// API callback
showrecentposts({"version":"1.0","encoding":"UTF-8","feed":{"xmlns":"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom","xmlns$openSearch":"http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/","xmlns$blogger":"http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008","xmlns$georss":"http://www.georss.org/georss","xmlns$gd":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005","xmlns$thr":"http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0","id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034"},"updated":{"$t":"2023-04-13T22:53:03.413-07:00"},"category":[{"term":"Human Nature"},{"term":"Politics"},{"term":"Epistemology"},{"term":"Ethics\/Morality"},{"term":"Peikoff"},{"term":"Philosophy of History"},{"term":"Cognitive Science"},{"term":"Aesthetics"},{"term":"Economics"},{"term":"Metaphysics"},{"term":"Religion"},{"term":"Pareto"},{"term":"Atlas Shrugged"},{"term":"Fallacies of Objectivist Epistemology"},{"term":"empirical responsibility"},{"term":"Emotion"},{"term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"term":"definitions"},{"term":"Founders College"},{"term":"Objectivist Oddities"},{"term":"Understanding Objectivist Jargon"},{"term":"Hume"},{"term":"Rationalism"},{"term":"foundationalism"},{"term":"JARS"},{"term":"Popper"},{"term":"ARCHN Quotes of the Week"},{"term":"Conservatism"},{"term":"Free Will"},{"term":"Intellectual Development"},{"term":"Is\/Ought Problem"},{"term":"Verbalism"},{"term":"Kant"},{"term":"laissez-faire"},{"term":"Academia"},{"term":"Altruism"},{"term":"Ayn Rand Institute"},{"term":"Theory of History"},{"term":"Determinism"},{"term":"Future of Objectivism"},{"term":"Schisms"},{"term":"The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics"},{"term":"Cult Tendencies"},{"term":"Greenspan"},{"term":"Schumpeter"},{"term":"Yaron Brook"},{"term":"individual rights"},{"term":"Essentialism"},{"term":"Hierarchy of Knowledge"},{"term":"Pseudoscience"},{"term":"Science"},{"term":"Seddon"},{"term":"Hayek"},{"term":"Mind\/Brain Problem"},{"term":"Objectivist Culture"},{"term":"Problem of Induction"},{"term":"Whim-worshipping"},{"term":"intuition"},{"term":"logic"},{"term":"reason"},{"term":"sense of life"},{"term":"Austrian Economics"},{"term":"Binswanger"},{"term":"David Kelley"},{"term":"Dualism"},{"term":"Objectivist Myths"},{"term":"Pop culture"},{"term":"Salsman"},{"term":"Stefan Molyneux"},{"term":"Ayn Rand Quote of the Week"},{"term":"Criticism of ARCHN"},{"term":"Critics Who Refuse to Actually Read ARCHN"},{"term":"Education"},{"term":"Ethics of Emergencies"},{"term":"Founding Fathers"},{"term":"Jordan Peterson"},{"term":"Nietzsche"},{"term":"Objectivist Standards of  Argument"},{"term":"The Shorter ARCHN"},{"term":"persuasion"},{"term":"sex as metaphysical"},{"term":"Barbara Branden"},{"term":"Biography"},{"term":"Charles Peirce"},{"term":"Credit Bubble"},{"term":"Idolatry"},{"term":"Influence"},{"term":"James Valliant"},{"term":"Jonathan Haidt"},{"term":"The Fountainhead"},{"term":"anarchism"},{"term":"free trade"},{"term":"ideological manias"},{"term":"unconscious"},{"term":"ARCHNblog basics"},{"term":"ARI"},{"term":"Anne Heller"},{"term":"Anthem"},{"term":"Atlas Society"},{"term":"Ayn Rand"},{"term":"Biddle"},{"term":"Biology"},{"term":"Charles Pierce"},{"term":"Covid-19"},{"term":"Crazytalk"},{"term":"DIM Hypothesis"},{"term":"Dave Rubin"},{"term":"Donald Trump"},{"term":"Friedman"},{"term":"Hospers"},{"term":"IQ"},{"term":"Jennifer Grossman"},{"term":"Joseph Conrad"},{"term":"Life"},{"term":"Literary Criticism"},{"term":"Meaning"},{"term":"Michael Malice"},{"term":"Mises"},{"term":"Nathaniel Branden"},{"term":"Ramsay Steele"},{"term":"Randzapper"},{"term":"Rescher"},{"term":"Riesman"},{"term":"Rothbard"},{"term":"Sam Harris"},{"term":"Santayna"},{"term":"Saturday Nite Whim-Worshipping"},{"term":"Scott Adams"},{"term":"Shmurak"},{"term":"Slacking"},{"term":"Tomkins"},{"term":"Truth"},{"term":"Universally Preferable Behavior"},{"term":"Van Damme"},{"term":"We The Living"},{"term":"blank slate"},{"term":"certainty"},{"term":"going John Galt"},{"term":"heroism"},{"term":"ideal man"},{"term":"innate ideas"},{"term":"lockdown. pandemic"},{"term":"music"},{"term":"protectionism"},{"term":"regulation"},{"term":"vaccine mandates"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature"},"subtitle":{"type":"html","$t":"Greg Nyquist's 'A.R.C.H.N' \nand other criticisms of Objectivism"},"link":[{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/posts\/default"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default?alt=json-in-script\u0026max-results=999999"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/"},{"rel":"hub","href":"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"generator":{"version":"7.00","uri":"http://www.blogger.com","$t":"Blogger"},"openSearch$totalResults":{"$t":"737"},"openSearch$startIndex":{"$t":"1"},"openSearch$itemsPerPage":{"$t":"999999"},"entry":[{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4162994744354222267"},"published":{"$t":"2023-04-10T13:18:00.005-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2023-04-10T13:33:22.924-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Aesthetics"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Atlas Shrugged"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"heroism"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"ideal man"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Joseph Conrad"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Why Did Rand Dislike Joseph Conrad?"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cspan id=\"docs-internal-guid-1ccd3282-7fff-00cb-f29c-568c8b4b0ff0\"\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAyn Rand, during one of her Q\u0026amp;A’s, made the following remark about Joseph Conrad, the Polish born English novelist:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EJoseph Conrad also called himself a Romantic Realist. I don’t like him, but I think he is correct in so labeling himself. He treats his novels realistically, but not naturalistically. So even though my values are quite different from his, I agree with that designation. He expressed his values, and in that sense he was a romantic—only his settings and character are much more realistic than I’d ever select. But he was not a naturalist. [NFW 69]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAs far as I know, this is the only recorded instance of Rand mentioning Conrad. She says nothing about him in the \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ERomantic Manifesto\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E and she made no reference to him, as far as anyone knows, in her long interview with Barbara Branden. Now given the fact that (1) Rand regarded herself as a “romantic realist,” and (2) that Conrad the is one of the few authors she also regarded as a “romantic realist,”—why then did Rand make no mention of Conrad when she introduced her theory of Romanticism in the \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ERomantic Manifesto\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E? She mentions other important romantic authors, such as Victor Hugo, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Friedrich Schiller, and Edmond Rostand. Didn’t Conrad at least deserve a mention as well? But no, she ignores him entirely. How do we account for this curious anomaly?\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe most plausible explanation for Rand ignoring Conrad in the \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ERomantic Manifesto\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E is, as she herself admits, she just didn’t like him. While it is true that she makes no effort to elucidate \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ewhy\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E she didn’t like him, given how many authors she actively disliked (often on trivial or incorrect grounds), we should not find her dislike of Conrad at all surprising. With a few notable exceptions, Rand simply did not care for most of what passes for the great cultural legacy of Western Civilization. She had little interest in the best that has been said or written down through ages, because most of what had been thought before her she regarded as being in some ways tainted by “mysticism” and\/or hatred for “man.”\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ERegarding her view of Conrad, we can only speculate why she disliked the author of \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ELord Jim\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E. She leaves us but the merest of hints for her displeasure. Conrad’s values, she makes a point of insisting, are “quite different” from hers?. Quite different, we may ask, in what way? Even more to the point, what did she imagine Conrad’s values might be? Let’s face it: she wasn’t always very good at determining the views of people she rather carelessly decided were different from her own.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EWe might speculate that she disliked Conrad on account of his “pessimism”—although it’s not clear why one’s general outlook on life should be regarded as a value. Perhaps a most fruitful way of proceeding would be to imagine what Rand would have thought of one of Conrad’s novels if she had taken the trouble to read it. The fact that Rand could argue that Conrad deserved to be regarded as a romantic realist suggests she must have read \u003Ci\u003Esomething\u003C\/i\u003E from his oeuvre. More likely than not, she would have read one of his more popular works, among which \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ELord Jim\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, along with \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EHeart of Darkness\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, would rank at the very top. Let us assume as a kind of thought experiment that she had in fact read \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ELord Jim\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E. What would she have made of its values, and why would she conclude that they were “quite different” from her own? Different in what way?\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EWhat exactly are the values of \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ELord Jim\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E? The novel actually explores a theme that a more superficial observer of Rand might think would resonate with her. The story delves into the challenges of learning a heroic life. Rand admired heroes, so wouldn’t this be right up her alley? Well, given Rand’s rather odd notions of what constitutes the heroic, possibly not. The titular character of Conrad’s novels dreams of performing heroic deeds once he reaches manhood, but the first time he’s tested (as first-mate of the \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EPatnua\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E) he lets himself get talked into abandoning the ship with all its passengers on board. This act of betrayal so haunts him that some years later, when he is indirectly the cause of the death of the son of an important Malay worthy, he decides to take responsibility for the death and willingly gives himself up to face the vengeance of the dead man’s father.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ESo in what way might Rand have found this story contrary to her values? Perhaps she would have objected to Jim’s willingness to surrender his life on a mere point of honor. After all, for Rand, a man’s life has to be his “ultimate value.” This implies that you shouldn’t surrender your life to any other value. To be sure, Rand, later on in her ethics, backs away from that extreme position, but we’ll ignore that for the purposes of our thought experiment. We’ll instead assume that it is eminently plausible that Rand may have objected to Lord Jim’s “sacrifice” of his life to satisfy the blood guilt of a vengeful old man. And if we assume that Conrad approves of this “sacrifice,” then this would suggest that Conrad’s values are, if not “quite different,” from Rand’s, then different enough. In his hierarchy of values, Conrad regards honor as more important than mere survival, while Rand likely has a different view. Carrying out our thought experiment to the very end, we might speculate that at least one of the reasons why Rand considered her values as “quite different” from Conrad’s is precisely this difference over the question of a man’s honor. Assuming this to be true, it would constitute a revealing insight into a potential shortcoming in Rand’s ethical outlook—at least from the point of view of leading a genuinely heroic life.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe social component of Rand’s Objectivist Ethics is based on the trader’s principle:\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe symbol of all relationships among men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. [\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EFor the New Intellectual\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, 133]\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAlthough there is nothing necessarily wrong with Rand’s trader principle, it cannot, in all honesty, be regarded as fully compatible with such aristocratic values of dignity, honor, and chivalry. Despite all the fine noise Rand made on behalf of her heroes and her “ideal man,” the ethics she promulgated is in  reality hopelessly plebeian and \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Eun\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Eheroic. It is the morality of shopkeepers and family farmers—all very fine, or course, within the circumscribed limits of a commercial or agrarian life, but of limited use within the more strenuous domains of family life, litigation, politics, medicine, or war. Rand’s values, in short, are hardly values of the heroic type. Nor should this come as a shock. The commercial life is hardly of a heroic cast. “The stock exchange,” as Schumpeter trenchantly observed, “is a poor substitute for the Holy Grail.” Rand would like to convince us that the lives of entrepreneurs, capitalists, and inventors can in fact be heroic. But as everyone with any sense knows, the so-called heroes who populate \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E are little more than cardboard figures spouting Randian slogans. They convince nobody but the hopelessly naive and credulous. Rand is clearly guilty of having adopted, in both her philosophy and \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, a false ideal of heroism.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EJohn Galt, Rand’s most wearisomely perfect “hero,” may be many things that even the skeptics among us can admire. Galt is (1) intellectually brilliant, (2) scrupulously and unimpeachably “rational,” (3) level-headed under pressure,(4) thoroughly fearless, and (5) almost god-like in his carriage and handsomeness. These are all perfectly decent qualities deserving their fair share of admiration. But there’s one thing Galt is most definitely not: he is no gentleman. I provide, as evidence for this statement, Galt’s speech, which no man of dignity and aristocratic pretensions would ever condescend to utter. Galt’s long philosophical harangue which defaces seventy close-type pages in \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E positively bristles with a kind of unhinged plebeian indignation—the sort of thing one might expect of a hell and brimstone fundamentalist religious fanatic or a hysterical radical feminist, but not from any man who seeks to present himself to the world as someone to be upheld and revered as a true gentleman.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EUsing Galt as her mouthpiece, Rand gives free reign to her delight in denouncing her enemies and expressing the depth of her hatred and contempt for them. Galt’s speech is anything but persuasive. Rather, it is an exercise in settling grudges. Galt goes out of his way at every opportunity to insult his audience. Here are some samples of the demeaning rhetoric which he indiscriminately flings, like a monkey throwing his own feces, at his unfortunate listeners:\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E“You moral cannibals.” … “Yes, you are bearing punishment for your evil.” …\u0026nbsp; “The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask: \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EWhose\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E reason?” … “You that prattle that morality is social.” … “You who are worshippers of zero.” … “Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a ‘tendency’ to evil.” … “Are you thinking, in some foggy stupor, that it’s only \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ematerial\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E values that your morality requires to sacrifice?” … “You who have no standard of self-esteem, accept the guilt and dare not ask the questions.” … “The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is…” … “You fear the man who has a dollar less than you.” … “The justification of sacrifice, that your morality proprounds, is more corrupt than the corruption it purports to justify.” … “You—who leap like a savage out of the jungle of your feelings…” … “You who are depraved enough to believe that you could adjust yourself to a mystic’s dictatorship.” … “You who’ve never grasped the nature of evil.” … “This idol of\u0026nbsp; your cult of zero-worship.” … “What blank-out permitted you to hope that you could get away with this muck of contradictions and plan it as an ideal society.” … “You, who scramble like vultures for plundered pennies.” … “You will not sneak by with the rest of your lifespan.” … “No matter what dishonorable compromise you’ve made with your impracticable creed.” … “Since childhood, you have been running from the terror of a choice you have never dared to fully identify.” … “Do you wonder why you live without dignity?” … “You reject your tool of perception—your mind.” … “You, who are half-rational, half-coward, have been playing a con game with reality.” … “At the end of your road of successive betrayals.” … “You blank it out and cling to your hypocrisy of ‘faith.’” … “The \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Eself\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E you have betrayed…” etc. etc.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ENo true gentleman, no man keen on his own self-dignity or honor, would soil his mouth with such phrases. A gentleman is, among other things, the soul of courtesy. He doesn’t “punch down.” As a man of the world, he understands the frailties of human nature and does not wish to rub the infirmities of lesser men in their faces. Such behavior is uncomely, unsportsmanlike, and unchivalrous. Even if we grant that Galt is speaking to an audience of thoroughly deplorable villains, his rhetoric is as unmanly as it is absurd. For what can possibly be the point of abusing villains to their face? Since when did expressing contempt for any person, let alone one whom we have reason to regard as morally depraved, ever change that individual’s mind? Galt is merely engaged in the vain exercise of virtue signaling—moral preening on behalf of Rand and the Objectivist faithful. Far from being heroic, such behavior is that of a moral prig—which is to say, of a rather low and even mean kind of person.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ESo perhaps Rand was on to something when she described her values as quite different to those of Joseph Conrad. Rand’s values are those of the shopkeeper, exaggerated to the point of distortion by the careless gobs of faux-heroism in which she attempted to embalm them. If stripped of all their gaudy pretentiousness, Rand’s trader principle values are largely unobjectionable—provided they remain within their narrow sphere. But outside their sphere they can easily prove inadequate. No mother would apply Rand’s trader principle to raising an infant. Nor would Rand’s ethical ideals be of much use in the treacherous world limned in Conrad’s novels, a world requiring harder men governed by more strenuous values.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C!--more--\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003C!--more--\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003C!--more--\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003C!--more--\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/4162994744354222267\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=4162994744354222267","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4162994744354222267"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4162994744354222267"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2023\/04\/why-did-rand-dislike-joseph-conrad.html","title":"Why Did Rand Dislike Joseph Conrad?"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6676267989711305897"},"published":{"$t":"2023-03-12T10:34:00.004-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2023-03-12T10:49:06.372-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup, March 2023"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cspan id=\"docs-internal-guid-be4d9157-7fff-ddac-5607-a5a2fd762aef\"\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe big news is that Craig Biddle and Stephen Hicks will be debating Open Objectivism at next month’s \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/aynrandcentereurope.org\/\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAyn Rand Europe’s\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E Belgrade conference.\u0026nbsp; Hicks, who is associated with David Kelley’s \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.atlassociety.org\/staff-trustees-and-authors\/stephen-hicks\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe Atlas Society\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, will be taking the Open Objectivism position.\u0026nbsp; The push-back by the Closed position advocates has been intense, see \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=hfZex0QUhbs\u0026amp;t=2890s\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E and \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=0BVpLFn2Fd8\u0026amp;t=2530s\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E.\u0026nbsp; James Valliant was particularly irate, arguing that Open Objectivism is dishonest, an anti-concept, a repudiation of Ayn Rand, etc.\u0026nbsp; He says that to debate Hicks on the topic is equivalent to debating a Holocaust denier, a flat earther, and an advocate of slavery.\u0026nbsp; Valliant’s anger toward The Atlas Society apparently goes back to 1986 when Kelley allegedly said that there should be a debate over Barbara Branden’s just-published \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Passion-Ayn-Rand-Barbara-Branden\/dp\/038524388X\/ref=sr_1_1?crid=27UKE798GFWK1\u0026amp;keywords=branden+passion\u0026amp;qid=1678545122\u0026amp;s=books\u0026amp;sprefix=branden+passion%2Cstripbooks%2C128\u0026amp;sr=1-1\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ebiography of Rand\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E.\u0026nbsp; Valliant is upset that when he published \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Passion-Ayn-Rands-Critics-Brandens\/dp\/1930754671\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E in 2005, Kelley refused to debate.\u0026nbsp; Perhaps Kelley changed his mind in the intervening 29 years or concluded that it wasn’t worth his time to debate the author of a \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.scribd.com\/document\/9421651\/The-Passion-of-James-Valliant-s-Criticism\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ebook who considers throwing surprise parties immoral\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EFor background on the Open Objectivism controversy see \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/peikoff.com\/essays_and_articles\/fact-and-value\/\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E and \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/archive.atlassociety.org\/sites\/default\/files\/The_Contested_Legacy_of_Ayn_Rand.pdf\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E.\u0026nbsp; The debate seems to be mostly about the amount of judgment and condemnation that Objectivists should have toward non-Objectivists (particularly leftist academics) and group rivalries than about the essentials of Rand’s philosophy.\u0026nbsp; For example, Closed Objectivists don’t get worked up over the Ayn Rand Institute purporting to know \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/ari.aynrand.org\/listen-now-the-anti-intellectuality-of-donald-trump-why-ayn-rand-would-have-despised-a-president-trump\/\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ewhat Rand would have thought about Donald Trump\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E[Contributed by Niel Parille.]\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6676267989711305897\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6676267989711305897","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6676267989711305897"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6676267989711305897"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2023\/03\/the-big-news-is-that-craig-biddle-and.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup, March 2023"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7095528622169173460"},"published":{"$t":"2023-03-06T10:08:00.002-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2023-03-20T10:30:54.085-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Fallacies of Objectivist Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Pseudoscience"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"reason"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Science"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"The mRNA Vaccine Controversy and \"Reason\""},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EBen Bayer, \"director of content\" over at ARI, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/newideal.aynrand.org\/many-vaccine-refusers-dont-care-about-their-self-interest\/\"\u003Ewrote\u003C\/a\u003E an article back in May of 2022 arguing that \"vaccine refusers\" (i.e., people who refused to take the mRNA vaccines) should not be criticized for being \"selfish,\" that on the contrary, getting vaccinated is very much in the individuals rational self-interest. Bayer of course takes it for granted that the mRNA vaccine's are \"safe and effective\":\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EWhile some people have good medical reasons not to get vaccinated [writes Bayer], others are disproportionately worried about rare side effects. Of these, far too many are irrationally allowing themselves to be taken in by quackery and conspiracism.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ENow Bayer believes he has come to this conclusion by the use of his \"reason.\" This means he has evaluated all the relevant facts and, through \"logic\" and valid concept formation, has arrived at a correct (and \"certain\") conclusion. But here's the problem. He actually hasn't done any of that. He undoubtedly thinks he has, but he's deluded. His conclusion, far from being based on all the relevant facts and\/or logic, is instead derived from\u0026nbsp;an \u003Ci\u003Eargument from authority\u003C\/i\u003E (which is technically a logical fallacy). Because the medical and scientific establishments have claimed that the mRNA vaccines are \"safe and effective,\" he has decided that's good enough for him. However, there's a potential contradiction here. How can Bayer be certain that these establishments are in all respects trustworthy? After all, can Bayer truthfully contend that he \u003Ci\u003Ealways\u003C\/i\u003E accepts the conclusions of the scientific establishment, regardless of what they might be? Would he, for example, accept the scientific establishment's views on climate change and global warming? If not, why not? If he accepts one and not the other, isn't that an example of cherry picking the evidence?\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EPerhaps the primary \"reason\" why both Bayer and ARI accepted the pro-establishment view of the vaccines is that these therapeutics were developed by private corporations---in other words, by \"capitalism.\" The unstated argument here is that we can all trust Big Pharma because it's not in their self-interest to put out a product that would harm thousands, if not millions of people. But what if a corporation such has Pfizer has no legal liability for a specific product (like vaccines, for example), is allowed to \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/euroweeklynews.com\/2022\/03\/08\/fda-pfizer-vaccine-data\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eseal their data derived from their clinical trials\u003C\/a\u003E from public scrutiny for seventy-five years, and has a long track record of criminally negligent behavior,\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/story\/news\/factcheck\/2021\/05\/19\/fact-check-resolved-lawsuits-against-pfizer-alleged-marketing-fraud\/4857499001\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ehaving paid\u003C\/a\u003E close to $3 billion in criminal fines and settlement fees over the last two decades? In light of such behavior, how is it rational to assume that Pfizer might not be lying about the mRNA vaccines? From 1998 to 2016, Big Pharma (i.e., the\u0026nbsp;world’s largest publicly traded pharmaceutical companies) \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.drugwatch.com\/manufacturers\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Espent\u003C\/a\u003E nearly $3.5 billion on lobbying expenses —\u0026nbsp; which is more than any other industry.\u0026nbsp;For every $1 spent on “basic research,” Big Pharma spends $19 on promotions and advertising. Are these companies really the exemplars of capitalism and heroic scientific achievement that Objectivists such as Bayer seem to think? And if not, why are Objectivist so predisposed to trust them? And what about the FDA? Do Objectivists, with their uncompromising support of laisssez-faire capitalism, even believe that FDA, which is tasked with regulating the pharmaceutical corporation, should exist?\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThe uncompromising support of the mRNA vaccines by orthodox Objectivists is rich in ironies. When these vaccines were first released, the only evidence on their behalf consisted of very large randomized clinical trials run by the Pharmaceutical companies. Although the data from these trials was not made available to the public, it was nonetheless reviewed, at least in part, by both the FDA and the CDC. On the basis of this review, these government agencies declared that the vaccines were \"safe and effective.\" So the question then becomes: can these government agencies be trusted? If we evaluate the evidence, it's not clear that they can be. According to\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/ethics.harvard.edu\/blog\/risky-drugs-why-fda-cannot-be-trusted\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ean article\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;published by Harvard University's Center for Ethics in 2013, it would appear that the FDA may in fact be a compromised institution:\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EThis evidence indicates why we can no longer trust the FDA to carry out its historic mission to protect the public from harmful and ineffective drugs. Strong public demand that government “do something” about periodic drug disasters has played a central role in developing the FDA. Yet close, constant contact by companies with FDA staff and officials has contributed to vague, minimal criteria of what “safe” and “effective” mean. The FDA routinely approves scores of new minor variations each year, with minimal evidence about risks of harm. Then very effective mass marketing takes over, and the FDA devotes only a small percent of its budget to protect physicians or patients from receiving biased or untruthful information. The further corruption of medical knowledge through company-funded teams that craft the published literature to overstate benefits and understate harms, unmonitored by the FDA, leaves good physicians with corrupted knowledge. Patients are the innocent victims.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ENow merely because there are viable reasons for mistrusting the FDA (and by implication the CDC), this in itself does not \u003Ci\u003Econclusively\u003C\/i\u003E prove that those institutions were peddling misinformation about the mRNA vaccines. But it does raise serious suspicions that provide reasons for doubt. When the vaccines were introduced to the broader public in 2021, the American public was placed in a difficult position. Each and everyone of us was forced to make an educated guess based on inadequate and perhaps compromised datasets as to whether to succumb to vaccination.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ENow an Objectivist might claim that \"reason\" is the only tool that will enable us to figure out whether the mRNA vaccines were \"safe and effective.\" Very well then. What would \"reason\" have told us to do in relation to the vaccines? The fact of the matter, Objectivist \"reason\" would not be capable of telling us a thing. Without a sufficient data set, \"reason\" is blind. Unfortunately, our intrepid Objectivist columnist doesn't seem to understand this. He clings fast to his delusion that \"reason\" whispered in his ear that the vaccines were heroic achievements of capitalism and \"the Science\" and that they were therefore mandatory for all rational individuals.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EIt would seem that an important aspect of Objectivist \"reason\" is not doing one's homework; for this is hardly the first time we have run across an example of an Objectivist reaching conclusions based on insufficient evidence. The entire Objectivist so-called \"Philosophy of History\" consists of little more than vague speculations on an absurdly abbreviated, cliff-notes version of history. Their epistemological speculations are not much better, sadly lacking, as is so evidently the case, in data drawn from cognitive science.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EBut perhaps it was for the best that Bayer chose to follow the bent of his ideological proclivities rather than \"reason,\" because it must be admitted that on the few occasions where he actually makes an attempt at ratiocination, he often makes a mess of it. At one point in his article, Bayer accuses \"vaccine refusers\" of \"recklessly letting their guard down against a serious threat.\" But was the Covid-19 virus a \"serious threat\" against everyone? Since when? To be sure, the virus could be deadly against the elderly and individuals with co-morbidities. But against healthy young people it posed very minimal risks. So how did Bayer, a presumably \"rational\" thinker who always follows \"reason,\" get this so wrong? Inquiring minds what to know.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7095528622169173460\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7095528622169173460","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7095528622169173460"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7095528622169173460"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2023\/03\/the-mrna-vaccine-controversy-and-reason.html","title":"The mRNA Vaccine Controversy and \"Reason\""}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7017931429159343683"},"published":{"$t":"2023-02-12T09:56:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2023-02-12T09:56:30.222-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup, February 2023"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E1.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EIn 1983 Leonard Peikoff released his long-awaited book \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Ominous-Parallels-End-Freedom-America\/dp\/0452011175\/ref=sr_1_1?Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=0\u0026amp;Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=0\u0026amp;qid=1676125183\u0026amp;refinements=p_27:peikoff,p_28:ominous\u0026amp;s=books\u0026amp;sr=1-1\u0026amp;unfiltered=1\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003EThe Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E. Peikoff argued that the United States was on the same road as Germany during the Weimar Republic's descent into Nazi madness. Two-thirds of the book consisted of a discussion of the rise of Nazism, which Peikoff viewed as caused by irrationalist philosophy, particularly that of Immanuel Kant. The remainder of the book was an overview of American history and thought, arguing that the United States, thanks to its Kantian-influenced philosophers, was on the same path as Germany in the 1920s and 30s.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003ELibertarian philosopher David Gordon gave the book a scathing review in 1983.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EForty years \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/mises.org\/wire\/ominous-parallels-reconsidered\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003Elater he revisits it here\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EI’ll make a couple additional points:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p2\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px; text-indent: 36px;\"\u003Ei.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EAt Michael Berliner's suggestion, Peikoff decided to publish the chapters concerning Germany as a stand-alone book in 2013, \u003Ci\u003EThe Cause of Hitler’s Germany\u003C\/i\u003E. Based on Peikoff's new introduction, I get the impression that he thinks this is the more important part of \u003Ci\u003EThe Ominous Parallels\u003C\/i\u003E and didn't get the attention it deserved. The text of these chapters is identical to the original, with the exception of changing a few sentences that refer to the omitted chapters. That's a problem since \u003Ci\u003EThe Ominous Parallels\u003C\/i\u003E contained numerous mistakes in intellectual history. One of the biggest problems is Peikoff's repeated references to Rauschning's \u003Ci\u003EHitler Speaks\u003C\/i\u003E (aka \u003Ci\u003EThe Voice of Destruction\u003C\/i\u003E), a book of largely manufactured discussions with Hitler. While the fraudulent nature of Rauschning's book wasn’t known until after \u003Ci\u003EThe Ominous Parallels\u003C\/i\u003E was published, it widely known by 2013.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EA friend of mine told me that when he first read \u003Ci\u003EThe Ominous Parallels,\u003C\/i\u003E he thought some of the quotes (for example, “the age of reason is over”) were “too good to be true.”\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p2\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px; text-indent: 36px;\"\u003Eii.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EPeikoff references all number of (in his view) anti-rationalist writers and thinkers such as Emil Brunner, Karl Barth, Thomas Mann, Sigmund Freud, Ernst Cassirer, etc. but hardly ever mentions that these people were anti-Nazi.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EOf course Peikoff could argue that they didn’t draw the conclusions to Kant’s work that a consistent Kantian would, but an author should take into account possible objections to his thesis.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E2.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003ETimothy Sandefur recently published \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Freedoms-Furies-Paterson-Liberty-Darkness-ebook\/dp\/B0BHM5VCN6?ref_=ast_author_dp\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003EThe Furies: How Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane, and Ayn Rand Found Liberty in an Age of Darkness\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EIt’s an account of the friendship of these foundresses of modern libertarianism in the context of the politics of their time.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EI have only skimmed it, but it looks outstanding.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EI was naturally interested in the sources Sandefur would use for Rand’s life.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EHe says he relies principally on the late Anne Heller’s 2009, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Ayn-Rand-World-She-Made\/dp\/0385513992\/ref=pd_lpo_1?pd_rd_w=nXWKJ\u0026amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.116f529c-aa4d-4763-b2b6-4d614ec7dc00\u0026amp;pf_rd_p=116f529c-aa4d-4763-b2b6-4d614ec7dc00\u0026amp;pf_rd_r=2CFRCPT81TBR8R13S5A1\u0026amp;pd_rd_wg=yjEPv\u0026amp;pd_rd_r=27004d3a-6c6e-4a19-b9d2-9ed560aa1b69\u0026amp;pd_rd_i=0385513992\u0026amp;psc=1\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003EAyn Rand and the World She Made\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E, while noting that Rand’s followers view this and other (unnamed) biographies differently.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EHe doesn’t cite Barbara Branden’s 1986 biography, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Passion-Ayn-Rand-Barbara-Branden-ebook\/dp\/B00G3IL0ZW\/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3PVANXPP1MXJ1\u0026amp;keywords=passion+of+ayn+rand\u0026amp;qid=1676126857\u0026amp;s=digital-text\u0026amp;sprefix=p,digital-text,1784\u0026amp;sr=1-1\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe Passion of Ayn Rand\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E (or mention her at all) much less a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/01\/the-parc-wars-revisited.html\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003Ecertain critic of the Branden biography\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7017931429159343683\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7017931429159343683","title":"4 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7017931429159343683"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7017931429159343683"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2023\/02\/objectivist-roundup-february-2023.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup, February 2023"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"4"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6030823284322981988"},"published":{"$t":"2023-01-17T11:37:00.001-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2023-01-17T11:37:19.028-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup, January 2023"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cblockquote style=\"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; text-size-adjust: auto;\" type=\"cite\"\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Helvetica Neue\u0026quot;; font-size: 10pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;\"\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"\" style=\"font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;\"\u003ENot much happening.\u0026nbsp; The Ayn Rand Institute just released\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/issuu.com\/aynrandinstitute\/docs\/ari-annual-report-2022\"\u003Etheir 2022 repor\u003C\/a\u003Et.\u0026nbsp; It contains a previously unanthologized essay by Rand about the Spanish painter Jose Manuel Capuletti.\u0026nbsp; The ARI reports that it is currently digitizing the Ayn Rand Archives.\u0026nbsp; For those of us who would like to see the unbowlderized Rand Journals and other material, don't expect to see them anytime soon.\u0026nbsp; It will be a \"multi-year project.\"\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6030823284322981988\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6030823284322981988","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6030823284322981988"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6030823284322981988"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2023\/01\/objectivist-roundup-january-2023.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup, January 2023"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4930156371759452395"},"published":{"$t":"2022-12-15T16:44:00.001-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-12-15T16:44:03.103-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Atlas Shrugged"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"James Valliant"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup, December 2022"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E1. The big event last month was The Daily Wire’s purchasing the rights to \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/11\/daily-wire-secures-exclusive-rights-to.html#more\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003EGreg Nyquist has the low down\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EHere is the video where \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=SjGH-MJgTeo\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003EJames Valliant expresses his terror\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E2. In 2009, Jennifer Burns came out with her biography of Ayn Rand, \u003Ci\u003EGoddess of the Market\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EI just came across \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/customer-reviews\/R241HECCWMXKXX\/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8\u0026amp;ASIN=B002SAUBVS\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003Ethis 2010 Amazon review by Jan Schulman\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E, who knew Rand.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EIt is quite insightful about the nature of the movement in its heyday. \u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003EAR [Ayn Rand] was a brilliant, angry, disturbed, troubled woman. i loved her and loathed her. most especially, i loathed 'the movement' and all that it represented. a great example: one time i had worked for NB [Nathaniel Branden] doing secretarial services for him (after the break) in l.a. i had typed up a letter he dictated, signed the letter (he was out of town) and mailed it. he came to our house the following saturday morning when my husband and i were having breakfast and still in our robes. he sat down, had coffee and then expressed his extreme displeasure with me. \"You used an exclamation point in the letter!\" he practically screamed at me. \"What?\" I responded, stunned and confused. \"You used an exclamation point! Do you know what an exclamation point is?\" \"Well, it signifies an important statement, one that is strongly felt.\" \"It's a scream!\" he barked at me. \"And that tells me something about YOUR psycho-epistomology.\"\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003EI looked at him like he was crazy. (i actually thought he was.) \"But you said you had never been so happy in your entire life. i thought it was deserving of an exclamation point.\" i said. \"it was a strong statement and it was about your feelings and it was an exclamation.\" he went on to state that he was horrified and embarrassed beyond belief that that letter was sent with that piece of punctuation in it. that was when i realized, fully and clearly, as if a light went on in my head, that he and AR and everyone around them, were so full of their own self-worth (actually so full of crap) that they had lost sight of everything rational. that was when i became not only an ex-objectivist, but practically an anti-objectivist. i let NB know what i thought of his opinion and especially his nerve in blustering his way into our apartment only to insult me, while drinking my coffee (feel free to laugh). (i made really good coffee...smiles...) a few days later he apologized to me, but by then, i didn't care what he thought.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/4930156371759452395\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=4930156371759452395","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4930156371759452395"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4930156371759452395"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/12\/objectivist-roundup-december-2022.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup, December 2022"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-9156535817846877972"},"published":{"$t":"2022-11-25T05:17:00.006-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-11-25T05:17:33.588-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Atlas Shrugged"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Conservatism"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Daily Wire Secures Exclusive Rights to Atlas Shrugged"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp\u003EThe conservative internet news site and media company the DailyWire has announced that it has secured the exclusive rights to Ayn Rand's controversial best selling novel \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E. Daily Wire co-CEO Jeremy Boreing indicated plans for creating a series based on Rand's novel that would be streamed on the subscription-based DailyWire+. As Boering explained,\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EWhen we [i.e., the DailyWire] decided in 2020 to launch into entertainment, my vision at that time was to bring Ayn Rand’s seminal work on\u0026nbsp;the creative power of economic freedom and the terrible consequences of its loss to the screen as a premium series. The obvious problem, we thought, is that we would never be able to get the\u0026nbsp;rights to such a culturally ubiquitous work. I was wrong.”\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EI suspect Boering was not alone in believing that he would never get the rights to \u003Ci\u003EAtlas. \u003C\/i\u003ESo how did he pull it off? As far as can be made out, a deal was negotiated between Leonard Peikoff's and the DailyWire's lawyers, which strongly suggests that Peikoff himself must have signed off on the deal. As the DailyWire \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/news\/dailywire-secures-exclusive-film-tv-rights-to-classic-novel-atlas-shrugged\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eexplained\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EThe deal was negotiated by Sonnier and general counsel Joshua Herr on behalf of DailyWire+, Roger Arar and Kaslow on\u0026nbsp;behalf of Atlas Distribution Company, and Tim Knowlton of Curtis Brown Ltd. on behalf of the Peikoff Family\u0026nbsp;Partnership and the Estate of Ayn Rand.\u003C\/blockquote\u003ESome orthodox Objectivists (James Valliant for instance) have declared themselves \"terrified\" by this news. They fear the DailyWire smuggle \"conservative\" notions into \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E, particularly religious tropes. Jeremy Beoring insisted that the DailyWire+' version of \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E would be true to the book’s message, plot, and character archetypes. I suspect being \"true\" to Rand's novel was part of the deal with Peikoff, although what exactly that will mean in practice remains to be seen. Bear in mind that those in the Objectivist world who wish to see a well-made version of \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E don't exactly have a lot of choices when it comes to getting \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E on screen. Hollywood would never deign to make such a series and the DailyWire is about the only film company in the world with first-rate production values willing to take on such a quixotic venture.\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOf course it goes without saying that, even with high production values, \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E remains essentially an unfilmable novel. It will be interesting to see who Boering enlists as the screenwriter for the project. Will Andrew Klavan be asked to try his hand at the business? And who's going to direct and act in this thing? Most Hollywood actors wouldn't dare involve themselves in a DailyWire+ project—let alone one involving the Ayn Rand. Is everyone ready for Gina Carano as Dagny Taggart and Laurence Fox as Hank Rearden? There's a decent chance both those actors, each of whom has suffered cancellation for their political views, will star in the series. Perhaps they can also find a part for James Woods.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/9156535817846877972\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=9156535817846877972","title":"6 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/9156535817846877972"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/9156535817846877972"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/11\/daily-wire-secures-exclusive-rights-to.html","title":"Daily Wire Secures Exclusive Rights to Atlas Shrugged"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"6"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5031040996156752800"},"published":{"$t":"2022-11-14T12:22:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-11-14T12:22:25.259-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup, November 2022"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E1. \u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EAnne Heller, author of \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Ayn-Rand-World-She-Made\/dp\/1400078938\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003EAyn Rand and the World She Made\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E, passed away recently at the age of 71.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EHeller’s biography of Rand, which was published in 2009, was excellent but probably didn’t get the attention it deserved.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EA few months before it came out, Jennifer Burns published her biography of Rand, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Goddess-Market-Rand-American-Right-ebook\/dp\/B002SAUBVS\/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1G3NVOZ80T7XP\u0026amp;keywords=burns+goddess+market\u0026amp;qid=1668434158\u0026amp;s=books\u0026amp;sprefix=burns+goddess+mareket,stripbooks,131\u0026amp;sr=1-1\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003EGoddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003EGoddess of the Market\u003C\/i\u003E was the first biography of Rand since Barbara Branden’s 1986 \u003Ci\u003EThe Passion of Ayn Rand\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EBurns had almost complete access to the Ayn Rand Archives and revealed, for the first time, that six of Rand’s posthumously published books – most notably \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Journals-Ayn-Rand\/dp\/0525943706\/ref=sr_1_2?qid=1668434415\u0026amp;refinements=p_27:David+Harriman\u0026amp;s=books\u0026amp;sr=1-2\u0026amp;text=David+Harriman\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003ERand’s Journals\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E - were so heavily edited as to be practically worthless.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003ESo Heller’s book was perhaps bound to be overshadowed (she was not allowed access to the Archives).\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EChris Sciabarra \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/notablog.net\/archives\/3130\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003Ehas a tribute\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E2.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003ELong time Objectivist writer Andrew Bernstein recently publish a book on US education: \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Johnny-Still-Cant-Write-Understand\/dp\/1637584334\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003EWhy Johnny Still Can’t Read or Wright or Understand Math\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EI haven’t read the book, but the \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=BFSmE6W-BNA\u0026amp;t=3074s\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003EAyn Rand Fan Club recently interviewed him\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EBernstein makes some good points but seems to think students would do significantly better on average with improved teaching methods, which is an implication of Rand’s view of intelligence, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/11\/orthodox-objectivisms-struggle-with.html\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003Ewhich I discussed recently\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5031040996156752800\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5031040996156752800","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5031040996156752800"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5031040996156752800"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/11\/objectivist-roundup-november-2022.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup, November 2022"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5653237460847351328"},"published":{"$t":"2022-11-13T08:45:00.012-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-11-13T09:10:54.970-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"blank slate"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Human Nature"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"IQ"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Orthodox Objectivism's Struggle with the Inheritability of Intelligence"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" id=\"docs-internal-guid-96fb3756-7fff-d5ab-b56a-6a7c5a8e26b6\" style=\"line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri,sans-serif\" style=\"background-color: transparent; color: black; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400;\"\u003E[Introductory\u0026nbsp;Note: the following is an important article by ARCHNBlog contributor Neil Parille. One thing to bear in mind in relation to the subject of intelligence is that the correlation between measured intelligence (i.e., IQ) and societal outcome success is one of the highest correlations ever measured by social science. The persisting skepticism of intelligence in orthodox Objectivist circles constitutes, as Neil explains in this essay, the legacy of Rand's blank slatism.]\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003EOne thing I’ve noticed over the years is that Objectivists are, like apparently a fair percentage of the population, skeptical of intelligence tests (which I’ll call IQ tests).\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EA while ago I heard Ayn Rand Institute president Yaron Brook claim that IQ tests are “B.S.” (he didn’t use the abbreviation). Perhaps less surprising is that Objectivists are generally skeptical of the contention that intelligence is a highly heritable (put colloquially, genetic) trait.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003EAs I’ve \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/03\/taking-ideas-seriously.html\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003Ementioned before\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E, there is quite a disconnect between what psychologists know about intelligence and what the average person believes.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EHere is what probably close to 100% of experts in the field of intelligence research believe:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E1.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-tab-span\" style=\"white-space: pre;\"\u003E\t\u003C\/span\u003EThere is such a thing as intelligence.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003ESome people are better at math, have a bigger vocabulary and are better at solving problems of all kinds.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E2.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-tab-span\" style=\"white-space: pre;\"\u003E\t\u003C\/span\u003EIQ tests reliably measure what we consider intelligence.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E3.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-tab-span\" style=\"white-space: pre;\"\u003E\t\u003C\/span\u003EIntelligence is a highly heritable trait, probably in the 50 to 80% range.*\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E4.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-tab-span\" style=\"white-space: pre;\"\u003E\t\u003C\/span\u003EIQ correlates to a variety of life outcomes.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EHigher IQ people on average commit less crime, have less illegitimacy, have lower rates of drug use, etc.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p2\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s2\" style=\"color: black;\"\u003EIf you don’t believe me, here are \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.vox.com\/the-big-idea\/2017\/5\/18\/15655638\/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003Ethree prominent left wing intelligence researchers\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p2\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s2\" style=\"color: black;\"\u003EHere is \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s3\" style=\"text-decoration-line: underline;\"\u003ERand’s definition of intelligence\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s2\" style=\"color: black;\"\u003E:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E“Intelligence is the ability to deal with a broad range of abstractions. Whatever a child’s natural endowment, the use of intelligence is an acquired skill. It has to be acquired by a child’s own effort and automatized by his own mind, but adults can help or hinder him in this crucial process.”\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003EIt is occasionally said by Objectivists and others that there are kinds of intelligence or aspects of intelligence that aren’t captured or measured by IQ tests.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EThis idea was made popular by Harvard University’s Howard Gardner in his book Multiple Intelligences.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EGardner listed among other types of purported intelligence musical ability and athletic ability.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EMost would consider these things skills.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EIn any event, this dubious theory doesn’t undercut the consensus view of intelligence.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EFor example, if you consider playing baseball a form of intelligence, it is still the case that given two equally gifted baseball players the one with the higher IQ will tend to be a better player.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EPut differently, nothing has been identified as a form of intelligence which inversely correlates to IQ.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003ELeonard Peikoff \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/peikoff.com\/2016\/08\/01\/what-was-ayn-rands-iq\/\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003Ewas asked in 2016 what Ayn Rand’s IQ\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E might have been.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EHe responded that he didn’t have any idea because IQ was not a topic in the Objectivist community during Rand’s life.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EHe said that he didn’t know whether IQ tests were valid.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EI recall, but can’t find the podcast, where Peikoff was asked if Rand believed intelligence had a genetic basis.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EHis response was that Rand didn’t think it mattered because we don’t use all of our brain power (or words to that effect).\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EThis is a common claim but, if one thinks about it, is untrue.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EIf someone has an accident and loses twenty percent of his cognitive functioning, he is unlikely to increase his mental ability to his pre-injury level by more effort.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003EIt does seem that Objectivists who are informed on these issues accept the consensus.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EEdwin Locke is a prominent Objectivist psychologist and an expert in the field of motivational psychology.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EIn his 2017 book, The Illusion of Determinism, he accepts that intelligence is genetic in the 50 to 80% range. He sees egalitarianism behind the multiple intelligences theory, e.g., “we are all equally smart, just in different ways.”\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EIn his 2020 Objectivist Conference talk he discussed IQ tests and accepted their validity.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EHarry Binswanger said in a couple podcasts that he thinks IQ tests measure intelligence and intelligence is at least moderately heritable.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003EI imagine that many Objectivists have a hard time accepting the high heritability of intelligence for a few reasons:\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003EFirst, it conflicts with their blank slate view of human nature.*\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EAs Rand famously said, man is a “being of self-made soul.”\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EIn her essay “Racism,” Rand defined racism as “the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry.”\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003ETaken to the extreme this means that every person is born with the potential to be a Newton since Newton’s genius must have been unrelated to his “body chemistry.”\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003E(But note that in her definition of intelligence Rand referenced a child’s natural endowment.) \u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EYet if intelligence is highly heritable then nature places a limit on human ability.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EThe average IQ is 100.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EIt takes an IQ of 115 to be an accountant and an IQ of 130 to be a Ph.D. research scientist.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EIt follows then that the average person will not be able to become an accountant and the average accountant won’t be able to become a physicist.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003ESecond, an additional reason is the correlation between intelligence and desirable life outcomes.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EPut differently, people with an average IQ of 110 will have an easier time navigating the difficulties of life than people with an average IQ of 90.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003ESome people are just born to be more successful than others. Although high IQ people can make a mess of their life, the Bernie Madoffs of the world are the exception.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003EThird, Objectivists, like Rand, contend that achievement is largely a question of proper epistemology.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EIn Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand considered the world’s problems to be largely caused by an inability to solve “the problem of universals” (which she considered to be synonymous with a theory of concept formation). \u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EI’d rather have a good theory of concept formation than a bad one, but there is no evidence to believe that Objectivists develop scientific breakthroughs at a higher rate than others.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003EFourth, if intelligence is highly heritable, then what about other traits such as political beliefs, personal honesty or industriousness?\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EEvidence shows that there is at least a moderate genetic component to these as acknowledged by up and coming\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/326839224_Nurturing_Our_Better_Nature_A_Proposal_for_Cognitive_Integrity_as_a_Foundation_for_Autonomous_Living\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003EObjectivist psychologist Gena Gorlin\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E_______________________\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E*This is established by studies of identical twins separated at birth and adopted into families with different socio-economic status.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EThe IQ of an adopted child correlates to the IQ of the biological parents than the adopting parents. \u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E**I’ve heard Objectivists say that Rand’s view of man being a blank slate is limited to the rejection of innate knowledge and isn’t necessarily related to the nature\/nurture debate.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EOn the other hand, I’ve corresponded with at least a couple prominent Objectivists who claim that males are not innately more aggressive than females notwithstanding that this is observed everywhere and persists even when attempts are made to raise boys and girls equally.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003ESee James Q. Wilson’s Crime and Human Nature.\u003C\/p\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5653237460847351328\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5653237460847351328","title":"4 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5653237460847351328"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5653237460847351328"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/11\/orthodox-objectivisms-struggle-with.html","title":"Orthodox Objectivism's Struggle with the Inheritability of Intelligence"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"4"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6525589522744943829"},"published":{"$t":"2022-10-16T16:03:00.003-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-10-16T16:03:39.120-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup, October 2022"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;\"\u003ENot much happening in the world of Objectivism in the last month or two.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;\"\u003EThe only thing of note is \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/carlbarney.com\/2022\/09\/19\/schisms-and-aris-need-of-a-dispute-resolution-process\/\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003ECarl Barney’s response\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E the ARI’s strange \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/newideal.aynrand.org\/of-schisms-public-and-private\/\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003Epiece on schisms\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EBarney makes several good points and it’s also interesting to see his version of the events that led to his break with the ARI.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003ESome money quotes:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;\"\u003EMy break with Yaron (and it was fundamentally with Yaron rather than with ARI) came about when I was giving him about $4 million a year and he wanted more. I said I would give him more, but I wanted to know his strategy for ARI and Objectivism. After painfully frustrating and failed strategic planning meetings, Yaron, in order to persuade me to continue funding ARI, agreed to promote and deliver Leonard’s courses. This was really important to me. But he didn’t keep his word....\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;\"\u003EMy efforts regarding the dispute resolution process go back to 2015. I said to Yaron and some ARI Board members, “I have a lot of money invested in the success of ARI. Another disruptive conflict, such as the McCaskey affair, could severely damage ARI and my investment as the McCaskey affair did. So, would you agree to a dispute resolution process to head off any further disputes?\"\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;\"\u003EYaron agreed and said he would make it happen. (This was a condition of my giving him more money.) Over the next few years, I met with two lawyers who were also involved with ARI, Steve Simpson and Larry Salzman (Larry was on ARI’s Board). We met for many hours, attempting to draft a process that would be approved by Yaron. The lawyers and I met, discussed details, drafted versions, critiqued them, and edited them over and over. But ultimately, Yaron and Onkar would not approve them. I tried and tried, for about four years, working with Steve, Larry, Yaron, and others to establish a dispute resolution process. I spent probably between 100 and 200 hours. But nothing came of it.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EOne might cynically point out that the most rational people on earth shouldn’t need a highfalutin conflict resolution process, but $4 million a year is a lot of money.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EAnd if Brook is half as arrogant and condescending in private as he is in public, I can’t blame Barney.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6525589522744943829\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6525589522744943829","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6525589522744943829"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6525589522744943829"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/10\/objectivist-roundup-october-2022.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup, October 2022"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6568234920378499773"},"published":{"$t":"2022-09-27T13:39:00.003-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-09-29T13:28:39.134-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Aesthetics"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Binswanger"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Hospers"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"An Epistemological Quandry"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp\u003EHarry Binswanger has come out with a \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=fVMq-flS5y0\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Evideo\u003C\/a\u003E on Ayn Rand's break-up with philosopher John Hospers. Binswanger attended the notorious meeting for the American Society for Aesthetics that led Rand to terminate her friendship with Hospers. Against the advice of his colleagues, Hospers had invited Rand to present a paper on aesthetics. Rand read one of her essays on her concept of a \"sense of life.\" Afterwards, Hospers offered some criticisms of Rand's theories, to which Rand then offered a replied.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENow according to Binswanger, Hospers criticism was \"unhelpful,\" amounting to something of a philosophical put-down. \"He didn't give her respect,\" he would later recall. When Rand delivered her responses, she was \"so nice and so gentle.\" But when she looked in Hospers direction, to perhaps gauge his reaction, he not even paying any attention to her. \u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHospers delivers a remarkable different account of the event:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBy tradition, commentators make criticisms. Mine, I thought, were mild as criticisms go. I wondered publicly about whether every work of art (even mediocre ones) carries with it a sense of life; I mentioned Ayn’s own example of Dinesen (fine writing, but an awful sense of life); I speculated about whether to any extent what we say about sense of life depends on the language we use to characterize it (\"emotive meaning\" again).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EI saw something wrong when I noticed that her remarks in response were icy, sarcastic, even insulting. I never discovered what there was about my remarks that made her \"go ballistic.\" Apparently I had betrayed her, and I had done so publicly, when an academic audience already presumed critical of her might have been turned her way. There was no doubt that she felt deeply hurt. At the party in her room afterward, she would not speak to me, nor would anyone else: word had gone out that I was to be \"shunned.\" I never saw her again.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESo the epistemological question that confronts us is \u003Ci\u003EHow can we know which account is the right one? \u003C\/i\u003EPresumably, almost everyone who participated and witnessed the event in question is dead. A few members of the audience who, like Binswanger, were mere students may still be around. But finding them would be difficult and verifying that they were actually in attendance at the meeting close to impossible. So it really is Binswanger's word versus that of Hospers (who is no longer with us). How are we to determine which, if either, is telling the truth? Does Rand's own epistemology provide us any insights on solving this quandry?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe irony is that most people will decide this question on the basis of their general view of Ayn Rand. Those who think highly of Ayn Rand and regard Objectivism as an important philosophy will likely side with Binswanger, while those who have a more guarded or even negative view of Rand and hold Objectivism to be a sad tissue of error will likely side with Hospers. But of course, one's opinion of Rand and Objectivism can hardly be regarded as a reliable principle for determining the truth or falsity of what went on at that meeting.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOne way to solve this dilemma might be to acknowledge that it is impossible to know for sure what exactly happened but that we might make an educated guess. We could do what is often done in such situations---that is, try to pick up reputational information about Hospers and Binswanger with the aim of determining who is likely to be the most reliable witness. Even here we run into various epistemological quagmires. Binswanger, for example, to the extent that he is known at all, is something of a controversial figure. He has both admirers and detractors. Who among these two groups are we supposed to believe?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAnother way to explain these varying accounts of Rand's behavior is to presume that Binswanger and Hospers perceived the entire event through the veil of their assumptions and prejudices. Binswanger perceived Rand as being \"so nice and so gentle\" because he was favorably disposed toward her, while Hospers regarded her as sarcastic, icy, and insulting because he was the target of her criticism. But perhaps her behavior was far more neutral and hence open to radically different interpretations.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOne last method of settling this question, and the one I tend to favor, is to ask which account of Rand's behavior is consistent with other evidence we have of her general mode of conduct. Rand is well known for being ultra-sensitive to slights and breaking with people on trivial pretexts. As Hospers himself notes,\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003ERumors persisted ... of how she would \"excommunicate\" people: they would say or do something that seemed trivial to others, and she would be done with them forever. Some of them were quite good friends, such as Edith Efron, who cared a great deal for Ayn but who was also cut off. None of this would have happened, theynsaid, ten years before, but with the years she had become more suspicious, testy, impatient—no one was sure why. Quite a few people, it seemed, were suddenly out of her life.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThese rumors that Hospers talks about have been verified by a wide number of sources, as has been documented in Anne Heller's \u003Ci\u003EAyn Rand and the World She Made\u003C\/i\u003E. Therefore if we are to ask which account of what happened at that meeting of the American Society of Aesthetics is most in keeping with Rand's general conduct during that period of her life, it has to be Hospers' version. It fits with what scores of other people have testified. Binswanger in comparison comes off as special pleading about someone he would never dare to criticize.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003C!--more--\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6568234920378499773\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6568234920378499773","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6568234920378499773"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6568234920378499773"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/09\/an-epistemological-quandry.html","title":"An Epistemological Quandry"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8244787986441913938"},"published":{"$t":"2022-09-25T08:12:00.005-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-09-25T08:51:55.099-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Review of Simon Lemieux's Book on Rand"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" id=\"docs-internal-guid-8dcfb6b0-7fff-7ff7-036d-0d447385e4bb\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EWho the Hell is Ayn Rand?\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E was recently published.\u0026nbsp; It is written by Simon Lemieux who teaches at Portsmouth Grammar School in England. It’s a volume in a new series of brief introductions to ancient and contemporary thinkers. It’s a good overview of Rand’s life and philosophy from a somewhat left-wing perspective.\u0026nbsp; In particular, I like how Lemieux lets Rand speak for herself, letting the reader judge for himself if Rand’s ideas are correct or practical.\u0026nbsp; In this respect it’s quite unique in the world of Randian criticism.\u0026nbsp; In lieu of a formal book review, I’ll summarize each chapter and make some comments.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EIntroduction\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe introduction points out that Ayn Rand continues to be controversial.\u0026nbsp; Lemieux also notes that Rand has been misrepresented and “wasn’t a fully-fledged libertarian or a reckless libertine.”\u0026nbsp; He makes the interesting observation that Randianism is something of a combination of Nietzscheanism and can-do American individualism.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ERand’s Life Story\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ELemieux discusses Rand’s life from her birth in Russia in 1905 until her death in New York City in 1982.\u0026nbsp; One thing I found interesting is that he doesn’t dwell on the “negative” side of Rand’s personality, such as her temper and her tendency to break with people for reasons that many would consider petty.\u0026nbsp; Also interesting is that his main sources for Rand’s life are Jennifer Burns’s 2009 biography, \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EGoddess of the Market\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, and Anne Heller’s 2009 biography, \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAyn Rand and the World She Made\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E.\u0026nbsp; Lemieux discusses Rand’s involvement with Nathaniel and Barbara Branden and her break with them in 1968, but nowhere mentions that Barbara wrote a biography of Rand (\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe Passion of Ayn Rand\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E) and Nathaniel two memoirs (\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EJudgment Day\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E and \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EMy Years with Ayn Rand\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E).\u0026nbsp; These works helped cement the idea of Rand of a brilliant, if highly flawed, person.\u0026nbsp; Rand’s followers associated with the Ayn Rand Institute continue to attack them as nasty and self-serving.\u0026nbsp; If Lemieux believes that the Branden books have largely been superseded by the 2009 biographies then I’d agree; however, the controversy over Rand’s life (at least as some of her fans see it) is something readers of an introduction should be made aware of.*\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EInfluences on Rand’s Thinking\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ELemieux relies in part on Chris Sciabarra’s \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe Russian Radical\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E.\u0026nbsp; Lemieux discusses the influence of Aristotle on Rand and notes that her interpretation of Aristotle and other thinkers is controversial.\u0026nbsp; He sees similarities with others such as her teacher Nicholas Lossky and various authors in the libertarian and conservative traditions.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EPhilosophy of Objectivism\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EHe reviews Rand’s views on politics, ethics, metaphysics and epistemology.\u0026nbsp; Unfortunately, he doesn’t mention Rand’s \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E.\u0026nbsp; This is the one book that Rand wrote that resembles a traditional work of philosophy.\u0026nbsp; In it, Rand purported to solve “the problem of universals” via an elaborate description of how the mind forms concepts.\u0026nbsp; While this work hasn’t made much of an influence in the world of professional philosophy, her acolytes consider it her greatest achievement.\u0026nbsp; As Alan Gotthelf once told Rand, “you’ve done for consciousness what Aristotle did for existence,” to which Rand replied “I have.”**\u0026nbsp; The best aspect of this chapter is how Lemieux integrates Rand’s philosophy with characters in her novels.\u0026nbsp; He notes that Rand’s characters, however, tend to be rather one dimensional.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EIndividualism and Morality\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ELemieux discusses the Randian view of selfishness and altruism.\u0026nbsp; He is quite fair to Rand by observing that Rand doesn’t mean by this that being uncaring about others is a virtue.\u0026nbsp; She didn’t even oppose private charity.\u0026nbsp; I think he’s correct that Rand’s “transactional” approach to ethics does make ethical decisions somewhat sterile.\u0026nbsp; Most of us would consider being compassionate and friendly good in themselves, not just good in the “go along to get along” sense.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ECapitalism and Politics\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ELemieux observes that for Rand, Capitalism was not only an economic system, but a political system where individuals were free to live their lives without governmental or societal interference.\u0026nbsp; Capitalism is derivative of her view of human beings as rational creatures. He disagrees with Rand that monopolies can only be sustained by governmental interference.\u0026nbsp; He points out that Amazon, Facebook and other companies have an advantage because the costs of competing with them are quite high and the technological advantage they possess because of copyrighted software and the like.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EHe notes that Rand received Social Security and Medicare in her later years. He doesn’t accuse Rand of being a hypocrite because she wrote in “The Question of Scholarships” that it’s reasonable for a person to “take back” what the government has, in her view, stolen.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ELemieux has a brief discussion of Rand’s view of property rights and notes that Rand wasn’t a racist.\u0026nbsp; She didn’t approve of private discrimination against non-Whites but thought that boycotts and social pressure was the appropriate manner to fight racial discrimination.\u0026nbsp; He sees as somewhat contradictory her support for Israel, noting that it was based in part on a rather stereotypical and almost collectivist view of Arabs.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EConclusion\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ELemieux finishes the book with the enduring influence of Rand on American and European life.\u0026nbsp; He names some of the people that are influenced by Rand.\u0026nbsp; He claims, correctly I think, that Rand, as a “big picture” thinker, asked all sorts of important questions about life, politics and morality.\u0026nbsp; “To all those questions, Rand provides some interesting answers. \u0026nbsp; One may well disagree with much of the overarching nature of Objectivist philosophy or see it unrealistic in practice . . .”\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"border-bottom: 1.5pt solid rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; padding: 0pt 0pt 1pt;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E*Likewise, Lemieux doesn’t mention James Valliant’s 2005 hit piece, \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, which argues that the Branden books are lies from beginning to end.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;**Not to be outdone, Leonard Peikoff claims that with his theory of induction (\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/estore.aynrand.org\/collections\/leonard-peikoff\/products\/induction-in-physics-and-philosophy-mp3-download\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Egiven as taped lectures\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"Calibri, sans-serif\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E) “the validation of reason has now been accomplished.”\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8244787986441913938\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8244787986441913938","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8244787986441913938"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8244787986441913938"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/09\/review-of-simon-lemieuxs-book-on-rand.html","title":"Review of Simon Lemieux's Book on Rand"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3376170604046645451"},"published":{"$t":"2022-09-07T07:49:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-09-07T07:49:50.293-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Round-up, September 2022"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp\u003E1. \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Who-Hell-Ayn-Rand-theories\/dp\/1915177030\/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1Y7BWWKL3RBQ1\u0026amp;keywords=who+the+hell+is+ayn+rand\u0026amp;qid=1662554758\u0026amp;sprefix=who+the+hell+is+ayn+rand%2Caps%2C123\u0026amp;sr=8-1\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003EWho the Hell is Ayn Rand? \u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003Ewas recently published by Simon Lemieux. It’s a volume in \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.whothehellis.co.uk\/\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003Ea new series\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E that provides brief introductions to ancient and contemporary thinkers. It’s a good overview of Rand’s life and philosophy from a somewhat left-wing perspective. I hope to review it in a week or two.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E2. \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Mr271BJABJA\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003EAyn Rand Fan Club interviewed Michael Stuart Kelly\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E of the Objectivist Living website. I enjoyed the discussion of his friendship with Barbara Branden, his involvement in The PARC Wars, and the rise and fall of Objectivist forums.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E3. \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/notablog.net\/archives\/3010\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003EChris Sciabarra\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E just announced that the final issue of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies will come out in 2023. JARS published numerous significant articles on Rand and related issues. Chris also published two important essays on Rand’s college transcripts based on archival research. I will always be grateful to Chris for printing three book reviews I wrote. JARS was first published in 1999.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3376170604046645451\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3376170604046645451","title":"4 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3376170604046645451"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3376170604046645451"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/09\/objectivist-round-up-september-2022.html","title":"Objectivist Round-up, September 2022"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"4"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7316975451509676704"},"published":{"$t":"2022-07-31T20:00:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-07-31T20:00:00.202-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Round-up, August 2022"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp\u003E1. An expanded version of the Letters of Ayn Rand is now \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/aynrand.org\/archives\/\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003Eonline\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E. \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.jenniferburns.org\/ayn-rand-read-the-rand-archives\/\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003EAccording to Jennifer Burns\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E, this is one of the few pieces of Rand’s posthumous material that hasn’t been rewritten to any significant extent. When I read the volume years ago, I thought that the correspondence to John Hospers was particularly interesting. To print those parts of Rand’s letters that quote Hospers’ correspondence with her, the editor needed Hospers’ permission. They agreed to print Hospers’ statement:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E“The letters were interstices between oral conversations; they were written only when Ayn and I were at different geographical locations and could not meet in person. Almost all of the significant material in our communications with each other was in oral, not written, form. The letters may thus give a distorted view of the content of our conversations.”\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\"You rightly have a great interest in reproducing everything that Ayn said; and you have no particular interest in whatever it was that I said, either to initiate a discussion or to respond to her. The result is that my thoughts just don’t appear in these pages—not that you wanted them to, of course. But sometimes I thought that Ayn had not correctly apprehended a point I had made, and her summary of what I said sometimes did not reproduce what I really did say. Whether what I said was mistaken or not is beside the point here; I was often more interested in clarifying a point than in presenting it for acceptance. I am afraid the reader who read what Ayn wrote to me, and not what I wrote to her, would gather that I was a bloody fool. I daresay that in some ways I was, yet not so much as one would get the impression of from the letters. The trouble is, from her letters one gets only one side of a dialogue. And that isn’t quite fair, is it?”\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E2. The Ayn Rand University has a \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/newideal.aynrand.org\/ethics-for-a-human-way-of-life-foots-natural-goodness\/\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003Enew course on comparing Rand’s ethics to the “virtue ethics” of Philippa Foot and G. E. M. Anscombe\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E. I wonder what Rand would have thought about this kind of compare\/contrast approach to her work. Anyway, while the course seems a bit expensive at $1,200, you can aways audit it for a mere $900.\u003C\/p\u003E3. Speaking of compare\/contrast, Harry Binswanger has an interesting video discussion comparing Rand’s philosophy to “academic philosophies.” See \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=HZW8nSgHz4I\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E, \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=fpgxXvqpjSU\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E and \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=ZSyYmNqWdt0\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E. Harry says he hasn’t followed academic philosophy since 1990 but he’s been told that philosophy has gotten better since then. He mentions John Searle and Phillipa Foot. Searle’s \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Mind-Language-Society-Philosophy-Masterminds\/dp\/0465045219\/ref=sr_1_5?crid=ERUPGSZ20RTQ\u0026amp;keywords=john+searle\u0026amp;qid=1659184092\u0026amp;sprefix=joh%2Caps%2C2371\u0026amp;sr=8-5\u0026amp;asin=0465045219\u0026amp;revisionId=\u0026amp;format=4\u0026amp;depth=1\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003EMind, Language, and Society\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E is a good introduction to philosophy that sounds like Rand at times. Foot’s best known work is \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Natural-Goodness-Philippa-Foot\/dp\/019926547X\/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1DX3SX8TWPQBJ\u0026amp;keywords=philippa+foot\u0026amp;qid=1659184833\u0026amp;sprefix=philippa+f%2Caps%2C1119\u0026amp;sr=8-1\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003ENatural Goodness\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E.\u003Cp style=\"direction: ltr; line-height: 1.08px; margin-bottom: 0.11in;\"\u003E4. The Atlas Society has a \u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/TheAtlasSociety\/videos\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003EYou Tube channel\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E with many interviews.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7316975451509676704\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7316975451509676704","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7316975451509676704"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7316975451509676704"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/07\/objectivist-round-up-august-2022.html","title":"Objectivist Round-up, August 2022"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4247588924319176131"},"published":{"$t":"2022-07-03T17:05:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-07-09T12:26:05.088-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup, July 2022"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cspan id=\"docs-internal-guid-925c88e6-7fff-582c-ee6a-77807298fed8\"\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 12pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E1. Once it became likely that the United States Supreme Court would overturn \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ERoe v. Wade\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, it’s been\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/newideal.aynrand.org\/\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Eall abortion all the time for the Ayn Rand Institute\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E. They have even published a free Kindle book,\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Why-Right-Abortion-Sacrosanct-Bayer-ebook\/dp\/B0B13PF4Z6\/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1GW6W5ZI5EBFL\u0026amp;keywords=why+abortion+is+sacrosanct\u0026amp;qid=1656852513\u0026amp;sprefix=why+abortion+is+sacrosanct%2Caps%2C968\u0026amp;sr=8-1\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EWhy the Right to Abortion is Sacrosanct\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, not knowing apparently that the\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/sacrosanct\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E“primary dictionary definition\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E” of sacrosanct is, “most sacred or holy.”\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 12pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E2. Speaking of abortion, it’s not clear what Rand’s views were. The ARI’s claim that she supported legalized abortion until birth is debatable. See\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/selfinsociety.substack.com\/p\/ayn-rands-evolving-views-on-late?fbclid=IwAR2CyZ8-3DCxG6G3bFSXxb5coqgWatdK6exLC8iGcsS41N3wDFo_J_XkQYQ\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E and\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/kyleratliffblog.medium.com\/the-ayn-rand-institutes-disgraceful-misrepresentation-of-ayn-rand-on-abortion-f2e964a57317\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 12pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E3. This is an interesting (and unusual) discussion with a\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=T37Qy_LAGl4\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ecritic of Objectivism\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E by the Ayn Rand Centre UK. I had never heard of Paul Crider before, but as an Objectivist turned libertarian turned conventional left winger, his criticisms of Objectivism and \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E are much more informed than most critics.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E4. Speaking of Objectivists turned liberals, Dr. Diana Hsieh\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.philosophyinaction.com\/\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Etook her website down\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E stating that it no longer reflects her current beliefs. Based on her\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/DianaBrickell\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: black; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #0563c1; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ETwitter feed\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E it seems that she is more or less a left winger. She actually has become a union organizer. I don’t know of any studies, but most Objectivists who leave the movement seem to turn libertarian or conservative.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cp style=\"direction: ltr; line-height: 1.08px; margin-bottom: 1in;\"\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/4247588924319176131\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=4247588924319176131","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4247588924319176131"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4247588924319176131"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/07\/objectivist-roundup-july-2020.