addressed to the supporters of Peikoff
>and/or ARI here in this newsgroup, regarding the intellectual calibre of
>those to whom they are claiming intellectual allegience.
I am not an "Official Objectivist", but I'll take a stab at some of
these:
>First, do you find it all troubling that there seem to be few established
>intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals, that is,
>intellectuals who've had a major impact in their field (particularly the most
>important field from an Objectivist's point of view, i.e., philosophy)?
No. Rand was not taken seriously by academic philosophers during her
lifetime, and still isn't - this does not negate any of the truth of
her statements, just as support of the academic philosophical
establishment does nothing to validate any of Marx's conclusions.
>Do you find this this particularly troubling considering that Objectivism has
>been around as a *cultural* (as distinct from intellectual) influence for more
>than 40 years now, and considering that Objectivism is purportedly such a
>revolutionary and pathbreaking philosophy that has solved the central problems
>of philosophy?
No. You're assuming a yes answer to above. Also, Objectivism is a
strong _intellectual_ influence in many circles, just not in
philosophy departments in universities.
>Do you find it troubling that many very bright minds -- a very considerable
>number of them compared to what remains -- are for some reason or other no
>longer in good standing with the the principles of ARI, its allied
>organizations, etc.?
This would distress me if I were an ARI partisan. However, as an
outsider, I think that competition within the Objectivist movement is
a good thing - having people who will critique work from the same or
very similar framework is very useful. Of course, this requires the
opposing parties to actually critique each others' work.
>How might you account for this rather significant lack of established
>intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals?
See above. The academic philosophy world doesn't want outsiders
knocking at the gates. I suspect that work like Lakoff's "Philosophy
in the Flesh" will be about as poorly received as Rand's work, because
Lakoff is not a "Philosopher".
>Would you consider the publishing record of the people allied with the ARI
>and/or its principals to be an important indicator of the kind of impact that
>they are having in their field?
Possibly - I would consider the number of posts in non-objectivism
Usenet groups which argue points from Objectivist premises to be
another important indicator.
>Do you consider the publishing record of these people to be particularly
>impressive?
No.
>Is it a disturbing sign to you that with only a few exceptions,
>the publishing record of these people is almost non-existent outside of books
>with the name "Ayn Rand" featured prominently on or within them or books
>published by Ayn Rand Institute Press (a sign that it might have been
>difficult to find any other publishers for them)?
I don't know the politics of publishing under the ARIP label - it
might be a first choice rather than a last resort. To some extent,
the prominent use of the name "Ayn Rand" is a marketing gimmick -
Nathaniel Branden would not sell as many copies of his "My Life With
Ayn Rand" if he had titled it "A Philosophical Life" or some such.
Since the ARI doesn't have a trademark on the name "Ayn Rand", there
isn't a big problem with their use of the name for marketing purposes,
as long as the books really are about her or her philosophy.
Anthony Argyriou
Betsy Speicher
> I have some questions, primarily addressed to the supporters of Peikoff
> and/or ARI here in this newsgroup, regarding the intellectual calibre of
> those to whom they are claiming intellectual allegience.
>
> First, do you find it all troubling that there seem to be few
> established intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its
> principals, that is, intellectuals who've had a major impact in their
> field (particularly the most important field from an Objectivist's point
> of view, i.e., philosophy)?
Not yet. The goal of Objectivists is not to win over the intellectual
establishment, but to REPLACE it. Also, quality is much more important
than quantity.
As you are aware, establishing a career in academia takes time, but
ARI-sponsored and affiliated scholars are getting their PHD's getting
published in academic journals and books and in the popular media, honing
their teaching and writing skills, and getting speaking engagements,
university courses to teach, and tenure.
From what I've seen, in the slightly over a decade that the Ayn Rand
Institute (ARI) has been encouraging intellectual and campus clubs and the
less than five years in which the Objectivist Graduate Center has been in
existence, they have encouraged and promoted the careers of some quality
young minds.
> Do you find it troubling that many very bright minds -- a very
> considerable number of them compared to what remains -- are for some
> reason or other no longer in good standing with the the principles of
> ARI, its allied organizations, etc.?
There's nothing stopping those allegedly "bright minds" from doing good
intellectual work without ARI's financial and moral support. I suggest
they do so, IF they can, and stop whining about the fact that ARI chooses
to support somebody else.
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
Chris Cathcart
ant...@alphageo.com wrote:
> Chris Cathcart <cath...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >First, do you find it all troubling that there seem to be few established
> >intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals, tha
> >t is,
> >intellectuals who've had a major impact in their field (particularly the
> > most
> >important field from an Objectivist's point of view, i.e., philosophy)?
>
> lifetime, and still isn't - this does not negate any of the truth of
> her statements, just as support of the academic philosophical
> establishment does nothing to validate any of Marx's conclusions.
I haven't implied that agreement from the existing academic establishment is
required for someone to become established and achieve a reputation in the
field. I am well aware that Objectivists are not seeking agreement from the
current class of intellectuals (it would be unreasonable to expect this in
any event as a realistic goal), but rather to replace the future crop of
intellectuals with new ones as the old ones die off. But where's the
evidence that even this goal is being achieved? Did it take 40+ years for
the works of other revolutionary and pathbreaking ideas, such as those of
Wittgenstein (or so I've heard), to gain significant recognition among
philosophers? Why is it, 40+ years later, we are only beginning to see some
sign that those in a certain faction of the Objectivist movement are starting
to make headway in academia? The only one who's shown signs of this is Tara
Smith, and her influence, at least in terms of getting Objectivist ideas some
recognition (again, I'm not talking about agreement necessarily), has been
marginal.
> >Do you find this this particularly troubling considering that Objectivis
> >m has
> >been around as a *cultural* (as distinct from intellectual) influence for
more
> >than 40 years now, and considering that Objectivism is purportedly such a
> >revolutionary and pathbreaking philosophy that has solved the central
problems
> >of philosophy?
>
> No. You're assuming a yes answer to above. Also, Objectivism is a
> strong _intellectual_ influence in many circles, just not in
> philosophy departments in universities.
I basically answer this above. It's not like Objectivists and Objectivist
ideas are being blackballed. Even if there's overwhelming opposition to the
ideas, it seems that there would have to be some kind of conspiracy to keep
Objectivists unpublished if Objectivists really were producing high-quality
arguments, as controversial as they may be. After all, lots of crap gets
published, and is recognized as crap among those very intellectuals. Do they
prefer to see crap, to the point of blackballing good arguments?
> >Do you find it troubling that many very bright minds -- a very considerable
> >number of them compared to what remains -- are for some reason or other no
> >longer in good standing with the the principles of ARI, its allied
> >organizations, etc.?
>
> This would distress me if I were an ARI partisan. However, as an
> outsider, I think that competition within the Objectivist movement is
> a good thing - having people who will critique work from the same or
> very similar framework is very useful. Of course, this requires the
> opposing parties to actually critique each others' work.
Subjecting ideas to open critique is definitely a way to show one's
commitment to getting one's ideas taken seriously. Unfortunate that there
isn't much sign of it coming from the "ARI faction."
> >How might you account for this rather significant lack of established
> >intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals?
>
> See above. The academic philosophy world doesn't want outsiders
> knocking at the gates. I suspect that work like Lakoff's "Philosophy
> in the Flesh" will be about as poorly received as Rand's work, because
> Lakoff is not a "Philosopher".
I don't know quite how to interpret your claim. Surely, there are a lot of
academic philosophers who don't like the influx of new ideas, and there's lots
of resistance to change. For change to come about might require that most of
the already-established philosophers just die off. But how strongly are you
willing to push the claim that this is the case? Is there really some wicked
conspiracy afoot to, in effect, blackball new ideas to the point that
Objectivist ideas couldn't make headway? This would even seem to go against
the likelihood that Objectivists could end up replacing the existing crop of
intellectuals.
BTW, there *isn't* some blackballing going on of Objectivist ideas and
authors, because works of Objectivists and "neo-Objectivists" *do* get
published, and *do* receive recognition. But it happens to be occurring for
the most part in the case of Objectivists and neo-Objectivists no longer in
good standing with the "ARI crowd." Just ask Betsy Speicher to list sometime
the Objectivists who get published and have tenured positions at top
programs, and the list she'll produce is vastly outweighed by what's actually
gone on in the Objectivist movement at large.
> >Would you consider the publishing record of the people allied with the ARI
> >and/or its principals to be an important indicator of the kind of impact
> > that
> >they are having in their field?
>
> Possibly - I would consider the number of posts in non-objectivism
> Usenet groups which argue points from Objectivist premises to be
> another important indicator.
Perhaps.
> >Do you consider the publishing record of these people to be particularly
> >impressive?
>
> No.
>
> >Is it a disturbing sign to you that with only a few exceptions,
> >the publishing record of these people is almost non-existent outside of
> >books
> >with the name "Ayn Rand" featured prominently on or within them or books
> >published by Ayn Rand Institute Press (a sign that it might have been
> >difficult to find any other publishers for them)?
>
> I don't know the politics of publishing under the ARIP label - it
> might be a first choice rather than a last resort.
Yes, that might seem to be the case. If it were, I might have expected to
see more books published by ARIP, such as _Journals of Ayn Rand_ and _Letters
of Ayn Rand_, or the _Ayn Rand Reader_, to name some recent publications.
But strangely enough, they go to other publishing houses. Meanwhile, such
works of marginal (no pun intended :-) usefulness and significance as _Ayn
Rand's Marginalia_ are available only through Second Renaissance Books.
> To some extent,
> the prominent use of the name "Ayn Rand" is a marketing gimmick -
> Nathaniel Branden would not sell as many copies of his "My Life With
> Ayn Rand" if he had titled it "A Philosophical Life" or some such.
No doubt. I'd apply the same standard to non-"ARIans" like Branden that I do
to the "ARIans." I'm not in much of a position to comment on the
intellectual quality of his psychological theories, but he has enough popular
appeal that he has been able to publish several books without Rand's name
integrated with them.
Christopher Roberson
:>How might you account for this rather significant lack of established
:>intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals?
: See above. The academic philosophy world doesn't want outsiders
: knocking at the gates. I suspect that work like Lakoff's "Philosophy
: in the Flesh" will be about as poorly received as Rand's work, because
: Lakoff is not a "Philosopher".
That's pretty funny. How do you think the academic philosophy world
continues to exist -- by mitosis? Spawning? Spontaneous generation?
"Outsiders" are constantly entering the world of academic philosophy,
generally under the title of "students." And they have a much wider
range of backgrounds and interests than you might think.
--
Christopher Roberson
Brad Aisa
>
> I have some questions [...]
>
> First, do you find it all troubling that there seem to be few established
> intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals, that is,
> intellectuals who've had a major impact in their field (particularly the most
> important field from an Objectivist's point of view, i.e., philosophy)?
This question contains an equivocal implicit assumption: that alliance
with ARI is somehow related to "major impact in [a] field." Therefore,
the question, as stated, is difficult to answer.
Let us therefore, ask two separate, unequivocal questions:
1) Do you find it at all troubling that there seems to be few
established
intellectuals among those who espouse Objectivist philosophy, that
is,
intellectuals who've had a major impact in their field (particularly
the most
important field from an Objectivist's point of view, i.e.,
philosophy)?
What do you mean by "established intellectuals?" Someone like, say, John
Rawls? Someone who has *established* themselves via ideological
positions incompatible with Objectivist ideas?
I do not find this odd at all. In my view, much of the humanities is an
exercise in rationalization and justification. Very, very few people are
willing to question their basic philosophical beliefs.
2) Do you think there is a significant difference between
Objectivist-espousing intellectuals either allied or not allied
with ARI, with regard to the impact they have had in their field?
I don't see any particular evidence to support this claim. I don't yet
see much evidence that any Objectivist-influenced intellectuals are
having a "major" impact on their field.
But are Objectivists *having* an impact? I would say yes, to the degree
that many people are in agreement with the philosophy of Objectivism,
and have also agreed with the conclusions of Objectivist intellectuals
in their field.
Whether these intellectuals ever have a "major impact" will depend on
the free will of the others in the field.
> Do you find this this particularly troubling considering that Objectivism has
> been around as a *cultural* (as distinct from intellectual) influence for
> more
> than 40 years now, and considering that Objectivism is purportedly such a
> revolutionary and pathbreaking philosophy that has solved the central pro
> blems
> of philosophy?
The most important aspects of Objectivism are its insistence on the
objective/inductive epistemology, and its categorical rejection of
altruism -- the latter which has been considered almost as an axiom of
moral philosophy.
So no, given that modern philosophy has embraced skepticism, declared
itself impotent, and refused to question its unconditional embrace of
altruism, it does not suprise me that the world of philosophy has not
been turned on its head.
In the physical sciences, new theories can be validated via logical
steps that involve measurement and deduction. This kind of logic is
difficult to oppose (though many often do anyways.) Philosophy and the
humanities depend upon the inductive approach: the proper generalization
from vast reams of contemporary and historical data. Proof is still
possible, but can only be validated on the most abstract basis. It is
therefore easy for people to maintain allegiance to incorrect ideas.
[the rest of the questions seemed to be rhetorical, and might better
have been expressed as a clear exposition of the author's thesis, rather
than as vague, unspecified charges]
--
Brad Aisa
ba...@NOSPAMistar.ca -- PGP public keys available at:
http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup2?op=index&search=Brad+Aisa
"Laissez faire."
Phil
Chris Cathcart <cath...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> How might you account for this rather significant lack of established
> intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals?
You mean because the old Ellsworth Tooheys of academia aren't
on-board with Objectivism (i.e. established intellectuals), Objectivism
has no influence?
Your implicit notion is that if an intellectual is ARI affiliated, they
aren't an intellectual. Pretty handy for your argument. False though.
Dr. Peikoff's former radio show was both intellectual AND relatively
far-reaching. ARI affiliated intellectuals are invited to speak in
national forums with semi-regularity now. And most of all, the
essay contest has exposed tens of thousands of young minds to
Ayn Rand's ideas. I have personally seen the evidence of this
in just one fairly randomly selected public high school with no
particular distinction.
Isn't it interesting that the tolerationists never seem to be FOR
anything? That all they seem to offer is a passive-aggressive whine
AGAINST people? There's a reason for that: They have nothing
to offer except a mangled version of Ayn Rand's ideas. Well, except
for a handful of losers, people are quite content to read Ayn Rand
for themselves and form their own judgements about who truly
grasps and supports them, should they choose to support an
organization that will help to further the ideas in the culture. ARI,
and other organizations who actually support Objectivism (yes, they
exist and new ones will come into being as well), will be around long
after the cultish tolerationist whiners' organizations self-destruct
in their own irrationality and incompetence.
Phil Oliver
David Friedman
>>First, do you find it all troubling that there seem to be few established
>>intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals, that is,
>>intellectuals who've had a major impact in their field (particularly the most
>>important field from an Objectivist's point of view, i.e., philosophy)?
>
>No. Rand was not taken seriously by academic philosophers during her
>lifetime, and still isn't - this does not negate any of the truth of
>her statements, just as support of the academic philosophical
>establishment does nothing to validate any of Marx's conclusions.
I think this confuses two different questions:
1. Does acceptance in academia logically imply truth (and nonacceptance
falsity)? Obviously the answer is no.
2. Is almost complete lack of acceptance in academia over a long period of
time evidence of falsity? I think the answer is "yes." Academics in any
field are people, many of them smart, who are interested in that field.
Over time, if there are true and interesting and important ideas out there
relevant to the field, some of those people are going to be
interested--and the number is likely to increase as smart academics adopt
the ideas and use them to win arguments with other smart academics. The
failure of physicists to accept any of the clever and superficially
plausible designs for perpetual motion machines is pretty good evidence
that those designs are based on errors--good enough evidence so that I
wouldn't feel much need to check a particular design before declining to
invest in it. Similarly, to the extent that Objectivism is still not taken
seriously by academic philosophers (not being in the field, I don't know
to what extent that is true--my point assumes that the earlier poster's
account of the facts is correct), that is evidence that Objectivism does
not present a consistent and logically compelling philosophy.
