tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post3812818676362735716..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivism vs. Sam Harris Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-33114946597703771652020-03-20T20:23:46.277-07:002020-03-20T20:23:46.277-07:00Re: https://newideal.aynrand.org/thinking-philoso...Re: https://newideal.aynrand.org/thinking-philosophically-about-the-pandemic/ <br /><br />I listened to this discussion – all 90 minutes of it. Ghate and Salmieri.<br /><br />The good news, I suppose, is that there were no wild-eyed conspiracy theories being floated; and the description of the problem everyone is facing was actually reasonably accurate. “Thinking philosophically” turned out to mean: listen to experts; compare opinions; don’t be swayed by hysteria. All unexceptionable but hardly surprising. They sort of got behind self-isolation in some cases – and as a voluntary choice. And Ghate was very much aware that the medical system might face collapse if there’s a catastrophic spike in the number of cases.<br /><br />All quite reasonable – mainly because they steered away from questions that are tough or ought to be tough for an advocate of laissez-faire. They didn’t say how a purely capitalist society would handle a crisis like this – on the grounds that we have to deal with the situation we have and not with the purely capitalist society where everything would work out so much better. All very eschatological. They oddly resemble someone saying: “This won’t happen after Jesus comes. But he ain’t here yet.”<br /><br />What are those tough questions? I would suggest two (neither of them even slightly touched on in a 90 minute discussion):<br /><br />1. The O’ists do accept that one can use force (“self-defense”) to guard against an infectious person. But what does one do if thousands are infectious? And what if you don’t know who they are? By the time you find out, you’re in North Italy. Hundreds of American lawmakers have to make these decisions right now. I doubt that “thinking philosophically” is helping them much.<br /><br />Readers might want to go to minute 78, where Salmieri points out that even two million deaths would only double the number of people who die in the United States every year. In other words: if we do nothing, it still wouldn’t be all that bad. Read a history of the Irish potato famine if you want to know what that kind of approach would mean in practice.<br /><br />2. And how about the collapse of the stock market? Any government action in a laissez-faire society is of course completely out. The standard O’ist answer is that wild stock market fluctuations are due to government manipulations of the money system. But this time, that is not the case: it’s a classic “black swan event”. As far as I can see, the only answer they have is: tough. Bad things happen. I suspect that even most Republicans really don’t think that’s good enough.<br /><br />Both Ghate and Salmieri are more worried about the threat to individual liberties than about covid-19: they are quite explicit about that. But I didn’t hear anything that would give any meaningful help to decision makers – in business, in government, in the medical profession – about the choices they’ll have to make in the next year.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-75991974512997646052020-03-20T05:31:34.537-07:002020-03-20T05:31:34.537-07:00https://newideal.aynrand.org/thinking-philosophica...https://newideal.aynrand.org/thinking-philosophically-about-the-pandemic/<br /><br />-NPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-69316441057140030742020-03-18T15:04:46.258-07:002020-03-18T15:04:46.258-07:00
Question: has ARI said anything about covid-19?<br />Question: has ARI said anything about covid-19?Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-29198598520267133412020-03-15T04:56:24.962-07:002020-03-15T04:56:24.962-07:00For those who are interested, I've completed b...For those who are interested, I've completed by review of James Valliant's Creating Christ.<br /><br />https://www.scribd.com/document/449626993/Creating-History-A-Review-of-James-Valliant-s-and-Warren-Fahy-s-Creating-Christ<br /><br />-NPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-44145663734270136272020-03-04T15:35:47.073-08:002020-03-04T15:35:47.073-08:00The horse is dead, quite dead. So why keep beating...The horse is dead, quite dead. So why keep beating it?<br /><br />DragonflyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-74549054246990267052020-03-03T10:20:19.535-08:002020-03-03T10:20:19.535-08:00I would guess that the blog has been inactive main...I would guess that the blog has been inactive mainly because there's not a whole lot else to say. If you need to "crush" Objectivism, there's a voluminous archive of posts where most Objectivist points have already been picked apart. Objectivism itself, and in part due to its very nature, hasn't had much of what you could call "new ideas" since Rand died, so it's not like they're really providing much to critique on a regular basis. I could understand if things started to feel repetitive, with few subjects requiring yet another go-round of the same old arguments...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-19421437416776071452020-02-28T11:56:17.780-08:002020-02-28T11:56:17.780-08:00So is this blog dead? Please say no - Ayn Rand nee...So is this blog dead? Please say no - Ayn Rand needs to be intellectually crushed.Strelnikovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12660962615198939441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-89092046081271277422020-01-15T14:04:38.715-08:002020-01-15T14:04:38.715-08:00Can someone help me with a Peikoff reference?