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup, July 2022"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3218554657383994127"},"published":{"$t":"2022-06-24T07:36:00.003-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-06-24T07:48:39.559-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Guessing Game"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Now let's test our ability to match a quote with the appropriate Objectivist (or Objectivist approved) philosopher. Among the great apostles of reason, which great thinker penned or spoke the following bit of rhetoric in praise of enlightenment, independent thinking, and intellectual courage? The quote is as follows:\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EEnlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another . . . \"Dare to think! Have the courage to use your own reason!\" is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EWho must we thank for this bit of eloquent magniloquence on behalf of \"reason\"? Is it Rand? Is it Peikoff? Is it perhaps Binswanger? Or is it some other Objectivist-sympathizing worthy? Can anyone guess this without cheating?\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3218554657383994127\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3218554657383994127","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3218554657383994127"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3218554657383994127"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/06\/guessing-game.html","title":"Guessing Game"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4909475873979054804"},"published":{"$t":"2022-06-16T07:01:00.003-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-06-16T07:04:05.325-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup, June 2022"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Here's another roundup of latest Objectivist news, compliments of\u0026nbsp;Neil Parille:\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: medium;\"\u003E1.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003ESpanish philosopher Luca Moratal Romeu has a 415 page book on \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/filosof%25C3%25ADa-pol%25C3%25ADtica-Ayn-Rand-an%25C3%25A1lisis\/dp\/8411222381\/ref=sr_1_4?Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=0\u0026amp;Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=0\u0026amp;qid=1655375994\u0026amp;refinements=p_28:ayn+rand\u0026amp;s=books\u0026amp;sr=1-4\u0026amp;unfiltered=1\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003EAyn Rand’s political philosophy\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EThe book is $37.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EI can read Spanish but, unfortunately, there is no Amazon preview so I don’t think I’ll be purchasing it.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: medium;\"\u003E2.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EARI philosophers Onkar Ghate and Mike Mazza discuss \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/newideal.aynrand.org\/philosophers-unprofessional-treatment-of-ayn-rand\/\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003Ecriticisms of Ayn Rand by professional philosophers Sidney Hook and Robert Nozick\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EI can’t find Hook’s review of \u003Ci\u003EFor the New Intellectual\u003C\/i\u003E on the web, but my recollection was that much of his criticism was focused on Rand’s caricature of the history of philosophy in the book’s introductory essay.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: medium;\"\u003E3. \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/events.aynrand.org\/ocon\/\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003EOCON 202\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E2 kicks off next month.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003ESome of the talks look interesting, but when I saw that future Rand biographer Shoshana Milgram was speaking, I checked \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/events.aynrand.org\/ocon\/speakers\/\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"s1\" style=\"color: #0b4cb4;\"\u003Ethe speaker’s section\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EApparently, she is still working on her biography, which will only go to 1957.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EI wonder if the book will ever be published.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EIf so, it likely won’t be authorized as previously promised.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times New Roman;\"\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cb\u003ECommentary by Greg Nyquist:\u003C\/b\u003E The discussion of Sidney Hook's review of Rand's \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;;\"\u003EFor the New Intellectual \u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times New Roman;\"\u003Egets bogged down in a discussion of the Objectivist axioms. Ghate accuses Hook of not understanding that Rand's axioms are \"metaphysical\" and that the \"law of identity\" applies to reality (i.e., \"things are what they are\"). Ghate then argues that Rand is merely applying Aristotle's view of logic and that Hook simply doesn't understand it. But the real misunderstanding is Rand's and Ghate's. Rand reifies logic into a principle of reality on the assumption that in order for logic to be \"valid\" (why logic, which is itself the standard of validity, has to be validated is no where explained), it must have a grounding in \"metaphysical reality.\" (Does logic, we might wonder, have a grounding in non-metaphysical reality? And if not, what then is the difference between metaphysical reality and non-metaphysical reality? Or is the phrase \"metaphysical reality\" merely a pleonasm?) Now the confusions here run deep, but they are also indicative of Rand's lack of basic philosophical literacy. Reality does not follow the laws of logic. Causation is \u003Ci\u003Enot\u003C\/i\u003E a logical process, nor does the identification\u0026nbsp;of things in reality (or the identification of their attributes) involve logic as set down by Aristotle (or anyone else), although logic may be used to discuss these existing things within the realm of human discourse. Logic is, at its most basic (as even Rand understood) \u003Cb\u003EA is A\u003C\/b\u003E. But it is an error to confused logical identification with other forms of identification that depend on empirical observation (which is not a logical process!). The identification of an existing thing is \u003Cb\u003EA is \u003C\/b\u003Eor \u003Cb\u003EA exists\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Ci\u003E, \u003C\/i\u003Ewhich is an assertion about matters of fact which must be discovered empirically (you cannot reason your way to them). The identification of an attribute is \u003Cb\u003EA is B\u003C\/b\u003E. That is also a thoroughly and unrepentantly\u0026nbsp;empirical process. Rand's error is to confuse \u003Cb\u003EA is A\u003C\/b\u003E\u0026nbsp;(i.e., logical identification ) with both\u0026nbsp;\u003Cb\u003EA is\u003C\/b\u003E (i.e., the identity of existents) and \u003Cb\u003EA is B\u003C\/b\u003E (i.e., predication). They're not all the same and Rand's confusion does constitute, as Ghate is quick to deny, a category error.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times New Roman;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp class=\"p1\" style=\"font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 8px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times New Roman;\"\u003EUnfortunately, Ghate does not discuss any of the other trenchant criticisms of Rand included in Hook's review. Perhaps in a future post I'll quote excerpts from the piece. It's actually a superb review, well reasoned and superbly written.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/4909475873979054804\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=4909475873979054804","title":"5 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4909475873979054804"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4909475873979054804"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/06\/objectivist-roundup-june-2022.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup, June 2022"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"5"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1672595472012858284"},"published":{"$t":"2022-05-08T14:38:00.003-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-05-08T14:38:53.563-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Schisms"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup, May 2022"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times New Roman, serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times New Roman, serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003E1. \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Companion-Rand-Blackwell-Companions-Philos\/dp\/1119099021\/ref=sr_1_9?Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=23\u0026amp;Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=10\u0026amp;qid=1652014364\u0026amp;refinements=p_28%3Aayn+rand\u0026amp;s=books\u0026amp;sr=1-9\u0026amp;unfiltered=1\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003EA Companion to Ayn Rand\u003C\/a\u003E (2018) is now out in a more reasonably priced paperback edition. Although all the contributors are associated with the ARI, the essays are in general valuable, albeit not particularly critical. What I found most interesting is that Greg Salmieri acknowledged that the editing of Rand’s posthumously published writings (such as her Journals and Question and Answers) leaves something to be desired.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times New Roman, serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times New Roman, serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003E2. The ARI’s recent \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/newideal.aynrand.org\/of-schisms-public-and-private\/\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003E“Of Schisms”\u003C\/a\u003E essays has received criticism from two of its targets, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/tracinskiletter.substack.com\/p\/schismatology?s=r\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003ERobert Tracisnki\u003C\/a\u003E and \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/theobjectivestandard.com\/2022\/04\/regarding-onkar-ghate-and-harry-binswangers-of-schisms\/\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003ECraig Biddle\u003C\/a\u003E They challenge the essay’s description of their schisms.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times New Roman, serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times New Roman, serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12pt;\"\u003E3. William Swig and Scott Schiff have started the \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/c\/AynRandFanClub\/videos\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003EAyn Rand Fan Club You Tube\u003C\/a\u003E channel. It comes at Objectivism from a non-ARI perspective. They have interviewed a number of people associated with the movement such as \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=8VZAz5gYRbU\u0026amp;t=5s\" style=\"color: #0563c1;\"\u003EDavid Kelley\u003C\/a\u003E. Kelley talks about his break with Peikoff and says that his refusal to condemn Barbara Branden’s biography of Rand was a factor in his excommunication. He relates a conversion with Leonard Peikoff who said it was possible that Barbara made up the account of the Branden\/Rand affair and that the claim of an affair constituted an \"arbitrary assertion.\"\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times New Roman, serif;\"\u003E\u003Cu\u003EAddendum by Greg Nyquist\u003C\/u\u003E: this roundup was assembled by Neil Parille. I simply wanted to add a comment on Robert Tracinski's article on schisms. Tracinski argues that the ARI type of Objectivism was in error because it sought to center the movement entirely around one person (i.e., Leonard Peikoff). What they should have done instead is foster \"a movement\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;, serif;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;of independent intellectuals in many different fields,\" which would enable\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;, serif;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;admirers of Rand philosophy \"\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times New Roman, serif;\"\u003Eto increase the extent to which [they] reach out and cooperate without being held back by divisions between factions or by old loyalties and grudges.\" Now there's a problem with this rather optimistic outlook --- and I don't just have in mind the difficulty of solving \"moral differences\" with \"reason,\" which of course is impossible. The larger problem involves hierarchy. An organized Objectivist movement (which is what essentially ARI, the Atlas Society, and the Prometheus Foundation aspire to be) involves hierarchy and leadership. In the end somebody, whether the CEO or some board or another, has to make the decisions as to how to go about promoting Rand's philosophy. Now there's likely a great many Objectivists who would like to be making these decisions, but these decisions can often only be determined by a very few, sometimes just one person (especially if a broader consensus proves difficult, as it often does). So essentially you have a small elite at the top of the movement who determine how to use the money raised to spread Rand's philosophy and then you have a larger group of Objectivists who occupy positions directly beneath the elite --- a sort of sub-elite. Many of these sub-elites would like to become full-elites. They may even believe they can do a better job of running the movement and spreading the message than those currently running the movement. After all, it's not as if Objectivism is\u0026nbsp; making much headway in the culture. It's very tempting for the sub-elites to blame Objectivism's lack of success on on poor leadership at the top. Of course, it's not necessarily true that Objectivism's failure to spread Rand's philosophy is due to elite mismanagement. Objectivism has a limited appeal: there exists a very low ceiling beyond which it cannot hope to grow. But Objectivists elites and sub-elites don't know this, and so out of the rivalries that emerge in the competition for status and influence within the Objectivist movement, there will always be those who are convinced they could do better of running the movement and that they therefore ought be in charge. Schisms therefore become almost impossible to prevent, despite the rather confined dimensions of the movement itself. Given how little appeal Objectivism shows as an explicit philosophy (Rand's novels, which can be interpreted in many different ways, have much broader appeal), it's extraordinary that there exists three reasonably well-funded organizations dedicated to the advancement of Rand's philosophy.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1672595472012858284\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1672595472012858284","title":"7 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1672595472012858284"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1672595472012858284"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/05\/objectivist-roundup-may-2022.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup, May 2022"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"7"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3104108889157546002"},"published":{"$t":"2022-03-31T13:10:00.005-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-03-31T13:10:57.961-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Biddle"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Schisms"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Schisms: an Overview by Neil Parille"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp\u003EAs observers of Objectivism know, schisms are a perennial part of the world of Objectivism. In particular, the “official Objectivism” going back to Ayn Rand, which has continued into today with the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), has been particularly prone to dust-ups, breaks, and even excommunications.\u0026nbsp; I don’t know of any sociological studies of schisms that might shed light on this, but there may be a couple reasons.\u0026nbsp; First, Objectivism is a relatively small movement, and most people tend to know each other.\u0026nbsp; This means that disputes will tend to become personal.\u0026nbsp; Second, many associates of Ayn Rand are still alive.\u0026nbsp; Hence protecting her legacy in their eyes likely heightens the gravity of any disputes.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe biggest schism in the Objectivist movement was Ayn Rand’s break in 1968 with Nathaniel and Barbara Branden.\u0026nbsp; The Brandens were the chief promoters of Objectivism, particularly through the Nathaniel Branden Institute.\u0026nbsp; While the details remain somewhat obscure, the rupture began because Nathaniel and Rand had years earlier commenced an affair which eventually grew cold.\u0026nbsp; When Rand wanted to restart the affair, the much younger Branden balked at this, in large part because he was having an affair with a beautiful young model and actress, which he concealed from Rand for years.\u0026nbsp; When Rand found out about his affair, she denounced Nathaniel in her own inimitable way.\u0026nbsp; In her “\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/checkingpremises.org\/towhom\" target=\"_blank\"\u003ETo Whom It May Concern Statement\u003C\/a\u003E,” she never mentioned that she and Branden had an affair, nor Branden’s clandestine affair with the model.\u0026nbsp; She went on to denounce him for failing to devote his efforts to advance Objectivism and she all but accused him of stealing from her. She did hint that Nathaniel had betrayed her in an unspecified way:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EThis year, in a long series of discussions, held at his request to help him solve what he characterized as his psycho-epistemological problems, I was shocked to discover that he was consistently failing to apply to his own personal life and conduct, not only the fundamental philosophical principles of Objectivism, but also the psychological principles he himself had enunciated and had written and lectured about. For example: he was unable or unwilling to identify the motivation of some of his actions or the nature of his long-range goals; he admitted that in many respects he was acting on the basis of unidentified feelings.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EAs Nathaniel later wrote in his memoir, Rand’s attack was so “over the top” that people suspected that he was an alcoholic or a child molester.\u0026nbsp; Both Nathaniel and Barbara responded, countering Rand’s allegations of wrongdoing.\u0026nbsp; Nathaniel hinted that there had been an affair and conceded that he concealed something important of Rand.\u0026nbsp; He explicitly denied her allegations of financial wrongdoing.\u003Cbr \/\u003EAfter the Branden split, there were other schisms during Rand’s life.\u0026nbsp; After her death, Leonard Peikoff, Rand’s self-proclaimed “intellectual heir,” started the ARI.\u0026nbsp; Peikoff shortly thereafter split with philosopher David Kelley over Kelley’s contention that Objectivism was an “open system.”\u0026nbsp; Peikoff’s denunciation, in which he purported to speak for Rand, was vitriolic.\u0026nbsp; More splits, generally of a lesser significance, have continue until the present.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe most important recent schism concerned multi-millionaire donor Carl Barney.\u0026nbsp; In 2019, Barney was voted off the Board of Directors by a unanimous vote.\u0026nbsp; He then aligned with Craig Biddle (who had been booted out by Peikoff in 2012).\u0026nbsp; This resulted in the loss of a huge donor and layoffs of close to one third of the ARI’s staff (or so it was reported). \u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EBarney and Biddle issued statement criticizing the ARI, to which the ARI responded.\u0026nbsp; Apparently, the back of forth must have generated a lot of controversy among supporters because ARI president Tal Tsfany asked Onkar Ghate and Harry Binswanger to write a paper on schisms and how to deal with them.\u0026nbsp; Ghate is the “Chief Philosophy Officer” of the ARI and Binswanger a philosopher who was friends with Rand and occasionally purports to speak in her name.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe paper – “\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/newideal.aynrand.org\/of-schisms-public-and-private\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EOf Schisms, Public and Private\u003C\/a\u003E”* -- comes across as an excuse, cloaked in philosophical language, for why the ARI shouldn’t respond to allegations of wrongdoing and basically claims that they are always in the right.\u0026nbsp; “Of Schisms” is a somewhat rambling paper, with digressions about the split between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, as well as disputes in the abolitionist movement between William Lloyd Garrison and\u0026nbsp; Frederick Douglass.\u0026nbsp; The paper makes mention of accusations of wrongdoing against then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and \u003Ci\u003ERolling Stone\u003C\/i\u003E magazine’s reckless attack on the University of Virginia for allegedly ignoring sexual assault.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EWhat all this has to do with the schism at issue isn’t clear, at least to me.\u0026nbsp; The ARI is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. It raises money from donors who are entitled to assume that their donations are spent wisely and that if the ARI disassociates with someone it is for legitimate reasons.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EInterestingly, the paper starts out by insisting that the ARI does not claim to speak for Objectivism and that no person can claim to speak for Ayn Rand.\u0026nbsp; The first claim is a little misleading considering, among other things, that the ARI has issued statements that Ayn Rand would never have voted for Trump.\u0026nbsp; And the ARI must know that Peikoff does claim to speak for Rand.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe paper provides various recommendations for how to handle and judge disputes.\u0026nbsp; I’ll “bullet point” them (the numbering is mine).\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E1. “As a rule, one should be suspicious of the first side that goes public in a private dispute (or in the part of a dispute that is private).”\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E2. “Usually, when one side goes public it is an emotional venting, a lashing out. That is sometimes understandable but is still non-objective behavior, and unfair to their own audience.”\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E3. “When one side in a private conflict does not adequately explain why it is objective for them to go public and why in logic you should side with them against their opponents, their allegations should be dismissed.”\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E4. “In a court trial, objective processes exist. For example, both sides are required, in the discovery process, to answer questions they may not want to answer, to hand over documents they may not want to hand over. They face penalties if they lie during discovery or on the witness stand, or if they omit, misrepresent, alter, or forge documents. No such procedures exist when one party makes public allegations about a private dispute.”\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EOne problem with this approach is that it conflates everyday disputes with legal proceedings.\u0026nbsp; In all sorts of things in life we make important decisions without the legal trappings of court proceedings, e.g., whom should I marry, should I trust a potential business associate who is rumored to be less than honest, etc.\u0026nbsp; Indeed, the approach evinces a type of agnosticism about matters which the ARI considers immoral.\u0026nbsp; If truth is indeed “contextual” as ARI philosopher often claim, then why shouldn’t we be able to come to a conclusion about these schisms with sufficient certainty?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003ECuriously, it didn’t occur to Ghate and Binswanger that Rand failed to follow what they consider “objective” methods for engaging in disputes.\u0026nbsp; Rand was the first to go public in a private dispute.\u0026nbsp; She engaged in emotional venting.\u0026nbsp; It wasn’t possible for people to know whether her allegations of financial wrongdoing by Branden had any merit.\u0026nbsp; She didn’t provide the business documents showing that Branden exploited her financially.\u0026nbsp; Nonetheless, she expected Objectivists to side with her and not the Brandens.\u0026nbsp; Her biographers report that she expected her followers to break relations with the Brandens and if they didn’t they were removed from mailing lists.\u0026nbsp; Years later, her attorney Henry Holzer admitted that there was no evidence that Branden was a thief.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EOur authors analyze the ARI’s response to the break with John McCaskey.\u0026nbsp; Readers of the blog may remember this schism.\u0026nbsp; In 2010, David Harriman published a book on induction, \u003Ci\u003EThe Logical Leap\u003C\/i\u003E.\u0026nbsp; Harriman, who has a master’s degree in physics, had collaborated with Leonard Peikoff to give lectures on the problem of induction.\u0026nbsp; Presumably, Peikoff was mainly responsible for the philosophical portions of the book and Harriman the science portions, although Harriman was listed as the sole author.\u0026nbsp; John McCaskey, who was a member of the ARI’s board, holds a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from Stanford University.\u0026nbsp; McCaskey had been critical of the book.\u0026nbsp; While he didn’t discuss these concerns with Peikoff, word got to Peikoff, who was livid.\u0026nbsp; McCaskey resigned from the Board and in exchange the board allowed him to publish a letter.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EAfter Peikoff forced McCaskey out, some Objectivists came to McCaskey’s defense, most notably Biddle (who published The Objective Standard, which was the house organ of the ARI) and Diana Hsieh, who was then a prominent ARI associated blogger and podcaster.\u0026nbsp; Peikoff promptly excommunicated\u0026nbsp;them.\u0026nbsp; Yaron Brook, ARI's president, removed himself from \u003Ci\u003EThe Objective Standard\u003C\/i\u003E's masthead.\u0026nbsp; ARI scholars ceased writing for Biddle's magazine.\u0026nbsp; Here is Peikoff's Parthian Shot:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E... if ... my detractors in this issue represent a sizable faction within the Objectivist movement whose spokesmen include magazine founders and PhDs with podcasts– then God help Objectivism, too.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2010\/09\/mccaskey-objectischism.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;As I reported at the time\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPeikoff however got wind of McCaskey’s criticism and took it as a personal attack on him. In an incredible email dated August 30 from Peikoff to ARI legal counsel Arline Mann (and cc’d to ARI director Yaron Brook) Peikoff made it clear that someone had to go and it wasn’t going to be him:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\"When a great book sponsored by the Institute and championed by me – I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism – is denounced by a member of the Board of the Institute, which I founded someone has to go and will go. It is your prerogative to decide whom.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\"I do understand how much money M has brought to ARI, and how many college appointments he has gotten and is still getting. As Ayn would have put it, that raises him one rung in Hell, but it does not convert Objectivism into pragmatism.\"\u003C\/p\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EOur authors now claim that it was a mistake for the Board to allow McCaskey to publish the email on the ground that there were other (unspecified) reasons for forcing McCaskey out.\u0026nbsp; There might well have been, but unless McCaskey took the letter wildly out of context, it seems certain that his disapproval of the Harriman book was a large reason for his ouster.\u0026nbsp; (There is also circumstantial evidence, as I discuss in my blog post.)\u0026nbsp; In any event, consider the Peikoff letter: does the ARI agree that loyalty to a book that is at most an extension of Objectivism required of ARI scholars?\u0026nbsp; Is Peikoff’s contention consistent with his claim during the Kelley break that Rand’s ideas alone constitute Objectivism and that any extensions (including his) should not be considered part of Objectivism?\u0026nbsp; Does Peikoff’s letter comport with the ARI’s claim that it is not a spokesman for Objectivism?\u0026nbsp; Should future employees and scholars live in fear that they might be “McCaskeyed” for similar conduct? Apparently, these are questions that donors should not ask.\u0026nbsp; And if they do, they shouldn’t expect any answers.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u2028\u2028One of the most curious aspects of the essay is the extension of the Objectivist concept of the “arbitrary assertion” to schisms.\u0026nbsp; The arbitrary assertion doctrine was first given explicit treatment in Leonard Peikoff’s, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.\u0026nbsp; However, it was developed by Peikoff earlier.\u0026nbsp; In essence, it says that certain statements lack so little support or are so fanciful that they are neither true nor false but rather “arbitrary.”\u0026nbsp; Or, as the authors say, “It is as though nothing had been said.”\u0026nbsp; Peikoff gave the examples of belief in God and ESP.\u0026nbsp; The first public use that I’m aware of was in the context of Barbara Branden’s 1986 biography Ayn Rand, \u003Ci\u003EThe Passion of Ayn Rand\u003C\/i\u003E.\u0026nbsp; \u003Ci\u003EPassion\u003C\/i\u003E was noteworthy for revealing that Nathaniel and Rand had an affair.\u0026nbsp; Shortly after its publication, ARI member Peter Schwartz denounced it as one long arbitrary assertion. \u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EIt is only in this context that the question can be raised of whether to believe any of the concrete factual allegations Mrs. Branden makes about Ayn Rand’s behavior.\u0026nbsp; When the truth of such allegations rests entirely upon the testimony of the author (and of unnamed ‘friends’ she regularly cites), one must ask why she is to be believed when she has thoroughly destroyed her claim to credibility.\u0026nbsp; It is very easy to accuse the dead of almost anything.\u0026nbsp; I could readily assert that Ayn met with me at dawn on the first Thursday of every month to join me in secret prayer at a Buddhist temple—and who could disprove it if I maintained that no one else knew about it?\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EBranden was Rand’s closest female friend for 18 years and interviewed nearly two hundred people who knew Rand during all periods of her life.\u0026nbsp; How the claims of the book – for example, Rand was born in Russia, had a temper, broke with people, had an affair with Nathaniel, wrote Atlas Shrugged – were assertions on the level of fictitious meetings at a Buddhist temple was never explained.\u0026nbsp; Most people would probably conclude that these claims were either true or false and subject to empirical testing like any other claims concerning famous people.\u0026nbsp; Peikoff, in a Ford Hall Forum address in 1987, said that he would never read the book, nonetheless concurred with Schwartz’s assessment.\u0026nbsp; In 2005, James Valliant wrote a dishonest hit piece, The \u003Ci\u003EPassion of Ayn Rand’s Critics\u003C\/i\u003E, against Branden’s biography and simultaneously managed to contend that the book was arbitrary but also contained numerous factual errors.\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EIn an apparent extension of the arbitrary assertion doctrine, our authors place the allegations of Barney and Biddle into that category.\u0026nbsp; “In logic, outsiders did not have grounds to consider Barney’s accusations as a reasonable hypothesis. In their context of knowledge, these accusations were arbitrary assertions. . . . they expect to be taken on faith.”\u0026nbsp; But the same could be said of any response the ARI might give to these or any future allegations.\u0026nbsp; If no one (other than apparently ARI insiders) is in a position to know, isn’t the ARI being arbitrary in expecting people to accept their vacuous denials of wrongdoing?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E*On their Your Tube Channel (Ayn Rand Fan Club), William Swig and Scott Schiff discussed the essay at length.\u0026nbsp; I am indebted to their insightful\u0026nbsp;comments.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3104108889157546002\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3104108889157546002","title":"11 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3104108889157546002"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3104108889157546002"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/03\/objectivist-schisms-overview-by-neil.html","title":"Objectivist Schisms: an Overview by Neil Parille"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"11"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7878766946398051135"},"published":{"$t":"2022-03-07T06:43:00.003-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-03-07T06:47:41.801-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Kant"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Philosophy of History"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Taking Ideas Seriously"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv\u003E[Neil Parille continues where he left off in 2009.]\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EAyn Rand was quite explicit that ideas are what matter and, in particular, it’s abstract philosophical ideas which guide human history.\u0026nbsp; Because of this, Objectivists usually blame the sorry state of the world on “intellectuals” and professors of philosophy.\u0026nbsp; Leonard Peikoff once said that we’d know the world is on the right track when the philosophy department of UC Berkeley was Objectivist.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EObjectivists talk about the history of philosophy as a battle between Plato and Aristotle.\u0026nbsp; According to Objectivists, a society or culture succeeds to the extent it adopts Aristotelian ideas.\u0026nbsp; For example, they argue that the Renaissance began and flourished because Thomas Aquinas supposedly reintroduced Aristotle’s works to the West.\u0026nbsp; In the main Objectivist work of historiography, Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels, he argued that Nazism and the gas chambers were the direct result of the influence of Immanuel Kant on German intellectual life.\u0026nbsp; Christianity, to them, is as foolish as one can get.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EHistory paints on a large canvas.\u0026nbsp; One can find examples and counterexamples to prove or disprove any broad historical narrative.\u0026nbsp; For example, contrary to Rand, many scholars argue that the most important Renaissance thinkers were Platonists.\u0026nbsp; Germany’s leading Kantian philosopher was Ernst Cassirer.\u0026nbsp; It’s said that upon hearing a Nazi say “truth is what the Fuhrer says it is,” he responded, “if that’s the case, there is no hope for Germany.”\u0026nbsp; He promptly left for England.\u0026nbsp; I recently heard Yaron Brook claim that the Roman Empire fell because it adopted Christianity.\u0026nbsp; Yet the Eastern half of the Empire - which was more Christian – lasted until 1453.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EAnother example is the United States, the creation of which Objectivists see as the greatest achievement of Western political theory.\u0026nbsp; I can’t claim to have read widely in the founding of the United States, but I don’t get the impression that the American Founders were particularly influenced by Aristotle.\u0026nbsp; Objectivists like to claim that the Founders were Deists, but as Mark David Hall has argued, few, if any, of the Founders were Deists.\u0026nbsp; Many held traditional religious views.\u0026nbsp; Ellis Sandoz points out that more of the Founders were taught by Princeton University’s John Witherspoon, a Scottish born Presbyterian minister and philosopher, than by any other professor.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EOne way to test the Objectivist thesis is to look at contemporary politics.\u0026nbsp; In 1984, Ronald Reagan won reelection with 60 percent of the vote.\u0026nbsp; It is unlikely that more than 6 percent of college professors voted for Reagan.\u0026nbsp; American intellectuals hated Donald Trump even more.\u0026nbsp; Trump was elected president in 2016 in one of the biggest upsets in presidential history.\u0026nbsp; Trump was even hated by conservative intellectuals, who started a “Never Trump” movement. Yet this seemed to have little effect on the rank-and-file conservative voter.\u0026nbsp; Many seemed to admire him because he was an anti-intellectual populist.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;(In fairness, Rand did say that there was an American “sense of life” that was insulated from dominant intellectual trends.)\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThe idea that college professors are the main drivers of culture, while it may flatter intellectuals, has some practical difficulties.\u0026nbsp; Most people don’t attend college and those who do often study topics that are not particularly “philosophical.”\u0026nbsp; Certainly, one can find professors of math who contend that math is a “social construct,” but it’s hard to imagine such theories making it into the curriculum of the typical math major.\u0026nbsp; Even most philosophy professors likely present ideas from various perspectives.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EI can think offhand of a couple of examples which show that people often reject the teachings of intellectuals.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EFirst, few intellectuals are religious.\u0026nbsp; While polls show a gradual decline in religious belief in the last few decades, it remains the case that most Americans identify with various religions.\u0026nbsp; This is particularly striking since 90 percent of students attend public schools which are, by Supreme Court mandate, secular.\u0026nbsp; If attending secular schools almost for one’s entire childhood doesn’t change one’s religious beliefs, it’s hard to imagine that what students learn in later life at college effects them all that much.\u0026nbsp; Incidentally, in a 2019 poll nearly three-fourths of Americans said that they either reject evolution or believe God guided the evolutionary process.\u0026nbsp; I agree that other factors influence people’s upbringing (such as parents and churches), but these numbers stand in opposition to the idea that people blindly follow the teachings of intellectuals.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ESecond, contrary to what many have heard, it is the agreement of the large majority of experts in intelligence research that IQ tests measure intelligence, that intelligence is largely heritable (probably in the range of 50 to 80 percent) and that IQ correlates with various traits.\u0026nbsp; For example, high IQ people on average do better in school, earn more money, commit less crime, etc.\u0026nbsp; I’m not familiar with any polls on this issue, but I imagine that most people still believe that “you can be whatever you want to be.”\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EAs a final point, the typical Objectivist view of history seems to conflict with their long-standing support of free will.\u0026nbsp; Are the majority of people pawns in the hands of intellectuals?\u0026nbsp; I’d like to think that absent North Korean style brainwashing it’s unlikely the average math student, regardless of what he is taught, would think the question of whether two plus two equals four or five is on the same level as “I like chocolate, you like vanilla.”\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u0026lt;"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7878766946398051135\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7878766946398051135","title":"5 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7878766946398051135"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7878766946398051135"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/03\/taking-ideas-seriously.html","title":"Taking Ideas Seriously"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"5"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4703807419274323499"},"published":{"$t":"2022-01-24T16:30:00.005-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-01-26T12:38:05.414-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Religion"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivism on Christianity and Religion"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"[Here is another article\u0026nbsp; by Neil Parille:]\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EAyn Rand and her followers have a bee in their bonnet when it comes to religion. In particular, contemporary Objectivists often fret about the influence on the Religious Right on politics. It doesn’t appear, however, that they have spent much time studying the topic of religion because the same old chestnuts keep popping up again and again..\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003E“Judge Not, That You Be Not Judged”\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThis is from Matthew 7:1 and is part of Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount. It first entered the Objectivist lexicon with \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandlexicon.com\/lexicon\/moraljudgment.html\"\u003ERand herself\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E“The precept: ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged’ . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself.”\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EIt is mentioned most recently in Andrew Bernstein’s just published Objectivism in One Lesson.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe full quote (KJV) is:\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E(1) Judge not, that ye be not judged. (2) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EObjectivists, proud of Rand’s moralism, see in Christianity a precursor to the non-judgmentalism present in the post-modern world. (Objectivism must be one of the few philosophies in history which finds Christianity insufficiently judgmental.)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EBut does Jesus prohibit judging? This appears unlikely, if for no other reason than that Jesus was quite judgmental and judging is a part of life. A couple standard commentaries might help. According to Craig Keener (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, pp. 240-41):\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EAs noted above, the issue is not failure to discern, but hypocrisy in judging others for one’s own faults. Later rabbis declared that one should ‘remove [one’s] own blemish first,’ giving the example of a rabbi who deferred a case to correct his own behavior before he ruled that another must do the same. Greek and Roman sages offered similar wisdom: for example, one must solve one’s own problems, and only then in turn to criticize others accurately; we see others’ faults more quickly than our own. Likewise, ‘Practice nothing in your deeds for which you condemn other in your words’ which seems to have become part of the common moral wisdom. (Citations omitted.)\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EDonald Hagner (Matthew 1-13, p. 169) agrees: “[T]he way one judges others will be the way one is judged by God . . . .”\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003ERand says that, in judging, one must “possess an unimpeachable character,” so perhaps Rand is saying something similar to Jesus and the ancients.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003E“I Believe It Because It is Absurd”\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThis is another chestnut appearing in, among other places, Leonard Peikoff’s \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.aynrand.org\/site\/News2?page=NewsArticle\u0026amp;id=5360\u0026amp;news_iv_ctrl=1225\"\u003EReligion Versus America.\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EWhat if a dogma cannot be clarified? So much the better, answered an earlier Church father, Tertullian. The truly religious man, he said, delights in thwarting his reason; that shows his commitment to faith. Thus, Tertullian's famous answer, when asked about the dogma of God's self-sacrifice on the cross: ‘Credo quia absurdum’ (‘I believe it because it is absurd’).\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003ETertullian didn’t say “credo quia absurdum.” As \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.tertullian.org\/articles\/sider_credo.htm\"\u003Eone writer\u003C\/a\u003E puts it:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003ECredo quia absurdum is, of course, a misquote. Tertullian's words are credibile est, quia ineptum est (De carne Christi 5.4). The difference between the imputed and actual words is striking and important. James Moffatt in a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.tertullian.org\/articles\/moffat_aristotle.htm\"\u003Esadly neglected article \u003C\/a\u003Eof a half-century ago discovered the clue to the interpretation of the words in observing that here Tertullian ‘follows in the footsteps of that cool philosopher Aristotle.’ In Rhetoric 2.23.22 Aristotle shows that an argument from probability can be drawn from the sheer improbability of a story: some stories are so improbable that it is reasonable to believe them. On this view, the words presuppose a tidy correlation between faith and reason, and a consideration of Tertullian's aims in the treatise in which they are found supports this interpretation.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003ETertullian recognizes, however, that in spite of its distortions, pagan philosophy has often enjoyed glimpses of the truth. In recalling his quotable strictures against philosophy, we must not forget his equally quotable Seneca saepe noster (De anima 20.1). In the Ad nationes, an early work, Socrates becomes a forerunner of the Christian martyrs, because he suffered, as they suffer, on behalf of the truth at the hands of those ignorant of it (1.4.6-7). If there is a change of tone in the more artful Apologeticum, Tertullian still grants that Socrates aliquid de veritate sapiebat deos negans (46.5).\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThose Secular Greeks\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003ELeonard Peikoff, again in \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.aynrand.org\/site\/News2?page=NewsArticle\u0026amp;id=5360\u0026amp;news_iv_ctrl=1225\"\u003EReligion Versus America\u003C\/a\u003E, makes the following claim:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EAncient Greece was not a religious civilization, not on any of the counts I mentioned. The Gods of Mount Olympus were like a race of elder brothers to man, mischievous brothers with rather limited powers; they were closer to Steven Spielberg's extra-terrestrial visitor than to anything we would call ‘God.’ They did not create the universe or shape its laws or leave any message of revelations or demand a life of sacrifice. Nor were they taken very seriously by the leading voices of culture, such as Plato and Aristotle. From start to finish, the Greek thinkers recognized no sacred texts, no infallible priesthood and no intellectual authority beyond the human mind; they allowed no room for faith. Epistemologically, most were staunch individualists who expected each man to grasp the truth by his own powers of sensory observation and logical thought. For detail, I refer you to Aristotle, the preeminent representative of the Greek spirit.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EEven though Peikoff qualifies his statement somewhat, it is still more than a little misleading. As a leading scholar of ancient Greek religion put it:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EThe paradox is that, although Greek religion seems to lack so many of the things which characterize modern religions and which require degrees of personal commitment and faith from their followers, Greeks were involved with religion to a degree which is very hard nowadays to understand. . . . The Greek household had its shrine to Hestia or to Zeus Ktesios . . . . At a meal a libation or drink-offering to the gods was an automatic custom . . .\u0026nbsp; The great landmarks of human life – birth, coming of age, marriage and death – were all marked by rituals with religious significance. . . . it is against this background of a way of life interpenetrated by an enormous variety of religious ritual, practice and belief . . . that the questioning of religion was seen as a dangerous threat.” (J.V. Muir, “Religion and the New Education” in P.E. Easterling and J.V. Muir, Greek Religion and Society, pp. 194-95.)\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EEven the supposedly enlightened Athenians consulted the oracle at the shrine dedicated to Apollo at Delphi and made military decisions based on what they were told.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\n\u003Cb\u003EImmanuel Kant Wanted to Save Religion\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cb\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E \u003Cb\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E\nImmanuel Kant (1724-1804) is frequently discussed in the Objectivist world.  Ayn Rand is famous for her statement that Kant was the most evil man in history.  Objectivists typically argue that Kant wanted to save religion from the advances of enlightenment thought.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nObjectivists often quote Kant’s statement that “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”  This may have been the only statement of Kant that Rand actually quoted.   Fred Seddon argues that taking “faith” here in the Randian sense doesn’t do justice to Kant’s position. He points out that Nicholas Rescher suggests a better translation might be “rationally justified belief.”  [Seddon, “Kant on Faith,” JARS, Vol. 7., No. 1.]  In any event, it seems unwise to base one’s understanding of a thinker on one line in his voluminous work.  \nKant is an interesting character.  Although not a completely irreligious man, his religion was not of the traditional kind.  Raised in a pietist Lutheran home, he did not pray or attend church.  He also advocated a secular government and ran into trouble with the Prussian Lutheran Church because many considered his writings irreligious.  His most famous writing on religion was a book entitled Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone.  Traditional Christians are generally not supportive of Kant’s work. Kant has been variously labeled an atheist, agnostic or (interestingly enough) a Deist.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\n\n\u003Cb\u003EThe American Founding Fathers Were Deists\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThis is a common view which I heard long before I first encountered Objectivism. Its prevalence in Objectivist circles again seems to come from Peikoff’s \"Religion Versus America.\" This claim is made most recently in the 2018 Ayn Rand Institute collection, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/New-Textbook-Americanism-Politics-Rand\/dp\/1724059564\"\u003EA New Textbook of Americanism\u003C\/a\u003E. The religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers is a complicated issue and books seem to come out yearly on the topic. Some of the Founders were not traditionally religious, such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and perhaps George Washington. On the other hand, some such as Patrick Henry, Charles Carroll and Roger Sherman were orthodox Christians. I’m not an expert on the history of Deism; however, Mark David Hall in his recent \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Did-America-Have-Christian-Founding\/dp\/1400211107\"\u003EDid America Have a Christian Founding\u003C\/a\u003E, says that if the traditional view of Deism is used (God created the universe and then left it to run on its own) then at most only one of the Founders (Ethan Allen) was a Deist. Washington, for example, made frequent references to “providence” in his writings.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003EChristians Chose December 25 as Jesus’s Birthday To Co-Opt A Pagan Holiday\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThis is also a (likely) urban legend and not new with Objectivism. However, it does seem a common talking point when Christmas comes around, in part because \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/newideal.aynrand.org\/what-ayn-rand-wanted-most-for-christmas\/\"\u003ERand celebrated Christmas\u003C\/a\u003E. Objectivists often cite Peikoff’s \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/peikoff.com\/essays_and_articles\/why-christmas-should-be-more-commercial\/\"\u003EWhy Christmas Should be More Commercial\u003C\/a\u003E. There Peikoff makes the claim that the December 25 date was chosen to coincide with the Roman festival of Saturnalia (a harvest festival) celebrated December 17-23 and an alleged sun God holiday on December 25 (which is the Winter solstice). \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.biblicalarchaeology.org\/daily\/people-cultures-in-the-bible\/jesus-historical-jesus\/how-december-25-became-christmas\/\"\u003ENo one know for sure why Christians (in fact not all of them) settled on the December 25 date\u003C\/a\u003E. One theory is that Jews believed the world was created on March 25. If Jesus was conceived on that date then nine months later would be December 25. This would perhaps have the happy coincidence of also being the Winter solstice. (It was widely believed in the ancient world that important people would be born and die on significant days.) In any event, it appears that Christians settled on the December 25 date during the AD 200’s. The first known December 25 Sun God celebration dates from the late 300’s. There was a long-observed Sun God holiday in October, so if the Christians wanted to co-opt a holiday they would most likely have chosen that date or Saturnalia (which as noted, ended on the 23rd).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003EChristianity Is Anti-Science\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EObjectivist often repeat common claims that there were churchmen who refused to look into Galileo’s telescope, Giordano Bruno was executed for being a heliocentric, Medievals thought the world was flat, Christians unanimously opposed evolution, the destruction of the library (or what was left of it) at Alexandria was the end of classical learning, etc. A good discussion of these myths and exaggerations is found in the anthology \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Galileo-Other-Myths-Science-Religion\/dp\/0674057414\"\u003EGalileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion\u003C\/a\u003E. The relationship between Christianity and science is a complicated issue, but when the West was more religious many (or perhaps most) scientists were religious (for example Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Gregor Mendel, etc.) and now in the more secular West, most scientists are not religious.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThe United States Constitution Created a Separation of Church and State\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThis isn’t so much a myth as an overgeneralization. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” By its own terms, the First Amendment applies only to the federal government. At the time the Amendment was ratified, many states had established or semi-established churches and provided support to religious bodies. Connecticut and Massachusetts ended their establishment of Congregationalism in the 1830’s. If anything the First Amendment was a separation between the federal government and states over religion. It wasn’t until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 that the provisions of the Bill of Rights become binding on states (and even then it was disputed and didn’t become official Supreme Court doctrine until decades later). Objectivists often cited the polemical book \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/theobjectivestandard.com\/2012\/05\/review-godless-constitution\/\"\u003EThe Godless Constitution\u003C\/a\u003E which ignores this point. For a critique of the book see historian \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/wallbuilders.com\/godless-constitution-response-kramnick-moore\/\"\u003EDaniel Dreisbach’s review\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThe Roman Emperors Created Christianity\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThis isn’t exactly an urban legend, but it’s the thesis of a ARI supporters James Valliant and Casey Fahy in their book, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Creating-Christ-Emperors-Invented-Christianity-ebook\/dp\/B01LRP3EDG\"\u003ECreating Christ: How the Roman Emperors Invented Christianity\u003C\/a\u003E. As readers of the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog might recall, Valliant was the author of the bizarre \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/01\/the-parc-wars-revisited.html\"\u003EThe Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics (2005)\u003C\/a\u003E which argued that Ayn Rand Rand had no flaws with the exception of her occasional temper. Creating Christ is, to put it mildly, a crackpot thesis which has unfortunately \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/theobjectivestandard.com\/2021\/04\/creating-christ-how-roman-emperors-invented-christianity-by-james-valliant-and-warren-fahy\/\"\u003Egained some traction in Objectivist circles\u003C\/a\u003E. For those interested in the book, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.scribd.com\/document\/449626993\/Creating-History-A-Review-of-James-Valliant-s-and-Warren-Fahy-s-Creating-Christ\"\u003EI’ve critiqued it here\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp style=\"direction: ltr; line-height: 1.08px; margin-bottom: 0.11in;\"\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/4703807419274323499\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=4703807419274323499","title":"9 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4703807419274323499"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4703807419274323499"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/01\/objectivism-on-christianity-and-religion.html","title":"Objectivism on Christianity and Religion"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"9"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-645535129525386855"},"published":{"$t":"2022-01-16T14:28:00.005-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2022-01-22T11:54:35.084-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Barbara Branden"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"James Valliant"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Nathaniel Branden"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"The PARC Wars Revisited"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv\u003E[ARCHNBlog is privileged to have the following contribution by Neil Parille, who discusses some the latest information to surface concerning James Valliant and his book \u003Ci\u003EThe Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics\u003C\/i\u003E.]\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EAs long-time readers of the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog might remember, one of the strangest incidents in the recent history of the Objectivist movement was the publication in 2005 of \u003Ci\u003EThe Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics\u003C\/i\u003E (PARC) by James Valliant.\u0026nbsp; This book took aim at Barbara Branden’s 1986 biography of Ayn Rand, The Passion of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden’s two memoirs.\u0026nbsp; It is also noteworthy for including Rand’s diaries from the time of her break with Nathaniel Branden.\u0026nbsp; These diaries were provided to Valliant by Rand’s heir, Leonard Peikoff.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Ci\u003EPARC\u003C\/i\u003E is, to put it mildly, a rather bizarre book.\u0026nbsp; Even on face value, much of what Valliant says doesn’t support his claim that Brandens' books are lies from beginning to end.\u0026nbsp; To take a typical example, Valliant attacked the Brandens for throwing a surprise party for Rand to celebrate the publication of \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E.\u0026nbsp; This was no less than a plot “control Rand’s context by deception.”\u0026nbsp; The book is also incredibly sloppy.\u0026nbsp; Page after page contains numerous misrepresentations of the Branden books and other source material.\u0026nbsp; For example, in the book’s description of a two-paragraph interview of John Hospers, I counted five misquotations.*\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Ci\u003EPARC\u003C\/i\u003E was initially greeted with enthusiasm by ARI-inclined Objectivists.\u0026nbsp; But shortly after the publication of the book, I and others began critiquing the book.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.scribd.com\/document\/9421651\/The-Passion-of-James-Valliant-s-Criticism\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EMy 2008 critique\u003C\/a\u003E took 81 pages to detail all the misquotations, copying errors, and false attributions in a book of 190 pages (the diaries begin at page 191).\u0026nbsp; Things got worse for Mr. Valliant in 2009 when Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller published biographies of Rand.\u0026nbsp; These biographies, while occasionally correcting the record (for example Rand didn’t get her name from a typewriter) were on the whole supportive of Barbara Branden’s biography.\u0026nbsp; Indeed, in some sense they were more critical of Rand, arguing that Rand’s mental health was compromised by decades of amphetamine use.\u0026nbsp; (Incidentally, Branden had said this was unlikely.)\u0026nbsp; \u003Ci\u003EPARC\u003C\/i\u003E is now out of print, the only book containing Rand’s posthumous material to have such a status.** Curiously, current ARI chairman Yaron Brook has on recent episodes of his podcast attacked the Brandens and their books, but did not mention \u003Ci\u003EPARC\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EFollowing the publication of \u003Ci\u003EPARC\u003C\/i\u003E, there was a great deal of back and forth among me, Valliant, and others about the book.\u0026nbsp; Valliant was incapable of acknowledging the huge number of misquotes and misrepresentations of his source.\u0026nbsp; One of the most humorous aspects of what I dubbed “the \u003Ci\u003EPARC\u003C\/i\u003E Wars” was Valliant’s taking to \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2009\/05\/author-of-his-own-misfortune.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EWikipedia to insert favorable mentions of his book\u003C\/a\u003E in various articles, something contrary to Wikipedia’s rules. When the proverbial poop hit the fan, Valliant, you guessed it, said it was \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/search?updated-max=2009-07-31T17:12:00-07:00\u0026amp;max-results=20\u0026amp;start=18\u0026amp;by-date=false\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ehis wife who was responsible for the insertions\u003C\/a\u003E. Valliant made other bizarre claims, most notably that Durban House, the book’s publisher, was “independent,” when in fact “Durban House” published a review of dissident Objectivist David Kelley’s \u003Ci\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/customer-reviews\/RZ8A48QLOKRH3\/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8\u0026amp;ASIN=B076Q1WW6G\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EThe Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E (which took aim at Leonard Peikoff’s essay, \"\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/peikoff.com\/essays_and_articles\/fact-and-value\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EFact and Value\u003C\/a\u003E\") on Amazon.\u0026nbsp; The review sounds suspiciously like something an ARI supporter would write.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EIn defense of his book, Valliant has said it was “heavily edited.” Over the years, Valliant has refused all requests to name the mystery editor. However, in October 2021, Valliant said Peikoff helped him edit \u003Ci\u003EPARC\u003C\/i\u003E. This appears to contradict what Valliant’s friend and collaborator Casey Fahy said on the \"Rebirth of Reason\" website in 2005:\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EThe repeated claim that this book represents the 'official' position of the Ayn Rand Institute is particularly amusing to me. When Valliant, a good friend of mine, wrote Part I of the book, he knew that the Ayn Rand Institute took a dim view of even mentioning the Brandens. When he published that part, on my own website, we both believed that doing so would jeopardize what relationship he had had with Leonard Peikoff. I can personally vouch for the fact that Jim did not consult with Peikoff or anyone else associated with ARI about the content of his book—at all, ever. As proof of this, when Dr. Peikoff did make Rand's papers available to him, Peikoff told Jim that his first reaction to the very idea of the project was, and I quote, 'Am I gonna have to pick a fight with Valliant now?' And it was reading those original essays alone that convinced Peikoff to make Rand's notes available. Period.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EIn the comment section to the same article, Valliant and his wife (the \"Magenta Hornet\") posted and failed to correct Fahy on this apparent mistake.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EBest I can tell, Peikoff has never said he was involved in the editing of the book. Valliant also implied in October interview that he and Peikoff were rather close friends, something that he never hinted at.\u0026nbsp; In 2009, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/peikoff.com\/2009\/08\/24\/do-you-approve-of-the-intellectual-battle-waged-by-jim-valliant-and-diana-shaw\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EPeikoff was asked about Valliant\u003C\/a\u003E (and Diana Hsieh). His response:\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003ENow I have another question from the same person about two individual Objectivists with a public profile. In a long question, he wants to know what I think of them, do I agree with them and my answer is I thoroughly approve of the intellectual battle waged by Jim Valliant and Diana Shay Shaw [Hsieh]. I admire the work of both to the extent that I know it.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EIndeed, one note in the book is inconsistent with Peikoff’s having been the editor.\u0026nbsp; One of the most sensational claims in Branden’s biography is the contention that Rand’s husband was driven to alcoholism because of Rand’s affair with Nathaniel.\u0026nbsp; Valliant denies this, giving Peikoff’s rebuttal for some of Branden’s evidence. According to Valliant, “This is the author’s best recollection of Leonard Peikoff’s statement in response to a question on the subject given during a conversation at his home in California in 1991 . . . .”\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EWe may never know the truth about this, but Valliant’s claim that Peikoff is the mystery editor raises a couple of questions.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EFirst, Peikoff said that the time \u003Ci\u003EThe Passion of Ayn Rand\u003C\/i\u003E was published that he would never read the book (and this would presumably apply to any future memoirs of Nathan Branden).\u0026nbsp; Editing a critique of books that you’ve never read and were written by people you despise strikes me as an ethical problem. And, as anyone knows who has ever written or edited anything for publication, the highest percentage of mistakes concern citation errors and copying errors.\u0026nbsp; An editor who refuses to read the books in question and thus could not check the source material would be incompetent and almost useless as an editor.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ESecond, say what you want about Peikoff, he is a good writer.\u0026nbsp; It’s hard to imagine him not catching some of the obvious mistakes, non sequiturs, and repetitions, particularly since he knew the parties and was involved in the various disputes which the Brandens are supposedly lying about.\u0026nbsp; As an example, Valliant says that Rand never had any contact with the Brandens after the 1968 break.\u0026nbsp; However, Rand and Barbara Branden met in 1981. Peikoff must have heard about this meeting. (It is mentioned in Peikoff’s then-wife Cynthia’s interview in the ARI sponsored oral history, 100 Voices.)\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EIt’s hard to know what to make of all this.\u0026nbsp; Perhaps Valliant is telling the truth and that during the promotion of the book Peikoff did not want \u003Ci\u003EPARC\u003C\/i\u003E to be seen as an authorized response to books he would never deign to read.\u0026nbsp; Needless to say, nothing in Valliant’s defense of \u003Ci\u003EPARC\u003C\/i\u003E provides reason to give him the benefit of the doubt either.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EAfter I sent this post to Greg, I re-listened to the \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?app=desktop\u0026amp;v=TX2ooKAbwNI\u0026amp;t=1781s\u0026amp;fbclid=IwAR2eAdenX73pUn35IZTH_H1bIiyrT5grEIKxha3Yz9oOf6GRVCvhVhIo_l8\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Evideo\u003C\/a\u003E (which starts at 19:28).\u0026nbsp; Valliant said that it was his intention to publish Rand's diaries \"in raw form.\"\u0026nbsp; However, when he began the editing process with Peikoff, he had already written some of the commentary on the diaries.\u0026nbsp; When PARC was published these notes were integrated into Rand's diaries, presumably with Peikoff's approval.\u0026nbsp; This certainly contradicts what Fahy said about Peikoff having no role in the content of PARC.\u0026nbsp; It would be truly unfortunate if Peikoff was responsible for the insertion of Valliant's hectoring and borderline slanderous notes (e.g, \"Bullseye, Miss Rand,\" comparing Nathaniel to a \"junkie\" and a \"drug addict,\" having \"the soul of a rapist,\" calling his girlfriend Patrecia a \"fraud,\" etc.).\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E* When confronted with the various misquotations, Valliant said it is standard procedure to paraphrase sources, even when using quotation marks.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E** Valliant said in the 2021 interview that he is working on a revised edition of PARC which will critique the 2009 biographies of Rand.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/645535129525386855\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=645535129525386855","title":"8 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/645535129525386855"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/645535129525386855"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2022\/01\/the-parc-wars-revisited.html","title":"The PARC Wars Revisited"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"8"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-980933017735259294"},"published":{"$t":"2021-12-29T17:09:00.002-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2021-12-31T12:40:24.961-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"ARI"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Covid-19"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"lockdown. pandemic"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"vaccine mandates"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"ARI on Vaccines and the Pandemic"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Susan Hanson has published an \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.americanthinker.com\/articles\/2021\/09\/ayn_rand_vs_the_mandate.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Earticle\u003C\/a\u003E in \u003Ci\u003EThe American Thinker\u003C\/i\u003E attacking ARI's views on the Covid-19 pandemic. While she makes a few good points in her little screed, on the whole I'm not convinced she's being altogether fair. She seems to be upset, for example, that\u0026nbsp;Onkar Ghate, ARI’s Chief Philosophy Officer, believes that government has a role in fighting pandemics. Of course, what that role is can be very difficult for any Objectivist or Libertarian to explain, given their basic political orientation. And while Ghate's attempt to outline an Objectivist policy toward infectious disease is by no means beyond criticism, I didn't really find anything within it that is all that objectionable. Perhaps he could be criticized for being far too pragmatic in his willingness to compromise with the present system; but on the flip side, what choice does he have? It's not as if he can snap his fingers and make all the government controls that Randians find objectionable to just go away. On the big issues relating to freedom, he seems to be on the side of freedom, opposing both the lockdowns and the vaccine mandates.\u0026nbsp;\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EAyn Rand, of course, was not an anarchist: it is not necessarily inconsistent for her to have supported government actions combating a deadly contagion. In 1962, Rand \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/newideal.aynrand.org\/the-freedom-to-fight-infectious-disease\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Epenned\u003C\/a\u003E the following:\u003C!--more--\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EIf someone has a contagious disease . . . against which there is no inoculation, then the government has the right to quarantine him.,, [But] before the government can properly act, there must be an objective demonstration of an actual physical] danger. To quarantine people who are ill is not a violation of their rights; it merely prevents them from doing physical damage to others.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ESo Rand would have supported quarantines (essentially \"lockdown\") against diseased people. Presumably, she would not have supported lockdowns of the healthy; nor would she have countenanced vaccine mandates (although I assume she would likely have been pro-Covid19 vaccine). This all seems fairly straightforward and not inconsistent with Rand's basic political principles. Where things get a\u0026nbsp; bit more complicated is when we consider the position of Objectivists towards vaccine mandates implemented by \"private\" businesses. ARI is apparently insisting that employees working at this year's Objectivist Conference be vaccinated. Ms. Hanson seems to think this is \"immoral\" and contrary to Rand's philosophy. But in this she is mistaken. Under Randian laissez-faire, businesses have the right to make all sorts of demands of their employees. If their employees don't like, they can always quit.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EBut there is a deeper principle here that demonstrates a possible flaw in the Objectivist outlook on this issue. America's ruling elite contains a substantial plutocratic element. The sociologist Vilfredo Pareto denominated that the plutocracies that arise under representative systems of government as \"demagogic plutocracies.\" Because of the psychological types that tended to dominate this form of plutocracy, once a government became significantly infiltrated by such a faction, it was only a matter of time that the society would be completely and thoroughly looted. If you examine what has happened in this country over the last three decades, that is precisely what is happening. The country is almost thirty trillion in debt and there's no end in sight. A handful of big Wall Street \"investment\" firms has used the Federal Reserve's easy money policies to turn the stock market into a giant casino rigged in their favor. They have turned the pandemic into a scheme to make themselves even richer. While small business owners and the working class become increasingly impoverished, the ranks of billionaires swells.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ENow it would be easy for orthodox Objectivists to claim that they are opposed to corporations that make use of government to get rich at the expense of hard working Americans -- but their opposition to such businesses tends to be restricted to theory rather than practice. Again and again, Objectivists support the right of corporations to do as they please. Big Tech can sensor anyone they disfavor because, after all, YouTube and Twitter and Instagram are\u0026nbsp;private property, and one can do with one's property as one sees fit. But is it really true that the property of corporations is \"private.\" After all, the corporations themselves are \"public,\" with their ownership spread among many people (at least in theory). So whose property is it really? The stakeholders \u003Ci\u003Eor\u003C\/i\u003E the managers of the corporations? The fact is, corporations are hybrid institutions that don't really fit into the free market model. They often involve a very dangerous separation of ownership and management. And they have become very powerful within our society.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EBecause Objectivists regard corporation as private institutions (i.e., non-governmental), they don't object when corporations behave like despotic governments. If corporations, on their own initiative, decided to enact vaccine mandates, no one over at ARI could possibly object. But how is that any different, in practical terms, to government despotism. Whether I'm oppressed by a bureaucrat or a corporation, it's all the same in the end. Imagine, to provide an example of this in practice, an individual who lives in an area where all the grocery stores and banks within fifty miles are owned by corporations, all of which have implemented vaccine mandates for all their customers and employees. Practically speaking, such corporate-imposed mandates would be nearly as onerous as government imposed ones. In either case, the individual would not be entirely free to use his own reason to determine whether the vaccine makes sense for him.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ECorporations are beginning to take on the functions of government and ARIians seem incapable of noticing this. Neither Rand nor any of her followers seem to have ever taken heed of Berle and Means or Joseph Schumpeter or James Burnham, all of whom made predictions about corporations and the managerial state which, even if initially seemed unwarranted, have nevertheless over the years become , increasingly prescience. Whether you are mistreated by a government bureaucrat or a monopolistic corporation, it's all the same in the end.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThis brings up another issue -- namely, ARI's firm pro-vaccine stance. Nothing wrong with it, of course, except it could be argued that it doesn't come\u0026nbsp;from a particularly good place. Of course I understand that Objectivists will claim they support vaccines because of \"the science.\" The only trouble is that I'm not sure they're be entirely honest with themselves when they make such a claim. Orthodox Objectivism has a kind of troubled relationship with \"the science.\" If \"the science\" supports global warming, for example, then they're no longer for it. And let's not forget Dave Hariman. Yes, I know he's no longer affiliated with ARI -- but for a time he was very much involved with that institution\u0026nbsp;spreading his smart ass objections to quantum physics and relativity.\u0026nbsp; The fact is, Objectivism isn't really necessarily down with \"the science.\" If \"the science\" seems to challenge their literalist, dice and billiard balls physics or their blank slate view of human nature or their insistence on laissez-faire, then they want nothing to do with it. So ascribing their pro-Covid19 vaccine stance to \"the science\" just doesn't pass the basic smell test.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/980933017735259294\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=980933017735259294","title":"10 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/980933017735259294"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/980933017735259294"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2021\/12\/ari-on-vaccines-and-pandemic.html","title":"ARI on Vaccines and the Pandemic"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"10"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2592050919509473858"},"published":{"$t":"2021-08-23T16:37:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2021-08-23T16:37:03.833-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Fallacies of Objectivist Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Popper"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Santayna"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"How I Became a Critic of Objectivism 4"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Rand's epistemology constitutes the most intimidating part of the Objectivist philosophy. \u003Ci\u003EIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology\u003C\/i\u003E is a difficult book, even for Objectivists. By the time Ayn Rand wrote it, she had already secured herself in an echo chamber from which no criticism could ever reach her. IOTE was accepted by her disciples as a gospel that could not be questioned. But how much of the theory does the typical Objectivist actually understood or care about? Other than a few Rand nerds, I don't think most Objectivists give a fig for IOTE. They may be pleased it exists, allegedly serving as a base for Rand's ethics and the politics. But they could care less about the largely technical issues raised in IOTE.\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ECritics have often ignored Rand's epistemology as well. The fact is, it's Rand's ethics and politics that stirs up the animals on both sides, pro and con. Those critics that have tried to analyze the Objectivist epistemology have either gotten lost in the thickets or have become consumed by purely technical issues that most people don't care about. For me, Rand's epistemology could be reduced to two salient points: a denial (or at least mis-characterization) of the unconscious, intuitive phases of human thought; and the insistence that every word has an \"objectively correct\" definition. Those are the most important, or at least the most relevant, points of Rand's epistemology. By importance I mean: they are the most fundamental to what Rand was trying to accomplish in her overall philosophy. Admittedly, this is not obvious at first glance, so some explanation is in order.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ECritical to Objectivism --- in some sense the reason why its progenitor regarded it as an \"objective\" system of philosophy --- is that it holds that every aspect of human experience (or at least everything that can pass for \"knowledge\") is reducible to \"objective\" conscious deliberative reasoning. Rand was kind of anal about this. She was deathly afraid of anything that smacked of the \"arbitrary.\" She wanted the right to claim that everything she believed, including her moral and political preferences, constituted a \"valid\" form of knowledge which had been reached entirely through consciously directed \"reason.\" Knowledge attained by unconscious thinking processes (such as \"intuition\" and \"judgment\") she regarded as \"invalid\" --- a horror show of the \"arbitrary.\"\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThis is one of those views that sounds plausible but is in point of fact wrong. Now when I was writing \u003Ci\u003EAyn Rand Contra Human Nature\u003C\/i\u003E, I could not find an easily explicable scientific source that proved the validity of \"intuition\" (although many such books would appear after ARCHN was published). So for the most part I let the issue drop, opting instead attack Rand's epistemology from a Popperian point of view. Popper is a wonderful philosopher, very rational and clear-headed, and a pleasure to read. He is far better philosopher than Rand. But I choose to attack Rand using Popper's critical rationalism not because I was a died-in-the-wool Popperian (I was no such thing), but because I believed the clarity of his thought would make for a more accessible book. My deeper sympathies were with the philosophy of Michael Polanyi, as presented in his book \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Personal-Knowledge-Towards-Post-Critical-Philosophy\/dp\/0226672883\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EPersonal Knowledge\u003C\/a\u003E. The trouble with Polanyi is that his book is one of the most difficult I have ever read, and I did not think I would ever be able to use its insights to refute Rand's deeply flawed ideals of \"objectivity\" in way that the normal intelligent reader could understand. This meant the subject of intuition verses \"reason\" and faux-objectivity would not be covered with any depth in \u003Ci\u003EAyn Rand Contra Human Nature\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EPopper might have been useful in refuting Rand's insistence on the importance of defining one's terms, but I have found that partisans of that view are indifferent to the arguments against definition. Any emphasis on the importance of definitions raises in insoluble problem. Words must be defined in terms of other words. If I am asked, for example, to define what philosophy \u003Ci\u003Eis\u003C\/i\u003E, and I claim \"it's the study of wisdom,\" must I not also define the words used in that definition? There's the rub, because of course we are now in the presence of an infinite regress. The insistence on defining all one's terms is a false ideal of knowledge, as is the belief that all words have a \"corrrect\" definition.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EAs I delved more deeper into these issues, I was drawn into the philosophy of American critical realism, particularly as it was developed by George Santayana and Arthur Lovejoy. These forms of critical realism attempted to establish the representationalism of Locke and Kant on a surer footing. Now Rand despised representationalism because she associated it with Kant (whom she never read nor understood). Within a realist ontology there is only two alternatives: either a \"direct\" realism or an \"indirect\" realism (i.e., representationalism). Rand was attracted to direct realism --- it seemed to her more objective --- but she seems to have realized, in a rare moment of insight, that a direct realism wouldn't work with conceptual knowledge because concepts cannot be conceived as literal copies of existents. There exists two opposing\u0026nbsp; strains of thought in the Objectivist epistemology. Underlying Rand's so-called \"solution\" to the problem of universals is the implicit assumption that the highest ideal of knowledge is literalism. This is something that Rand held unconsciously, without fully realizing it; we only know that she was tacit literalist because her solution to the problem of universals is literalist all the way through. She believed she had solved this problem, not by presenting scientifically accumulated evidence, nor by abstruse logical argument, but rather by merely asserting how concepts are connected to reality (i.e., \"a concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted\"). This is a literalist \"solution\" to the problem. Rand is tacitly explaining what it is exactly and literally that concepts refer to in reality.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThe other strain in Rand's epistemology derives from what she called \"unit-economy.\" \"In any given moment, concepts enable man to hold in the focus of his conscious awareness much more than his purely perceptual capacity would permit,\" she wrote. That is essentially a principle of representionalism. The fact that a concept can represent far more than can be perceived in a given instant indicates the essentially symbolic (and therefore representational) nature of concepts. Concepts are items of description: they are not literal copies of their referents. Hence Rand's solution to the problem of universals contradicts her principle of unit-economy. At its core, Rand's epistemology is a confused mish-mash of literalism and representationalism, of direct and indirect realism.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThis became apparent to me as soon as I grasped Santayana's notion of essence. Santayana posits that the mind perceives the world through a veil of what are essentially Platonic ideas --- what he calls \"essences.\" Our conception of the world cannot be literal or direct because the world is out of scale with our minds (as Rand herself acknowledges). Santayana's essences, which are essentially his version of \"concepts,\" are the building blocks of knowledge, but they are not knowledge when regarded in of themselves. The realm of essence includes all possible meanings, which are infinite in scope (they include all numbers, which are infinite). However, not all these meanings represent something in reality. Does every number, the entire infinity of them, represent something in the external world? What about unicorns or \"honest politician\"? By making knowledge the principle unit of knowledge, Rand created all kinds of artificial problems. She has to regard \"imaginary\" concepts, such as jaberwocky or 20 gazillion, as \"invalid\" because they're not connected to anything in reality. How much sense does that make? But it's actually worse than that. If you understand all the implications of Santayana's notion of essence, you will realize that Rand's approach to concepts --- i.e., her mania for \"validating\" concepts by proving they're \"connected\" to reality --- is all wrong. Concepts are symbolic all the way through --- they are scraps of meaning, not pieces of knowledge. They can be used to describe not merely reality, but fantasy, fiction, lies, counter-factuals, prognostications of the future, unproven hypotheses, and myth. They are not somehow \"invalid\" when not used to describe reals.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ESantayana's philosophy also helped me understand what was wrong with the Objectivist metaphysics. Rand wanted to build a true \"system\" of philosophy starting with first principles, but she had no idea what she was getting herself into. She introduced her three \"axioms\" without fulling comprehending what that meant. An axiom is postulate that serves as a starting point for further arguments. Any system of thought based on axioms is a self-enclosed logical system, like geometry or mathematics. Ludwig von Mises' \"praxelogy,\" in which he tried to deduce all of economics from the premise of human action, is such a system. Spinoza tried something along those lines in this \u003Ci\u003EEthics.\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;If Rand was serious about deriving a systematic philosophy from axioms, she would have needed to deduce her entire philosophy, or at least the main bulk of it, from her three axioms. She of course did no such thing. In fact, it would have been logically invalid for her to attempt anything along those lines, for the simple reason that two of her axioms, \"existence exists\" and \"A is A,\" are tautologies, and nothing can be deduced from tautologies. David Kelley has admitted as much --- although he still tries to defend the axioms. But they are not really defensible. They are another example of Rand's philosophical illiteracy. She had no idea what she was doing, and she made a mess of it.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EConsider what she did with the little mantra \"A is A.\" She originally picked up the phrase from Isabel Paterson, who was fond of using it to emphasize the importance of logical thinking. Rand decided that she could turn it into foundational principle of her philosophy --- that is, her so-called \"law of identity.\" But once again she is confused beyond all help. She didn't understand that not all forms of identity are the same. \"A is A\" is simply the identity of one essence or idea with itself. Any symbol of consciousness, taken as distinct unit, is identical to itself. Rand confuses this very simple and non-empirical form of identity with other types of identity, particularly the identity of existing things and their attributes. These forms of identity are potentially empirical and as such are not self-evident. Identifying the existence of an object, such as a dog or lamppost, is not \u003Ci\u003EA is A\u003C\/i\u003E, but \u003Ci\u003EA is\u003C\/i\u003E. Identification of attributes involves predication. Instead of \u003Ci\u003EA is A\u003C\/i\u003E, predication posits \u003Ci\u003EA is B\u003C\/i\u003E, as in \u003Ci\u003Ethe rose is red\u003C\/i\u003E. Again, it's not self-evident that roses are red. It's not something that cannot be determined a priori, but requires doing some empirical leg work.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ESuch was my intellectual journey that enabled me to pinpoint Rand's main epistemological and metaphysical errors. With the issues of human nature, historical change, philosophical literacy, and the relation between concepts and reality well in hand, the only challenge left for me to figure out was how to approach the most notorious parts of the Objectivist philosophy, the ethics and the politics.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2592050919509473858\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2592050919509473858","title":"11 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2592050919509473858"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2592050919509473858"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2021\/08\/how-i-became-critic-of-objectivism-4.html","title":"How I Became a Critic of Objectivism 4"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"11"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7525967605157094164"},"published":{"$t":"2021-07-17T14:24:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2021-07-17T14:24:03.257-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Human Nature"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Pareto"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"How I Became a Critic of Objectivism 3"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cspan id=\"docs-internal-guid-2723d2e4-7fff-aba6-4a2a-4a6bc6a86799\"\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EOur understanding of what constitutes “human nature” can come from at least three sources: personal experience, literature, and scientific investigation. I knew early on that Rand’s view of human nature had serious problems. I had read Dostoevsky’s \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ECrime and Punishment\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E and \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe Idiot\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E right before I read \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, and I couldn’t help noticing how shallow and tendentious Rand’s view of human nature is compared to Dostoevsky’s. The human beings who populate \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAtlas\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E are little more than ideological caricatures. They is little, if any, of the stuff of real life in them. They are all gesture and speechifying, ---- mere empty vessels, bloodless and without soul.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EBut how does one demonstrate such a thing? Human nature, in the traditional conception passed down to us by the great poets, historians, and philosophers of Western Culture, consists of innate tendencies of behavior—tendencies which Rand explicitly denies in Galt’s speech—but which are distributed unequally and in varying degrees throughout the species. One trick Objectivists use to dismiss the traditional conception of human nature is to try to interpret it through the prism of their unique versions of essentialism. Rand believed that the objects of knowledge, what she called concepts, where defined by “essential characteristics without which the [existental referents of these concepts] would not be the kind of existents they are.” Rand’s doctrine of essentialism can be a little confusing because Rand regarded essences as “epistemological” rather than “metaphysical.” They were products of thought rather than reality; yet they somehow referred to objects and attributes \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ein\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E reality. The upshot of this essentialism, whether “metaphysical” or “epistemological,” is that the attributes that make a thing what it is have to be universal. They have to apply to every manifestation of the concepts’ real world referent. Rand regarded “rationality” as the essence of the concept man because all men were, she claimed, rational (at least potentially). Now the tactic used in regards to human nature is to claim that if a given innate tendency of behavior isn’t shared by absolutely everyone, then it can’t be part of human nature. And since not many innate tendencies of character are shared by everyone, that leaves the concept high and dry.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EWe can see how this works out in practice by providing an illustrative example. The desire for status is generally regarded as a part of human nature. But this desire does not exist in equal measure in all individual human beings; and there may exist some human beings, likely a small minority, in whom the desire is altogether absent. What a typical Objectivist would contend is that if this particular desire for status is not universal, if it does not exist in \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Eall\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E individuals, then it can’t be considered a part of “human nature.”\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThis, however, is where the essentialism of Rand and the Aristolean tradition she supposedly exemplifies breaks down. Ideas aren’t always so simple as Rand imagines them. There’s the famous example of the concept “game” which Wittgenstein wrote about:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EConsider … the activities that we call \"games\". I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic Games, and so on. What is common to them all?—Don't say: \"There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games' \"—but look and see whether there is anything common to all.—For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. [from \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EPhilosophical Investigations\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E]\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe point of Wittgenstein's “investigations” into the concept game is not, as Rand seems to have believed, to provide a perfect example of “a mind not in focus,” but to suggest that the Aristolean view of concepts (i.e., “essentialism”) is an inadequate theory and that conceptual representation of reality is far more complicated than Aristotle originally assumed.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThese very complexities present all kinds of difficulties to the critic of Objectivism. Anything that requires appreciation of nuance, subtlety, complexity—in a word, anything that requires judgment becomes a ripe target for the scorn and dismissive sneering on the part of Randian apologists. If to grasp the traditional conception of human nature as it has been passed down to us in literature and history requires a sophistication that goes well beyond what the typical Objectivist is capable of, how then does the critic go about explaining why Rand is wrong on this issue?\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThis was just one of the many challenges I faced when I embarked on the book \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAyn Rand Contra Human Nature\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E. That entire work was conceived, not merely as a refutation of Rand’s conception of man, but as an in depth analysis of why this mattered. Getting human nature wrong is not something that can be casually brushed aside. No defender of Rand can say, “Well, maybe she was wrong about human nature, but she was right about everything else”—because if Rand was wrong about human nature, it’s just not possible, logically and\/or empirically, for her to have been right about everything else. Getting human nature wrong spreads error throughout her entire philosophy. It completely invalidates her philosophy of history; it causes serious problems for several of the Objectivist virtues, especially pride; and it upends the Objectivist politics by removing the means by which minarchism and laissez-faire can be attained.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EBut before I could demonstrate the dependence of Rand’s ethics and politics on her view of human nature—a dependence not always fully appreciated by Rand’s apologists—I had to actually demonstrate that the Objectivist view of man was deeply flawed and in many important respects erroneous. How was this to be done? My own view of human nature had been formed by observation and immersion in history and great literature. But I knew that would not be good enough. I would need stronger evidence, which meant I had to investigate the testimony of science on the matter. I began my effort to build a stronger case against Rand by immersing myself in the historical sociology of Vilfredo Pareto.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EI had initially learned about Pareto from Jame Burnham’s classic work \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe Machiavellians\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E. Pareto had spent much of his career as a rather severe and uncompromising classical liberal whose political beliefs weren’t all that different from Rand’s. He was very much in favor of freedom, including economic freedom, which he argued for with his usual intellectual thoroughness and rigor. But over time he must have noticed that arguing for freedom wasn’t having any effect—that people in power ignored his arguments in favor of doing whatever accorded to their perceived interests and sentiments. As Giovanni Busino \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/journals.openedition.org\/ress\/730\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Edescribes\u003C\/a\u003E this period in Pareto’s life,\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E[through] his intransigence, his fight against protectionism, against armament programs, against Government Minister Crispi’s gallophobia and the malpractices of wheeling and dealing, [Pareto was] left ... on his own, a publicist without a public and without influence.