An obvious response is that academics are a bunch of closed minded
ideologues, who refuse to consider foreign ideas. Let me offer a little
evidence from my field, economics.
When I was an undergraduate at Harvard, c. 1963, I had a conversation with
a freshman about economics, in which he commented that he couldn't take an
economics course at Chicago because he would burst out laughing. I think
that describes, in slightly exaggerated form, the attitude of mainstream
economics to the Chicago school at the time--not only was it wrong, it was
so obviously wrong that a student taking his first economics course could
see that it was wrong, and be confident that his professors were right and
the position of the professors on the other side ludicrous.
A decade or two later I was back at Harvard for some reason, talking with
a young professor. His comment, on what had been one of the central issues
of the Harvard/Chicago disagreement, was "of course we all recognize that
the long-run Phillips Curve is vertical" (i.e. that there is no long run
tradeoff between inflation and unemployment) "but it is logically possible
that the short run gains from reduced unemployment during a once and for
all increase in the inflation rate might produce a gain larger than the
loss of forever after having that higher inflation rate."
In other words, he not only had accepted the Chicago side of that
particular argument, he regarded it as something everyone accepted, and
was trying to save the Harvard side by arguing that there were some
imaginable circumstances in which their policy prescription could be right
even though their theory was wrong.
For some reason, no similar change seems to have occurred in philosophy.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Jim Klein
writes:
>Dr. Peikoff's former radio show was both intellectual AND relatively
>far-reaching.
Relative to what? Let's hear the specifics of that to which you refer.
Being familiar with radio, I could come up with some shows relative to
which Peikoff's was "far-reaching," but they're few and far between.
Which ones did you have in mind?
>ARI affiliated intellectuals are invited to speak in
>national forums with semi-regularity now.
I don't know what "semi-regularity" is; it sounds like an oxymoron to
me. Regardless, could you share maybe half-a-dozen "national forums"
on which this has occured?
>And most of all, the essay contest has exposed tens of thousands of
>young minds to Ayn Rand's ideas.
Yeah, I think that's great too. Though to me, it's somewhat akin to
golorifying fishermen from the fishes' POV on the basis that they feed
them lots of worms!
>I have personally seen the evidence of this in just one fairly
>randomly selected public high school with no particular distinction.
I'll tell you this--the ARI has contributed somewhat to the complete
bastardization of the language. What's "fairly randomly" mean? Is
that as opposed to "very randomly7"
>Isn't it interesting that the tolerationists never seem to be FOR
>anything? That all they seem to offer is a passive-aggressive whine
>AGAINST people? There's a reason for that: They have nothing
>to offer except a mangled version of Ayn Rand's ideas.
Nothing "ANTI-" in this message though, huh?
>Well, except for a handful of losers,
Not this phrase, right?
>people are quite content to read Ayn Rand for themselves and form
>their own judgements about who truly grasps and supports them, should
>they choose to support an organization that will help to further the
>ideas in the culture. ARI, and other organizations who actually
>support Objectivism (yes, they exist and new ones will come into being
>as well),
That's great! Except for a book service and some ARI-apporved Campus
Clubs, I didn't know there were any organizations of import that fit
this description. Could you name a few of them for us?
>will be around long after the cultish tolerationist whiners'
>organizations self-destruct in their own irrationality and
>incompetence.
And be well-reasoned in their development and support FOR something
rather than AGAINST something like this post was, right?
jk
John Alway
[...]
> 2. Is almost complete lack of acceptance in academia over a long period of
> time evidence of falsity? I think the answer is "yes."
"Complete"? What David doesn't seem to realize is that it isn't
"complete", he further doesn't seem to realize that most Objectivists
would want nothing to do with academic philosophers. They don't have
anything much to offer except an inability to think clearly.
Carry on, then.
...John
Chris Cathcart
Phil <ab...@psi.net> wrote:
>
> Chris Cathcart <cath...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> > How might you account for this rather significant lack of established
> > intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals?
> You mean because the old Ellsworth Tooheys of academia aren't
> on-board with Objectivism (i.e. established intellectuals), Objectivism
> has no influence?
Are you sure you have your parenthetical placed correctly? In any case, I
didn't so that Objectivism has no influence. You need to learn to parse the
words of others accurately. In fact, it *does* have influence, but much of it
has been cultural and not strictly intellectual, and what intellectual
influence it does have has had little to do with efforts of those in good
standing with the ARI-loyalist group.
> Your implicit notion is that if an intellectual is ARI affiliated, they
> aren't an intellectual. Pretty handy for your argument. False though.
Where is this implied? Have you been taking logic lessons from Peter
Schwartz?
> Dr. Peikoff's former radio show was both intellectual AND relatively
> far-reaching.
I have my doubts. It is more likely a forum that might have had some
cultural influence. But to say that talk radio hosts are the prime movers in
the realm of ideas seems to stretch things a bit, even by Peikoff's own
standards regarding who the prime movers in the realm of ideas are.
Peikoff's intellectual record, however, is impressive primarily to those with
allegiences to him and the "ARI approach."
> ARI affiliated intellectuals are invited to speak in
> national forums with semi-regularity now.
Nice sounding; what the heck is this supposed to mean? Does this kind of
thing result in making strides in the realm of ideas at an intellectual
level?
> And most of all, the
> essay contest has exposed tens of thousands of young minds to
> Ayn Rand's ideas. I have personally seen the evidence of this
> in just one fairly randomly selected public high school with no
> particular distinction.
I don't have much problem with the idea of an essay contest, but should one
consider this to be an achievement especially attributable to some competence
or intellectual stature on the part of the people running the ARI, or could
it very well be done by any Objectivist organization that had access to
Rand's copyrights? Is this something special that the ARI has done that the
IOS, say, couldn't do if it had similar legal rights?
Also, didn't Rand's ideas reach tens of thousands of yound minds prior to the
essay contests? Further, what special accomplishment is it to expose young
people to the works of Ayn Rand without the extra work of training these
people to become competent intellectuals? The driving issue here is how well
the ARI is doing in turning out competent intellectuals who can make an
impact in the realm of ideas?
> Isn't it interesting that the tolerationists never seem to be FOR
> anything? That all they seem to offer is a passive-aggressive whine
> AGAINST people? There's a reason for that: They have nothing
> to offer except a mangled version of Ayn Rand's ideas. Well, except
> for a handful of losers, people are quite content to read Ayn Rand
> for themselves and form their own judgements about who truly
> grasps and supports them, should they choose to support an
> organization that will help to further the ideas in the culture. ARI,
> and other organizations who actually support Objectivism (yes, they
> exist and new ones will come into being as well), will be around long
> after the cultish tolerationist whiners' organizations self-destruct
> in their own irrationality and incompetence.
I suppose I could spend the next twenty minutes or so untangling all the
nonsense there is to untangle here, but I won't waste my time on something
that'll probably be lost on the likes of Oliver in any event. I suppose that
I shouldn't be amazed any longer that baseless, arbitrary claims get thrown
out under the name of "Objectivism," when it almost always comes from the
group of Objectivists with certain loyalties. It's clear that you've find
the right home in the "ARI faction." It reconfirms Brad's dictum: Every
organization (or movement, or ideology) gets the kind of followers its
leaders deserve.
Christopher Roberson
: David Friedman wrote:
: [...]
Agreed! Objectivists don't have anything much to offer except an inability
to think clearly.
Wait... that's not what you meant...
--
Christopher Roberson
Chris Cathcart
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In <7e354k$el3$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Phil <ab...@psi.net>
> writes:
>
> >far-reaching.
>
> Being familiar with radio, I could come up with some shows relative to
> which Peikoff's was "far-reaching," but they're few and far between.
> Which ones did you have in mind?
I think whatever examples he might come up with, it seems that he has fairly
lax standards for determining just how much intellectual influence
Objectivism is having. I mean, "ARI affiliated intellectuals [getting]
invited to speak in national forums with semi-regularity" presupposes what
kind of standard for judging their intellectual accomplishments? Getting
op-eds published on a range of current events is supposed to signify . . .
what?
Chris Cathcart
> > intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals, that
is,
> > intellectuals who've had a major impact in their field (particularly the
most
> > important field from an Objectivist's point of view, i.e., philosophy)?
>
> with ARI is somehow related to "major impact in [a] field." Therefore,
> the question, as stated, is difficult to answer.
>
> Let us therefore, ask two separate, unequivocal questions:
>
> established
> intellectuals among those who espouse Objectivist philosophy, that
> is,
> intellectuals who've had a major impact in their field (particularly
> the most
> important field from an Objectivist's point of view, i.e.,
> philosophy)?
I asked the original question with "those allied with ARI and/or its
principals" (if you wanted, you could get into the very fine details of just
who exactly I have in mind, though I consider the phrase enough to convey the
impression just who I'm referring to) for the specific purpose of separating
one kind of Objectivist from another. Within the general group "those who
espouse Objectivist philosophy, there is arguably a significant division
corresponding strongly with whatever organization or approach the particular
Objectivist in question is aligned with.
The "IOS" kind of Objectivist might actually fall into broader "neo-
Objectivist" category, which means that they espouse views very similar to
Objectivism, or base their general approach on Objectivist lines, are highly
influenced by Objectivism, and so on, though they might not want to refer to
themselves as "Objectivists." This is the kind of intellectual that Kelley is
willing to ally himself with in some way or other. And it is among this group
that the most significant work that can recognizably be called Objectivist is
being done in the academic world.
> What do you mean by "established intellectuals?" Someone like, say, John
> Rawls? Someone who has *established* themselves via ideological
> positions incompatible with Objectivist ideas?
The latter would by no means be a defining characteristic of what an
established intellectual is. By an established intellectual I mean someone
whose ideas have gotten a good deal of recognition -- even if not agreement
-- and who have gotten published extensively in the better journals, have a
reputation for making well-thought-out arguments, and can gain tenure at top
institutions where they can have influence over the intellectual development
of leading younger intellectuals who enter their programs. Maybe Chris
Roberson or someone else could give you a better idea of what the phrase
might mean if mine isn't suitable.
> I do not find this odd at all. In my view, much of the humanities is an
> exercise in rationalization and justification. Very, very few people are
> willing to question their basic philosophical beliefs.
I haven't denied this. I basically agree with newer ideas take hold as the
younger crop of intellectuals replace the old, rather than the current crop
changing their views, which isn't much of a likelihood.
> 2) Do you think there is a significant difference between
> Objectivist-espousing intellectuals either allied or not allied
> with ARI, with regard to the impact they have had in their field?
>
> I don't see any particular evidence to support this claim. I don't yet
> see much evidence that any Objectivist-influenced intellectuals are
> having a "major" impact on their field.
I would say it depends a lot on what might be considered "major" impact. By
the above description of "established intellectuals" I give above, there
aren't many that fit every aspect of that description. There are some, such
as Lennox, whose published work I'm not all that familiar with, but he has a
different specializaton than mine, and he's at one of the very top philosophy
departments in the country. Others, such as Mack, are at less prestigious
departments but have solid publishing records with which I am familiar.
Kelley, just about the only well-known Objectivist figure to do work in
epistemology, didn't even get tenure. As far as moral and political
philosophy goes, this is where the greatest impact has been, as far as I can
tell.
[...]
> > Do you find this this particularly troubling considering that Objectivism
has
> > been around as a *cultural* (as distinct from intellectual) influence for
> > more
> > than 40 years now, and considering that Objectivism is purportedly such a
> > revolutionary and pathbreaking philosophy that has solved the central pro
> > blems
> > of philosophy?
>
> The most important aspects of Objectivism are its insistence on the
> objective/inductive epistemology, and its categorical rejection of
> altruism -- the latter which has been considered almost as an axiom of
> moral philosophy.
>
> So no, given that modern philosophy has embraced skepticism, declared
> itself impotent, and refused to question its unconditional embrace of
> altruism, it does not suprise me that the world of philosophy has not
> been turned on its head.
I think it would be fair to say, from the impression I've got of the kinds of
problems in epistemology many contemporary philosophers are concerned with,
that in its current state of development, Objectivist epistemology is not
equipped to handle many of these tough issues. But I allow that I might be
mistaken about this, and that if I were as interested in the more esoteric
issues of epistemology as I am in moral and political philosophy, I'd be in a
better position to judge. It seems to me overly simplistic to declare that
modern philosophy has embraced skepticism, and close to downright false that
it has embraced altruism, especially in the sense that Rand defined the term
(though it would be safe to say that it hardly accepts egoism to a
significant extent, either).
Prime Mover
David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote in article
<DDFr-02049...@ddfr.vip.best.com>...
> In article <370828fa...@news.dnai.com>, ant...@alphageo.com wrote:
>
>
> 1. Does acceptance in academia logically imply truth (and nonacceptance
> falsity)? Obviously the answer is no.
>
> 2. Is almost complete lack of acceptance in academia over a long period
of
> time evidence of falsity? I think the answer is "yes."
Wow! What an awe-inspiring grasp of logic! First: does nonacceptance imply
falsity? "Obviously the answer is no". ...But, does "almost complete"
non-acceptance "over a long period of time" imply falsity? "Yes".
Thank you, Mr. Freidman, for your illuminating theory that a twenty-year
survey of the opinions of college students can have a bearing on the
metaphysical status of a philosophy. Probably, the special kind of
understanding needed to integrate this theory, is outside the abilities of
most Objectivists here.
John Alway
[...]
> Agreed! Objectivists don't have anything much to offer except an inability
> to think clearly.
I forgot! Most every academic philosophers doesn't think clearly,
except Christopher and a few others.
...John
Chris Cathcart
In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.99040...@usr02.primenet.com>,
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> On 2 Apr 1999, Chris Cathcart wrote:
>
> > I have some questions, primarily addressed to the supporters of Peikoff
> > and/or ARI here in this newsgroup, regarding the intellectual calibre of
> > those to whom they are claiming intellectual allegience.
> >
> > First, do you find it all troubling that there seem to be few
> > established intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its
> > principals, that is, intellectuals who've had a major impact in their
> > field (particularly the most important field from an Objectivist's point
> > of view, i.e., philosophy)?
>
> Not yet. The goal of Objectivists is not to win over the intellectual
> establishment, but to REPLACE it. Also, quality is much more important
> than quantity.
I agree with the latter part -- which is why I don't expect much success on
the part of "ARI" Objectivists to achieve this goal. When Peikoff talked of
instituting quality control measures, he probably had no idea just how
successful he's been in implementing them.
I fully understand that the goal of ("ARI") Objectivists is not to win over
the intellectual establishment but to replace it. But I've seen few signs
that this is taking place or will take place to a significant extent in the
future. I'm wondering under what conditions you'd stop saying "Not yet." It's
been 40+ years now.
Oh, I get it. It was only after 40+ years that the quality control measures
you are in favor of had finally, fully been implemented and the last vestiges
of the Bad Guys expunged. *Now* we can finally get down to the task of
getting Objectivism established in academia without the Bad Guys to hinder
the efforts. Really, the "ARI wing" has achieved such a level of ideological
purity that in speculations about which people remaining might be purged, it
is very difficult to imagine whether any of them will be, much less who it
might be.
> As you are aware, establishing a career in academia takes time, but
> ARI-sponsored and affiliated scholars are getting their PHD's getting
> published in academic journals and books and in the popular media, honing
> their teaching and writing skills, and getting speaking engagements,
> university courses to teach, and tenure.
Publications -- where? What's the impressive evidence you care to offer? One
book published by Tara Smith, whether deservedly or not hasn't garnered much
attention. At least she's published just about as many journal articles by
herself as the rest of the "ARI" group combined (six total in the space of 15
years; in Peikoff's case, two articles in what I gather are hardly first-rate
journals).