Whi...Can someone help me with a Peikoff reference?<br /><br />While thinking about the Carl Barney/ARI scandal*, I remembered an off-hand remark Peikoff made during a Q&A in a lecture or course recorded sometime in the 1990s. The remark: "if Objectivism had the money Dianetics has, we could really get somewhere!" My question: what is the lecture or course?<br /><br />My interest in this remark is that it seems to show that Peikoff was motivated to welcome and even court Barney's support specifically.<br /><br />I listened to the recording in 1996 or early 1997 when it was new or quite recent (and then tossed it in the garbage). I'm slightly paraphrasing the remark but am certain that it's near-verbatim; for example, I specifically remember his using the word "Dianetics" instead of "Scientology." I'm also certain that the source isn't before 1995.<br /><br />I thought it was "Thinking, Judging, and Not Being Moralistic" from 1995, reportedly the year Barney became an ARI board member. However, the remark doesn't appear in the only available online version of that course.** Was the remark edited out of this version of the recording? Or am I thinking of a different lecture or course?<br /><br />Thanks to anyone who can help me with tracking this down.<br /><br />___<br /><br />* http://ariwatch.com/WhoIsCarlBarney.htm<br /><br />** https://estore.aynrand.org/p/99/judging-feeling-and-not-being-moralistic-mp3-download<br /><br />Also posted on YouTube in two parts:<br /><br />Part One “What Judgment Requires”<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoxCzKknwh8<br /><br />Part Two “The Proper Role of Emotions” (this part contains the Q&A)<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-COqTTyNvoARI Watch fannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-91397341447527407202019-12-20T20:12:28.370-08:002019-12-20T20:12:28.370-08:00In your attack on "well-being" as hedoni...<i>In your attack on "well-being" as hedonistic I think you're making two mistakes.</i><br /><br />Just to be clear: it's not "my" attack — it's Ari Armstrong's "attack," although maybe "attack" is too strong a word. Ari Armstrong wants to criticize Harris for believing in "hedonism," which Armstrong defines as short-term pursuit of pleasure. I'm well aware that Armstrong's definition of hedonism goes against how others might define the term. But on this blog what I call "Dogberry Rules" are in force, which basically means that people get to define terms as they see fit and we don't argue over what might be the "correct" definition of a word (there's no such thing). Armstrong may mean something different from the term "hedonism" than what Bentham or J.S. Mill might have meant. But if we want to understand what Armstrong's criticisms of Harris, we have to honor Armstrong's usage of the term. The point is to figure out what meaning people are trying to convey by the words they use, not to argue over usage. gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-42101390488812051742019-12-03T09:45:09.751-08:002019-12-03T09:45:09.751-08:00"eudaimonia isn't utility, but is more of..."eudaimonia isn't utility, but is more of a sense of doing the right thing at the right time. It is a good flow of life."<br /><br />One thing I've noticed about the generations born after World War Two, and it may be their defining characteristic: they are indefeasibly anti-transcendental. "Good flow," "process not result," feel groovy but be careful - all of that kind of stuff is not just 1960s dirty hippie crap, the droppings of Jonathan Livingston Seagull. No, as a debilitating cultural force, that stuff stretches all the way back to the 1940s and ahead to the reverse-mortgage Boomers of today.<br /><br />But were ancients like Epicurus really so shallow? I doubt it. Don't forget that we have very little of Epicurus's writing - just a few paragraphs. Imagine trying to understand Rand's philosophy if all we had of it were some sentences from "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and a couple zingers from "Atlas Shrugged." The lacuna in such ancient texts may have been religious or metaphysically transcendent material, even if only ritualistic, and might have been removed as much from deliberate Christian or Muslim omission of pagan religiosity as from accident.<br /><br />Or maybe old Pick in his go-with-the-flow wisdom really would be on hepatitis-C medication were he alive today, who knows.<br /><br />In any case, for the last 70 years there has been a pronounced phenomenon of generations of people who embody the old cliche: they will "believe in anything except God." The holy flow, the holy stock market killing, the holy Marvel toy collection, the holy RV tourism, the holy drug habit, the holy anus, anything. Children, the future, non-situational ethics, anything bigger than oneself, not so much.Yes We Kantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4000547221779367812019-11-06T14:48:24.694-08:002019-11-06T14:48:24.694-08:00In your attack on "well-being" as hedoni...In your attack on "well-being" as hedonistic I think you're making two mistakes.<br /><br />First, hedonism, especially as advocated by Epicurus was explicitly a long-term view. Epicurus argued for extreme caution in the pursuit of immediate pleasures, precisely because they have the capacity to bring pain in the future. While people might use the word hedonism to denigrate short-term pleasure seeking, the people who self-identify as hedonists tend to identify with rational calculation based on expected outcomes.<br /><br />Two, eudaimoniac ethics based on virtue are quite different from ethics based on outcome maximization, because eudaimonia is pursued for its own sake, and any list of specific outcomes are not eudiamonia. In other words, eudaimonia isn't utility, but is more of a sense of doing the right thing at the right time. It is a good flow of life. It is more about the PROCESS than the RESULT.