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EIn 1890, Pareto quit his position of managing director of the Iron Industry Company and eventually became an academic, accepting a position as Professor of political economy at the University of Lausanne. His change from businessman and liberal activist to academic and social scientist led to a shift in his intellectual orientation from advocacy to objective analysis. From his own experience as liberal polemicist, he had learned that human beings, in the main, don’t respond to and are not motivated by “reason.” This led him to develop a theory of “non-logical conduct” which in many important respects anticipates theories developed by Jonathan Haidt over a hundred years later. Pareto’s great insight, later corroborated by psychological experiments conducted by Haidt, is that human beings, by and large, aren’t always rational in their behavior—that their motivations arise from non-rational sources (sentiments, emotions, instincts, etc.), and that rationalizations are concocted after the fact to give a veneer of logic to what initially was nothing of the sort.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EWhile Pareto provides huge amounts of evidence for his basic theory (his \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10.5pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ETrattato di Sociologia Generale \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10.5pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Eis a million words long), it’s the sort of evidence that requires intelligence and intellectual judgment to understand. Pareto provides hundreds of examples of rationalizations put forward on behalf of various forms of non-logical conduct. For example, Pareto shows how individuals in multiple societies and cultures all indulge in various rituals, usually of a religious nature, involving the use of water as an instrument of purification—and then he shows all the different rationalizations brought forward to justify this behavior. \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ENow the trouble with this sort of evidence is that it requires a certain level of intellectual judgment to appreciate it, and judgment’s is a unique cognitive ability in short supply among human beings. So during the writing of \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAyn Rand Contra Human Nature\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, I wanted even stronger evidence that Rand’s theory of human nature was spectacularly wrong—I sought the gold standard for empirical evidence, i.e., evidence from the \u003Ci\u003Ehard\u003C\/i\u003E sciences—from peer reviewed experiments in biology, evolutionary psychology, and cognitive science. I combed the local libraries looking for what the hard sciences had to say on the issue of human nature, and I was somewhat disappointed in what I found. Much of the research that had been done up to that point in the sciences of human nature was still embalmed in hard to access scientific journals. For \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAyn Rand Contra Human Nature\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, I had to rely largely on Edward Wilson’s \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/amazon.com\/Human-Nature-new-Preface-Revised\/dp\/0674016386\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EOn Human Nature\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, along with a few other miscellaneous sources. Much to my frustration, shortly after I published \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAyn Rand Contra Human Nature\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E in 2001, an avalanche of books on the emerging scientific consensus concerning nature of our species began coming out. The most important of these were Steven Pinkers’ The Blank Slate, Daniel Gilbert’s \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EStumbling on Happiness\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, David Eagleman’s \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EIncognito\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, Destano and Valdeno’s\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E Out of Character\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, Jonathan Haidt’s \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe Righteous Mind\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, and Malcolm Gladwell’s \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EBlink\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E. These books provided reams of evidence that could be used to refute nearly all of what passed for Rand’s theory of human nature and a good chunk of her epistemology into the bargain as well. In fact, the evidence they presented went well beyond what I would have expected. It was\u0026nbsp; little short of devastating. If you’re familiar with this evidence and you’re a rational, scientifically educated person, you cannot in honesty be an Objectivist.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EIt was the evidence in these books that constituted the chief inspiration for much of the material posted here on the ARCHN Blog. I suddenly realized that, with all scientifically established facts at my command,\u0026nbsp; I could now make a much better case against the pretensions of Objectivism than I had accomplished in \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAyn Rand Contra Human Nature\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E. That’s why so many of the blog posts I wrote over the years quoted from those books listed above. I was presenting a scientific case against Rand’s philosophy, particularly her views of human nature and cognition.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EYet there was another aspect of Rand’s philosophy that needed to be addressed, one that couldn’t be refuted with scientific or any other kind of “observational” or experimental evidence. I have in mind Rand’s metaphysics and the more speculative and philosophical reaches of her epistemology (particularly the part dealing with the relation between concepts and definitions). This would require its own separate philosophical investigation. It turned out that I would have to immerse myself in study of the American critical realists, particularly George Santayana and Arthur Lovejoy, to figure out and articulate where Rand had gone wrong in her metaphysical and epistemological speculations. \u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C!--more--\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7525967605157094164\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7525967605157094164","title":"7 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7525967605157094164"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7525967605157094164"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2021\/07\/how-i-became-critic-of-objectivism-3.html","title":"How I Became a Critic of Objectivism 3"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"7"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1896503605065624994"},"published":{"$t":"2021-06-26T11:15:00.007-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2021-07-04T12:31:48.168-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Ayn Rand"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Hume"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Kant"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Philosophy of History"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"How I Became a Critic of Objectivism 2"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cspan id=\"docs-internal-guid-806ed16b-7fff-5974-f6f3-4efcf4295db7\"\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe issue of philosophical literacy is a troubling one for Objectivism on multiple levels. To begin with, many of Rand’s most ardent followers became Objectivists when they were teenagers or young adults. They discovered \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E or \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E knowing little if anything about philosophy (or anything else for that matter). For this reason, they were not equipped with the necessary tools—which is to say, the philosophical literacy—from which to evaluate the contentions that at the bottom of Rand’s Objectivist philosophy. Yaron Brook, in his\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2021\/05\/yaron-brook-converses-with-anarchist.html\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Econversation with Michael Malice\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, admits as much. Teenagers and twenty-somethings rarely have neither the philosophical literacy nor the worldly knowledge to evaluate Rand’s contentions about human nature, morality, and the role of ideas in history. Swept away by Rand’s charismatic vision of a world populated by individualistic heroes like Howard Road and Hank Rearden, they end up taking everything Rand says on trust, without asking the necessary questions or demanding appropriate evidence.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThis matter is further complicated by Rand’s own philosophical shortcomings. Rand had her own issues with philosophical illiteracy—although for very different reasons than we find among her youngest admirers. Rand’s philosophical illiteracy stemmed from her innate dogmatism and her intractable hubris about her own mind which made it very difficult for her to accept criticism and learn from those whom she disagreed with. Rand\u0026nbsp; rarely if ever entertained the possibility that she might be wrong. In any dispute with an individual who held rival views, she was right and they were wrong—end of issue. This attitude rendered it inconceivable for her to appreciate the possible merits of viewpoints and philosophies that conflicted with her own.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThere is also the issue of Rand’s education to consider. We know little, for example, about what Rand imbibed during her years attending Petrograd State University in the Soviet Union. According to biographical data accumulated about Rand, the most formative philosophical influence on her thinking was Isabel Paterson. From Paterson Rand developed her obsession for “reason,” her over-fondness for the phrase “A is A,”\u0026nbsp; her admiration of Aristotle, and her enmity to Kant and Hegel. Paterson, who was widely read, presumably had acquired at least some of her views through first-hand sources. She wasn’t merely repeating what had been told to her by another person. She had done the hard work for herself, coming to an understanding of philosophy through her extensive reading. Rand, on the other hand, seems to have relied far too much on brief abstracts provided her by Paterson, the Branden’s, Peikoff, and others. Rand was hardly a voluminous reader. She was impatient with detail and nuance. She did not read to understand; she read to demolish. When confronted with texts she disagreed with, she would begin with what she called the art of “philosophical detection,” which in practice meant putting the worst possible interpretation on anything she ran across that inspired her loathing. \u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThis rather free way of handling philosophical ideas would become a source of friction in the final years of her relationship with Paterson. As Jennifer Burns explains:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EPaterson was particularly harsh on Rand’s new venture into philosophy. Responding to critical comments on the philosophers she had been reading, Paterson mused, “to be fair to them, one must envisage the whole problem of systematic thinking as from scratch.” She then told Rand, “the frightening kind of rationality you find in the philosophers is precisely your own kind.” Although she had once celebrated their joint achievement in working out “the necessary axioms and deductions of a free society.” Paterson now doubted the whole goal of syllogistic reasoning. The real problem was not creating a rational system, but making sure the assumptions that underlay it were correct. And she was not at all clear that Rand would do it right, observing, “in lesser matters you talk a lot of ‘reason,’ but frequently you don’t use it, because you make assumptions that are not valid.”\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; text-indent: -30pt; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ERand, shocked by Paterson’s criticism (Rand never took well to criticism by anyone), wrote to her former mentor: “I see no point in discussing what some fool said in the past and why they said it and what error they made and where they went off the rails.” [127-128] In other words, Rand already had developed a bad attitude toward any philosophy that conflicted with her own views, operating under the assumption that anyone who had the temerity to disagree with her was either an idiot or worse. That is all part of Rand’s essential hubris. She couldn’t help thinking she was smarter, or at least more rational, than nearly everyone else. This mentality spread to her acolytes who in later years would blithely insist that Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle. This is all the more astonishing considering Rand’s philosophically illiterate views of Hume, Kant, Hegel and other major philosophers of the Western canon (to get an idea of how badly she misunderstood Kant, see George Walsh’s\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/enlightenment.supersaturated.com\/objectivity\/walsh1\/\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Eessay\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E comparing Kant’s views with Rand’s misconceptions of them).\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ERand’s philosophical illiteracy led her to commit egregious errors in her philosophy. Consider, as one salient example, how she misconceived the “problem of universals,” framing it as an epistemological problem when it’s actually a metaphysical problem. Unfortunately for Rand, there was no one who could take her aside and explain how she had gotten this issue wrong. Her error would become embedded in the very fabric of her philosophical system, impossible to remove without tearing the whole thing apart. Fortunately for her, the “problem of universals” was an issue that had become passé by the time she commented on it. Contemporary philosophers paid little attention to it, so Rand’s embarrassing philosophical faux pas would go unnoticed until the late Scott Ryan brought it to the world’s attention in his book\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Objectivism-Corruption-Rationality-Critique-Epistemology\/dp\/0595267335\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EObjectivism and the Corruption of Rationality\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EI have indulged in this long preface about philosophical illiteracy because it's an underappreciated issue within the Objectivist milieu. Too many Objectivists are philosophically illiterate. They don’t realize this because part of being philosophically illiterate is not knowing that you suffer from this deficiency. The typical Objectivist may not even regard philosophical literacy as a legitimate issue. He believes that on nearly all major topics in philosophy, Rand is right and those differing from Rand are wrong—and for him, that’s all that counts. Philosophical literacy be damned! Isn’t it more important to be right? But philosophical literacy, while providing no guarantee of “being right” about everything, does, we might say, increase the odds of being right on many things, whereas illiteracy dramatically increases the odds of committing mortifying blunders and appearing ignorant to better informed individuals. Philosophical literacy, in the final analysis, is chiefly concerned with\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Eknowing how to be honest. When Rand declared that Kant’s philosophy was a motivated attack on human knowledge, undoubtedly she believed this to be so, and in that sense she was being “honest.” But her view of Kant is untrue. If she had taken pains to test her view, if she had consulted with experts in Kant’s philosophy and immersed herself in the relevant biographical material, she might have discovered her error. The fact that she did not take such measures indicates that she did not fully appreciate the steps necessary to acquire a sure footing in the truth. Rand had unwittingly made her own various personal agendas her standard of truth—and this evinces a kind of tacit dishonesty. Rand operated under the naive belief that honesty was a matter of conscious intention. We now know, from psychological research, that honesty requires more than just good intentions. Openness to criticism, combined with a humility about the conclusions our own \"reason,\" is required as well—and these are attributes of character sadly missing in Rand.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAll this became very clear to me when I began my own journey to educate myself in the ways of philosophy. I commenced my excursion into philosophy by reading Hume's\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E. I had already been exposed to the Objectivist view of Hume via Peikoff’s\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/peikoff.com\/courses_and_lectures\/the-history-of-philosophy-volume-1-%e2%80%93-founders-of-western-philosophy-thales-to-hume\/\" style=\"text-decoration-line: none;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ELectures on the History of Philosophy\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E. In Hume, Peikoff argued, British empiricism had reached complete bankruptcy. Peikoff charges Hume with, among other philosophical crimes, of denying causality, attacking the external world and creating a breach between logic and fact. I was prepared, as I made my way through Hume’s \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EEnquiry\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E, to find myself knee-deep in a kind of remorseless skeptic, denying all knowledge and leading philosophy into a hopeless muddle. As it turned out, I did not find any of this in Hume. Peikoff's description of the man's philosophy had been misleading, one might even say dishonest. Even if Hume's philosophy was not in all respects “perfect,” it evinced\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E a much higher caliber of reasoning, argumentation, and illustrations from experience than anything I \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003Ehad found in the writings of Rand and other Objectivists. In terms of philosophical skill, he ran circles around both Rand and Peikoff. Far from attacking or denying causality, Hume merely called into question the rationalistic arguments that had been made on behalf of these notions. \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAn Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E is primarily an attack on rationalistic speculation and a clarion call for an empirical responsible philosophy. While not entirely free of errors and other incidental flaws, it's well ahead of its time and far better than anything you’ll find in the Objectivist canon.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EAs I read more philosophers—Locke, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, James, Russell—a pattern emerged. It became ever more clear that Objectivist luminaries, particularly Rand and Peikoff, demonstrated no real understanding of these philosophers—that their criticism amounted to little more than the most crude straw manning of views they neither understood nor were capable of treating fairly. This was a problem on a number of fronts. First of all, Rand had declared that the crisis of Western Civilization was caused by failures in modern philosophy. But precisely because Rand and her chief disciples failed to understand the views of propagated by modern philosophers, this by itself discredited Rand’s speculations about them. Rand’s unfounded and eccentric interpretation of Kant’s philosophy can’t possibly be the cause of, say, Nazi Germany (as averred by Peikoff in \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThe Ominous Parallels\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E) for the simple reason that Rand’s interpretation of Kant is hers and hers alone. Hardly anyone else interprets Kant like Rand interprets him—so how can that particular interpretation, accepted by so few, have become influential enough to lead to the rise of Hitler and the holocaust? \u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThere’s also issues relating to Rand’s pretensions to honesty and objectivity that must be given due consideration as well. Rand regarded honesty and objectivity as primary virtues of her ethics. But in her treatment of views she disliked, she demonstrates an inability to apply these values in a way that would allow them to become effective guides to her behavior. Undoubtedly there exists a kind of surface sincerity in Rand’s passionate espousal of the rational and the real. But these ideals did not have roots in the very depths of her soul. There was consequently something histrionic and unreal in her devotion to them. If she really cared about objectivity, truth, and reality, wouldn’t she have taken greater pains to get Kant and other modern philosophers right?\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EBy comparing what Hume, Kant and other modern philosophers actually contended in their various writings with what Rand and Peikoff contend on their behalf, I had discovered not only the extent of Rand’s philosophical illiteracy, but also her scandalous betrayal of honesty, rationality, truth and objectivity. Objectivism, as it turned out, was not about objectivity. Hence was I confronted with the great irony that defines Rand’s philosophy—namely: \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003ETo be an objectivist, one must reject Objectivism\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.656; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003EThis became even more clear to me as I began studying the empirical evidence from the sciences of human nature that for years had been accumulating against Rand’s philosophy.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cspan id=\"docs-internal-guid-13e00d9f-7fff-f559-b1aa-9549e0b7c565\"\u003E\u003Cp dir=\"ltr\" style=\"line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;\"\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1896503605065624994\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1896503605065624994","title":"13 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1896503605065624994"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1896503605065624994"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2021\/06\/how-i-became-critic-of-objectivism-2.html","title":"How I Became a Critic of Objectivism 2"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"13"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3499154756617174553"},"published":{"$t":"2021-06-14T08:59:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2021-06-14T09:05:40.810-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Atlas Shrugged"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"The Fountainhead"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Theory of History"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"We The Living"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"How I became a critic of Objectivism 1"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"I never intended to become a critic of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. That's just how things worked out independent of any intention I may have entertained concerning the matter. I have spent most of my adult life as a kind of student. Not a student affiliated with a specific college or educational institution, but rather a student attending what Thomas Carlyle called \"The University of Great Books.\" I have sometimes shared the results of my Great Books education in blog posts and books --- and it is my Rand criticism that has drawn the most attention.\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EIn my junior year of high school, I read Rand's novel \u003Ci\u003EWe the Living\u003C\/i\u003E. A few weeks later I read \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E. I found these two novels intensely absorbing. I couldn't put them down. I finished both books in just a few days.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EI saved \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E for the summer. Late in July I checked out a copy from the local library and had a go at it. I confidently believed I would be able to finish the book in less than a week. But this is not how it went down. It actually took me five weeks to finish \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E, and I had to really push my way through the book. It just didn't grab me like Rand's other two major novels had. I really didn't give a fig for any of the characters. They seemed unreal and one-dimensional. I found the tone of the book relentlessly didactic and moralistic. I felt that Rand was trying to preach at me, which I found off-putting. Sermonizing and moral indignation no doubt have their place, but not in a novel. When I discovered later than Rand considered \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;her best work, I could hardly believe it.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EDuring my freshman year of college I read the title essay to Rand's \u003Ci\u003EFor the New Intellectual\u003C\/i\u003E. I found the work unconvincing. The theory of history she introduced seemed interesting enough, but she didn't offer any proof for it. She expected me to accept all her contentions on faith, all the while pretending she was following \"reason.\" Nonetheless, I wanted to figure out whether she was right. Did her theory have any merit at all? If so, how could it be tested?\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EDuring my junior year of college, I began studying Objectivism in greater detail. At that time, I didn't have sufficient philosophical literacy or\u0026nbsp; knowledge of science to fully understand what might be wrong with Rand's thought. While I already had concluded that Rand was wrong about human nature and aesthetics, I still thought there might be something to her metaphysics and epistemology. I sympathized with their broad conclusions (i.e., realism and objectivity), just as I sympathized with the broad conclusions of her ethics and politics (i.e., individualism and freedom). I took several Objectivist taped courses, including Peikoff's lectures on Objectivism. In this first official run through of Rand's philosophy, I didn't find much to quibble with other than Rand's theory of emotions and her aesthetics. I knew, however, that I would have to become far more philosophically literate before I could come to a final verdict, but at the time I believed of Rand's formulations showed definite promise. To be sure, there was much that I didn't fully appreciate. I couldn't figure out, for example, how Rand's \"solution\" to the problem of universals really solved the problem. I expected some carefully worked out argument, but all she provided was raw assertion. Other aspects of Rand's philosophy struck me the same way, which inevitably led to the question: how did Rand know that her various claims had the stamp of truth to them? Rand and her followers spend so much of their time emphasizing \"reason,\" proof, and validation; and yet we find so little of these elements in the actual philosophy!\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ENonetheless, whatever issues I had with Rand's formulations, in those early days I found her philosophy fascinating. Yes, there might be problems, even big problems, with her various contentions, but these problems I speculated might be fixable. Then I heard\u0026nbsp; Peikoff make remarks during a question and answer period of one of his Ford Hall Forum lectures that made me realize the problems with Rand's philosophy went far deeper than I had heretofore imagined. Somebody had asked Peikoff how long it would take for Objectivism to \"win.\" Peikoff replied that it shouldn't take all that long: if courses on Objectivism could simply be introduced into the Ivy League colleges, Objectivism's victory would become a matter of course (or words to that effect). That Objectivism's greatest living proponent should believe such a thing shocked me. I knew from my own experience with Marxists, socialists, and \"progressives\" that this could not possibly be true; that such people came to their beliefs for psychological reasons that had nothing to do with Immanual Kant or the problem of universals; and also that institutions in civilized societies had a momentum all their own that were eroding our freedoms irrespective of anyone's will to the contrary. The fact that Peikoff believed that merely by teaching\u0026nbsp; Objectivism at the nation's top universities, this could lead to massive changes in the political direction of the country, struck me as delusional in the extreme. That Peikoff claimed to a champion of \"reason\" and \"objectivity,\" zealously opposed to \"evading reality,\" only made it worse. I felt I needed to explain how a philosophy ostensibly dedicated to rationality and factual reality could misfire so badly.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EWhen I questioned other Objectivists about this issue, they merely regarded me with a kind of vague irritation and incredulity. They couldn't understand why I regarded Peikoff's claim as so absurd. \"People have free will,\" I was told repeatedly. \"But that free will has tendencies that predispose some people to be statists and socialists,\" I would counter. \"No it doesn't,\" they would insist. And one Objectivist read me the passage in \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E where Galt argues that tendencies of character cannot exist because they contradicted the principle of free will: \"If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free,\" pontificates Rand's moralizing hero.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EAt this time I was reading, for a course at the university, Joseph Schumpeter's \u003Ci\u003ECapitalism, Socialism, and Democracy\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;--- a book that made a big impact on my thinking at the time. Schumpeter had a very different view of how history worked than we find in Rand, one that struck me as more realistic and in accordance to what I was seeing in everyday life. As Schumpeter explains:\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EHowever, whether favorable or unfavorable, value judgments about capitalist performance are of little interest. For mankind is not free to choose. This is not only because the mass of people are not in a position to compare the alternatives rationally and always accept what they are being told. There is a much deeper reason for this. Things economic and social move by their own momentum and the ensuing situations compel individuals and groups to behave in certain ways whatever they may wish to do --- not indeed by destroying their freedom of choice but by shaping the choosing mentalities and by narrowing the list of possibilities from which to choose. If this is the quintessence of Marxism then we all of us got to be Marxists. [129-130]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThis is the prelude to Schumpeter's famous theory that capitalism destroys itself by its own success. This seemed to me a far more plausible theory than anything to be found in Rand, because it was based in human nature as revealed in history and social science. Rand's philosophical view of historical change seemed to me little more than wishful thinking: a view propagated by powerless intellectuals who were too cowardly to accept their own impotence.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EIn 1989, the year I read \u003Ci\u003ECapitalism, Socialism, and Democracy\u003C\/i\u003E, the Berlin Wall came down, and a few years later the Soviet Union \"collapsed.\" At the time, the predominant view was that socialism had been vanquished forever. Yet how long did it take for the ideology socialism, like a dog's vomit, to make a noisome return? Within a generation, we had a whole new generation of radicals wanting the same things as before but using different words to describe them. Radical leftism ebbs and flows: it afflicts liberal societies in cycles. Hence it waxed intense during the thirties, sixties, and in the last decade, and receded in the fifties and eighties. But each cycle seems to get a little crazier. Or perhaps it is merely the case that the opposition is less rigorous. The abundance of capitalist society has made some people weak and others unhappy; and the unhappy are staging temper tantrums to bully the weak into concessions. Immanual Kant has nothing to do with any of it. It's just human nature doing its thing.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ERand saw human nature as the product of philosophy. Human beings, in her view, were bundles of premises. This is why she believed that social outcomes could be changed through arguing about abstruse topics in metaphysics and epistemology. But she is just wrong about this. Human nature is a product of evolution, not philosophy. One of the issues we are facing in the present age is that capitalism, in league with science and technology, has transformed the world so dramatically that evolution has not been able to keep up. Human beings now find themselves in a society they did not evolve to live in. That's part of the reason why there are so many unhappy people. It has nothing to do with philosophy. It arises from the conditions of everyday life. These people on the \"woke\" left are genuinely distressed. Or if they're not distressed they nevertheless feel genuine moral outrage at the inequality and \"unfairness\" of the capitalist social order. This moral outrage is not the product of philosophical theories, but rather, the theories were devised to explain the feelings of outrage. As Jonathan Haidt has shown, morality is largely intuitive. It isn't the product of ideas or consciously directed thinking. It is the product of genetics and circumstance. People are hardwired to see the world differently, and part of this involves how individuals react to inequality. You can argue against these intuitions until your blue in the face --- it won't make a jot of difference. Rand is wrong about the role philosophy plays in determining social outcomes because she's wrong about human nature. While her errors in\u0026nbsp; philosophy won't make any difference to social outcomes, they do make a difference to our understanding of\u0026nbsp; how world works. If you want to understand what causes radical leftism or right-wing authoritarianism or any other social phenomena that may end up playing a decisive role in shaping the future course of Western Civilization, you can't reach that understanding through Objectivist principles.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThe reason I have gone into this issue in such detail is I wanted to make clear that I did not become a critic of Objectivism over some obscure or trivial issue. I was fascinated by the problem of ideology. Why did some people become \"liberal\" and others \"conservative\"? When Peikoff declared that all Objectivism needed to \"win\" was to be taught in the Ivy League, I realized that I could not look to Rand's philosophy to provide answers to this question. But there was more at stake than just this question of the origins of ideology and political conviction. Peikoff's declaration about the future prospects of Objectivism seemed so alienated from reality that it raised issues as to the quality of Objectivist thought as a whole. It turned out that being wrong about human nature might be an indication of far more catastrophic errors. I decided I needed to examine Rand's contentions far more closely and critically than what I had thus far endeavored. But that would require becoming philosophically literate --- which would be a task in itself.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E[\u003Ci\u003ENote: my latest book on Objectivism, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/B093RWX54D?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860\" target=\"_blank\"\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThe Faux-Rationality of Ayn Rand\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E, is available here\u003C\/i\u003E.]\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3499154756617174553\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3499154756617174553","title":"11 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3499154756617174553"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3499154756617174553"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2021\/06\/how-i-became-critic-of-objectivism-1.html","title":"How I became a critic of Objectivism 1"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"11"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6239100466406655247"},"published":{"$t":"2021-05-26T13:54:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2021-05-26T13:54:30.305-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Primary reasons for not becoming an Objectivist"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Many of Rand's critics object to Rand's philosophy because it does not agree with their own. Ideologues want everyone to accept their particular ideology. Hence their disparagement of rival ideologies. Rand herself was an ideologue of this description. She wanted people to agree with her. Those who didn't share her views she regarded as either mistaken (i.e., \"errors of judgment\") or evil. The problem with tackling rival points of view in this manner is that it is not altogether honest. This ideologue doesn't seek truth or insight, but merely uniformity of belief: he wants everyone to think like himself. Such critics, when confronted with the question\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003EWhy shouldn’t I be an Objectivist?\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;can only answer: \u003Ci\u003Ebecause I want you to adopt my views instead\u003C\/i\u003E.\u0026nbsp;And so a progressive would say Objectivism is wrong because it doesn't agree with the progressive ideology; a conservative would say Objectivism is wrong because it doesn't agree with conservative ideology; a religious fundamentalist would say Objectivism is wrong because it doesn't agree with religious fundamentalism; and so and so forth. This works in other direction as well --- that is to say, Objectivists have exactly the same view of progressives, conservatives, religious fundamentalists, etc. All these belief systems are declared wrong because they don’t agree with Objectivism --- or at least that's what it comes to in the end.\u003Cspan\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThe primary reason for not being an Objectivist is because the philosophy can't deliver on most of its promises. Objectivism claims to (1) show a path to the establishment of laissez-faire capitalism; (2) provide an articulable\u0026nbsp;philosophy-based ethics to provide guidance for achieving one's values; (3) show you how to think in ways that our \"reality-orientated.\" Let's examine these one by one.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E(1) If you are an Objectivist who believes that Rand's philosophy can help bring the political society of your dreams (i.e., laissez-faire capitalism), you are mistaken. Objectivism can do no such thing. Rand believed that the politics of a society could be changed by arguing about abstruse points of philosophy. In order to believe that, you have to accept Rand's blank slate view of human nature and her theory that emotions are automated value-premises originally \"programmed\" into the sub-conscious mind, whether by chance or conscious focus. Both these theories are false. The sciences of human nature have refuted the blank slate view many times over; and emotions are not \"automated\" value judgments --- they constitute one of the brain's several cognitive systems, providing information necessary for reasoning\u0026nbsp; and making moral decisions.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EObjectivism has had more than seventy years to change the culture and politics of American society. Even though as many as eight percent of adults in America have read \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E, what has Rand's philosophy achieved over that period? Anything at all? Has freedom increased over the last seventy years? Has the government shrunk and become less corrupt? Has the radical left become less influential over society? Is our culture less or more open to new ideas? Is freedom of speech as secure as ever?\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThe fact is, the course of society is not determined by the wranglings of philosophers, as Rand and Peikoff assumed. If the West is in crisis, it is not because of Immanual Kant. Hardly anyone understands Kant, and there is absolutely no evidence in either psychology or historical sociology that abstract philosophical constructions effect people (particularly elites) in such a way that they can be said to determine the course of history.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EIf philosophy doesn't determine the course of history, what does? That's a very complicated question, well beyond the scope of a single blog post. But we can glean a hint of the process by examining how the \"woke\" left has become so influential in our culture in recent years. The number of people who identify with his peculiar brand of leftism is somewhere between five and eight percent of the population, and yet despite these modest numbers, these radical progressives exercise a disproportionate impact on the culture and even society. How has the radical left accomplished this?\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EOne explanation is that they have conducted a \"march through the institutions\" --- that is, they've taken over many key institutions in the culture, especially the universities and mainstream media. This is of course an exaggeration. The radical left hasn't in fact taken over anything really. But they do exercise a surprising amount of influence. How do they do this? To give a very brief and very rough answer: they know how to make such nuisances of themselves that the people who actually run these institutions (neo-liberal types mainly) give in to them so they can be left in peace. In societies where violence is largely absent (particularly among elites), power tends to pass from the strong to the passionately manipulative. The radical left has achieved power well beyond their numbers because they just want it more and in a thoroughly civilized society (i.e., a society where force has been removed as a factor in the competition for preeminence) power is often attained by those who demonstrate the most passion (i.e., through manipulative large scale temper tantrums). In societies where powerful elites can inflict violence on all challengers we don't find anything like a \"woke\" left. There exists no such radical left in authoritarian societies like China or Russia. The Chinese elite laughs at American \"wokeism\" --- as do the elites in authoritarian societies all over the globe.\u0026nbsp;Removing violence from society is a great achievement, but every silver lining has a cloud.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ENow could Objectivism achieve comparable success to the woke left if Rand's follower's followed the left's example? If they started infiltrating institutions of culture; started making a nuisance of themselves any time they didn't get their way; engaged in vicious attacks against the elites of these institutions; began accruing enough influence that they could use a form of social coercion (i.e., destroying people's reputation) to get what they want: could admirers of Rand behaving in this fashion create an Objectivist form of cultural hegemony? Of course not --- and for very good reason: few if any Objectivists are\u0026nbsp; hardwired in that way. In order to conduct a \"march through the institutions,\" Objectivists would first have to infiltrate these institutions; which would mean pretending to be \"woke\" leftists until enough of them had advanced to key positions of the administration from which they could\u0026nbsp; impose their will on the entire institution. Now realistically this is not something Objectivists could ever pull off. Fans of Ayn Rand who admire the integrity of Howard Roark aren't going to spend years of their lives pretending to be woke leftists so they can take over Universities and Hollywood. That would involve too high a degree of self-mutilation to even consider, let alone carry out.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E(2) The Objectivist Ethics cannot provide a guide to life because morality doesn't work that way. We know this because of psychological studies that demonstrate the extent to which \"intuition\" determines moral decisions and judgments. As Jonathan Haidt has put it, in morality, the intuitions come first, then rationalizations (i.e., moral philosophy) is concocted later to put a rational veneer over what originally has, and must have, a non-rational source. Morality \u003Ci\u003Emust\u003C\/i\u003E arise largely from intuitive sources because it turns out that many moral decisions are too complex to leave to the cerebrations of the conscious mind. They involve harmonizing an ever-shifting, ever-adapting hierarchy of values to the convoluted and unpredictable situations and dilemmas faced in everyday life. Deriving moral decisions from such hierarchies involves more complexity than the conscious mind can handle. (Rand should have understood this as a consequence of \"unit-economy,\" but she never the made the necessary connections.) Morality should be seen, not as a series of rules or values that are applied to simplified constructions of reality (which is how ethical philosophy views morality), but rather as a decision matrix of labyrinthian complexity which the adaptive unconscious uses to provide instantaneous moral intuitions. (There is quite a bit of empirical evidence from experimental psychology supporting something along these lines.) Out of this decision matrix the human mind attempts to figure how best to maximize the individual's hierarchy of values given the restraints placed upon individual by the both the natural and social environments.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThe Objectivist ethics is far too simple a construction to replace this insanely complex intuitive decision matrix used by the adaptive unconscious to help guide the individual through life. Since Rand's ethics is not rich enough in sophistication or scope to provide such guidance, Objectivists who try to follow Objectivism morality have no choice but to draw on their intuition to make decisions whenver they face any great level of complexity. Then they use their conscious minds to harmonize the results of this intuition with Rand's ethical notions.\u0026nbsp; Since there's a large amount of rationalization involved in this exercise, it turns out that trying to follow a consciously directed ethical philosophy like Objectivism is not an altogether honest or self-aware exercise.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E(3) Can Objectivism help you understand reality? Is Rand a great paragon of \"reason\" who can teach you how to think? The answer to both the questions is an equivocal no.\u0026nbsp; Just as our moral decisions and judgments cannot be guided exclusively (or even primarily) by an explicit ethical philosophy, so human cognition cannot be guided exclusively (or even primarily) by an explicit epistemological philosophy. The human brain has evolved several very sophisticated cognitive systems that have been fine tuned by centuries of experience to help human beings navigate the complex social and natural environments of everyday life. While these cognitive systems may be a bit of an evolutionary kludge, since they are actually adapted to the complexity of the real world, for that reason alone they will often produce more useful output than consciously directed thought. Because of the conscious mind's incapacity to grapple with complexity, emotive centered systems of cognition arising from the cognitive unconscious (i.e., \"intuition\") often must be used instead. Not necessarily in all circumstances, of course. But in quite a few. There is nothing in the Objectivist epistemology that will help you with \"intuition.\" If anything, Rand looked down upon intuition as \"emotional\"; and Rand, as is well known, did not consider emotions a \"valid\" form of cognition.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EScience, when done right, provides us with our most reliable knowledge. But science is a rather cumbersome and expensive instrument: it cannot be relied on to solve every riddle of existence. Objectivism claims to be scientific --- but there's also a strain of anti-science running through Rand's epistemology. Rand seems to have believed that the \"Kantian corruption\" had run so deep in Western culture that it had to be affecting science as well as culture. This troublesome notion becomes weaponized in the Objectivist insistence that philosophy enjoys a veto power over science. Now we could imagine scenarios where some body of thought similar to \"philosophy\" --- something like, for example, a rigorous, empirical-based \"philosophy\" of methodology --- might have a veto power over some types of science (or rather claims that \"science\" is applicable to a given field of study, such as economics or history). Some denizens of science believe that science is the only valid means of knowledge and therefore seek to apply to the methods of science to all disciplines, even where such methods clearly don't apply. In that case we have something that can be described as \"scientism.\" However, when Rand's disciples claim that philosophy can dictate to science, they have something far more controversial in mind. They wish to dismiss any of the conclusions of science that do not square with their naive Aristotlean realism. Such dismissals, they contend, are justified on the basis of the Objectivist axioms,\u0026nbsp;two of which happen to be tautologies! If you are going to make a claim that philosophy has a veto power over science, you have to come up with something better than that.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ETo sum up: It's best not to be an Objectivist because (1) Objectivism can't succeed in its politcal goals; (2) Objectivism cannot provide an adequate guide to achieving one's values; (3) Objectivism cannot help you think better.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6239100466406655247\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6239100466406655247","title":"5 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6239100466406655247"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6239100466406655247"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2021\/05\/primary-reasons-for-not-becoming.html","title":"Primary reasons for not becoming an Objectivist"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"5"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5560758803499003036"},"published":{"$t":"2021-05-20T10:55:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2021-05-20T12:06:09.778-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"anarchism"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Ayn Rand Institute"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Michael Malice"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Yaron Brook"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Yaron Brook converses with Anarchist Michael Malice"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Yaron Brook is still seeking conversations with intellectual figures who can draw a larger audience than he can muster on his own. He managed to pull of one of his more successful efforts along these lines on a podcast hosted by Lex Fridman, where Brook engaged in a hour and a half conversation with self-proclaimed anarchist and twitter troll extraordinaire\u0026nbsp;Michael Malice. The YouTube video of the resulting conversation has been seen by over 250,000 persons, and the accompanying podcast has probably been listened to by many more:\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\n\n\n\u003Ciframe allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen=\"\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"315\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/Pl3x4GINtBQ\" title=\"YouTube video player\" width=\"560\"\u003E\u003C\/iframe\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ESince not everyone will be up to watching all four and a half hours of this video, I will provide a general overview. Malice, as can be expected, intersperses more serious comments with bouts of humor and other jests. As a big Rand fan, he more often than not sides with Brook, even at times pushing Brook aside and giving the appropriate Randian response to one of Fridman's inquiries. He shows himself to be very much the Ayn Rand nerd, sharing obscure trivia and stories about Rand and generally taking a very laudatory view of the author of \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E. Only on a handful of occasions did Malice take a more oppositional stance, as, for example, when he jumped on Brook for believing that words have \"real meanings\" (which of course they don't). And of course once the discussion took on the issue of anarchism, then the sparks began to fly. For some, this will be the high point of the discussion. At last some conflict! But I have always found debates over non-mainstream political ideals to be somewhat besides the point. It's sort of like two people arguing over the best way to cook and serve and dodo bird. Undoubtedly culinary enthusiasts might find something of interest in such verbal tussles, but the fact that no such dish will ever be cooked and served renders all such speculations about the best way to prepare it rather otiose. We shall never see either the minarchism endorsed by Brook or the anarchism endorsed b Malice implemented on a significant scale anywhere in the world. Why then should we bother our heads over which of these two systems is \"better\"?\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EMore significant is what this conversation represents — what it indicates about the future of Objectivism. Regardless of what anyone might think of Brook, no matter what criticisms one might throw in his direction (whether for his lack of philosophical expertise in Objectivism, his rather hawkish — in the worst sense of the word — foreign policy, his TDS, and his curious mania for open borders and \"free trade\") nonetheless it must be admitted that under his leadership orthodox Objectivism has become less narrow and parochial, especially when it comes to its interaction with the outside world. For years, orthodox Objectivism regarded libertarians and anarchists as \"worse than communists\" (Peikoff's words). Thirty years ago, David Kelley was given his walking papers for a talk he gave at a Laissez-Faire Books supper club (a talk in which he argued that liberty required an Objectivist foundation). The fact that the old guard (i.e., the first generation of post-Rand objectivists) has mostly either retired or passed from the scene has softened many of the old hatreds (particularly for the Brandens) that throttled ARI in its first few decades. Some of credit for this evolution must be given to Brook, who has actively sought to have conversations with all kinds of people, not just Malice. \n\n\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\n\nWhat does this say about the future of orthodox Objectivism? Well, two lessons can be drawn from it. Brook's eagerness to talk to anyone with an audience is in some respects an outgrowth of his career as a fund raiser. What I mean by this is: if you're asking fans of Rand to donate money to the Ayn Rand Institute, you have to make them feel that they are getting something for their money. What kind of impact is the Ayn Rand Institute exercising on the culture? How many people has ARI, through it's various programs and agitations, converted to the Randian creed? \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E was published nearly sixty-five years ago. Supposedly, eight per cent of the adult population has read Rand's massive paean to John Galt. Rand and her disciples have had more than six decades to spread the \"good news\" promulgated in Rand's novel\u003Ci\u003E.\u003C\/i\u003E What have they achieved during that period of time? If eight percent of adults have read \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E, you can't reasonably assume that eight percent are now full-fledged Objectivists, swearing fealty not merely to Rand, but to Peikoff and Yaron Brook as well. A good share of those who read \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E are probably more like Michael Malice. That is, while they may be \"big fans\" of Rand and her literary works, they are hardly Objectivists in the Peikoffian or even Brookian sense. Like Malice, they may hold to their bosoms all manner of heresies, from anarchy to Trumpism. The lasting impact of Rand may be little more than a vague penchant for \"freedom\" — a penchant that will mean different things to different people. Oliver Stone, for example, is a big fan of Rand's \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E. He has even wanted to make a movie of the novel. Yet from the viewpoint of the typical Objectivist, what good has Stone's admiration of \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E done him or anyone else? He's not even close to being an Objectivist. In his own way, Malice is an example of this mutation of influence as well. While in his conversation with Yaron Brook he would sometimes sound like an orthodox Objectivist, he of course is no such thing — and not merely because of his anarchism. He is on record as promoting Jonathan Haidt's \u003Ci\u003EThe Righteous Mind\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;and James Burnham's \u003Ci\u003EThe Machiavellians\u003C\/i\u003E. Neither of those books (particularly Haidt's) is compatible with Objectivism. If Haidt and Burnham are right, then Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism is largely wrong.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EAnd this leads us to the second lesson to be drawn from the Fridman podcast: pumping for Rand, to the extent that it has any effect on the broader culture, won't necessarily have the effect which Brook and the denizens of ARI are seeking. Rand's novels are perennial classics and will likely be read for many decades to come. Yet how Rand's books affect the people who read them will vary from individual to individual. At the end of the day, a great many people see the world through the prism of their personalities. Indeed, the best measurable predictor of political belief is in fact character, personality, \"soul\" — call it what you will. Since people are not all the same, since we don't all exhibit identical sets of personality traits, diversity of belief is essentially a built-in feature (or bug). It's built in genetically, and it's built-in socially; for where genes leave off, society takes over.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EHuman beings are, by and large (although not exclusively), status seeking creatures. That alone, irrespective of differences in personality, would divide people into various factions, for the simple reason that status seeking is, at best, a zero-sum game and, at worse, a \u003Ci\u003Enegative\u003C\/i\u003E sum game. Societies are governed by ruling elites who compete among themselves for the highest positions, economically and politically, in society. He who climbs highest on the greasy pole \"wins.\" But in this rivalry among elites for top positions, factions are enlisted among the ruled masses to give heft to each of the cliques competing within the elite. What emerges from all this jostling for status is an evolved political \"arrangement\" which does not perfectly correspond to any one person's will or intention.\u0026nbsp; It certainly isn't the product, as Rand supposed, of philosophical premises or ideas. Arguing about politics is in some respect like arguing about the weather. For those of us outside the ruling elite, politics, like the weather, will do whatever it damn pleases, regardless of whatever thoughts, wishes, feelings, or delusions we bring to the table.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EWhat this means for evangelical Objectivism is, at least in terms of politics, it is doomed to perpetual failure. The society of Rand's dreams will never exist. No ruling elite would ever stand for it. In that sense, there is no real justification for ARI. It can never have the impact over the social order that it desires. Giving money to ARI on the presumption that it can succeed in changing the culture and the politics of society by spreading Rand's ideas far and wide is irrational — it's irrational because it's not going to happen. At some point, even the most besotted Rand admirer is likely to notice that ARI is spinning its proselytizing wheels. Hence the imperative that ARI had to become less parochial going forward. In the nineties, the people who ran ARI just wanted to be left alone to do their thing. This is in some respects why the Schwartzes and Binswangers turned on Edith Packard and chucked her out of the institute. Packard and her husband, George Reisman had independent sources of income, and were therefore not reliant on ARI money. Hence they were inclined to invest what little money ARI had at its disposal in developing younger Objectivists. The other board members, who wanted the ARI money for themselves, had other plans.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThe problem with this modus operandi is that it could not possibly work long-term. At some point, donors to ARI would realize that their money was doing little to promote the spread of Rand's ideas — that they were merely providing salaries to the Ayn Rand nerds running the institute. If Yaron Brook, during his years as director of ARI, sought to make the institute relevant in the eyes of the Objectivist faithful, he had to, at the very least, make it appear as if something\u0026nbsp; was being done to change the culture in a Randian direction. And that had to be something more than just sponsoring essay contests for high school students or passing out free copies of \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E and \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ENow it has taken Brooks years to break down the native insularity which dominated ARI when he took over. But his years of painful effort apparently are beginning to pay off. Orthodox Objectivists can now talk with libertarians and anarchists without facing dire repercussions. Hence a new chapter opens for ARI. If you are affiliated with the institute, you are now allowed (and perhaps even encouraged) to talk to all kinds of people.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EIn the long scheme of things, however, this will not radically change anything. This chapter in ARI's history will end as all other chapters have before it: that is to say, without\u0026nbsp; achieving any real success at influencing the future course of the West. But this is something else that is \"built-in\" — both genetically and in the \"structure\" of political reality. There is no way to get around it.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5560758803499003036\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5560758803499003036","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5560758803499003036"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5560758803499003036"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2021\/05\/yaron-brook-converses-with-anarchist.html","title":"Yaron Brook converses with Anarchist Michael Malice"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/Pl3x4GINtBQ\/default.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8853421688598936359"},"published":{"$t":"2021-05-04T08:24:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2021-05-04T08:24:17.081-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"New Book: \"The Faux-Rationality of Ayn Rand\""},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/B093RWX54D?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" data-original-height=\"499\" data-original-width=\"333\" src=\"https:\/\/images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com\/images\/I\/31L0PRIlmmS._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003EI am pleased to announce the publication of my latest book, \u003Ci\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/B093RWX54D?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860\"\u003EThe Faux-Rationality of Ayn Rand\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E, which is available at \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/B093RWX54D?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860\"\u003Eamazon.com\u003C\/a\u003E in \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/B093RWX54D?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860\"\u003Epaperback\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;(and hopefully soon in kindle). Whether this is the best critical book on Ayn Rand and her Objectivism philosophy on the market today I will leave to others to decide. But I'd like to think it's the most readable, succinct, and relevant piece of Randian criticism that we've seen to date. It covers the main points of Rand's Objectivist philosophy (i.e., her views on human nature, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics), showing, in lively, pointed language, what is wrong with her various contentions about these domains of experience. It is hardly an exhaustive critique of the Randian sophistry. It doesn't cover everything — only the most important stuff. More than anything else, I see this book as a one-stop shop for discovering what is fundamentally wrong with Rand's philosophy.\u0026nbsp;\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThe book is only about sixty-thousand words long and is based on posts published here at ARCHN. The fact is this blog is a bit of a mess. Although most of Rand's philosophy is critiqued in a reasonably systematic matter, it's challenging to read the posts on the blog in the order they were originally meant to be read. The format of the blog simply doesn't allow for that, nor is this something that's easily fixable. Another issue is that many of the posts I contributed to ARCHN were written very hastily and they were not always well proof-read. Much of the material could really use a serious and thorough re-write — but that would be an immense job, and given the slippage of interest in Rand's philosophy, I doubt it would be worth the trouble. So instead I have culled the best and most pertinent posts that I have written for the blog, cleaned them up, arranged them in as systematic a way as possible, and then published them via\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/B093RWX54D?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860\"\u003Eamazon.com.\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EWith this new work of criticism of the Randian sophistry now in circulation, I don't really see the need for additional forays against the Objectivist philosophy. While Rand's novels will continue to delight, exasperate, inspire, and mystify readers for decades to come, her philosophy will likely fade with the passage of time, becoming the near exclusive province of a handful of Ayn Rand nerds, but otherwise being of little practical or intellectual use to anyone else. The thing just doesn't seem to have legs for long-term endurance. Most of Rand's purely philosophical writings — that is to say, \"Galt's Speech,\" the title essay of\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003EFor the New Intellectual\u003C\/i\u003E, the essay \"The Objectivist Ethics,\" and\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003EIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;— are sketchy and poorly thought-out. There are too many dubious and untrue assertions in them. And let's face it: Rand, however brilliant she may have been on the literary side of things, was a philosophical illiterate. She believed, for instance, that the problem of universals was epistemological. That's about as embarrassing a philosophical faux pas as one can imagine — but it requires a fair amount of philosophical literacy to appreciate this.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Ci\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/B093RWX54D?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EThe Faux-Rationality of Ayn Rand\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;lays out the major issues in Objectivisim in lively, incisive prose. Making use of the latest evidence from the sciences of human nature, the book thoroughly refutes the Rand's ill-informed views of human nature. It lays bare the poverty of the arguments Rand set forth on behalf of her metaphysical \"axioms.\" It shows how her ethics and politics are not merely badly formulated and thoroughly rationalistic, but irrelevant and beside the point as well. Hopefully, this work can help usher in a new appreciation of what an intellectual disaster Rand's philosophy really is. If you are inspired by\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E, I have nothing to say against that. But if you still find merit in a philosophy that denies that human beings have a genetic-based nature (which is what believing in the blank slate amounts to in the end); that regards emotions as merely automated value judgments and denies their cognitive and moral functions; that regards the philosophy of Immanuel Kant as the cause of most that is wrong in the world; that believes Rand's own poorly conceived metaphysical speculations have epistemological warrant to dictate to science; that believes, in the teeth of mountains of research and evidence, that human beings can be guided, in both morals and everyday life, by a consciously directed \"reason\"; and that insists that words that make up human languages have \"real\" meanings: if you must persist in all such delusions, then there really is no hope for you. You are merely additional evidence od the hypothesis that most human beings are not capable of being rational.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8853421688598936359\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8853421688598936359","title":"7 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8853421688598936359"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8853421688598936359"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2021\/05\/new-book-faux-rationality-of-ayn-rand.html","title":"New Book: \"The Faux-Rationality of Ayn Rand\""}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"7"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-524256629571726141"},"published":{"$t":"2021-03-07T11:28:00.001-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2021-03-07T11:29:23.857-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Peikoff vs. ARI"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Documents \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/docquery.fec.gov\/cgi-bin\/forms\/C00618371\/1497174\/sa\/ALL\/688\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ereveal\u003C\/a\u003E that Leonard Peikoff, the founder of ARI and the heir to Ayn Rand's literary estate, gave $297 to Donald Trump's Make America Great Committee. The date on the document December 14, 2020, but it's likely the donation was given earlier (almost certainly before the election). Peikoff's generous donation allows us to get a better sense of how much influence he still exerts over ARI.\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ESo how much influence does Peikoff still exert over ARI? Probably very little. Consider Yaron Brook's view of Objectivists who \"apologize\"\u0026nbsp; (i.e., support) Trump:\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThose of you who are apologists for Donald Trump, please never use the word \"Objectivist\" to associate it [Objectivism] with yourself. Because you cannot be Objectivists, you are not Objectivists, if you apologize for this guy.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EAnd you are not doing anybody a favor by selling-out, selling-out the fundamental ideas that we believe in. For the sake of what? Popularity, for the sake of defeating the left?\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EYou are sell-outs, you are the fifth-column within Objectivism.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EAnd:\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EBut the Trumpists are a disaster. If they win, and they come to dominate all of the Republican Party and all of its candidates, this country is finished, this country is finished.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EGiven Brooks uncompromisingly extreme stance against Trump, what are we to make of Peikoff's $297 donation to the Trump campaign? Is Peikoff a \"sell-out\" and fifth-columnist within Objectivism? How are we ever going to square this particular circle?\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ESeveral years ago, when Peikoff was still doing a podcast, he came out in favor of closing the borders. Brooks quickly stepped in to put a stop to this. On Peikoff's next podcast, we hear Brooks explaining why closing the borders is a bad thing to do and Peikoff rather sheepishly admitted he had been led astray by conservative talk radio.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EFlash forward to the last year or so. Peikoff is now in permanent retirement. For health reasons, he can no longer make public appearances. What is he doing with his time? When he feels up to it, he's supposedly writing short stories. What does he do when he's not writing stories? Could he be listening to conservative talk radio? Peikoff has been a fan of Rush Limbaugh at least since the nineties. Is it possible that in his retirement Peikoff is listening more to conservative talk radio hosts (and not just Rush, who recently passed away) than he is to Yaron Brook and other ARI figures? Or has he simply become a fan of Trump on his own unbiased judgment, irrespective of influences? Whatever the case, his $297 donation to the Trump campaign strongly suggests that he does not agree with the folks who have taken over the institute he founded way back in the eighties. It also strongly suggests that Peikoff's influence over ARI has come to an end. I don't know whether Brooks knows (or if knows, whether he cares) that Peikoff has a soft spot for Trump. Whatever the case, it clearly doesn't matter. Peikoff is no longer relevant\u0026nbsp; in the world of Objectivism.\u0026nbsp; It's Yaron Brooks and his people who control the institute and who are the big players in that space. They decide what Ayn Rand would have thought if she were still alive.\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/524256629571726141\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=524256629571726141","title":"8 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/524256629571726141"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/524256629571726141"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2021\/03\/peikoff-vs-ari.html","title":"Peikoff vs. ARI"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"8"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5640096442733597351"},"published":{"$t":"2021-01-15T12:08:00.005-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2021-01-15T12:08:38.727-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Anne Heller"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Atlas Society"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"David Kelley"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Jennifer Grossman"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":""},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cp\u003EAnne Heller, as long ago as 2009, published her biography of Ayn Rand. I have finally gotten around to reading it and will at some point make a post or two commenting upon it. In this post I want to turn to another issue --- namely, one of the two organizations tasked with the propagation of Rand's ideas, The Atlas Society. I had not realized the extent to which Heller had used TAS in research for her book. It is notorious that ARI refused Heller access to their archives until long after her book was finished. But it appears Heller didn't need ARI because she had TAS and David Kelley, who explained Rand's philosophy to Heller. It wouldn't be that much of an exaggeration to call \u003Ci\u003EAyn Rand and the World She Made\u003C\/i\u003E the official Rand biography of the Atlas Society --- although technically that's not true. \n\n\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\n\nNow in recent years, as interest in Objectivism has seemed to wane, one would think that the Atlas Society would at some point disappear. Is there really a need for two organizations devoted to the advancement of Rand's ideas? Yet the years go by and TAS stubbornly remains among us.\u0026nbsp; David Kelley, the founder of the Atlas Society, retired in 2016. In his place as CEO of TAS is the redoubtable Jennifer Grossman, formerly a speechwriter for the elder Bush, Director of Education at the Cato Institute, Senior Vice President at the Dole Food Company, and Health Editor at Laura Ingraham's website, LifeZette. That's quite a resume. Notice that it has virtually nothing to do with Rand. Grossman is not a philosopher or a professor or Rand expert. Her experience is primarily as an executive. Curiously enough, she worked closely with the late philanthropist Theodore J. Forstmann to launch something called the Children's Scholarship Fund. Try to image Rand involved in such a venture and you have imagined something that's grossly implausible.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIn her videos, Grossman comes of as likeable and non-threatening. She certainly cuts a more attractive figure than Yaron Brook. But it is difficult to understand what exactly the broader appeal of this more reasonable (if not altogether convincing) version of Rand's thought is supposed to be. By portraying Rand's thought as primarily advocating rationality in the pursuit of objective knowledge and selfishness in the pursuit of benevolence, what have the denizens of TAS in fact achieved? Is this really a philosophy of life, or is just a series of platitudinous cliches laced with Randian memes?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIn a broader sense, what we are witnessing is the institutionalization of Objectivism. Organizations dedicated to the spread of Rand's ideas are no longer run by philosophers, professors, and\/or Rand nerds. They are now run by professionals. But for what purpose? The professionals are there to increase funding, which means: find and secure donors. But isn't there a danger, when the very life blood of these organizations rests on bringing as much money in as possbile, that a few wealthy donors could effectively take over the Objectivist movement and fashion it to their inclinations? And isn't it rather odd that less than forty years after Rand's passing, those charged with the advocacy of her philosophy are neither philosophers nor experts in her thought?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/p\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5640096442733597351\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5640096442733597351","title":"8 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5640096442733597351"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5640096442733597351"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2021\/01\/anne-heller-as-long-ago-as-2009.html","title":""}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"8"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-565589110522245790"},"published":{"$t":"2020-12-26T12:56:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2020-12-26T12:56:31.963-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Molyneux and the Objectivist Tradition 6"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cb\u003EUPB: Criterion for ethics\u003C\/b\u003E. Universally preferable behavior, which is the core concept of Molyneux’s ethical speculations, is not an easy theory to wrap one's head around. It is not always clear what Molyneux means by it. Consider the ambiguity which clings to the terms of the following passage:\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nWe all have preferences – from the merely personal (“I like ice cream”) to the socially preferable (“It is good to be on time”) to universal morality (“Thou shalt not murder”).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThere is little point writing a book about personal preferences – and we can turn to Ann Landers for a discussion of socially preferable behaviour – here, then, we will focus on the possibility of Universally Preferable Behaviour. (50)\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nNote how Molyneux goes from “personal” preferences to “social” preferences to “universal morality.” Interpreted in one sense, Molyneux seems to be suggesting a relation between personal and social preferences on one side and “universal morality” (presumably Universally Preferable Behavior) on the other. But this transition is not well explained. It’s as if Molyneux wants us to think of universal morality as a preference, but not a preference in the same way as a sweet tooth for chocolate can be a preference. What precisely is the difference? How does one transition from “I prefer chocolate” to “thou shalt not murder”? How are those two statements both preferences?\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nElsewhere Molyneux insists that\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003Euniversally preferable\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E“translates” into\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003Eobjectively required\u003C\/i\u003E. “When I speak of a universal preference, I am really defining what is objectively required, or necessary, assuming a particular goal,” explains Molyneux. (30) As I have previously noted, there exists a fair amount of conceptual difference between what is universally preferred and what is objectively required. If we follow the common meanings of these two verbal constructions, they can’t possibly mean the same thing.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nFurther equivocations (or at least confusions as to meaning) confront us at other junctures of Molyneux’s theory. For instance, at one point Molyneux equates UPB with moral rules:\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nSimply put, morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify universally preferable human behaviours, just as physics is a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify the universal behaviour of matter. (40)\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nVery well. But then Molyneux introduces yet another distinction which the logically fastidious reader might find baffling:\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nUPB can thus be seen as a framework for validating ethical theories or propositions – just as the scientific method is a framework that is used to validate scientific theories or propositions.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nAn example of a moral proposition is: “the initiation of the use of force is wrong.” UPB is the methodology that tests that proposition against both internal consistency and empirical observation. UPB thus first asks: is the proposition logical and consistent? UPB then asks: what evidence exists for the truth of the proposition? (46-47)\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nSo Molyneux equates Universally Preferable Behavior with both moral rules and the methodology (i.e., “framework”) to “test ethical theories or propositions.” Does this make any sense? Can a moral rule also be a framework for testing theories and statements about ethics?\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nWhen I describe Molyneux as a faux-rationalist, I’m not engaged in name-calling or ad hominem. I’m merely describing what I find in the pages of Molyneux’s\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003EUniversally Preferable Behavior\u003C\/i\u003E. Like Rand, Molyneux very much wishes to be “logical,” rational, and reality-orientated; but also like Rand, he sometimes falls considerably short of this goal. His book is teaming with non sequiturs, equivocations, empirically dubious (and unsubstantiated) assertions, rationalistic tropes (i.e., “self-defeating arguments) and other trappings of faux-rationality. The problem is not so much that Molyneux is irrational or he’s engaging in deceptive\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan face=\"\u0026quot;calibri\u0026quot; , sans-serif\"\u003Epractices; rather, I suspect he just doesn’t know how to be rational. He learned too much of his philosophy from a bad source (i.e., Ayn Rand).\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nMolyneux’s estrangement from the rational and the real is no where more transparent than when he discusses UPB as a framework to “test” moral theories and propositions. Molyneux bases his UPB framework on the scientific method:\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nThus any valid scientific theory must be (a) universal, (b) logical, (c) empirically verifiable, (d) reproducible and (e) as simple as possible.\u003Cspan\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nThe methodology for judging and proving a moral theory is exactly the same as the methodology for judging and proving any other theory. (39)\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nIn other words, Molyneux is suggesting that a “valid” moral theory (or proposition) must be (a) universal, (b) logical, (c) empirically verifiable and (e) as simple as possible.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nWhat does all this mean in practical terms? Namely this: that Molyneux has endorsed a criterion for judging morality that has nothing to do with morality. His insistence that a moral theory should be judged on the exact same basis as scientific theories about matters of fact is one immense non sequitur. The demand for logical consistency is, as I have already pointed out, irrelevant, since consistency of meaning does not guarantee truth. The desire for empirical verifiability is even more puzzling. Empirical verification involves determining whether some claim about matters of fact is true. That is a very different process from evaluating a moral rule (i.e., what is good or evil).\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nMolyneux would have us believe that such \u0026nbsp;“universal prohibitions” “ as rape, theft, assault and murder” constitute empirical verifications. (47) It is not clear what he means by this. Is he making a descriptive or a normative claim? In other words, is he merely contending that, as a matter of fact, there exists a “universal prohibition” against rape, theft, assault and murder—that everyone in the world does in fact adhere, or at least gives lip service, to prohibitions against these activities? Or is he contending that these prohibitions\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003Eought\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003Eto exist whether they do or not? I honestly don’t know which of these senses Molyneux means, and I doubt Molyneux knows either. In any case, it is not clear how moral rules, or\u0026nbsp; anything normative in content, can be “empirically verified” without committing some form or other of G.E. Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nMolyneux has been led astray by the desire to create a criterion for judging moral assertions that is “rational,” objective (i.e., true for every one), and universal (i.e., applicable to everyone). He seems to believe that if he can show that a moral theory or proposition is “logically consistent” and “empirically verifiable,” that somehow this will magically render the theory or proposition in question “valid” (which presumably means “true for everyone”). Morality just doesn’t work that way.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003E\nScience uses data drawn from the empirical world—documentation of facts—to create the content which is analyzed and tested via the scientific method. If we are to make analogies between science and ethics, why not draw them all the way out? What are the data points of ethics—for determining moral ends? Are they found solely in “logical consistency”? Are they found in material facts? As a matter of fact, they are not found in either of those places. How could they be? What does pure logic or material facts have to do with the profoundest aspirations of the human soul? Shouldn’t the data point of ethics—the data points in reference by which we determine what each human individual should be aiming at—relate in some manner or form to the actual interests or aspirations of human beings? How can a framework for judging moral rules that ignores these interests and aspirations be considered ethical in any significant sense of the word? The criterions which Molyneux sets up for judging moral theories have nothing to do with the actual needs, interests and aspirations of human beings. Molyneux’s standards for judging moral rules are adventitious, arbitrary, unrealistic, and unpersuasive.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: times;\"\u003EWhen morality is divorced from the constitutional needs and aspirations of individual human beings, it loses all its persuasive force. Ethical behavior, like all behavior, requires a motive. You have to appeal to something real in the human breast, not to something which has little if anything with the needs, desires, and feelings of the individual, such as logical rationalizations and meretricious appeals to \"facts.\" When David Hume contended that \"reason\" must be slave of passion, this is what he meant. If you want to elicit certain types of behavior from individuals, you have to appeal to their actual preferences, not to the preferences you believe they \"ought\" to have. Strictly speaking, people don't choose their preferences, any more than they choose their constitutional needs or their basic character or nature. The basic unit of morality is the individual, and because human nature is not homogeneous (people are different!), a secular (i.e., non-theistic) universal morality based on the natural needs of the individual becomes a hopeless endeavor.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/565589110522245790\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=565589110522245790","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/565589110522245790"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/565589110522245790"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2020\/06\/molyneux-and-objectivist-tradition-6.html","title":"Molyneux and the Objectivist Tradition 6"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2030563037187096502"},"published":{"$t":"2020-12-13T11:03:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2020-12-13T11:03:15.911-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Molyneux and the Objectivist Tradition 5"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EUPB: The necessary premises of debating, pt. 2\u003C\/b\u003E. Molyneux argues in his book \u003Ci\u003EUniversally Preferable Behavior\u003C\/i\u003E that denying his theory of morality is “innately self-contradictory,” because “saying that there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior is like shouting in someone’s ear that sound does not exist.” Is Molyneux right about this? Is UPB, which Molyneux identifies more broadly with “moral rules,” valid because it is self-contradictory to deny them? Let’s take a closer look at Molyneux’s arguments: \u0026nbsp;\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EProblem No. 3: Biting off more than can be chewed\u003C\/b\u003E. At the core of Molyneux’s argument is what could be regarded as a clever debating tactic. Molyneux contends that any attempt to argue with another individual implies the desire to “correct” one’s antagonist, and the desire to correct further implies the acceptance of objective truth as a universal value:\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIf you correct me on an error that I have made, you are implicitly accepting the fact that it would be better for me to correct my error. Your preference for me to correct my error is not subjective, but objective, and universal.\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 11pt;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nYou don’t say to me: “You should change your opinion to mine because I would prefer it,” but rather: “You should correct your opinion because it is objectively incorrect.” My error does not arise from merely disagreeing with you, but as a result of my deviance from an objective standard of truth. Your argument that I should correct my false opinion rests on the objective value of truth – i.e. that truth is universally preferable to error, and that truth is universally objective.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nIn debates Molyneux uses this argument to trap his opponent. The contention is that if I argue against Molyneux and his theory of UPB, I must be trying to correct him. And if I’m trying to correct Molyneux, I must also accept truth as a universal value. For why else would I be so determined to criticize Molyneux’s theory if I did not wish to establish a truth for everyone?\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nWhen confronted by these assertions, the typical critic of Molyneux is confounded. In debates, few wish to admit that they don’t regard the truth as a universal value. Yet if we take the trouble to examine debates occurring in the real world of fact (rather than in Molyneux’s speculative imagination), do we actually find evidence of truth being pursued as a universal value? I’m inclined to doubt it. For if debates were in fact solely or even primarily concerned with establishing truth, how come so few debaters ever change their minds when the verbal wrangling has at last come to an end? On any issue where we find strong, committed beliefs, debating usually proves pointless. As Nietzsche noted in his critique of Socrates, “dialectic” (i.e., discourse or debate using logic and “reason”) is rarely persuasive. Individuals make use of it only when everything else has failed.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nEven if Molyneux were right and my criticism of UPB is tantamount to a desire to correct his various philosophical errors, it would be a non sequitur to infer that I must therefore regard truth as a universal value. The desire, for instance, to correct Molyneux in no way commits me to the necessity of correcting anyone else. I may seek to correct Molyneux because I believe he is a smart and talented fellow and am grieved to find him sunk in the deepest dregs of faux-rationality. Individuals, however, who lack Molyneux’s gifts, who are incorrigibly stupid and talentless, I may have no desire to correct. Nor may I wish to correct those in the grips of harmless delusions, like children who believe in Santa Claus or adults who insist the earth is flat. Truth may be a value under certain circumstances, but under others, not so much.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nTruths which bear heavily on survival and prosperity will of course have value to those who wish to succeed in the adventure of life. But what of those truths that have little if any relevance to practical outcomes? Are those truths valuable to human flourishing? If not, how then can\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003Eall\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003Etruth, regardless of its impact on human goals, be considered universally valuable, when as a matter of fact only some truth is found to be so? If it were discovered that some truths are so dark and dismal that to accept them would lead to widespread despondency and nihilistic hedonism, wouldn’t refuge in comforting fancies and lies, assuming they didn’t bear on issues of survival and prosperity, be preferable for the vast majority of humanity (the stalwart and hyper-resilent alone excluded)? Perhaps the biggest issue with truth isn’t that it can be horrible, but rather its sheer tediousness. Imagine if we could transcribe into an immense volume every aspect of truth about the real world: who could ever tolerate reading more than a few lines of it? Most truth is intolerably dull and thoroughly irrelevant. Hence the need to condense, to reduce to human scale, the immense edifice of the potential knowable. Even then, we still feel the need to embellish the truth in order to render it more pleasing to our aesthetic sensibilities. Often a spoonful of narrative is required to enable the medicine of truth to go down; and it is in story and drama that the wisdom of life is most splendidly revealed. \u0026nbsp;\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nIf Molyneux, unconvinced by these objections, nonetheless persists in contending that the attempt to refute UPB must, in some vague sense or another, involve the acceptance of UPB, I can only reply: why does that matter in the least? The fact that I or Stefan Molyneux or anyone else believes in Universally Preferable Behavior does not in any way validate or render true the theory in question. Belief can always be erroneous, even belief presumably required for a given activity, such as debating.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nTwo can play the game of drawing out the necessary premises of debating. If I am in fact engaged in the attempt to correct Stefan Molyneux, must I not also be operating under the belief that Stefan is correctable? Wouldn’t it be irrational of me—not to mention deeply impractical—to attempt to correct any individual who in point of fact is not correctible? But in assuming—as a necessary premise of engaging in debate—that my antagonist is correctible, does that assumption automatically become “valid” and hence true?\u0026nbsp; Must my antagonist be correctible, if I assume him to be so? Is it not possible that my assumption is incorrect? Are we to assume that all assumptions presumed in debating, if they touch upon moral theories espoused by Molyneux, automatically become, as if by magic, valid and true?\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nThe fact that I must make certain assumptions in order to engage in a particular activity does not in any way “validate” the assumptions in question. If I sought to become a professional artist, must I not believe I can succeed in the endeavor? Why else would I embark on such a risky course? Yet it would be a strange way of reasoning to insist that the assumptions presumably necessary in order to undertake a specific course of action cannot turn out to be at least partially false. Many a human venture ends in failure. If I must believe I can succeed in my ambition to be an artist, that belief is hardly guarantees that I will in fact succeed. More likely than not, like thousands before me, my desire to become a successful artist will be frustrated by social necessities well beyond my immediate control. Assumptions adopted in behavior do not constitute reliable guides to validation or truth.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nMolyneux, in his eagerness to “validate” UPB, offers additional arguments . He contends that “it is impossible that anyone can logically argue against universally preferable behavior, since if he is alive to argue, he must have followed universally preferred behaviors such as breathing, eating and drinking.” (41) This is, however, a fallacious argument. Molyneux is confusing the requisites of living with the premises of an argument. Now obviously if you’re going to define breathing, eating, and drinking as universally preferable behaviors, then it’s not going to be especially difficult to establish UPB as something empirically real. But then why not simply point to the evidence of individuals breathing, eating and drinking and be done with it? Why bother with all this sophistical rationalistic speculation, when Molyneux could much more easily point to obvious facts in the empirical world?\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nThe reason why Molyneux avoids the easier and more convincing empirical verification of UPB is because UPB is not an empirical theory. Molyneux is not trying to prove how all human beings “universally” prefer to behave. On the contrary, he wishes to demonstrate what people ought to prefer, not what they do in fact prefer:\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003EThus when I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what they always do prefer. (33)\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nLet us ignore the obvious problems with insisting on what people should prefer—as if preferences were a matter of choice! Molyneux, as we will recall, translates \"universally preferable\" into \"objectively required.\" This leads to what might be the most serious problem of Molyneux's theory. If a specified behavior, as Molyneux at least implies, should be \"objectively required,\"\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 11pt;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;there must exist some kind of standard to determine why this should be so. No activity is required in and of itself, but only in relation to some goal or moral end. The phrase “objectively required behavior” only makes sense in relation to a specific purpose. So what is the purpose of Molyneux’s “objectively required behavior”? What are the moral ends that undergird and give force and direction to Molyneux’s theory of UPB? Molyneux isn’t very clear about this. He only writes of moral ends in passing, usually in reference to some other point, as we see in the following passage:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIf you want to live [Molyneux contends], it is universally preferable that you refrain from eating a handful of arsenic. If you wish to determine valid truths about reality, it is universally preferable that your theories be both internally consistent and empirically verifiable. (32)\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nNote how he frames these moral ends: “\u003Ci\u003EIf\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003Eyou want to live,” he writes, or “\u003Ci\u003EIf\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003Eyou wish to determine valid truths about reality” (emphasis added). Molyneux has no interest in discussing the ethical side of these questions. Should we want to live? If so, why? Should we wish to know the truth? If so, why? Molyneux is seemingly indifferent to these questions relating directly to moral ends. Yet is precisely these issues of moral ends that constitutes the core subject of ethics. Molyneux’s theory about Universally Preferred Behavior is not essentially about ethics at all. It’s rather about how to argue about ethics, which is something different.