Tenure -- in what departments? In top philosophy departments at research
universities, where they can hold sway over the development of graduate
students? Again, only Smith appears to be in such a position.
Honing their writing skills -- how? Do they get lessons on writing, rhetoric
and argument-construction from the likes of Peter Schwartz?
> > Do you find it troubling that many very bright minds -- a very
> > considerable number of them compared to what remains -- are for some
> > reason or other no longer in good standing with the the principles of
> > ARI, its allied organizations, etc.?
>
> There's nothing stopping those allegedly "bright minds" from doing good
> intellectual work without ARI's financial and moral support. I suggest
> they do so, IF they can, and stop whining about the fact that ARI chooses
> to support somebody else.
Who said anything about their supposedly seeking support from the ARI and
then whining about not getting it? You're apparently interpreting my remarks
to mean that I (or they) somehow want some kind of moral sanction and support
from the ARI, under your delusion (I don't know what better word to use) that
it is the ARI that is the source of strength from which others are seeking
the sanction of the victim.
There *are* bright minds (and not "allegedly," but genuinely) who are doing
good intellectual work -- on the whole, much better -- without the support of
the ARI, than those receiving the support of the ARI. No whining going on
here - - rather, a simple question about how supporters of the "ARI approach"
to spreading Objectivism react to this fact. Do they rationalize it away with
some implausible or arbitrary hypotheses, or do they take it as a sign that
maybe something's wrong with their favored approach?
Also, I must ask: by what process of reasoning did you infer from my statement
that people are whining about the fact that ARI doesn't support them? I'm
really curious about what kind of psycho-epistemological process is at work
here, and what objective, reality-oriented approach to knowledge led you to
arrive it this inference. After all, the sign of epistemological virtue for an
Objectivist is to reduce one's premises by a crucial, painstaking process to
the facts of reality, and I have trouble seeing how it is that you used such a
process in this instance.
Ken Gardner
> > How might you account for this rather significant lack of established
> > intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals?
> You mean because the old Ellsworth Tooheys of academia aren't
> on-board with Objectivism (i.e. established intellectuals), Objectivism
> has no influence?
Methinks you have nailed the essence of Chris's question, including
what's wrong with it.
Ken
David Friedman
<y...@peganet.net> wrote:
>David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote in article
><DDFr-02049...@ddfr.vip.best.com>...
>> In article <370828fa...@news.dnai.com>, ant...@alphageo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1. Does acceptance in academia logically imply truth (and nonacceptance
>> falsity)? Obviously the answer is no.
>>
>> 2. Is almost complete lack of acceptance in academia over a long period
>of
>> time evidence of falsity? I think the answer is "yes."
>
>Wow! What an awe-inspiring grasp of logic! First: does nonacceptance imply
>falsity? "Obviously the answer is no". ...But, does "almost complete"
>non-acceptance "over a long period of time" imply falsity? "Yes".
You seem to have difficulty reading.
My point 1 contained the terms "logically imply." My point 2 contained the
terms "evidence of." Perhaps you use those terms interchangeably; I don't.
When I use my high tech infra red sensing ear thermometer to check my
daughter's temperature and it gives a reading of 100.5, that is evidence
that she has a fever. It doesn't "logically imply" that she has a
fever--certainly not with that gadget, which routinely gives significantly
different readings on consecutive tries separated by less than a minute.
Gordon G. Sollars
writes...
...
> In other words, he not only had accepted the Chicago side of that
> particular argument, he regarded it as something everyone accepted, and
> was trying to save the Harvard side by arguing that there were some
> imaginable circumstances in which their policy prescription could be right
> even though their theory was wrong.
>
> For some reason, no similar change seems to have occurred in philosophy.
Since I am not a professional philosopher, I can not speak with as much
authority in philosophy as David does in economics. Nevertheless, I
believe that a "similar" change has occurred in philosophy. Prior to the
publication of Rawls's paper "Justice as Fairness" in 1958, the dominant
"school" of moral philosophy was utilitarianism, and contractarianism was
dead. Within about 25 years, the utilitarianism is barely respectable
(although strongly defended by a minority) and contract theories have
sprung back to life.
I don't think that most practicing philosophers today have any more doubt
about the return of utilitarianism than most economists have about the
return of the old Harvard view of the Phillips Curve.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@virginia.edu
anth...@hotmail.com
Brad Aisa <ba...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "established intellectuals?" Someone like, say, John
> Rawls? Someone who has *established* themselves via ideological
> positions incompatible with Objectivist ideas?
>
> exercise in rationalization and justification. Very, very few people are
> willing to question their basic philosophical beliefs.
Not relevant. Even if you were correct that very few philosophers question
their own beliefs ( and I believe you are not) they do question each other's
beliefs (like Nozick's questioning of Rawls). Academic philosophy is no less
competitive than any other market, and the primary avenue of advance is to
offer good arguments against someone else's position. All the big names in
philosophy have over- thrown some established view with convincing arguments,
and people who are ambitious in the field would give anything for a great
argument that would destroy some established position. If Objectivism had some
great arguments they would certainly have flourished in this market place of
ideas.
Wrathbone
anth...@hotmail.com
John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
...most Objectivists
> would want nothing to do with academic philosophers....
The fox can't reach the grapes, and decides, of course, that he doesn't really
want them.
Aesop
John Alway
> In article <37051D97...@icsi.net>,
> John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
> ...most Objectivists
> > would want nothing to do with academic philosophers....
> The fox can't reach the grapes, and decides, of course, that he doesn't r
> eally
> want them.
> Aesop
I was thinking more along the lines of "Fool me once, shame on
you. Fool me twice, shame on me." (Scotty says its a Scottish
saying, Chechov says it's Russian.)
...John
feed
Mack
the
bot
a
snack
Jack.
Gordon G. Sollars
...
> I was thinking more along the lines of "Fool me once, shame on
> you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Thinking that contemporary academic philosophers are a monolithic group
out to "fool" anyone is much like thinking that all capitalists act
together to further their class interest.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@virginia.edu
John Alway
They don't necessarily do it deliberately.
Speaking of which, Gordon, how many academic philosophers are gunho
capitalists?
...John
The
bot
named
Mack,
will
get
a
snack....
Christopher Roberson
: Speaking of which, Gordon, how many academic philosophers are gunho
: capitalists?
I'll field this one, though of course Gordon is welcome to have his say as
well.
How "gungho" do they have to be in order to count as "gungho" to you?
Most academic philosophers are quite happy to live in free societies, and
very few are committed to political views which allow _no_ role, or only a
tiny one, for the market. (I guess that's not very gungho.)
Many have serious reservations about completely unregulated markets, for
familiar economic and philosophical reasons. But few are Marxists or
"fellow travellers."
And some, of course, are just as committed to free markets as any
Objectivist. How many? I don't know -- ask Chris Cathcart. He'd know
better than I would.
--
Christopher Roberson
Jim Klein
<gsol...@virginia.edu> writes:
>Thinking that contemporary academic philosophers are a monolithic
>group out to "fool" anyone is much like thinking that all capitalists
>act together to further their class interest.
PROOF that you're trying to fool everyone!
jk
Chris Cathcart
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > Chris Cathcart wrote:
> > > Do you find it troubling that many very bright minds -- a very
> > > considerable number of them compared to what remains -- are for some
> > > reason or other no longer in good standing with the the principles of
> > > ARI, its allied organizations, etc.?
> >
> > There's nothing stopping those allegedly "bright minds" from doing good
> > intellectual work without ARI's financial and moral support. I suggest
> > they do so, IF they can, and stop whining about the fact that ARI chooses
> > to support somebody else.
>
> There *are* bright minds (and not "allegedly," but genuinely) who are
> doing good intellectual work -- on the whole, much better -- without the
> support of the ARI, than those receiving the support of the ARI.
I wish them luck.
> No whining going on here -- rather, a simple question about how
> supporters of the "ARI approach" to spreading Objectivism react to this
> fact.
I'm a supporter of ARI. I think it is a very GOOD thing that others want
to promote some of Rand's ideas or be associated with Ayn Rand even though
they may not agree with her 100%. It is a sign that Objectivism and its
influence are growing in our culture.
> Do they rationalize it away with some implausible or arbitrary
> hypotheses, or do they take it as a sign that maybe something's wrong
> with their favored approach?
Not at all. I see it as a sign that Objectivism is winning.
> Also, I must ask: by what process of reasoning did you infer from my
> statement that people are whining about the fact that ARI doesn't
> support them? I'm really curious about what kind of
> psycho-epistemological process is at work here, and what objective,
> reality-oriented approach to knowledge led you to arrive it this
> inference.
I can't see any other reason why anyone who does not receive financial or
moral support from ARI would find fault with them for supporting the
people and ideas they choose to with their own resources. If David Kelley
or anybody else thinks they can do a better job of spreading Objectivism
with THEIR own resources, there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
David Friedman
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>> Also, I must ask: by what process of reasoning did you infer from my
>> statement that people are whining about the fact that ARI doesn't
>> support them? I'm really curious about what kind of
>> psycho-epistemological process is at work here, and what objective,
>> reality-oriented approach to knowledge led you to arrive it this
>> inference.
>
>I can't see any other reason why anyone who does not receive financial or
>moral support from ARI would find fault with them for supporting the
>people and ideas they choose to with their own resources. If David Kelley
>or anybody else thinks they can do a better job of spreading Objectivism
>with THEIR own resources, there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
You seem to be making very much the same error that some people on your
side were recently objecting to in a different context--confusing the
question of what people have a right to do (i.e. what other people may not
legitimately use force to stop them from doing) with the question of what
people ought to do.
I think everyone here agrees that the ARI has a right to do what it
chooses with its own resources, even if that means supporting second rate
mediocraties. But that doesn't make it inappropriate to criticize the ARI
for doing the wrong things with its resources--on the grounds that it
ought to do other things with them. The idea that the only reason to
criticize them is because you want some of the money for yourself looks to
me like a straightforward ad hominem argument, designed to avoid having to
deal with the actual criticisms.
Chris Cathcart
>
> > Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> > > Chris Cathcart wrote:
>
> > > > Do you find it troubling that many very bright minds -- a very
> > > > considerable number of them compared to what remains -- are for some
> > > > reason or other no longer in good standing with the the principles of
> > > > ARI, its allied organizations, etc.?
> > >
> > > There's nothing stopping those allegedly "bright minds" from doing good
> > > intellectual work without ARI's financial and moral support. I suggest
> > > they do so, IF they can, and stop whining about the fact that ARI chooses
> > > to support somebody else.
> >
> > There *are* bright minds (and not "allegedly," but genuinely) who are
> > doing good intellectual work -- on the whole, much better -- without the
> > support of the ARI, than those receiving the support of the ARI.
>
> I wish them luck.
Fine. But do you care to venture a guess as to why this is happening? Why do
you think that the intellectuals sponsored and sanctioned by the "ARI folks"
haven't been doing as impressive a job, on the whole, as those who've been
ousted or ignored by the "ARI folks"?
> > No whining going on here -- rather, a simple question about how
> > supporters of the "ARI approach" to spreading Objectivism react to this
> > fact.
>
> I'm a supporter of ARI. I think it is a very GOOD thing that others want
> to promote some of Rand's ideas or be associated with Ayn Rand even though
> they may not agree with her 100%. It is a sign that Objectivism and its
> influence are growing in our culture.
Okay. Fine. But again, you sidestep the point at hand. Why doesn't "ARI
style" Objectivism -- that is, Objectivism done in the style and content that
the "ARI folks" approve of -- make the kind of progress that those who don't
practice the "ARI style" have made?
And let's be open about this -- you don't merely "support" the ARI, you
practice a certain style of Objectivism that if you didn't practice it, you
would fall into disfavor with what can be loosely characterized as the "ARI
crowd."
(A digression: You've been saying that there is this myth that's been spread
by Kelleyites, that the ARI, Second Renaissance Books/Conferences, the
Intellectual Activist, the OSG, Lyceum International, etc., constitute some
kind of monolithic organization. And you seem to be spreading a myth that
denies that in a very significant way, they *do* constitute a monolithic
organization, united by certain shared views about the proper way to spread
Objectivism. Even though you "support the ARI" but don't run it, or the
other Objectivist organizations, you nonetheless are appropriately grouped
under what I've called the "ARI crowd.")
Now, we are agreed that the headway that's been made in academia is sign of
the influence of Objectivist ideas. But very little of this progress has
been made by those who practice the sort of approach to spread of Objectivist
ideas that you advocate and practice. And I'm saying that this should be
taken as a sign that there is something about that kind of approach that
weakens the cause of the spread of Objectivist, or by and large Objectivist,
ideas in academia.
You've been saying that Objectivists want to spread Objectivist ideas not by
changing the beliefs of the existing group of academics but by replacing
them, and you mention some of the people who've gotten tenured, who've
received moral and financial support from the ARI. In the next breath, you
say that quality, not quantity, is important. So let's say that in the next
10 years, 50 (say, even 100, to be optimistic as you like to be about it)
Objectivists get tenured in departments around the country. What reason do
we have to think that these are going to be at departments that roughly
reflect their quality as philosophers?
To get placed in positions at places like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and so on,
these people are going to have to produce some work that is leagues ahead of
what's been produced by Objectivists so far, particularly in the areas of
epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and so
on. They're going to have to raise their standards of scholarship by immense
proportions compared to the kind of kinds of standards of scholarship
practiced by the likes of Peikoff, Schwartz, and Rand herself. This means,
in part, none of the pontificating, intellectually lazy and irresponsible (in
some cases, as in Schwartz's, downright dishonest) hatchet jobs on the ideas
of other philosophers that typify the worst aspects of Rand's philosophical
writings, and perpetuated by those in the "ARI faction" especially.
I don't know whether "ARI" Objectivists are capable of this, but I doubt it.
Perhaps such an "ARI" Objectivist could do something of the sort, but I have
my doubts as to whether the end product would be recognizably Objectivist,
particularly in the sense that those in the "ARI" group would still approve
of, or in the manner as it originally appeared in Rand's writings.
(Consider: defenses of things like "agent-relativity" or "flourishing" are
more likely to succeed than defenses of "egoism," as has been the case so
far.)
Bear in mind that Kelley has been trying all along to apprise Objectivists of
the problems facing the attempt to spread Objectivist ideas in academia or
the society at large. The problems include the ones I've alluded to above.
Some of the Objectivists evidently don't care to hear this message (even
though they wouldn't of course say it up front in so many words), and rather
than confront the realities of the message, proceed to kill the messenger.
I've gotten the same sort of crap for delivering the same sort of message in
this newsgroup, usually in the form of denials that there is a problem (e.g.
"it's not the Objectivists that are the problem, but the academics") or
denunciations.
> > Do they rationalize it away with some implausible or arbitrary
> > hypotheses, or do they take it as a sign that maybe something's wrong
> > with their favored approach?
>
> Not at all. I see it as a sign that Objectivism is winning.
Objectivism, "ARI-style," or Objectivism in a broader sense? Sure, it is a
sign that Objectivism is in at least some respects winning, but you've
conflated two different senses of Objectivism such that you can get away with
saying it while not having to admit that Objectivism's winning has had little
to do with the efforts at spreading Objectivism, *by a particular group of
people who favor a particular approach to advancing it.*
> > Also, I must ask: by what process of reasoning did you infer from my
> > statement that people are whining about the fact that ARI doesn't
> > support them? I'm really curious about what kind of
> > psycho-epistemological process is at work here, and what objective,
> > reality-oriented approach to knowledge led you to arrive it this
> > inference.
>
> I can't see any other reason why anyone who does not receive financial or
> moral support from ARI would find fault with them for supporting the
> people and ideas they choose to with their own resources.