<br /><br />Well-being could totally be interpreted as eudiamonia, as when we interpret a certain function of the body as "being well". But the difference between Sam Harris' approach and a eudaimoniac approach is spelled out in his debate against Jordan Peterson's meaning-based approach. Harris insists that well-being ought to be determined from instrumental rationality applied to human pleasure and pain. But Peterson does not think we can do that calculus (in principle), because our inborn values are revealed to us through participation in virtue, society, dialogue, etc.Huginnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10523270935823325822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-53144765892037059332019-10-27T06:44:32.251-07:002019-10-27T06:44:32.251-07:00Apparently the ARI is associated with a real Hickm...Apparently the ARI is associated with a real Hickman:<br /><br />http://ariwatch.com/WhoIsRichardMinns.htm<br /><br />NPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-28087726838090376422019-10-18T04:29:58.957-07:002019-10-18T04:29:58.957-07:00"None of his actions proceed from even a mini..."None of his actions proceed from even a minimum set of convictions"<br /><br />I think he has a vague nationalism which guides many of his policies, eg, immigration, not getting the US involved in wars, better trade deals.<br /><br />NPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70420423776318043382019-10-17T06:02:57.483-07:002019-10-17T06:02:57.483-07:00With regard to Trump: quite aside from the shoppi... With regard to Trump: quite aside from the shopping list of positions, he's a thorough -going Second-Hander - a "Social Metaphysician", to use the Randian jargon. And even more obviously, one of Rand's "whim-worshippers". None of his actions proceed from even a minimum set of convictions. Aside from using government power to get more money for his corporation, they're all done either to inflate his ego, appease his base - or undo something simply because Obama did it. Changing a weather map with a sharpie - then coercing the bureaucrat in charge into agreeing with him? This guy makes Atlas Shrugged villains look plausible. He's sort of a low grade version of Cuffy Meigs. Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-63765586298548846642019-10-13T05:14:04.718-07:002019-10-13T05:14:04.718-07:00At the end of the last lecture, Harry says that Ra...At the end of the last lecture, Harry says that Rand and had no character flaws and even if she did, a biographer shouldn't mention it until at least 100 years after her death.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-54004285011922485402019-10-12T07:11:59.562-07:002019-10-12T07:11:59.562-07:00Here is a free lecture by harry Binswanger on Rand...Here is a free lecture by harry Binswanger on Rand's life. Kind of what you'd expect:<br /><br />https://courses.aynrand.org/campus-courses/ayn-rands-life-highlights-and-sidelights/?fbclid=IwAR3lQD_jp_Vt9eggrjUHW0OcDbzm_3F76Bi0h9RL8Qe6jBvIxglTBFQHAP4<br /><br />-NPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-76592858012862170652019-08-03T07:46:26.831-07:002019-08-03T07:46:26.831-07:00What's most interesting is that the Brook'...What's most interesting is that the Brook's dislike of Trump concerns mainly the issue of immigration - subject that Rand didn't write anything about.<br /><br />I don't know if Brook said how he voted (although not for Trump obviously) but there are Objectivists who say they will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate. It's hard to imagine that Rand would vote for someone who supports ending private health insurance, wants to bring back forced bussing, supports de facto open borders and wants reparations.<br /><br />NPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-87438761991455425772019-08-02T14:14:02.716-07:002019-08-02T14:14:02.716-07:00I wonder if Peikoff knows that Brook now claims th...<i>I wonder if Peikoff knows that Brook now claims the power to speak ex cathedra.</i><br /><br />As with Peikoff's fatwa against the Republicans fifteen years ago, one wonders if Ayn Rand would be entirely behind this. Obviously, she would not approve of many things about Trump. But she didn't approve of many things about Nixon, yet she still voted for him. If one of the hard lefties on the Democratic side gets the nomination, what does Brook want the Objectivist faithful to do?gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-10972374934504445412019-07-29T04:34:26.308-07:002019-07-29T04:34:26.308-07:00I don't know if anyone has been following it, ...I don't know if anyone has been following it, but Yaron Brook just issued a fatwa:<br /><br />____________<br /><br />Those of you who are apologists for Donald Trump, please never use the word 'Objectivism' to associate it with yourself. Because you cannot be Objectivists. You are not Objectivists, if you apologize for this guy. <br /><br />And you are not doing anyone a favor by selling-out, selling-out the fundamental ideas that we are for. For the sake of what? Popularity, defeating the left? <br /><br />You're sell-outs, you're the fifth-column within Objectivism.<br /><br />____________<br /><br />I wonder if Peikoff knows that Brook now claims the power to speak ex cathedra.<br /><br />NPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-39730634750493107992019-07-20T05:58:22.981-07:002019-07-20T05:58:22.981-07:00Ari is no longer associated with The Objective Sta...Ari is no longer associated with The Objective Standard. He has new book out, What's Wrong With Ayn Rand's ethics, which I haven't read.<br /><br />NPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com