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2030563037187096502\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2030563037187096502","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2030563037187096502"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2030563037187096502"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2020\/06\/molyneux-and-objectivist-tradition-5.html","title":"Molyneux and the Objectivist Tradition 5"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1929818806286265334"},"published":{"$t":"2020-11-03T06:50:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2020-11-03T06:50:05.240-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Molyneux and the Objectivist Tradition 4"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EUPB 4: The necessary premises of debating 1\u003C\/b\u003E. Molyneux’s sophistry reaches its apex when he commences on the thankless task of “validating” his theory.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n“Universally preferable behavior” must be a valid concept,” [insists Molyneux, because] “if I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behavior is valid, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood – as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely. Saying that there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior is like shouting in someone’s ear that sound does not exist – it is innately self-contradictory. In other words, if there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior, then one should oppose anyone who claims that there is such a thing as universally preferable behavior. However, if one “should” do something, then one has just created universally preferable behavior. Thus universally preferable behavior – or moral rules – must be valid. (35-36)\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nThis is such a mass of confusion and unsubstantiated assertion that it will take a bit of effort to sort all out. I can identify at least three serious problems with Molyneux’s formulations:\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EProblem No. 1: the fallacy of the valid concept\u003C\/b\u003E. Molyneux seeks to establish the “validity” of the concept of Universally Preferable Behavior. This mania for “validity” is something Molyneux inherits from Ayn Rand. It’s part of foundationalist mindset discussed in a previous post [link]. But it goes well beyond that. It’s central to Rand’s entire faux-rationalist methodology. Instead looking to the empirical world to discover truths about matters of fact, she tries to “validate” the ideas in her head. Molyneux is merely the foremost exponent of this method on the contemporary scene.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nTechnically speaking, validity does not and cannot apply to concepts. Concepts are items of description, scraps of meaning, datum of representation. They are neither valid nor invalid, true or false, good or bad. In and of themselves, they do not constitute knowledge, but, like the daubs of paint on the artist’s palette, only rise to cognitive significance when used to create a mental representation of some aspect of reality. Even then the truth of this representation is determined, not by any essential veracity or validity in the concepts themselves, nor by their intrinsic logic, but to the degree to which they aptly describe the object in reality they are supposed to represent. If the artist uses the color blue to paint the hair of a blonde girl, he is guilty, not of using an “invalid” or “untrue” paint, but of using the wrong color to portray the girl’s tresses.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nRand’s demand that concepts need to be “validated” before they can be used to describe matters of fact is as fatuous as claiming that an artist needs to “validate” his paints before embarking on a portrait of an enchanting female. Questions of truth only arise when we use our concepts (or the artist uses his paints) in assertions (or paintings) representing matters of fact. The conscious awareness of an idea is not knowledge, it is dream or reverie. Knowledge only begins when the idea in your mind is assumed to be a symbol representing matters of fact existing beyond the ken of your conscious awareness. Intelligence then takes this symbol and uses it in propositions—theories if you will—describing matters of fact. The truth of such propositions is determined, not by the intrinsic “validity” of the concepts in which it is stated, but by the degree to which the proposition accords to empirical (i..e, factual) reality; and that is determined, not by logical analysis, but through empirical investigation.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nNow the reason why Rand and Molyneux place so much emphasis on “validity,” rather than empirical truth, is because they espouse theories that resist empirical verification. If a theory I wish to advance about matters of fact can easily be supported by the relevant evidence, I’m not going to waste time providing overly-speculative arguments on behalf of the “validity” of the concepts through which my theory is expressed; no, I will simply point at the relevant evidence and let the facts speak for themselves (and facts are often more persuasive than arguments). This mania for “validation” which we find in both Rand and Molyneux forms a central part of their faux-rationality. In practical terms, the obsession with “validity” leads to rationalistic speculation, which is to say, truth-claims, whether empirical, moral or otherwise, are tested on the basis of various pseudo-logical constructions, combined with misleading or eccentric interpretations of relevant, and sometimes not so relevant, facts. Since no truths about the empirical world can in fact be tested in this manner, those guilty of resorting to such tactics can hardly be described as “objective,” “rational,” or “realistic.” They are, more accurately, sophists—although they may not be consciously aware of the extent to which they have succumbed to this bad mode of cerebration.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nMolyneux’s UPB cannot be empirically verified because it’s not fundamentally a theory about matters of fact. It’s a theory principally concerned with judging the “validity” of moral rules, i.e., how human beings ought to behave, which is hardly the same thing as determining truth-claims about the empirical world. Nevertheless, in defiance of obvious differences, Molyneux can’t stop insisting on the analogy between factual truth and ethical propriety (i.e., between\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003Eis\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003Estatements and\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003Eought\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003Estatements). “The methodology for judging and proving a moral theory is exactly the same as the methodology for judging and proving any other theory,” Molyneux insists. \u003Ci\u003EExactly\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;the same? How can this be? Since\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003Eought\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003Estatements are very different from\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003Eis\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/i\u003Estatements, how can Molyneux assume that the methodology applicable to determining matters of fact is “exactly” the same as the methodology to determine how people ought to behave? There is nothing in the nature of the universe that guarantees that a methodology useful in one domain of experience must be applicable to all domains. This isn’t’ even true when it comes to determining matters of fact. Not all of our knowledge is discovered exclusively via the scientific method. In everyday life, people tend to rely far more on experience and intuition than on science and “rationality.” Claiming that all knowledge must ape the methodology of physical science is a manifestation of what some have called “scientism”—an ugly word for an ugly thing.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EProblem No. 2: Self-defeating arguments\u003C\/b\u003E. The faux-rationalist is at his best when he can advance methodological tropes which, to most sensible people, have the appearance of rationality, but which on further inspection are shown to be sophistical. What Molyneux calls “self-defeating arguments” have the aura of rationality without the substance.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nMolyneux defines self-defeating arguments as follows:\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIn general, any theory that contradicts itself in the utterance cannot be valid. It does not require external disproof, since it disproves itself. We do not need to examine every nook and cranny in the universe to determine that a “square circle” does not exist. The very concept is self-contradictory, and thus disproves itself in the utterance. (31)\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nIn this passage, Molyneux conflates logical validity with empirical verification. Once more I have to remind everyone:\u003Ci\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003Elogical validity applies to arguments, not to the factual world\u003C\/i\u003E. Thus logical validity cannot be regarded as a fail-safe guarantee of factual truth. If a theory is stated as an argument and that argument proves invalid, the conclusion of the theory could still turn out to be factually true. A couple of examples will make this more obvious.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nMolyneux contends that the phrase “I don’t exist” is self-defeating because the individual asserting it must obviously exist. How else could the statement be made if there existed no individual to make it? But this is not the way either arguments or logical validity work. Consider the following argument.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nHuman beings don’t exist.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI am a human being.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTherefore, I don’t exist.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nThis is a perfectly valid argument. That the conclusion is factually untrue has no bearing on the argument’s logical validity. Nor is the fact that I must exist in order to make the argument of any logical relevance either. Arguments consist of premises leading to a conclusion. Since my actual existence is not a premise in the argument, it cannot be included in any examination of the argument’s validity. Logic applies to arguments, to syllogisms, to dialectic, not to extraneous considerations such as the individual’s existential status or the physical requisites of making arguments.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nConsider the following astonishing assertion from\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003EUniversally Preferable Behavior:\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nGiven that every human action – including making philosophical statements – is chosen in preference to every other possible action, arguing that preferences do not exist requires a preference for arguing that preferences do not exist, which is a self-contradictory statement. (33)\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nThis is an argument ad hominem. The motivational requisites for arguing are irrelevant to the logical validity of any specific argument. This can be illustrated in the following syllogism:\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nInnate psychological proclivities do not exist.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPreferences are an innate psychological proclivity.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPreference don’t exist.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nThe conclusion of this argument is empirically false, but the argument itself is perfectly valid. To establish that preferences exist, one needs to examine the relevant evidence in the empirical world. Attempting to establish facts on the basis of sophistical faux-logical constructions is nothing to the purpose.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nThe self-defeating argument trope (SDAT) is one of the many sophistical stock-in-trade tricks of speculative rationalism. It is the attempt to determine matters of fact through logical and pseudo-logical constructions. Molyneux trots out several obviously false statements, such as “I don’t exist,” “Language has no meaning,” or “Preferences don’t exist” which he then he claims are “invalid” (by which he presumably means empirically false) because they are “self-defeating.” In short, he uses obvious falsehoods to give his self-defeating argument trope in aura of rational justification. If it you can use it to refute statements like “I don’t exist” or “Language doesn’t have any meaning,” think how else it could be applied!\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nYet this is not the worst of the self-defeating argument trope. When used to “refute” more complicated philosophical contentions, such as determinism, eliminative materialism, and atheism, SDAT refutations nearly always commit additional fallacies, such as assuming the point at issue or using the ambiguity of words to create what is essentially a strawman argument. We can find examples of the straw-manning even in the very simple statements Molyneux uses as examples of SDAT’s. When Molyneux claims that the assertion “I don’t exist” is self-defeating, he is assuming that this denial of self-existence should be taken literally. But since it is fairly obvious from common experience that people don’t always say what they mean—that they often, in order make a point, engage in hyperbole and poetic license—how can he be so sure that the statement is meant literally? Why, after all, would anyone claim not to exist? \u0026nbsp;If we wish to criticize an individual’s statement, shouldn’t we first try to figure out what this person is actually trying to say?\u0026nbsp; Or are we merely refuting words, regardless of what might have been meant by the person using them?\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nAs any dictionary will abundantly demonstrate, words have multiple meanings, and complete sentences, which contain at least several words, may have many more. When someone asserts, “I don’t exist,” it is important to figure out what is being meant by so strange an assertion. The term\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003EI\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003Ecan be taken in several senses. It might refer to the actual person—body and soul—of a specific human individual; in which case, the declaration “I don’t exist” is manifestly untrue. But it could also mean the individual’s\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003Econception\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003Eof himself. Since self-knowledge is often partial and woefully inadequate, it would hardly constitute much of an exaggeration for the individual to claim that his conception of himself, being largely false and meretricious, doesn’t actually exist. This word\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci\u003Eexist\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003Emay also be taken in multiple senses. Some people regard life as a kind of dream in which everything experienced, including the self, is illusory. While such a view is deeply eccentric and clearly false, it is hardly the thin, self-refutable thing of Molyneux’s imagination.\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-converted-space\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nNow if even a doctrine as absurd as the denial of self-existence can, if interpreted more generously, escape self-refutation, what are we to say of the less absurd doctrines which Molyneux attempts to refute using the notorious SDAT? At one point in\u003Ci\u003E Universally Preferable Behavior\u003C\/i\u003E, we find Molyneux making the following observation: \u0026nbsp;\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nSaying that there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior is like shouting in someone’s ear that sound does not exist; it is innately self-contradictory. (40)\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\nCan this possibly be true? Is it even plausible?\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1929818806286265334\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1929818806286265334","title":"4 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1929818806286265334"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1929818806286265334"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2020\/06\/molyneux-and-objectivist-tradition-4.html","title":"Molyneux and the Objectivist Tradition 4"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"4"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7472506214360918875"},"published":{"$t":"2020-07-08T13:51:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2020-07-08T13:51:12.510-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Ethics\/Morality"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Stefan Molyneux"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Molyneux and the Objectivist Tradition 3"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EUPB 3: Preferences and morality\u003C\/b\u003E. In his book Universal Preferable Behavior, Molyneux begins his disquisition on ethics by comparing assertions about preferences with assertions about matters of fact. Statements of fact, notes Molyneux are “objective, testable—and binding,” whereas statements of preference are “not generally considering binding … in any way.” Preferences are mere statements “of personal fondness.” It is not incumbent upon anyone to share our preferences. (22)\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nWhat on earth does Molyneux mean by saying that statements of fact are “binding”? It might be presumed he is making the point that facts are stubborn things and that if you insist on evading reality you will get hurt\u0026nbsp; But that is not really what Molyneux has in mind. He is using “binding” in a surreptitiously moral sense. If you value truth, he argues, you are “bound” to accept it. Bound in what way? This is not altogether clear. Molyneux merely insists, somewhat oddly, that if you do not value truth, “you would never be in this debate – or any other debate – in the first place!”\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nIf we value truth, mustn’t we accept the truth when it confronts us? That sounds reasonable, but in the real world it’s not so simple. Values exist in a hierarchy, and it is eminently possible for the individual to hold several values that are not in every respect commensurate. I may value truth, but I may value peace of mind more; and so there may exist certain hard truths about life and the human condition, such as the inevitability of death and the ultimate hopelessness of all earthly endeavors, that I prefer to push aside to avoid complete demoralization. My “non-acceptance” of these truths is in no sense binding and, from a practical point of view, might even be laudatory.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nMolyneux is on even weaker ground when he insists that those who don’t value the truth would never involve themselves in debate. Given the fact that the participants in most debates rarely change their minds, one wonders how Molyneux can be so confident that debating is everywhere and always about discovering truth. Later on, we will find him returning to this empirically counter-intuitive assertion. It will prove a fulcrum upon which his whole moral system depends.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nWhat Molyneux is really aiming at with his assertions about facts being “binding” is that he wishes to draw, by a kind of analogy, the same feature out of preferences. In other words, Molyneux’s theory seeks to discover and “validate” morally binding preferences—preferences that the individual, assuming he wishes to be moral, is obligated to follow. It is not clear how, at least on secular premises, this is possible without violating Hume’s stricture against reasoning from premises concerning matters of fact to conclusions concerning moral ideals.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nDavid Hume, in his \u003Ci\u003ETreatise of Human Nature\u003C\/i\u003E, wrote:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIn every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nIs Molyneux guilty of this “imperceptible change” between factual and moral reasoning? Yes, he is. Nor is it all that hard to catch him in the act.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nAfter some exhausting preliminaries, Molyneux launches into the main part of his argument with a short dissertation on preferences:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPreferences are central to any methodology claiming to define the truth-value of propositions. The scientific method, for instance, is largely defined by innate preferences for logical consistency and empirical verification. For science, the premise is: if you want to determine a valid truth about the behavior of matter and energy, it is preferable to use the scientific method.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nThis is a rather odd way to write about preference. Is the scientific method in point of fact based merely on a “preference” for logic and verification? Molyneux, sensing a problem with his formulation, immediately adds the following baffling proviso:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIn this sense, “preferable” does not mean “sort of better,” but rather “required.” If you want to live, it is universally preferable that you refrain from eating a handful of arsenic. If you wish to determine valid truths about reality, it is universally preferable that your theories be both internally consistent and empirically verifiable. “Universally preferable,” then, translates to “objectively required,” but we will retain the word “preferable” to differentiate between optional human absolutes and non-optional physical absolutes such as gravity. (32)\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nIf “universally preferable “translates” to “objectively required,” why isn’t Molyneux’s theory “Objectively Required Behavior”? Wouldn’t that be a more accurate designation? Molyneux is forced to play these word games because he is attempting the impossible. In defiance of both logic (i.e., Hume’s is-ought gap) and empirical investigation (i.e., psychological experiments—see Haidt, \u003Ci\u003EThe Righteous Mind\u003C\/i\u003E), he is insisting that a purely rational basis can be found for a universal secular ethics.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nThose attempting the impossible in philosophy have no choice but to resort to sophistry, and one sure sign of sophistical proceedings is playing fast and loose with the meanings of words. What possible justification, in either logic or experience, can Molyneux possibly put forth for so casually redefining “universally preferable” as “objectively required”? The term \u003Ci\u003Epreferable\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;applies to ends. A preference describes a goal to be aimed at, not a method to be followed. A \u003Ci\u003Erequirement\u003C\/i\u003E, on the other hand, refers to the means by which an end is to be attained. If you are pursing a specified goal, there may be various conditions that must be met before this goal can be attained and secured. If I wish to buy car, it is \u003Ci\u003Erequired\u003C\/i\u003E that I possess the necessary funds. So if the phrase “universally preferable” refers to goals (or ends) and the phrase “objectively required” refers to means, how is Molyneux justified in equating the first phrase with the second?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nMolyneux claims he uses the word preferable to “differentiate between optional human absolutes and non-optional physical absolutes.” Molyneux is trying to make the point that, whereas natural laws in the physical world remain constant (e.g., there exist no exceptions to the laws of motion), moral injunctions can be, and often are, ignored. Murder and rape may be among the worst evils a human being can succumb to, but that hasn’t stopped people from committing these terrible acts.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nHow is Molyneux justified in using the word preferable to illustrate this difference between moral injunctions and physical laws? Well, although Molyneux can use words in whatever manner he pleases, using \u003Ci\u003Epreferable\u003C\/i\u003E in this context is, we might say, potentially misleading. Moral rules are “optional” because human beings can choose not to follow them. But are preferences “optional” in the same way? How can they be? Do human beings chose their preferences? Is that even possible? Wouldn't it be more accurate, or at least more consistent with common usage, to suggest that, far from choosing our preferences, we instead use our preferences as a criterion to determine how we chose? If I \u003Ci\u003Echoose\u003C\/i\u003E Mary over Jane, doesn’t that indicate I must \u003Ci\u003Eprefer\u003C\/i\u003E Mary to Jane? And so if preferences are not in fact chosen, but are rather a criterion by which choices are made, what sense does it make to describe a behavior that is “optional” as “preferable”?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nWhy has Molyneux entitled his theory “Universal Preferable Behavior” when it is in fact nothing of the sort? Why speak of preference at all when the theory is clearly after something else? I suspect Molyneux uses the term “preferable” instead of the more accurate term “required” because he is engaged in the philosophically disreputable exercise of reasoning from an \u003Ci\u003Eis\u003C\/i\u003E to \u003Ci\u003Eought\u003C\/i\u003E.\u0026nbsp; Essentially he is throwing sand in our eyes in the hope that we won’t notice the deception. Using “preferable” instead of “required” leaves the impression that his theory is founded on something which no secularist or naturalist could ever find objectionable.\u0026nbsp; After all, if we build our moral speculations on preference, rather than material facts, don’t we avoid running afoul of Hume’s is-ought gap? Isn’t that how Hume himself avoided the gap? Alas, Molyneux’s “preferable” is not in fact \u003Ci\u003Epreferable\u003C\/i\u003E! His use of the word flouts common usage, spreading confusion and despair among his readers. Nor is this unfortunate tendency to use words in strange ways confined merely to this one term. Molyneux’s theory of UPB features this extraordinary capability whereby words magically take on meanings that no sensible person could ever have guessed. Thus “preferable” transforms itself into “required,” “universal” into “objective,” and \"debating\" into “valuing the truth.”\u0026nbsp; If we wish to understand Molyneux, we must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7472506214360918875\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7472506214360918875","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7472506214360918875"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7472506214360918875"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2020\/07\/molyneux-and-objectivist-tradition-3.html","title":"Molyneux and the Objectivist Tradition 3"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4790110483003658578"},"published":{"$t":"2020-06-29T17:52:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2020-06-29T17:52:02.829-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"foundationalism"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Stefan Molyneux"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Molyneux and the Objectivist Tradition 2"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EUPB 2: Foundationalism and logic\u003C\/b\u003E. Central to Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is the largely unsubstantiated assertion that the “objectivity of reality,” along with human knowledge in general, require “validation”; and that in the absence of this validation, human beings become cognitively helpless and hence defenseless against power-lusting authoritarians. Once, however, knowledge is properly “validated,” the masses of people in the civilized world will once again regard their senses, their “reason,” and their minds as reliable guides to reality, which will lead them to embrace “rational” moral and political ideals (i.e., Objectivism).\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThe view that human knowledge, before it can be viewed as secure and reliable, must be “validated” (or “proved”) is known as foundationalism. Objectivism represents an extreme form of this doctrine. Molyneux, in his book \u003Ci\u003EUniversally Preferable Behavior,\u003C\/i\u003E attempts to prove or validate a universal rational secular morality. The inability of previous philosophers to “define an objective, rational, secular and scientific ethical system” Molyneux nicknames the “beast”:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThis “beast” is the illusion that morality must forever be lost in the irrational swamps of gods and governments, enforced for merely pragmatic reasons, but forever lacking logical justification and clear definition. This “beast” is the fantasy that virtue, our greatest joy, our deepest happiness, must be cast aside by secular grown-ups, and left in the dust to be pawed at, paraded and exploited by politicians and priests – and parents…. This beast has brought down many great heroes, from Socrates to Plato to Augustine to Hume to Kant to Rand. The cost to mankind has been enormous. (7)\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSadly, none of these assertions are backed by anything that would come close to qualifying as empirical evidence. Rand and Molyneux may give lip-service to empiricism, but in their ethical speculations they evince little awareness of the empirical difficulties of the subject they set out to tackle. They seem to operate under the assumption that matters of fact can be determined by logical, moral, or rhetorical constructions. Consider, as an example of this, Molyneux’s statement about “extraordinary claims”:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nExtraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. (9)\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nAt first blush one might think Molyneux is paraphrasing David Hume or Pierre-Simon Laplace, but that’s not quite what he is doing. Hume and Laplace insisted that extraordinary claims must be supported or matched by extraordinary \u003Ci\u003Eevidence\u003C\/i\u003E. Molyneux insists on “extraordinary proof.” The distinction between “proof” and “evidence” is fundamental. Proof is a term referring to logic, discourse, and argument. It occupies an important place in the cognitive toolbox, but it is hardly the failsafe standard for evaluating claims about matters of fact that faux-rationalists like Rand and Molyneux typically assume.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nLogical validity is no guarantee of truth. If just one of the premises of a syllogism is untrue, the truth even of a valid argument becomes compromised. Since the empirical truth of the premises of a syllogism can often be much more difficult to establish than the argument’s logical validity, the attempt to render logic as a criterion for ultimate truth about matters of fact is fraught with potential for abuses. Hence the dangers of rationalism.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nYet the problems with an over-reliance on logical proof go well beyond the issue of validity. Eager perhaps to strengthen their bias toward rationalism, Rand and Molyneux labor under the illusion that logic is a principle derived from the physical world, rather than a criterion of argument and discourse. According to Molyneux:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nFundamentally, the laws of logic are derived from the behavior of matter and energy, at least at the perceptual level. If I tell you to throw a ball both up and down at the same time, I am asking for the impossible, which you can easily test by attempting to fulfill my request. If I tell you to plough both the north field and the south field simultaneously, you will be unable to comply. If I demand that you turn a rose into a donkey, my demand will never be met.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn this passage Molyneux is guilty of committing a category error. Logic is a criterion for evaluating the \u003Ci\u003Evalidity\u003C\/i\u003E of arguments. Logic could also be extended to discourse in general, especially in relation to the issue of consistency of meaning (i.e., “concepts”). Logic, however, is not a principle that is directly applicable, or derived from, the natural (i.e. physical) world. The examples Molyneux provides, such as throwing a ball both up down at the same time, or ploughing separate fields simultaneously, or turning roses into donkeys, are not impossible because they violate so-called “laws of logic.” They are impossible because the physical world doesn’t work that way. If the world really did follow (or exemplify) principles of logic, then we could determine matters of fact solely through logical deduction. Smoke could be deduced from fire; the oak tree could be deduced from the acorn; the butterfly could be deduced from the caterpillar. But knowledge of the natural world can’t be discovered in such a manner. The rationalist philosopher sitting in his armchair trying to deduce facts from so-called “axioms” would never be able discover any pertinent matter of fact concerning the material world. If he were shown a caterpillar, he could by no means demonstrate, via his extensive powers of deductive “reason,” that this creature would some day transform itself into a butterfly. Only experience will provide evidence for that particular miracle. Logic, by its own resources alone, is empty, vapid, uncreative—confined, as it manifestly is, to empirically vacuous excursions into the implications of meaning. The so-called truths of logic are merely truths about the nature of concepts; and when a closed logical system such as mathematics or geometry are shown to have applicability to the real world of material fact, that applicability is founded on empiricism, not logic.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C!--more--\u003EThe way faux-rationalists like Rand and Molyneux pontificate about the relation between logic and reality makes one suspect that they believe the only way logic can be shown to be “valid” is if logic is actually a principle of matter itself, holding empire over all of its motions and determining all of its laws. To believe such a thing involves a misapprehension of the relationship between the mind and the physical world. Worse, it is a thoroughly gratuitous and arbitrary assumption. Who decided that logic must be “validated”? Does that even make any sense? How can logic, the very criterion of validity, validate itself? Isn’t that a false ideal of knowledge? But more to the point, why should we tacitly assume that, in order for our methods of cognition to be applicable to the real world of fact, they must precisely replicate regularities found in nature? Must our knowledge mirror reality before we can consider it safe and true? Must the words on a page mirror the sounds made when uttering them? The fact is, knowledge is fundamentally symbolic: it is the representation of one mode of being (i.e., physical reality) given resonance and truth in another (i.e., consciousness).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSince proof, validation, logic are all principles applying to the nature of meaning, symbol, and representation, the view that knowledge in general needs to be somehow “proved” or “validated” is little more than a confusion between various modes of being. Proof is a standard applicable to syllogisms, argument, and discourse. When we talk about a matter of fact that has been “proved” we are only speaking metaphorically. Matters of fact can be observed, investigated, documented, and corroborated. They can’t be logically proved.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nFoundationalism therefore constitutes an impossible ideal of epistemology. It seeks to give statements about matters of fact the same sense of irrefragability that a logically valid argument enjoys, and this is just not possible. Empirical knowledge doesn’t work that way. Logic merely establishes a consistency of meaning between an argument’s premises and its conclusion. In a very real sense, the conclusion of a valid argument is simply a restatement, in more apposite terms, of what already existed in the premises. Hence logic deals with the analysis of meaning, not the discovery of truth. If the premises of a syllogism are empirically true, then of course any valid conclusion must be empirically true as well, because it is essentially saying the same thing. For this reason, deductive syllogisms provide no new knowledge. They simply ferret out implications of the premises that may have gone unnoticed but may prove very useful in understanding the broader meaning of a series of statements about the real world of fact.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThere is one other objection to foundationalism that deserves notice. Foundationalists like Rand and Molyneux would have us believe that validating knowledge and morality is of the utmost importance in preserving Western Civilization. Thus Molyneux claims, without offering a shred of relevant evidence, that the “failure to define objective and rational moral rules has cost hundreds of millions of human lives.” Really? And he knows this how?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nScientists who have studied how morality works in the real world have come to a very different conclusion. Psychological experiments strongly suggest that, when it comes to morality, intuitions come first and then rationalizations are concocted later to give a veneer of logic and reason to what originally is nothing of the sort. Since the ultimate foundation of ethical behavior are found in something non-rational, in something akin to a preference or sentiment, it is not something that can be reasoned with. “The ultimate intuitions on which ethics rests are not debatable, for they are not opinions we hazard but preferences we feel; and it can be neither correct nor incorrect to feel them,” is how George Santayana put it. And let’s face it. We know this is true from everyday experience. Whether it’s over politics, moral ideals, or even aesthetic tastes, the vast majority of people are rarely amenable to rational argument concerning anything that touches their deepest interests or passions. The conviction that somehow, if we could only come up with “better” or more “rational” arguments, that we could magically convince large numbers of people to come over to our moral and political points-of-view—what is that but the most outrageous hubris, rarely if ever justified in the real world of fact and disillusion?"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/4790110483003658578\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=4790110483003658578","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4790110483003658578"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4790110483003658578"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2020\/06\/molyneux-and-objectivist-tradition-2.html","title":"Molyneux and the Objectivist Tradition 2"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6544745918134088914"},"published":{"$t":"2020-05-10T07:45:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2020-05-10T07:45:45.436-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Schisms"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Yaron Brook"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Slouching Toward the Next Schism"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"There are the makings of a potential schism at ARI. Since 1985, Carl Barney, whose made millions in the education industry, was ARI's largest donor. In 2019, Barney left ARI's board and devoted his resources to Craig Biddle's \u003Ci\u003EThe Objective Standard\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;periodical and to Barney's own Prometheus Foundation. Then, on May 1, 2020, Barney made the following \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ariwatch.com\/TheCenterOfMassShiftsFurther.htm\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eannouncement\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n“Dr. Peikoff has given me (Prometheus Foundation ...) permission to publicize and deliver worldwide his courses and lectures.”\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n...\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n“He has also granted me permission to use his trademark, “Ayn Rand,” as well as excerpts from his and Ayn Rand’s works, which will aid me in marketing. With these assets and my considerable resources, I am eager and ready to ensure that Dr. Peikoff’s courses and lectures reach and continue to reach minds throughout the world. ...\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n“I do not intend to start another ARI or to compete with ARI. I don’t intend to establish a new organization of any kind. I intend only to support and fund other organizations and individuals who promote Ayn Rand and advance Objectivism.”\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nOf course, Barney has to insist he is not competing with ARI; and perhaps his insistence is sincere. But this clearly lays the foundation for trouble in the future. What has happened in the world of orthodox Objectivism is that, with the retirement of Peikoff, there exists no authority figure to adjudicate the inevitable disputes that arise among the Objectivist faithful, particularly among ambitious types jostling for status and influence in the movement itself. Theoretically, these disputes should be adjudicated by \"reason.\" But what goes by \"reason\" in Objectivism is largely imaginary; and many of the issues which divide people in real life are too complex to be resolved by some \"objective\" standard of rationality in any case.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\nWhile Ayn Rand was alive, she was the ultimate adjudicator for the Objectivist movement. After her death, Peikoff filled this role, claiming to be Rand's \"intellectual heir\" and the foremost authority on her philosophy. But now Peikoff, being retired and in poor health, cannot play that role any more. How then is it to be filled? Since Peikoff is not, as far as anyone knows, going to name a successor, the ultimate adjudicator has become, by default, an institution (i.e., ARI), which means: those who control ARI (i.e., Yaron Brook and his cronies). Essentially this means that Yaron Brook is the most powerful orthodox Objectivist in the world, which may seem rather odd at first blush, because Brook hardly seems qualified, in terms of his limited command of Rand's philosophy, to have attained such a position. Here we have an example of the practical fruits of ideological dogmatism. Adherence to a strict dogma can only persist long-term in an institutionalized environment—in short, in a bureaucracy governed by bureaucratic principles. Brook is the leading Objectivist, not through charisma or expertise in Objectivism, but because he is the best bureaucratic manager and fund raiser to have emerged in the last twenty years. Under Brook's leadership, ARI's budget rose by a factor of nearly two and half. Since many people at ARI owe their living to Brook (and Brook's hand-picked successor, Tal Tsfany), he becomes the de facto adjudicator of disputes.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAlas for Brook, two can play that game. Carl Barney, with millions of dollars at his beck and call, has managed to out-flank Brook. Since its founding, ARI has enjoyed the monopoly on the \"Ayn Rand\" trademark and on Peikoff's lectures and courses. No longer. Now of course, Peikoff could take those things back. But Peikoff is in his mid eighties and it's not clear how much of a role he can play in events going forward. At some point he will no longer be on the scene and who knows how this all shakes out at that juncture.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOne curious wrinkle in all this is the person who, seemingly, would gain the most out of this arrangement: and that is Craig Biddle, editor of \u003Ci\u003EThe Objective Standard\u003C\/i\u003E and the executive director of Barney's Prometheus Institute. Biddle has been at odds with ARI before. During the McCaskey scandal, Biddle criticized Peikoff, and by implication ARI, for driving McCaskey out of the fold. A few years later, after joining forces with Barney, Biddle quietly removed this criticism from his website and, it would seem, fences were mended. But whether they were mended permanently remains to be seen. As long as Peikoff is still alive, we can anticipate that ARI and the Prometheus Institute will play nice. But when Peikoff goes on to meet his reward, who knows what kind rifts and animosities may emerge among the Objectivist faithful!"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6544745918134088914\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6544745918134088914","title":"22 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6544745918134088914"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6544745918134088914"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2020\/05\/slouching-toward-next-schism.html","title":"Slouching Toward the Next Schism"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"22"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4330434771275630438"},"published":{"$t":"2020-04-22T12:34:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2020-06-29T18:46:39.304-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Stefan Molyneux"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Molyneux and the Objectivist Tradition 1"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EUPB: intro\u003C\/b\u003E. Stefan Molyneux’s theory of Universally Preferable Behavior (i.e., UPB) is an attempt to establish moral principles on the same firm “objectivie” basis as the best theories in science. Essentially Molyneux wants to show how the a moral proposition such as “rape is wrong” can be “verified” in the same way as Einstein’s theory of relativity or the motions of the stars and planets have been “verified” through the scientific method. If he could succeed in this endeavor, Molyneux believes this would demonstrate the objective truth of moral propositions—especially the moral truth of various social and political ideals that Molyneux holds close to his heart, such as the non-aggression principle, “voluntarism” (i.e., anarcho-capitalism) and “peaceful parenting.”\n\nMolyneux’s foudationalist mindset is very much in line with what Rand attempted in her own ethical speculations.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn her essay “The Objectivist Ethics,” Rand sought to show how a morality in line with her preferred political system, “laissez-faire” capitalism, could achieve the same level of truth and objectivity that scientifically “verified” theories about the material world enjoy.  This ambition to conflate ethical propriety with empirical truth takes even greater importance in Molyneux’s moralistic speculations. In some respects, it is the basis of Molyneux’s whole system. Yet, to be fair, that’s hardly the starting point of UPB.\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMolyneux’s commences his theory of ethics with what could be regarded as a clever debating tactic. He insists that “inherent in the very act of arguing are a number of embedded premises that cannot be conceivably overturned.” As Molyneux explains:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;If I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behavior is valid, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood – as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely. Saying that there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior is like shouting in someone’s ear that sound does not exist – it is innately self-contradictory. In other words, if there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior, then one should oppose anyone who claims that there is such a thing as universally preferable behavior. However, if one “should” do something, then one has just created universally preferable behavior. Thus universally preferable behavior – or moral rules –must be valid. (40-41)\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOnce Molyneux has established, to his satisfaction, the “validity” of UPB, he then tries to set it up a “methodology” for “validating ethical theories and propositions.” (46) Molyneux assumes that the “validation” of morality should work exactly like the validation of scientific theories. Just as, according to Molyneux, scientific theory, in order to be “valid,”  must be both logical (i.e., ‘internally consistent”) and “empirically verifiable,” so must moral theories. “We must begin using the power and legitimacy of the scientific method to prove the validity and universality of moral laws,” Molyneux opines.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHow is this done?\n\nMolyneux provides several examples of how moral propositions can be tested “logically,” with the presumption that any inconsistency that can be ferreted out of a given principle automatically “invalidates” the moral injunction in question. Here’s an example of Molyneux in action:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf I say that gravity affects matter, it must affect all matter. If even one pebble proves immune to gravity, my theory is in trouble. If I propose a moral theory that argues that people should not murder, it must be applicable to all people….\n\nI … cannot logically argue that is wrong for some people to murder, but right for other people to murder. Since all human beings share common physical properties and requirements, proposing one rule for one person and the opposite rule for another is invalid – it is like proposing a physics theory that says that some rocks fall down, while others fall up. Not only is it illogical, it contradicts an observable fact of reality, which is that human beings as a species share common characteristics, and so cannot be subjected to opposing rules. Biologists have no problems classifying certain organisms as “human” because they share common and easily identifiable characteristics – it is only moralists who seem to find this level of consistency impossible.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAnd here is Molyneux’s “invalidation” of rape:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSimilarly, any moral theory that advocates rape faces a similar contradiction. Rape can never be moral, since any principle that approves it automatically contradicts itself. If rape is justified on the principle that “taking pleasure is always good,” then such a principle immediately fails the test of logical consistency, since the rapist may be “taking pleasure,” but his victim certainly is not.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis is UPB in a nutshell. I have tried to present the main elements of the theory as fairly as possible. Although Molyneux follows in the Objectivist tradition of faux-rationality, he is not as good a writer as Rand (even if he is significantly more prolix). There is a kind of sloppiness in his writing—a slovenliness or carelessness in the manner he handles the expression of meaning—that can make it challenging to figure out precisely what he is trying to convey. Nevertheless, for those of us with some familiarity with the manner in which philosophers in the Objectivist tradition “reason,” it is possible to glean the hang of Molyneux’s system.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn ensuing posts, I will seek to explain what is wrong with Molyneux’s quixotic attempt to demonstrate a rational basis for secular ethics. The criticsm of UPB will be divided as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Col\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EFoundationalism and logic \u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EPreferences and morality\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EThe necessary premises of debating\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003ECriterion for ethics\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EThe Non-Aggression Principle\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003ERecapitulation\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ol\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/4330434771275630438\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=4330434771275630438","title":"11 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4330434771275630438"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4330434771275630438"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2020\/04\/upb-intro.html","title":"Molyneux and the Objectivist Tradition 1"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"11"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6594327929427768220"},"published":{"$t":"2020-04-05T11:51:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2020-04-05T11:55:47.387-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"anarchism"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Rationalism"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Stefan Molyneux"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Universally Preferable Behavior"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Yaron Brook"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"The Objectivist \"Tradition\" Going Forward"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003EPhilosophical traditions, like viruses, must mutate if they wish to remain relevant even among their adherents. Orthodox Objectivism has remained steadfastly true to its author's original vision, sedulously resisting the temptation to evolve in ways that would enable it to better fit with emerging paradigms and concerns. The denizens of ARI still hold fast to a hawkish foreign policy in the Middle East, even when most Americans have tired of the endless wars; they still believe in “open borders,\" even when most people toward the right side of the political spectrum (outside of a few elites) are against them; they are still for absolute “free trade,” even though free trade in both capital goods and the basic necessities of a principality cause harm to millions of Americans and constitutes a threat to national security; they are still somewhat militant in their atheism, despite growing awareness of a meaning crisis among the younger generations; and they remain stubbornly resistant to allying themselves with to their potential allies on the political\u0026nbsp; the right, preferring instead to retreat into ever increasing ideological and political isolation.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;\"\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003EThe leading active orthodox Objectivist in the world day is, astonishingly enough, Yaron Brook, who evinces no special expertise in the philosophy of Objectivism and has achieved his eminence among Rand’s current disciples primarily from his skill at fund raising and administration. This is always the risk of trying to institutionalize—essentially fossilizing—ideas: the money people and the administrators can easily take over. What could be called the \"institutionalizing\" of a philosophy becomes almost inevitably if its ideas are not allowed to grow, develop and adjust to prevailing issues, discoveries and trends.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003EWhile orthodox Objectivism remains frozen and embalmed in the 1960s, the philosophical tradition that Rand inflicted upon the world has taken a life of its own and spawned new philosophical outgrowths, often containing elements which Rand and her most adamant disciples would heartily despise. Philosophies like Objectivism, having, as their base, nothing more solid or permanent than the private inspirations and wishful fancies of their progenitors, lack any real logical or empirical protection against amendment and development. Objectivism can insist all it likes on \"reason\" and \"objectivity,\" but that's just a pose—a kind of faux-rationality that impresses the naive and the credulous, but which the rest of us are wise to. There's very little reason or evidence in such Objectivist doctrines as the blank slate, the self-created self, emotions as automated value judgments, the \"philosophy\" of history, or the so-called solution to the so-called problem of universals. It's rationalization through and through, and not necessarily very good rationalization at that. Poor as it may be, nonetheless there are people, usually young people, who are taken in by it. This suggests at least some element of skill in the presentation of the material. Rand is truly eminent in at least one sense: she was able to bring her views, miserable as they often are, to a much broader audience than nearly any other philosopher of her time. There really is something to be said for that. A philosopher can't be judged only by the quality of his philosophy; the number of people the philosopher reaches must be taken into account as well. \u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-size-adjust: auto;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 11pt;\"\u003EObjectivism is often judged on the basis of its claims—that is, on the broad philosophical position it takes on epistemology, ethics, politics, etc. But in terms of its long-lasting philosophical influence, perhaps its the methodology of Objectivism, the way in which Rand and her disciples play at being \"rational,\" that's most critical in defining an Objectivist \"tradition.\" There is a distinct style to Randian \"reason.\" The manner in which Rand goes about \"establishing\" her various contentions relies rather heavily on rhetorical and pseudo-logical tricks\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003E\u003Ci\u003E.\u003C\/i\u003E Rand and her disciples seek to provide a semblance, however weak and faulty, of logic and \"reason,\" and it is this special character of Rand's philosophical work that distinguishes Objectivism from other forms of ideological special pleading, which tend to rely on sentimental moralizing and simplistic generalization rather than a showy but meretricious displays of \"reason\" and \"objectivity.\"\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;calibri\u0026quot; , sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;calibri\u0026quot; , sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003EThe philosopher on the current scene who, following in this Objectivist tradition of faux-rationality, has gained the largest following is the Canadian YouTube philosopher, Stefan Molyneux. The fact that Molyneux, technically speaking, would not be regarded (or regard himself) as an Objectivist is of little moment. Both his introduction to and education in philosophy was through Rand's philosophical writings. And while he may depart from Rand on many important points of the application of philosophy, Randian methodological tropes dominate his philosophical cerebrations. You find in Molyneux the same obsession with foundationalism, with self-refuting arguments (i.e., the fallacy of the stolen concept), with the reification of logic and the subsequent confusion of logical with empirical truth, and with portentous conclusions derived from trivial assertions. \u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;calibri\u0026quot; , sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif; font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003EUsing the Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of history as his starting point, Molyneux has fashioned his own philosophy of \"voluntarism\" and \"peaceful parenting.\" In his early years he could be rather clumsy in his imitation of Rand. His \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Universally-Preferable-Behaviour-Rational-Secular-ebook\/dp\/B004Z81ZD4\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ebook\u003C\/a\u003E \u003Ci\u003EUniversally Preferable Behavior\u003C\/i\u003E, published in 2007, reads like a manic parody of Randian \"reason.\" It's a book whose insistence on logic and evidence goes hand in hand with reams of logical fallacies and a sad dearth of relevant evidence. That Molyneux winds up fashioning an ethical system that in many important respects departs from Objectivism is hardly to the point. Objectivist \"reason\" being fallacious and mostly arbitrary, the intrepid philosopher can take it wherever he pleases. Philosophies that adapt this method will of course diverge from the original tenets of Rand. What in Rand's method of philosophizing, in her careless and irresponsible descent into rationalization and special pleading, can prevent the emergence of conflicting assertions?\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;calibri\u0026quot; , sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif; font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003EMolyneux's anarchism is a case in point. Rand heartily despised anarchism and considered it a horrible transgression of reason. But there is nothing in her philosophy qua philosophy that is inconsistent with anarchism. Rand's opposition to statelessness was simply a reversion on her part to good sense. But if human beings really are, as she supposed, the products of their premises, why couldn't they accept just those premises that would make a stateless society possible? If in reply to this criticism Rand's disciples were to insist that the acceptance of anarchist premises on a society-wide level is improbable, and therefore not likely to happen, then they are denying Rand's version of free will, which insists that people can make whatever choice they like, without the interference of innate predispositions, because they are equipped, most astonishingly, with a \"volitional consciousness.\"\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;calibri\u0026quot; , sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003ETaking this method of irresponsible faux-rationality, Molyneux has used its wanton flexibility to adjust his philosophy to the evolving concerns of his YouTube audience. While remaining nominally an anarchist, in recent years Molyneux has taken a serious turn toward the contrary position of Trumpian nationalism, which has enabled him to retain relevance among the dissident right. While this reinvention of himself has moved him further from the crude Rand-inspired sophistry of his younger days, there are still aspects of his philosophy that remain strongly colored by Objectivist tropes and rationalization strategies. Consider, as one example, the following passage, quoted from his most recent \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/product\/1548742074\/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ebook\u003C\/a\u003E \u003Ci\u003EThe Art of the Argument\u003C\/i\u003E:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003E\u003Cb\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe Argument\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E is the rational map that allows us to navigate and meet in reality. \u003Ci\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThe Argument\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E keeps us sane by reminding us of facts and reason and evidence. The argument stops wars, abuse, bullying, manipulation and aggression of every kind. \u003Cb\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe Argument\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E is the robust sport that stops hysterical escalation. \u003Cb\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe Argument\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E prevents the scourge of violence: it is the only thing that can.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003E\u003Cb\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe Argument\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E favors the intelligent, the prepared, the resourceful, the courageous, and the well-trained. \u003Cb\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe Argument\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E rewards intellectual and moral virtues of every kind. \u003Cb\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe Argument\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E promotes the most civil to the highest reaches of influence in society, and demotes fools and bullies to the basements of irrelevance.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003EIn short, we can embrace \u003Cb\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe Argument\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E and have civilization—or we can reject \u003Cb\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe Argument\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E and descend into a living hell without end.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003EThere is no other choice.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14.6667px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\n\n\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cstyle type=\"text\/css\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: Times, \"Times New Roman\", serif;\"\u003E\n  p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120% }\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/style\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"font-size: 11pt; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003EThis is essentially Molyneux's own peculiar jazz riff on Rand's \"philosophy of history.\" He has merely made a change of emphasis, transforming what Rand would have called \"philosophy\" into \"\u003Ci\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThe Argument\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E.\" In the light of what we've learned in recent decades from cognitive science and experimental psychology, it should be obvious that Molyneux's enthusiasm for \"\u003Cb\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe Argument\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E\" tramples over obvious facts. Undoubtely, Molyneux's fans would insist that he is thinking of a very ideal type of argument, of the type of verbal wrangling that \"ought\" to exist (or is \"universally preferable,\" to translate this phrase into Molynese), rather than the type of arguments you're likely to find in the real world of wayward human passion and brute fact.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif; font-size: 11pt;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;But that's just the problem. Molyneux is advancing an unrealistic ideal concerning arguments, just as Rand advances an unrealistic ideal of man. Although both and Rand and Molyneux maintain a theoretical allegiance to realism in their metaphysical speculations, both verge toward idealism when it comes to psychology and morals.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003EMolyneux's most ambitious philosophical project involves his attempt to provide a rational proof to secular ethics—namely, his theory of \"universally preferable behavior.\" In recent months, Molyneux has debated several self-described \"moral nihilists\" concerning this theory. These debates have been painful to watch. Molyneux's theory is in some ways quite clever. He bases his theory of universally preferable behavior (UPB) on a debating trick where he insists that the very act of debating involves tacitly accepting UPB. This has confounded each of his antagonists in turn and led to a great deal of dialectical cringe. Yet it is not so difficult to articulate what is wrong with Molyneux's theory. It is just a matter of entangling the masses of confused arguments that have been woven around it, which will be the focus of the next few posts.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;times\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;times new roman\u0026quot; , serif;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6594327929427768220\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6594327929427768220","title":"4 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6594327929427768220"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6594327929427768220"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2020\/04\/the-objectivist-tradition-going-forward.html","title":"The Objectivist \"Tradition\" Going Forward"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"4"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1398798356088243550"},"published":{"$t":"2020-03-21T12:49:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2020-03-21T12:49:13.187-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivism and COVID-19"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe COVID-19 pandemic and the response from government presents various challenges to the political ideology of Objectivism, since it presents a crisis that can't be solved merely by letting it alone. In a podcast entitled \"Thinking Philosophically About the Pandemic,\" Onkar Ghate and Gregory Salmieri valiantly attempt to navigate between the dire necessities involved in defending three-hundred and thirty million people from a potentially deadly virus and the imperatives of the \"laissez-faire\" ideology.\n\n\n\n\n\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nGordon Burkowski has written a short review of this podcast in the comment section of the previous \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026amp;postID=3812818676362735716\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Epost\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;that's worth quoting:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nI listened to this discussion — all 90 minutes of it.... 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.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAll 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.”...\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nBoth 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.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI've listened to roughly half the podcast, and Gordon's analysis is pretty much spot-on. I would only add that I'm seeing something in Ghate and Salmieri that I've mentioned before, and that is a tendency, noticeable with this newer generation of orthodox Objectivists, to try to smooth over the rough spots in Objectivism — to give Objectivism at least the aura or appearance of reasonableness, if not the reality. The trouble with this approach, of course, is that it doesn't really address the underlying issues in Objectivism, such as the lack realism about human nature and the human condition, nor does it necessarily make Objectivism more appealing to it's most passionate admirers, who in many cases are drawn to Rand's philosophy precisely for the parts of it that strike normal people and excessive and unreasonable. Rand's penchant for taking controversial stands on all kinds of issues is part of what makes her a figure to be revered among the Objectivist faithful. You defang that controversial stuff, smooth it over to make the whole enterprise more palatable to normies, you haven't really make Objectivism any better as a guide to public policy, but you have made it less appealing to those looking for something outside the mainstream. And that really is what Objectivism is when it comes to it: an ideology outside the mainstream of acceptable opinion. There's no fixing that. The vast majority of people don't want laissez-faire, nor is it a politically viable position in any case. When you get right down to it, \"laissez-faire\" is an ideological slogan, not a coherent policy position likely to appeal either to a ruling elite or a democratic consensus. If your ideology is outside of the mainstream, you might as well make it as controversial and \"extreme\" as you please, because that's what those disenchanted with the mainstream are probably looking for, and it's from such people that you are going to find an audience of willing converts."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1398798356088243550\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1398798356088243550","title":"7 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1398798356088243550"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1398798356088243550"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2020\/03\/objectivism-and-covid-19.html","title":"Objectivism and COVID-19"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"7"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3812818676362735716"},"published":{"$t":"2019-07-18T17:39:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2019-07-18T17:39:59.501-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Ethics\/Morality"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Sam Harris"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivism vs. Sam Harris "},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"To say that Sam Harris entertains a low opinion of Ayn Rand and her disciples would be something of an understatement. He once referred to Rand’s philosophy as “basically autism rebranded.” Nonetheless, there are very definite parallels between\u0026nbsp;Harris’s views on religion and morality and Rand’s. Harris and Rand both take a dismissive view of Hume’s is-ought gap; they both believe that science and rationality can determine moral ends; they both are uncompromising critics of religion; they both tend to assume, somewhat naively, that if we could only (per impossible) persuade religious people to dispense with their “superstitious” beliefs and embrace “reason” and science, the world would be a better place; and they both take a dim view of much that passes for academic philosophy.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nDespite these parallels in their viewpoints, Objectivists have found plenty in Sam Harris’ moral philosophy to quibble about. Ari Armstrong has been the chief critic of Harris over at \u003Ci\u003EThe Objective Standard\u003C\/i\u003E. He makes three main criticisms of Harris’ book \u003Ci\u003EThe Moral Landscape\u003C\/i\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Col\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EHarris’ concept of well-being lacks the clarity of meaning to sufficiently ground it in a bonafide theory of ethics.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003ELacking a clear conception of well-being, Harris embraces hedonism as the standard of value.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EHarris merges his vague conception of well-being with a form of utilitarianism, which constitutes “a collectivist form of hedonism holding that the good consists of self-sacrificially serving the greatest happiness for the greatest number.\"\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ol\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003ELet’s examine each of these criticisms in turn to determine the extent to which Ari Armstrong has been fair and honest.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003E(1) Vagueness of \"well-being.\"\u003C\/b\u003E That Harris’ summum bonum of “well-being” suffers from vagueness constitutes one of the chief criticisms that has been leveled at \u003Ci\u003EThe Moral Landscape\u003C\/i\u003E, so Armstrong is hardly original in making this charge. Where he goes astray is when he suggests that Rand’s standard for morality is far more precise. Armstrong writes:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWhereas Harris leaves “well-being” nebulous and ill-defined, Rand clarifies that one’s well-being ultimately must be judged by the standard of life and death. The good is what advances one’s life, the bad is what harms it, as a matter of objective fact.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOn first blush, making life and death the standard of morality might seem a more definite and “objective\" way to theorize about ultimate values—which I suspect is the reason why Rand chose it. But Armstrong has set a verbal trip which can easily can be turned against him. He claims that “the good is what advances one’s life, the bad is what harms it.” What does this mean? How does one distinguish between what “advances” and what “harms” one’s life? Doesn’t harm ultimately have to do with the question of well-being? That, in any case, is a point Harris makes in \u003Ci\u003EThe Moral Landscape\u003C\/i\u003E. Thus, on this interpretation, advancing one’s life is merely increasing one’s well-being (what else could advancing one’s well-being possibly entail?). And harming one’s life is merely decreasing one’s well-being. Hence Rand’s standard of “life” ultimately reduces itself to Harris’ well-being.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe only conceivable way Armstrong can get out of this quandary is by equating the standard of life with mere survival—something I doubt he would be willing to do. The fact is, if you make survival the standard of good, then everyone who survives must be regarded as good, which is an impossible standard. Comrade Joseph Stalin lived nearly as long as Ayn Rand. Does that make Stalin as good as Ayn Rand?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003E(2) “Well-being” as hedonism.\u003C\/b\u003E Armstrong is eager to label Harris’ moral theory as a form of “hedonism.” He argues as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nLacking a clear conception of “well-being” as the standard of value, Harris embraces as the standard whatever happens to produce the greatest happiness or pleasure for people. The moral theory that holds “happiness” or “pleasure” as the standard of the good is hedonism (“hedone” is Latin for “pleasure”). Granted, Harris claims to reject “a strictly hedonic measure of the \"good,\" and his notion of pleasure is more complex than simply pursuing sex, good food, and other sensual delights. He also distinguishes between “maximizing pleasure in any given instance” and a fuller, longer-range form of well-being, which includes such considerations as health and safety. Nevertheless, Harris does embrace pleasure (or happiness) as the standard of moral value, which renders his theory a form of hedonism.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis is confused beyond all untangling. The very fact that Harris distinguishes between “maximizing pleasure in any given instance” and a fuller, longer-range form of well-being, which includes such considerations as health and safety, should be an indication that Harris leans toward the\u0026nbsp;eudaimonia\u0026nbsp;side of the well-being spectrum, rather than the hedonic side; and so why Armstrong would derive hedonism from so plain statement of eudaimonia is a mystery that would baffle even an omniscient intelligence. But this is not the worst of it. Armstrong compounds the error by suggesting that Harris regards pleasure as the standard of moral value. I can find no such endorsement anywhere in \u003Ci\u003EThe Moral Landscape\u003C\/i\u003E (when Harris write about “standards,” he usually refers to standards of rationality or science). But even more to the point, Armstrong’s allegation against of hedonism ignores Harris’ central metaphor of a moral landscape, with a variety of mountains and peaks representing various forms of well-being, some of which may include pleasure, others of which might include such states of consciousness as happiness, meaning, tranquility, and\/or spiritual depth.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt’s not clear, in any case, that Harris would regard pleasure or even \"well-being\" as a “standard” of moral value. A more plausible interpretation is that Harris regards “well-being” as the value to be pursued. At one point, he states that well-being is “the only thing we can reasonably value.” That suggests Harris considers well-being as a moral end, not as a “standard of value.” This is not so very different from Rand’s own view. Objectivists can talk all they like about the “standard of value,” but Rand nevertheless regards “happiness … as the purpose of ethics.” What’s the difference between regarding well-being as the only reasonable value and happiness as the purpose of morality? In the end, not very much. Under either of these views, some positive state of living, whether called happiness or well-being, becomes the primary moral goal. Rand’s insistence that what she calls the standard of value cannot be based on happiness has only this to be said for it: happiness, in and of itself, does not constitute a sure guarantee of virtue. Happiness in a villain in no way provides moral sanctification for villainy; so the fact that a person is happy in no way proves that they are virtuous.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand’s attempt to circumvent this issue via her conception of the “standard of value” is confused and ultimately unsuccessful. The very notion of a “standard of value” seems to reverse cause and effect: for doesn’t every standard require a prerequisite value? Wouldn’t a “standard of value” constitute something by which values are rated and judged? In which case, the standard of value itself becomes a value. But then, what is the standard of value of the standard of value? An infinite regress beckons us into an abyss of absurdity.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(3) \u003Cb\u003EHarris as utilitarian.\u003C\/b\u003E Armstrong demonstrates an over-eagerness to ascribe to Harris some of the worst aspects of utilitarianism:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003E\n…the hedonistic root of Harris’s ethics is not its only problem. Harris merges his fuzzy conception of well-being with a form of utilitarianism, a collectivist form of hedonism holding that the good consists of self-sacrificially serving the greatest happiness for the greatest number. . . . In practice, this means the individual must self-sacrificially serve the interests of society. Harris … follows his utilitarian theory to a number of absurd and atrocious conclusions.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis is unfair and possible even malicious. Armstrong’s contention that Utilitarianism “in practice” means “the individual must self-sacrificially serve the interests of society” is a caricature. Armstrong can speculate all he likes about what Utilitarianism means “in practice,” but perhaps if he knew how to be honest, he would be examining the behavior of those who regard themselves as utilitarians and who would \u003Ci\u003Eipso facto\u003C\/i\u003E serve as the best example of Utilitarianism “in practice.” Is Sam Harris, for instance, running around “self-sacrificially” serving the happiness of others? Is he intent on making himself and his friends and family miserable so that the greatest number of people can be happy? Of course he isn’t. To suggest, even if only by implication, such a thing constitutes a raving absurdity.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn the real world, there does not exist so wide a gap between what Armstrong regards as “self-interest” and Harris regards as “altruism.” Harris does not endorse sacrificing one’s own happiness for that of others. He merely suggests that we should not live exclusively for ourselves, without any concern whatsoever for other people:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWe are not, by nature, impartial—and much of our moral reasoning must be applied to situations in which there is tension between our concern for ourselves, or for those closest to us, and our sense that it would be better to be more committed to helping others.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nBeing “more committed to helping others” doesn’t mean selling everything you own and giving it to the poor. Concern for others does not entail having no concern for oneself. The sense I get from reading \u003Ci\u003EThe Moral Landscape\u003C\/i\u003E is that Harris assumes as a point of fact that most people are going to be chiefly concerning with the well-being of themselves and their loved one, and that concern for the well-being of strangers can only be, at best, a secondary interest. Armstrong’s unwillingness to appreciate this more subtle approach stems, I would conjecture, from Rand’s blank-slate view of human nature. In the Objectivist view, human beings are not born with a natural tendency toward selfishness. Hence, if they are convinced, that self-sacrifice for others represents some kind of moral ideal, there exists no natural counterbalance to prevent them from completely disregarding their own interests in the favor of the sinister interests of totalitarian elites."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3812818676362735716\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3812818676362735716","title":"23 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3812818676362735716"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3812818676362735716"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2019\/07\/objectivism-vs-sam-harris.html","title":"Objectivism vs. Sam Harris "}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"23"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6023633886139834636"},"published":{"$t":"2019-03-13T07:21:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2019-04-15T17:24:11.895-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Dave Rubin"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Human Nature"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Jonathan Haidt"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Jordan Peterson"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Yaron Brook"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"The Evolution of Orthodox Objectivism"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"The Ayn Rand Institute has recently introduced a new set of YouTube videos, many of them hosted by Dave Rubin, called \"\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/newideal.aynrand.org\/the-rubin-report-why-it-is-critical-to-be-fact-oriented\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EObjectivism on Happiness\u003C\/a\u003E.\" The videos give an insight in how a new generation of \"orthodox\" Objectivists are framing (or rather re-framing) Rand's ideas. In what I've heard from Yaron Brook, Greg Salmieri, Onkar Ghate, and Tara Smith, there seems to exist a drive to portray Rand's philosophy in such a way that it does not come into conflict with the sciences of human nature. Ayn Rand believed that human beings were, at birth, \"blank slates,\" and that it was through exposure to philosophical premises that they developed personalities and character. The strategy that this new breed of Objectivists appear to have concocted to separate themselves from this embarrassing doctrine is to make it clear that, while they have no intention of explicitly denying the possibility of heritable traits of character, they nevertheless continue to insist that, through the use of \"reason\" and \"free will,\" they can achieve Rand's vision of the self-created man.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EWhile this may be a clever debating tactic, questions can be raised as to its faithfulness to Randian dogma. Harry Binswanger, a member of the old guard, was dusted off and trotted out for the video entitled \"Grounding Morality in Facts.\" At one point in the video, Binswanger announced that he believed that human beings \"hard-wired\" themselves. Sitting opposite to him, Greg Salmieri, while not daring to question so obvious a point of orthodoxy, nonetheless seemed eager to somehow qualify and sanitize this challenge to scientific knowledge. Luckily for this new guard of orthodox Objectivists like Salmieri, old fogies in the Binswanger mold are exercising less and less influence over time. Soon they will have all retired or moved on to more subterranean perspectives, at which time they will no longer be around to remind people of Rand's embarrassing lack of judgment when it came to the question of heritable traits of character. Yaron Brook and his denizens will then be free to pretend that Rand never advocated views on human nature that clash with all the most recent scientific developments in evolution, genetics, experimental psychology, and cognitive science. But in ignoring and possibly even removing some of the worst (i.e., empirically falsified) elements of Objectivism, what will these new breed of Objectivists have accomplished? Very little, I suspect. For I would contend that it is precisely the bad elements of Rand, the controversial and outlandish stuff, that provides most of the interest. Take that stuff out and what do you have left? A sort of libertarian Sam Harris, minus Harris's scientific credentials and incisive wit. While de-emphasizing the worst parts of Objectivism may allow Rand's ideology to seem a little less implausible, it does little to solve main issue with the creed—which is to say the fact that, as an apologia for libertarianism, Objectivism is hopelessly dated. There are better rationalizations for most of the things Objectivism now stands for. There is a delicious irony at the bottom of all this. More than twenty-five years ago, there was a schism in Objectivism between the orthodox crowd over at ARI and David Kelley and the so-called Atlas Society. The riff between these two factions allegedly arose over the question as to whether Objectivism was a closed or an open system. But that's pretty much a moot point these days. Yaron Brook can insist with all the fervor at his command that Objectivism is a closed system: those are just words, and he doesn't really mean it. If Brook desires to have conversations with IDW luminaries such as Jordan Peterson, Eric Weinstein, Douglass Murray, and Gad Saad, he can't be seen as an advocate of the blank slate view. For in the biological sciences, the blank slate has no more credibility than the flat earth delusion enjoys in the realms of geography and astronomy. And so while giving lip service to the closed system paradigm of Objectivism, Brook and the denizens of ARI must adapt, in practice, the open system approach of David Kelley."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6023633886139834636\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6023633886139834636","title":"15 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6023633886139834636"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6023633886139834636"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2019\/03\/the-evolution-of-orthodox-objectivism.html","title":"The Evolution of Orthodox Objectivism"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"15"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5535847946098440215"},"published":{"$t":"2019-01-06T12:00:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2019-01-06T12:31:10.590-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Kant"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Did Rand read Kant?"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"In an interview, Shoshana Milgram, Rand's \"official\" biographer, is \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/objectivismefr.files.wordpress.com\/2018\/12\/ShoshanaMilgramInterview.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Easked\u003C\/a\u003E whether Rand ever read Kant. Given how far Rand's interpretation of Kant departs from the views of actual followers and admirers of Kant, many people have assumed that Rand must never have read Kant. Objectivists tend to regard this assumption as derogatory of Rand and deplore it. But it's not necessarily any worse than the alternative. For if Rand had in fact read Kant and still gotten him so very wrong, that would speak poorly regarding her ability to interpret philosophical texts. So what is worse? Mis-interpreting Kant because of a lack of familiarity with the relevant texts? Or reading Kant with great attentiveness and still getting him wrong?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EGiven how difficult Kant is to read and interpret, perhaps we can cut Rand some slack on this issue. Shoshana Milgram, however, does not believe Rand requires any slack cutting. While she admits that there is no evidence that Rand read Kant, she contends quite laboriously that Rand had too much intellectual integrity not to have read Kant. What about those of us who are inclined to suspect that Rand did not read Kant (or read very little of him)? To such skeptics, Milgram has this to say: \"To go as far as to say [Rand] didn't read any of these guys [like Kant] ... you don't have the evidence for that. And you need evidence for it.\" This is an example of what Rand apologists frequently will do when faced with criticism of Rand. They attempt to hold Rand's critics to a higher standard than they are willing to follow themselves. For the fact is, Milgram does not provide any evidence that Rand read Kant. Why does she demand from Rand's critics what she herself is unwilling (or unable) to provide?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nBe that as it may, over at quora.com I've tackled a related issue, namely: \u003Ci\u003EWhy did Rand refer to Kant as the most evil man in mankind's history?\u003C\/i\u003E Here's my answer to that question:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe ostensible reason why Rand referred to Kant as “the most evil man in mankind’s history” is she believed that, more than any other philosopher, Kant “closed the door of philosophy to reason.” Why Rand believed this is a bit more complicated. It’s important to note that Rand’s views on Kant are, to say the least, controversial, and no Kantian or Kant scholar would agree with them. The idea that Kant’s philosophy, particularly The \u003Ci\u003ECritique of Pure Reason\u003C\/i\u003E, constituted an attack on human knowledge and reason was first popularized in America by George Santayana in his book \u003Ci\u003EReason in Common Sense\u003C\/i\u003E. “Side by side with this reinstatement of reason, however, which was not absent from Kant's system in its critical phase and in its application to science, there lurked in his substitution of faith for knowledge another and sinister intention,” wrote Santayana. “He wished to blast as insignificant, because ‘subjective,’ the whole structure of human intelligence, with all the lessons of experience and all the triumphs of human skill, and to attach absolute validity instead to certain echoes of his rigoristic religious education.” In the first few decades of the twentieth century, Santayana’s view of Kant and other German philosophers enjoyed some measure of influence among conservative intellectuals in America. This is where Rand seems to have picked it up. Perhaps the most important influence in Rand’s philosophical and political development was the conservative novelist and literary critic Isabel Paterson. According to one of Rand’s biographers, Jennifer Burns (who learned this piece information from the Rand archives), it was from Paterson that Rand probably derived her view of Kant.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWith all this in mind, we can advance a more plausible conjecture of the real (as opposed to ostensible) reason for Rand’s colossal disdain for Kant. She needed a scapegoat, someone to blame for why people immediate accept her philosophy Objectivism philosophy of “reason,” egoism, and laissez-faire capitalism. Since she had already come to believe, for reasons which neither she nor her acolytes have adequately elucidated, that philosophical ideas determine the course of history, it was only natural that she would need a philosophy—or a philosopher—to blame for the events and trends in the course of history which she detested. With Paterson as the initial inspiration, she chose Kant.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5535847946098440215\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5535847946098440215","title":"25 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5535847946098440215"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5535847946098440215"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2019\/01\/did-rand-read-kant.html","title":"Did Rand read Kant?"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"25"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7877158031187592416"},"published":{"$t":"2018-10-17T18:58:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2018-10-17T18:58:07.090-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Ethics\/Morality"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Is\/Ought Problem"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Rationalism"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Verbalism"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"McCaskey: \"Rand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic\""},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"John McCaskey, the former ARI board member forced to resign for mild criticisms of a Peikoff protege, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.johnmccaskey.com\/attacking-rand\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ewrote\u003C\/a\u003E in a blog post a few years back about Rand's \"method of arguing.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nRand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic. She has her own distinctive method of arguing. If that method is valid, her moral and political philosophy stands. If it is invalid, her whole system comes crashing down.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWhat is her method and is it valid?...\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nRand’s distinctive method to answering many philosophical questions is to ask what knowledge is already presumed by the very terms in the question.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nYou say, “Miss Rand, I want to argue with you about the proper role of government.” She replies, in effect, “OK, but let us first unpack the concepts you are using. What are you already assuming by using the words ‘proper’ and ‘government’?” If you think of a government as the owner of buildings where you fill out forms and “proper” as whatever avoids your mother’s wrath, then Rand will insist that the two of you first work out a mature and essentialized understanding of these concepts.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nIn other words, Rand seeks to answer very complex philosophical questions via an\u0026nbsp;explication of the meanings of words. Is this an effective way to answer moral questions? Is it an effective way to determine matters of fact?\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\nWell, it clearly is not an effective way to determine matters of fact. Ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle and the later scholastics may have attempted to determine matters of fact in such a manner, but we now know they were mistaken in trying to arrive at knowledge by such a rationalistic and non-empirical method. No scientist would try to discover truths about the material world via a \"distinctive method of arguing\" which involved the \"unpacking\" of the concepts used in the argument. Nor is that the method resorted to when dealing with real problems in everyday life. If there's something wrong with my car and I have a mechanic look at it, this mechanic is not ever going to find out what's wrong with my vehicle by explicating the meanings of automotive terms used when arguing about cars. That's not how knowledge works. The mechanic, if he wishes to find out what's wrong with my car, has to get his hands dirty. He has to examine the car and find out what the heck is going on. If you've injured your leg, does the doctor begin his examination by unpacking medical concepts relating to legs, muscles, bones, tendons, and joints? Or does he proceed with a physical examination of your leg and then perhaps have an X-ray taken of your afflicted limb?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNow it could be argued that Rand's method, while not very useful for determining matters of fact, might on the other hand yield fruit in moral questions, such as the proper role of government. Yet even if that were true, it would still not get Rand where she wanted to go. For a question such as the \"proper\" role of government cannot be answered \u003Ci\u003Esolely\u003C\/i\u003E on moral grounds. Whatever moral answers may be derived from Rand's nonconventional standards of logic, at some point they would inevitably touch upon matters of fact. The issue of the proper role of government, for example, cannot be decided without first examining whether the role envisioned is something that is plausibly achieved in the real world. There would be no point in advocating for a role that no real government would ever take up. But determining this question of realizability would require knowledge of human nature and of human society, and these are very much matters of fact, not of morals, and cannot be understood via Rand's unconventional methods of logic and verbalistic\u0026nbsp;definition mongering.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nObjectivism has been trying to inflict its vision of the \"proper\" role of government on the rest of us for over sixty years. How much progress has Objectivism made in achieving this goal? Virtually none. So what does that say about the realizability of the goal in question?"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7877158031187592416\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7877158031187592416","title":"10 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7877158031187592416"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7877158031187592416"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2018\/10\/mccaskey-rand-doesnt-follow.html","title":"McCaskey: \"Rand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic\""}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"10"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5125217680828703855"},"published":{"$t":"2018-07-23T06:35:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2018-07-23T06:35:42.380-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"What was Ayn Rand Wrong About?"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"ui_qtext_para\" style=\"background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro\u0026quot;, Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;\"\u003E\nWhat follows is my answer to a question posed on Quora: \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.quora.com\/What-was-Ayn-Rand-wrong-about\/answer\/Greg-Nyquist?__nsrc__=4\u0026amp;__pmsg__=+RW1FY3hJNHRQQWZZeFBOVFpuVG06YS5hcHAudmlldy5wbXNnLkxvZ2dlZEluRnJvbUxpbms6W1s4MDEyMTkxM10sIHt9XQ**\u0026amp;__snid3__=2962248959\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EWhat was Ayn Rand Wrong About?