You can't? How about the possibility that intellectual capital is better
spent in directions than I think it is currently being spent, that I think
there are ways to spread Objectivism effectively, and ways *not* to spread
Objectivism effectively, and that I'm trying to point out to people the
mistakes in some approaches so that other, better approaches can be tried?
It is probably useless to dredge up the old toleration/sanction dispute that
split the movement some years ago; instead, I've gone a different route
pointing to what I think are the *effects* of their respective approaches.
It was you, after all, who had suggested that what is important is to look at
what Peikoff and Kelley *do,* rather than what they say, to fully judge the
realities of their respective views. And I'm pointing to certain existential
realities that might well be explained by their respective approaches and
views about how to spread Objectivism.
So far, I haven't seen much in the way of good alternative explanations than
what I've offered, for these existential differences. Ideas have existential
consequences, and I take these consequences to be signs that one way of trying
to spread Objectivist ideas is better than another.
> Betsy Speicher
>
> You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
> most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
> their activities, and their victories.
See above for where you're equivocating. The success of Objectivism, as
reflected by advances made in academia, will quite likely not be accounted
for very well in your CyberNet. If, for example, Objectivism is winning
because of the efforts of people like Mack, Rasmussen, Den Uyl, Miller, and
others, as it is the case more than with just about any of the "ARI-approved"
Objectivists, would we expect to see mentions of their names in the CyberNet?
Or does their not promoting an "approved" version of Objectivism, sufficient
to put them in good standing with the principals of the ARI, mean that
they're compromising Objectivism's effectiveness, even though the
advancements they've helped to create are a sign that Objectivism is winning?
There. I've spent a considerable amount of time and went on at considerable
length breaking down your statements to the various assumptions contained
therein, in order to adequately critique those assumptions in addition to the
important things you had left *un*stated. Can I expect the same kind of
consideration in return?
Chris Cathcart
David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.99040...@usr08.primenet.com>,
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >I can't see any other reason why anyone who does not receive financial or
> >moral support from ARI would find fault with them for supporting the
> >or anybody else thinks they can do a better job of spreading Objectivism
> >with THEIR own resources, there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
>
> You seem to be making very much the same error that some people on your
> side were recently objecting to in a different context--confusing the
> question of what people have a right to do (i.e. what other people may not
> legitimately use force to stop them from doing) with the question of what
> people ought to do.
Those weren't quite the errors I had in mind; I went to considerable length,
however, discussing the errors that I think were more significant than the
issue of what the ARI has a right to do or not with its resources as distinct
from what it ought to do.
> I think everyone here agrees that the ARI has a right to do what it
> chooses with its own resources, even if that means supporting second rate
> mediocraties.
"Second-rate mediocrities" is a rather way to put it. Of the people pursuing
careers in academia that ARI has supported, I wouldn't characterize them as
being second-rate mediocrities; rather, I'd say that from what I've seen so
far, they're rather bright people (I don't see how couldn't make it *some*
way in academia without being *somewhat* bright and doing *some* quality
work; Smith has published a book and several articles and is tenured at one
of the best philosophy departments in the country, and Mayhew and Gotthelf
are by no means slouches) but haven't, on the whole, been producing work as
impressive as many of the intellectuals who haven't received support from the
ARI have been doing.
I reserve the "second-rate mediocrity" label to those who obviously *are*
second-rate mediocrities, like Schwartz, Stubblefield, Peikoff (though to a
lesser extent than Schwartz and Stubblefield), and maybe some others.
David Friedman
>In article <7e354k$el3$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Phil
><ab...@psi.net> says...
>
>> > How might you account for this rather significant lack of established
>> > intellectuals among those allied with the ARI and/or its principals?
>
>> You mean because the old Ellsworth Tooheys of academia aren't
>> on-board with Objectivism (i.e. established intellectuals), Objectivism
>> has no influence?
>
>Methinks you have nailed the essence of Chris's question, including
>what's wrong with it.
Provided you believe that all of academia, old and young, consists of
Ellsworth Tooheys. A similar theory explains why perfectly good designs
for perpetual motion machines are rejected by all those narrowminded
physicists.
David Friedman
> Speaking of which, Gordon, how many academic philosophers are gunho
>capitalists?
I'm not Gordon, but assuming you are asking how many academic philosophers
are in favor of a substantially more libertarian society than we now have,
the answer is "a considerable number." I don't know the field well enough
to offer percentages, but I do know some examples--Tristram Engelhardt,
for example.
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > On 2 Apr 1999, Chris Cathcart wrote:
> >
> > > There *are* bright minds (and not "allegedly," but genuinely) who are
> > > doing good intellectual work -- on the whole, much better -- without the
> > > support of the ARI, than those receiving the support of the ARI.
> >
> > I wish them luck.
>
> Fine. But do you care to venture a guess as to why this is happening?
> Why do you think that the intellectuals sponsored and sanctioned by the
> "ARI folks" haven't been doing as impressive a job, on the whole, as
> those who've been ousted or ignored by the "ARI folks"?
Au contraire, I think that the ARI folks are doing a better job. That's
why I'm sending them money instead of IOS.
Perhaps one difference is in the job the various organizations and their
supporters want done. I myself am a "purist" -- what I believe IOS
partisans call "dogmatic" -- and I want the _whole_ Objectivist package
and not just parts of it. I see no need to "fix" parts of it as many IOS
supporters do. If they want to do so, they can. I'm just not interested.
> > > No whining going on here -- rather, a simple question about how
> > > supporters of the "ARI approach" to spreading Objectivism react to this
> > > fact.
> >
> > I'm a supporter of ARI. I think it is a very GOOD thing that others want
> > to promote some of Rand's ideas or be associated with Ayn Rand even though
> > they may not agree with her 100%. It is a sign that Objectivism and its
> > influence are growing in our culture.
>
> Okay. Fine. But again, you sidestep the point at hand. Why doesn't
> "ARI style" Objectivism -- that is, Objectivism done in the style and
> content that the "ARI folks" approve of -- make the kind of progress
> that those who don't practice the "ARI style" have made?
It depends on what you consider "progress," doesn't it? I'm very pleased
with the progress made so far.
> And let's be open about this -- you don't merely "support" the ARI, you
> practice a certain style of Objectivism that if you didn't practice it,
> you would fall into disfavor with what can be loosely characterized as
> the "ARI crowd."
That is a silly IOS myth. I speak my mind, sometimes disagreeing with my
fellow ARI supporters and sometimes taking a "minority position" among
them, but always backing up my opinions with facts and logic. You know
what? I often get an argument from members of the "ARI crowd," but I
almost always get respect, too.
> (A digression: You've been saying that there is this myth that's been
> spread by Kelleyites, that the ARI, Second Renaissance
> Books/Conferences, the Intellectual Activist, the OSG, Lyceum
> International, etc., constitute some kind of monolithic organization.
> And you seem to be spreading a myth that denies that in a very
> significant way, they *do* constitute a monolithic organization, united
> by certain shared views about the proper way to spread Objectivism.
That no more makes them a "monolithic organization" than the total of all
the doctors who "share views" about scientific medicine as opposed to
voodoo.
> Even though you "support the ARI" but don't run it, or the other
> Objectivist organizations, you nonetheless are appropriately grouped
> under what I've called the "ARI crowd.")
I agree with what they are doing and I want to help them do it.
> Now, we are agreed that the headway that's been made in academia is sign
> of the influence of Objectivist ideas. But very little of this progress
> has been made by those who practice the sort of approach to spread of
> Objectivist ideas that you advocate and practice.
Not yet. It's too soon to have taken over academia, but progress in
that direction is being made at a reasonably good pace.
> And I'm saying that this should be taken as a sign that there is
> something about that kind of approach that weakens the cause of the
> spread of Objectivist, or by and large Objectivist, ideas in academia.
Tell you what, Chris: People like me will work on spreading Objectivist
ideas, and you and your buddies can spread the "by and large Objectivist"
ideas.
> You've been saying that Objectivists want to spread Objectivist ideas
> not by changing the beliefs of the existing group of academics but by
> replacing them, and you mention some of the people who've gotten
> tenured, who've received moral and financial support from the ARI. In
> the next breath, you say that quality, not quantity, is important. So
> let's say that in the next 10 years, 50 (say, even 100, to be optimistic
> as you like to be about it) Objectivists get tenured in departments
> around the country. What reason do we have to think that these are
> going to be at departments that roughly reflect their quality as
> philosophers?
If we get good Objectivists in philosophy departments, those departments
will _become_ quality philosophy departments.
> To get placed in positions at places like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and
> so on, these people are going to have to produce some work that is
> leagues ahead of what's been produced by Objectivists so far,
> particularly in the areas of epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of
> mind, philosophy of language, and so on.
If places like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and so on are going to be able to
compete with philosophy departments that have good Objectivists, they are
going to have to shape up.
> > > Do they rationalize it away with some implausible or arbitrary
> > > hypotheses, or do they take it as a sign that maybe something's wrong
> > > with their favored approach?
> >
> > Not at all. I see it as a sign that Objectivism is winning.
>
> Objectivism, "ARI-style," or Objectivism in a broader sense?
Objectivism in the only sense that matters to me -- 100% pure Objectivism.
> Sure, it is a sign that Objectivism is in at least some respects
> winning, but you've conflated two different senses of Objectivism such
> that you can get away with saying it while not having to admit that
> Objectivism's winning has had little to do with the efforts at spreading
> Objectivism, *by a particular group of people who favor a particular
> approach to advancing it.*
Anybody who wants to advance Objectivism -- or any _part_ of it they like
-- can do so. It is a free country and I think it is all to the good.
(I used to worry that people who misrepresented Objectivism would hurt my
cause, but that hasn't happened thanks to purists like me and especially
due to the misrepresenters own contradictions. People who really want
what Objectivism has to offer cannot be misled for long.)
> > > Also, I must ask: by what process of reasoning did you infer from my
> > > statement that people are whining about the fact that ARI doesn't
> > > support them? I'm really curious about what kind of
> > > psycho-epistemological process is at work here, and what objective,
> > > reality-oriented approach to knowledge led you to arrive it this
> > > inference.
> >
> > I can't see any other reason why anyone who does not receive financial or
> > moral support from ARI would find fault with them for supporting the
> > people and ideas they choose to with their own resources.
>
> You can't? How about the possibility that intellectual capital is better
> spent in directions than I think it is currently being spent, that I think
> there are ways to spread Objectivism effectively, and ways *not* to spread
> Objectivism effectively, and that I'm trying to point out to people the
> mistakes in some approaches so that other, better approaches can be tried?
Since we disagree as to what the "better approaches" are, I am content to
spend _my_ intellectual capital in one place and you can spend yours
elsewhere. You are also free to try to sell me on why you think your
approach is better, but so far I haven't seen anything from you I'd want
to buy into.
> If, for example, Objectivism is winning because of the efforts of people
> like Mack, Rasmussen, Den Uyl, Miller, and others, as it is the case
> more than with just about any of the "ARI-approved" Objectivists, would
> we expect to see mentions of their names in the CyberNet? Or does their
> not promoting an "approved" version of Objectivism, sufficient to put
> them in good standing with the principals of the ARI, mean that they're
> compromising Objectivism's effectiveness, even though the advancements
> they've helped to create are a sign that Objectivism is winning?
Mack, Rasmussen, etc. are promoting _something_ connected with
Objectivism, and it is Objectivism's success that is making _their_
successes possible. Many people who get a taste of Objectivism through
their watered-down version will eventually come seeking the real stuff
from people like me. Any way you figure it, I'm a winner.
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
Betsy Speicher
> That's pretty funny. How do you think the academic philosophy world
> continues to exist -- by mitosis? Spawning? Spontaneous generation?
When I was a philosophy major, the department survived by giving classes
in symbolic logic which, for liberal arts majors, was the only way to
satisfy the math requirement without taking math.
Kyle Haight
Chris Cathcart <cath...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>"Second-rate mediocrities" is a rather way to put it. Of the people pursuing
>careers in academia that ARI has supported, I wouldn't characterize them as
>being second-rate mediocrities; rather, I'd say that from what I've seen so
>far, they're rather bright people (I don't see how couldn't make it *some*
>way in academia without being *somewhat* bright and doing *some* quality
>work; Smith has published a book and several articles and is tenured at one
>of the best philosophy departments in the country, and Mayhew and Gotthelf
>are by no means slouches) but haven't, on the whole, been producing work as
>impressive as many of the intellectuals who haven't received support from the
>ARI have been doing.
I haven't been following this thread in detail, but I was wondering
which non-ARI-supported intellectuals you had in mind. More to the
point, I was wondering if those intellectuals are at the same stage in
their careers as Smith and Mayhew? Comparing the body of work
produced by a long-time academic like, say, Eric Mack or Doug Rasmussen
to the body of work produced by relative newcomers such as Smith and
Mayhew would seem like comparing apples to oranges.
I'm not saying you're doing this, but I would be curious to know which
other intellectuals you're using as your basis of comparison and what
work of theirs is so impressive. (I have a few candidates in mind
myself, but I'm interested in what you think.)
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@netcom.com
"Feeding on the blood of the working classes for fun and profit."
Betsy Speicher
> I don't have much problem with the idea of an essay contest, but should
> one consider this to be an achievement especially attributable to some
> competence or intellectual stature on the part of the people running the
> ARI, or could it very well be done by any Objectivist organization that
> had access to Rand's copyrights? Is this something special that the ARI
> has done that the IOS, say, couldn't do if it had similar legal rights?
So THAT's what you're whining about!
Your buddies at IOS have the same rights as ARI supporters to buy Ayn
Rand's books, think about her ideas, apply them to their own lives and
work, spread then throughout the culture, etc.
As to copyrights, ARI doesn't have them. The Estate of Ayn Rand (i.e.,
Peikoff) does.
> Also, didn't Rand's ideas reach tens of thousands of young minds prior
> to the essay contests?
Not as many as now. In fact, over half of the young Ayn Rand fans I meet
nowadays first read her in high school because of the ARI essay contests.
> Further, what special accomplishment is it to expose young people to the
> works of Ayn Rand without the extra work of training these people to
> become competent intellectuals?
Not everyone who likes and uses Ayn Rand's ideas is a professional (or
even amateur) intellectual. Only a small proportion of Objectivists are
(or should be) intellectuals. The rest of us are businesspeople,
scientists, artists, parents, etc.
As for training intellectuals, ARI is spending a lot of their resources
doing just that but, if all goes well, someday they won't have to. The
colleges and universities will be doing that.
Jim Klein
Speicher <be...@speicher.com> writes:
>Perhaps one difference is in the job the various organizations and
>their supporters want done. I myself am a "purist" -- what I believe
>IOS partisans call "dogmatic" -- and I want the _whole_ Objectivist
>package and not just parts of it. I see no need to "fix" parts of it
>as many IOS supporters do. If they want to do so, they can. I'm just
>not interested.
IOW, the IOS partisans are correct in their label of you.
>It depends on what you consider "progress," doesn't it? I'm very
>pleased with the progress made so far.
IOW, there's no objective measure of "progress." Being pleased with it
fits the bill.
>That is a silly IOS myth. I speak my mind, sometimes disagreeing with
>my fellow ARI supporters and sometimes taking a "minority position"
>among them, but always backing up my opinions with facts and logic.
>You know what? I often get an argument from members of the "ARI
>crowd," but I almost always get respect, too.
Big deal...you get lots and lots of respect here too. It's just that
_here_ you get the respect for the things you deserve the respect for.
>>And you seem to be spreading a myth that denies that in a very
>>significant way, they *do* constitute a monolithic organization,
>>united by certain shared views about the proper way to spread
>>Objectivism.
>
>That no more makes them a "monolithic organization" than the total of
>all the doctors who "share views" about scientific medicine as opposed
>to voodoo.