\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"ui_qtext_para\" style=\"background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro\u0026quot;, Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;\"\u003E\nOn the technical side of things, Rand was wrong about (1) the need to validate man’s knowledge—i.e., foundationalism; (2) that concepts require definitions and that definitions can be true or false; (3) that emotions are automatic effects of man’s value premises; (4) that abstract philosophy determines the course of history; (5) and that emotions are not “tools of cognition.” If we wished to really get into the philosophical weeds, we could probably ferret out even more technical errors, but beyond a few hard-core Rand acolytes, I doubt that anyone really cares about any of these largely technical issues. Nowadays Rand is mostly known for her zealous affirmations of egoism, “selfishness,” and laissez-faire capitalism, and her concomitant denunciations of altruism and all forms of government interventionism. Perhaps her most influential contention is that freedom and capitalism require a moral foundation, by which she meant: convincing philosophical arguments on their behalf. This conviction is based, however, on faulty assumptions about moral philosophy, human reason and psychological motivation.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"ui_qtext_para\" style=\"background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro\u0026quot;, Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;\"\u003E\nRand believed that people derived their sense of right and wrong from moral philosophy. This would be true, Rand contended, whether they read moral philosophy or not. She assumed that moral evaluations had to arise from ideas about morality. These ideas had to originate in someone’s mind. So if an individual didn’t form his own moral ideas, he had to get them from someone who did. That someone, Rand argued, had to be a philosopher, probably one of the great philosophers of the Western tradition (e.g., Plato, Aristotle, Kant). Rand presented no real evidence for this view, and, as it so happens, most of what we know from the scientific study of human behavior and thought contradicts Rand’s largely baseless theory.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"ui_qtext_para\" style=\"background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro\u0026quot;, Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;\"\u003E\nAccording to experimental psychology (see James Q Wilson’s\u0026nbsp;\u003Cspan class=\"qlink_container\"\u003E\u003Ca class=\"external_link\" data-qt-tooltip=\"amazon.com\" href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Moral-Sense-Free-Press-Paperbacks\/dp\/0684833328\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\" style=\"background: url(\u0026quot;\/\/qsf.fs.quoracdn.net\/-3-images.new_grid.external_link.svg-26-aef78ead48f1f1e2.svg\u0026quot;) right 0.3em \/ 10.5px no-repeat; color: #2b6dad; padding-right: 15px; text-decoration-line: none;\" target=\"_blank\"\u003E\u003Ci\u003EMoral Sense\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u0026nbsp;and\/or Jonathan Haidt’s\u0026nbsp;\u003Cspan class=\"qlink_container\"\u003E\u003Ca class=\"external_link\" data-qt-tooltip=\"amazon.com\" href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion\/dp\/0307455777\/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8\u0026amp;keywords=haidt+righteous+mind\u0026amp;qid=1483982373\u0026amp;s=books\u0026amp;sr=1-1\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\" style=\"background: url(\u0026quot;\/\/qsf.fs.quoracdn.net\/-3-images.new_grid.external_link.svg-26-aef78ead48f1f1e2.svg\u0026quot;) right 0.3em \/ 10.5px no-repeat; color: #2b6dad; padding-right: 15px; text-decoration-line: none;\" target=\"_blank\"\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe Righteous Mind\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E), “people have a natural moral sense, a sense that is formed out of the interaction of their innate dispositions with their earliest familial experiences.” In other words, moral judgments, distinctions, and evaluations are not the product of abstract philosophy. Nor could they be, given the general nature of abstract moral principles. Rand saw morality as a code to guide behavior. But as it turns out, the moral principles of nearly every philosophical system of ethics out there are too abstract and topical to be followed in daily life. Consider, as just one example, Kant’s famous categorical imperative, the first formulation of which is: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.\" The trouble with this formula is that it’s useless as standard or guide for behavior or moral evaluation. Indeed, to the extent that you can draw any specific meaning out of it, it is absurd. What would it mean to say that something becomes a universal law. Does it mean that everyone must abide by it? If so, then the desire to become, say, a computer programmer would violate Kant’s maxim, for the simple reason that, if becoming a computer programmer was a universal law that everyone had to follow (i.e., everyone had to become a computer programmer), everyone would starve. These absurdities aren’t noticed because, in moral philosophy, people reason on the basis of sentiments, not logic, and they unwittingly use philosophical principles to rationalize whatever their intuitive moral sense tells them is right or wrong. Moral evaluations are not the product of philosophical reasonings. The human mind does not, nor can it, work that way.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"ui_qtext_para\" style=\"background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro\u0026quot;, Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;\"\u003E\nI once heard a debate on morality between an orthodox follower of Ayn Rand and a libertarian critic of Rand’s ethics. The two debaters, oddly enough, did not argue over what might constitute moral conduct. More or less, they agreed on what was moral and proper. Where they differed is on the question of how to describe whatever conduct they regarded as ethically justified. If I remember correctly, they both admitted that it could be morally right to save someone from drowning (provided there was no serious risk in doing so). The orthodox follower of Rand insisted that such behavior must be described as “egoistic” and “selfish.” The critic of Rand thought this was absurd, and that the behavior in question was clearly altruistic. Neither debater made any attempt to explain why they thought the conduct in question good and proper. They simply took it for granted, because it accorded with their moral sense. They were merely arguing about how to rationalize the conduct that arose from their moral intuitions. They were, in short, arguing about how to use language, rather than on how to behave.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"ui_qtext_para\" style=\"background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: q_serif, Georgia, Times, \u0026quot;Times New Roman\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro\u0026quot;, Meiryo, serif; font-size: 15px; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px;\"\u003E\nRand’s politics suffer from the same issues as her morality. She seems to have believed that political systems are based on abstract philosophical principles. As a matter of fact, this is not the case at all. Political systems more accurately could be described, in the words of Evelyn Waugh, as “an arrangement.” Societies are made up of individuals of varying talents, initiative, sentiments, interests, personality, intelligence and charisma. Out of this maelstrom of diversity, passion and semi-rational calculation various factions emerge, each with its own set of ideologies. How, from so many disparate elements, is it possible to form a government and conduct public policy? In times past, factions would form alliances and then through violence they would force their will on the rest of society. This led to a great deal of bloodshed and death, so over time various other mechanisms were developed so that a heterogeneous populace could live in a civil society. What is broadly called democracy, which is a kind of game factions play to determine public policy, has turned out to be the least worst of the options facing mankind. Out of this game, it is very implausible that any specific ideology, particularly one like Rand’s “laissez-faire capitalism” which is in important respects at odds with the sentiments and interest of the vast majority of human beings, will ever dominate over the rest. It’s just not how democracy (rule of “constitutional” government via elected representatives and permanent bureaucracy) works, or ever can work. If you understand human nature and the nature of society, you will realize the gross implausibility of Randian “laissez-faire.” Even if by some elaborate form of reasoning you could (per impossible) “prove” that laissez-faire capitalism was the only “proper” system of social and economic intercourse, that would constitute a purely theoretical and ultimately Pyrrhic victory. Social systems are not determined by the cavilings of philosophers. Ayn Rand was wrong to think otherwise.\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5125217680828703855\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5125217680828703855","title":"26 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5125217680828703855"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5125217680828703855"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2018\/07\/what-was-ayn-rand-wrong-about.html","title":"What was Ayn Rand Wrong About?"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"26"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6755590575051424675"},"published":{"$t":"2018-07-02T08:07:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2018-07-02T08:07:17.398-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Jordan Peterson"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Yaron Brook"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Peterson at OCON: A Quick and Dirty Review"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Those of us who are cognizant of orthodox Objectivists at their worst knew that the discussion\/debate with Jordan Peterson that was held at OCON could have ended very badly for the Randian cause. Luckily for the denizens of ARI, Brook and Salmieri managed to escape any serious mishaps. They wisely avoided challenging Peterson on issues relating to psychological science and tried to keep to discussion restricted to areas where they thought they had an advantage. Consequently Peterson delivered no Cathy Newman killshots (not that he wanted to) and Brook and Salmieri escaped relatively unscathed. While that's a kind of a win for Brook, on the other side of the coin, I don't believe things ended quite the way Brook had hoped.\n\nIt appeared to me that Brook and Salmieri were using different strategies. One of the great weaknesses of orthodox Objectivism is that they have trouble understanding non-Objectivist thinkers. They are more interested in refuting and\/or condemning people with different views than understanding them. This approach to their adversaries caused Brook to adopt a strategy that wound up backfiring. Brook seems to have gone into the debate under the illusion that Peterson is an opponent of metaphysical realism). At one point in the discussion, Brook waxed on about the independent existence of his water bottle, only to be stymied when Peterson kept agreeing with him.\n \n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\nSalmieri meanwhile was pursing a somewhat different strategy. Instead of trying to score points on Peterson (which wasn't going to happen in any case), he seemed more intent on trying to impress Peterson, often looking for points of agreement and sedulously avoiding contentious rhetoric. When, for example, Salmieri launched into his critique of American pragmatism (which Peterson espouses), he made a point of stressing what he liked about those philosophers. The general impact of Salmieri's strategy is that it blunted Brook's attempt to use Peterson as a foil to present Objectivism to a wider audience. Peterson came off looking closer to Objectivism than he really is, and Brook failed to present Rand's creed as a superior alternative to Peterson's views. \n\nThis is not to suggest that there weren't important points of disagreement between Salmieri and Brook on one side and Peterson on the other. The most important of these revolved around the question of values. Are \"rational,\" \"objective\" values possible? Can human beings regulate their behavior on the basis of a \"rational,\" articulable ethical philosophy? Peterson took the negative on these questions, Objectivism the positive. In this section of the discussion, Peterson shined and Salmieri and Brook floundered. Salmieri commenced his defence of articulable rational morality by essentially conceding Peterson's point without, however, fully appreciating that he had done so. (This was Salmieri's weakest point in the discussion). Meanwhile, Brook tried to leap over Hume's is-ought gap by stressing the role facts in ethical calcuations. This, of course, is something Rand attempted to do in her essay \"The Objectivist Ethics,\" and it happens to be flat out wrong. The is-ought gap does not deny that facts can be used in ethical reasoning. What it denies is that ethic can be founded exclusively on facts.\n\nThese ethical issues are, however, very subtle and complex and not well understood by most people. For this reason, even though Brook and Salmieri floundered, it wasn't a complete disaster. Their fans thought they got the better of Peterson on this issue, and many people watching the video probably failed to appreciate how poorly they performed. \n\n\n\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6755590575051424675\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6755590575051424675","title":"10 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6755590575051424675"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6755590575051424675"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2018\/07\/peterson-at-ocon-quick-and-dirty-review.html","title":"Peterson at OCON: A Quick and Dirty Review"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"10"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6051127118501302243"},"published":{"$t":"2018-06-22T07:49:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2018-07-01T14:17:03.178-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Human Nature"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Jordan Peterson"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Yaron Brook"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Jordan Peterson is going to OCON"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Yaron Brook has \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/FOmsqeAzbDY\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eannounced\u003C\/a\u003E that Jordan Peterson will involved in a debate\/discussion entitled \"Philosophy and Man's Soul\" at an Objectivist conference (i.e., OCON) on July 1. Peterson will be joined by Yaron Brook, \u003Cstrike\u003EOnkar Ghate\u003C\/strike\u003E, Greg Salmieri and Dave Rubin. The event will be live-streamed on The Rubin Report:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ciframe allow=\"autoplay; encrypted-media\" allowfullscreen=\"\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"315\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/PRHaropPZCc\" width=\"560\"\u003E\u003C\/iframe\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThis is something Brook has been angling after in recent months: to have a \"discussion\" with a major figure of the so-called \"intellectual dark web.\" Brook's motive is the desire for exposure. The video of this discussion will likely be seen by hundreds of thousands of people; snippets from it may be heard by millions. Without Peterson, a typical OCON video might be watched by a few thousand people. Brook is chasing after views, and with Peterson's help, he'll get them.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHowever, as the old cliche has it, \u003Ci\u003Ebe careful what you wish for.\u003C\/i\u003E Brook is playing a dangerous game. Peterson's background as an academic and clinical psychologist makes him a deadly antagonist. He has loads of evidence at his fingertips that can be used against the Objectivist view of human nature. This discussion could easily end badly for Brook. Against Peterson, Brook is way out of his depth.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn her philosophy, Rand denied the existence of innate predispositions of character. This blank slate view essentially renders human nature homogeneous. Human beings, in the Randian view, are, at bottom, more or less alike. If they are in fact different it's because they've chosen different philosophical premises. Since there's no innate predispositions biasing the choice of these premises, there's nothing that would rule out most people choosing Objectivist premises.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNow in his podcast with Gad Saad, Brook took a view that challenges this orthodox position. He admitted the reality of innate predispositions --- possibly a fatal admission (although Brook is too shallow to understand why it's fatal). Brook tried to reconcile this admission to Objectivist orthodoxy by insisting that human beings could get around these predispositions by using \"reason.\" This view of the matter, besides being vague and not terribly compelling, suffers from an enormous defect. Because the question is not whether people can in fact side-step their predispositions by applying \"reason,\" but whether they actually will do such a thing. While it's true that predispositions are not completely deterministic (people can act against them), in practice, many people won't act against them; so that if, as I strongly suspect, the vast majority people are predisposed against many of Objectivism's core views about human nature, ethics, and politics, then it follows that Objectivism will never be accepted by more than a small minority of people.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nDespite or perhaps because of the risks Brook is taking by inviting Peterson to OCON, he deserves credit for at least being willing to talk to the Canada's most famous intellectual. When Peikoff was the dominant force at ARI, no one like Peterson would have ever been invited to an Objectivist conference. This suggests a greater openness; but it also betrays a sense of desperation. Objectivism is being crowded out of the public square by people like Peterson, Sam Harris, and Joe Rogan. Having discussions with figures from the \"intellectual dark web\" is a last-ditch effort to give Objectivism a modicum of exposure and relevance."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6051127118501302243\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6051127118501302243","title":"14 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6051127118501302243"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6051127118501302243"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2018\/06\/jordan-peterson-is-going-to-ocon.html","title":"Jordan Peterson is going to OCON"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/PRHaropPZCc\/default.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"14"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1467618109008150499"},"published":{"$t":"2018-06-07T09:02:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2018-06-07T09:02:27.989-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Ethics\/Morality"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Human Nature"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"persuasion"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Politics"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivism: an Autopsy, Part 4"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"In Nathaniel Branden's \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.starways.net\/lisa\/essays\/benefits1.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eessay\u003C\/a\u003E \"The Benefits and Hazards of Objectivism\" we come across the following observation:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe great, glaring gap in just about all ethical systems of which I have knowledge, even when many of the particular values and virtues they advocate may be laudable, is the absence of a technology to assist people in getting there, an effective means for acquiring these values and virtues, a realistic path people can follow. That is the great missing step in most religions and philosophies.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nYou can tell people that it's a virtue to be rational, productive, or just, but, if they have not already arrived at that stage of awareness and development on their own, objectivism does not tell them how to get there. It does tell you you're rotten if you fail to get there.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand's failure to provide a \"technology\" for attaining Objectivist moral values is not her only failure in this regard. She provided very little in terms of achieving any of the things she regarded as desirable, whether it was rationality, persuasion, or laissez-faire capitalism. And on few occasions\u0026nbsp;where she provided at least the outlines of a technology (as in aesthetics and \"philosophical-detection\"), what she actually gives us is deeply flawed. Hence the ironic spectacle of Rand followers who don't know how to be rational, Objectivists who don't know how to solve moral conflicts with other Objectivists, and the lack of a strong, vibrant Objectivist artistic movement.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cb\u003E1. No Method for Attaining Rationality.\u003C\/b\u003E Rand waxed eloquent on the merits of \"reason\" and rationality, yet never really explained how to attain it --- at least not in sufficient detail. Instead, she left us quite a bit of moralizing rhetoric about forming concepts \"properly,\" or \"focusing\" your minds, or integrating your thoughts into a logical whole. Some of her theories concerning knowledge, especially those revolving around definitions and concepts, are factually erroneous. The very term \"conceptual knowledge,\" which she enjoyed bandying about, could be regarded as a \u003Ci\u003Econtradicto en adjecto\u003C\/i\u003E --- a contradiction of terms. Concepts are items of description, not units of knowledge, and are therefore neutral in terms of their truth or \"validity.\" Rand's insistence on the importance of consciously formed articulable knowledge is badly misplaced. Actual knowledge (i.e., the cognitive processes that real human beings use in world of fact) work very different from how Rand imagined --- as cognitive scientists have known for decades.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nEven worse than all this is the example Rand left to the world by her own conduct. When engaged in Q\u0026amp;A in front of an audience, she would not shrink from vicious personal attacks against anyone, even persons sympathetic with her philosophy of Objectivism, who asked a question she was uncomfortable answering. Rand was hypersensitive to anything she perceived as an attack, which made it very difficult for her to engage in rational discussion with people who disagreed with her.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003E2. No method for attaining virtue\u003C\/b\u003E. In some sense, it isn't Rand's fault that she failed to provide an adequate technology for the Objectivist ethics. As it turns out, such a technology is not really feasible. Morality cannot be solely based on a consciously formed, articulable system of thought. There is absolutely no evidence that morality does or can work that way, and a quite a bit of evidence that the larger portion of what passes for ethics is the consequence of ingrained sentiments or instinct that is refined by experience, teaching, and narrative. (James Q. Wilson's \u003Ci\u003EThe Moral Sense\u003C\/i\u003E and Jonathan Haidt's \u003Ci\u003EThe Righteous Mind\u003C\/i\u003E provide the best introduction to the evidence supporting this view.)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003E3. No method of attaining political ideals\u003C\/b\u003E. As Objectivism evolves, the political side of it gains increasing importance. Let's face it: many people are attracted to Objectivism chiefly for political reasons; and most of the hostility Objectivism inspires among its critics has its source in differences over political ideals. Yet despite the strong political orientation of Objectivism, its most prominent spokesmen, along with the movement in general, have virtually no influence over the public policy of any country in the world. As a political movement, Objectivism is a failure, and part of the reason for this is that Rand and her followers never provided any effective technology for persuasion. How could they? Since Objectivism has a seriously flawed view of human nature, it would unreasonable to expect Rand or any of her disciples to come up with an effective theory of persuasion. Quite the contrary, Rand and Peikoff seemed to believe that the course of history could be change by refuting the epistemology of Immanual Kant --- hardly an effective strategy for changing the world.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThere's what people claim to believe, and then there's how people behave. In terms of behavior, Rand would often engage in triggering behavior. She would intentionally make statements that her ideological opponents regarded as palpably absurd and\/or beyond the pale. While such iconoclasm might offer emotional gratification to Rand's admirers, it's disastrous as persuasion\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1467618109008150499\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1467618109008150499","title":"19 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1467618109008150499"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1467618109008150499"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2018\/06\/objectivism-autopsy-part-4.html","title":"Objectivism: an Autopsy, Part 4"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"19"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5179361021194335848"},"published":{"$t":"2018-01-05T19:41:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2018-01-05T19:42:12.263-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"persuasion"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivism: An Autopsy, Part 3"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"In some respects, Rand's ideology of Objectivism can be seen as an over-reaction to the Marxist left. Rand lived through the Russian Revolution and experienced communism first hand. She despised the Marxian creed with every fiber of her being, and in her philosophy of Objectivism she sought to fashion a doctrine diametrically opposed to the collectivist and anti-capitalist dogmas of Soviet communism. Thus Rand wound up advocating a pure (some might say \"extreme\") form of individualism and capitalism as a way to oppose the murderous collectivism of Marxist-Leninism.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand began formulating these doctrines more than seventy years ago. The ideological landscape has undergone significant changes during this time. After the publication of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's \u003Ci\u003EGulag Archepelago\u003C\/i\u003E, the Soviet version of Marxism became thoroughly discredited in the West, even among radical leftists. But the pathological urge to impose equity fairness on modern society has persisted among our civilizations' left-leaning discontents. To scratch the equity fairness itch, a new type of Marxism needed to be formulated. Thus was born Post-Modernism and Identity Politics, which replaced the class conflict paradigm of the old Marxism with a new paradigm based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. This constituted a real improvement over traditional Marxism in that it justified and nurtured a powerful political coalition between white progressives and non-whites. Demographic changes caused by declining birth rates among whites and increased immigration of non-whites will increase the chances that the left, and quite possibly the radical left, enjoys a permanent electoral majority in the United States in future decades.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EIn the face of this (seemingly) impending dominance of the left, the right has begun to fragment and fall apart. No broad consensus has been reached regarding what should be done. Mainstream conservatives have merely buried their heads in the sand and pretended they are still living in the 1980s. Another faction on the right, along with much of the conservative base, has embraced an anti-immigration form of civic nationalism. A much smaller but noisier faction has jumped the shark and decided to embrace the identity politics of the left, applying similar ideological rationalizations to what they conceive as \"white\" interests (whatever those might be). In this shifting and jostling of ideological paradigms, the libertarian side of the right has become somewhat lost in the shuffle. That's not to say libertarians have disappeared completely. One still hears of conferences, books, speeches, even YouTube videos. But somehow the flame of Libertarianism, which seemed to flareup around the Tea Party movement in 2010 and Ron Paul in 2012, has in just four years been greatly dimmed. The enthusiasm has abated. Political energies, particularly on the right among the young, seemed to shift from concerns about the size government to issues involving immigration, changing demographics, and threats to Western Civilization.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMichael Lind has \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.politico.com\/magazine\/story\/2016\/05\/2016-election-realignment-partisan-political-party-policy-democrats-republicans-politics-213909\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eargued\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;that America is undergoing a political realignment:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe partisan coalitions that defined the Democratic and Republican parties for decades in the middle of the twentieth century broke apart long ago; over the past half century, their component voting blocs — ideological, demographic, economic, geographic, cultural — have reshuffled. The reassembling of new Democratic and Republican coalitions is nearly finished....\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWhy is this all happening now? ...\u0026nbsp;The culture war and partisan realignment are over; the policy realignment and “border war” — a clash between nationalists, mostly on the right, and multicultural globalists, mostly on the left — have just begun.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nFor the nationalists, the most important dividing line is that between American citizens and everyone else—symbolized by Trump’s proposal for a Mexican border wall. On the right, American nationalism is tainted by strains of white racial and religious nationalism and nativism, reinforced by Trump’s incendiary language about Mexicans and his proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S....\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe rise of populist nationalism on the right is paralleled by the rise of multicultural globalism on the center-left.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nFor multicultural globalists, national boundaries are increasingly obsolete and perhaps even immoral. According to the emerging progressive orthodoxy, the identities that count are subnational (race, gender, orientation) and supranational (citizenship of the world). While not necessarily representative of Democratic voters, progressive pundits and journalists increasingly speak a dialect of ethical cosmopolitanism or globalism — the idea that it is unjust to discriminate in favor of one’s fellow nationals against citizens of foreign countries.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThere is obviously a great deal more to the realignment than just nationalism versus globalism. The radical left, through its infiltration of cultural and political institutions, wields an influence that far outstrips its numbers. Meanwhile, on the right, we find a small but noisy confederacy of racial nationalists busy stirring up trouble on the internet. Among all this reshuffling, libertarian creeds, including Objectivism, are struggling to extend their respective brands. In the second half of the Twentieth Century, conservatism in America was made up of a coalition of economic libertarians, anti-communists, and social conservatives. Now that civic nationalism is becoming the dominant ideology on the right, libertarians\u0026nbsp;are increasingly going to find themselves the odd man out.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nEvidence of this can be gleaned by taking note of a number of influential nationalists, both civic and racial, on YouTube. A \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.thedailybeast.com\/the-insidious-libertarian-to-alt-right-pipeline\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Esurprising number of them\u003C\/a\u003E started out as Libertarians (or at least libertarian sympathizers — e.g., Stefan Molyneux, Milo Yiannopolous, Richard Spencer, Gavin McInnis, Laura Southern, and Theodore Beale among others). Essentially, all these people fell under the spell of Ann Coulter's book \u003Ci\u003EAdios America\u003C\/i\u003E, which sent shock waves through the right upon its publication in 2015. Coulter argued that the overwhelming majority of Third World immigrants would always support the Big Government policies of the left, and that if immigration is allowed to persist unchecked, the left, and quite possibly the radical left, would gain a permanent majority in America.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOrthodox Objectivism has, for the most part, remained immune to Coulter's thesis. Leonard Peikoff, toward the end of his career as a podcaster, briefly flirted with the notion. But Yaron Brook staged\u003Cbr \/\u003E\na quick intervention and brought Peikoff back to the pro-immigrationist fold. While this may have preserved ARI from further Peikoff-inspired embarrassment, it hardly serves to make the Objectivist creed more attractive to young people on the right. Indeed, it would seem that young people with conservative and libertarian leanings are quickly losing faith in the do-nothing creed of Objectivist inspired laissez-faire politics. Objectivism and libertarianism having been trying to convert people to their respective creeds for over sixty years, and they have little to show for it. With the surge of the radical left (at least terms of social and cultural influence) in recent years, the right is beginning to retrench into old forms of nationalism, both civic and, sometimes, in extreme cases, even racial. As the right-left ideological paradigm shifts and new factions on the right form to challenge globalism and non-white identitarianism, it's not clear how Objectivism and Rand-inspired libertarianism are going to maintain even a small sliver of relevance.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"grammarly-disable-indicator\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5179361021194335848\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5179361021194335848","title":"110 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5179361021194335848"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5179361021194335848"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2018\/01\/objectivism-autopsy-part-3.html","title":"Objectivism: An Autopsy, Part 3"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"110"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7165194976260027516"},"published":{"$t":"2017-07-24T09:41:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2017-07-24T09:41:50.858-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Cult Tendencies"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Orthodox Objectivism: An Autopsy, Part 2"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOrthodox Objectivism may have been doomed from the start, simply because it was a dogmatic philosophy that prided itself on rationality and self-interest yet which, in its specific doctrines and in the behavior of its adherents, often betrayed these stated objectives. Rand's contention that human beings are born \"blank slates\" is about as rational as the belief that the earth is flat. And as for self-interest: is it really in anyone's self-interest to embrace orthodox Objectivism? Doubts persist on this score. Some years ago Barbara Branden noted that far too many Objectivists came off as bitter and angry. Is it really in your self-interest to be angry all the time? Is it really in your self-interest to continually distort and\/or misunderstand the views of people you disagree with, while at the same time being hyper-sensitive to alleged distortions of your own views? Is it really in your self-interest to remain an adherent of a philosophy which has no viable track record of making its adherents smarter, wiser, happier, or more fulfilled? Orthodox Objectivism had so much going against it right from the start. But the dim prospects of the philosophy were made many times worse by Rand's choice for the heir to her literary estate, namely, Dr. Leonard Peikoff. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EAmong the non-orthodox followers of Rand, Leonard Peikoff is often made into a scapegoat, the man who drove Objectivism off the rails and brought disrepute to Rand's memory. This is not so far from the truth. If Rand had been a better judge of character, she would have selected David Kelley as her heir, not Peikoff. Despite his reputation as a \"neo-Objectivist,\" Kelley isactually remains very close to orthodoxy in most of his Objectivist formulations. He is simply a much more intelligent expositor of Randian doctrines than Peikoff or anyone else at ARI. He at least has some notion of the weaker points in Rand's system, which he seeks to downplay, or at least present in the most plausible terms possible. In the Objectivist ethics, for example, he downplays the survivalist aspect, while emphasizing flourishing and benevolence. He insists that adherence to reality is more important than adherence to Rand's beliefs. Kelley makes Objectivism almost seem respectable. But more than that, he makes it seem humane and non-threatening. Perhaps that's the reason his version of Rand's creed has never really caught on. Those who are attracted to Rand are perhaps most attracted to the extreme parts: to the anger and resentment, the outrage and the indignation that provide the motivating force for so many of its key doctrines. Take away these emotions and Objectivism becomes little more than a deeply flawed and badly dated philosophy.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff's stewardship of \u0026nbsp;Objectivism veered from one disaster to another, each worse than before. The first crisis was brought about by a biography of Ayn Rand published by Peikoff's cousin, Barbara Branden. If Peikoff had any notions of seeking to transform Objectivism into a respectable system of thought, he immediately threw all that overboard after the publication of the \u003Ci\u003EPassion of Ayn Rand\u003C\/i\u003E. Under his leadership, the cultish aspects of Objectivism, which had been there from the start, became even more pronounced. This development became a stated point of doctrine when, a year or so later, he excommunicated David Kelley from the movement. In fairness to Peikoff, it's not clear he set out to give Kelley the boot. It is more likely that his minions, particularly Harry Binswanger and Peter Schwartz, set him to it. It's long been thought that the real reason why Kelley was thrown overboard stemmed from his endorsement of Branden's biography. But I've always suspected the primary reason stemmed form sheer envy. Schwartz, Binswanger, and others within the Objectivist elite resented Kelley's intelligence and scholarly credentials. They recognized Kelley as their superior and hated him for it. Hence their attempts to incite Peikoff against Kelley.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhether the ire of orthodox Objectivists against Kelley was motivated by envy and resentment and\/or Kelley's endorsement of \u003Ci\u003EThe Passion of Ayn Rand\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;and\/or some other factious reason, Peikoff was persuaded to write a screed against the perceived Kelley menace. In the essay \"Fact and Value,\" Peikoff insisted that Objectivism was a closed system, on the grounds that the philosophy referred solely to doctrines originating, or at least endorsed, by Rand herself. This essentially mummified Objectivism into an Ayn Rand personality cult. The philosophy became largely restricted to Rand's known views, as sanctioned by Peikoff himself. Objectivists were allowed to apply those views to their own lives. But they were not allowed to revise or amend such views. Criticism of Rand's personal behavior was not tolerated. ARI became a kind of Objectivist Vatican, with Rand the principle deity and Peikoff its Pope. Excommunications followed. Not only Kelley and his followers, but ARI board members George Riesman, Edith Packer, and John McCaskey. Because of criticism directed against the Ayn Rand Institute and Peikoff for continuing Rand's policy of dramatic breaks with people over minor doctrinal differences, Peikoff and ARI often preferred to silently and discreetly ostracize those they no longer wished to be associated with. This, in any case, appears to be what happened with Tracinski, among others.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIntellectually, Peikoff left orthodox Objectivism worse than he found it --- which is an accomplishment of sorts, though not in a positive way. As an intellectual movement, Objectivism was already veering towards its inevitable crack-up when Peikoff took over from Rand in 1982. His decision to close the system sealed the philosophy's fate. Unable to take in and adapt new discoveries in the cognitive and psychological sciences, Objectivism became increasingly difficult to regard as a serious, rational, science-friendly philosophical movement. Meanwhile, Peikoff was busy developing the worst aspects of the Randian creed. His specialty had always been one of the weakest parts of the system, the philosophy of history. Peikoff had come to believe that Rand's vague and scientifically dubious speculations about the role of philosophy in the course of history could provide special insights to the future of the United States and Western Civilization. Assuming that history is determined by the most fundamental ideas developed by the greatest philosophers, he came to the conclusion that the United States was heading towards a theocracy. In 2004, he recommended voting for John Kerry over George Bush for President. Kerry and the Democrats did not pose as serious a threat to Objectivist values as Bush and the Republicans, because, Peikoff \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ariwatch.com\/PresidentialElections-3.htm\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Edeclared\u003C\/a\u003E,\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nthere is no longer a mass base or any crusade for big government. There are no ethical or political ideals in the country except among the religious people.... Kerry can’t even think of anything to say in this campaign, they simply have no ideas, period. Now of course Kerry is bad in everything,... you name a standard liberal evil he’s bad at it. But none of these types is a threat, ... not even Hillary Clinton as President would be a threat at this juncture, not a threat to the very foundations and even existence of the United States....\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nBush is working to achieve a massive entrenchment of fundamentalism into our government and political system. Kerry has no such agenda....\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n...for the very first time we have a serious [religious] president and candidate, with all the essentials in place: \u0026nbsp;God, faith, sacrifice, statism – in other words the equivalent of a Puritan theocracy, the aggregate of it.... if this goes on for even four more years, how long do you think intellectual freedom and freedom of speech can last?\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n... I don’t think there’s the least moral justification for sitting the election out on the grounds that, well, both of them are no good.... That is a total ... immoral evasion.... People who say they’re not going to vote for anybody because both men are bad, happen to ignore one crucial element: \u0026nbsp;one is normally, disgustingly bad, and the other is apocalyptic [sic] bad.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nIn 2006, Peikoff wrote the following:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power...\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAnyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life ... he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism...\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n“If \u0026nbsp;[compared to the Left] ... you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nIn 2008, Peikoff persisted in his refusal to vote Republican, contending that\u0026nbsp;the \"[Republican] party has to be wiped out or severely punished for its affiliation with Evangelicals and with religion more broadly.”\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn 2009, Barack Obama assumption of the Presidency made a mockery of Peikoff's speculative prognostications. From an Objectivist standpoint, Obama appeared suspiciously like the Democratic nominee for President in 1972, Senator George McGovern, whom Rand so thunderously denounced. Obama's Presidency sought to expand government in ways never dreamt by the eminent \"theocrat\" George W. Bush. Peikoff was forced to make a dramatic change in his outlook, switching his support from Democrats to Republicans. In 2012, he wrote:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe political choice in November is: non-entity vs. anti-entity. Or: a man who is nothing vs. a man who wants to mass-produce nothings. This, in my judgment, is an unanswerable reason to vote for Romney, no matter what the nature and quantity of his flaws. A man such as our current president is far more dangerous to the survival of the United States than any terrorists from the Mideast.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nFor the same reason, I intend to vote for whatever Republicans in my district are running for the House and the Senate. Republican control of at least one of these bodies, however weakened they have become, is still some restraint on Obama if he wins.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nHow did Peikoff get it so wrong? How could he have seriously believed that the United States was in danger of becoming a theocracy? If he had known anything about the history of the United States, he should have known that America had been far more religious over most of its history, and that the trend in the last twenty years has been toward increasing secularism. The fact is, the Objectivist philosophy of history is based on bogus principles. History is not determined by the \"best\" expositors of broad philosophical concepts. Nor can one assume, as Peikoff at one point did, that a specific political faction is toothless because its most visible champions in the culture are intellectually bankrupt. Ideology is a rationalization of political will. Just because a specific ideology is often poorly rationalized in the culture doesn't mean that the political will it represents disappears or becomes weakened. That political will arises from the specific temperaments, sentiments and the perceived interests of the individual. The strongest predictor of ideological adherence is not broad philosophical principles, but temperament.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff had one more embarrassing episode to get through before \u0026nbsp;finally retiring from the scene. In 2010, Peikoff excommunicated ARI board member John McCaskey for some very mild criticisms of David Harriman's book \u003Ci\u003EThe Logical Leap\u003C\/i\u003E. McCaskey's criticisms appear to have been well founded, but that hardly mattered to Peikoff. \"When a great book sponsored by the Institute and championed by me ... is denounced by a member of the Board of the Institute, which I founded, someone has to go, and will go,\" Peikoff thundered. McCaskey subsequently resigned. Even some orthodox Objectivists were alarmed at this latest of Peikoff's temper tantrums. Craig Biddle, the publisher of the \u003Ci\u003EObjective Standard\u003C\/i\u003E, came out in support of McCaskey. Murmurs of discontent swelled among the rank and file. Under the mounting pressure, Peikoff felt compelled to author an apologia of sorts (which he later withdrew). In this extraordinary document, he confessed to being on terms of \"personal enmity\" with \"a few longtime Board members.\" Peikoff made this confession to demonstrate his degree of restraint. In effect, he was saying, \"See, I'm not the tyrant everyone claims I am. Far from it, I am willing to allow people I despise to sit on ARI's board of directors.\" But Peikoff's admission raises another problem: orthodox Objectivists seem to lack any means by which to resolve differences among themselves. If Peikoff and Binswanger come to differing conclusions about whom to vote for in the 2004 election, how do they figure out who is right? Theoretically, Objectivist \"reason\" should solve this problem. But Objectivist \"reason\" is a fraud. It cannot resolve such differences. So orthodox Objectivists, when they fall into disagreement (which inevitably happens) are condemned to exist in states of \"personal enmity.\" The only other option is outright schism --- and we know how that ends.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7165194976260027516\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7165194976260027516","title":"100 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7165194976260027516"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7165194976260027516"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2017\/07\/orthodox-objectivism-autopsy-part-2.html","title":"Orthodox Objectivism: An Autopsy, Part 2"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"100"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8728868413722549154"},"published":{"$t":"2017-05-23T10:13:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2017-05-23T10:13:52.028-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Ethics\/Morality"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Brief Re-visitation of Is-Ought Problem"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Below is a response to an email request concerning an \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/objectivistanswers.com\/questions\/5781\/what-are-your-thoughts-on-the-essay-ayn-rand-and-the-is-ought-problem\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eanswer\u003C\/a\u003E to Patrick Neil's essay on Rand's morality:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;Neil's article refutes the view expounded in Rand's article \"Objectivist Ethics.\" In that article, Rand attempted to refute the is-ought gap by claiming that Hume denies that morality has anything to do with facts. This is just wrong. In a later article, Rand pursued a different tactic. She suggested that ethics is conditional on choosing life. Now logically this does allow Rand to skirt around Hume's is-ought gap, because instead of reasoning from \"is\" premises to an \"ought\" conclusion, the line of reasoning goes, \"if x, then y,\" or: \"if life, then the ultimate value is life.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhile this mode of procedure may solve, or at least mitigate, the logical problem presented by the is-ought gap, it is questionable that it provides an \"objective\" code of values. The argument is so vague and abstract that it's difficult to logically generate a specific moral code that can guide everyday decisions. How does saying that life is the ultimate value help a person choose their career, or their life-mate, or how to spend their free time? Well, it doesn't help with any of these things. It's not even clear what it means, in terms of practical decision making. If life is the ultimate value, does that mean you should act to survive as long as possible? But that's not the principle Objectivists follow in their own decision making. Objectivists make use of the argument to \"prove\" the objectivity of their morality. Then they ignore the argument and follow their natural hard-wired and socially fine-tuned proclivities like everyone else. As a point of fact, human beings don't follow articulated moral systems derived from abstract philosophical reasoning. Everyday decision-making involves too much complexity for articulated systems of morality to work and be effective. Our brains have evolved complex motivational systems that help us survive and breed. These systems are hardly perfect and can perhaps be improved here or there through conscious reasoning (although that's not always the case), but it's impossible to entirely replace them with a \"code of morality\" based on a philosophical system of ethics like Objectivism. The Objectivist Ethics is little more than an ex post facto rationalization scheme to justify behavior Rand and her followers approve of and to provide a moral rationalization for the Objectivist politics. It doesn't provide a guide for how people should behave; it provides tools to rationalize types of behavior approved of by the broader Objectivist community.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nFor info (and scientific evidence) on how morality works in the real world of fact, see James Q. Wilson's \u003Ci\u003EThe Moral Sense\u003C\/i\u003E, Jonathan Haidt's \u003Ci\u003EThe Righteous Mind\u003C\/i\u003E, and\/or Jordan Peterson's YouTube lectures on \"Personality\" and \"Maps of Meaning.\""},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8728868413722549154\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8728868413722549154","title":"27 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8728868413722549154"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8728868413722549154"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2017\/05\/brief-re-visitation-of-is-ought-problem.html","title":"Brief Re-visitation of Is-Ought Problem"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"27"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-980551967143959561"},"published":{"$t":"2017-03-10T17:24:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2017-03-10T17:24:27.495-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Orthodox Objectivism: an Autopsy, Part 1"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"While it may be an exaggeration to say that orthodox Objectivism, since ARI continues to exists and apologists for that organization still exist. But as an intellectual force, it \u003Ci\u003Eis\u003C\/i\u003E dead --- and probably not revivable. Some might argue it's been dead, or close to death, for several decades. But there was always a hope, however dim and unlikely, that the corpse might be resusitated. Indeed, in 2008, orthodox Objectivism showed a brief flicker of life. Sales of \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E surged, and Rand once again became a favorite target of the left. But in the end, nothing came of it. In 2010, Leonard Peikoff conspired with ARI executive director Yaron Brook to force John McCaskey, a lucrative donor, to resign from the ARI board of directors for the sin of challenging then Peikoff protege, David Harriman. In retrospect, that unsavory episode appears to have been orthodox Objectivism's last gasp. While ARI will undoubtedly persist for many decades to come, perhaps even longer, in terms of intellectual significance, it's impact on the culture will be so close to zero that it might as well be zero.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTo get an idea of what the future holds in store for the O'ists, consider the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.henrygeorge.org\/bob\/\"\u003EHenry George Institute\u003C\/a\u003E. How many people know that such an institute exists? For that matter, how many people know who Henry George is? Late in the nineteenth century, George may have been the third most famous person in America (behind Mark Twain and Thomas Edison). Now he's largely forgotten, and his influence is virtually nil. If someone were to declare themselves a Single Taxer, hardly anyone would know what he was talking about. A hundred years from now will anyone know what it means to be an \"Objectivist\" in the Randian sense of the term?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis is not to suggest that Rand herself will be forgotten.\u003Ci\u003E The Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E, and maybe \u003Ci\u003EAtlas \u003C\/i\u003Eand \u003Ci\u003EWe the Living\u003C\/i\u003E, could persist for many years to come. The point is that, while Rand may continue to influence a certain number of high school and college age youths for decades, even centuries, in the future, very few of these youths will ever become orthodox Objectivists, and those that do will exercise no real influence on society as a whole.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPerhaps the most significant reason for the demise of Orthodox Objectivism is the shortcomings of the philosophy itself. I'm not merely refering to the intellectual or technical shortcomings of Rand's ideas. While those shortcomings are very real and very troublesome, few people care about them. What people want in an ideology is a narrative that can give their hopes and aspirations meaning and scope. Rand provides a narrative of sorts in her novels, especially \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E and \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E. But what is distinctive to orthodox Objectivism arises not merely from the stories in Rand's novel but also from her non-fiction works. The novels give the reader a sense of Rand's moral ideals. There are serious problems, to be sure, with these moral ideals --- and not just with the ideals themselves, which is not all that important, but with the appeal of those ideals, which is far more significant. I will discuss this issue in a future post. For the nonce, I will stick to the non-narrative aspect of Orthodox Objectivism, the technical philosophy. \u0026nbsp;According to Rand, her moral ideals are founded on \"reason,\" which in turn is founded on her metaphysics and epistemology. Therefore, to become a genuine orthodox Objectivist (as opposed to a mere \"student of Objectivists,\" as Rand's followers called themselves in Rand's lifetime) requires mastering the arcane details of Rand's metaphysics and epistemology --- details, moreover, which can't really be applied, in any meaningful way, to real life and which, on technical grounds, don't even make all that much sense. In short, absorbing and mastering Randian orthodoxy doesn't add anything to a person's life, beyond perhaps a bit of status among other aspiring orthodox Objectivists. Why anyone would wish for a bit of status among such a small and insignificant group of individuals is beyond me; but for some people, being the largest minnow in a muddy puddle may in fact be the very most they can aspire to.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/980551967143959561\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=980551967143959561","title":"8 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/980551967143959561"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/980551967143959561"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2017\/03\/orthodox-objectivism-autopsy-part-1.html","title":"Orthodox Objectivism: an Autopsy, Part 1"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"8"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2135049176288646900"},"published":{"$t":"2017-02-02T13:01:00.002-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2017-02-02T13:02:20.397-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Ethics\/Morality"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Human Nature"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Jonathan Haidt"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Haidt versus Rand"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt is a leading researcher and writer on what could be described as the scientific view of human nature --- a view, in other words, based on research and experimentation rather than armchair speculation and\/or wishful thinking. If Haidt's views on human psychology, motivation, reason and morality are largely right, than Rand's views must be largely wrong. As it turns out, Rand's epistemological, moral, and political views all rest, at least in part, on her views on human nature; so that if she's wrong about human nature, she must also be wrong, at least in part, on human knowledge, ethics, and political theory.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\nRecently Sam Harris made a curious wager. He offered to pay $10,000 to anyone who could disprove his arguments about morality. Haidt decided to make a counter-wager. He bet $10,000 that Harris would not change his mind. And then he went on to explain why he made the bet. \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/evolution-institute.org\/article\/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EWhat Haidt wrote\u003C\/a\u003E provides an excellent brief on what is wrong with the view of reason and morality which both Harris and Rand share.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nWhile Rand and Harris differ on many details in their respective philosophies, on the broad outlines, they're not so very different. They are both atheists who believe that an \"objective\" morality based on \"reason\" (or \"science\") is possible. And they are both extremely confident that their speculations on morality are true and correct. Haidt, better informed than either Rand or Harris on the underlying psychology behind reason and morality, has a very different view:\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003EIn the 1980s and 1990s, social psychologists began documenting the awesome power of “motivated reasoning” and “confirmation bias.” People deploy their reasoning powers to find support for what they want to believe. Nobody has yet found a way to “debias” people—to train people to look for evidence on the other side—once emotions or self-interest are activated. Also in the 1990s, the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio showed that reasoning depends on emotional reactions. When emotional areas of the brain are damaged, people don’t become more rational; instead, they lose the ability to evaluate propositions intuitively and their reasoning gets bogged down in minutiae.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIn the 2000s, in my own area of research—moral judgment—it became clear that people make judgments of right and wrong almost instantly, and then make up supporting reasons later. The intuitive dog wags its rational tail, which explains why it is so difficult to change anyone’s mind on a moral issue by refuting every reason they offer. To sum it all up, David Hume was right in 1739 when he wrote that reason was “the slave of the passions,” rather than the divine master, or charioteer, as Plato had believed.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nIt is important to note that Haidt's conclusions are based on extensive research and psychological experiments. To be sure, this does not prove that Haidt is entirely or even mostly correct. This is a very complex subject and further experiments and new discoveries may lead to a revision of Haidt's theories. It would be irrational, however, to dismiss Haidt's conclusions on the basis of the type of speculative or lawyerly reasonings favored by Rand and her apologists. One such argument is to contend that Haidt's \"attack\" on reason undercuts all human knowledge, including Haidt's own claims about human psychology, reasoning, and morality. If \"reason\" is \"faulty\" or riddled with biases, how can Haidt justify his own views? But this charge misfires on several fronts.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nIn the first place, Haidt does not attack reason. He merely demonstrates its limits when it comes to ethical rationalizations:\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003EI’m not saying that we can’t reason quite well about many unemotional situations where we really want to know the right answer, such as whether it is better to drive or take the train to the airport, given current traffic conditions. But when we look at conscious verbal reasoning as an evolutionary adaptation, it begins to look more like a tool for helping people argue, persuade, and guard their reputations than a tool shaped by selection pressures for finding objective truth. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber synthesized the large bodies of research on reasoning in cognitive and social psychology like this: “The function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade…. Skilled arguers are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.” When self-interest, partisan identity, or strong emotions are involved, reasoning turns into a lawyer, using all its powers to reach the desired conclusion.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nAlthough \"reason\" may not always lead to truth, it would be wrong to infer that knowledge is therefore impossible. While individual reason may often find itself distorted by emotion, self-interest, and other biases, its possible to develop mechanisms which allow reason to overcome such difficulties. As Haidt explains:\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nReason is indeed crucial for good public policy and a good society. But isn’t the most reasonable approach one that takes seriously the known flaws of human reasoning and tries to work around them? Individuals can’t be trusted to reason well when passions come into play, yet good reasoning can sometimes emerge from groups. This is why science works so well. Scientists suffer from the confirmation bias like everybody else, but the genius of science as an institution is that it incentivizes scientists to disconfirm each others’ ideas, and it creates a community within which a reasoned consensus eventually emerges.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nIn short, Haidt reaches something very close to Popper's hypothetico-deductive method of knowledge. While human beings are rarely any good at noticing errors in their own reasonings, sometimes they're pretty shrewd at noticing errors in other people's reasonings (and experiments, observations, etc.). Thus through the testing and criticism of theories, human beings can reach a higher level of rationality than the speculative, lawyerly type of reasoning championed by Rand.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nRand's approach to rationality is therefore deeply flawed. Her view that knowledge rests on \"proper\" concept formation is eccentric and delusional. Concepts are just meanings used to formulate assertions about matters of fact. How such concepts are \"formed\" is thoroughly irrelevant. It's how they're used in theories that are important, and the only way to judge the theories is by testing and criticizing them. Trying to judge a theory about matters of fact by speculating whether the concepts used to express that theory were properly formed would be an extraordinarily difficult and useless exercise.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nIf Haidt's view of moral judgment is correct, Rand's Objectivist Ethics is largely irrelevant. It's merely a tool for helping Rand's followers argue, persuade, and rationalize their behavior. It has very little to do with actual conduct --- something that would be noticed more if people paid closer attention to how followers of Rand act, rather than to merely how they cavil.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2135049176288646900\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2135049176288646900","title":"27 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2135049176288646900"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2135049176288646900"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2017\/02\/haidt-versus-rand.html","title":"Haidt versus Rand"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"27"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-9149730832792394833"},"published":{"$t":"2016-08-02T09:50:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-08-02T15:09:39.650-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Donald Trump"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Emotion"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"persuasion"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Scott Adams"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Yaron Brook"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand as Word-Thinker and Persuader"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Scott Adams, the creator of \"Dilbert,\" has recently gained a bit of notoriety for claiming that there is a method behind all the Donald Trump madness. Trump, Adams insists, will probably win the Presidential election \"in a landslide\" because The Donald is a \"master persuader.\" As bewildering and counter-intuitive as this assertion may seem at first blush, Adam's claims are, at least in part, based on a scientific understanding of human nature. That doesn't mean, of course, that Adams is right about Trump. He may be guilty of reading into Trump what isn't there. But Adams' view of human nature, nonetheless, remains largely sound. And for this reason, it might be illustrative to view Ayn Rand through the lens of Adam's own views on human nature and persuasion.\n\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EIn a blog post, Adam's defined his view as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWhen you are trained in the ways of persuasion, you start seeing three types of people in the world. I’ll call them Rational People, Word-Thinkers, and Persuaders. Their qualities look like this:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRational People: Use data and reason to arrive at truth. (This group is mostly imaginary.)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWord-Thinkers: Use labels, word definitions, and analogies to create the illusion of rational thinking. This group is 99% of the world.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPersuaders: Use simplicity, repetition, emotion, habit, aspirations, visual communication, and other tools of persuasion to program other people and themselves. This group is about 1% of the population and effectively control the word-thinkers of the world.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf you’re a trained scientist, engineer, or other technical person, you might use data and reason sometimes, especially while others are watching and checking your work. But off-duty – and when it comes to anything important – we’re all irrational creatures who believe we are rational. At least that’s how trained persuaders see the world.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nYou can easily spot word-thinkers when they talk about politics. Their go-to strategy involves identifying enemies and fitting them into whatever category matches their biases and cognitive dissonance. Look for this form:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nExamples:\nPerson X is liberal, or not\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPerson X is a conservative, or not\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPerson X is an insider, or not\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPerson X is a racist, or not\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPersuaders know that most people are word-thinkers, so a big part of political persuasion involves defining people to be in or out of a certain category. This creates a substitute for thinking that the public likes. It makes them feel as if they used data and reason to form opinions.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSocial psychology pretty much confirms most of what Adam's is asserting (see Jonathan Haidt's \u003Ci\u003EThe Righteous Mind\u003C\/i\u003E). When it comes to thinking about abstract matters (such as politics), people tend to be \"irrational creatures\" governed by sentiments and other emotional biases and proclivities (many of them colored by innate predispositions). However, people in civilized societies like to put a logical veneer on their irrational sentiments, so they make use of labels and word definitions to convince themselves that their opinions are based on \"reason\" and evidence rather than on deep-seated emotional inclinations.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand was very much aware that individuals allowed their political inclinations to be determined by emotion, and she often railed against such emotionalism. \"Emotions are not tools of cognition!\" she would insist. Rand thought of herself as one of Adam's \"Rational People.\" In her writings, she would frequently praise \"reason\" and rationality, while denouncing the horrors of the irrational and the mystical. Nonetheless, Rand's belief in rationality (particularly her own rationality) is largely illusory. The category she fits in -- and fits in quite comfortably -- is that of Word-Thinker. Her epistemology, with its emphasis on concepts (i.e., meanings ) and definitions (which she claimed, in defiance of all evidence, could be true or false), constitutes a perfectly rationalized version of the Word-Thinker creed. So much of her philosophy involves labeling views she didn't like, often accompanied with shoddy and ill-informed rationalizations. Rand is a Word-Thinker with a vengeance wrapped in a pretense of rationality.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand sought to be a Persuader as well, but because she did not experience the same kind of emotions that most normal people experience, and because she was not rational (and, even worse, clueless about human nature), she was very bad at persuasion. Given the intensity of her following, this might seem anomalous, if not blatantly untrue. However, it must be kept in mind that the number of people whom Rand persuaded is, relatively speaking, very very small. She appeals mostly to be people who are emotional outsiders like herself. But a Persuader must reach more than a handful of fierce acolytes. Donald Trump persuaded enough people to get himself the Republican nomination for President. Rand, with her miserable persuasion shtick, would have trouble persuading enough people to get her elected dog-catcher.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand's attempts at persuasion, if judged from Adam's point of view, are really quite dreadful. Her categories are too jargonistic. They're based on pseudo-philosophical categories that don't resonate with anyone outside of the narrow confines of Objectivism. A glance at some of the insult-words she used to pigeonhole her enemies will show how useless they are as instruments of persuasion: \u003Ci\u003Eanti-conceptual mentality\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Econcrete-bound\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Esocial-metaphysician\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Esecond-hander\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Emoocher\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Ealtruist\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Eappeaser\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Epragmatist\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Ecollectivist\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Esocialist\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Efascist\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003EAttila\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003EWitch Doctor\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Emystic\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Emystics of muscle\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Emystics of spirit\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003EByronic\u003C\/i\u003E,\u003Ci\u003E non-entity\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAs instruments of persuasion, most of these laughable. Imagine calling someone a social metaphysician in a debate! No one but a few Rand acolytes would know what on earth you were talking about. The only half-way decent insult-category in that list might be \"moocher.\" The mere sound of the term conjures up something low and disagreeable. However, the class of people this term is designated to describe constitutes, at least in part (and probably in large part), those who are considerably less well off than the majority. In a society dominated by egalitarian and humanitarian sentiments, it's just not very effective to target such people. And this can readily be illustrated by examing how easy it is to deflect such targets. President Obama easily deflected the moocher charge (in terms of emotional persuasion) when he said,  \"And then  you’ve got cold-hearted, free market, capitalist types who are reading Ayn Rand and think everybody are moochers.\" Of course, Objectivists will complain that Rand never said \"everybody,\" and that, therefore, Obama is wrong. But Obama is speaking rather loosely: he doesn't literally mean \"everybody,\" and so complaining about the term \"everybody\" means you're trying to score points on the grounds of a pedantic technicality, which tends to alienate people, as pedantry is generally frowned upon.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\"Non-entity\" was one of Rand's favorite terms of abuse; but as a category of emotional persuasion, it simply won't do. A term like \"fascist\" has become sort of cliche: it's overuse has greatly lessened its resonance. The same could be said, though on a smaller scale, of such terms like \"appeaser,\" \"collectivist,\" \"socialist.\" \"Altruist\" and \"mystic\" are generally seen as positive or neutral terms, not necessarily as negative.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPerhaps the least effective term in the list (other than the jargonistic terms hardly anyone understands) is \u003Ci\u003Epragmatist\u003C\/i\u003E. If you're an Objectivist, it's an insult to be called a pragmatist. For some people outside of Objectivism, it's possible that the term conjures up lack of principles or even machiavellianism; but for the majority of people, especially in an age when partisanship is increasingly seen as a liability, pragmatism conjures up someone who is results-orientated and doesn't allow artificial principles to take sway over the demands of reality. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ci\u003EPragmatism \u003C\/i\u003Eis, curiously, a term Objectivists seek to apply to Donald Trump. As Yaron Brook inveighed:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nHe is a pragmatist. He is a philosophical, unequivocal, pragmatist. And as a consequence he will fold as president, he will fold. He will not get anything done.... Donald Trump is the ultimate in being a pragmatist.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAs an attempt to persuade people by using labels, this is really very ineffective stuff. To many non-objectivists, chastizing Trump for pragmatism and claiming this pragmatism will cause Trump to \"fold\" and \"not get anything done\" doesn't make any sense. When people are confronted by claims that don't make sense (on an emotional level), their gut reaction is to think: \u003Ci\u003Ethese are crazy people\u003C\/i\u003E. Given that the common perception in the world at large of Ayn Rand and her beliefs is that they are outside the mainstream (and hence perhaps \"crazy\" or \"unbalanced\" in some way), if you are trying to spread Objectivism, you want to do everything you can to avoid reinforcing this common perception.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI realize that Objectivism has it's own narrative about pragmatism which seems to support the charge against Trump. But if the claim does not have emotional resonance with the non-Objectivists you're trying to persuade, then it's counter-productive to make it. Even worse are those Objectivists who think that the claim is fine as long you try to explain it. But if you have to explain it, you've already lost."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/9149730832792394833\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=9149730832792394833","title":"239 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/9149730832792394833"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/9149730832792394833"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2016\/08\/ayn-rand-as-word-thinker-and-persuader.html","title":"Ayn Rand as Word-Thinker and Persuader"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"239"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70102608335261810"},"published":{"$t":"2016-06-17T12:16:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-06-17T12:17:39.263-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Atlas Shrugged"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Rand's Novels 4: Atlas Shrugged"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Rand's \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E is easily her most polarizing novel. It's hard to be neutral about it. You either love it or you deplore it. \n\nWhen I first read the work some thirty years ago, I wanted to like it, but it just would not go down. Whereas it only took me two or three days to read \u003Ci\u003EWe the Living\u003C\/i\u003E and \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003EAtlas \u003C\/i\u003Erequired more than a month to finish, and even then, it was a tedious slog. I found the story preposterous, the characters flat and uninspiring, and the work's message shrill and one-sided. In \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E, Rand seems to go out of her way to avoid subtle, nuance, and verisimilitude. She simply wants to preach, in parable form, her newly minted Objectivist philosophy. She does not shrink from hammering the same point over and over. Throughout the book there is the same hectoring tone, unrelenting and bristling with contempt, which she uses to try to beat the reader into submission. Even when I found myself largely in agreement with some point she kept making over and over, the shrillness of her tone and the insistent dogmatism of the presentation were off-putting and patronizing.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAs in my review of \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E, I will provide quick glances at the good, the bad, and the ugly of Rand's magnum opus.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C!--more--\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThe Good.\u003C\/b\u003E This is going to be a bit of a challenge. We can begin with the prose style of the work. Many critics of Rand have complained about Rand's prose. \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E, these critics claim, is verbose and badly written. Oddly enough, rarely are these critics very specific about their complaints; rarely to they provide specific examples of what they don't like. I suspect that some of these critics confuse Rand's tone with her writing style. \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E, for all its faults, is not a badly written work. While Rand may not be the most elegant or inspired of prose stylists, she never fails to get her point across and her descriptions are rarely verbose.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhile it would be difficult to defend \u003Ci\u003EAtlas \u003C\/i\u003Eas a work of serious literature on par with \u003Ci\u003EWar and Peace\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003EThe Brothers Karamozov\u003C\/i\u003E, or \u003Cspan class=\"st\" data-hveid=\"36\"\u003E\u003Ci\u003EL'Éducation sentimentale\u003C\/i\u003E, it would be possible to rank it higher if we regarded it as exemplifying a less demanding genre. This is precisely what reviewer John Chamberlain attempted in his review of \u003Ci\u003EAtlas \u003C\/i\u003Efor \u003Ci\u003EThe Freeman\u003C\/i\u003E. Chamberlain's review begins as follows:\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"st\" data-hveid=\"36\"\u003E\n\n\n\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"st\" data-hveid=\"36\"\u003E\nAYN RAND’S Atlas Shrugged is bound to be a best seller, not because it is Tolstoyan fiction in the round (it isn’t), but because it deals with the most vital philosophical and economic issues of our times in the form of a wildly exciting parable. Here is the work of a supreme teacher. \n\n\n\n\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nAfter quoting from some of the speeches in Atlas, and then lightly criticizing Rand for rejecting Christian charity, Chamberlain concludes as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nDespite \nits \npedagogical \nlapses,\nhowever, \n\u003Ci\u003EAtlas \nShrugged\u003C\/i\u003E \nshould\nmake \nconverts \nto \nthe \ncause \nof\nfreedom \nby \nthe \nscore. \nThe \nnovel\nis \nso \ndeftly \nplotted, \nso \nexcitingly\npaced, \nand \nso \nuniversal \nin \nits \nhero-villain \nintensity, \nthat \nit \nwill \ncarry\nits \nmessage \nto \nthousands \nwho\nwould \nnever \nbe \ncaught \ndead \nreading \na \ntextbook -- or \neven \na \ndifficult \narticle -- on \neconomics. \nEven\nlibertarians \nwho \nordinarily \ndespise \nfiction \nwill \nwant \nto \nread\nAtlas \nShrugged \nfor \nthe \ninsights\nthat \ntumble \nout \nof \nthe \nmouths \nof\nits \n\u003Ci\u003Edramatis \npersonae\u003C\/i\u003E \non \nvirtually\nevery \npage.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nChamberlain is suggesting that Atlas succeeds as propaganda. While that view could be disputed by those of us who don't find the novel all that convincing, even as propaganda, it's nonetheless a fact that millions of readers have been influenced in varying degrees by Rand's massive tome. Strange but true.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EThe Bad\u003C\/b\u003E. Where do we start? Probably with the flat, one-dimensional characters. Nor is it solely an issue here of realism, although that would be a problem if \u003Ci\u003EAtlas \u003C\/i\u003Ewere regarded as a work of serious fiction (as opposed to a thriller or a propaganda novel). Even as romantic characters, Rand's characters leave much to be desired. Simply compare the stick figures who populate Atlas with the characters in Dumas' \u003Ci\u003EThree Musketeers\u003C\/i\u003E or Sir Walter Scott's \u003Ci\u003EIvanhoe\u003C\/i\u003E. Neither of these romantic novels exhibit the same level or depth of psychological insight that we find in Tolstoy's \u003Ci\u003EWar and Peace\u003C\/i\u003E or George Eliot's \u003Ci\u003EMiddlemarch\u003C\/i\u003E. But for all that, Dumas character's, d'Artagnan, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, still live and breathe. We can relate to them as human beings, as real people. Scott's characters are perhaps a little less colorful. But they're still far more human and interesting than the leaden, cardboard ciphers who populate \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand placed great stress on the plot. When asked what were the three most important aspects of fiction, she replied, \"Plot, plot, and plot.\" And \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E, in a sense, is very ambitiously plotted. And yet it's not clear that it altogether succeeds. The whole novel is over-written, over-planned, and way too self-consciously organized and plotted. It lacks spontaneity, freshness, the element of surprise. Everything, including the plot, is dragooned into the service of the message. And that message is Objectivism at its most dogmatic and unyielding. If you're an Objectivist, this might constitute the chief merit of the book. But if you're not an Objectivist, it\u0026nbsp; becomes a tiresome exercise in special pleading.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EThe Ugly. \u003C\/b\u003EThe Winston Tunnel Scene, where Rand rationalizes why the people on the train deserve to die, should perhaps be considered in this category. But since we have already \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2007\/10\/that-winston-tunnel-scene-in-full.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ecovered that scene here on ARCHN\u003C\/a\u003E, there's no need to say anything more about it here. Other than the tunnel scene, I would select the general tone of the novel as its ugliest feature. On this point, I agree with Whitaker Chambers. He wrote of \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nOut of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a\n tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its \nshrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nAnd Chambers concludes:\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWe struggle to be just. For we cannot help feeling at least a \nsympathetic pain before the sheer labor, discipline, and patient \ncraftsmanship that went to making this mountain of words. But the words \nkeep shouting us down. In the end that tone dominates. But it should be \nits own antidote, warning us that anything it shouts is best taken with \nthe usual reservations with which we might sip a patent medicine. Some \nmay like the flavor. In any case, the brew is probably without lasting \nill effects. But it is not a cure for anything.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nThere is another feature of the tone which deserves comment, one which I find the most annoying. The novel's tone combines moralizing with an adversarial stance. It's as if Rand assumed that everyone who reads \u003Ci\u003EAtlas \u003C\/i\u003Eis somehow morally suspect and must be browbeat into agreement. This aspect of her tone is at its fiercest in Galt's Speech, which is not only long and boring and chock full of empty or dubious philosophic assertions, it also suffers the fault of constantly assuming the very worst about those listening (or reading) the darn thing. The whole screed wreaks with moral indignation, as if Rand is shouting at her readers: \"How dare you disagree me, you disgusting little worms!\"\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nThis is the problem with authors who embrace philosophical principles that fail to square with sentiments prominent in most exemplifications of human nature. Since their doctrines clash with the sentiments of nearly everyone, they become frustrated at their inability to gain converts, and in their frustration, they resort to shouting people down and regarding everyone who disagrees with them with a scathing contempt. Hardly an edifying spectacle.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/70102608335261810\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=70102608335261810","title":"27 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/70102608335261810"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/70102608335261810"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2016\/06\/rands-novels-4-atlas-shrugged.html","title":"Rand's Novels 4: Atlas Shrugged"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"27"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6082861552262593715"},"published":{"$t":"2016-06-02T17:47:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-06-02T17:47:03.120-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\nBarely a pulse:\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\nAustrian economist Richard Ebeling\ndescribes \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/capitalismmagazine.com\/2016\/05\/ayn-rand-ludwig-von-mises-and-the-austrians-how-i-became-an-economist-for-capitalism\/\"\u003Ehis\nmeeting with Ayn Rand\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003ELeonard Peikoff in his old age still finds\nit necessary to remind the world that he \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.peikoff.com\/2016\/05\/02\/do-you-consider-anyone-today-an-authority-on-objectivism-at-your-level\/\"\u003Eis\nthe leading expert on Objectivism\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\n\u003C\/span\u003EIs another Objectischism brewing?\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Ci\u003E- Neil Parille\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003C!--[if gte mso 9]\u003E\u003Cxml\u003E\n \u003Cw:WordDocument\u003E\n  \u003Cw:View\u003ENormal\u003C\/w:View\u003E\n  \u003Cw:Zoom\u003E0\u003C\/w:Zoom\u003E\n  \u003Cw:TrackMoves\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:TrackFormatting\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:PunctuationKerning\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003E\n  \u003Cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003E\n  \u003Cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003E\n  \u003Cw:DoNotPromoteQF\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeOther\u003EEN-US\u003C\/w:LidThemeOther\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeAsian\u003EJA\u003C\/w:LidThemeAsian\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeComplexScript\u003EX-NONE\u003C\/w:LidThemeComplexScript\u003E\n  \u003Cw:Compatibility\u003E\n   \u003Cw:BreakWrappedTables\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:SnapToGridInCell\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:WrapTextWithPunct\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:UseAsianBreakRules\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:DontGrowAutofit\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:EnableOpenTypeKerning\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:DontFlipMirrorIndents\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:OverrideTableStyleHps\/\u003E\n  \u003C\/w:Compatibility\u003E\n  \u003Cm:mathPr\u003E\n   \u003Cm:mathFont m:val=\"Cambria Math\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:brkBin m:val=\"before\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:brkBinSub m:val=\"\u0026#45;-\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:smallFrac m:val=\"off\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:dispDef\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:lMargin m:val=\"0\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:rMargin m:val=\"0\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:defJc m:val=\"centerGroup\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:wrapIndent m:val=\"1440\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:intLim m:val=\"subSup\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:naryLim m:val=\"undOvr\"\/\u003E\n  \u003C\/m:mathPr\u003E\u003C\/w:WordDocument\u003E\n\u003C\/xml\u003E\u003C![endif]--\u003E\u003C!--[if gte mso 9]\u003E\u003Cxml\u003E\n \u003Cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" DefUnhideWhenUsed=\"true\"\n  DefSemiHidden=\"true\" DefQFormat=\"false\" DefPriority=\"99\"\n  LatentStyleCount=\"276\"\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"0\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Normal\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 7\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 8\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 9\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 7\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 8\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 9\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"35\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"caption\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"10\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Title\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" Name=\"Default Paragraph Font\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"11\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtitle\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"22\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Strong\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"20\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"59\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Table Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Placeholder Text\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"No Spacing\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Revision\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"34\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"List Paragraph\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"29\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Quote\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"30\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Quote\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"19\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"21\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"31\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Reference\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"32\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Reference\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"33\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Book Title\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"37\" Name=\"Bibliography\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"TOC Heading\"\/\u003E\n \u003C\/w:LatentStyles\u003E\n\u003C\/xml\u003E\u003C![endif]--\u003E\n\n\u003C!--[if gte mso 10]\u003E\n\u003Cstyle\u003E\n \/* Style Definitions *\/\ntable.MsoNormalTable\n {mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\n mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\n mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\n mso-style-noshow:yes;\n mso-style-priority:99;\n mso-style-parent:\"\";\n mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;\n mso-para-margin-top:0cm;\n mso-para-margin-right:0cm;\n mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;\n mso-para-margin-left:0cm;\n line-height:115%;\n mso-pagination:widow-orphan;\n font-size:12.0pt;\n mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;\n font-family:\"Times New Roman\";\n mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}\n\u003C\/style\u003E\n\u003C![endif]--\u003E\n\n\n\n\u003C!--StartFragment--\u003E\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u003C!--EndFragment--\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6082861552262593715\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6082861552262593715","title":"12 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6082861552262593715"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6082861552262593715"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2016\/06\/objectivist-roundup.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"12"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5731290957740552478"},"published":{"$t":"2016-05-09T15:18:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-05-10T18:28:44.390-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv style=\"line-height: normal;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;\"\u003ENeil Parille notes the latest ripples in the Objectivist doldrums:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"line-height: normal;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"line-height: normal;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;\"\u003EOne-time supporter of the Ayn Rand Institute (then later of David Kelley’s Atlas Society) businessman\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ed_Snider\"\u003EEd Snider\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;has passed away.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"line-height: normal;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"line-height: normal;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;\"\u003ESomeone just “published” an\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Ayn-Rand-Biography-Stacey-Miller-ebook\/dp\/B01DJR7BBQ\/ref=sr_1_3?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1460507379\u0026amp;sr=1-3\u0026amp;refinements=p_28%3Aayn+rand\"\u003E11 page biography of Ayn Rand\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"line-height: normal;\"\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"line-height: normal;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;\"\u003E“\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.aynrandmyths.com\/#18\"\u003EAyn Rand Myths\u003C\/a\u003E” says it’s a myth that Ayn Rand disapproved of homosexuality (because Leonard Peikoff allegedly doesn’t) and that Alan Greenspan didn’t admire Rand.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"line-height: normal;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"line-height: normal;\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;\"\u003EYaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, has just published “\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Equal-Is-Unfair-Misguided-Inequality\/dp\/125008444X\" style=\"font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;\"\u003EEqual is Unfair\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;\"\u003E.”\u0026nbsp; A lecture by Brook on the\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=rJ7P1SCRQjE\" style=\"font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;\"\u003Etopic is here\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;\"\u003E.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5731290957740552478\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5731290957740552478","title":"7 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5731290957740552478"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5731290957740552478"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2016\/05\/objectivist-roundup.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"7"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1858851794168193190"},"published":{"$t":"2016-04-12T18:45:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-04-12T18:45:44.275-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Rand's Novels 3: The Fountainhead"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Rand's second major novel, although a deeply flawed book, nevertheless is a work of genius and contains some of her most powerful writing. Although I would contend that \u003Ci\u003EWe the Living\u003C\/i\u003E is a better all-round novel (more realistic, containing less flaws), \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E is more ambitious and reaches greater heights (as well as much greater lows). Regardless of the flaws of \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E, I would not hesitate to rank it above the over-written and preposterous\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E. While both novels suffer from more than a fair share of unrealistic characters, situations, and eccentric, often counter-intuitive, if not perverse, analysis of the human condition, \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E at least makes an attempt to engage the reader's sympathies. Rand had not yet formulated her Objectivist philosophy when she wrote the novel, and she does not attempt to place everything within the strict confines of an ideological straight jacket. In \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E, she gives free rein to her imagination. And while this doesn't always work out for the best, at least it provides a source of entertainment. In this post, I will give a quick glance to the good, the bad, and the ugly of Rand's second major novel.