But you're evading the POINT, which isn't the level of proof but the
FACT that it's a monolithic organization far beyond the monolith status
of doctors who don't believe in voodoo. That's a FACT, and it's
undeniable. You are evading the issue by arguing the level of proof
rather than the claim itself.
IOW, with your answer you engaged in precisely what Chris accuses you
of doing in his comment.
>> Even though you "support the ARI" but don't run it, or the other
>> Objectivist organizations, you nonetheless are appropriately grouped
>> under what I've called the "ARI crowd.")
>
>I agree with what they are doing and I want to help them do it.
Speaking of which, is it possible to briefly encapsulate what the hell
it IS that they want to do over there?
>Not yet. It's too soon to have taken over academia, but progress in
>that direction is being made at a reasonably good pace.
Nothing ethereal there, eh?
>Tell you what, Chris: People like me will work on spreading
>Objectivist ideas, and you and your buddies can spread the "by and
>large Objectivist" ideas.
Personally, I think that's a good retort. The problem is of course
that you're NOT spreading Objectivist ideas.
>If we get good Objectivists in philosophy departments, those
>departments will _become_ quality philosophy departments.
Amen and hallelujah! I couldn't agree more. The problem once again
is, obviously, that (some of) the Objectivists you support AREN'T "good
ones."
>If places like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and so on are going to be able
>to compete with philosophy departments that have good Objectivists,
>they are going to have to shape up.
I agree with the sentiment, but it's the wrong business approach. And
by "wrong" I mean "can't happen." You can't run a business without a
customer, and in the case of philosophy departments, the University is
the customer.
>Objectivism in the only sense that matters to me -- 100% pure
>Objectivism.
Great...maybe you can help clear up an issue that John Alway and I have
been going around about. If Rand wrote a false sentence (she DID write
at least a single false sentence, didn't she?), what is part of "100%
pure Objectivism"...the false sentence or the negation of it?
>Anybody who wants to advance Objectivism -- or any _part_ of it they
>like-- can do so. It is a free country and I think it is all to the
>good.
I gotta wonder...where the hell do you live!
jk
Robert J. Kolker
Betsy Speicher wrote:
>
> When I was a philosophy major, the department survived by giving classes
> in symbolic logic which, for liberal arts majors, was the only way to
> satisfy the math requirement without taking math.
>
Did you take this option, or did you learn some harder type of mathematics
like Analysis of Real vaiables (which as all that good stuff on limits,
integrals,
diferential equations and so forth)? I hope you studied physics when you
had the chance. Physics is the only science.
Bob Kolker
Jim Klein
>When I was a philosophy major, the department survived by giving
>classes in symbolic logic which, for liberal arts majors, was the only
>way to satisfy the math requirement without taking math.
Then you studied in a remarkably weak philosophy department. When my
major was in a philosophy department, symbolic logic was but a trivial
requisite for the department; I don't think it was even taught by a
philosophy professor.
And I don't believe it satisfied the liberal arts math requirement
either, indicating that not only did your school have an
extraordinarily weak philosophy department, but that it's liberal arts
program wasn't too rigorous either.
jk
Jim Klein
<rum...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>If places like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and so on are going to be
>>able to compete with philosophy departments that have good
>>Objectivists, they are going to have to shape up.
>
>I agree with the sentiment, but it's the wrong business approach. And
>by "wrong" I mean "can't happen." You can't run a business without a
>customer, and in the case of philosophy departments, the University is
>the customer.
Oops, I should have written, "...and in the case of philosophy
departments hiring professors, the University is the customer."
And I hope Betsy doesn't pass over the one thing (in either post) that
deals _directly_ with Objectivism:
>>Objectivism in the only sense that matters to me -- 100% pure
>>Objectivism.
>
>Great...maybe you can help clear up an issue that John Alway and I
>have been going around about. If Rand wrote a false sentence (she DID
>write at least a single false sentence, didn't she?), what is part of
>"100% pure Objectivism"...the false sentence or the negation of it?
I should have thrown on "IYO," since that's all Betsy can offer on
this. But that's all I seek, of course.
jk
Amw
Chris Cathcart wrote:
> I think it would be fair to say, from the impression I've got of the kinds of
> problems in epistemology many contemporary philosophers are concerned with,
> that in its current state of development, Objectivist epistemology is not
> equipped to handle many of these tough issues. But I allow that I might be
> mistaken about this, and that if I were as interested in the more esoteric
> issues of epistemology as I am in moral and political philosophy, I'd be in a
> better position to judge. It seems to me overly simplistic to declare that
> modern philosophy has embraced skepticism, and close to downright false that
> it has embraced altruism, especially in the sense that Rand defined the term
> (though it would be safe to say that it hardly accepts egoism to a
> significant extent, either).
Would you please elaborate on some of these more esoteric issues of epistem
ology
that you are talking about above? This has been an interest of mine lately.
Or at
least reference me to some place that asks the questions.
I have said this before, but will repeat it here. I don't think I can call
myself
an Objectivist in the ARI type of mold. Their approach strikes me as dogmatic
which in return strikes me as hypocritical (at least inconsistent) according to
their own system. I find Besty's satisfaction with her brand rather frighte
ning.
From the outside, it has the appearance of a cult, which can be used to a good
effect, but not by the ARI itself.
I would refer to myself as a Heretical Objectivist. It is more important to
me to
get the right answers than who said what first. Rand did a wonderful job of
mapping out the territory, but there are a few bits that need additional
attention. There may be places where Rand is wrong, but she is the most right I
have found to date.
Ben
Gordon G. Sollars
In article <3705A1E2...@icsi.net>, jal...@icsi.net writes...
> Gordon G. Sollars wrote:
...
> > Thinking that contemporary academic philosophers are a monolithic group
> > out to "fool" anyone is much like thinking that all capitalists act
> > together to further their class interest.
>
> They don't necessarily do it deliberately.
Capitalists needn't do it deliberately either, at least according to
Marxists. Marxists take an objective view about what is going on; what
matters is what the capitalists actually do. This appears to be your
view with regard to the philosophers.
What it ignores is that capitalists and philosophers complete with each
other, not against a working class or Objectivists.
> Speaking of which, Gordon, how many academic philosophers are gunho
> capitalists?
Chris's answer nearby is probably more informed than mine. The academics
who are the most gungho capitalists are probably those who are in a
position to benefit most from capitalism; this is more likely to be
geneticists or computer scientists than philosophers. I recall an old
Scientific American article that reported survey results that indicated
that the only academic discipline with more Marxists than philosophy was
sociology.
But so what? What I think many Objectivists miss is that there really is
something called "doing good philosophy" just as there is something
called "doing good law", and professionals in both areas can recognize it
independently of ideology. Outsiders frequently can not.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@virginia.edu
Lavos999
>"Outsiders" are constantly entering the world of academic philosophy,
>generally under the title of "students." And they have a much wider
>range of backgrounds and interests than you might think.
Yeah, but a lot of teachers don't like students who are smarter than they are.
I don't see why philosophy would be any different.
------------------------------------
The Red New Deal with a Soviet seal
Endorsed by a Moscow hand
The strange result of a foreign cult
In a liberty-loving land.
Lavos999
>In article <37051D97...@icsi.net>,
> John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
>
>
> ...most Objectivists
>> would want nothing to do with academic philosophers....
>
>
>The fox can't reach the grapes, and decides, of course, that he doesn't
>really
>want them.
Objectivists *could* get into academia; all they'd have to do is abandon their
principles and start spouting Marxism, postmodernism, or nihilism. But they
(quite rationally) find that too high a price to pay.
Jim Klein
<lavo...@aol.comSPAMKILL> writes:
>Objectivists *could* get into academia; all they'd have to do is
>abandon their principles and start spouting Marxism, postmodernism, or
>nihilism. But they (quite rationally) find that too high a price to
>pay.
That excuse might have made sense in the '70s, or maybe even the early
'80s, but I don't think it washes now. I don't know much about the
current state of academia, but I know the state of Marxism and nihilism
in the world today. Plus, I see the occasional academic around here
and elsewhere on the Internet---if that small sample is any indication,
then I doubt that philosophy departments are in as sorry a state as
they were a few decades ago.
And even if they are, that has nothing to do with the responsibility
which falls upon the Objectivists' shoulders. I mean, what are the
most visible of current Objectivist writings? Peikoff has exactly one
on the web site..._Fact and Value_, which is more sermon than
philosophy; false taken as either. Schwartz has his famous
Libertarian piece, which has been torn to shreds by many folks, both as
to rigor and substance. Then of course there's Binswanger's doctoral
thesis. I can't speak to its rigor, but I can sure say that its
substance is bunk; I don't how you can have real rigor and end up with
bunk. I've read Bidinotto's anti-anarchy piece; it too had fallacies
that I wouldn't expect a high-school grad to have.
C'mon...I don't even have a college degree and I can see how weak this
stuff is. From what I can gather, David Kelley is about the only
accomplished Objectivist academic on the scene. Maybe someone could
post a pointer to some of Tara Smith's stuff, so we can get a glimpse
of what the future might hold. Otherwise, it seems as if all the good
stuff--at least the most public of it--comes from "ex-Objectivists" or
"semi-Objectivists" and the like. From what I've seen, all of the
really advanced writings coming from actual full-blown Objectivists
(with the possible exception of the rookies Betsy keeps bragging about)
all comes from folks who carry the "excommunicated" brand from the ARI.
I just don't think blaming academia for the academic failure of
Objectivists suits an egoist very well. If Objectivists are able to
come up with endless rationalizations why it's okay to be on the Govco
payroll in a statist society bordering on fascism, surely they can come
up with a few reasons why it's okay to succeed in academia.
jk
Brad Aisa
Statement goes to...
Betsy Speicher, who wrote:
> If we get good Objectivists in philosophy departments, those departments
> will _become_ quality philosophy departments. [so therefore...]
> If places like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and so on are going to be able to
> compete with philosophy departments that have good Objectivists, they are
> going to have to shape up.
If our little philosophic movement had more *chutzpah* like this, we'd
go far!
--
Brad Aisa
ba...@NOSPAMistar.ca -- PGP public keys available at:
http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup2?op=index&search=Brad+Aisa
"Laissez faire."
Lionell K. Griffith
<bobk...@www2.email.com> wrote:
>Physics is the only science.
Oh?
What is "science"?
Just how is "science" limted to simply "physics"?
I would suggest that "science" is independent of subject matter.
Science is a particular process of thought and experimentation applied
to the discovery of any kind of reliable knowledge about things that
exist. "Physics" is simply one focus of that process. Its an
important focus, but by no means the only possible or even the only
necessary focus.
I do agree that many things called "science" today fall far short of
actually being science, but not because the subject of focus. Even
much of what is called modern physics falls short of being science.
Its rules of thumb, speculation, imagination, arbitrary assertion, or
unfounded fantasy perhaps, but not science. For example, QM (rules of
thumb), String Theory (speculation), Cosmology (imagination and
arbitrary assertion), or the 11 Dimensions (and counting) of the Big
Bang (unfounded fantasy).
Jim Klein
>The Philosophic Academy Award for Most (Delicisiouly) Precocious
>Statement goes to...
>
>Betsy Speicher, who wrote:
>
>>If we get good Objectivists in philosophy departments, those
>>departments will _become_ quality philosophy departments. [so
>>therefore...]
>>If places like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and so on are going to be
>>able to compete with philosophy departments that have good
>>Objectivists, they are going to have to shape up.
>
>If our little philosophic movement had more *chutzpah* like this, we'd
>go far!
This what I mean...you guys can't even make a cute joke without
misidentifying. "Chutzpah" would be, "Objectivists are so good that
we're gonna change Harvard, Princeton and MIT." Or even, "It won't be
long before the Ivy League is bidding for Objectivists!"
Read her comment carefully...it's just plain excuse-making, typical
around here when the topic turns to academia.
Sorry to blow the joke. Like so much else in the world, I'm sure it
was well-intentioned.
Little movement indeed, and nary a "philosopher" wondering why.
jk
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
"But who will guard the guards themselves?"--Juvenal
Robert J. Kolker
Brad Aisa wrote:
>
> If our little philosophic movement had more *chutzpah* like this, we'd
> go far!
>
Considering who and what its founders were, Objectivism started off with
plenty of chutzpah.
Bob Kolker
Chris Cathcart
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > Fine. But do you care to venture a guess as to why this is happening?
> > Why do you think that the intellectuals sponsored and sanctioned by the
> > "ARI folks" haven't been doing as impressive a job, on the whole, as
> > those who've been ousted or ignored by the "ARI folks"?
>
> Au contraire, I think that the ARI folks are doing a better job. That's
> why I'm sending them money instead of IOS.
I suppose I don't know what it would take to convince you otherwise. The
evidence from what I see is the other way. I guess we're not going to get
much further than "is-ain't" on this one. :-/
> Perhaps one difference is in the job the various organizations and their
> supporters want done. I myself am a "purist" -- what I believe IOS
> partisans call "dogmatic" --
You're setting up a straw man. Taking the leading IOS partisan, Kelley, he is
no less a purist than Peikoff as far as I can tell. He's a full supporter of
Objectivism at every level, on literally every detail. Of course, they differ
on certain areas of interpretation of what Objectivism entails in the areas of
sanction and toleration, and Kelley clearly has a different idea as to the
effective ways to spread Objectivism than Peikoff does.
> and I want the _whole_ Objectivist package
> and not just parts of it. I see no need to "fix" parts of it as many IOS
> supporters do. If they want to do so, they can. I'm just not interested.
Straw man again. The issue isn't about "fixing" parts of Objectivism. There
is no part of Objectivism that I've seen Kelley say that ought to be fixed.
> > Okay. Fine. But again, you sidestep the point at hand. Why doesn't
> > "ARI style" Objectivism -- that is, Objectivism done in the style and
> > content that the "ARI folks" approve of -- make the kind of progress
> > that those who don't practice the "ARI style" have made?
>
> It depends on what you consider "progress," doesn't it? I'm very pleased
> with the progress made so far.
Yes, it does depend on what you consider "progress." Any progress made in any
regard seems to you to be a sign that Objectivism, as you, Peikoff, Schwartz
and others think what Objectivism is, and how to spread its ideas, is winning.
And I'm saying there is little reason to think this, except for wishful
thinking.
> > (A digression: You've been saying that there is this myth that's been
> > spread by Kelleyites, that the ARI, Second Renaissance
> > Books/Conferences, the Intellectual Activist, the OSG, Lyceum
> > International, etc., constitute some kind of monolithic organization.
> > And you seem to be spreading a myth that denies that in a very
> > significant way, they *do* constitute a monolithic organization, united
> > by certain shared views about the proper way to spread Objectivism.
>
> That no more makes them a "monolithic organization" than the total of all
> the doctors who "share views" about scientific medicine as opposed to
> voodoo.
They all share certain views that distinguish them from Kelleyite
Objectivists, namely, their repudiation of Kelley and of "Libertarians," and
their views about intellectual toleration, which I think is clearly reflected
in their respective approaches to dealing with the ideas of other thinkers.
> > Even though you "support the ARI" but don't run it, or the other
> > Objectivist organizations, you nonetheless are appropriately grouped
> > under what I've called the "ARI crowd.")
>
> I agree with what they are doing and I want to help them do it.
Fine. Go ahead and help them. I could really care less who Besty Speicher
supports and doesn't support. The best as I can tell, she has found a home
in the "ARI camp," and that's probably the best place for her to stay. These
kinds of loyalties and allegiances often happen to be a good way to to
differentiate the kind of intellectual that I'd be interested in considering
an ally in the fight for the right ideas, from those I probably wouldn't want
as close allies. I'm not "whining" that you agree with them or that you're
helping them. I'm just pointing out certain realities that people may care
to consider seriously or to rationalize away with some wishful thinking.
> If we get good Objectivists in philosophy departments, those departments
> will _become_ quality philosophy departments.
> [...]
> If places like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and so on are going to be able to
> compete with philosophy departments that have good Objectivists, they are
> going to have to shape up.
Sounds like some more wishful thinking. It's places like Harvard, Princeton,
MIT, and so on, that have the wherewithal to hire the best philosophers away
from lesser places. If Objectivists are quality philosophers, those will be
the places where they get hired. Of course it's the good philosophers that
make for the quality departments. And unsurprisingly, the departments with
the wherewithal to hire quality philosophers are the quality departments.
This is aside from the question, of course, of whether there are likely to be
many quality Objectivists of the sort that you approve of. I think this would
proabably also have to involve a good deal of wishful thinking.
> > > Not at all. I see it as a sign that Objectivism is winning.
> >
> > Objectivism, "ARI-style," or Objectivism in a broader sense?
>
> Objectivism in the only sense that matters to me -- 100% pure Objectivism.
Again, Objectivism as you and Peikoff and Schwartz see it. Kelley is in
support of 100% pure Objectivism as well. You've created the straw man that
he's out to "fix" it. You seem to be equating "100% pure Objectivism" with
what I call ARI-style Objectivism. If it were only that easy.
And note that we haven't even gotten into the question of whether 100% pure
Objectivism (Kelleyite of Peikoffian) is intellectually meritorious enough to
garner the kind of recognition that would coincide with Objectivists getting
hired at top positions in academia.
> > If, for example, Objectivism is winning because of the efforts of people
> > like Mack, Rasmussen, Den Uyl, Miller, and others, as it is the case
> > more than with just about any of the "ARI-approved" Objectivists, would
> > we expect to see mentions of their names in the CyberNet? Or does their
> > not promoting an "approved" version of Objectivism, sufficient to put
> > them in good standing with the principals of the ARI, mean that they're
> > compromising Objectivism's effectiveness, even though the advancements
> > they've helped to create are a sign that Objectivism is winning?
>
> Mack, Rasmussen, etc. are promoting _something_ connected with
> Objectivism, and it is Objectivism's success that is making _their_
> successes possible.
Perhaps. I've already tried to untangle the meaning of the latter part of
your statement. As to the former part, I already challenged you to come up
with one iota of evidence of differences between Rasmussen's philosophy and
Objectivism. You asserted there was some difference, but never explained
what the differences were. Miller, as far as I can tell, is a full-fledged
Objectivist. He's written an important book on the topic of rights in
Aristotle's political theory. But he's also aligned with the IOS, which
disqualifies him from being an Objectivist in your view.
Chris Cathcart
Kyle Haight <kha...@netcom.com> wrote:
> I haven't been following this thread in detail, but I was wondering
> which non-ARI-supported intellectuals you had in mind. More to the
> point, I was wondering if those intellectuals are at the same stage in
> their careers as Smith and Mayhew? Comparing the body of work
> produced by a long-time academic like, say, Eric Mack or Doug Rasmussen
> to the body of work produced by relative newcomers such as Smith and
> Mayhew would seem like comparing apples to oranges.
That's a good point, Kyle. I hadn't thought of it in this respect before.
It wouldn't be quite fair to compare the body of work to long-time academics
(yes, the people I have in mind include Mack and Rasmussen) to rleative
newcomers. There would have to be some way of making more straightforward
comparisons, such as comparing the quality of their works, the work and the
quality of it produced at comparative stages in their careers, or to compare
the work of Smith and Mayhew to the work of relative newcomers among those
who don't fall into the "ARI" group (e.g., Roderick Long, Neera Badhwar, or
perhaps Chris Sciabarra, though Sciabarra isn't working on a career in
philosophy like he is in political theory). If you compare them this way,
then there is definitely less disparity, though one likely still exists.
Another thing to consider is why the ones in good standing with the "ARI
group" are relative newcomers, rather than there being considerably more
established intellectuals in good standing with ARI that have been around for
a longer period time. As far as I know, the only one who would fit this
description is Gotthelf. I'm wary of the explanation that the formation of
the ARI and its sponsoring of those pursuing a career in academia is what has
made the most difference.
> I'm not saying you're doing this, but I would be curious to know which
> other intellectuals you're using as your basis of comparison and what
> work of theirs is so impressive. (I have a few candidates in mind
> myself, but I'm interested in what you think.)
I've been most impressed by the works of Mack and the Dougs. I think the
Dougs clearly produced a stronger argument for rights in _Liberty and Nature_
than Smith's argument in _Moral Rights and Political Freedom_. I've been
most impressed by Mack's arguments, but he's only now in the process of
coming out with a book. I haven't read it, but I've heard Miller's book on
Aristotle's _Politics_ is very good. There might be some other worthwhile
works that don't come readily to mind.
Chris Cathcart
>
> > I don't have much problem with the idea of an essay contest, but should
> > one consider this to be an achievement especially attributable to some
> > competence or intellectual stature on the part of the people running the
> > ARI, or could it very well be done by any Objectivist organization that
> > had access to Rand's copyrights? Is this something special that the ARI
> > has done that the IOS, say, couldn't do if it had similar legal rights?
>
> So THAT's what you're whining about!
I'm not whining. What gives you the impression I am? I merely pointed out
that the essay contest is no special accomplishment on the ARI's part, and
doesn't factor much into reasons for thinking that its approach is superior to
the IOS's.
> Your buddies at IOS have the same rights as ARI supporters to buy Ayn
> Rand's books, think about her ideas, apply them to their own lives and
> work, spread then throughout the culture, etc.
True, but this doesn't refute what I've said.
> As to copyrights, ARI doesn't have them. The Estate of Ayn Rand (i.e.,
> Peikoff) does.
I wrote that the ARI has access to the copyrights, not that it had the
copyrights. And seeing as Peikoff holds the copyrights, it would suggest
that I was correct that ARI has access to them, or at least to certain
advantages in virtue of Peikoff's holding them.
Brad Aisa
Unfortunately, generation two has followed the predictable genetic trait
of convergence towards the mean...
The single greatest factor limiting the practical success of advocates
of reason and a free society is... a pygmy-sized belief of what is
possible.
Rather than understand the implications for the social order of Rand's
"Atlases", many so-called Objectivists prefer to believe that salvation
lies in the wholesale philosophic "reeducation" of the masses.
Chris Cathcart
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In <19990404122326...@ng-fu1.aol.com> Lavos999
> <lavo...@aol.comSPAMKILL> writes:
>
> >Objectivists *could* get into academia; all they'd have to do is
> >abandon their principles and start spouting Marxism, postmodernism, or
> >nihilism. But they (quite rationally) find that too high a price to
> >pay.
But it isn't the case that Marxism, postmodernism, and nihilism are the kinds
of ideas that are in vogue among very many academics. Perhaps version of neo-
Marxism have some currency in mainstream academia.
> C'mon...I don't even have a college degree and I can see how weak this
> stuff is. From what I can gather, David Kelley is about the only
> accomplished Objectivist academic on the scene.
It depends on what one considers an Objectivist. People like Miller and
Lennox are quite straightforward Objectivists as far as I can tell. Others
are close to being Objectivists and tend to fall into what I would call the
category of "neo-Objectivists." As far as I can tell, people like the Dougs
are fully Objectivist in substance. There's an argument that Mack most
likely is as well. If you are to consider those who are highly influenced by
Rand but not necessarily Objectivists, there are many others in addition to
Kelley.
> Maybe someone could
> post a pointer to some of Tara Smith's stuff, so we can get a glimpse
> of what the future might hold.
She's written a book called _Moral Rights and Political Freedom_. She's
working on a book on the foundations of value. She has a few journal articles
as well, but I can't give references at the moment.
> Otherwise, it seems as if all the good
> stuff--at least the most public of it--comes from "ex-Objectivists" or
> "semi-Objectivists" and the like. From what I've seen, all of the
> really advanced writings coming from actual full-blown Objectivists
> (with the possible exception of the rookies Betsy keeps bragging about)
> all comes from folks who carry the "excommunicated" brand from the ARI.
That seems about right, subject to some qualifications. (See Kyle Haight's
post and my reply.)
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> writes:
>
> >When I was a philosophy major, the department survived by giving
> >classes in symbolic logic which, for liberal arts majors, was the only
> >way to satisfy the math requirement without taking math.
>
> Then you studied in a remarkably weak philosophy department.
Actually, I studied at the University of Pennsylvania in the 1960's and
the department had an extremely good reputation -- which it did not
deserve. As far as I can tell, all philosophy departments then were
"remarkably weak" and, since then, they have gotten worse.
Jim Klein
Speicher <be...@speicher.com> writes:
>Actually, I studied at the University of Pennsylvania in the 1960's
>and the department had an extremely good reputation --
Based on a department kept going by a symbolic logic course?
>which it did not deserve.
That I can believe!
>As far as I can tell, all philosophy departments then were
>"remarkably weak" and, since then, they have gotten worse.
I'm curious...do you have any basis for this? Surely you don't think
mysticism, or socialism, or collectivism are _more_ in vogue now than
then, do you? So I'm wondering what it is you have in mind.
jk
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> > Your buddies at IOS have the same rights as ARI supporters to buy Ayn
> > Rand's books, think about her ideas, apply them to their own lives and
> > work, spread then throughout the culture, etc.
>
> True, but this doesn't refute what I've said.
>
> > As to copyrights, ARI doesn't have them. The Estate of Ayn Rand (i.e.,
> > Peikoff) does.
>
> I wrote that the ARI has access to the copyrights, not that it had the
> copyrights.
My point was that SO DO YOU. You can buy Ayn Rand's books, think about
Ayn Rand's books, reference Ayn Rand's books, quote Ayn Rand's book
(within fair use), etc. What's your problem?
> And seeing as Peikoff holds the copyrights, it would suggest
> that I was correct that ARI has access to them, or at least to certain
> advantages in virtue of Peikoff's holding them.
Such as?
Kyle Haight
Chris Cathcart <cath...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying you're doing this, but I would be curious to know which
>> other intellectuals you're using as your basis of comparison and what
>> work of theirs is so impressive. (I have a few candidates in mind
>> myself, but I'm interested in what you think.)
>
>I've been most impressed by the works of Mack and the Dougs. I think the
>Dougs clearly produced a stronger argument for rights in _Liberty and Nature_
The argument in _Liberty and Nature_ is quite sophisticated, more so
than the one in _Moral Rights and Political Freedom_, I grant that. I
have some reservations about it myself, but that's neither here nor
there. I'll be interested to see how sophisticated Smith's work has
become over the next twenty years, however.
The only work of Mack's I recall reading was his article on "How to
Derive Ethical Egoism", and that was long enough ago that I don't
remember the details.
I've not read Miller's book, so I can't comment.
Christopher Roberson
: On 4 Apr 1999, Jim Klein wrote:
:> Then you studied in a remarkably weak philosophy department.
: Actually, I studied at the University of Pennsylvania in the 1960's and
: the department had an extremely good reputation
Penn still has a pretty good reputation. It's not a top department, but
respectable. (Though I hear that the faculty aren't very pleasant people.)
: -- which it did not
: deserve. As far as I can tell, all philosophy departments then were
: "remarkably weak" and, since then, they have gotten worse.
Aw, Betsey, according to this line of reasoning all philosophy departments
since the beginning of time have been "remarkably weak," save for a few
years in the Athenian Academy under Aristotle.
--
Christopher Roberson
Chris Cathcart
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > And seeing as Peikoff holds the copyrights, it would suggest
> > that I was correct that ARI has access to them, or at least to certain
> > advantages in virtue of Peikoff's holding them.
>
> Such as?
How 'bout postcards in the middle of paperbacks?
GregWeston
>[David Friedman] further doesn't seem to realize that most Objectivists
>would want nothing to do with academic philosophers. They don't have
>anything much to offer except an inability to think clearly.
On what do you base this judgment? How many have you
university philosophy classes have you taken? How many
philosophy professors do you know personally? How many
academic philosophy journals do you subscibe to?
The philosophy professors that I know are all clear
thinkers. In my philosophy classes the professors are
always mapping out their own and others' arguments in
sylogistic form. That cuts through any muddled thinking or
vagueness. They are also the most learned when to comes to
other academic fields. The average philosophy professor
knows much more about, say, physics, than any English
professor.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
GregWeston
<< I speak my mind, sometimes disagreeing with my
fellow ARI supporters and sometimes taking a "minority position" among
them, but always backing up my opinions with facts and logic. You know
what? I often get an argument from members of the "ARI crowd," but I
almost always get respect, too.>>
I've never personally seen on this NG you deviate from the
ARI line. Care to give me an example of you "disagreeing
with my fellow ARI supporters and sometimes taking a
minority position among them?"
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Brad Aisa
> [referring to another poster on hpo]
>
> I've never personally seen on this NG you deviate from the
> ARI line. Care to give me an example of you "disagreeing
> with my fellow ARI supporters and sometimes taking a
> minority position among them?"
I used to subscribe to the big-O Objectivist list run by Bob
Stubblefield, and there were disagreements on lots of things, such as
homosexuality, and other topics.
But can I ask, since when was *disagreement*, in and of itself, a
standard for measuring rationality or independence?
Maybe this is like Lois Cook's group of "intellectuals" and "artists" in
The Fountainhead -- a bunch of faux "individualists" whose uniting
characteristic was their arbitrary and irrational rebellion against
rational standards in any field.
GregWeston
>Rather than understand the implications for the social order of Rand's
>"Atlases", many so-called Objectivists prefer to believe that salvation
>lies in the wholesale philosophic "reeducation" of the masses.
Would you expand on this point?
.
.
.
.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Brad Aisa
>
> The philosophy professors that I know are all clear
> thinkers. In my philosophy classes the professors are
> always mapping out their own and others' arguments in
> sylogistic form.
Gee... too bad philosohpy should be formulated and analyzed inductively,
not deductively.
> That cuts through any muddled thinking or vagueness.
Well, I'm sure it helps illuminate the deductive method and *a priori*
content of many philosophers. Too bad it probably doesn't help in an
understanding of correct, reality-oriented philosophy.
> They are also the most learned when to comes to
> other academic fields. The average philosophy professor
> knows much more about, say, physics, than any English
> professor.
The average philosophy professor probably knows too much about physics,
and too much about English qua language, and too much about symbolic
logic qua branch of mathematics, and too much about all kinds of things
that don't have much place in the field of philosophy.
Doesn't leave much room left over for philosophy -- real philosophy.
GregWeston
>Objectivists *could* get into academia; all they'd have to
>do is abandon their principles and start spouting Marxism,
>postmodernism, or nihilism.
What percent of philosophy professors do you think are Marxists,
postmodernists, or nihilists? Of the eight or so professors of philosophy plus
the several future ones I know, exactly zero are marxists, postmodernists, or
nihilists. I'll ask Mr. Roberson and Mr. Cathcart, how many
are there in your departments?
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Brad Aisa
>
> Brad Aisa writes:
>
> >Rather than understand the implications for the social order of Rand's
> >"Atlases", many so-called Objectivists prefer to believe that salvation
> >lies in the wholesale philosophic "reeducation" of the masses.
>
> Would you expand on this point?
Sure, I've written volumes on it, but in microbrief:
The proper political system of a free society is comprise *only* of
people who fully agree with individual rights and take no political
actions against them. This is obviously at odds with universal suffrage
and democracy as we know it.
It is the moral right -- and responsibility -- of defenders of
individual rights to institute such a system. This can only be achieved
(realistically), if those who move society -- the "Atlases" -- make the
establishment of such a system the condition of their continued
contribution (by way of their work) to the benefit of others.
Sanction is everything. Without it, no system can survive.
The Atlases have *all* the power. They are the ones who literally move
the world and make things work. Without them, everything would come to a
halt, literally.
Many Objectivists, however, cling to the notion that change must be
achieved conventionally and democratically, via some kind of alleged
philosophic transformation of society which must take place, the genesis
and spread of said transformation nowhere characterized by them.