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThe Good:\u003C\/b\u003E\n\nOne thing that makes \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E considerably more palatable, to my way of thinking, than \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E is that, although its hard to regard Roark and Wynand and Toohey as real human beings, Rand at least attempts to make us care about Roark and Wynand, and make us horrified at Toohey. Roarks' stainless integrity, his lonely battle against ingrained stupidity and corruption, resembles the similar stance taken by Cyrano de Bergerac in Edmond Rostand's famous play of that name. Moreover, Rand's characterizations of her three main characters is more ambitious and less ideological than what we run across with the heroes and villians in \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E. She has fun introducing biographical anecdotes of Wynand and Toohey. Reading about the reactions of these characters to various episodes throughout the novel provides diversion.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPerhaps the most palatable aspects of\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E involve something Rand is not generally known for. I have in mind some of the satirical sections, where she makes fun of things she doesn't like. While she does the same thing in \u003Ci\u003EAtlas\u003C\/i\u003E, in the latter novel, her satire comes off as too portentous and moralistic. The satire in \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E features a lighter touch and is more imaginative. Consider the following passage concerning Lois Cook (based on Gertrude Stein) and the \"Council of American Writers\":\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nLois Cook was chairman of the Council of American Writers. It met in the drawing room of her home on the Bowery. She was the only famous member. The rest included a woman who never used capitals in her books, and a man who never used commas; a youth who had written a thousand-page novel without a single letter o, and another who wrote poems than neither rhymed nor scanned; a man with a beard, who was sophisticated and proved it by using every unprintable four-letter work in every ten pages of his manuscript; a woman who imitated Lois Cook, except that her style was less clear; when asked for explanations she stated that this was the way life sounded to her, when broken by the prism of her subconscious—\"You know what a prism does to a ray of light, don't you?\" she said. There was also a fierce young man known simply as Ike the Genius, though nobody knew just what he had done, except that he talked about loving life.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe council signed a declaration which stated that writers were servants of the proletariat—but that statement did not sound as simple as that; it was more involved and much longer....\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand then introduces another Council:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe Council of America Artists had, as chairman, a cadaverous youth who painted what he saw in his nightly dreams. There was a boy who used no canvas, but did something with bird cages and metronomes, and another who discovered a new technique of painting: he blackened a sheet of paper and then painted with a rubber eraser. There was a stout middle-aged lady who drew subconsciously, claiming that she never looked at her hand and had no idea what the hand was doing; her hand, she said, was guided by the spirit of the departed lover whom she had never met on earth. [313-314]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nLooking back at \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E, it's the satirical sections that, to my mind, leave the best impression.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EThe Bad:\u003C\/b\u003E Rand prided herself on her ability to develop gripping plots. In many ways, this talent of hers is in full display throughout the course of the novel. However, what often happens with gripping plots is that they racket up the tension only to give way to an satisfying climax and denouement. \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E disappoints with its portentous and unconvincing climax. Rand has her hero, Roark, anonymously design the Cortlandt housing project, under Peter Keatings name. As a stipulation for doing the design, Roark makes Keating promise that the design won't be changed. When the design is nonetheless changed, Roark dynamites the building and is arrested. In his trial, after giving a long and tendentious speech (although thankfully not as long and tendentious as Galt's speech in \u003Ci\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E), Roark is acquitted.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThere are a number of things that are deeply problematic with all of this which is representative with what is wrong with the novel in general. The first problem is the insane level of Roark's integrity. It may start out as somewhat inspiring, but in the end, Rand takes it to such absurd extremes that it begins to verge toward narcism and self indulgence. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that if everyone attempted to behave like Roark, and insisted on always getting their way when it came to \"their\" vision, society would quickly descend into a war of all against all. An individual who wishes to maintain a given level of integrity must do so with certain amount of judgment, knowing when it's appropriate to be loyal to the purity of one's visions and when it is merely eccentricity and pretentiousness. It's not clear that Roark meets that standard in the climatic scene in the book, where he uses integrity as an excuse to engage in a dangerous act of vandalism.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe trial scene also suffers from a strong sense of unrealism and \u003Ci\u003Edeus ex machina\u003C\/i\u003E. Rand wants the book to end triumphantly, so she needs a \"not guilty\" verdict. But how can she manage that? Roark is clearly guilty of an act vandalism; he admits as much in his speech at the trial. So why would a jury declare him not guilty? Rand attempts to lend an aura of plausibility to the scene by explaining how Roark had chosen \"the hardest faces,\" rather than the \"gentlest types,\" for the jury. Somehow we are supposed to believe that a \"tough\" jury would have let Roark off. Rand clearly didn't understand that \u0026nbsp;tough-minded people are often great sticklers on points of law, and are not likely to be taken in by mere patter, no matter how eloquent.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt should also be noted that the trial verdict is hardly the only deeply implausible event in the novel, just the one that sticks out the most.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EThe Ugly.\u003C\/b\u003E And then there's the rape scene, probably the most infamous scene in all of Rand's writings. Rand is famous for her excesses, in both her fiction and her philosophy, but she really out-does herself here.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhat is particularly odd and even disconcerting about the rape scene is that Roark, in the novel, is presented not merely as a hero, but as an \"ideal man\"—someone to be respected, admired, imitated, even worshipped. If we are to take the scene seriously, then it's difficult not to make the following assumption: namely, that the ideal man, assuming he has reason to believe that a woman he fancies desires him, can skip the formalities of wooing and courtship and go straight to the sex. He doesn't even need to bother with attaining the woman's explicit consent beforehand! After all, as Rand would later insist, such behavior was not really \"rape,\" but rather \"rape by engraved invitation.\" Real rape (i.e., rape lacking the all important—but merely metaphorical—\"engraved invitation\") would, Rand assured us, constitute a \"dreadful crime.\" Well, that's a relief!\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPerhaps what's most disturbing in all this is the poor judgment Rand evinced in writing the scene and putting it into her novel. \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E was supposed to be the author's paean to the heroic in man. This being so, did Rand really believe that her \"rape by engraved invitation\" made Roark more heroic, more of an ideal man? Would she have wished to be \"raped\" in such a manner? I would hazard to guess that, had she actually been subjected to such behavior by any man, ideal or not, the author of \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E would have been deeply mortified. The rape scene not only fails as a projection of an ideal, it fails in terms of Rand's own self-knowledge. Perhaps some women really do fantasy about \"rape by engraved invitation\"; and perhaps Rand was one of those women. But is there any woman, however deranged and removed from all sense of reality, who would want such a thing to happen to them, not in the world of dreams and fantasies, but in the brute world of fact?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1858851794168193190\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1858851794168193190","title":"33 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1858851794168193190"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1858851794168193190"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2016\/04\/rands-novels-3-fountainhead.html","title":"Rand's Novels 3: The Fountainhead"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"33"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7598854233793192180"},"published":{"$t":"2016-03-06T18:15:00.001-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-05-10T18:28:27.024-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup March"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003ENeil Parille notes what is notable this month:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003EScott Ryan, author of \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Objectivism-Corruption-Rationality-Critique-Epistemology\/dp\/0595267335\/ref=sr_1_1?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1457050448\u0026amp;sr=1-1\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003EObjectivism\nand the Corruption of Rationality\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003Ehas passed away. See \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/edwardfeser.blogspot.com\/2016\/03\/scott-ryan-rip.html\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003EEd Feser’s\ntribute here\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.checkyourpremises.org\/\"\u003ECheck Your\nPremises\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E (the blog of the pro-ARI Ayn Rand Society) has\npublished \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.checkyourpremises.org\/2016\/01\/31\/a-new-find-for-the-archives-harry-binswangers-1977-response-to-robert-nozick\/\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003EHarry\nBinswanger’s 1977 response to Robert Nozick\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E concerning\nhis “On the Randian Argument.”\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003EThe Huffington Post wonders \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/francis-levy\/is-donald-trump-a-utilita_b_9348284.html\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003Eif Donald\nTrump is an Objectivist\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003C!--[if gte mso 9]\u003E\u003Cxml\u003E\n \u003Cw:WordDocument\u003E\n  \u003Cw:View\u003ENormal\u003C\/w:View\u003E\n  \u003Cw:Zoom\u003E0\u003C\/w:Zoom\u003E\n  \u003Cw:TrackMoves\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:TrackFormatting\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:PunctuationKerning\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003E\n  \u003Cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003E\n  \u003Cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003E\n  \u003Cw:DoNotPromoteQF\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeOther\u003EEN-US\u003C\/w:LidThemeOther\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeAsian\u003EJA\u003C\/w:LidThemeAsian\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeComplexScript\u003EX-NONE\u003C\/w:LidThemeComplexScript\u003E\n  \u003Cw:Compatibility\u003E\n   \u003Cw:BreakWrappedTables\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:SnapToGridInCell\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:WrapTextWithPunct\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:UseAsianBreakRules\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:DontGrowAutofit\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:EnableOpenTypeKerning\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:DontFlipMirrorIndents\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:OverrideTableStyleHps\/\u003E\n  \u003C\/w:Compatibility\u003E\n  \u003Cm:mathPr\u003E\n   \u003Cm:mathFont m:val=\"Cambria Math\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:brkBin m:val=\"before\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:brkBinSub m:val=\"--\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:smallFrac m:val=\"off\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:dispDef\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:lMargin m:val=\"0\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:rMargin m:val=\"0\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:defJc m:val=\"centerGroup\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:wrapIndent m:val=\"1440\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:intLim m:val=\"subSup\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:naryLim m:val=\"undOvr\"\/\u003E\n  \u003C\/m:mathPr\u003E\u003C\/w:WordDocument\u003E\n\u003C\/xml\u003E\u003C![endif]--\u003E\u003C!--[if gte mso 9]\u003E\u003Cxml\u003E\n \u003Cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" DefUnhideWhenUsed=\"true\"\n  DefSemiHidden=\"true\" DefQFormat=\"false\" DefPriority=\"99\"\n  LatentStyleCount=\"276\"\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"0\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Normal\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 7\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 8\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 9\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 7\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 8\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 9\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"35\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"caption\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"10\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Title\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" Name=\"Default Paragraph Font\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"11\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtitle\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"22\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Strong\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"20\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"59\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Table Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Placeholder Text\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"No Spacing\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Revision\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"34\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"List Paragraph\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"29\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Quote\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"30\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Quote\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"19\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"21\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"31\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Reference\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"32\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Reference\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"33\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Book Title\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"37\" Name=\"Bibliography\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"TOC Heading\"\/\u003E\n \u003C\/w:LatentStyles\u003E\n\u003C\/xml\u003E\u003C![endif]--\u003E\n\n\u003C!--[if gte mso 10]\u003E\n\u003Cstyle\u003E\n \/* Style Definitions *\/\ntable.MsoNormalTable\n {mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\n mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\n mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\n mso-style-noshow:yes;\n mso-style-priority:99;\n mso-style-parent:\"\";\n mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;\n mso-para-margin-top:0cm;\n mso-para-margin-right:0cm;\n mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;\n mso-para-margin-left:0cm;\n line-height:115%;\n mso-pagination:widow-orphan;\n font-size:12.0pt;\n mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;\n font-family:\"Times New Roman\";\n mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}\n\u003C\/style\u003E\n\u003C![endif]--\u003E\n\n\n\n\u003C!--StartFragment--\u003E\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u003C!--EndFragment--\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003EThe snoozefest known as \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Objectivism-Rands-Philosophy-Living-Loving-ebook\/dp\/B01B76F9MY\/ref=sr_1_7?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1457051855\u0026amp;sr=1-7\u0026amp;refinements=p_28%3Aayn\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003EThe\nObjective Standard\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E has published a \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Objectivism-Rands-Philosophy-Living-Loving-ebook\/dp\/B01B76F9MY\/ref=sr_1_7?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1457051855\u0026amp;sr=1-7\u0026amp;refinements=p_28%3Aayn\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003Ecollection\nof writings about Ayn Rand\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E.\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 16pt;\"\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7598854233793192180\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7598854233793192180","title":"22 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7598854233793192180"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7598854233793192180"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2016\/03\/objectivist-roundup-march.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup March"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"22"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7331438189655567643"},"published":{"$t":"2016-02-21T11:29:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-02-21T11:29:40.477-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Was Bowe Bergdahl Going Galt?"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"The \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/serialpodcast.org\/season-two\/8\/hindsight-part-2\"\u003Elatest edition of Serial\u003C\/a\u003E highlights the influence of Atlas Shrugged in Bowe Bergdahl's decision to quit his post. This \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/nymag.com\/daily\/intelligencer\/2014\/06\/bowe-bergdahl-ayn-rand-journal.html\"\u003Eolder article\u003C\/a\u003E adds further detail. "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7331438189655567643\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7331438189655567643","title":"17 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7331438189655567643"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7331438189655567643"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2016\/02\/was-bowe-bergdahl-going-galt.html","title":"Was Bowe Bergdahl Going Galt?"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"17"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3328319293466302326"},"published":{"$t":"2016-02-04T09:38:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-02-04T09:50:38.858-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Aesthetics"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Anthem"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Rand's Novels 2 - Anthem"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Ci\u003EAnthem \u003C\/i\u003Eis a dystopian novella written in 1937. It is unique in Rand's \u003Ci\u003Eouvre \u003C\/i\u003Ein a number of ways. It is largely plotless (as Rand herself admitted) and it's much shorter than her other published fiction. It's more a parable than a story, and while it lacks the portentousness of her last novels, honestly, it's little more than a trifle. It's a short piece of fiction which has its basis, initially, in Rand's experiences during the early years of Soviet Russia. In \u003Ci\u003EAnthem\u003C\/i\u003E, Rand took some of the high moral rhetoric that was used to defend communism in Russia and took these scraps of incoherent sentimentality to its logical extreme.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EYevgeny Zamyatin,a Soviet author who had become deeply disillusioned with communism, wrote a satirical novel in 1921, entitled \u003Ci\u003EWe\u003C\/i\u003E, that bears striking resemblance to Rand's \u003Ci\u003EAnthem\u003C\/i\u003E. Wikipedia \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Anthem_%28novella%29\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Elists\u003C\/a\u003E the following similarities:\n\n    \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Col\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EA novel taking the form of a secret diary or journal.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EPeople having numbers instead of names.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EChildren separated from their parents and brought up by the State.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EIndividualism disposed of in favor of collective will.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EA male who discovers individuality through his relationship with a female character.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EA forest as a 'free' place outside the dystopian city.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EThe main character is a man.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EThis character discovers a link to the past, when men were free, in a tunnel under the Earth.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ol\u003E\nThe main difference between these two works of dystopian fiction is that in the world described by Rand has been reduced, by the prevailing collectivism, into a primitive society. In Zamyatin's \u003Ci\u003EWe\u003C\/i\u003E, the society has managed to hold on to the technology developed prior to collectivization. Despite this key difference, the similarities between the two works are surprising, and difficult to explain on the assumption that Rand never read Zamyatin's work. Superficially, it would seem that Rand must have read Zamyatin's dystopian novel. Yet oddly enough, it is not clear whether she did or not. Rand scholar Peter Saint-Andre explored both sides of the question in an \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/stpeter.im\/writings\/rand\/zamyatin-rand.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eessay\u003C\/a\u003E originally published in JARS in 2003:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n[I]t is unlikely that \nZamyatin's fiction would have appealed to the young Ayn Rand.\u0026nbsp;\nZamyatin's short stories and novellas are in the main rather gloomy and \ndeeply ironic. Rather than uphold an ideal (what Rand called \nrepresenting things \"as they might be and ought to be\"), Zamyatin \nusually explored human frailty and even spiritual ugliness in his \nstories, seemingly for the purpose of causing the reader to reflect on \nwhere his characters (and the society in which they live) went astray. \nAlthough often there is an implied ideal buried beneath the wrecked \nlives of Zamyatin's characters, that vision can be discerned only as in a\n photographic negative. \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWe should also keep in mind, as well, that Rand was hardly the avid reader. Indeed, she tended to avoid reading fiction she actively disliked. Nonetheless, there is evidence, on the other side, that she might have read \u003Ci\u003EWe\u003C\/i\u003E, regardless of any potential dislike for the author's irony and gloominess:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIt also seems probable that Rand read Zamyatin's \u003Ccite\u003EWe\u003C\/cite\u003E in the \nEnglish translation by Gregory Zilboorg published in 1924, for in a 1934\n letter to her agent regarding the manuscript for \u003Ccite\u003EWe The Living\u003C\/cite\u003E\n she said \"I have watched very carefully all the literature \non new Russia, that has appeared in English.\"\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf Rand did in fact read Zamyatin's novel, could she be accused of plagiarism? It really depends on how fastidious we wish to be on such matters. Rand may have derived some of her key notions used in \u003Ci\u003EAnthem \u003C\/i\u003Efrom Zamyatin; but Rand's novella is hardly a carbon copy of Zamyatin's \u003Ci\u003EWe\u003C\/i\u003E. Despite attempts by her most fervent admirers to portray Rand as largely original and \u003Ci\u003Esui generis\u003C\/i\u003E, Rand did depend on other sources for at least some of her ideas. However, once she pilfered a given notion or idea from someone else, more often than not she would put own peculiar (and sometimes quite eccentric) stamp upon it. Thus, for example, Rand's favorite little mantra,\u0026nbsp; \"A is A,\" allegedly borrowed from Aristotle, but in reality pilfered from Isabel Paterson, who often used it in conversation. Once Rand got a hold of the phrase, she turned it into an axiom, and attempted to use it as one of the key principles behind her entire philosophy. So the real issue is not whether Rand plagiarized Zamyatin, but whether she created something unique and personal out of them.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3328319293466302326\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3328319293466302326","title":"12 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3328319293466302326"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3328319293466302326"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2016\/02\/anthem.html","title":"Rand's Novels 2 - Anthem"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"12"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2556273623995794557"},"published":{"$t":"2016-01-09T17:20:00.003-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-01-09T17:20:40.678-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup - January"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u003C!--[if gte mso 9]\u003E\u003Cxml\u003E\n \u003Cw:WordDocument\u003E\n  \u003Cw:View\u003ENormal\u003C\/w:View\u003E\n  \u003Cw:Zoom\u003E0\u003C\/w:Zoom\u003E\n  \u003Cw:TrackMoves\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:TrackFormatting\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:PunctuationKerning\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003E\n  \u003Cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003E\n  \u003Cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003E\n  \u003Cw:DoNotPromoteQF\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeOther\u003EEN-US\u003C\/w:LidThemeOther\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeAsian\u003EJA\u003C\/w:LidThemeAsian\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeComplexScript\u003EX-NONE\u003C\/w:LidThemeComplexScript\u003E\n  \u003Cw:Compatibility\u003E\n   \u003Cw:BreakWrappedTables\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:SnapToGridInCell\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:WrapTextWithPunct\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:UseAsianBreakRules\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:DontGrowAutofit\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:EnableOpenTypeKerning\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:DontFlipMirrorIndents\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:OverrideTableStyleHps\/\u003E\n  \u003C\/w:Compatibility\u003E\n  \u003Cm:mathPr\u003E\n   \u003Cm:mathFont m:val=\"Cambria Math\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:brkBin m:val=\"before\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:brkBinSub m:val=\"\u0026#45;-\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:smallFrac m:val=\"off\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:dispDef\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:lMargin m:val=\"0\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:rMargin m:val=\"0\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:defJc m:val=\"centerGroup\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:wrapIndent m:val=\"1440\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:intLim m:val=\"subSup\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:naryLim m:val=\"undOvr\"\/\u003E\n  \u003C\/m:mathPr\u003E\u003C\/w:WordDocument\u003E\n\u003C\/xml\u003E\u003C![endif]--\u003E\u003C!--[if gte mso 9]\u003E\u003Cxml\u003E\n \u003Cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" DefUnhideWhenUsed=\"true\"\n  DefSemiHidden=\"true\" DefQFormat=\"false\" DefPriority=\"99\"\n  LatentStyleCount=\"276\"\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"0\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Normal\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 7\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 8\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 9\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 7\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 8\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 9\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"35\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"caption\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"10\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Title\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" Name=\"Default Paragraph Font\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"11\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtitle\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"22\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Strong\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"20\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"59\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Table Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Placeholder Text\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"No Spacing\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Revision\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"34\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"List Paragraph\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"29\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Quote\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"30\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Quote\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"19\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"21\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"31\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Reference\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"32\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Reference\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"33\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Book Title\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"37\" Name=\"Bibliography\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"TOC Heading\"\/\u003E\n \u003C\/w:LatentStyles\u003E\n\u003C\/xml\u003E\u003C![endif]--\u003E\n\n\u003C!--[if gte mso 10]\u003E\n\u003Cstyle\u003E\n \/* Style Definitions *\/\ntable.MsoNormalTable\n {mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\n mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\n mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\n mso-style-noshow:yes;\n mso-style-priority:99;\n mso-style-parent:\"\";\n mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;\n mso-para-margin-top:0cm;\n mso-para-margin-right:0cm;\n mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;\n mso-para-margin-left:0cm;\n line-height:115%;\n mso-pagination:widow-orphan;\n font-size:12.0pt;\n mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;\n font-family:\"Times New Roman\";\n mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}\n\u003C\/style\u003E\n\u003C![endif]--\u003E\n\n\n\n\u003C!--StartFragment--\u003E\n\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003ENeil Parille rounds up some recent Objectivist news from around the interwebs:\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E• There are forty-nine countries where\nMuslims are in the majority \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.theobjectivestandard.com\/2015\/11\/ten-steps-to-end-jihad-against-the-west\/\"\u003Eand\nCraig Biddle can’t wait to nuke ‘em all.\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E• You’re 50 years young Objectivism – \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.cvent.com\/events\/objectivist-summer-conference-2016\/custom-22-0fd557a15a8e404aa64f7873102c8951.aspx\"\u003Eand\nit’s time for a reboot\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E• The Gotthelf and Salmieri \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/product\/1405186844\/ref=s9_simh_gw_g14_i2_r?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER\u0026amp;pf_rd_s=desktop-1\u0026amp;pf_rd_r=17XZ00Q2MKSY9K5YDKG7\u0026amp;pf_rd_t=36701\u0026amp;pf_rd_p=2079475242\u0026amp;pf_rd_i=desktop\"\u003ECompanion\nto Ayn Rand\u003C\/a\u003E is out.\u0026nbsp; I \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/review\/R11LLMOWBYXZ48?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl\"\u003Ehave a\npreliminary review\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E• The increasingly ARI-dominated Ayn Rand\nSociety has a new blog, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.checkyourpremises.org\/\"\u003ECheck Your\nPremises\u003C\/a\u003E (not to be confused with the anti-Diana Hsieh web site).\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E• This is a little older, but former Ayn Rand associates\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/s\/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8\u0026amp;text=Allan+Blumenthal+MD\u0026amp;search-alias=books\u0026amp;field-author=Allan+Blumenthal+MD\u0026amp;sort=relevancerank\"\u003EAllan Blumenthal\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Joan-Mitchell-Blumenthal\/e\/B00IZSWA02\/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1449333167\u0026amp;sr=1-1\"\u003EJoan Mitchell Blumenthal\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;self-published some books in 2013.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003C!--EndFragment--\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2556273623995794557\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2556273623995794557","title":"26 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2556273623995794557"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2556273623995794557"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2016\/01\/objectivist-roundup-january.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup - January"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"26"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2581600480397207742"},"published":{"$t":"2016-01-04T19:09:00.002-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-01-04T19:11:32.880-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Aesthetics"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Rand's Novels 1: We the Living"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Of all of Ayn Rand's published fiction — and, indeed, of nearly all her writing, published or otherwise — \u003Ci\u003EWe the Living\u003C\/i\u003E is the easiest for the non-Objectivist to appreciate. Most of her chief faults as a novelist are absent from the book. The characters and situations of novel are more or less real, (and all the more vivid and powerful for being so). The prose is largely straightforward, direct, unadorned. It may be the best Russian novel written in English. I wish Rand had written more novels like \u003Ci\u003EWe the Living\u003C\/i\u003E. But, alas, that was not to be.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOddly enough, \u003Ci\u003EWe the Living\u003C\/i\u003E was the most reviewed of any of Rand's books, receiving more positive than negative notices. H. L. Mencken, who, in the twenties, had been one of the leading literary critics in America, described Rand's first novel as \"a really excellent piece of work.\" The novel, however, struggled to gain an audience in the 1930's, and Rand's publisher, Macmillan, destroyed the plates after a modest print run of 3,000 copies. In 1959, Rand issued a second, revised edition of the work. Rand insisted that \"all the changes [she made] are merely editorial line changes.\" This view has been challenged. It seems that Rand indulged in a little more than mere line changes, that she sought to edit her former self in order to conceal some of the views she had flirted with in her youth.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nIt appears that, early in her adulthood, Rand went through a quasi-Nietzschean phase. There are only two groups that think this is a big deal. The first are those intellectual lazy people who wish to use Rand's early allegiance to a kind of vulgarized Nietzsche as a way of dismissing her out of hand. These people want to believe that Objectivism is merely a Nietzchean offshoot, and that Rand secretly was a kind of right-wing elitist, dripping with social darwinism and eager to stomp all over the masses. But Rand, under the influence of Isabel Paterson, had thrown off the last vestiges of her early quasi-Nietzchean not long after completing \u003Ci\u003EWe the Living\u003C\/i\u003E. adopting, instead, a view of human nature and a kind of hyper-moralism that was poles apart from Nietzche's incendiary elitism and his positivistic immoralism.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nOddly enough, the other group that think Rand's Nietzschean phase are her most ardent and orthodox admirers. These people wish to deny that the Nietzschean phase ever existed, or that Rand ever had opinions that weren't strictly Objectivist in the orthodox sense of the term. The problematic passage in the first version occurs when the protagonist of the novel, Kira (an idealized version of Rand herself) says \"What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?\"Rand apologist Robert Mayhew attempts to deflate the implications of this passage with the following piece of rationalizing palaver:\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWe should not conclude too quickly that these passages are strong evidence of an earlier Nietzschean phase in Ayn Rand's development, because such language can be strictly metaphorical (even if the result of an early interest in Nietzsche).\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nI would argue for a completely different approach. I'm not one of those politically correct zealots who gets all offended because some fictional character in a novel entertains, speculatively, dubious opinions. Nor do I look to fictional characters for ideological guidance. What the real issue should be: what would a woman of Kira's type living in Soviet Russia in the early twenties most likely believe? Would she be a perfectly \"correct\" and orthodox Objectivist? Or would she more likely spout some sort of vulgarized version of Nietzsche, as an antidote to the soul-crushing collectivism of the Soviet state? I find the Kira of the first version of the novel to be more genuine and real than the sanitized Kira of the second version. Nietzsche was a popular author in the first decades of the twentieth century, and vulgarized versions of Nietzsche's philosophy were quite rife among young, philosophically illiterate individualists. Kira's scorn and contempt for the masses is an understandable \u0026nbsp;over-reaction to the Soviet deification of the proletariat. Seen in that light, it really isn't that big a deal.\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2581600480397207742\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2581600480397207742","title":"12 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2581600480397207742"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2581600480397207742"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2016\/01\/rands-novels-1-we-living.html","title":"Rand's Novels 1: We the Living"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"12"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4647804726456260045"},"published":{"$t":"2015-12-16T13:27:00.001-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-12-16T13:28:46.834-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"A Brief Post on Haylock's \"Contra Rand\""},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"During the last year and a half, I have been preoccupied in writing a comic novel, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/B01884UVSA\" target=\"_blank\"\u003E\u003Ci\u003ENormal Madness\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E, and did not have the time to post here at ARCHNBlog. Now that I have finished the novel, I can resume, at least for the nonce, posting here. And we do have some unfinished business to take care of. To begin with, there's Rand's novels. We've had some discussions about Atlas Shrugged (in relation to the horrible movies and to Chamber's review), but we've never really discussed \u003Ci\u003EWe the Living\u003C\/i\u003E or \u003Ci\u003EThe Fountainhead\u003C\/i\u003E. I also would like to provide a series of posts providing a summary of the main points against Rand's Objectivist philosophy that I've made in more detail in earlier posts.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nBut in this post I wanted to comment on one of the articles linked to in the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2015\/10\/objectivist-roundup-november.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Elast post\u003C\/a\u003E. This is the article by Sean Haylock entitled \"Contra Rand.\" What struck me in Haylock's piece is that he comes perilously close to ceding the mantle of \"rationalism\" and \"reason\" to Rand. At one point he \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.crisismagazine.com\/2015\/contra-rand\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ewrites\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nRothbard’s overview of the Randian’s narrow and unfeelingly solemn \napproach to all of life’s pleasures, and of the link between this \nattitude and Rand’s \u003Ci\u003Erabid breed of totalizing rationalism\u003C\/i\u003E, is worth \nquoting at length. [italics added]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOf course, we all know how the typical Objectivist would respond to this. He would charge Haylock of trying to replace reason with faith. While that isn't quite what Haylock is up to (he's actually trying to argue that reason alone is not enough), he is leaving himself open to just that sort of objection. Nor is there any reason he should do so. For when we compare Haylock's Catholicism with Rand's, we're not comparing a philosophy based on faith with one based on \"reason,\" as Objectivist apologists would contend; on the contrary, we're simply comparing two different varieties of faith (which may be supplemented, here or there, by \"reason\"). Objectivism, despite is secular basis, is no less a faith than Catholicism. And as faiths go, it's not even clear it's the better one.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nConsider a passage, quoted by Haylock, from Rand's journals:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAnd neither can one live for the happiness of others—because that \ninvolves one’s own suffering as an essential, since one’s happiness is \nnot automatic, but has to be achieved by one’s own effort...\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nLet's ignore the moralistic assertions and concentrate on the one unequivocal assertion of fact. Rand claims that \"one's happiness is not automatic, but has to be acheived by one's own effort.\" How does Rand know this to be true? Where is her evidence? Wouldn't it would be safe to assume that if Rand's philosophy of Objectivism really were based on \"reason,\" that such assertions of fact would be supported with compelling evidence? But in this case as in countless others, we get no supporting evidence, only bald assertion. Indeed, Rand is so careless, she is so empirically irresponsible, that it is hard not to suspect her \"reason\" of being a fraud. Many of the core premises of Objectivism are expressions, not of reason or science or empirical wisdom, but of Rand's faith. If you read Rand's journals, she is constantly making controversial assertions about matters of fact and treating them as if they were patently obvious. That's how she normally thought, and that's how she constructed her philosophy.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf you want to challenge Objectivism, the first thing you have to do is deny Rand's claim to \"reason\" and reality. She has no right to any such claim. She is often every bit as guilty of wishful thinking as those she routinely condemns. Just examine the statements she makes about human nature, about man being a self-created soul, or about emotions being based on one's philosophical premises! Or her claim to have bridged the gap between is and ought! Or her entire theory of history! These are all assumed to be true on the basis of little, if any, evidence, with very little in the way of argument as well. Rand preaches \"reason\" and reality; but she rarely practices what she preaches."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/4647804726456260045\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=4647804726456260045","title":"107 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4647804726456260045"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4647804726456260045"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2015\/12\/a-brief-post-on-haylocks-contra-rand.html","title":"A Brief Post on Haylock's \"Contra Rand\""}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"107"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2138348051060879849"},"published":{"$t":"2015-10-31T20:13:00.003-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-10-31T20:14:34.346-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup November"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003C!--[if gte mso 9]\u003E\u003Cxml\u003E\n \u003Cw:WordDocument\u003E\n  \u003Cw:View\u003ENormal\u003C\/w:View\u003E\n  \u003Cw:Zoom\u003E0\u003C\/w:Zoom\u003E\n  \u003Cw:TrackMoves\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:TrackFormatting\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:PunctuationKerning\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003E\n  \u003Cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003E\n  \u003Cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003E\n  \u003Cw:DoNotPromoteQF\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeOther\u003EEN-US\u003C\/w:LidThemeOther\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeAsian\u003EJA\u003C\/w:LidThemeAsian\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeComplexScript\u003EX-NONE\u003C\/w:LidThemeComplexScript\u003E\n  \u003Cw:Compatibility\u003E\n   \u003Cw:BreakWrappedTables\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:SnapToGridInCell\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:WrapTextWithPunct\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:UseAsianBreakRules\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:DontGrowAutofit\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:EnableOpenTypeKerning\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:DontFlipMirrorIndents\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:OverrideTableStyleHps\/\u003E\n  \u003C\/w:Compatibility\u003E\n  \u003Cm:mathPr\u003E\n   \u003Cm:mathFont m:val=\"Cambria Math\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:brkBin m:val=\"before\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:brkBinSub m:val=\"--\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:smallFrac m:val=\"off\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:dispDef\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:lMargin m:val=\"0\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:rMargin m:val=\"0\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:defJc m:val=\"centerGroup\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:wrapIndent m:val=\"1440\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:intLim m:val=\"subSup\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:naryLim m:val=\"undOvr\"\/\u003E\n  \u003C\/m:mathPr\u003E\u003C\/w:WordDocument\u003E\n\u003C\/xml\u003E\u003C![endif]--\u003E\u003C!--[if gte mso 9]\u003E\u003Cxml\u003E\n \u003Cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" DefUnhideWhenUsed=\"true\"\n  DefSemiHidden=\"true\" DefQFormat=\"false\" DefPriority=\"99\"\n  LatentStyleCount=\"276\"\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"0\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Normal\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 7\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 8\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 9\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 7\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 8\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 9\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"35\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"caption\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"10\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Title\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" Name=\"Default Paragraph Font\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"11\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtitle\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"22\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Strong\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"20\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"59\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Table Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Placeholder Text\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"No Spacing\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Revision\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"34\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"List Paragraph\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"29\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Quote\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"30\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Quote\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"19\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"21\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"31\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Reference\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"32\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Reference\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"33\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Book Title\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"37\" Name=\"Bibliography\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"TOC Heading\"\/\u003E\n \u003C\/w:LatentStyles\u003E\n\u003C\/xml\u003E\u003C![endif]--\u003E\n\n\u003C!--[if gte mso 10]\u003E\n\u003Cstyle\u003E\n \/* Style Definitions *\/\ntable.MsoNormalTable\n {mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\n mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\n mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\n mso-style-noshow:yes;\n mso-style-priority:99;\n mso-style-parent:\"\";\n mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;\n mso-para-margin:0cm;\n mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\n mso-pagination:widow-orphan;\n font-size:12.0pt;\n font-family:\"Times New Roman\";\n mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}\n\u003C\/style\u003E\n\u003C![endif]--\u003E\n\n\n\n\u003C!--StartFragment--\u003E\n\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003ENeil Parille heads 'em out and rounds 'em up:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003ESean\nHaylock in Crisis Magazine has an interesting essay, \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.crisismagazine.com\/2015\/contra-rand\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003EContra Rand\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003EIsaac\nLewis reviews Leonard Peikoff’s \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.socialmatter.net\/2015\/10\/27\/book-review-on-objectivisms-sweeping-theory-of-history-the-dim-hypothesis\/\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003EThe DIM Hypothesis\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003EThe\nlong-awaited Salmieri and Gotthelef,\u0026nbsp; \u003Ci\u003EA Companion to Ayn Rand\u003C\/i\u003E will be out in\nJanuary.\u0026nbsp; You can read an \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.wiley.com\/WileyCDA\/WileyTitle\/productCd-1405186844.html\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003Eexcerpt here\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\" style=\"line-height: 115%;\"\u003E.\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: large;\"\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003C!--EndFragment--\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2138348051060879849\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2138348051060879849","title":"11 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2138348051060879849"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2138348051060879849"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2015\/10\/objectivist-roundup-november.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup November"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"11"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8449660359855279001"},"published":{"$t":"2015-10-28T13:34:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-10-28T13:36:19.589-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Philosophy In Action Becomes Inactive."},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cspan style=\"background-color: white;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14px;\"\u003EDiana Brickell (Hsieh) has announced her intention\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.philosophyinaction.com\/blog\/?p=16210\"\u003E \"to withdraw from the very public online life that I’ve lead for so many years\"\u003C\/a\u003E and is\u0026nbsp;mothballing her Philosophy In Action site, where she was developing a kind of Ayn Rand Agony Aunt service.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"background-color: white; font-size: 14px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"background-color: white;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: #444444; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 14px;\"\u003EBrickell (Hsieh) has been a human weathervane for the various political currents blowing through Objectivism over the years,her position fluctuating wildly between apparatchik orthodoxy and so called \"open\" Objectivism. Perhaps this is another signal that the movement is, as it has appeared to be for the past few years, in the doldrums.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8449660359855279001\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8449660359855279001","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8449660359855279001"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8449660359855279001"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2015\/10\/philosophy-in-action-becomes-inactive.html","title":"Philosophy In Action Becomes Inactive."}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1049161513498627509"},"published":{"$t":"2015-10-20T17:05:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-10-20T17:05:03.353-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Tara Smith: Reality Is Not Objective"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: left;\"\u003E\nHilarious. John Allison forked out \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/news.utexas.edu\/2008\/03\/20\/lib_arts_ayn_rand\"\u003E$2m \u003C\/a\u003Efor Tara Smith to sit around \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/product\/1107114497\/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1944687462\u0026amp;pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1\u0026amp;pf_rd_t=201\u0026amp;pf_rd_i=0847680274\u0026amp;pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER\u0026amp;pf_rd_r=1HK14809S3ZARHWP9RVF\"\u003Eplaying word games like this\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/a\u003Eall day.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-5QQDOCUyGFs\/VibVYEQZ9xI\/AAAAAAAAARE\/6Y9KBX5ZrmU\/s1600\/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-10-21%2Bat%2B12.41.30%2Bpm.png\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-5QQDOCUyGFs\/VibVYEQZ9xI\/AAAAAAAAARE\/6Y9KBX5ZrmU\/s1600\/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-10-21%2Bat%2B12.41.30%2Bpm.png\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1049161513498627509\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1049161513498627509","title":"13 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1049161513498627509"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1049161513498627509"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2015\/10\/tara-smith-reality-is-not-objective.html","title":"Tara Smith: Reality Is Not Objective"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-5QQDOCUyGFs\/VibVYEQZ9xI\/AAAAAAAAARE\/6Y9KBX5ZrmU\/s72-c\/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-10-21%2Bat%2B12.41.30%2Bpm.png","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"13"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8331493676040144686"},"published":{"$t":"2015-10-14T14:09:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-10-14T14:17:11.428-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup October"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003EA whole lot of not a lot happening in Objectivism right now. Neil Parille rounds it up:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E1.\u003Cspan style=\"mso-tab-count: 1;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EObjectivist\nphilosopher Tara Smith recently published \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Judicial-Review-Objective-Legal-System\/dp\/1107114497\/ref=sr_1_1?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1444565006\u0026amp;sr=1-1\"\u003EJudicial\nReview in an Objective Legal System\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\n\u003C\/span\u003EHere is an \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/theundercurrent.org\/judicial-review-in-an-objective-legal-system-an-interview-with-tara-smith\/\"\u003Einterview\nwith Smith\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E2.\u003Cspan style=\"mso-tab-count: 1;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EThe\nAyn Rand Institute has an extensive You Tube channel.\u003Cspan style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; For those of you who have trouble sleeping, h\u003C\/span\u003Eere are some videos from previous \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/playlist?list=PLqsoWxJ-qmMtxm8SQZM-InylwyYxmCP6A\"\u003EObjectivism\nConferences\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003C!--[if gte mso 9]\u003E\u003Cxml\u003E\n \u003Cw:WordDocument\u003E\n  \u003Cw:View\u003ENormal\u003C\/w:View\u003E\n  \u003Cw:Zoom\u003E0\u003C\/w:Zoom\u003E\n  \u003Cw:TrackMoves\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:TrackFormatting\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:PunctuationKerning\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003E\n  \u003Cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003E\n  \u003Cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003E\n  \u003Cw:DoNotPromoteQF\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeOther\u003EEN-US\u003C\/w:LidThemeOther\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeAsian\u003EJA\u003C\/w:LidThemeAsian\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeComplexScript\u003EX-NONE\u003C\/w:LidThemeComplexScript\u003E\n  \u003Cw:Compatibility\u003E\n   \u003Cw:BreakWrappedTables\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:SnapToGridInCell\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:WrapTextWithPunct\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:UseAsianBreakRules\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:DontGrowAutofit\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:EnableOpenTypeKerning\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:DontFlipMirrorIndents\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:OverrideTableStyleHps\/\u003E\n  \u003C\/w:Compatibility\u003E\n  \u003Cm:mathPr\u003E\n   \u003Cm:mathFont m:val=\"Cambria Math\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:brkBin m:val=\"before\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:brkBinSub m:val=\"--\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:smallFrac m:val=\"off\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:dispDef\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:lMargin m:val=\"0\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:rMargin m:val=\"0\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:defJc m:val=\"centerGroup\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:wrapIndent m:val=\"1440\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:intLim m:val=\"subSup\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:naryLim m:val=\"undOvr\"\/\u003E\n  \u003C\/m:mathPr\u003E\u003C\/w:WordDocument\u003E\n\u003C\/xml\u003E\u003C![endif]--\u003E\u003C!--[if gte mso 9]\u003E\u003Cxml\u003E\n \u003Cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" DefUnhideWhenUsed=\"true\"\n  DefSemiHidden=\"true\" DefQFormat=\"false\" DefPriority=\"99\"\n  LatentStyleCount=\"276\"\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"0\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Normal\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 7\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 8\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 9\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 7\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 8\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 9\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"35\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"caption\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"10\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Title\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" Name=\"Default Paragraph Font\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"11\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtitle\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"22\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Strong\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"20\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"59\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Table Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Placeholder Text\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"No Spacing\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Revision\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"34\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"List Paragraph\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"29\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Quote\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"30\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Quote\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"19\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"21\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"31\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Reference\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"32\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Reference\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"33\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Book Title\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"37\" Name=\"Bibliography\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"TOC Heading\"\/\u003E\n \u003C\/w:LatentStyles\u003E\n\u003C\/xml\u003E\u003C![endif]--\u003E\n\n\u003C!--[if gte mso 10]\u003E\n\u003Cstyle\u003E\n \/* Style Definitions *\/\ntable.MsoNormalTable\n {mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\n mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\n mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\n mso-style-noshow:yes;\n mso-style-priority:99;\n mso-style-parent:\"\";\n mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;\n mso-para-margin-top:0cm;\n mso-para-margin-right:0cm;\n mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;\n mso-para-margin-left:0cm;\n line-height:115%;\n mso-pagination:widow-orphan;\n font-size:12.0pt;\n mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;\n font-family:\"Times New Roman\";\n mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}\n\u003C\/style\u003E\n\u003C![endif]--\u003E\n\n\n\n\u003C!--StartFragment--\u003E\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u003C!--EndFragment--\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E3.\u003Cspan style=\"mso-tab-count: 1;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EDustin\nByrd recently published\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Critique-Ayn-Rands-Philosophy-Religion\/dp\/0739190334\/ref=sr_1_13?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1444571610\u0026amp;sr=1-13\u0026amp;refinements=p_28%3Aayn+rand\"\u003EA\nCritique of Ayn Rand’s Philosophy of Religion: The Gospel According to John\nGalt\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cspan style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp; \u003C\/span\u003EThe book is expensive ($85)\nbut there is a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Critique-Ayn-Rands-Philosophy-Religion\/dp\/0739190334\/ref=sr_1_13?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1444571610\u0026amp;sr=1-13\u0026amp;refinements=p_28%3Aayn+rand#reader_0739190334\"\u003Egenerous\npreview\u003C\/a\u003E available on Amazon.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E\u003Ci\u003E- Neil Parille\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8331493676040144686\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8331493676040144686","title":"6 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8331493676040144686"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8331493676040144686"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2015\/10\/objectivist-roundup-october.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup October"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"6"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5191842592848489552"},"published":{"$t":"2015-08-06T18:25:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-08-06T18:43:44.468-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivist Roundup"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nCourtesy of occasional contributor Neil Parille, here's a handy roundup of Objectivism-related doings.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C!--[if gte mso 9]\u003E\u003Cxml\u003E\n \u003Cw:WordDocument\u003E\n  \u003Cw:View\u003ENormal\u003C\/w:View\u003E\n  \u003Cw:Zoom\u003E0\u003C\/w:Zoom\u003E\n  \u003Cw:TrackMoves\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:TrackFormatting\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:PunctuationKerning\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003E\n  \u003Cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003E\n  \u003Cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003Efalse\u003C\/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003E\n  \u003Cw:DoNotPromoteQF\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeOther\u003EEN-US\u003C\/w:LidThemeOther\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeAsian\u003EJA\u003C\/w:LidThemeAsian\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LidThemeComplexScript\u003EX-NONE\u003C\/w:LidThemeComplexScript\u003E\n  \u003Cw:Compatibility\u003E\n   \u003Cw:BreakWrappedTables\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:SnapToGridInCell\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:WrapTextWithPunct\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:UseAsianBreakRules\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:DontGrowAutofit\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:EnableOpenTypeKerning\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:DontFlipMirrorIndents\/\u003E\n   \u003Cw:OverrideTableStyleHps\/\u003E\n  \u003C\/w:Compatibility\u003E\n  \u003Cm:mathPr\u003E\n   \u003Cm:mathFont m:val=\"Cambria Math\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:brkBin m:val=\"before\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:brkBinSub m:val=\"--\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:smallFrac m:val=\"off\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:dispDef\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:lMargin m:val=\"0\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:rMargin m:val=\"0\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:defJc m:val=\"centerGroup\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:wrapIndent m:val=\"1440\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:intLim m:val=\"subSup\"\/\u003E\n   \u003Cm:naryLim m:val=\"undOvr\"\/\u003E\n  \u003C\/m:mathPr\u003E\u003C\/w:WordDocument\u003E\n\u003C\/xml\u003E\u003C![endif]--\u003E\u003C!--[if gte mso 9]\u003E\u003Cxml\u003E\n \u003Cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" DefUnhideWhenUsed=\"true\"\n  DefSemiHidden=\"true\" DefQFormat=\"false\" DefPriority=\"99\"\n  LatentStyleCount=\"276\"\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"0\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Normal\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 7\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 8\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"9\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"heading 9\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 7\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 8\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" Name=\"toc 9\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"35\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"caption\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"10\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Title\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" Name=\"Default Paragraph Font\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"11\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtitle\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"22\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Strong\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"20\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"59\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Table Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Placeholder Text\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"1\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"No Spacing\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Revision\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"34\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"List Paragraph\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"29\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Quote\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"30\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Quote\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 1\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 2\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 3\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 4\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 5\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"60\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Shading Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"61\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"62\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Light Grid Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"63\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"64\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Shading 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"65\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"66\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium List 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"67\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 1 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"68\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 2 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"69\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Medium Grid 3 Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"70\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Dark List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"71\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Shading Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"72\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful List Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"73\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" Name=\"Colorful Grid Accent 6\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"19\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"21\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Emphasis\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"31\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Subtle Reference\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"32\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Intense Reference\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"33\" SemiHidden=\"false\"\n   UnhideWhenUsed=\"false\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"Book Title\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"37\" Name=\"Bibliography\"\/\u003E\n  \u003Cw:LsdException Locked=\"false\" Priority=\"39\" QFormat=\"true\" Name=\"TOC Heading\"\/\u003E\n \u003C\/w:LatentStyles\u003E\n\u003C\/xml\u003E\u003C![endif]--\u003E\n\n\u003C!--[if gte mso 10]\u003E\n\u003Cstyle\u003E\n \/* Style Definitions *\/\ntable.MsoNormalTable\n {mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\n mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\n mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\n mso-style-noshow:yes;\n mso-style-priority:99;\n mso-style-parent:\"\";\n mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;\n mso-para-margin-top:0cm;\n mso-para-margin-right:0cm;\n mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;\n mso-para-margin-left:0cm;\n line-height:115%;\n mso-pagination:widow-orphan;\n font-size:12.0pt;\n mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;\n font-family:\"Times New Roman\";\n mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";\n mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;\n mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}\n\u003C\/style\u003E\n\u003C![endif]--\u003E\n\n\n\n\u003C!--StartFragment--\u003E\n\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E1.\u0026nbsp;\nAyn Rand biographer Anne Heller will shortly be publishing \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/product\/054445619X\/ref=s9_simh_bw_p14_d1_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER\u0026amp;pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-3\u0026amp;pf_rd_r=1ZV5PC7HS1K6BN29QJ9G\u0026amp;pf_rd_t=101\u0026amp;pf_rd_p=2094163762\u0026amp;pf_rd_i=241582011\"\u003Ea\nsmall biography of Hanna Arendt\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E2. Ayn Rand’s \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Ideal-Ayn-Rand\/dp\/0451475550\/ref=sr_1_1?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1438432444\u0026amp;sr=1-1\u0026amp;keywords=ayn+rand+ideal\"\u003Enovel\nIdeal\u003C\/a\u003E was recently published.\u0026nbsp; Here\nis \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/time.com\/3951166\/ayn-rands-deadly-unpublished-early-novel-illuminates-and-unsettles\/\"\u003EHeller’s\nreview\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;(note: paywall)\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E3. Harry Binswanger recently published \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.hbletter.com\/my-story\/\"\u003Ehis “conversion” story\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E4. Objectivist philosopher Greg Salmieri\nwas \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/humstatic.uchicago.edu\/philosophy\/elucidations\/Salmieri_AynRandsMoralPhilosophy.mp3\"\u003Einterviewed\nabout Rand’s ethical theory\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"MsoNormal\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan lang=\"EN-US\"\u003E5. Peter Schwartz published \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Defense-Selfishness-Self-Sacrifice-Unjust-Destructive\/dp\/1137280166\/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books\u0026amp;ie=UTF8\u0026amp;qid=1438432829\u0026amp;sr=1-1-spell\u0026amp;keywords=schwartz+in+defense+of+selfifhness\"\u003EIn\nDefense of Selfishness\u003C\/a\u003E.\u0026nbsp; Ex-Objectivist\nphilosopher Bryan Register critiques it on his new blog \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/bregister.wordpress.com\/2015\/06\/19\/peter-schwartzs-elementary-mistakes-1-the-word-selfish\/\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E\nand \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/bregister.wordpress.com\/2015\/06\/26\/peter-schwartzs-elementary-mistakes-2-egoism-and-altruism\/\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E\nand \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/bregister.wordpress.com\/2015\/07\/03\/peter-schwartzs-elementary-mistakes-3-more-about-selfish\/\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Co:p\u003E\u003C\/o:p\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003C!--EndFragment--\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5191842592848489552\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5191842592848489552","title":"15 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5191842592848489552"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5191842592848489552"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2015\/08\/objectivist-roundup.html","title":"Objectivist Roundup"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"15"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-270565230936405392"},"published":{"$t":"2015-01-26T16:41:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-01-26T16:41:08.777-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Open thread 2015"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"As per Gordon's suggestion. Comment away as the spirit moves you.\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/270565230936405392\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=270565230936405392","title":"46 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/270565230936405392"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/270565230936405392"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2015\/01\/open-thread-2015.html","title":"Open thread 2015"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"46"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2947291290143546127"},"published":{"$t":"2014-12-22T16:37:00.003-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-01-26T16:40:31.079-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Open thread"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"As per Lloyd's suggestion. Comment away.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2947291290143546127\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2947291290143546127","title":"199 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2947291290143546127"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2947291290143546127"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2014\/12\/open-thread.html","title":"Open thread"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"199"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3019235363632443257"},"published":{"$t":"2014-12-04T11:33:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-12-04T20:16:28.251-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Nathaniel Branden has died, aged 84."},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/reason.com\/blog\/2014\/12\/03\/nathaniel-branden-rip\"\u003EReason\u003C\/a\u003E and the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/james-peron\/nathaniel-branden-1930-20_b_6265196.html\"\u003EHuffington Post\u003C\/a\u003E provide obituaries.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nHere's his essay \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/mol.redbarn.org\/objectivism\/Writing\/NathanielBranden\/BenefitsAndHazards.html\"\u003E\"The Benefits and Hazards of Ayn Rand\"\u003C\/a\u003E to mark his passing.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nUpdate: Neil Parille points me to Chris Sciabarra's \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.nyu.edu\/projects\/sciabarra\/notablog\/\"\u003Ememorial post\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3019235363632443257\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3019235363632443257","title":"162 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3019235363632443257"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3019235363632443257"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2014\/12\/nathaniel-branden-has-died-aged-84.html","title":"Nathaniel Branden has died, aged 84."}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"162"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-779761796084051680"},"published":{"$t":"2014-09-30T14:04:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-09-30T14:50:23.071-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"A Little Ancient History"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: left;\"\u003E\nIn response to a commenter who claims that ARCHNbloggers like myself are too \"cowardly\" to go on Objectivist sites and debate their philosophy first hand, here's a couple of screenshots of my user activity on a couple of O-ist sites from a few years back - Rebirth of Reason (formerly SoloHQ), and Objectivist Living.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: left;\"\u003E\nThere's nearly 2,000 posts there, covering a period of around a decade, \u0026nbsp;all under my own name - which is more than can be said for this particular fellow, who in a totally non-cowardly way prefers a pseudonym.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: left;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-VSghFuSbaEc\/VCsWZ_mKF3I\/AAAAAAAAAQM\/v0js57a_Nis\/s1600\/Screen%2BShot%2B2014-10-01%2Bat%2B9.41.37%2BAM.png\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-VSghFuSbaEc\/VCsWZ_mKF3I\/AAAAAAAAAQM\/v0js57a_Nis\/s1600\/Screen%2BShot%2B2014-10-01%2Bat%2B9.41.37%2BAM.png\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-Cc05VBItnyk\/VCsWLj4yCwI\/AAAAAAAAAQE\/FEsLKULuw_4\/s1600\/Screen%2BShot%2B2014-10-01%2Bat%2B9.38.05%2BAM.png\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-Cc05VBItnyk\/VCsWLj4yCwI\/AAAAAAAAAQE\/FEsLKULuw_4\/s1600\/Screen%2BShot%2B2014-10-01%2Bat%2B9.38.05%2BAM.png\" height=\"232\" width=\"320\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: left;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: left;\"\u003E\nSo, so much for that. Will I now rise to his challenge of going on and doing it all over again on Objectivist Answers? Well, clearly I hardly need to, and for now I have better things to do. I'm not even spending that much time in the last few years on the ARCHNblog. It was fun while it lasted, but there isn't that much that interests me about Objectivism these days - I've heard it all before.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: left;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: left;\"\u003E\nBut never say never...\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/779761796084051680\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=779761796084051680","title":"275 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/779761796084051680"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/779761796084051680"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2014\/09\/a-little-ancient-history.html","title":"A Little Ancient History"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-VSghFuSbaEc\/VCsWZ_mKF3I\/AAAAAAAAAQM\/v0js57a_Nis\/s72-c\/Screen%2BShot%2B2014-10-01%2Bat%2B9.41.37%2BAM.png","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"275"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-875674940804341268"},"published":{"$t":"2014-09-16T11:48:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-09-16T11:49:50.166-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"The Biggest Bomb Yet."},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Box Office Mojo reports on Atlas Shrugged III's \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.boxofficemojo.com\/news\/?id=3907\u0026amp;p=.htm\"\u003Eopening weekend\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"background-color: white; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Segoe, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: justify;\"\u003EThe three-part adaptation of Ayn Rand's\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ci style=\"background-color: white; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Segoe, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: justify;\"\u003EAtlas Shrugged\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"background-color: white; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Segoe, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;ended with a whimper this weekend. Opening at 242 theaters,\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cb style=\"background-color: white; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Segoe, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"color: navy;\"\u003EAtlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt?\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"background-color: white; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Segoe, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: justify;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;bombed with just $461,179*. In comparison, the first two movies each opened above $1.68 million. To be fair, the second outing opened at over 1,000 theaters, and both previous movies had more marketing\/publicity ahead of their launches.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"background-color: white; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Segoe, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: justify;\"\u003EUltimately, the entire three-part endeavor will likely wind up with less than $10 million at the domestic box office (and not a whole lot overseas as well). The troubled production history is surely to blame for some of this—the cast changed with each installment—though it does call in to question whether the novel is as popular as it's perceived to be.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nNever fear, the business masterplan will be to cream it on the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/store.atlasshruggedmovie.com\/his\/\"\u003Emerch\u003C\/a\u003E!\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/875674940804341268\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=875674940804341268","title":"83 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/875674940804341268"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/875674940804341268"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2014\/09\/the-biggest-bomb-yet.html","title":"The Biggest Bomb Yet."}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"83"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2182441519769939456"},"published":{"$t":"2014-09-01T22:43:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-09-01T22:46:11.580-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Getting Amped."},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: left;\"\u003E\nJust 9 more sleeps to go.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Ciframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/rSILZjEmIzs?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'\u003E\u003C\/iframe\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2182441519769939456\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2182441519769939456","title":"6 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2182441519769939456"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2182441519769939456"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2014\/09\/getting-amped.html","title":"Getting Amped."}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"6"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-624032468308334465"},"published":{"$t":"2014-05-16T21:01:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-05-17T08:48:24.902-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Schisms"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Surprise Defection from the Peikoff and ARI"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"This is actually somewhat old news (several months old), but apparently there's been a rather startling defection from the ARI\/Peikoff\/Orthodox wing of Objectivism. This isn't so much as an excommunication as a pure defection, and from an entirely unexpected source. Dave Harriman, Peikoff's most prominent philosophical protege and virtual co-author of \u003Ci\u003EThe Logical Leap\u003C\/i\u003E, has defected from the ARI to TAS, from Peikoff to David Kelley. I have no idea why Harriman defected. Usually, there are personal reasons for splits of this sort, which are masked with philosophical ones. Apparantly, Harriman and Peikoff have not been on speaking terms for last year or so. Beyond that we know nothing and are not likely ever knowing much more than that, as it looks Peikoff and ARI are going to be silent on this one, since it's obviously a defection that places them in a very awkward position. They cannot, after all, turn Harriman into a complete non-person, since Harriman, rather than Peikoff himself, wrote the book which introduced Peikoff's theory of induction to the world. That book won't be disappearing from ARI book shelves any time soon, regardless of what Peikoff may privately think of Harriman. My guess is that this weakens the orthodox faction over at ARI, and makes Peikoff and the old guard look out of touch and even irrelevant to many within the Objectivist movement.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nThose of us who are outsiders and critics of Objectivism have always regarded Harriman some suspicion, not only for his close ties with Peikoffian orthodoxy, but for his rather eccentric views on physics. Kelley's version of Objectivism has always sought to make Rand's ideas as intellectual respectable as possible. Will Harriman's views on modern physics soften now that he has thrown over the incubus of Peikofian orthodoxy? Hard to say. But his \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.atlassociety.org\/as\/blog\/2014\/05\/13\/david-harriman-speaking-atlas-summit-2014\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Efirst scheduled talks\u003C\/a\u003E for the Atlas Society have nothing to do with physics.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/624032468308334465\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=624032468308334465","title":"21 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/624032468308334465"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/624032468308334465"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2014\/05\/surprise-defection-from-peikoff-and-ari.html","title":"Surprise Defection from the Peikoff and ARI"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"21"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6462868124313874527"},"published":{"$t":"2014-03-16T16:05:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-03-16T16:05:15.945-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Attack of the Overzealous Spam Filter!"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Apologies are due to a number of commenters here. Looking back on the blog's spam filter I see a number of comments from genuine writers have been caught inadvertently.\u0026nbsp;\u003Cdiv\u003E\nThere's not huge numbers - maybe 10-15 over the past couple of years. I've reverted them back, probably too late now, however. Once again, my apologies.\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6462868124313874527\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6462868124313874527","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6462868124313874527"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6462868124313874527"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2014\/03\/attack-of-overzealous-spam-filter.html","title":"Attack of the Overzealous Spam Filter!"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5939511097434949043"},"published":{"$t":"2014-03-10T11:11:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-04-02T13:27:12.525-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Future of Objectivism"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Future of Objectivism 8"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EPeikoff's Legacy.\u003C\/b\u003E How will Leonard Peikoff be remembered by future Objectivists? Will even the orthodox remember him all that fondly? Will he continue to be influential? Rand's most steadfast and controversial protoge casts a long shadow over orthodox followers of Ayn Rand. His legacy is definitely of the questionable, perhaps even dubious, variety. While he exhibited some skills as a teacher, lecturer, and expositor of Objectivist orthodoxy, whenever he attempted to stray from the Randian straight and narrow, and take flight on his own intellectual steam, the consequences were often deeply embarrasing. The man simply has very little in the way of independent judgment. Couple this with an over-sensitivity to criticism and a deep-seated distrust of anyone who refuses to defer to even his most outlandish ideas, and you have the perfect recipe for the paranoid idealogue, seperated from the world by his own political and moral delusions. His apologists describe him as a man who does not well suffer fools; which is an overly kind way of saying that Peikoff is not a nice man. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff's legacy consists of four parts: the intellectual, the institutional, the personal, and the cultural. Let's examine each in turn.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E1. \u003Ci\u003EIntellectual.\u003C\/i\u003E As the foremost expositor of orthodox Objectivism, Peikoff can lay claim to being the most influential proponent of Objectivism other than Rand herself. And while his additions to the Objectivism have been extremely limited and modest (due to \"closed\" view of Rand's philosophy), he has exercised at least some influence on what parts of Objectivism are to be emphasized. Whereas Peikoff's rival, David Kelley, has a tendency for emphasizing the most plausible and least troublesome aspects of Objectivism, Peikoff has demonstrated a talent for emphasizing and making less plausible the worst parts of Rand's thought. Indeed, Peikoff made a speciality of that very portion of Objectivism that is furtherest from reality: Rand's \"philosophy of history,\" which consists little more than wishful thinking mixed with bad history and even worse philosophical exegesis. Rand's views on history were supposed to supply special insights on the future course of history not accessible to those of us who rely on our own wits, rather than the dubious conceptual schemes of intellectual triflers like Rand or Peikoff. These special insights are what allowed Peikoff to insist that Republicans were the biggest threat to American freedom (because their underlying ideology was based on religion), whereas the Democrats were nearly harmless (because leftists ideologies were moribund and empty). Assuming with Rand that ideology and philosophy, rather than human nature and institutional incentives, determines the course of history, Peikoff insisted that anyone who didn't agree with his eccentric views on politics didn't understand Objectivism. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThat was in 2006. In just a couple of years, all of Peikoff's speculations about Democrats and Republicans were proved entirely baseless. What Peikoff calls \"socialism\" (i.e., extensive welfare state, extensive government regulation coupled with distrust, dislike of free markets), far from being dead, had merely been dormant, waiting for a chance to thrive once more in the sun of financial disasater and Republican incompentence. Peikoff was wrong about the whole ideology thing. He mistook popular effusions of radical leftist ideology, which can come off as disparate and unserious, with the more deeper substratum of sentiments and interests that drive political elites. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff has also presented himself as an expert in another one of the more dubious areas of Rand's thought, the Objectivist epistemology. Here Peikoff, with the help of the amusing but none too credible David Harriman, attempted to interpret science on the basis of metaphysical constructs. The results, while not as blatantly embarrassing as his political prognostications, still left a deep stain on Objectivism's credibility. Consider the following, lifted from a Peikoff lecture:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nPhilosophy certainly has a veto power over any subject if it violates principles established philosophically. So, if Heisenberg says for instance in the principle of uncertainty that causality is a myth or has been overturned on the subatomic level, you can throw out Heisenberg's theory on that grounds alone. And the same is true for the idea of something proceeding out of nothing. In other words, that is something proceeding causelessly, because there was nothing before it and it violates the very meaning of nothing. Nothing is nothing, it has no potentiality, there is no there to become. It simply is the book of Genesis rewritten by people who are entirely within the philosophy of religion and want to posture as scientists.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNow, if you consult Dave Harriman's course, you will see that quantum mechanics, the theory of everything, string theory, is riddled with contradictions and is arbitrary, 'cause it reflects the corrupt epistemology dominant in the intellectual world. So you cannot decide that that is the standard by which to judge philosophy. Put it another way – science is not what scientists say. Science is what scientists say if they use a rational methodology, but scientists, even in their capacity as holding chairs at universities, can be – and a great many of them are – as irrational, dishonest and corrupt as in any other field.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe trouble with these remarks is that they don't evince any really detailed understanding of the subject matter at hand. And without a detailed understanding, Peikoff comes merely as an ideological crackpot trying to dismiss views that don't square with his pet notions. Calling scientists who refuse to accept Objectivism's dubious inferences from vague metaphysical constructs \"irrational, dishonest, and corrupt\" is hardly the way to improve Rand's standing in the intellectual world.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhat sort of effect Peikoff's intellectual follies exercise on the future course of Objectivism remains to be seen. It's hard to know how many of the denizens over at ARI are hard-core Peikoffians, willing to follow the master into any intellectual \u003Ci\u003Efaux pas\u003C\/i\u003E, no matter how absurd. My guess is that the majority of orthodox Objectivists are not entirely pleased by Peikoff's sallies against the GOP and academic physics. However much Objectivists may dislike Republicans and conservatives, they tend to dislike Democrats and progressives even more. And while many Objectivists probably don't have a strong opinion on physics one way or the other, the McCaskey scandal could hardly have left a good taste in their collective mouths. Ironically, Peikoff's influence could run directly opposite from his intentions. His example may serve as a warning sign, urging his followers to leave historical prognosis and physics alone. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n2. \u003Ci\u003EInstitutional.\u003C\/i\u003E Peikoff's legacy involves the creation of ARI and the ownership of Rand's copyrights, which (or so it has been rumored) will be transferred to ARI upon Peikoff's earthly demise. ARI will obviously exercise an important influence on the future of Objectivism. An institution adds the factor of political\/bureaucratic manipulation to competition among Objectivist elites for leadership and influence among the Objectivist masses. Without ARI, leadership and influence would be determined largely through personal and intellectual charisma. The Objectivist who, through personal charm and intellectual skill, could gain the largest following among the faithful would, in a post-Peikoffian world, become the leading expositor of Rand's philosophy. With\u0026nbsp; ARI playing a leading role in the propagation of Randian ideology, skill at rising within an organized hierarchy suddenly takes on an importance it would not otherwise have. The existence of ARI gives the relatively uncharasmatic, intellectually unadventurous a greater chance to assume the role as the leader of the Objectivist movement going forward. It also pushes the more adventurous and charasmatic Objectivist elites out into the wilderness, increasing the odds that movement will experience schisms and splinter into many disparate fragments.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf Peikoff were to decide to leave his estate to his daughter, Kira Peikoff, or to someone like David Harriman, that could potentially have a huge effect on the future of Objectivism. Essentially, any individual who owned the Rand copyrights would be able to exercise the very sort of veto power over ARI that Peikoff enjoys today. This could potentially neuter any attempt by Yaron Brook and his successors to make ARI a bigger player in the free market advocacy space.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n3. \u003Ci\u003EPersonal.\u003C\/i\u003E This is actually more important than most Objectivists realize. While it is true that most Objectivists don't know Peikoff personally and have experienced little, if any, interaction with him, how Peikoff has treated other people, both Objectivist and non-Objectivists, both within and outside ARI, sets the tone for the orthodox Objectivist movement as a whole. When Peikoff treats people he disagrees with contempt, he encourages his denizens, both within and without ARI, to do likewise. When, in his essay \"Fact and Value,\" he boasted of breaking \"all relations\" with David Kelley, he was setting an example (or, rather, reaffirming Rand's own example) of how to handle differences of opinion with other Objectivists. When he admitted, in his apologia for the McCaskey scandal, that \"a few longtime Board members and I are on terms of personal enmity,\" he was giving tacit blessing to being at enmity with one's colleagues. When Peikoff wrote, in his email to Arline Mann, \"I hope you still know who I am,\" he was sanctioning just the sort of self-aggrandizing, contemptuous, high-handed behavior that we find rife on so many Objectivist forum sites.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt is not merely an issue of the sort of example Peikoff sets. Peikoff has also influenced the movement by his failure to provide the right sort of leadership. If you don't want your ideological movement to become tarred by fanatical, angry douchebags, barking like mad dogs at everything they are incapable of understanding, then you have to come out against it. Ideologies, particularly of the non-mainstream (some might say \"extreme\") variety, tend to attract individuals on the fringes of society: social outcasts, loners, misfits, etc. While some of the people may be mild and inoffensive, some of them are anti-social for more disturbing reasons. If you don't want such people entering your movement and bringing disrepute upon it, you need take active measures to keep them out. Peikoff has failed to provide any effective leadership in this regard.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe late Barbara Branden, back in 2006, wrote: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nObjectivists are by no means immune to ... rage. On the contrary, I find it to be increasingly prevalent among Objectivists. We see everywhere—particularly on the Internet—the spectacle of supposed supporters of reason and free inquiry erupting in fury at the least provocation and hurling abuse at anyone who opposes—even questions—their convictions.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nBut what I call “Objectivist Rage” has a peculiar twist to it, unlikely to be found anywhere else except, paradoxically, in religion. It is almost always morally tinged. Those who question our ideas and those who oppose them, we are told, are not merely unintelligent, ignorant, uninformed; they are evil, they are moral monsters to be cast out and forever damned. And that is what I want to discuss today: the immensely presumptuous moralizing, the wildly unjust condemnations, and the towering anger and outrage exhibited by so many Objectivists.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhy was\u0026nbsp; this issue raised by Barbara Branden and not Leonard Peikoff? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n4. \u003Ci\u003ECultural.\u003C\/i\u003E Peikoff's greatest influence, and longest shadow, may be cast in the cultural sphere. What I have in mind here is Peikoff's decision to make deference to Rand's memory, rather than to the Objectivist philosophy, the \u003Ci\u003Ede facto\u003C\/i\u003E primary goal of ARI and orthodox Objectivism. In particular, how Peikoff handled the challenge of Barbara Branden's biography of Rand has exercised a huge influence on the orthodox Objectivist movement. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThere are many ways Peikoff could have responded to the Branden biography. He could have said, for instance, that the negative stuff\u0026nbsp; related about in Rand in Branden's book, even if true, was irrelevant to Objectivism. He could have said he didn't care whether the Branden book was true, because it is ideas that matter, not personal foibles. He could have argued that Branden was too emotionally involved with her subject, too conflicted to objectiviely write about Rand's life; and he could have offered all of the Rand source material to an independent non-Objectivist biographer, who would be charged to follow the evidence wherever it led, regardless of who might be offended. In short, he could have done any number of things that would have been reasonable, \"objective,\" and reality-orientated. He choose none of those options. Instead, he condemned Branden book outright, even while boasting that he would never read it. He even went so far as to claim, at one point, that \"everything\" the Brandens said was a lie.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRobert Bindinotto explained how Peikoff was affected by Branden's biography as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;According to [a source close to Peikoff], Peikoff was emotionally distraught during [the time Branden's book came out]. The Barbara Branden book -- which he refused to read, but whose contents he had heard about from others -- terribly distressed him. One's response to the book soon became for him a moral litmus test: it apparently carried for him all the old emotional baggage from the stormy NBI days, and provoked him to revert to that state of mind. For one thing, it helped spark the initial tension between himself and Kelley, since the latter had a more tolerant attitude toward the book.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff explained to my source that he was also being urged by both Peter Schwartz and Harry Binswanger to take a much more hard-line stand on issues of moral judgment. Peikoff explained that there seemed to be \"two kinds of Objectivists\" -- those who liked his approach in \"Understanding Objectivism,\" and by contrast, \"hardliners like Peter and Harry.\" It was clear that Peikoff at the time felt very torn between the two positions. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt is also clear which side won out. Behavior that had been common during the ugly NBI days -- demands of loyalty and fealty, moral denunciations, evaluating books without reading them, etc. -- suddenly returned to fashion. Traumatized by the appearance of \u003Ci\u003EPassion\u003C\/i\u003E, Peikoff's new-found contextualism, as evidenced in \"Understanding Objectivism,\" now seemed like a kind of moral weakness or compromise, and was abandoned. He reverted to his old habits of the NBI days -- rule by denunciation and excommunication. Just as Greta Garbo's \"Comrade Ninotchka\" wanted \"fewer but better Russians,\" Peikoff now relished the prospect of fewer but more loyal Objectivists -- and boldly promised further excommunications to approach his ideal. \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff's choice to take a hard-line against any assertion that could be interpreted as criticism of Rand's personal life constitutes his most important legacy. Peikoff's decision to regard Barbara Branden's biography as an attack against Rand, rather than merely as a true-to-life portrait, guaranteed that orthodox Objectivism would remain first and foremost an Ayn Rand cult. The Peikoff-Kelley split was only tangentially over the issue of an open or closed Objectivism. The heart of the difference involved differing visions of Objectivism's future. Kelley seems to have wanted to develop Objectivism into a respectable philosophy that could make an impact in academia. Peikoff, on the other hand, clearly put defending Rand's personal life as the most important consideration of his brand of doctrinal orthodoxy. These are not fully compatible goals. Rand, in her personal life, did not always practice what she preached. She was not always rational or reality-centered or just and fair in her dealings with others. She would make unreasonable demands on her associates and then abuse them when they failed to live up to her unrealistic standards. Her conduct did not always fully square with the highest ideals she preached her philosophy.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff's decision to defend Rand's personal life at all costs reinforced many bad tendecies that already existed in the Objectivist movement. Rand had become increasingly hostile toward the world at large. However much she might praise American ideals and the Founding Fathers, she really didn't care for the America of her time. While Rand might have said complimentary things about the American people, her feelings toward real Americans could often be far more ambivalent. As she aged, she became increasingly embittered about the direction of the country. Peikoff inherited these attitudes from Rand. They reinforced tendencies toward paranoia, eccentricity, and anomie already present within Peikoff's psyche. His animus toward the Branden's and their relevations about Rand merely sealed the deal. After Barbara Branden's biography came out, Peikoff and his chief denizens, Schwartz and Binswanger, went into full retrenchment mode. All the cultish practices that had thrived under Rand's watch were resumed at full throttle. Ayn Rand's life was carefully sanitized; her journals, letters, speeches, lectures, workshops, and marginalia were bowlderized and published. Nathaniel Branden's role in the development of Objectivism was ignored, denied, glossed over.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff's legacy could affect the future of Objectivism in two main ways: it could serve as either an example to be admired and imitatated, or as an incubus to be cast off and ignored. Undoubtedly Peikoff was sincere in his attempt to maintain the purity of Rand's Objectivist doctrine and to defend Rand's personal life. But the way he went about defending Rand's life and philosophy were heavy-handed, narrow-minded, and sometimes even hypocritical. For example, Peikoff objected to Kelley speaking to a Libertarian group. But that didn't stop Peikoff himself from interfacing with that same group (a few years earlier) or for allowing John Allison to become President of CATO many years later. Peikoff was also very jealous about keeping the doctrine of Objectivism within the bounds of what Rand actually wrote and said. But that didn't stop him from adding his devising his own solution to the problem of induction, or introducing his own DIM hypothesis. In other words, Peikoff granted himself the right to do things he resented in others.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt's hard to believe that Peikoff's hypocripsy, his use of indimidation in intellectual disputes, his gratuiotous appeals to authority, and his suspicion and even paranoia of any difference of opinion, won't, in the end, alienate enough Objectivists to render a large part of his legacy as something to be avoided, reformed, reacted against. This is not to suggest that, following Peikoff's passing from the scene, we will be confronted with a far more open and tolerant version of Objectivism. Some of the intolerance and intellectual xenophobia manifested over at ARI is baked into the Objectivism movement as such. It results from the fact that there really is no technology of reason or morality over at ARI through which all or even most personal and\/or intellectual disputes can be settled. If two Objectivists disagree on whom to vote for in an election, or over the aesthetic merits of a movie, or on the morality of Peikoff's conduct in the McCaskey imbroglio, how is that to be settled? How does \"reason\" settle such disputes? Which Objectivist moral principle allows one to determine, within a tolerable degree of certainty, on which side the axe must fall? Since these issues are not resolvable on the basis of Objectivist principles, they either must (1) be left irresolvable; or (2) some authority figure must pronounce on them, and his word must be accepted as the one and only \"rational\" conclusion by the Objectivist faithful. Tolerance inevitably leads to moral skepticism, a state of affairs hardly tolerable to a card carrying Objectivist; but moralism requires an authority figure with the power to settle disputes and determine what passes for canonical doctrine. Objectivism is caught between these two unpalatable extremes; and there doesn't appear to be any way it can escape this unappetizing quandry.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMy guess is that we will see greater openess and tolerance at ARI and among the orthodox Objectivist faithful. The pendalum having swung so far in one direction, it is inevitable that it must swing back in the opposite direction. But tolerance and openness is not really what the elites at ARI want. It will merely lead to more free thinking, to more riffing on the Objectivist canon, to more eccentric interpretations of the Randian creed, and, ipso facto, to more internal disagreement. For an ideological organization, tolerance and openness works like a dissolving acid to eat away at the bonds that hold the organization together. The pendalum, having swung violently in one direction, must inevitably swing back in the other. The example Peikoff set is probably resented by at least some (perhaps many) Objectivists, both in and out of ARI. Some of these Objectivists might assume that everything they find offensive in Peikoff's conduct in recent years stems merely from Peikoff's own personal failings, and from Peikoff's intolerance and manic orthodoxy. Take Peikoff out of the equation, bring in more tolerance and openness, and all will be well. But is it tolerance and openness that the orthodox Objectivist really wants? I doubt it. What they really want is an authority figure who they can admire and follow and whose interpretations of Rand they can trust; someone who will at least present the appearence of being rational, just, and benevolent; someone whom, in short, they can follow in good conscience.\u003C!------\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5939511097434949043\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5939511097434949043","title":"10 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5939511097434949043"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5939511097434949043"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2014\/03\/future-of-objectivsm-8.html","title":"Future of Objectivism 8"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"10"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3114748113972328104"},"published":{"$t":"2014-02-10T13:06:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-03-07T07:00:06.012-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Future of Objectivism"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Future of Objectivism 7"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EJohn McCaskey, the candid Objectivist.\u003C\/b\u003E Whereas many Objectivists, especially from the older generation, come off as a bit insular and even paranoid, McCaskey seems more open and engaging. He teaches part time at Stanford, and is \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.johnmccaskey.com\/joomla\/index.php\/feedback\/rate-my-professors\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ewell-liked by his students\u003C\/a\u003E. He writes a blog, where he invites comments and even (sometimes) responds in a civil manner. There can be little doubt that evangelizing for the Objectivist cause means a big deal to McCaskey. He's a true believer in the Randian cause. But the way he goes about evangelizing his ideological preferences seems far more reasonable and inoffensive than what we've been accustomed to at the hands of Peikoff, Schwartz, Binswanger, and even Rand herself. Unlike those Objectivist luminaries, McCaskey is not offended when people disagree with him; nor does he automatically equate criticism with a personal attack. He seems to understand, what so many older orthodox Objectivists fail to grasp, that you don't win converts by displaying contempt for the people you disagree with. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMcCaskey made a good deal money in the computer business. He then went back to school to get a Ph.D. in history. Presumably, he should have been perfect ARI board member. He had money, he had the credentials, he shared an obvious passion for Rand and her ideas, and he wanted to teach. What more could be wanted by the folks over at the institute? Well, there was a fly in the ointment; a tragic flaw, if you will, that would lead to McCaskey's fall from grace over at ARI. And I suspect it goes well beyond merely disagreeing with Harriman and Peikoff over a few points of historical scholarship. When Peikoff described McCaskey as \"an obnoxious braggart\" and \"pretentious ignoramus,\" Ayn Rand's heir clearly exaggerated. But if you read McCaskey's blog, you\u0026nbsp; may detect an element of truth behind Peikoff's exaggerations. Peikoff likely had reasons beyond McCaskey's criticisms of Harriman for his histrionic denunciations of the former ARI board member. Indeed, I would not be surprised if the McCaskey's Harriman criticisms were merely the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. While calling McCaskey an obnoxious braggart and pretentious ignoramus is clearly over the top, McCaskey does exhibit just that sort of breezy self-confidence as an expositor of Randian ideology that could easily exasperate the over-protective, thin-skinned Peikoff. In his infamous \"ultimatum\" letter, Peikoff described McCaskey's criticism as saying, \"in essence, Peikoff is misguided , Harriman is misguided, [McCaskey] knows Objectivism better than either.\" At the time, Peikoff's criticism struck many ARI critics as unjustifiable hyperbole stemming from an over-sensitivity to criticism. But if, as I suspect, McCaskey had, during his tenure on the ARI board, been riffing on Objectivism like he riffs on his blog, I can see how that would get on Peikoff's nerves. Riffing has always been a problem for orthodox Objectivism. Objectivism mostly appeals to high school and college students. While some of these students are content to follow an orthodox path, the more bolder nascent Objectivists often irrepressible desire to \"improve\" Objectivism in some way or another. It is likely that Peikoff, over the years, has received scores of emails from pretentious, sometimes even belligerent and nasty college students offering \"improved\" versions of the Randian creed. This sort of thing was never welcomed by Rand, and it certainly would not have been welcomed by Peikoff. McCaskey's riffs may seem, to those of us who are outsiders, as mild and inoffensive. They most deal with semantic issues (i.e, with how Objectivist arguments are worded) rather than posing any serious challenge to orthodoxy. But any sort of changes, even if merely to the phrasing of arguments, would constitute a challenge to Peikoff's authority as the most qualified interpreter of Objectivism. Over the years, Peikoff has guarded his position as the supreme authority on Randian doctrine with an intense, paranoid jealousy.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nConsider, as one example of a McCaskey's riff, a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.johnmccaskey.com\/joomla\/index.php\/blog\/63-rands-nap\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eblog post\u003C\/a\u003E about \"the initiation and use of physical force.\" Objectivism conflates physical force with fraud. While agreeing with this conflation, McCaskey suggests a reformulation which, he insists, is more in keeping with Ayn Rand's original text:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n[Rand] was right to indicate that “physical force” here is the same thing physicists mean. And Peikoff’s dropping “use of” and Objectivists speaking of two kinds of physical force make, I think, Rand’s doctrine about individual rights harder to conceptualize; more difficult to apply to threat, theft, breach, extortion, and cases with conflicting indications of consent; and more susceptible to the claim that it should be expanded to cover trade when one party has superior economic power.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn this passage (and in much of the blog post), McCaskey is basically implying that he is a better, smarter, and more faithful interpreter of Rand than Peikoff. Perhaps McCaskey is right in this implication. I take no position one way or the other. I'm merely pointing out that McCaskey is manifesting just the sort of attitude Peikoff complained about in his ultimatum email, an attitude which might very well have manifested itself on occasion prior to McCaskey's resignation from the ARI board of directors.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMcCaskey's criticism of Harriman's scholarship, even if entirely justified from an intellectual point of view, obviously betrays a kind of social\/political ineptitude. If he wanted to maintain his position at ARI, he should been more aware of how his criticisms, however mild they may have been, might prick Peikoff's tender sensibilities. Nonetheless, there is something refreshing in McCaskey's candor. In reading McCaskey you get the sense that, whether you agree with him or not (and I generally don't), he's not trying to pull one over on you. He is a candid Objectivist. Unlike Peikoff, for instance, McCaskey doesn't come off as particularly guarded or suspicious. He doesn't assume the worst about other people and only drops his guard when proven otherwise. He tells it like he sees it, and lets the chips fall where they may. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis feature of McCaskey's character is manifested in perhaps his most incendiary post of all, where he admits, with a candor rare to find among Objectivists, that \"any logic professor,\" using \"the highest established standards of logic\" can \"decimate Ayn Rand’s moral and political philosophy in one 45-minute lecture.\" McCaskey is quick to add: \"But Rand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic. She has her own distinctive method of arguing.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhile it's unclear whether McCaskey's is speaking for the orthodox wing of Objectivism (as filtered through Peikoff), there does seem to be at least an undercurrent of this sort of thinking within ARI, even among the old guard. Binswanger once described \"the Objectivist theory of logic\" as \"a super-set of ordinary, Aristolean logic.\" Since there has been no detailed treatise on \"the Objectivist theory of logic,\" those of us who are innocent of the inner sanctums of current Objectivist thinking have no idea what it might be (if it is anything at all). Could it be that McCaskey has given us a glimpse into this obscure bit of Objectivist arcana? Or is this another one of his riffs on Peikoffian orthodoxy? In any case, one appreciates McCaskey's candor in stating what has become obvious to critics of Objectivism. It has long been known that the Objectivist theory of ethics cannot hold up to logical scrutiny. Neither Rand nor any of her followers have ever attempted to provide a rigorous logical argument for their moral theory. What we get, instead, is arguments based on loose rhetoric where the vagueness of terms is used equivocate to whatever conclusions are deemed proper and necessary. The glue that holds Rand's arguments together is not logic, but moral intimidation and ad hominem abuse. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMcCaskey, while admitting that the Objectivist morality can't hold up under \"the highest established standards of logic,\" does not, however, go so far as to admit that Rand just made everything up to suit predetermined conclusions. He argues that \"Rand’s distinctive method to answering many philosophical questions is to ask what knowledge is already presumed by the very terms in the question.\" And: \"The crucial element of Ayn Rand’s method amounts to avoiding what she calls the fallacy of the stolen concept. The fallacy is like a petitio principii, but applied to concepts instead of propositions.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAdmittedly, this is all rather vague; nor do the examples McCaskey provides help much. However, given that the stolen concept fallacy is itself a fallacy (the fact that a given attack on premise X presumes premise X in no way establishes or proves that premise X is true), Rand's \"distinctive method\" merely seems yet another form of rationalistic speculation, framed to deceive those who wish to be deceived. It is not anything a serious logician, let alone any man of practical good sense, would countenance. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nYet from another point view, McCaskey's attempt to define a new sort of \"super\" logic necessary to safeguard Objectivism from \"the highest established standards of logic\" and science (not to mention worldly practical sense as well) strikes me as a probable future development of the Objectivist epistemology. While I seriously doubt that Ayn Rand would have ever acknowledged the logical failure of her Objectivist ethics, since her death criticism of Objectivism has only become more precise and devastating. The Objectivist ethics is probably the best refuted doctrine in the entire Randian creed. Over time, it's going to become increasingly difficult for Objectivists in academia to continue to maintain the logical, scientific, and objective pretensions of their moral theories in the face of increasingly knowledgeable and effective criticism.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;If the Objectivist ethics is so thoroughly based on \"reason,\" than Objectivists should be able to provide an actual logical proof of their ethical positions. They have been unable to do so. The only way for them to get around this signal embarrassment is play the super-logic card. Objectivism, they will be forced to say, enjoys a \"distinctive\" method of establishing objective moral truths. Therefore, the old \"highest standards of established logic\" no longer apply. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhat McCaskey has admitted to in a moment of candour might very well give us a glimpse into a future development of Objectivist doctrine. There really is no Objectivist \"theory of logic\" -- only a few vague phrases from Rand herself, which can be interpreted to mean many different things. Since Objectivism cannot rest on standard logic, it may have to formulate its own logic going forward. Whether that formulation is based on McCaskey's \"stolen concept\" speculations, or Binswanger's \"hierarchy of concepts,\" or some other, yet to be broached, confabulation is of no matter. Whether it's based on stolen concepts, conceptual hierarchies, or even the flying spaghetti monster, it's all the same: it's an abandonment of rational standards and a confession that Objectivism is no more rational than any other ideology."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3114748113972328104\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3114748113972328104","title":"21 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3114748113972328104"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3114748113972328104"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2014\/02\/future-of-objectivism-7.html","title":"Future of Objectivism 7"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"21"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8059069448912118194"},"published":{"$t":"2014-02-05T09:08:00.001-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-02-06T09:56:12.428-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Future of Objectivism"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Future of Objectivism 6"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EJohn Allison IV, the sociable Objectivist\u003C\/b\u003E. Although Yaron Brook is generally seen as a protege of Leonard Peikoff, there is another man who, I suspect, has also exercised a great influence on Brook: namely, John Allison. If Brook's energy hearkens back to Nathaniel Branden, Allison's practicality and business success suggests parallels to Alan Greenspan. In terms of basic disposition, Greenspan and Allison are poles apart. Greenspan is introverted, reserved, enigmatic; Allison affable, charming, gregarious. What they share is an ability, not all that common among hard core Objectivists, to get on in the world of business. They have social skills that other prominent Objectivists lack. They come off as having a real understanding of other people as autonomous individuals, with sentiments, points-of-view, and ideals uniquely their own. Leonard Peikoff, along with many of other orthodox Objectivist luminaries over at ARI, seem completely oblivious, even indifferent, to the social world around them. They are unable to relate in any meaningful way to the non-Objectivist world. They are insular, narrow-minded, aloof, narcissistic. It can be uncomfortable watching them engage in interviews with non-Objectivists. In terms of social awareness, they can seem, at times, semi-autistic.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nLast year I heard Allison pump his book,\u003Ci\u003E The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure\u003C\/i\u003E, on the Dennis Prager show. While Allison didn't say anything particularly new, striking or original, he nonetheless made a good impression. He was warm and friendly, and he tailored his message to Prager's audience, emphasizing points of agreement and skillfully avoiding anything that might arouse hostility. When Prager challenged him on Rand's atheism, he merely acknowledged that Rand didn't believe in God and left it at that, thereby avoiding a fight which would only have served to alienate his audience and entangle him in a debate with a skillful adversary. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI suspect that his years in business encouraged Alison to learn how to seek points of agreement with other people. That's how one succeeds in business and politics. That's not, however, how Objectivists have typical strived to succeed. Instead of finding points in common, Objectivists, following Rand's example, often seek for points of disagreement. Rand was the model for this sort of behavior. She was constantly ferreting out sources of disagreement, particularly among potential allies. She had a penchant for taking positions that alienated other free market advocates on the right. She antagonized and\/or quarrelled with Leonard Read, Rose Wilder Lane, Ludwig von Mises, Whitaker Chambers, John Hospers and Murray Rothbard among others; and she maintained a lifelong contempt for Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, because neither were quite \"pure\" enough in their advocacy of the free market. Her shrill denouncements of libertarianism were much too broad, sweeping, and unfair. The consequence of this approach is that, while Rand's ideas remained broadly (if rather vaguely) influential, neither she nor her orthodox disciples have played a significant role in the development of the free market advocacy movement. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI suspect Allison would like to change that; and using the social skills developed from his southern upbringing and his decades in business, he is trying to make Objectivism the primary ideology for free market advocacy. Whether he succeeds at this is rather doubtful. It's likely what he's doing will have a greater effect on Objectivism, particularly of the orthodox variety, than on libertarianism or conservatism. In fact, we already have evidence of his effect on Objectivism. In June of 2012, he was hired to replace Ed Crane as CEO of CATO. Despite concerns that his foreign policy views, forged in the ARI furnace, might be way too aggressive and strident for Cato, Allison quickly moved to reassure everyone that, while he might be an Objectivist, he was also a small-c catholic \"libertarian.\" Indeed, he was so charming and affable in some of his one-on-one meetings with Cato scholars that one of them later told blogger Jeremy Lott:\u0026nbsp; “I think we have a winner.”\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nA month later Allison was singing a different tune at an ARI sponsored conference. In keeping with his \"tell them what they want to hear\" approach, Allison announced that he would stay at least a few years at CATO so he could \"groom a good O[bjectiv]ist successor while bringing some positive change to the organization.\" He described CATO as a \"mixed bag\": excellent on health care policy, but bad on foreign policy. He also promised that “Cato will become a more Objectivist organization.\"\u0026nbsp; Allison would later distance himself from these remarks, claiming they were “Internet chatter based on ‘tweets’ from the Q and A. I was being ‘grilled’ at the event and will not guarantee that my answers were the best. Also, I was still learning about Cato. However, in the many sessions I have had with employees at Cato my answers have been totally straightforward.” And he added, even more curiously:\u0026nbsp; “I believe almost all the name calling between libertarians and objectivists is irrational. I have come to appreciate that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists.” \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWait a minute. How could an orthodox Objectivist, an ARI board member no less, say such a thing? And why hasn't Peter Schwartz stepped forward to cry anathema at such heresy?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt would appear that John Allison has succeeded where others have failed: he has forced ARI to reevaluate it's view on libertarianism. Since Allison took up as Cato's president, ARI has modified its position towards libertarianism, as explicated in the following prepared statement:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;When this subjectivist approach to philosophy and politics dominated the libertarian movement in the ’70s and ’80s, ARI refused to cooperate with anyone belonging to it. Such cooperation would have constituted a sanction of the anti-ideology of libertarianism. However, today we see evidence to suggest that there is no longer a cohesive libertarian movement. The movement has become fragmented and leaderless (intellectually as well as organizationally), and the term “libertarian” is progressively losing its former meaning.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;Thus when someone or some organization today calls itself, or is called by others, “libertarian,” one should not assume that this means the person or organization is part of the anti-philosophical libertarian movement. What matters, in evaluating these individuals and organizations, are the ideas they actually hold and advocate.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe term “libertarian” has been used increasingly over the last few years to mean a vague leaning toward liberty rather than government control…. [N]one of the three political terms—”liberal,” “conservative,” or “libertarian”—has a clearly defined meaning, because there exist no clearly defined ideologies. Consequently, the fact that today someone calls himself or is called by others a “libertarian” says virtually nothing about his political viewpoint.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhat we see in the case of Allison is not so unusual when examining organizations based on rigid belief systems. Religion and ideology appeal, not to facts or \"reason,\" but to sentiments and interests. They are non-rational in origin. Not infrequently they over-step important realities. Since most people have to live in the real world, rather than apart from it, conflicts will arise between ideological imperatives and practical common sense. At ARI the purists -- those who wish the ideology to remain true to Peikoff's interpretation of Rand, regardless of potential conflicts with practical common sense -- are mostly the old guard: people who, like Schwartz and Binswanger, were personally acquainted with Rand and who rely on ARI and Objectivism to pay the bills. Just as there are religious people who find the old-time religion too severe and unyielding, there are surely Objectivists at ARI who find the conformity to Peikoff's interpretation of Rand to be stifling and, at times, impractical. As the old guard begins to die off and lose influence, some Objectivists, particularly those with a stronger connection to the real world outside Objectivism, will find it increasingly difficult to honor the more absurd and impractical pieties of the old guard. With his background in business and the social world of North Carolina, John Allison found himself challenging the Peikoffian conviction that \"libertarians are worse than communists.\" For a man accustomed to the gregarious social etiquette of the South and building connections with people in the business world, the reflexive hostility toward fellow travelers in the crusade for free markets must have seemed increasingly myopic and even insane. Hence Allison's declaration, unthinkable by any other ARI stalwart, \"I believe almost all the name calling between libertarians and objectivists is irrational.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHow did Allison get away with such a remark? Why didn't the old purists, led by Schwartz or Binswanger or Harriman or Mayhew, attempt to oust him? Allison probably succeeded at shifting the attitude of ARIians toward libertarianism for the same reason he succeeded in business and for the same reason he has gotten along with the scholars at the Cato institute, despite enormous differences on issues relating to foreign policy. Allison knows how to relate with people and get people to like him. He's a man of the world who knows how to build relationships with people.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt has also greatly helped Allison that he is rich and that he fits, as well as anyone over at ARI, the stereotype of the ideal businessman. For years, the intellectuals at ARI have fought ideological battles on behalf of the business class, without, however, getting much thanks in return. For Leonard Peikoff, John Allison must have been a dream come true: a businessman who believed in, and want to be a part of, ARI. The fact that Allison was affable, charming, tactful and likable only sealed the deal. Just as Rand cut slack for Greenspan back in the early days of Objectivism, so Peikoff, Brook, and the denizens at ARI have cut slack for John Allison. And so Allison has been the first orthodox Objectivist to not merely get away with challenging an Objectivist piety, but to actually have that piety altered and reformed. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSince becoming Cato's President, Allison has retired from the ARI board. While this does not, in all likelihood, indicate any sort of cooling between Allison and ARI, could it not portend a slow, ambiable drifting apart? Let's face it: ARI needs John Allison far more than Allison needs ARI. Allison's time at Cato should only make that more evident. At ARI, Allison still had to demonstrate due deference toward Leonard Peikoff and the old guard. That meant showing at least tacit agreement even with Peikoff's wildest lunacies. One wonders, for example, what Allison now thinks of the McCaskey scandal, wherein ARI forced out a major donor over some excessively mild criticisms of Harriman's shoddy scholarship. How was the fight for free markets promoted by that particular debacle? At the Cato institute, Allison merely has to get along with Koch brothers, who are reputed to be far less unreasonable than the Dr. Peikoff. Also keep in mind that the Cato institute is far better known, and is taken more seriously, than ARI. . Cato's research, although not widely influential, at least is given a respectful hearing by the cognoscenti. Could Allison end up concluding that Cato is a much better instrument for spreading the gospel of free markets than ARI ever was or ever can be? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8059069448912118194\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8059069448912118194","title":"34 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8059069448912118194"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8059069448912118194"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2014\/02\/future-of-objectivism-6.html","title":"Future of Objectivism 6"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"34"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7378049578593303081"},"published":{"$t":"2014-01-23T09:28:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-01-23T13:07:58.498-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Future of Objectivism"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Future of Objectivism 5"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EYaron Brook, orthodox reformer.\u003C\/b\u003E Viewed from afar, Yaron Brook seems little more than a narrow, sectarian shill for a Peikoffian version of orthodox Objectivism. While his speaking and writing usually rise to a level of competence, there is nothing in what he has said or written that even suggests or hints at an original or deep mind. To those of us not in tune with Objectivist paplum, he may come across as a bit stiff and unyielding. His evident enthusiasm for laissez-faire capitalism and war against Iran obviously raise questions as to his judgment. One wonders if he has any real understanding of the subjects he talks about. There's ideology, and then there's reality, and the two rarely have much to do with one another.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf we look a little closer and, instead of comparing him to other pundits spouting less unreasonable ideologies, we compare him with other orthodox Objectivists, Brook cuts a more compelling figure. While he remains steadfastly orthodox and thoroughly Peikoffian in his official outlook, he has quietly, behind scenes, been hard at work trying to give orthodox Objectivism a public make-over. Without challenging any of the core principles of Objectivism or questioning Peikoff's ultimate authority as an interpreter of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Brook seems intent on focusing the core of ARI's intellectual activism on the issue of morality and politics. Rand's epistemology and philosophy of history will remain untouched and unchallenged; they may even be cited ocassionally; but they will no longer be front and center, or even close to front and center. ARI's principle mission will be to preach the morality of capitalism and war on radical Islam. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EOn the ARI website, Brook has a series of videos called \"Yaron Brook's Call to Action.\" Everyone of them involves politics and political activism. No videos on epistemology or Immanual Kant or metaphysics or aesthetics. Brook, along with fellow Objectivist Don Watkins, have a website entitled \"Laissez Faire: The Uncompromised Case for Capitalism.\" Brook has co-authored (again with Don Watkins) the book \u003Ci\u003EFree Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government\u003C\/i\u003E, as well as numerous articles (nearly all dealing with the morality and politics as seen through a Peikoffian lens). It is obvious where Brook's passion chiefly dwells: he wishes to make the \"moral\" argument for both capitalism and an aggressively anti-Islamist foreign policy.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn the early days of ARI, the emphasis was on producing Objectivist academics, who would then, through their positions at Universities, spread the Randian message among aspiring intellectuals. Brook seems intent on taking a more comprehensive approach. He wishes to spread Objecitivism, particularly the pro-capitalist portion of it, by every means available: universities, cable television, youtube, social media, debates, radio, etc.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhile Brook has been focusing ARI's evangelism on morality and politics, he's also been busy trying to clean up its public image. The Objectivist old guard, particularly Peikoff, never cared much for what other people might think. The recent McCaskey spat demonstrates Peikoff's blithe indifference to the public image of ARI. Such things matter to Yaron Brook. He did his best to give as good a spin on Peikoff's bad behavior as circumstances allowed. He even arranged a \"\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.peikoff.com\/2013\/10\/07\/a-debate-between-leonard-peikoff-and-yaron-brook-on-the-question-who-should-or-should-not-be-allowed-to-immigrate-into-the-us-moderated-by-amy-peikoff-part-1-of-2-2\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Edebate\u003C\/a\u003E\" between himself and Peikoff on the issue of immigration, just to try to show that disagreement with Peikoff was not necessarily always \u003Ci\u003Everboten\u003C\/i\u003E. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn other (admittedly) small ways Brook has worked hard to change the tone of ARI, to make it less insular, less cultish, less irrelevant to the outside world. For instance, in his co-authored book, \u003Ci\u003EFree Market Revolution\u003C\/i\u003E, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, George Reisman and even Nathaniel Branden are cited favorably. That may not seem like that a big a deal. But for years orthodox Objectivists, because of Rand's hostility toward Friedman and Hayek, evinced a reflexive horror for these thinkers. And we all know the Objectivist attitude toward Branden. It's hard to imagine Peikoff, Binswanger, or Schwartz ever citing any of Branden's Objectivist writings. Brook (along with co-author Watkins) cites Branden by name as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nLurking beneath these attacks is a view that Ayn Rand's then-colleague Nathaniel Branden, writing in Rand's collection The Virtue of Selfishness, called \"the Divine Right of Stagnation.\"\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nA paragraph later Brook and Watkins insert an entire passage from Branden. Since none of the quotes from Branden are particularly insightful or original, it's difficult not to suspect that the real reason for quoting him is to send a message to the Objectivist community. The years of ignoring Branden and pretending he wasn't an important contributor to in the early days of Objectivism are over. This is a subtle but definite move towards attempting to mitigate some of the most blatant aspects of cultism in orthodox Objectivism.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe one aspect of cultism that Brook has been unable to abate involves Leonard Peikoff. \u003Ci\u003EFree Market Revolution\u003C\/i\u003E contains, in the acknowledgements, some embarrassing effusions of gratitude toward Peikoff and \"his enormous and unparalleled contribution to our understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy.\" One wonders, particularly following the McCaskey scandal, what Brook's true feelings are toward Peikoff. Is it possible that Brook's gratitude toward his \"mentor\" is not entirely unmixed with frustration at Peikoff's determination to drive away a major ARI doner over some excessively mild criticism?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAs a thinker Brook, despite a facile intelligence, is dismally conventional, unoriginal, destitute of insight. Immersion in Randian ideology has castrated his mind. He can do little more than repeat the well worn Objectivist formulas. \u003Ci\u003EFree Market Revolution\u003C\/i\u003E is a tiresome book. You have to be woefully ignorant of human nature and political science to take its nostrums seriously. Brook and Watkins argue, in typical Objectivist fashion, that the growth of government and statism are the inevitable consequence of the failure on the part of \"conservatives\" to provide a moral defense of capitalism. In a review of Arthur Brooks' book \u003Ci\u003EThe Battle\u003C\/i\u003E, Brook and Watkins write:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe real battle for capitalism is the battle over the question: Is it moral to pursue our own happiness? If so, then why should we ever be forced to sacrifice for the needs of others? Is the moral call to sacrifice, which we’ve had drummed in our heads since childhood, right?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOnly one thinker has ever challenged the morality of need and defended the moral right to pursue your own happiness: Ayn Rand. \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nBrook obviously regards Rand's moral defense of capitalism as some sort of panacea which, like a talisman with special powers, will dissolve America's unwillingness to embrace laissez-faire. It's easy for Brook to believe this because, as a person outside the mainstream, removed from the levers of power and responsibility, he can adopt any position he likes without worrying about it ever being tested (and proven wrong). But if he were, say, Paul Ryan's campaign manager for the 2016 presidential election, would he really advise his candidate to make the \"moral case\" for capitalism (i.e., \"greed is good\"). Or would the practical reality of the situation awake him from his dogmatic slumber and, shaking loose the Randian shackles, advise him: \"That way madness lies.\""},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7378049578593303081\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7378049578593303081","title":"13 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7378049578593303081"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7378049578593303081"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2014\/01\/yaron-brook-orthodox-reformer.html","title":"Future of Objectivism 5"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"13"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2392143978966106312"},"published":{"$t":"2014-01-21T16:03:00.003-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-01-21T16:03:49.767-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"A Commenter Unpacks Some Randian Errors"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Darren in comments points us to \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/randroidbelt.blogspot.co.nz\/2012\/06\/dead-fish-rots-from-head-down-end-of.html\"\u003Ehis careful dissection\u003C\/a\u003E of some Randian shell games typical of her epistemology.\n\nNot a lot to disagree with, particularly this intro para:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAlisa Rosenbaum's brief \"Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology\" has too many errors, contradictions, non-sequiturs, and loose ends to critique concisely in a single post.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\nFor that reason, see also \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.co.nz\/search?q=epistemology\"\u003EARCHNblog's extended series\u003C\/a\u003E on Rand's epistemology."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2392143978966106312\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2392143978966106312","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2392143978966106312"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2392143978966106312"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2014\/01\/a-commenter-unpacks-some-randian-errors.html","title":"A Commenter Unpacks Some Randian Errors"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-699348314490245574"},"published":{"$t":"2013-12-15T11:37:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-12-15T11:38:36.808-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Stay Classy, Harry."},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/-DkU76K3HiHA\/Uq4FL_VngFI\/AAAAAAAAAPs\/fDJbQfl5vXU\/s1600\/Screen+Shot+2013-12-16+at+8.35.46+AM.png\" imageanchor=\"1\" \u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/-DkU76K3HiHA\/Uq4FL_VngFI\/AAAAAAAAAPs\/fDJbQfl5vXU\/s400\/Screen+Shot+2013-12-16+at+8.35.46+AM.png\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/699348314490245574\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=699348314490245574","title":"10 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/699348314490245574"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/699348314490245574"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/12\/stay-classy-harry.html","title":"Stay Classy, Harry."}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/-DkU76K3HiHA\/Uq4FL_VngFI\/AAAAAAAAAPs\/fDJbQfl5vXU\/s72-c\/Screen+Shot+2013-12-16+at+8.35.46+AM.png","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"10"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6556135805083026180"},"published":{"$t":"2013-12-15T00:43:00.001-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-12-15T00:43:10.994-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Barbara Branden, May 14, 1929 – December 11, 2013"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Barbara Branden has died. The Los Angeles Times obit is \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.latimes.com\/obituaries\/la-me-barbara-branden-20131214,0,7647057.story\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E. "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6556135805083026180\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6556135805083026180","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6556135805083026180"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6556135805083026180"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/12\/barbara-branden-may-14-1929-december-11.html","title":"Barbara Branden, May 14, 1929 – December 11, 2013"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1441748354407628670"},"published":{"$t":"2013-12-04T10:26:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-12-04T13:28:21.454-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Future of Objectivism"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Future of Objectivism 4"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\n\u003Cb\u003EPreservation of Orthodoxy.\u003C\/b\u003E Some Objectivists, following Leonard Peikoff's example, wish to preserve orthodoxy. They desire to prevent other individuals from introducing innovations into Objectivist doctrine. This fear of innovation does not merely stem from a mania for preserving Rand's doctrine in its immaculate, unpolluted form. There may be other motives in the business that intensify the (essentially non-rational) need for doctrinal purity. One important but underrated motive involves competition for status and resources. Most Objectivists would like to believe that many, if not all, schisms are motivated by genuine \"philosophical\" differences. This is hardly likely. The schism with Kelley, for instance, is often framed as developing over issues of doctrine. Kelley, it was argued, wavered from \"true\" doctrine. He was guilty, essentially, of heresy. He was not a \"true\" Objectivist, but an enemy of Objectivism.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAlthough the official reason for Kelley's dismissal was for speaking in front of a libertarian group, some have suggested that the real reason had more to do with Kelley sanctioning a positive review of Barabara Branden's \u003Ci\u003EPassion of Ayn Rand\u003C\/i\u003E. However, there's probably more to it than that. The positive review of Branden's book, written by Robert Bindinotto, was published in 1986. The Peikoff-Kelley schism didn't take place until three years later. The official reasons for the schism are surprisingly flimsy. Late in 1988, Kelley gave a speech at the Laissez-Faire Supper Club in Manhattan. In 1982, Peikoff had been involved in two book signings with Laissez-Faire books. So why is it okay to have book signings with libertarians, and not speeches? Is there really a significant difference between a book signing and a speech?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\nIt's hard not to suspect that an important factor behind the Peikoff-Kelley schism invovled what amounted to a personal and intellectual rivalry. Peikoff, Schwartz, and Binswanger, the principle faction allied against Kelley, had their own ideas of Objectivism (i.e., they were Ayn Rand cultists who wanted sinecures for themselves). Kelley, more independent minded and capable of earning a living outside of Objectivism, had different notions about the future of Objectivism.\u0026nbsp; Binswanger and Schwartz, who headed the anti-Kelley faction within ARI \nand did most of the dirty work, would naturally have seen in David \nKelley a dangerous rival. Kelley was smarter than either Schwartz and \nBinswanger; he had already written the most important Objectivist tome \nthat did not have Ayn Rand's name somewhere on the cover (i.e., \u003Ci\u003EEvidence\n of the Senses\u003C\/i\u003E); and he seemed on track to become the most important \nObjectivist after Peikoff: all reasons enough for picking an \nintellectual fight with him, which essentially is what happened.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe Peikoff and Kelley factions were not only fighting over the future of Objectivism, but over access to resources at ARI, and how those resources would be used to promulgate Objectivism. Actual doctrinal differences between these two factions are miniscule. Kelley may be a more intelligent advocate of Objectivism than Schwartz, Peikoff, or Binswanger, but he's actually surprisingly orthodox, particularly when it comes to purely doctrinal matters. Peikoff and company are more orthodox only when it comes to following Rand's worst intellectual vices. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhat we can glean from this episode is that the fight for orthodoxy is never purely intellectual. It arises, at least in part, over rivalries for status and resources. Certain individuals seek to maintain orthodoxy not merely for intellectual reasons, but also as a way of protecting their own status positions within a hierarchy. We could regard orthodoxy as a sort of strategy for people who, by nature, are cautious, skeptical of innovation, and eager to preserve their current position within an organization.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhile orthodoxy can be a sort of glue that helps hold an organization together, it exhibits the detrimental side effect of discouraging innovation and growth. An organization that cannot or will not change has rendered itself incapable of adapting to new circustances. Nor can it cleanse itself of just the sort of ingrained abuses that often tend to fester in orthodox organizations. Today ARI still suffers from dogmatism, intolerance, and a cult of personality. ARI's minions must honor a rigid ideology constructed by Rand and Peikoff. The broader aspects of the ideology, such as Rand's cognitive ideals about rationality and \"reason,\" are often in conflict with the narrower aspects of the ideology, such as Rand's views of history and Peikoff's \"DIM\" hypothesis. If ARI wishes to gain respect and influence within the intellectual culture of America and the west, its denizens will likely find Rand's and Peikoff's shoddy scholarship and extravagent claims about history and philosophy to be an embarrassment. There will likely arise within the bowels of ARI individuals who, eager to see Objectivism gain influence and respect, would like to de-emphasize the especially embarrasing parts of Objectivism, such as Rand's views of Kant, sexuality, Tolstoy, etc. These \"reformers\" won't seek to challenge whether Rand is right on these issues. They will instead prefer merely to ingore the most disreputable aspects of the Randian creed when speaking to non-Objectivists. At the same time, there will likely be more orthodox types who will resent such \"pragmatism.\" These two factions within ARI will not only conflict over how to present Objectivism to the non-Objectivist world, they will be competing within ARI for status and resources. How many resources will go to outreach and political studies, and how many will go to scholarship on the philosophy of history and aesthetics? These will be issues which could very well divide Objectivists at ARI in the future. People's livelihoods will be at stake in these conflicts. How might they be resolved?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nBecause of the dark shadow cast over ARI by Peikoff and the old guard, it's difficult to imagine the institute being anything other than a stodgy viper's den of orthodoxy, a place where independent thought is ruthlessly stamped out. While we're not likely to see much in the way of the independent thougth ever at ARI (independent thinkers don't join ideological organizations), the extreme lengths at which orthodoxy has persisted at ARI primarily stems from Peikoff. He, along with old guard cronies, has been the main enforcer of orthodoxy at the institute. He has not merely enforced an orthodoxy around Rand's ideas, he has extended it to his own elaborations and extensions of Rand's views. Worse, over the years, Peikoff has become increasingly eccentric and paranoid. Like Rand, he deeply resents disagreement, even on issues not fundamental to the Objectivist philosophy. Consequently, he has alienated a number of people within ARI, even some higher-ups.\u0026nbsp; Peikoff has confessed \"that a few longtime Board members and I are on terms of personal enmity, and do not speak to each other.\" This suggests the development of a growing anti-Peikoff faction in ARI itself. Objectivists are naive, or in outright denial, of the degree to which personal grievances unconsciously affect ideological allegiences. Within ARI we have, even now, the ingredients of an anti-Peikoff reform movement. Such reforms, to be sure, contain the seeds of new orthodoxies, to be resisted in turn by a future generation of reformers. But make no mistake about it: there will likely to be challenges to the reigning orthodoxy at ARI. Without Peikoff in the picture, how will such challenges be met?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff, like Rand, is utterly clueless about these types of issues. He assumes that, as long as everyone integrates their ideas in the \"proper\" way, they'll all come to the same conclusions. Follow Rand and \"reason.\" and all will be well. But assuming that ARI's board can maintain orthodoxy merely by following \"reason\" shows how clueless Peikoff really is.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhat about Peikoff's own proteges, such as Robert Mayhew, Tore Boeckmann, and especially Yaron Brook and David Harriman? Couldn't these people, and others like-minded, hold down the fort and preserve Peikoff's legacy? The problem is that, other than Yaron Brook, none of these people hold high positions in ARI. Robert Mayhew holds tenure at Seton Hall, a private Roman Catholic university. Tore Boeckman is primarily a mystery writer. While Harriman is currently Peikoff's most important intellectual protege, it's unlikely that the McKaskey scandal has improved his standing among ARI's board members. Keep in mind, Harriman triggered that scandal by running to Peikoff with complaints about McCaskey's criticism of \u003Ci\u003EThe Logical Leap\u003C\/i\u003E. No one likes a tattle-tale. It's hard to imagine Harriman becoming a force within ARI after Peikoff's earthly demise.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSo that leaves Yaron Brook as the last major Peikoff protege who has a legitimate chance to carry on Peikoff's mania for orthodoxy at ARI. Is he the man for the job? In my next post, I will take a closer look at the curious Mr. Yaron Brook. "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1441748354407628670\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1441748354407628670","title":"4 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1441748354407628670"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1441748354407628670"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/12\/future-of-objectivism-4.html","title":"Future of Objectivism 4"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"4"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-9027044377378965599"},"published":{"$t":"2013-11-08T12:12:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-11-08T13:38:53.702-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Future of Objectivism"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Future of Objectivism 3"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EDanger of Charismatic Leader.\u003C\/b\u003E In my last post, I explored some of the difficulties which will arise with the weakening of a \"legitimate\" authority. At some point, no one will be alive who knew Rand personally. No one will be able to say, \"I spent X amount of years with Rand; I'm therefore the foremost living expert on Rand's philosophy.\" Like the Protestant churches on Christendom, there will only be The Word; and whether for good or bad, The Word is not entirely unambiguous. Most of Rand's philosophical writings are broad and abstract, crafted as facile rationalizations for various positions, rather than detailed and exhaustive analysis of specific problems. Many of her more topical essays are clearly dated, and will only become more so as time passes. Worse, Rand's own penchant for rationalizing preconceived conclusions set a bad example for her followers, who have become even worse in this regard, which in turn sets a bad example for future Objectivists. For way too many high ranking Objectivists, philosophy becomes a screen through which personal conflicts are fought and rationalized. Taking the longer, more distant, \"objective\" view is sneered at among some within the Objectivist community as constituting a false ideal of knowledge. The personal and subjective is conflated with the \"objective,\" and followers of Rand, although ostensibly committed to an \"objective\" rationality, are in fact merely pursing their private, personal agendas. As long as Peikoff has been around, there existed someone who step in and decide which personal agendas would be regarded as \"rational\" and \"objective,\" and which as mere whims. When Peikoff is gone, adjudication will require an authority figure (or figures). Since groups are naturally hierarchical (authority being necessary to run any organized effort), the task of leadership and authority would naturally fall to either the ARI board and\/or ARI's director. Since committees don't always make good leaders (as individual members of the committee sometimes disagree), ARI's director will be the natural seat of authority, assuming the person occupying that position is a strong, rather than a weak, leader. I would contend that there exist institutional incentives in favor of ARI selecting strong, rather than weak leaders, for the ARI's directorship position. Weak leaders tend to be ineffective. In practical terms, a weak leader at the head of ARI could mean: (1) more unresolvable internal conflicts; (2) loss of fund-raising revenue; and (3) less influence among free market advocacy groups. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThere is a danger, however, involved in selecting a strong leader. A strong leader enjoys more authority. The greater the authority, the greater the capacity for that authority to be abused. Even worse for Objectivism, capacity for leadership does not always go hand in hand with conformity to orthodox doctrine. A person who exercises authority becomes accustomed to exercising his will, and sometimes becomes less willing to subject himself, not merely to the will of others, but to a specific doctrine. If such a person, at some distant future date, became head of ARI, could this affect actual doctrine? Could such a person put his own stamp on Rand's philosophy, adapting it to his own vision? In short, could Objectivism be hijacked by a charismatic leader?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMax Weber identified three types of authority: legal, traditional, and charismatic. Essentially, ARI runs primarily on traditional authority. Leonard Peikoff is the (presumed) \"intellectual\" heir to Ayn Rand; and in that capacity, he exercise authority over ARI. There are also some secondary legal aspects of authority built into the hierarchical structure of ARI itself, mostly centered around the rules governing the board and the selection of ARI's director. Currently, there's not much in the way of charismatic authority at ARI. The most charismatic leader at ARI, Yaron Brook, serves under the authority of Leonard Peikoff and the board of directors. His position would be greatly weakened, if not eliminated, if he alienated either of these two sources of authority.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhen Leonard Peikoff passes from the scene, there will exist no more traditional source of authority at ARI. Peikoff will not leave an intellectual heir; and even if he did, it's not clear that that person's inherited authority would be considered \"legitimate\" by other orthodox followers of Ayn Rand. Authority will revert to the legal type, defined by the rules governing ARI. I suspect it's doubtful that ARI can long flourish if governed solely by legal authority.\u0026nbsp; The problems caused by failure of an unequivocal source of authority are bound to cause intractable issues among Rand's disciples, particularly if the primary source of authority is a committee of individuals. If ARI is going to move forward, it's going to need a charismatic leader. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTo be sure, it is possible that ARI's board of directors may decide to take the safe approach and avoid charismatic authority altogether. It's also possible as well that no charismatic leader will ever be found, even if one were desired. Ideologies have built-in selection processes. They attract only certain types of individuals. It is possible Objectivism will never attract individuals with the capacity for charismatic leadership. The charismatic type often chafes at the bonds of orthodoxy, and may, for that reason, find Objectivism unappealing as an ideology.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHuman nature is varied, and while it may be unlikely that a charismatic individual would be drawn to Objectivism, it's not impossible. If such an individual were to become head of ARI, the dynamic of authority could be change dramatically among the Objectivist faithful. Assuming this person really did move things forward in terms of ARI's influence and fund raising activities, he would not only have legitimacy, he would also (and maybe more importantly) have leverage. There would be programs at ARI, possibly overseen by board members, and individual employees, whose future existence would hinge on this leader remaining in control of ARI. If that leader decided, on his own will, to tamper with Objectivism doctrine, he would be placing those under his authority at ARI in a very difficult position. There might be people who would have to choose between a pet project or some vital source of income on the one side and doctrinal purity on the other. These conflicts could feasibly lead to changes in orthodoxy being sanctioned by and within ARI.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nBased on what we see currently from ARI, it might seem unlikely that any such shifts in orthodoxy could ever take place. But we have to keep in mind that under the current set-up, we have a traditional form of authority which traces its legitimacy straight to Ayn Rand herself and which has been, for the most part, stringently doctrinaire. Even here, though, we have had some minor departures, at least in the form of new developments. After all, is Peikoff's DIM hypothesis, upon which he based his ravings about the threat of a Republican-based theocracy, fully orthodox, representing \"The Word\" of Ayn Rand herself? Not exactly. Nor is Harriman book on induction orthodox, yet we all know to what lengths Peikoff went to protect and enforce that questionable elaboration of Randian doctrine. If a man of such implacable orthodoxy as Peikoff can't help introducing elaborations (even if their status as official Objectivism remains shrouded in ambiguity), what's to stop some future Objectivist leader, whose authority is based on charisma, rather than tradition, from issuing even more daring elaborations?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt wouldn't be the first time Objectivism has been hijacked. During Rand's life, a subsection of the Objectivist movement became essentially hijacked for a brief period of time by psycho-therapist Lonnie Leonard. While there is no evidence that Rand herself knew anything about Leonard, he was approved by one of the two co-heirs to her estate, Alan Blumenthal. In fact, Blumenthal referred patients to Leonard. (Obviously, Leonard had not be properly vetted.) On his own initiative, Leonard began setting up his own peculiar version of Objectivism, which involved his right to have sex with female patients. While I don't see ARI being hijacked and turned into some kind of seedy sex cult, the danger of a charismatic leader, even if unlikely, cannot be dismissed entirely out of hand. And such a leader could bring about dramatic changes in orthodoxy.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhen I say \"dramatic\" changes, I'm not suggesting a reversal in actual positions. I don't see ARI supporting theism or socialism or philosophical idealism at any time in the future. I am merely suggesting that it is not entirely impossible that we could see some important modifications in Rand's views of human nature and history, and even reworkings of some of her ethical rationalizations, at some point down the road. These\u0026nbsp; doctrines constitute serious weaknesses in the Objectivism philosophy, and could be regarded, by some ambitious and charismatic future director of Objectivism, as so much dead weight necessitating removal to keep things moving forward. Obviously any such over-hauling of doctrine would face stiff resistance among the implacably orthodox. But if the principle authority governing ARI finds its legitimacy in charisma, rather than in legality or tradition, orthodoxy may find itself on the losing end of the struggle. \u003C!------\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/9027044377378965599\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=9027044377378965599","title":"12 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/9027044377378965599"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/9027044377378965599"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/11\/future-of-objectivism-3.html","title":"Future of Objectivism 3"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"12"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-808120361808858469"},"published":{"$t":"2013-10-24T09:35:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-24T09:35:01.464-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Future of Objectivism"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Future of Objectivism 2"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAuthority in Objectivism.\u003C\/b\u003E One of the challenges for ARI moving forward is to deal with the problem of authority. In any organization there are bound to be conflicts between various individuals. Many, if not most, of these conflicts cannot be resolved by \"reason\" (i.e., rational argumentation). Rational thinking, at best, can only resolve differences about matters of fact. It cannot resolve differences arising from moral preferences (and all moral ends are preferences). Consequently, conflict is inevitable, even between people pretending to be \"rational.\" Inevitably, Objectivists will disagree with one another. If the disagreements involve competition for resources and\/or status, they may become quite heated. How are these conflicts to be resolved?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn the past, routine conflicts could be resolved via ARI's board. But when major conflicts have broken out among board members, only one source of authority could be relied upon: Leonard Peikoff. Peikoff himself, in his apologia for having McCaskey removed from the ARI board, explained how this all works:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAn organization devoted to spreading an ideology is not compatible with “freedom” for its leadership to contradict or undermine that ideology. In theory. the best judge of such contradiction would be the person(s) , if he exists, who best understands and upholds the ideology, as evidenced objectively by his lifelong intellectual consistency, philosophic attainments, and practical results. In practice, the best judge would be the person, if he is still alive, who founded the organization and defined its purpose, in this case as a step in carrying out a mandate given him by Ayn Rand. On both counts, only one individual qualifies: me. \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe logic of this argument could be extended to cover any conflict, not just ones arising from intellectual criticism of one of Peikoff's pet projects. Because of Peikoff's unique position as the heir of Rand's estate and the individual who, among the living, \"best understands\" Rand's ideology, he was the obvious choice to occupy the role of Objectivist pope. Peikoff, however, will not be around forever. After Peikoff leaves the scene, who will be \"best qualified\" to fill the necessary role of authority at ARI (and, by implication at least, of the orthodox Objectivist movement)? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe most plausible answer is: no one. There are several reasons for this.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n1. Peikoff had one advantage that can never be duplicated by any successor: namely, Peikoff could say, \u003Ci\u003EI spent more years with Rand than any living person. I taught a course on Objectivism that was approved by Rand. I wrote a book that was given unqualified praise by Rand. I was named by Rand as the heir to her estate.\u003C\/i\u003E These are essentially the reasons why Peikoff became the highest authority among orthodox Objectivists, despite his increasingly eccentric views.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n2. Peikoff founded ARI. No one else will ever be able to claim that distinction.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n3. Peikoff, by misusing his authority, has brought disrepute upon it. This is most clearly seen in the McCasky imbroglio, which I suspect hurt Peikoff's standing among the Objectivist faithful. In that distasteful affair, Peikoff behaved in a manner that was both arbitrary and arrogant, both thin-skinned and tone-deaf. Like Rand, he exaggerated McCaskey's mild criticism into something a great deal more sinister. Intead of handling McCaskey's opposition with tact and reserve, he issued an email where he treated\u0026nbsp; ARI board member, Arlinne Mann, with an astonishing high-handed, patronizing contempt, railing at her, \"I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status in Objectivism.\" He also threatened Yaron Brook with sundering his connection with ARI unless McCaskey was safely disposed of (\"someone has to go, someone will go\"). After publication of his contemptuous email raised a chorus of criticism, even among the Objectivist faithful, Peikoff issued an apolgia of sorts that, although more carefully worded, was, if anything, even more rude and obnoxious. Among other things he would admit in that email \"that a few longtime Board members and I are on terms of personal enmity, and do not speak to each other\" and that he judged McCaskey to be \"immoral\" because, as Peikoff put it, \"I regard him as an obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual.\" At the time, many of the Objectivist faithful decided to swallow hard and accept Peikoff's blatant sophistry; but the bad taste lingers still.\u0026nbsp; There must be at least some orthodox Objectivists who look forward to time when ARI cannot be held hostage to the whims of an arrogant old man, no matter what his credentials otherwise might be. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n4. Peikoff is not going to announce an intellectual heir. The apostolic succession will be sundered at the very root. No one at ARI will be able to say, \"I can trace my intellectual status back to Rand herself.\" Not that that would be terribly convincing in any case, even among Ayn Rand cultists. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSo no one is \"best qualified\" to fill the role of chief authority figure over at ARI. But someone will have to fill that role nonetheless. Who (or how) will it be filled?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt will probably be filled by whoever is executive director of ARI. This individual's authority will not, however, quite reach what Peikoff has enjoyed. There will be no published emails with the phrase \"I hope you still know who I am.\" An executive director can be fired. His power rests on the degree to which he can win support from board members, which in turn depends on such things as fund raising ability, charisma, competitiveness, skill at chicanery and manipulation, and other executive skills. Steadfastness to Objectivism will of course be a necessary prerequisite for attaining the position of ARI's directorship. But expertise in Objectivism, particularly in the more remote and abstruse parts of the doctrine, won't be necessary; indeed, it might even be a hindrance. The sort of individual who would be willing to master, say, Rand's epistemology, is not likley to be the sort of person best fit to lead the institute and raise donations. Intellectuals don't ordinarily make particularly good leaders or fund raisers. If ARI wants to move forward and increase its influence on the libertarian right, they will probably have to look to the business sector for leadership. And someone with a business background is likely to be less doctrinaire and more pragmatic than an intellectual. To succeed in business, you need to know how to manage people. That's a skill in short supply among Objectivist intellectuals whose background is mainly academic. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe only real question is whether people with business backgrounds can be found to head-up ARI. Orthodox Objectivism is fortunate to have found Yaron Brook; for, despite his many flaws, he appears to have been a considerable improvement over his predecessor, Michael Berliner. But who is going to be Brook's replacement? Will the ARI board have the foresight to look for a businessman to head up the institute, or will they hire another sleepy academic? Arguments could be made both ways. ARI is dominated by academic intellectuals. So why wouldn't they want an academic to lead them? While Brook does have business experience, he also has a PhD in Finance. How many businessmen have PhD's, have taught at a college, and are orthodox Objectivists as well? Probably not many. Perhaps none at all. If a PhD and college teaching experience are necessary prerequisites for the directorship of ARI, then the ARI board may have no choice but to hire another intellectual. However, given that someone with business experience would likely be a better director, with more contacts in the business world and better opportunities to raise money (after all, who would likely bring in more money to ARI, John Allison, who is friends or acquainted with a large number of wealthy people, or Michael Berliner, who's an intellectual with a background in academic administration?). I suspect that pressure to maintain current funding levels will force the ARI board to make the more pragmatic choice of an individual with business experience, particularly in fund raising and running a corporate organization. I suspect as well that Brook himself will desire a successor that can carry on his work, and not some doctrinaire academic who will bring back the good old days, when ARI was the private preserve\/cash cow of a handful of prominent Objectivist intellectuals, to the exclusion of nearly everyone else. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf, as I suspect, ARI ends up looking to the business world, rather than academic world, for leadership, this will likely further the trend toward a brand of Objectivism that emphasizes the political aspects of the philosophy and which primarily seeks to provide the Right with a moral argument for free markets. It could also mean a less doctrinaire organization. By less doctrinaire, I don't mean to suggest that ARI is going to become a bastion of \"tolerance.\" There are limits of tolerance in any organization. You're not going to find non-Objectivists, let alone critics of Objectivists, occupying prominent positions at ARI any time soon. But that's true of virtually any ideologically motivated institute. How many socialists work at the CATO institute? How many progressives at the Heritage Foundation? How many conservatives at the Center for American Progress? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTo be sure, ARI is more doctrinaire than any of those organization. However, at the same time it must be admitted that many of the worst excesses of ARI can be traced to its founder, Leonard Peikoff. From Rand herself Peikoff inherited a kind of condescending attitude toward the essential practical mechanisms for advancing an ideology. Just as Ayn Rand had no compunction over hurting the movement in order to punish Nathaniel Branden, Peikoff felt no compunction over hurting ARI in order to defend his ego in the McKaskey scandal.\u0026nbsp; When Peikoff departs the scene, ARI will no longer have to deal with an individual who cares more about shielding himself from criticism than he does with the putative goals of the institute he founded. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/808120361808858469\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=808120361808858469","title":"8 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/808120361808858469"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/808120361808858469"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/10\/future-of-objectivism-2.html","title":"Future of Objectivism 2"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"8"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8895774253227681590"},"published":{"$t":"2013-10-18T09:04:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-18T09:05:46.968-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Future of Objectivism"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Future of Objectivism 1"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EIntro.\u003C\/b\u003E Having gone through most of the official philosophy of Objectivism, we can now turn our attention to some of the cultural and sociological aspects of the Objectivism movements. There are two major challenges to making prognostications about the future of Objectivism: (1) the future is inherently unpredictable; and (2) lack of sociological data about Objectivism. For these two reasons what is put forth in this series will be highly conjectural. We'll be dealing with possibilities, not facts, questions, not answers.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThroughout I will be operating on several assumptions:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(1) That Objectivism does not exist in a vacuum. What goes on in society and the world will affect the future course of Objectivism. We saw this on a small scale in 2008, with the financial meltdown followed by Obama's election. These events caused sales of Atlas Shrugged to increase. One can imagine scenarios which could potentially decrease interest in Ayn Rand: for example, major attacks on USA involving weapons of mass destruction, catastrophic climate change, collapse of democratic government in America.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(2) That the political allegiances are rarely made based on purely \"rational\" reasons. Nearly everyone has ingrained biases, some of them rooted in genetics, others in life experiences, which influences political beliefs. Consequently, it is very difficult to get people to change their political beliefs via argumentation. It rarely happens.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(3) That factionalism is a built-in feature of society. The elites of society are involved in a battle for status and pre-eminence. Non-elites will tend to attach themselves to whichever party of elites best furthers their interests and satisfies their sentiments. The competitive nature of society means that people have no choice but to join forces with like-minded individuals. The few mavericks who refuse join one of the major factions remain isolated and powerless, without a voice within the governing factions.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(4) That the Objectivist movement requires an authority figure to settle inevitable disputes. Since Ayn Rand's \"reason\" is a myth (there's no such method), and since the Objectivist ethics is a bit vague (lacking, as Nathanial Branden has noted, a \"technology\"), there exists no sure-fire way of settling the inevitable disputes that arise among various Objectivists in a rational, \"objective\" manner. Only by having an authority respected by all members of the group can meddlesome issues be arbitrated. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAt the present time, the Objectivist movement seems to be involved a generational change. A new generation of Objectivists, led by people who never knew Ayn Rand, is coming to the fore. Leonard Peikoff just turned 80. Harry Binswanger is 69. Andrew Bernstein is 64. Edwin Locke is 75. Michael Berliner and Peter Schwartz are hardly spring chickens. The influence of these older men is dwindling, being replaced by a younger generation led by ARI director Yaron Brook, who is 53. While orthodoxy to Rand's views remains the unquestioned standard, under this younger generation we are seeing a change of emphasis. The older generation, while focusing much of their attention on morality and politics, still had time for the more abstruse and\/or dubious areas of Rand's philosophy, such as epistemology, metaphysics, psychology, and history. The new generation seems to be focusing almost exclusively on Rand's views on morality and politics. While maintaining a theoretical hostility towards both libertarianism and conservatism, the new generation appears willing and perhaps even eager to find allies and sympathizers among other factions on the right. It's possible that Leonard Peikoff's paranoia about libertarians and conservatives may pass on when he has shuffled off this mortal coil. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf a more pragmatic attitude toward ideological outreach becomes the norm at ARI in the years to come, how will this affect the future of Objectivism. Will ARI become less of an Ayn Rand cult and more of a free market advocacy group, competing with other free market advocacy groups? Supposing this happens, will the change of emphasis increase or decrease ARI's influence? If, in the future, Objectivism becomes more latitudinarian and less doctrinaire, how will this affect the movement itself? Will the purists revolt? Are there more schisms in store? What will happen to the Kelley schism? Will there finally be a grand reconciliation? Or will divisions within Objectivism only deepen over time, leading to even more infighting and bad blood? In this series on the future of Objectivism, we will explore some of these issues. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8895774253227681590\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8895774253227681590","title":"18 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8895774253227681590"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8895774253227681590"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/10\/future-of-objectivism-1.html","title":"Future of Objectivism 1"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"18"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-587674425033745885"},"published":{"$t":"2013-10-11T19:08:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-05-22T09:07:09.716-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Fallacies of Objectivist Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 49"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EConclusion\u003C\/b\u003E. Many years ago someone handed me a copy of Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and said, \"This will help you think better.\" That sounded kind of intriguing, so I gave it a try. The experiment proved a failure. ITOE did not improve my thinking; nor have I run across any evidence that ITOE has improved anyone else's thinking. Leonard Peikoff, for example, probably knows ITOE better than any person living. Has it improved his thinking? This is a man who, in 2006, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/capitalismmagazine.com\/2006\/10\/peikoff-on-the-2006-elections\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ewrote\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nSocialism–a fad of the last few centuries–has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast–the destroyer of man since time immemorial–is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government. \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSix years later, Peikoff entirely \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.peikoff.com\/election\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Echanged his tune\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAs I have explained in \u003Ci\u003EThe DIM Hypothesis\u003C\/i\u003E, Obama is in essence a destroyer for the sake of destruction, a nihilist, the first such to become President. The object to be destroyed is America.... \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMany evils are in store for us if Obama wins a second term, ranging from crippling taxation and Obamacare to the war on energy and the imminence of economic collapse....\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI intend to vote for whatever Republicans in my district are running for the House and the Senate. Republican control of at least one of these bodies, however weakened they have become, is still some restraint on Obama if he wins.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHow did the Democrats go so quickly from being \"avowed anti-ideologists\" to supporters of \"a destroyer for the sake of destruction\"? How have the Republicans been transformed from a \"philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government\" to the only force capable of exercising \"some restraint\" on Obama and the Left? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EObviously, Peikoff's grasp on politics is tenuous at best. He is attempting to apply the Objectivist \"philosophy of history\" (which happens to be his specialty) to contemporary politics. His familiarity with ITOE is not helping one bit; indeed, if it has any influence at all, it is surely a negative one. The Objectivist belief that \"proper\" concept formation leads to better cognition provides cover for Peikoff's rationalistic, empirically vacuous political speculations. (Peikoff's strange belief that, prior to Obama, Republicans were \"helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner\" demonstrates not only extremely poor judgment, but sheer ignorance of American social history. America was substantially more religious 50, 100, and 150 years ago than it is today. Although the predominantly religious character of much of American society would lead to Prohibition and the Mann Act, there never existed any serious threat of theocracy in America.)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf ITOE failed to improve Leanord Peikoff's thinking abilities, what are the chances that ITOE would help anyone else? None at all. Indeed, there is no evidence that familiarity with Objectivism improves cognitive functioning or makes people wiser or has any other salubrious effects on the intellect. What Objectivist, other than Rand, has ever done anything of any particular note in the world? What Objectivist has invented something important? Or made an important scientific breakthrough? Or written any work of philosophy or social thought that went beyond regurgitating Rand's ideas? If ITOE really constituted the breakthrough in human thought that it presumes to be, wouldn't we see practical fruits of this in the Objectivist community?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nLike any complex skill, thinking is learned by doing. No one learns how to think from reading books on epistemology, because in order to understand that book, you would first have to be able to think. While an epistemological treatise might influence how well a person thinks, that influence would likely be very small. Most thinking, in any case, involves unconscious cogitations, that are unsupervised by the conscious mind. Reading books on epistemology is unlikely to affect how the cognitive unconscious works.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTo the extent that ITOE has any influence on a person's actual thought, that influence is largely negative. To conclude this series on Rand's epistemological speculations, let us examine what sort of effects, both good or bad, might arise from perusing ITOE.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EGood effects.\u003C\/b\u003E Although ITOE, as a work of epistemology, is pretty much a disaster, there is one potential positive effect that could arise from it. I have in mind the high cognitive ideals which animates ITOE. Rand is clearly very passionately in favor of rationality, objectivity, and keeping our thoughts in touch with reality. In the practical sphere of life, and in the sciences, these are cognitive ideals worth striving for. Unfortunately, Rand has no clue how to attain such ideals. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003ENegative effects.\u003C\/b\u003E There are four primary negative effects that could potentially arise from familiarity with ITOE: (1) disparagement of tacit knowledge; (2) encouragement of rationalism; (3) encouragement of quibbling over the meaning of words; (4) encouragement of semantic narcissism. Let's quickly examine each in turn.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(1) Rand's emphasis on \"focus\" and conscious intention, combined with her foundationalism, leads to what is, for all intents and purposes, a disparagement of tacit knowledge. Rand believed it was vitally important for people to justify their knowledge. She despised those who \"just knew,\" but could not explain, verbally, \u003Ci\u003Ewhy\u003C\/i\u003E they knew. Everyone, she insisted, had to have a reason for knowing. Otherwise, their knowledge was \"arbitrary,\" founded on little more than \"whims\" or \"mysticism.\" While justifying knowledge may be a fine ideal to strive for, it's just not always possible. In at least some domains, it constitutes a false ideal of knowledge. Contrary to Rand's assertion, reason is not the only \"valid\" means of knowing. If it were, the human race would have disappeared long ago. Human beings are sometimes forced to make quick decisions in domains of experience that feature immense complexity and\/or insufficient access to relevant knowledge. Conscious deliberate reasoning simply cannot work in those situations. It's too slow, too clumsy, too self-conscious. Intuition may not be 100% reliable; but when quick decisions are needed or great complexity must be confronted, a semi-reliable form of knowledge is better than no knowledge at all. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(2) As I explained in my \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/10\/ayn-rand-epistemology-48.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eprevious post\u003C\/a\u003E, Rand's conviction that vagueness in language is caused, not by overly abstract terms, but by improper concept formation and imprecise definitions, provides cover for rationalism. Objectivists like to base arguments on vague generalizations. ITOE assures them there is nothing wrong with this.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(3) Rand's conviction that the concept is the primary unit of knowledge and that definitions can be true or false leads to futile arguments about the meanings of words. Of course, if you are trying to argue for things that aren't true, nothing is better suited to the purpose than semantic quibbles. The inveterate rationalizer would rather argue over words than facts.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(4) The Objectivist doctrine of meaning, by which a concept means all the characteristics of the \"units\" (i.e., referents) it describes, leads to what I call semantic narcissism. Under this view, words have a meaning independent of what is intended by the person who makes use of them. This may be the most pernicious doctrine in Rand's epistemology; for it provides cover for one of Rand's very worst intellectual vices, namely, her tendency to import her own meanings into the words of authors and speakers she disagreed with. The point of listening to a speech or reading a book is to understand what the speaker or author is attempting to communicate. You don't attain this end by arbitrarily importing meanings into other people's discourse.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTo sum up: Rand's epistemology, to the extent that is has any influence at all, has a predominantly negative one. Instead of encouraging greater self-criticism and providing effective strategies for battling the innate tendency toward rationalism and confirmation bias, it merely provides cover for Objectivism's intellectual vices."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/587674425033745885\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=587674425033745885","title":"35 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/587674425033745885"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/587674425033745885"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/10\/ayn-rand-epistemology-49.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 49"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"35"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2308822125249000483"},"published":{"$t":"2013-10-08T15:04:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-09T13:18:00.033-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 48"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EThe rationalist core of the Objectivist Epistemology.\u003C\/b\u003E Ayn Rand defined rationalists as \"those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts.\" Since Objectivist theory rejects this approach, Objectivists have always believed that they were free from the rationalist taint. However, there is a problem with the Objectivist approach to this issue. If we go by the Objectivist definition, who actually qualifies as a rationalist? Which philosopher, thinker, ideologue obtains all his knowledge of the world exclusively via deduction from concepts, entirely free from the perception of physical facts? In practice, no one does this. It would be impossible. So, practically speaking, who is in fact guilty of rationalism? What, specifically, do those of us who dislike rationalism and criticize it at every opportunity object to?