It is literally a brand of religious faith.
"Believe in the Second Renaissance, for it is yeah nigh upon thee. (Or
thy great, great great grandchildren, anyways.)"
GregWeston
>I used to subscribe to the big-O Objectivist list run by Bob
>Stubblefield, and there were disagreements on lots of things, such as
>homosexuality, and other topics.
I sure there was. I was just surprised when Mrs. Speicher said that she had had
disagreements with other ARIans, so I asked her for an example.
>there were disagreements on lots of things, such as homosexuality
I'd imagine so, considering how unenlighted Rand and Branden were, and the fact
that there are many orthodox Objectivists who still share their view.
>But can I ask, since when was *disagreement*, in and of itself, a
>standard for measuring rationality or independence?
It never was, in and of itself.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
GregWeston
>The proper political system of a free society is comprise *only* of
>people who fully agree with individual rights and take no political
>actions against them.
That obviously follows from Rand's political philosophy.
>This is obviously at odds with universal suffrage
>and democracy as we know it.
That's also true. I wonder why Peikoff & Co. don't write a paper against
universal sufferage.
>The Atlases have *all* the power. They are the ones who literally move
>the world and make things work. Without them, everything would come to a
>halt, literally.
It's too bad for you that most Atlases are not Objectivists,
and few of those that are would be willing to withdraw
sanction.
>It is literally a brand of religious faith.
Those sound like fighting words to me, if said about an
Objectivist about another Objectivist. Because I am not one
of them, I'll let them defend themselves.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
ja...@lockwood.nu
> If our little philosophic movement had more *chutzpah* like this, we'd
> go far!
It's pretty obvious that you think people like me (i.e. a "satisfied thrall")
haven't the chutzpah that Betsy does. Well, I will kindly disagree with your
statement and say that there are *lots* of Objectivists with *lots* of
chutzpah. I realize that signs of intelligent life are few and far between in
Canada, but that ain't necessarily the case in the US. You should try us for a
while - maybe your fatalism would fade a bit.
Jason Lockwood
Freebootrr
Mr Anthony Argyriou wrote, in part:
> I suspect that work like Lakoff's >"Philosophy in the Flesh" will be
>about as poorly received as Rand's >work, because Lakoff is not a
>"Philosopher".
This is not quite right.
First, _Philosophy in the Flesh_ is the product of two co-authors:
George Lakoff, who is Professor of Linguistics at University of California,
Berkeley, and
Mark Johnson, Professor of Philosophy, University of Oregon.
They are also co-authors of an earlier book on the same theme: _Metaphors We
Live By_.
Prof Johnson is, obviously, a full-bore philosopher and is, in fact, chairman
of the philosophy department at U. Oregon.
Prof Lakoff is, strictly speaking, a linguistics researcher and hangs his hat
in the Linguistics department at Berkeley. For many years, however, he has
gravitated toward the new interdisciplinary field called Cognitive Science,
which includes philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists,
evolutionary psychologists, so forth and etc.
He's a member of the Institute of Cognitive Studies, associated with UCB, and
also of the prestigious Santa Fe Institute. He is, in short, pretty much an
academic bigfoot whose ideas carry weight.
There's a nice, long interview with Lakoff, in which he covers the thesis of
PitF available at:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/lakoff.html
CogSci is a very hot field, and many prominent philosophers (e.g., Daniel
Dennett) bill themselves as"cognitive scientists" these days.
So, even though Lakoff is not a "philosopher" in the very strictist sense, he
is still a well-known scholar contributing to work on philosophical problems.
John Locke was a physician, George Berkeley was a bishop, Nietzsche was a
philologist, and Ayn Rand was a novelist. No point in being hypnotized by
arbitrary labels.
PitF is (surprise!) required reading in Philosophy 407 (Philosophy of Cognitive
Science) at U. Oregon, and I suspect it will pop up elsewhere. It's a hot book
in a hot sub-discipline and I think it will be widely read and taught.
Philosophy profs are as interested in the Next Big Thing as anybody in any
other field. The notion that they are hermetically sealed from, and hostile to,
everything going on in the rest of the world seems groundless.
Also, the notion that Rand has made no impression on academic philosophy is
exaggerated. The work of Douglas Den Uyl at Bellarmine College, Douglas
Rasmussen at St John's University, Tibor Machan at Auburn, Chris Sciabarra at
NYU, and Eric Mack at Tulane are all well-known (or ought to be) by hpo
habitues. Not to mention the work of respected independent scholars like David
Kelley (who trained at Tulane).
None of these are are rigid, blinkered Objectivists in the ARI mold, but their
Rand-influenced work is probably all the more influential for that. Those who
require Oist exhortation rather than critical discussion will continue to be
dissatisfied, but the ideas are out there in the arena.
Also, the notion that the passage of forty years without the triumph of Rand in
the academy constitutes failure seems premature.
It has happened again and again that forgotten or overlooked thinkers are
suddenly rediscovered and revived when a niche opens for them in the culture.
Disputes in philosphy, after all, frequently turn on work done hundreds, or
even thousands of years ago.
And the same is certainly true with respect to reputations in the field of
literature, and we should not forget that Rand is as much a novelist as
philosopher.
Herman Melville, to cite just one notorious example, was almost completely
forgotten and obscure forty years after his death, and is now, regarded by at
least some critics and scholars as the greatest American writer.
-- J. C. LeGere
freeb...@aol.com
Chris Cathcart
There is only one that I can say for sure falls into the "Continental"
category, which usually means a good dose of postmodernism. I am under the
impression, though I might be mistaken, that this is the "token" Continental
philosopher of the department, out of about 18 faculty. There is one other
who I gather has read a lot of the postmodern literature and takes it fairly
seriously.
"Nihilism" is most likely a buzzword some Objectivists use to express contempt
for modern philosophy; I have no idea who or what in contemporary philosophy
falls into a genuinely "nihilist" category. And Marxists, well, that's also a
term that could mean many different things. If the term is limited to those
who take an avowedly Marxist approach, then there are probably not many, and
none that I know of in the philosophy department I'm in.
--
Chris Cathcart
Brad Aisa
>
> Brad Aisa writes:
>
> >The proper political system of a free society is comprise *only* of
> >people who fully agree with individual rights and take no political
> >actions against them.
>
> That obviously follows from Rand's political philosophy.
No it doesn't, nor does she put this idea forward anywhere.
> >This is obviously at odds with universal suffrage
> >and democracy as we know it.
>
> That's also true. I wonder why Peikoff & Co. don't write a paper against
> universal sufferage.
Probably because they think that we are so far away from a free society,
that it is useless to speculate on the concretes of the political system
of such a society. Or maybe because they don't think anything really
needs to change, apart from changing some laws.
> >It is literally a brand of religious faith.
>
> Those sound like fighting words to me, if said about an
> Objectivist about another Objectivist. Because I am not one
> of them, I'll let them defend themselves.
Sure they are, and some of them squeal bloody murder. They don't realize
they are acting on faith, but really they are.
What do they have, except *one* example, the renaissance, allegedly
caused, single-handedly, by the "reintroduction" of Aristotle, via
Acquinas, into Western society. (They don't answer why the *original*
"introduction" of Aristotle into Western society didn't lead to a
similar "renaissance"... especially considering the more rational base
of Greek society, rather than the middle ages.
That introducing philosophy 'X' (if reasonably rational) leads to
renaissance 'Y' is a scientific hypothesis. Yet it has not been studied
in anything even approaching a scientific manner. I am not suggesting it
is not possible, only that the requisite mechanisms of transmission of
ideas and mechanics of cultural change would need to be elucidated and
proven.
As far as I'm concerned, the thesis of Atlas Shrugged is proven far more
definitively, than the hypothesis that it is possible to "re-engineer" a
culture.
John Alway
> John Alway writes:
> >[David Friedman] further doesn't seem to realize that most Objectivists
> >would want nothing to do with academic philosophers. They don't have
> >anything much to offer except an inability to think clearly.
> On what do you base this judgment? How many have you
> university philosophy classes have you taken? How many
> philosophy professors do you know personally? How many
> academic philosophy journals do you subscibe to?
Certainly from my direct experience being taught, among other
things. Granted, I was an engineering major and didn't get lots of
philosophy, but I certainly had philosophy courses and humanities
courses. I was told by one philosophy professor that logic was a
convention, and that other cultures had equally valid ways of thinking
(I detected a bit of mockery toward the West in his voice). Not exactly
in those words, but that was the gist. Yet another philosophy
professor said he had this "theory" that the universe is "3% beauty".
I swear he said that!
I did have a good logic teacher, though I'm not sure if he was a
philosophy major. He was definitely an army man.
But, look around you Greg, subjectivism reins supreme. Feminism,
multiculturalism, and environmentalism especially are ubiquitous in our
culture. President Clinton, a thorough nihilist and liar
extraordinare, gets big support from intellectuals. Look at all of the
lawyers who came to his defense with all kinds of weasel words. Lawyers
aren't philosophers, but the engine behind their method of thinking
comes from philosophy, notable the idea that there is no right and
wrong, or that it's all a matter of social convention.
And does anyone remember hearing about that big convention of
philosophers a few months ago? The alleged best minds in the field
concluded that they had learned nothing this century. Someone here
might have the specifics, if so it'd be worth repeating here.
...John
Christopher Roberson
: Lavos999 writes:
:>Objectivists *could* get into academia; all they'd have to
:>do is abandon their principles and start spouting Marxism,
:>postmodernism, or nihilism.
: What percent of philosophy professors do you think are Marxists,
: postmodernists, or nihilists? Of the eight or so professors of
: philosophy plus the several future ones I know, exactly zero are
: marxists, postmodernists, or nihilists. I'll ask Mr. Roberson and Mr.
: Cathcart, how many are there in your departments?
I don't know the Loyola department very well yet (and it's quite large, so
it may be a while before I do). So I'll think back to the department at
Michigan, Ann Arbor. Out of 20 full-time faculty:
Marxists 1
Postmodernists 0
Nihilists 0
These numbers would stay the same if you added in emeritus and adjunct
faculty. You might want to include ethical non-cognitivists as nihilists
(though they'd vehemently deny this), in which case there'd be 1 nihilist.
You'd be unlikely to find postmodernists in a philosophy department. The
odd combination of intellectual and sociological trends which produced
postmodernism is mostly found in lit departments. The one Continental
philosopher at Michigan thinks that postmodernism is a crock, and has
publicly stated so.
--
Christopher Roberson
GregWeston
>The proper political system of a free society is comprise *only* of
>people who fully agree with individual rights and take no political
>actions against them.
>> That obviously follows from Rand's political philosophy.
>No it doesn't, nor does she put this idea forward anywhere.
I seem to remember a certain community in AS that was only comprised of "people
who fully agree with individual rights and take no political actions against
them." Wasn't Galt's Gulch an example of Rand putting forth her idea of a free
society?
>>I wonder why Peikoff & Co. don't write a paper against
>> universal sufferage.
>Probably because they think that we are so far away from a free society,
>that it is useless to speculate on the concretes of the political system
>of such a society. Or maybe because they don't think anything really
>needs to change, apart from changing some laws.
Or maybe questioning the virtues of elective government is
too radical for them.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
David Friedman
>The Philosophic Academy Award for Most (Delicisiouly) Precocious
>Statement goes to...
>
>Betsy Speicher, who wrote:
>
>> If we get good Objectivists in philosophy departments, those departments
>> will _become_ quality philosophy departments. [so therefore...]
>> If places like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and so on are going to be able to
>> compete with philosophy departments that have good Objectivists, they are
>> going to have to shape up.
>
>If our little philosophic movement had more *chutzpah* like this, we'd
>go far!
"When fighting one against a thousand, be brave. Take prisoners." (Musashi)
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Chris Cathcart
Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
> You'd be unlikely to find postmodernists in a philosophy department. The
> odd combination of intellectual and sociological trends which produced
> postmodernism is mostly found in lit departments. The one Continental
> philosopher at Michigan thinks that postmodernism is a crock, and has
> publicly stated so.
Which would be evidence against what I had stated earlier that "Continental"
philosophy usually involves a good dose of postmodernism. Not being very
familiar with either "Continental" or postmodern philosophy, I am mainly going
on impressions that I've gotten but might very well be mistaken.
Chris Cathcart
John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
[...]
> But, look around you Greg, subjectivism reins supreme. Feminism,
> multiculturalism, and environmentalism especially are ubiquitous in our
> culture.
Do the terms "feminism," "environmentalism" and "multiculturalism" have
definite meanings to the Objectivists who use them? These are, after all,
the three "ideologies" Schwartz attacks in _Return of the Primitive_, but I
have my doubts about Schwartz's ability or willingness to ascribe definite
meaning to ideological labels. (Does he even go so far as to capitalize the
first letters of these words?)
If, according to Schwartz, "feminism" means "in its essence and implications"
man-hatred, and "multiculturalism" means race-egalitarianism and hatred of
the good, and "environmentalism" means hatred of man, I have my doubts about
whether I'm in for very useful commentary, as opposed to a rant by someone
with an agenda (or hunger for attention).
> President Clinton, a thorough nihilist and liar
> extraordinare, gets big support from intellectuals. Look at all of the
> lawyers who came to his defense with all kinds of weasel words. Lawyers
> aren't philosophers, but the engine behind their method of thinking
> comes from philosophy, notable the idea that there is no right and
> wrong, or that it's all a matter of social convention.
It seems you're reading more into it than is likely to be there. Unless I
have much evidence, I've little reason to believe he gets much support from
intellectuals. It's the job of lawyers to stand up for their clients; I
think the shysters who use obvious weasel-tactics are often recognized as
such, by intellectual or non-intellectual alike.
Chris Cathcart
Freebootrr <freeb...@aol.com> wrote:
> Also, the notion that Rand has made no impression on academic philosophy is
> exaggerated. The work of Douglas Den Uyl at Bellarmine College, Douglas
> Rasmussen at St John's University, Tibor Machan at Auburn, Chris Sciabar
> ra at
> NYU, and Eric Mack at Tulane are all well-known (or ought to be) by hpo
> habitues.
I think the "ought to be" is more applicable here; unfortunately, many of
those on and off h.p.o. have little or no familiarity with these writers,
focusing more or less exclusively on the writings of Rand and Peikoff (or the
"approved" writings like that by Tara Smith). It would be to the benefit of
those Objectivists aspiring to the title of intellectuals to be familiar with
the other work that has been done, since so much of it offers strong
arguments that Objectivists could put into use when discussing Objectivist
ideas with others.
> Not to mention the work of respected independent scholars like David
> Kelley (who trained at Tulane).
I believe he trained at Princeton.
> None of these are are rigid, blinkered Objectivists in the ARI mold, but
> their
> Rand-influenced work is probably all the more influential for that. Those who
> require Oist exhortation rather than critical discussion will continue to be
> dissatisfied, but the ideas are out there in the arena.
I agree, of course. :-)
Christopher Roberson
: In article <1999040505...@breakout.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
: Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
:> You'd be unlikely to find postmodernists in a philosophy department. The
:> odd combination of intellectual and sociological trends which produced
:> postmodernism is mostly found in lit departments. The one Continental
:> philosopher at Michigan thinks that postmodernism is a crock, and has
:> publicly stated so.
: Which would be evidence against what I had stated earlier that "Continental"
: philosophy usually involves a good dose of postmodernism. Not being very
: familiar with either "Continental" or postmodern philosophy, I am mainly
: going
: on impressions that I've gotten but might very well be mistaken.
Sometimes Continental philosophers are "postmodernists"; but not always.
The Continentalist at Michigan is Frithjof Bergmann, and he's been in the
department for more than thirty years. (He's famous for having been an
influential anti-Vietnam War faculty member at Michigan in the 60s. He
helped organize the first Teach-In against the war in the country.) So he
started out before the whole "postmodern" thing got launched, and his
focus is different.
Continental philosophers who've been trained since the late 70s are more
likely to be into "postmodernism," but are also just as likely to do
phenomenology, existentialism, Nietzsche, etc.
--
Christopher Roberson
John Alway
[...]
> Do the terms "feminism," "environmentalism" and "multiculturalism" have
> definite meanings to the Objectivists who use them?
Feminism is hatred of man, the sex. Environmentalism is hatred of
man, the species. Multiculturalism is hated of the West, and promotes
racism. That's precisely what they are.
[...]
RE: Support of Clinton by laywers and intellectuals...
> It seems you're reading more into it than is likely to be there.
There is a lot there.
> Unless I
> have much evidence, I've little reason to believe he gets much support from
> intellectuals.
Doesn't get much support? He is their glorious Frankenstein. I
remember the glowing descriptions of how "brilliant" he was from
everywhere, even though he was nothing more than a dishonest, fascistic
weasel. He'll be lauded at any university at which he speaks in the
U.S. This wouldn't happen with a republican who would be grudgingly
applauded.
> It's the job of lawyers to stand up for their clients; I
> think the shysters who use obvious weasel-tactics are often recognized as
> such, by intellectual or non-intellectual alike.
The ABA came out in defense of this wretch, and really seemed to
think it was great that he was playing word games. These people aren't
working for him.
...John
GRADinc
>Feminism is hatred of man, the sex. Environmentalism is hatred of
>man, the species. Multiculturalism is hated of the West, and promotes
>racism. That's precisely what they are.
So capitalism is hatred of cooperation?
So Objectivism is hatred of opinion?
So this-ism is hatred of that?
Tom Clarke
Lavos999
>That excuse might have made sense in the '70s, or maybe even the early
>'80s, but I don't think it washes now. I don't know much about the
>current state of academia, but I know the state of Marxism and nihilism
>in the world today. Plus, I see the occasional academic around here
>and elsewhere on the Internet---if that small sample is any indication,
>then I doubt that philosophy departments are in as sorry a state as
>they were a few decades ago.
Perhaps, but in this case the decent philosophers aren't speaking out against
the irrational ones as they should be. It is the flagrant irrationality that
always gets the most attention, and since this evil is uncompromising while the
good is sniveling and cowardly, evil is winning. That has to change.
>And even if they are, that has nothing to do with the responsibility
>which falls upon the Objectivists' shoulders. I mean, what are the
>most visible of current Objectivist writings? Peikoff has exactly one
>on the web site..._Fact and Value_, which is more sermon than
>philosophy; false taken as either. Schwartz has his famous
>Libertarian piece, which has been torn to shreds by many folks, both as
>to rigor and substance. Then of course there's Binswanger's doctoral
>thesis. I can't speak to its rigor, but I can sure say that its
>substance is bunk; I don't how you can have real rigor and end up with
>bunk. I've read Bidinotto's anti-anarchy piece; it too had fallacies
>that I wouldn't expect a high-school grad to have.
These are ARIan Peikovians, not Objectivists. I do not defend ARIan
Peikovianism, and I agree with your assesment of Schwarz and Peikoff. Peikoff,
unforunately, has gone downhill since _The Ominous Parallels_.
------------------------------------
The Red New Deal with a Soviet seal
Endorsed by a Moscow hand
The strange result of a foreign cult
In a liberty-loving land.
Brad Aisa
> I seem to remember a certain community in AS that was only comprised of "
> people
> who fully agree with individual rights and take no political actions against
> them." Wasn't Galt's Gulch an example of Rand putting forth her idea of a
> free
> society?
No, it most definitely wasn't.
That society was a *temporary* refuge for the strikers. If it wasn't
temporary, why did the book end with Galt telling everyone it was time
to go back to the world?
Another way in which that community differed categorically from almost
any practical human society, was that it was comprised solely of
hand-picked members who shared not only a very specific political
philosophy, but moral philosophy as well.
In the age of the mixed economy, politics dominates everything. You are
confronted with it on the cover of every newspaper and newmagazine, and
on every news broadcast. One gets the impression that politics is
central to existence. It is therefore understandable that those who have
not challenged the precept of the primacy of politics, would be shocked
by the idea of a politcal system that purposefully limited suffrage to
those of a specific political philosophy. But that political
philosophy's goal is to make politics almost irrelevant.
Gordon G. Sollars
writes...
...
> "Nihilism" is most likely a buzzword some Objectivists use to express con
> tempt
> for modern philosophy; I have no idea who or what in contemporary philosophy
> falls into a genuinely "nihilist" category.
Those who accept the formal proof of nihilism that I posted here some
months ago would be the best candidates, I think. ;-)
--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@virginia.edu
anth...@hotmail.com
Brad Aisa <ba...@istar.ca> wrote:
> GregWeston wrote:
> >
> > The philosophy professors that I know are all clear
> > thinkers. In my philosophy classes the professors are
> > always mapping out their own and others' arguments in
> > sylogistic form.
>
> Gee... too bad philosohpy should be formulated and analyzed inductively,
> not deductively.
>
> > That cuts through any muddled thinking or vagueness.
>
> Well, I'm sure it helps illuminate the deductive method and *a priori*
> content of many philosophers. Too bad it probably doesn't help in an
> understanding of correct, reality-oriented philosophy.
The conclusion of an inductive argument can be a premise in a deductive
argument:
All people eventually die.
Brad Aisa is a person.
Therefore Brad Aisa will eventually die.
The first premise is the conclusion of inductive reasoning. The argument
itself is in deductive form. You don't know what you are talking about.
>
> > They are also the most learned when to comes to
> > other academic fields. The average philosophy professor
> > knows much more about, say, physics, than any English
> > professor.
>
> The average philosophy professor probably knows too much about physics,
> and too much about English qua language, and too much about symbolic
> logic qua branch of mathematics, and too much about all kinds of things
> that don't have much place in the field of philosophy.
>
> Doesn't leave much room left over for philosophy -- real philosophy.
"Much room"? From your posts that I've read I take it you prefer to furnish
your "room" in the minimalist tradition.
Wrathbone
Christopher Roberson
: Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
:>"Outsiders" are constantly entering the world of academic philosophy,
:>generally under the title of "students." And they have a much wider
:>range of backgrounds and interests than you might think.
: Yeah, but a lot of teachers don't like students who are smarter than
: they are. I don't see why philosophy would be any different.
I have met quite a few teachers who don't like students who are smarter
than they are. Most of them were high school teachers.
College and university teachers are another matter. I can speak from
experience: most college and university teachers are _thrilled_ to
encounter students who are smarter than they are. I've met a few who are
smarter than I am, and I've always been pleased to have the chance to
interact with them. It's a refreshing break from the norm.
I'm not saying this is true for all professors, but it's true of the ones
I've known. I can also remark that most of the philosophy professors I've
studied with aren't in much danger of being threatened by students who are
smarter than they are: those students are very rare. The profs I've known
are _extremely_ intelligent, and are much more often starved for serious
conversation than envious of bright students.
This is particularly the case with graduate schools: professors who
specialize in training graduate students generally are on the lookout for
students who can equal or surpass them. These are the ones who may be
future colleagues, and it's important to cultivate these students. They're
more rewarding to talk with, and they also tend to keep their professors'
ideas active, which is another sort of academic reward.
--
Christopher Roberson
anth...@hotmail.com
>
> But, look around you Greg, subjectivism reins supreme. Feminism,
> multiculturalism, and environmentalism especially are ubiquitous in our
> culture.
But not in philosophy departments. I know the basic views of the prominent
people in the prominent departments of philosophy in this country, and in the
UC system in particular, and they certainly do not generally fit this
description.
President Clinton, a thorough nihilist and liar
> extraordinare, gets big support from intellectuals. Look at all of the
> lawyers who came to his defense with all kinds of weasel words. Lawyers
> aren't philosophers, but the engine behind their method of thinking
> comes from philosophy, notable the idea that there is no right and
> wrong, or that it's all a matter of social convention.
Lawyers are motivated by the ethic of self-interest and will generally say
and do whatever they can get away with to win a case. Philosophy has very
little to do with it.
>
> And does anyone remember hearing about that big convention of
> philosophers a few months ago? The alleged best minds in the field
> concluded that they had learned nothing this century. Someone here
> might have the specifics, if so it'd be worth repeating here.
Who said this? When? What was the context? Why presrent this hearsay if you
don't know the details.
Betsy Speicher
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.990404...@usr02.primenet.com>,
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > > And seeing as Peikoff holds the copyrights, it would suggest
> > > that I was correct that ARI has access to them, or at least to certain
> > > advantages in virtue of Peikoff's holding them.
> >
> > Such as?
>
> How 'bout postcards in the middle of paperbacks?
Nowadays, ARI gets most of their referrals from their website, not the
postcards. Why doesn't Kelley (1) make a better website or (2) put
postcards in HIS books.
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
Amw
> Another way in which that community differed categorically from almost
> any practical human society, was that it was comprised solely of
> hand-picked members who shared not only a very specific political
> philosophy, but moral philosophy as well.
>
> In the age of the mixed economy, politics dominates everything. You are
> confronted with it on the cover of every newspaper and newmagazine, and
> on every news broadcast. One gets the impression that politics is
> central to existence. It is therefore understandable that those who have
> not challenged the precept of the primacy of politics, would be shocked
> by the idea of a politcal system that purposefully limited suffrage to
> those of a specific political philosophy. But that political
> philosophy's goal is to make politics almost irrelevant.
I would be most interested in hearing your opinion of Hienlien's idea of
government as set forth in "Starship Trooper". It sounds very close to what you
are saying here.
The basic idea is that voting and holding office were limited to veterans of
federal service. Primarily but not exclusively, military service. As the po
wer of
government is the ability to use force, that power should be in the hands o
f those
persons who have voluntarily taken the safety of the body politic (i.e. the
lives
and rights of the people) as their personal responsibility.
I find the idea intriguing but have to admit to some bias.
Ben
Jim Klein
>All people eventually die.
>Brad Aisa is a person.
>Therefore Brad Aisa will eventually die.
>
>The first premise is the conclusion of inductive reasoning.
So is the second.
>The argument itself is in deductive form.
Helping to demonstrate that _any_ "deductive conclusion" may be no
greater comment on the state of reality than the inductive conclusions
on which it's based.
ALL deductions, a priori statements and analytic "truths" are ONLY
redefinitions or restatements, albeit sometimes very complex ones. ANY
"truth" which proposes to say something of reality is WHOLLY inductive
and synthetic, at least to the degree it does say something.
The single exception is "A is A"...it's an _epistemologically_ a priori
statement which more or less "defines" cognition; it's the necessary
link which an hierarchically cognitive being requires to meaningfully
relate external reality to internal identification. Without it, we are
left with no connection between those identifications and the things
which they identify. So because we can't really "prove" it (as proof
itself rests upon it), we can say it's a priori; because it says
something about the world (which it does), it's synthetic.
An even more basic _existential_ or metaphysical axiom is "What is,
is;" and that one's not even a priori really. You could (and probably
will) maintain that it's analytic based on the fact that it's very
words make it true, but that's not what it means. It's an actual
TRUTH, and its referent is just as true (factual, in Objectivese) even
in the complete absence of cognition. This is as opposed to "A is A,"
which implies cognition. In a universe absent cognition, "A is A" is
meaningless; it has no referent. That's how Rand was able to bring in
consciousness as a _corollary_ to the axiom.
BTW, if you (Wrathbone) decide to reply to this, could you please throw
in what the difference is between an "a priori statement" and an
"analytic truth."
jk
Jim Klein
Speicher <be...@speicher.com> writes:
>Nowadays, ARI gets most of their referrals from their website, not the
>postcards.
Are you in a position to quantify this, or is it just a guess?
>Why doesn't Kelley (1) make a better website or
Everyone should make a better website. Maybe if you _can_ quantify
your previous claim, the IOS could too and we could compare them.
>(2) put postcards in HIS books.
You make it sound like it's postcards from THEIR books which leads
folks to the ARI. Obviously, that's not correct...those are RAND'S
books. "Possession" in the matter of intellectual ideas goes more to
the intellect from which they came, rather than the legal status of
their property rights. That's why we say _Atlas Shrugged_ is "by" Ayn
Rand, not the publishing company.
And this is so, in spite of the fact that both Rand and the ARI chose
to use that abomination of a phrase "intellectual heir" as if an
intellect can be inherited---Rand exclusively with regard to Nathaniel
Branden, the ARI falsely with regard to Peikoff. I mean, they're both
technically false but the ARI's is false even as they intend it.
jk
Jim Klein
<lavo...@aol.comSPAMKILL> writes:
>These are ARIan Peikovians, not Objectivists. I do not defend ARIan
>Peikovianism, and I agree with your assesment of Schwarz and Peikoff.
>Peikoff, unforunately, has gone downhill since _The Ominous
>Parallels_.
I don't think Bidinotto(sp?) is an ARIan Peikovian, as I think I found
his essay at the IOS web site, since removed I believe. From what I
can tell (with very limited evidence I admit), there seem to be aspects
of ARIanism that stick with a person even long after he's either
excommunicated or rejects other aspects of it.
This would be consistent with the assertion that ARIanism is inherently
an emotional philosophy, rather than a rational one. Certain deeply
ingrained emotionally-derived "principles" tend to die much harder than
rationally-derived ones. Chris Wolf would of course be the best
example of this around here...he _still_ thinks that words "mean"
whatever screwball interpretation he gives to whatever Rand says they
meant---wrong on two counts.
jk
GRADinc
>The single exception is "A is A"...it's an _epistemologically_ a priori
>statement which more or less "defines" cognition; it's the necessary
>link which an hierarchically cognitive being requires to meaningfully
>relate external reality to internal identification.
If I may jump in, then when you say "A is A", do you mean that
the first A is the thing in reality and the second A is the human
perception of the thing in reality?
> Without it, we are
>left with no connection between those identifications and the things
>which they identify.
I would have to paraphrase our great leader and say it depends
what "is" means.
Evolution has made our perceptions match the external reality
good enough for us to live our lives and reproduce. The "is"
is defined evolutionarily, biologically as it were. The "is"
is not some absolutea priori identification.
> So because we can't really "prove" it (as proof
>itself rests upon it), we can say it's a priori; because it says
>something about the world (which it does), it's synthetic.
It's anthropic. It is a necessary feature of existence if there
are to exist living, thinking beings.
Tom Clarke
Jim Klein
<gra...@aol.com> writes:
>If I may jump in, then when you say "A is A", do you mean that
>the first A is the thing in reality and the second A is the human
>perception of the thing in reality?
No...if anything, it'd be the reverse. But really, I think it's a bit
trickier than that. I think both As are meant to be the referent
itself--hence we're left with the tautological "truth" that "What a
thing is, is what it is." Pretty uninteresting; that's why it's the
corollaries that really say something--that something is, and that
something has been identified.
>It's anthropic. It is a necessary feature of existence if there
>are to exist living, thinking beings.
You can have living without it, but you can't have thinking without it.
That's what thinking _is_, the cognitive identification of reality by a
being, IMO through complex symbolization.
jk
GRADinc
>hence we're left with the tautological "truth" that "What a
>thing is, is what it is." Pretty uninteresting; that's why it's the
>corollaries that really say something--that something is, and that
>something has been identified.
I guess I just don't understand how an uninteresting tautology
can have significant corollaries.
>>It's anthropic. It is a necessary feature of existence if there
>>are to exist living, thinking beings.
>You can have living without it, but you can't have thinking without it.
I guess. Rhetorical flourish adding "living".
>That's what thinking _is_, the cognitive identification of reality by a
>being, IMO through complex symbolization.
I'm not so sure about the necessity of symbolization.
You can do an awful lot with pure, unnamed, imagery.
Tom Clarke