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe critics of rationalism object to the practice of determing complex matters of fact through \"logical\" deductions from over-generalized descriptions of facts. Use of over-generalized facts is often a symptom of insufficient knowledge. People who lack mastery (i.e., relevant factual knowledge) of a given subject don't realize the extent of their ignorance. They are therefore incapable of appreciating why their conclusions are false. The problem with rationalism, therefore, is not that the rationalist derives conclusions without factual evidence, \u003Ci\u003Ebut that he derives conclusions without sufficient evidence\u003C\/i\u003E. The rationalist suffers from empirical irresponsibility.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThere is actually very little difference between the rationalist and the rationalizer. While it is possible to imagine a rationalist who is not a rationalizer, all rationalizers are rationalists. The method of the rationalist is, \u003Ci\u003Epar excellence\u003C\/i\u003E, the method of the rationalizer. The rationalizer seeks to justify a given belief. The conclusion is predetermined, and reasons are added merely to add a veneer of logical justification to the non-rational conclusion. The method of rationalism makes use of vague, empirically impoverished generalizations for three primary reasons: (1) to avoid grappling with pesky details which may upend the predetermined conclusions; (2) to hide a lack of expertise in the subject at hand; and (3) to provide ample wiggle room for equivocation.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nObjectivism is officially and theoretically opposed to rationalism. Rationalists are guilty of using what Objectivists refer to as \"floating\" abstractions. A floating abstraction is a concept that doesn't stand for anything in reality. You might think that concepts such as \u003Ci\u003Egriffen\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Ephlogiston\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Ewookie \u003C\/i\u003Emight qualify as floating abstractions; but this is not what Rand had in mind. The notion of floating abstraction only makes sense under the Objectivist assumption that concepts have \"true\" meanings which contain all the existents which they integrate. Floating abstractions are essentially \"true\" (or, rather, \"valid\") concepts which don't, however, contain all the existents which they integrate. The floating abstraction doesn't refer to everything that is subsumed under it, because the person who uses it hasn't formed it properly. The individual who makes use of floating abstractions fails to understand precisely what these abstractions refer to in reality. Like the parrot, he uses words without understanding their meanings.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf the notion of floating abstraction was introduced to describe and do battle against rationalism, it's a signal failure. The problem with rationalists is not that they don't understand the meanings of the terms they use, but that they resort to terms that are too general to bear the weight of their contentions. They use the vagueness of terms to conceal their empirical irresponsibility. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThat rationalists are guilty of using the vagueness of overly general, \"abstract\" terms to defend their various positions should be obvious to anyone who has examined, with a critical eye, rationalism in practice. Even Objectivists have noticed this. \"A rationalist is all in favor of abstractions,\" notes Leonard Peikoff. \"He likes broad abstractions. And to that extent, he has great virtue.\" [\u003Ci\u003EUnderstanding Objectivism\u003C\/i\u003E, Lecture 7] What is particularly interesting is that, even though Peikoff connects rationalism with \"broad abstractions,\" he doesn't grasp why this is a problem. On the contrary, he describes liking broad abstractions as a \"great virtue.\" What is going on here? Why would Objectivism, which declares itself an enemy of rationalism, be praising one of the chief defects of the rationalist?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe answer is actually very simple: Objectivism approves of broad abstractions because Objectivism, at its core, is a rationalist philosophy. It may oppose rationalism in theory; but in practice, it loves to use \"broad abstractions\" to reach predetermined conclusions. Curiously, in the same lecture, Peikoff trots out Leibniz's rationalist argument in favor of monads as an example of rationalism. The Leibniz argument essentially is of the same type that is familiar in the Objectivist metaphysics: it's an attempt to determine matters of fact on the basis of logical deductions from broad abstractions. Why should Peikoff reject arguments based on broad abstractions when used by Leibniz, but not when used by Rand? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nObjectivists circumvent this difficulty by simply declaring that \u003Ci\u003Etheir \u003C\/i\u003Eabstractions, however broad, are \"true\" of reality, while Leibniz's abstractions \"float\" and are \"detached\". In other words, broad abstractions are fine when used by Rand to justify her own predetermined conclusions; they are \"floating abstractions,\" cut off from reality, when used to justify anyone else's conclusions, predetermined or otherwise. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe real problem with broad abstractions is that they don't convey enough information. Although their meanings are precise enough, their reference, because it applies to so many different things, is not exact enough. Objectivism, with its unit economy, should have understood this. But Rand's penchant for rationalist arguments seems to have led her to deny the referential vagueness of overly general terms:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nA widespread error ... holds that the wider the concept, the less its cognitive content -- on the grounds that its distinguishing characteristic is more generalized than the distinguishing characteristics of its constiuent concepts. The error lies in assuming that a concept is nothing but its distinguishing characteristic. But the fact is that in the process of abstracting from abstractions, one cannot\u0026nbsp; know \u003Ci\u003Ewhat\u003C\/i\u003E is a distinguishing characteristic unless one has observed other characteristics of the units involved and of the existents from which they are differentiated.... \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTo grasp a concept is to grasp, and, in part, to retrace the process by which it was formed. To retrace that process is to grasp at least \u003Ci\u003Esome\u003C\/i\u003E of the units which it subsumes [26-27]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand contends that, as long as concepts are formed \"properly\" (i.e., in the Objectivist way), broad abstractions do not in fact contain less \"cognitive content.\" But this misses the point. Indeed, Rand's argument here is based on an error. Concepts do not contain information. A concept is a meaning, an item of description. By itself, it contains no information. To be sure, when\u0026nbsp; used in propositions, concepts can help convey information. Even then, the information conveyed is not necessarily \"cognitive\" (in the sense of conveying knowledge about matters of fact). As I have repeatedly noted throughout this series on the Objectivist Epistemology, concepts can be used to describe truth and falsehood, fact or fiction, hypothesis or dogma. The truth or falsity of a proposition does not arise from the truth or falsity of the concepts used in that proposition. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nEssentially, Rand argues that vagueness in terms is caused by lack of precision in definitions, which in turn is caused by improper concept formation. This is completely wrong. Vagueness in terms is caused by insufficient specificity: when the term used is too broad for the purposes at hand, vagueness results. Precision of meaning has nothing to do with the issue, nor will providing a more \"precise\" meaning render a broad abstraction less vague. Consider the following two propositions:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Col\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EI went to the zoo and saw the animals.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EI went to the zoo and saw red pandas, flamingos, crested screamers, jaks, rheas, and a golden pheasant.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ol\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhich statement is less vague, more presise? Obviously, the second statement is more precise. It contains more information; it describes more precisely\u0026nbsp; what is meant by \"animal\" in the first statement. Where did the precision come from? From more precise or \"truer\" definitions? No, the suggestion is absurd. You do not increase precision by increasing the precision of your definitions (or making them more \"correct\" or \"true\"); you increase it by using more specific, less general terms. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand admits that knowledge involves condensation. However, she refuses to admit that this condensation has trade-offs. She suggests that you can condense without losing anything. But this just isn't true. With greater condensation comes greater vagueness. More general terms, when used as items of description, are more vague. Precision is increased, not through more \"precise\" definitions and\/or \"proper\" concept formation, but by using more specific terms."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2308822125249000483\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2308822125249000483","title":"6 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2308822125249000483"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2308822125249000483"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/10\/ayn-rand-epistemology-48.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 48"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"6"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7442069448117779636"},"published":{"$t":"2013-10-03T13:07:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-09T13:22:53.421-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 47"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb class=\"tr_bq\"\u003EMeaning, precision, and vagueness\u003C\/b\u003E. In the final chapter of \u003Ci\u003EIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology\u003C\/i\u003E, Rand introduces some rather peculiar speculations on \"further problems of epistemology.\" She begins by applying her mathematics metaphor, which she used in her \"solution\" to the problem of universals, to propositions:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003E\nSince concepts, in the field of cognition, perform a function similar to that of numbers in the field of mathematics, the function of a proposition is similar to that of an equation: it applies conceptual abstractions to a specific problem.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nA proposition, however, can perform this function only if the concepts of which it is composed have precisely defined meanings. If, in the field of mathematics, numbers had no fixed, firm values, if they were mere approximations determined by the mood of their users ... there would be no such thing as the science of mathematics. [IOTE, 75]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI have already \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/03\/ayn-rand-epistemology-33.html#more\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Enoted\u003C\/a\u003E Rand's conflation of identity with understanding. In this passage Rand is guilty of conflating meaning with reference. This conflation is hardwired into the very warp and woof of the Objectivist epistemology. It is implicit in Rand's mania for establishing the \"validity\" of concepts. Remember, for Rand, concepts are knowledge; which means they must have a reference in reality (for if they did not \"stand\" for something in reality, they could not be regarded as knowledge.) If we follow the (implicit) logic in the Objectivist epistemology, \u003Ci\u003Eunicorn \u003C\/i\u003Eis an \"invalid\" concept because it has no referent. For Rand a \"valid\" concept must have both a meaning and a reference.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThis insistence on fusing meaning with reference confuses Rand about the nature of propositions. When Rand contends that \"the function of a proposition is similar to that of an equation,\" she has stretched her mathematics analogy to the breaking point. There are important differences between equations and propositions that she is ignoring. Equations, for example, can be reversed: 2+2=4 expresses the exact same relation as 4=2+2. Propositions, on the other hand, cannot be so easily reversed. \u003Ci\u003ESky is blue\u003C\/i\u003E does not express the same thing as \u003Ci\u003EBlue is sky.\u003C\/i\u003E. Of even greater significance is the fact that equations can only express relations of quantity. They cannnot express information contained in qualitative judgments -- judgments, moreover, which include all moral valuations and the discernment of human motivation. In other words, some of the most important knowledge is qualitative, rather than quantitative, in nature. Rand is generally not regarded as being part of the positivists axis in philosophy. On the contrary, she saw herself as a great enemy of positivism. Yet her insistence on bringing these crude mathematical analogies into her theory of concepts and propositions places her at the same level as the crudest quantity-worshipping positivists. There is more between heaven and hell than can be squeezed into a quantification-only philosophy. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt seems understandable why Rand got sucked into this sort of of quantification mania. Quantity-based judgments have one advantage over qualitiative judgments: numbers are more \"precise.\" Mathematics therefore comes closer to Rand's ideal of \"precisely defined meanings.\" Everyone knows exactly what \u003Ci\u003Etwo\u003C\/i\u003E means. If I ask a waiter in a restaurant to bring me two glasses of water, he will know exactly what to get. If I ask the same waiter to give me a \"warm\" cup of coffee, he may not be entirely sure what I mean by \"warm.\" \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand's desire to look to mathematics for precision constitutes another one of her false ideals. The number \u003Ci\u003Etwo \u003C\/i\u003Eseems to have a more precise meaning than the term \u003Ci\u003Ewarm\u003C\/i\u003E, but this greater precision is an epistemological illusion. In terms of sheer meaning, two and warm are \"equally\" precise. Precision is a built-in feature to meaning. Terms of thought mean what they mean, and only what they mean. You can't get any more precise than that. The lack of precision arises, not from the meaning, but from the reference. By confounding meaning and reference, Rand made it impossible for her to understand this.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf we regard concepts as meanings and meanings as precise, than the issue of vagueness involves to what degree our assertions, which are made up of meanings, aptly describe matters of fact. Rand seems to have been laboring under the (tacit) assumption that in order for knowledge to be \"valid\" (i.e., true of reality), it must never be vague or indistinct: it had to be \"precisely\" true. She also seems to have assumed (tacitly) that precise meanings are necessary in order to formulate precise, accurate statements about matters of fact. Both of Rand's (tacit) assumptions are wrong. Precision of meaning is no guarantee of accuracy of description. A fictional story could be described in exhaustive detail, with little if any ambiguity, while a true story could be described loosely, in the most generalized, indistinct way. Moreover, since all meanings are precise, imprecision of meaning cannot be the cause of vagueness or inaccuracy. The vagueness arises from whether the meanings convey precise information aptly describing the referent in question. If I say \u003Ci\u003EThe water is hot\u003C\/i\u003E, I'm speaking vaguely. But the vagueness comes, not from the meanings, but from the lack of specificity in the description. The term \u003Ci\u003Ehot \u003C\/i\u003Ehas an immaculately precise meaning. But the meaning itself doesn't contain much information. Therefore, when used in a description of matters of fact, the term \u003Ci\u003Ehot \u003C\/i\u003Eis vague. However, this vagueness arises from the lack of information conveyed by the meaning of the term, not by the meaning itself. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nImprecision is largely a problem of communication. While Rand understood the role of concepts in communication, she tended to emphasize their importance in thought. Yet this emphasis gets it backwards. Vagueness is almost entirely a problem of communication. If I stick my hand in a tub of water and think, \"This is hot,\" I know exactly what I mean, because I have actual experience of the water's temperture. But if I say to someone else, \"The water in the tub is hot,\" that person will not know precisly what I mean. The only way to convey a more precise account of water's temperature is to measure it with a themometer. Then I could communicate more precise, accurate information: \"The water is 109 degrees.\" \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nImprecision in use of language does not necessarily indicate, as Rand implies, imprecision of thought. Vagueness can be an indication of several things. Often, it is merely a problem of articulation. Some people are not very good at expressing what they think or experience. Rand, as a writer, specialized in articulation, so it may have been difficult for her to relate to this issue. Imprecision can also arise when dealing with inexpressible subject matters. Not all knowledge is easily articulable. Some subjects, like quantum mechanics or abstract symphonic music, are difficult to describe and explain. Rand and her Objectivist philosophy seem entirely oblivious to the inarticulable. It's as if Rand and her disciples believe that what cannot be said or explained in words cannot be real.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe only time vagueness is an indication of \"improper\" or \"bad\" thinking is when vague terms are used either as cover for a lack of understanding or when people resort to equivocations when rationalizing their beliefs. In the first case, the trouble arises, not from imprecise meanings, but from an insufficient knowledge or understanding of some aspect of reality.\u0026nbsp; If you don't understand a subject, knowing the \"precise\" or \"true\" meaning isn't going to help you describe it. The other issue, the one of rationalization, is potentially a bit more problematic; although even here, it's hardly the great evil that Rand would make of it. Most rationalizing involves making people feel good about themselves. People like to think better of themselves than is perhaps entirely deserved. It's a \"human-all-too-human\" failing which rarely has dire consequences.\u0026nbsp; (If such \"faking\" of reality were as horrible as Objectivism makes it seem, then the human race would have disappeared long ago.) \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSo Rand's belief that \"precision\" of meanings is important for human cognition is vastly over-stated: precision is important largely for communication. And Rand's belief that precision arises from \"proper\" concept formation is flat-out wrong. Concepts, as meanings, are entirely precise in and of themselves. If, however, the concepts are very general (as some must be: remember unit-economy) and contain little precise information about their referents, then they will seem vague, particularly when used in communication."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7442069448117779636\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7442069448117779636","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7442069448117779636"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7442069448117779636"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/10\/ayn-rand-epistemology-47.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 47"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6124348156261417518"},"published":{"$t":"2013-09-18T10:13:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-09-30T07:20:43.089-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 46"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003ECognitive Role of Concepts\u003C\/b\u003E. In her \u003Ci\u003EIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology\u003C\/i\u003E, Rand sought to solve the \"problem\" of universals, which she decided involved the issue of what concepts refer to in the real world. This issue is inextricably connected to the issue of classification. Concepts, for Rand, refer to classes of \"units.\" Rand's \"problem of universals\" resolves ultimately into the issue of how the data of sense is classified under various concepts.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nEssentially, Rand provides a two part answer to this question. Concepts are classified (1) by their distinguishing characteristic(s), with their \"measurements omitted\"; and (2) concepts are classified in terms of \"essential characteristics,\" which renders them cognitively efficient. In my last two posts, I refuted the first part of this answer. In this post, I will examine the second part. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EIn the chapter \"The Cognitive Role of Concepts,\" Rand wrote:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIt is the principle of unit-economy [i.e., cognitive efficiency] that necessitates the definition of concepts in terms of essential characteristics. \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTypical for Rand, she here introduces a genuine insight, only to muddle it with one of the worst elements of her philosophy. She is correct to note the importance of cognitive efficiency. Where she goes astray is when she suggests that cognitive efficiency is a product of \"proper\" definition (and, ipso facto, of \"proper\" concept formation). In short, she has reversed cause and effect. Classification, she claims, arises from proper concept formation (which involves defining concepts in terms of essential characteristics). It's a conscious process. The individual must focus on the task at hand, and carefully guide the formation of what will eventually become \"automatized\":\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nLearning to speak is a process of automatizing the use ... of concepts. And more: all learning involves a process of automatizing, i.e., of first acquiring knowledge by fully conscious, focused attention and observation, then of establishing mental connections which make knowledge automatic. [IOTE, 65]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhy did Rand insist that concept making must be a fully conscious process? In the vast majority of instances, it clearly is no such thing. Many concepts are learned very early on, in the earliest years of childhood, well before schooling in logic or advanced thinking. Toddlers are not known for being especially careful or deliberate thinkers; they don't even have a particularly strong sense of reality. They often believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Rand's theory, on the face of it, seems grossly implausible. So why did she persist in it?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe most plausible explanation is that Rand wanted to make individuals solely (or at least largely) responsible for their development of their own \"conceptual knowledge.\" The most important doctrine of Rand's epistemology derives from Rand's myth of the self-made individual, forming his knowledge and character on his own initiative, with little if any assistance from outward sources. If we stick closely to the logical implications of Rand's doctrine, we find ourselves confronted by the strange notion that every human being must recreate concepts, all on his own, from scratch. To be sure, Rand admitted that adults \"could lend a helping hand.\" But given that \"reason\" can only be utilized by an individual mind, each individual has to do the lion's share of the cognitive leg work for himself. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt might be argued that Rand didn't mean any such thing. Admittedly, the doctrine she advanced is a bit vague. However, the implications are there in the doctrine for all to see. \"There are many different ways in which children learn words,\" she explained. \"Some proceed .. by treating words as concepts, by requiring a first-hand understanding of the exact meaning of every word they learn.... Some proceed by the road of approximations.... Some switch from cognition to imitation, substituting memorizing for understanding.\" [20-21]\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHere Rand seems to be acknowledging\u0026nbsp; that an individual could learn (or at least memorize) concepts without creating them from scratch. But she immediately condemns such an approach, calling it a \"parrot's psycho-epistemology.\" People are merely learning the words, she insists, not the concepts underlying them. Is this really true? Remember, concepts are merely meanings; words are auditory symbols (as even Rand recognized) expressing those meanings. When children learns words, they \u003Ci\u003Eipso facto\u003C\/i\u003E learn meanings (and therefore concepts). Are we really supposed to believe that some children use words without trying to express some sort of meaning? that when they speak they are merely uttering meaningless sounds?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThese absurdities arise from regarding concepts (i.e. meanings) as knowledge. As I have repeatedly argued throughout this series on the Objectivist Epistemology, \u003Ci\u003Econcepts are not knowledge\u003C\/i\u003E. When concepts are regarded as knowledge, this implies that any concept without a real referent, such as \u003Ci\u003Eunicorn\u003C\/i\u003E or \u003Ci\u003Ehonest politician\u003C\/i\u003E, is little more than meaningless gibberish and\/or an inarticulate sound. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMore important in the context of this post is Rand's implication that the each individual must form his own concepts. This view is almost certainly false. The words (and hence the meanings\/concepts) that children learn are ready-made for them. Children learn all (or at least nearly all) of their meanings from the words spoken around them. We know this is true because the rare child who is isolated from all human intercourse fails to learn how to speak. Language, therefore, is a social product. But this does not mean, as apologists for Rand might maliciously assume, that knowledge is social as well. Not in the least. It is Rand who has (unwittingly of course) adopted the social view of knowledge. For if knowledge, as Rand contends, really were \"conceptual,\" it would be \"social,\" rather than individualistic. Ironically, Rand, in choosing concepts as the principle unit of knowledge, has (unwittingly) adopted a social view of cognition. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe fact that concepts are largely social products, learned from exposure to language, provides us with a far more plausible solution to the problem of classification than the one provided by Rand. Articulated concepts arise in the give and take of human interaction, in which there is a sort of Darwinian process of selection which favors cognitively efficient concepts over cognitively inefficient ones. Thus articulated concepts, although the product of human thinking and action, are not the product of design or specific conscious intention. Nor does each human being have to work out his own set of concepts, as Rand's theory implies. He just makes use of the ones that have been formed long before he was born and proceeds to use them to\u0026nbsp; make conjectures about the real world. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand's insistence that cognitive efficiency must be achieved through\u0026nbsp; \"fully conscious, focused attention and observation\" leads her to some rather glaring absurdities. In IOTE, we find her condemning cognitively unjustified concepts:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIn the process of determining conceptual classification, neither the essential similarities nor the essential differences among existents may be ignored, evaded or omitted once they have been observed. Just as the requirements of cognition forbid the arbitrary subdivision of concepts, so they\u0026nbsp; forbid the arbitrary integration of concpets into a wider concept by means of obliterating their essential differences --- which is an error (or falsification) proceeding from definitions by non-essentials....\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nCognitively, such an attempt would produce nothing but a bad hash of equivocations, shoddy metaphors and unacknowledged \"stolen\" concepts. Epistemologically, it would produce the atrophy of the capacity to discriminate, and the panic of facing an immense, undifferentiated chaos of unintelligible data -- which means: the retrogression of an adult mind to the perceptual level of awareness. [71-72]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIs it really true that defining by non-essentials leads to a full state of panic? If so, would it be too much to ask for some documented examples? Curiously, Rand provides the following two examples of cognitively inefficiency: (1) forming a concept to designate beautiful blondes with blue eyes, 5'5\" tall and 24 years old; and (2) regarding running as the essential characteristic of man. The problem with these examples is that they are completely fictitious. Who has ever formed a concept designating 24 year old blondes of a certain type? And who has ever claimed that running is the essential characteristic of man? We just don't find in practical experience examples of gross cognitive efficiency in the use of concepts. The meaning of terms used in common speech have been refined through centuries of trial and error. They are, in fact, far more efficient than concepts formulated through conscious attention (e.g.., concepts found in abstruse philosophical disquisitions). Classification is a very complex process. No human being, and certainly no child, would be capable of classifying the data of sense in an efficient manner solely on his own cognitive resources. Rand has here adopted an implausible approach. The concepts\/meanings people use tend to be efficient from the get-go. They don't require any special formulation process, guided by \"reason.\" They simply require being adopted and used.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nConcepts are efficient \u003Ci\u003Ebecause \u003C\/i\u003Ethey are social. But even if man's concepts were not efficient, this would not have the the dire consequences that Rand moralizes about. Inefficient concepts would merely constitute a waste of cognitive effort. They would not lead to equivocations, shoddy metaphors, stolen concepts, or sheer panic. Once again, Rand is guilty of over-dramatizing an epistemological issue. Inefficient concepts (which essentially means: inefficient classification) are like a poorly written book. Bad writing is painful to read, but that doesn't that necessarily make a tedious book untrue or full of errors. Cognitive efficiency has little if anything to do with truth. A cognitively inefficient concept is merely a meaning that is difficult to use and comprehend. It's comparable to a convoluted sentence or a tedious, long-winded paragraph. It is much preferable to say more with fewer words. That is what cognitive efficiency amounts to in the end: saying more with less. But\u0026nbsp; one could just as easily say more that is false with fewer words, or less that is true with more. Cognitive efficiency, in short, while eminently desirable, is no guarantee of truth. \u003C!------\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6124348156261417518\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6124348156261417518","title":"15 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6124348156261417518"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6124348156261417518"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/09\/ayn-rand-epistemology-45_18.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 46"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"15"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3775634084313581571"},"published":{"$t":"2013-09-06T20:23:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-05-22T08:59:05.880-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Fallacies of Objectivist Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 45"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EMeasurement Omission 2:\u003C\/b\u003E In my \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/08\/ayn-rand-epistemology-44.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Elast post\u003C\/a\u003E, I introduced Merlin Jetton's\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20070206173117\/http:\/\/www.objectivistcenter.org\/events\/advsem04\/JettonOaM3.PDF\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ecriticism of Rand's measurement omission theory\u003C\/a\u003E. In this post, I will introduce what I consider an even more devestating criticism. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe number one issue with Rand's measurement omission hypothesis is that it attempts to solve an entirely irrelevant problem. It's a false solution to a false problem. Rand's \"problem of universals\" is a misnomer. Historically, the problem of universals dealt with whether universals were \"real\" (in the metaphysical sense). Rand deals with what might be called \"the problem of Objectivist concepts.\" Rand introduces this issue as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWhen we refer to three persons as \"men,\" what do we designate by that term? The three persons are three individuals who differ in every particular respect and may not possess a single identical characteristic (not even their fingerprints). If you list all their particular characteristics, you will not find one representing manness. Where is the \"manness\" in men? What, in reality, corresponds to the concept \"man\" in our mind? [IOTE, 2]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSince Rand regards concept as the principle unit of human knowledge, the issue of how concepts \"correspond\" to reality becomes a problem. But what if we don't regard concepts as the principal unit of knowledge? What if we regard them merely as symbols conveying meanings? If a concept merely means what it means, then there's no issue of \"validity\" or correspondence at all. These meanings can be used to make assertions about\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003Eanything\u003C\/i\u003E, real or unreal, truth or lies. \u0026nbsp;The merit of this approach is that it nips in the bud futile arguments about the meanings of words. What a word (or \"concept\") means is immaterial. It's the meaning of the statement that is important, and that meaning is whatever is intended by the individual who presents the statement. Once we understand the intended meaning of the statement, we can go about testing it to determine whether its true or false, plausible or implausible. By regarding concepts merely as meanings, rather than knowledge, we overstep altogether Rand's problem of universals and concepts. Instead of worrying about the relation of concepts to reality, we focus on the relation of our statements and theories to the real world. The \u003Ci\u003Eproblem of universals\u003C\/i\u003E is replaced by the far more fruitful \u003Ci\u003Eproblem of theories\u003C\/i\u003E. Testing and criticizing theories becomes our primary objective; while concepts merely become the vehicle for expressing our theories.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNow some might argue that regarding concepts as symbols conveying meanings does not in fact solve Rand's problem of Objectivist concepts; that it only moves it off a step further. Even as a symbol, the concept \u003Ci\u003Eman\u003C\/i\u003E does in fact refer to many different men. How does it do this? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf Objectivists insist on making it a problem, then it is a problem for \u003Ci\u003Ethem\u003C\/i\u003E. It's not a problem for anyone else. Nearly everyone knows what you mean when you talk of \"men.\" The problems confronting western civilization having nothing to do with the inability to provide a verbal solution to this issue. However, even if, for argument's sake, we were to grant that this is a legitimate problem, Rand has not provided a satisfying solution to this issue. Her so-called solution is no solution at all, but merely a retrenchment into the crude literalism of medieval scholasticism. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHere's how Rand \"solves\" what she misnamed the \"problem of universals.\" She wanted to discover \"how\" concepts refer to in reality. To attain this end, she sought to describe in what ways the correspondence between concepts could be both literal and precise. From Rand's point of view, the concept could only be formed on the basis of all those characteristics shared by every referent subsumed by the concept.\u0026nbsp; The concept \u003Ci\u003Eman\u003C\/i\u003E, for example, could not include, or refer to, the characteristic of irritability, because not all men are irritable. The concept also had to focus on \"essential\" characteristics, that is to say, characteristics which allowed a one class of objects to be differentiated from another similar class. All men have livers; but that characteristic is not essential, because other animals also have livers. The concept man must be formed on the basis of\u0026nbsp; characteristics that are shared by all men. \"Rationality,\" for example, is considered an essential characteristic of man, because, according to Rand, only men are \"rational.\" One problem confronted the Objectivist view right from the start. Even if we were to grant (per implausible) that all men are rational (or \"potentially\" rational), it is plain from common observation that men are not all\u0026nbsp; \u003Ci\u003Eequally\u003C\/i\u003E rational. Some are more and some are less rational, as Rand often reminded her readers. So in what way do men actually share the characteristic of rationality? How can the concept man be formed on the basis of a characteristics which exists in degrees (and sometimes only as a potentiality)? To explain this, Rand introduced her idea of measurement omission: \"A concept,\" she declared, \"is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis hypothesis, declared Rand, once and for all solves the \"problem of universals.\" But note how it does so: by explaining what concepts \u003Ci\u003Eliterally \u003C\/i\u003Erefer to, in a narrow \"identity\" sense of reference. Rand is working out of a (tacit) paradigm that regards literalism as the highest mark of truth. She believes that she can solve the \"problem of universals\" by showing a literal identity between the concept and its referents. For Rand, concepts literally refer to the distinguishing characteristics of a particular class of objects, with the measurements omitted. Yet this desire to achieve a literal identity between concepts and referents is a false ideal. Concepts are symbols. They are not meant to be taken literally. They don't even constitute knowledge. Rand's phrase \"conceptual knowledge\" is a contradiction in terms. Symbols are not knowledge. They are items of description. Knowledge arises when the symbols are used to express statements describing matters of fact. Even if Rand (per impossible) had shown the literal identity of concepts with a given class of \"units,\" this would have been merely a pyrrhic victory.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nEven if concepts are symbols, doesn't the problem of classification remain? If symbols stand for multiple instances of a class of things, how are these classes formed? Even if Rand's measurement omission theory presented a false solution to a false problem, perhaps her theory actually applied to a different issue, i.e., the issue of classification. I will explore this topic in my next post."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3775634084313581571\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3775634084313581571","title":"5 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3775634084313581571"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3775634084313581571"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/09\/ayn-rand-epistemology-45.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 45"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"5"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5276903782343545421"},"published":{"$t":"2013-08-26T09:17:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-09-03T13:14:32.210-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Fallacies of Objectivist Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 44"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EMeasurement Omission 1\u003C\/b\u003E. Having finished our slow, tedious slog through Peikoff's essay on the Analytic-Sythethic Dichotomy, we can return to the Rand's IOTE and finish out this series on the Objectivist Epistemology. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhile much of IOTE is clearly agenda driven (the agenda being Rand's theory of history), there is a portion of Rand's epistemology which, although not entirely free of agenda-based thinking, at least is intermixed with some level of genuine truth-seeking. For example, Rand seems to have sincerely believed that her measurement-omission theory solved the \"problem of universals.\" The question confronting the critic is to determine whether her measurement-omission theory actually delivers the goods. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand claimed that\u0026nbsp; “A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), \u003Ci\u003Ewith their particular measurements omitted\u003C\/i\u003E.” [13, italics added] This theory has been decisively refuted by Merlin Jetton in a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20070206173117\/http:\/\/www.objectivistcenter.org\/events\/advsem04\/JettonOaM3.PDF\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Epaper\u003C\/a\u003E he wrote for Kelley's Objectivist Center (now known as the Atlas Society):\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nLet us test a wider variety of concepts ... to see how well the claim of “measurements omitted” holds up more generally. In other words, we will try to follow Rand’s dictum of reducing a concept to its basis in particular facts (Rand IOTE, 51).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nConsider the concept occupation, in the sense of a job or career. Several particulars that might be treated as units in this concept are doctor, fireman, nurse, lawyer, teacher, computer programmer, civil engineer, truck driver, and salesman. They are similar in that each refers to particular kinds of activities the person does in order to earn an income. Such activities differ from case to case, but all such differences are not amenable to some kind of measurement. There is no standard quantitative unit that can be multiplied by a real number to derive a magnitude for each particular occupation and each kind of difference between these occupations. The differences in the activities performed are only qualitative.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nImagine a person assigning a number to each of the above particular occupations according to how he or she would rank each one as desirable, or their difficulty. It then might seem plausible that he or she has some “measurements” to omit. But what does such assignment gain as far as integrating these particulars to form the concept. Nothing at all; indeed, the concept has already been formed. Again, letters of the alphabet would work just as well to rank them. The differences that need to be omitted are qualitative, not quantitative.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis is a devestating refutation. It should settle the issue once and for all, at least among rational individuals. However, there is an even more devestating criticism that could be leveled at Rand's measurement-omission, which I will introduce in my next post."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5276903782343545421\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5276903782343545421","title":"26 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5276903782343545421"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5276903782343545421"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/08\/ayn-rand-epistemology-44.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 44"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"26"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8961891502278646781"},"published":{"$t":"2013-08-19T15:07:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-25T18:45:02.120-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Popper"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 43"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 16: Falsifibility.\u003C\/b\u003E Toward the end of his essay on the Anayltic-Synthetic Dichotomy, Peikoff tackles falsifiability:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThose who claim to distinguish a posteriori and a priori propositions commonly maintain that certain truths (the synthetic, factual ones) are \"\u003Ci\u003Eempirically falsifiable\u003C\/i\u003E,\" whereas others (the analytic, logical ones) are not. In the former case, it is said, once can specify experiences which, if they occurred, would invalidate the proposition; in the latter, one cannot. For instance, the proposition \"Cats give birth only to kittens\" is empirically falsifiable\" because one can invent experiences that would refute it such as the spectacle of tiny elephants emerging from a cat's womb. But the proposition \"Cats are animals\" is not \"empirically falsifiable\" because \"cat\" is \u003Ci\u003Edefined\u003C\/i\u003E as a species of animal....\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nObserve the inversion propounded by this argument: a proposition can qualify as a \u003Ci\u003Efactual\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Eempirical\u003C\/i\u003E truth only if man is able to evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily ... invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts; but a truth whose opposite is beyond man's power of invention, is regarded as independent of and irrelevant to the nature of reality, i.e., as an arbitrary product of human \"convention.\" [IOTE, 117-118]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThis passage provides a nice brief summary of what is wrong with Peikoff's essay. His objections are ludicrous. They seem founded on little more than an animus against non-Objectivist positions coupled with an inability to understand and appreciate any view not sanctioned by Rand. The distinction between empirically falsfiable and non-falsifiable statements is not made so that individuals can \"evade facts of experence and arbitrarily invent\" impossible circumstances. To even assume such a thing proves Peikoff's cluelessness about not only the analytical-synthetic dichotomy, but falsifiability as well. The reason for prefering falsifiable to non-falsifiable propositiosn has to do with the issue of testability. Empirically falsifiable proposition are testable; non-empirically falsifiable views are not testable. Analytic propositions are not testable because they are true by definition: no experience can refute them; they tell us more about word usage than reality. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe whole point of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy is to note this duality in propositions: some propositions are self-referential. If they are true, it is because they are \"true by definition.\" Such \"truth\" is not all that significant because it is lacking in empirical content. Other statements are rich in empirical content. These statements are much more significant. While it may be true that the ASD tends to draw this distinction a bit too tightly, nevertheless there are statements that are more or less analytic and untestable on the one side, and statements that are more less synthetic and testable on the other. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNow Rand over and over again insisted that she sought to establish the connection of man's knowledge to reality. Even if we are willing to entertain Rand's suggestion that this connection had been compromised or severed by \"evil\" philosophers such as Kant and Hegel, her \u003Ci\u003EIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology\u003C\/i\u003E does little to help re-establish the connection. Rand decided that the problem of knowledge is largely a problem of conceptualization. For Rand, men are led astray, cognitively speaking, not by poorly tested theories, but by \"improper\" conceptualization. The process of forming concepts, Rand declared, is not automatic. Men must discover a method of concept formation, which must be consciously applied (or consciously programmed into the \"subconscious\"). But as I have repeately \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/07\/ayn-rand-epistemology-4.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Enoted\u003C\/a\u003E, this approach leads to an over-emphasis on the \u003Ci\u003Eprocess \u003C\/i\u003Eby which knowledge claims arise. Since, as cognitive science has discovered, much of this process is unconsious, hidden from the watchful eye of consciousness, it is futile to emphasize how knowledge claims arise. We can't actually evaluate the rationality of how conclusions arise, since those processes are (mostly) invisible to us; but we can evaluate the claims themselves by subjecting them to criticism and tests. The path to the very sort of rationality Rand claims to support involves concentrating on testing and criticizing our knowledge claims \u003Ci\u003Eafter \u003C\/i\u003Ethey have been made, rather than worrying about how those claims were originally formed. However, before we can test a conclusion, it must in fact be testable. Hence the usefulness of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. If we wish to achieve whatever degree of rationality that human beings are capable of attaining, then we should encourage the development of testable (i.e., largely synthetic), rather than non-testable (i.e., largely analytic) knowledge claims. The lingua franca of empirically responsible philosophy is testable conclusions. Non-testable conclusions are the province of rationalizers, ideologues, deceivers, and cult-mongers. The philosopher who passes off non-testable \"analytic\" propositions as the chief \"axioms\" of his philosophy is not seeking truth; he is, rather, looking for a place to hide, so that he can safely evade any potentially effective criticism which might come his way. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8961891502278646781\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8961891502278646781","title":"15 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8961891502278646781"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8961891502278646781"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/08\/analytic-synthetic-dichotomy-16.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 43"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"15"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3275128660227397457"},"published":{"$t":"2013-08-13T09:44:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-25T18:49:26.670-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Metaphysics"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 42"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 15: Concepts as Theories.\u003C\/b\u003E In a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/09\/ayn-rand-epistemology-17.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eprevious post\u003C\/a\u003E, I criticized the Objectivist view that concepts constitute the principle unit of knowledge. Although Rand argued that concepts contain an \"implicit\" proposition indicating that the referents of the concept exist, she is not on record as endorsing the view that there may be many implicit propositions lurking inside concepts. Yet the doctrine that concepts contain many propositions is strongly implied by what Peikoff writes in his essay on the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe epistemological basis of [the logical-factual dichotomy] is the view that a concept consists only of its definition. According to the dichotomy, it is logically impermissible to contradict the definition of a concept; what one asserts by this means is \"logically\" impossible. But to contradict any of the \u003Ci\u003Enon-defining\u003C\/i\u003E characteristics of a concept's referents, is regarded as logically permissible; what one asserts in such a case is merely \"empirically\" impossible.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThus, a \"married bachelor\" contradicts the definition of \"bachelor\" and hence is regarded as \"logically\" impossible. But a \"bachelor who can fly to the moon by means of flapping his arms\" is regarded a \"logically\" possible, because the \u003Ci\u003Edefinition\u003C\/i\u003E of \"bachelor\" (\"an unmarried man\") does not specify his means of locomotion. [IOTE, 115]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nImplicit in this criticism is the view that concepts include all the characteristics of a concept's referent. In practical terms, that means all proposotions \u003Ci\u003Eabout \u003C\/i\u003Ea concept, including theories, would presumably be included in the concept. For Objectivism, a concept is not a symbolic meaning used to represent something outside itself; it is, rather, a container which includes everything known (or potentially knowable) about the concept's referent. As Peikoff puts it, \"the concept 'man' ... includes all the characteristics of the 'man.'\" [115]\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI've criticized this view in \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/03\/ayn-rand-epistemology-31.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eanother post\u003C\/a\u003E. Here I wish to focus on the Objectivist conflation of logical identity with predication. At the core of the Objectivist epistemology is a confusion between identity and understanding. Human knowledge is fundamentally representational and symbolic. If these symbols are to be used to convey truths about reality, a certain logical consistency in the use of the symbol becomes necessary. It would be confusing to define bachelor as an \"unmarried man,\" and then turn around and apply the identical symbol to women or married men. However, the fact that a symbol has a specific meaning does not in itself constitute knowledge. It is possible to have symbols that have little or no reference to reality, such as \u003Ci\u003Ephlogiston\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Egriffen\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Ekryptonite\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Ecentaur\u003C\/i\u003E, etc. Whether a specific symbol actually represents something real is not discovered exclusively by logic, but mainly through observation. Hence the origin of the so-called logical-factual dichotomy. This dichotomy does not so much separate logic and fact as it distinguishes them, while more clearly defining their extent. Logic is applicable to our symbols. However, it provides no necessary guarantee of truth. There are an infinite number of possible logical syllogisms; but only a finite number of those will be true of empirical reality. In his criticism of logical-factual dichotomy, Peikoff seems to be oblivious of the fact that logical validity does not guarantee factual truth.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhile identifying a symbol with its referent in reality involves some level of knowledge, that level is rather superficial. It doesn't require much knowledge to identify and name entities in reality. Understanding things, processes, and events in reality takes considerably more knowledge and acumen. A person may be able to identify an elephant in the sense he knows what to call it when he sees it; but he may know nothing \u003Ci\u003Eabout\u003C\/i\u003E elephants. Identity does not guarantee understanding. Rand had no trouble identifying men and distinguishing them from other creatures. But many of her chief notions about men were exaggerated and flawed. Identity is, cognitively speaking, relatively easy. Understanding tends to be more difficult; sometimes much more difficult.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn an \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/03\/ayn-rand-epistemology-33.html#more\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eearlier post\u003C\/a\u003E, I criticized the Objectivist view of concepts for its quasi-Platonic implications. I also noted the confusion of identity and understanding. To conclude this post, I wish to offer a few more elaborations of this criticism, tying it to \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2010\/09\/objectivism-metaphysics-part-9.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eearlier post\u003C\/a\u003E criticizing the Objectivist view of identity . In that post, I argued that there were several types of identity: logical identity (Rand's \u003Ci\u003EA is A\u003C\/i\u003E), the identity of the symbol with something real (\u003Ci\u003EA is\u003C\/i\u003E), and the identity of characteristics (\u003Ci\u003EA is B\u003C\/i\u003E). Now the tendency of Objectivism is to conflate these types of identity under a single concept. As Peikoff puts it, \"All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience.\" Knowledge, for an Objectivist, is identification all the way through. You identify existing entitites and you identify their characteristics and that's how you go about creating the concept. And all these identifications are basically of the relatively simple, unproblematic, \u003Ci\u003EA is A\u003C\/i\u003E, logical type of identity.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSince knowledge is symbolic through and through, identity is not a very apt way of describing the ideal of knowledge. The symbol is really nothing like its object, nor is knowledge a mirror. When Rand wrote of \"unit economy\" and cognitive efficiency,\" she seemed at least to imply, if not explicitly avow, that knowledge is not identical with its object. But in other parts of her epistemology, she forgets all about her unit economy and reverts to a crude literalism, where the tautology \u003Ci\u003EA is A\u003C\/i\u003E becomes the catch phrase for all types identity, in defiance of logic and good sense. But logical identity is not identical with either the identification of objects or the characteristics of objects. Knowing what a symbol is and what it stands for in reality is not knowledge in the deeper sense of the word. It's merely knowledge of symbols and\/or knowledge of naming conventions. Nor is logical identity fully compatible with predication (i.e., knowledge of characteristics). As I noted in my \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2010\/09\/objectivism-metaphysics-part-9.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Epost about identity\u003C\/a\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Ewhile blood is blood and red is red, and while red can be predicated of blood, red is not identical to blood nor is blood identical to red\u003C\/i\u003E. \u003Ci\u003EA is A\u003C\/i\u003E is not logically compatible with \u003Ci\u003EA is B\u003C\/i\u003E. These are different forms of identity and it will not do to conflate them. Concepts are meanings; and in that sense, one could say \u003Ci\u003Ethat a concept is its definition\u003C\/i\u003E. Predications are not further elaborations of a concept; on the contrary, they are merely assertions \u003Ci\u003Eabout \u003C\/i\u003Ea concept, stated in terms of propositions and theories. Although this distinction is not mandatory, it does clear up many of bogs and swamps that infest the Objectivist epistemology and opens the way for a proposition-centric, theory-centric approach to philosophy that is more in keeping with the sort of empirical responsbility that should be the ideal of human cognition. Let's concentrate on facts and theories, not words and symbols. Is that too much to ask for?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3275128660227397457\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3275128660227397457","title":"15 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3275128660227397457"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3275128660227397457"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/08\/ayn-rand-epistemology-42.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 42"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"15"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4606437862868689974"},"published":{"$t":"2013-07-25T11:06:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-25T18:53:24.792-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivism \u0026 Epistemology, 41"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 14: Peikoff on Logic and Experience.\u003C\/b\u003E After discussing contigency and necessity, Peikoff moves on the logic and experience. He repeats his favorite charge against the analytic-sythetic dichotomy: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAny theory that propounds an opposition between the logical and empirical, represents a failure to grasp the nature of logic and its role in human cognition. [\u003Ci\u003EIOTE\u003C\/i\u003E, 112]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nDo advocates of the ASD really propound an \"opposition\" between logic and experience? Perhaps some do; but without giving examples, Peikoff is merely issuing an unsubstantiated assertion. The ASD grew out of distinctions generated by Hume and Kant. These philosophers were attacking rationalistic speculation (what Kant called \"pure\" reason). They were not, however, banishing logic from human cognition.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff goes on the present a brief one-paragraph digest of the Objectivist theory of knowledge:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nMan is born \u003Ci\u003Etabula rasa\u003C\/i\u003E; all his knowledge is based on and derived from the evidence of the senses. To reach the distinctively human level of cognition, man must conceptualize his perceptual data --- and conceptualization is a process which is neither automatic nor infallible. Man needs to discover a method to guide this process, if it is to yield conclusions which correspond to the facts of reality --- i.e., which represent knowledge. The principle at the base of the proper method is the fundamental principle of metaphysics: the Law of Identity. In reality, contradiction is the proof of an error. Hence the method man must follow: to identify the facts he observes, in a non-contradictory manner. This method is logic --- \"the art of non-contradictory identification.\" Logic must be employed at every step of a man's conceptual development, from the formulation of his first concepts to the discovery of the most complex scientific laws and theories. Only when a conclusion is based on a noncontradictory identification and integration of all the evidence at a given time, can it qualify as knowledge. [\u003Ci\u003EIOTE\u003C\/i\u003E, 112-113]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nLet's examine this paragraph sentence by sentence.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Col\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ci\u003EMan is born tabula rasa\u003C\/i\u003E. Not true. See Pinker's \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/books\/dp\/0142003344\" target=\"_blank\"\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe Blank Slate\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ci\u003EAll his knowledge is based on and derived from the evidence of the senses\u003C\/i\u003E. Probably mostly, but not entirely, true. There may exist certain propensities of thought which are critical to effective cognition. For example, the tendency of the very young to conceptualize and name things might very well be an instinct of sorts. If so, it's merely a matter of semantics whether that \"instinct\" or propensity is regarded as knowledge.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ci\u003EConceptualization is a process which is neither automatic nor infallible\u003C\/i\u003E. While almost everyone would agree that conceptualization is not infallible, the insistence that it is also not automatic appears unwarrented. The Objectivist position implies that very young children make a decision whether to conceptualize or not. This is grossly implausible and not consistent with the evidence presented by cognitive science.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ci\u003EMan needs to discover a method to guide this process, if it is to yield conclusions which correspond to the facts of reality\u003C\/i\u003E. Given how complex the process of conceptualization appears to be, this would seem impossible. Human cognition cannot be guided by a method. The philosopher Micheal Polanyi made a strong case against a methodology of thought in his \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Personal-Knowledge-Towards-Post-Critical-Philosophy\/dp\/0226672883\/ref=cm_rdp_product\" target=\"_blank\"\u003EPersonal Knowledge\u003C\/a\u003E. Subsequent research by cognitive science tends to support Polanyi's criticism of a non-tacit, consciously directed, purely \"objective\" knowledge. \u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe principle at the base of the proper method is the fundamental principle of metaphysics: the Law of Identity\u003C\/i\u003E. This is intolerably vague. As I have argued in a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2010\/09\/objectivism-metaphysics-part-9.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eprevious post\u003C\/a\u003E, there are different types of identity. Until these different types are recognized and appreciated, talk of Law of Identity is largely wind and nonsense.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ci\u003EIn reality, contradiction is the proof of an error.\u003C\/i\u003E True, but potentially misleading. Contradiction is important when making tests of hypothesis. It is also important in developing consistent theories, and in speculative hypotheses used when making educated guesses (when empirical testing is not possible). And while contradiction does constitute \"proof of error,\" it doesn't necessarily tell you where that error resides. A contradiction could be an indication that a theory is wrong, or that there are errors in the test. Nor is lack of contradiction necessarily proof positive of truth. In pragmatic tests (where isolation of variables is difficult or impossible), success may result from factors that have nothing to do with the hypothesis being tested. (For example, if the aggresive application of the death penalty for murder led to a decrease in murder, that would not necessarily prove the thesis that the death penalty leads to a reduction in murder. The murder rate may have dropped for reasons that had nothing to do with the death penalty.)\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ci\u003EHence the method man must follow: to identify the facts he observes, in a non-contradictory manner\u003C\/i\u003E. As stated above, this is impossible. There can be no \"method\" of cognition (not at least in terms of consciously applied rules). \u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThis method is logic --- \"the art of non-contradictory identification\u003C\/i\u003E. To the extent that logic is a method, it is confined to formal deductive logic. It is unlikely that either Peikoff or Rand understands this. Formal logic is not applied, nor can it ever be applied, to \u003Ci\u003Eall \u003C\/i\u003Ehuman cognition.(For more on this topic, see \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2007\/11\/cognitive-revolution-objectivism-part-6.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E.)\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ci\u003ELogic must be employed at every step of a man's conceptual development, from the formulation of his first concepts to the discovery of the most complex scientific laws and theories.\u003C\/i\u003E If this were true, knowledge would be impossible. Can an infant or a toddler apply logic at every step of his conceptual development? No, of course not. We have yet another example of Objectivism's misplaced emphasis on the \u003Ci\u003Eprocess \u003C\/i\u003Eof cognition. But it's not important \u003Ci\u003Ehow \u003C\/i\u003Ea man reaches his conclusions. On the contrary, what's important is whether the conclusions (regardless of how they are reached) are tested afterwards. (For more on this, see \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/07\/ayn-rand-epistemology-4.html#more\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E.)\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ci\u003EOnly when a conclusion is based on a noncontradictory identification and integration of all the evidence at a given time, can it qualify as knowledg\u003C\/i\u003Ee. Complete and utter nonsense (for reasons give above). Since most of our knowledge claims are formulated unconsciously, without the aid of a consciously directed \"logic,\" it would just not be possible to form conclusions based on the approach suggested by Objectivism. If you want to evaluate the reliability of a knowledge claim, the best way of going about it is to test is empirically. Ironically, the Objectivist method is contrary to objectivity. Other people cannot evaluate how an individual reaches his conclusions, or whether they are based on \"noncontradictory identification and integretion of the available evidence.\" When put in practice, this approach will inevitably lead to just the sort of ex cathedra claims issued by the likes of Rand and Peikoff. \u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ol\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/4606437862868689974\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=4606437862868689974","title":"30 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4606437862868689974"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4606437862868689974"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/07\/objectivism-epistemology-41.html","title":"Objectivism \u0026 Epistemology, 41"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"30"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8829937498476123833"},"published":{"$t":"2013-07-16T14:37:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T09:47:48.688-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology, 40"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 13: Is contingency necessary?\u003C\/b\u003E Objectivists tend to be overly fond of accusing their philosophical opponents of the \"stolen concept\" fallacy. If some philosophers insists \"Nobody can be certain!\" an Objectivist is bound to retort: \"Can you be certain of that!\" What is lost is such facile refutations are the nuances and depth of rigorous philosophical discourse. Stolen-concept \"refutations\" constitute a philosophical short-cut that fails to do justice to either side in the debate.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf, in opposing the Peikoffian view of necessity, we were to declare the contingency of truth, we must be prepared for stereotypical Objectivist refutation, namely: \u003Ci\u003EIs this declared contingency of truth itself a necessary truth?\u003C\/i\u003E The philosopher George Santayana answered this charge in his book \u003Ci\u003EThe Realm of Truth \u003C\/i\u003Eas follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nFinally, turning the doctrine here defended against itself, we might ask whether it is not necessarily true that the truth is contingent and not necessary. Here again I must repeat that what is necessary logically is not necessarily \u003Ci\u003Etrue\u003C\/i\u003E. In this case, that truth is a necessary proposition, because facts, by definition, make the truth true and all facts, again by definition, are contingent. But there is no necessity in the choice or in the applicability of such categories as necessary, truth, or fact. These categories are not necessarily true. I find that, as a matter of fact, they are true, or at least true enough; they articulate human thought in a normal way which reality on the whole seems to sanction. They are the lungs and heart-valves of the mind. And while we use these categories, we shall be obliged on pain of talking nonsense to stick to their connotations, and to acknowledge, among other things, that there are no necessary truths. But the possession of such categories is after all a psychological or even a personal accident; and the fact that they are convenient, or even absolutely true in describing the existing world, is a cosmic accident. \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n[Our thesis], then, that there are no necessary truths, is itself made necessary only by virtue of certain assumed intuitions or definitions which fix the meaning of the terms necessity, contingency, existence, and truth. But no definition and no intuition can render true the term it distinguishes. My thesis will therefore be a true thesis only in so far as in the realm of existence facts may justify my definitions and may hang together in the way those definitions require. [\u003Ci\u003ERealms of Being\u003C\/i\u003E, 423-424]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe key to understanding the (so-called) necessity-contingency \"dichotomy\" is to appreciate the difference between our ideas of things and things themselves. Although in some phases of her epistemology, Rand appreciated the difference between ideas and concepts on the one side and reality on the other, there are parts of her philosophy were she reverts to a cruder, more literalist conception of knowledge. The Objectivist view of necessity and contingency is clouded by a misplaced literalism. At the core of the Objectivist view of logic is the implicit premise that logic can only be \"valid\" if reality itself is \"logical.\" This misunderstanding infects a good portion of the Objectivist metaphysics, and spills over into the Rand's deeply \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2010\/09\/objectivism-metaphysics-part-9.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eproblematical view\u003C\/a\u003E of identity. Logic is not, nor can it ever be, a property of matter or consciousness. Logic is a category applicable to phases of thought. An argument can be logical or illogical; facts, on the other hand, are alogical.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNecessity applies merely to the realm of thought,. Propositions can be necessary if they are defined as such. But a proposition cannot make a fact necessary. Even if a \"necessary\" proposition describing a fact turns out to be true, the truth comes from the fact, which is not necessary, rather than from logic. Facts are not true for logical reasons. Logic is a procedure which can be helpful in testing assertions about matters of fact. Logic, however, does not create truth (as the \"facts are necessary\" view unwittingly presumes). "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8829937498476123833\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8829937498476123833","title":"45 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8829937498476123833"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8829937498476123833"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/07\/ayn-rand-epistemology-40.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology, 40"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"45"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-9030771189204402391"},"published":{"$t":"2013-07-03T16:51:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-07-03T16:59:20.167-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Criticism of ARCHN"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"The Best Living Philosopher Reviews ARCHN"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\"Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature\" and the ARCHNblog have their critics. Some have the decided advantage of \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.co.nz\/search\/label\/Criticism%20of%20ARCHN\"\u003Ehaving read the book\u003C\/a\u003E. Some have not, but following in the footsteps of Ayn Rand herself do not see this as much of a obstacle to \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.co.nz\/search\/label\/Critics%20Who%20Refuse%20to%20Actually%20Read%20ARCHN\"\u003Evoicing a strong opinion\u003C\/a\u003E. A recent critic, Elliot Temple, happily falls into the former category. He has reviewed the book \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.curi.us\/1578-critical-review-of-ayn-rand-contra-human-nature\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E at his blog, and has also posted it in various Objectivist-friendly corners of the internet. While his review is somewhat lengthy and more than somewhat unfavourable both to the book and to us personally, we are happy to link to it here and let readers make up their own minds as to its merits.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nAll we would note is that Temple is a rare and interesting bird in the Objectivist aviary in that he is both \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.curi.us\/1579-objectivist-and-popperian-epistemology\"\u003Ea fan of Objectivism and Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism\u003C\/a\u003E, two philosophies that are ostensibly opposed. We also advise readers in advance that Temple bills himself as \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.curi.us\/1576-apple-is-proud\"\u003E\"the best living philosopher\"\u003C\/a\u003E, so perhaps we should be flattered to get his attention.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/9030771189204402391\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=9030771189204402391","title":"18 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/9030771189204402391"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/9030771189204402391"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/07\/the-best-living-philosopher-reviews.html","title":"The Best Living Philosopher Reviews ARCHN"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"18"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2497450111980081921"},"published":{"$t":"2013-07-02T22:12:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-07-02T22:14:17.064-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Because It Really Can't Be Said Often Enough."},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.la-articles.org.uk\/alice.htm\"\u003E\"The doctrinal structure of Randism is bluff, buttressed by abuse of all critics.\"\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n- David Ramsay Steele."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2497450111980081921\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2497450111980081921","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2497450111980081921"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2497450111980081921"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/07\/because-it-really-cant-be-said-often.html","title":"Because It Really Can't Be Said Often Enough."}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5846716599570150602"},"published":{"$t":"2013-06-22T19:59:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-06-22T20:00:57.102-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Now We Know"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;\"\u003EThe site \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/objectivistanswers.com\/\"\u003EObjectivist Answers\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;has provided an answer at least one burning question; namely, who is and who isn't an Objectivist. From their \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/objectivistanswers.com\/faq\/\"\u003EFAQ\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cul style=\"background-color: white; border: medium none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0px 0px 1em 20px; padding: 0px;\"\u003E\n\u003Cli style=\"border: medium none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;\"\u003EYou must be an Objectivist, meaning that you agree with and live by the principles of\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandnovels.org\/ayn-rand-ideas\/introduction-to-objectivism.html\" style=\"color: #3060a8; text-decoration: none;\"\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003EAyn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;as best you understand them.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ul\u003E\n\u003Cul style=\"background-color: white; border: medium none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; list-style-image: none; list-style-position: outside; margin: 0px 0px 1em 20px; padding: 0px;\"\u003E\n\u003Cli style=\"border: medium none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;\"\u003EYou are not an Objectivist if you consider yourself to be a\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.aynrand.org\/site\/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians\" style=\"color: #3060a8; text-decoration: none;\"\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003Elibertarian\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;(or associate with the Libertarian Party), advocate\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.aynrand.org\/site\/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv\" style=\"color: #3060a8; text-decoration: none;\"\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003Erevising Objectivism\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;(like David Kelley's \"open system\"), or associate with\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.dianahsieh.com\/ff\/\" style=\"color: #3060a8; text-decoration: none;\"\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003Efalse advocates\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;of Objectivism (like David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, and Chris Sciabarra)\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ul\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;\"\u003EActually, the question it really answers is how Rand's allegedly rational approach to defining terms really operates in practice.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5846716599570150602\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5846716599570150602","title":"32 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5846716599570150602"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5846716599570150602"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/06\/now-we-know.html","title":"Now We Know"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"32"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6451017860947751480"},"published":{"$t":"2013-06-20T18:16:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-06-20T18:16:19.877-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Open Thread"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Oi, you lot with a bunch of unresolved topics to discuss.\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nOver here.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6451017860947751480\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6451017860947751480","title":"174 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6451017860947751480"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6451017860947751480"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/06\/open-thread.html","title":"Open Thread"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"174"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4574753618191762285"},"published":{"$t":"2013-06-20T13:47:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-09-30T15:31:10.045-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"An Objectivist Answers"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"QuantumHaecceity \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.co.nz\/2013\/06\/ayn-rand-epistemology-39.html?showComment=1371755835520\"\u003Ecommented\u003C\/a\u003E on Ayn Rand \u0026amp; Epistemology 39:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWell, I consider myself an expert on Objectivism, so you can run whatever fatal flaws Objectivism is supposed to have by me.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI'll try to answer them in \"real time\"(I.E. in like a day or less, as opposed to say 2 weeks from now)\n\nThat goes out to the particularly irritating, intransigent, belligerent Objectivist haters like Parille, Barnes, Nyquist, and of course Prescott.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis is probably one of the few times this has, or will happen. So take advantage of it...\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nAs I don't want yet another epic thread hijack I've started a new one here.\n\nI'd like to ask Quantum a couple of questions to begin with:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n1) Would you care to post under your real name? Most of the commenters critical of Rand here do, yet hardly any of Rand's defenders do. I'm not sure why. At any rate, it tends to be a bit more convivial.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n2) Have you read Greg's book and\/or many of the posts on this blog? Most of our would-be critics have done neither. If so, that would be a good start.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n3) If not the above, what do you regard as good quality criticisms of Rand?\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cspan style=\"color: red;\"\u003EUpdate:\u003C\/span\u003E My next questions are posted in comments."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/4574753618191762285\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=4574753618191762285","title":"118 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4574753618191762285"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4574753618191762285"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/06\/an-objectivist-answers.html","title":"An Objectivist Answers"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"118"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5650460859511626713"},"published":{"$t":"2013-06-19T10:14:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-25T18:56:54.485-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 39"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 12: Necessity and Rationalistic Speculation.\u003C\/b\u003E In my last post, I introduced some of Peikoff's objections to the view that all facts are contingent. Peikoff described this view as \"secularized mysticism,\" suggesting that belief in the contingency of facts is motivated by a desire to evade reality. However, as with Peikoff's attacks on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, we find LP once again missing the point. Historically, the contingency of facts doctrine has tended to be most popular among empiricists, not because they were fact-evaders, but because they despised rationalistic speculation. Rationalists and Idealists often use necessity to justify reasoning about matters of fact. If all you wish to achieve is to note that \u003Ci\u003Eall bachelors are unmarried\u003C\/i\u003E, or that a\u003Ci\u003Ell the characters of thought have identity\u003C\/i\u003E, or that \u003Ci\u003Eup is opposite from down\u003C\/i\u003E, then there is no real great objection to philosophical speculation. If it is merely an explication of meanings, speculate to your hearts content. But philosophers and ideologues wish to go further. They wish to use philosophical speculation to determine matters of fact. And I'm not talking about trivial facts such as \"The sun rises in the east,\" or \"water flows downhill.\" No, they wish to use speculation to determine facts about the \"nature of man,\" \"necessities in nature,\" the usefulness and\/or \"validation\" of inductive reasoning, and the workings of their favorite moral and\u0026nbsp; political systems. In short, they wish to determine matters of fact which, even under the most rigorous scientific standards of peer review and criticism, are not easily ascertainable, by doing little more than spinning rationalistic webs. Such a method does not provide reliable knowledge of difficult-to-know matters of fact.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EHow is necessity used to justify rationalistic speculation? This is perhaps best explained by necessity's most persuasive advocate, Brand Blanshard, who defined reason as \"the discovery of necessary connections\":\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe office of reason as it works in each of us is thus to construct, or reconstruct, the rational whole. The world of common sense is the result of a long attempt at such reconstruction. The world of the sciences is the result of the same attempt, carried out more critically and resolutely. \u003Ci\u003EThe reason at work in philosophical speculation is not something different from that of these disciplines; it is the same,\u003C\/i\u003E but operating under a more urgent feeling for what integrated knowledge demands. The most obvious of its demands is for consistency... [\u003Ci\u003EReason and Analysis\u003C\/i\u003E, 91, italics added]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nBlanshard is essentially arguing that the reason at work in the sciences is the same as the reason at work in philosophical (i.e., rationalistic) speculation. It's the same because all these forms of reason are attempting to discover \"necessary connections.\" The world, according to Blanshard, \"is shot through with filaments of necessity.\" This means the world is a rational, intelligible order. It also means, at least by implication, that if you can grasp one necessary connection, you can reason yourself to others. If I already have two dollars in my pocket and I add another dollar, mustn't I have three dollars in my pocket? As a matter of logic applied to an ideal situation, yes; but as a matter of fact, no. What if I have a hole in my pocket? Then I might have only two dollars or one dollar. What is true by necessity for thought is not necessarily true empirically of the material world. Truth is fundamentally factual. Facts do not derive their truth from logical tropes or ideal necessities. While reality must have some form or nature, there is no necessity that it should have the particular form that it actually adopts. That the speed of light travels at 186,000 miles per second is a fact. There is no logical necessity in it. If a fact were logically necessary, it would be true, and \u003Ci\u003Eipso facto\u003C\/i\u003E discoverable, a priori. But there are no a priori facts. Facts are empirical through and through. Facts are also surds, inexplicable in and of themselves (i.e., there are no ultimate explanations for them). They are cosmic accidents. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhile Objectivists don't openly argue for necessity in order to justify rationalistic speculation, it's obviously a doctrine that appeals to their zeal for certainty. \"Truths about ... facts are learned and validated by ... observation; and, \u003Ci\u003Equa truths\u003C\/i\u003E, ... are ... necessary,\" writes Peikoff, adding \"all truths are [necessary].\" Peikoff's main argument for this position seems to be merely that \"a true proposition \u003Ci\u003Emust\u003C\/i\u003E describe facts as they are.\" [111] However, here Peikoff seems to be confusing truth with necessity. What does it mean to say that a truth is \"necessary\"? In philosophy, it usually means, \"it couldn't be any other way.\" The problem is: how can we know it couldn't be any other way? If there are no ultimate explanations (and there isn't: even God's existence wouldn't constitute an ultimate explanation), then how can we know that things could not have been different? After all, we assume things could be different all the time. Objectivists admit that there is a sort of contigency in facts when it comes to human volition; but they insist that no metaphysical fact could be different.\u0026nbsp; To think otherwise, Objectivists seem to imply, opens the door to wishful thinking. But is this really true? Per usual, Objectivists provide no particular examples.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt could be argued that we don't really know whether facts are ultimately contingent or necessary. Even so, on pragmatic grounds, the contingency view appears more useful, at least for science and open-minded inquiry. It opens the door to counter-factuals, which, oddly enough, Objectivists often have trouble accepting. As Rob Bass \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.oocities.org\/athens\/Olympus\/2178\/itoe.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Enoted\u003C\/a\u003E: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nObjectivists seem allergic to considering hypothetical or counterfactual cases. They are apt to accuse anyone who employs arguments involving counterfactuals of being “rationalistic\" or “not grounded in reality.\" Apparently, they think this charge, which is usually unexplained, is sufficient to get them off the hook of having to actually address those arguments. The arguments are dismissed as arbitrary or meaningless or some such thing. Oddly, I find little warrant for this particular bit of lunacy in Rand’s own writings. (Is she to be accused of rationalism when she talks about indestructible robots?) Nonetheless, the attitude is quite common among Objectivists.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI could speculate that this is defensive maneuver to keep from having to deal with hard questions that Objectivism is ill-equipped to handle, but, for now, I will place little weight upon that speculation. I will confine myself to pointing out that reference to counterfactuals is nearly unavoidable if you want to think clearly about issues in philosophy of science such as causation and laws of nature. The claim, for example, that it is a law of nature that (say) unsupported rocks fall to the ground does not just report a regularity in the behavior of rocks. It also implies things like “if this rock were unsupported (which it isn’t), then it would fall ? – and that can be true even if the rock never is unsupported. Note that this is not just a material conditional (which is always true when the antecedent – the if-clause – is false) because we also want to deny claims like “if this rock were unsupported (which it isn’t), then it would turn into a bird and fly away.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nA very similar point can be made about causation. To say that an event, A, causes another event, B, is not just to report that A is followed by B, but also implies (if there are no other causes of B or other possibilities for the occurrence of B about) that if A had not occurred, B would not have occurred.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhether we speak of laws of nature or of causation, an adequate understanding of what is meant is not possible without reference to situations that do not actually occur – that is, without reference to counterfactuals. If we refuse to deal with counterfactuals, then the most that we will be able to manage in this area is some kind of Humean regularity analysis of causation and of laws of nature.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOnce we admit counterfactuals, as we must to address important issues in the philosophy of science, it will be much harder for Objectivists to dismiss other arguments as merely hypothetical or rationalistic word-spinning. They will have to offer specific reasons that particular arguments that appeal to counterfactual states of affairs go wrong (if they do). General objections to counterfactual arguments won’t do the job.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAlthough the Objectivist \"allergy\" to counter-factuals is, as Bass speculates, most likely rooted in a desire to evade difficult questions which Objectivism is ill-equipped to answer, the belief in necessary facts essentially rationalizes this evasion and hardens it. The Objectivist allegation that counter-factuals are \"rationalistic\"\u0026nbsp; involves a misunderstanding of rationalism and empiricism. Philosophers like Hume don't criticize rationalistic speculation because its rationalistic or speculative; they criticize it because it was often used to establish matters of fact. There's nothing wrong with rationalistic speculation, provided it is recognized as speculation, rather than fact. Speculations can be the source of\u0026nbsp; rich hypotheses that can form the basis of various research programs and scientific experiments.\u0026nbsp; After all, Einstien's theory of relativity had it's origin in speculative thought; but, and this is the critical point, it didn't end merely in speculation: on the contrary, it became the basis of experiments which corroborated the veracity of its claims. Philosophers may speculate all they like; what they shouldn't do is claim their speculations are true because they are \"rational\" or based on \"necessary\" truths. There are no such necessary truths which can form the basis of true speculations about matters of fact. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nObjectivists are fond of\u0026nbsp; Rand's \"stolen concept\" fallacy to refute views they disagree with. Couldn't Objectivists argue for necessity on the grounds that all denials of necessity must assume necessity? I'll examine this in my next post. "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5650460859511626713\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5650460859511626713","title":"21 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5650460859511626713"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5650460859511626713"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/06\/ayn-rand-epistemology-39.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 39"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"21"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8169508001683269719"},"published":{"$t":"2013-05-30T11:02:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-25T18:57:54.757-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 38"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 11: Necessity and Contingency.\u003C\/b\u003E After flogging the analytical synthetic dichotomy for several pages, Peikoff focuses on a new target: \"the dichotomy between necessary and contingent facts.\" Per usual with Peikoff, he labors under the presumption that there is a kind of consensus governing contemporary philosophy on this issue:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n[The necessary-contingent dichotomy] was interpreted in the twentieth century as follows: since facts are learned by experience, and experience does not reveal necessity, the concept \"necessary facts\" must be abandoned. Facts, it is now held, are one and all contingent --- and the propositions describing them are \"contingent truths.\" As for necessary truths, they are merely the products of man's linguistic or conceptual conventions. They do not refer to facts, they are empty, \"analytic,\" \"tautological.\" [107]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAlthough not all or even most contemporary philosopher accept the necessary-contingent dichotomy, those that do advocate it believe in something close to what Peikoff describes. In other words, Peikoff has not grossly misstated this particular view, which is unusual for him. What, then, is his objection to this dichotomy? His main objection is the view, supposedly entailed by the dichotomy, that facts are contingent. Such a view, contends Peikoff, \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nrepresents a failure to grasp the Law of Identity. Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it \u003Ci\u003Ewill\u003C\/i\u003E do. The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so. [108-109]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff is here guilty of doing the very thing that the analytic-synthetic dichotomy (and the necessity-contingent dichotomy that underlies it) was set up to discourage: that is, Peikoff is engaged in verbalistic speculation. He is attempting to determine matters of fact on the basis of logical and verbal constructions. The \"law of causality\" is not \"entailed\" by the \"law of identity.\" The so-called \"law of identity\" is a tautology; and you can't draw specific inferences from tautologies. What if the identity of a given object is that it is governed by chance? If chance can be the identity of something, like a pair of dice, then any talk of causality being \"entailed\" by the phrase \"A is A\" is sheer nonsense.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAnother objection Peikoff raises to the notion that facts are contingent is that, historically, that view \"was associated with a supernaturalistic metaphysics; such facts, it was said, are products of a divine creator who could have created them differently... This view represents the metaphysics of miracles.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHere Peikoff resorts to a common Objectivist trick: he attempts to dismiss one view by relating it to another view. In other words, guilt by association. Since Hume most philosophers who believe in the contingency of facts are not motivated by a supernatural agenda. Nor are they, as Peikoff alleges, guilty of a \"secularized mysticism.\" The secular belief in the contingency of facts arises out of the desire to stop rationalistic speculation at its very root. This may not seem obvious at first glance, but a more detailed explication, to be provided in the next post, will make it clear that it is so.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8169508001683269719\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8169508001683269719","title":"486 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8169508001683269719"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8169508001683269719"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/05\/analytic-synthetic-dichotomy-11.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 38"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"486"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7611550949346366969"},"published":{"$t":"2013-05-09T13:09:00.003-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T10:04:33.881-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 37"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytical-Synthetic Dichotomy 10: Peikoff's Argument\u003C\/b\u003E. In a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/03\/ayn-rand-epistemology-31.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eprevious post\u003C\/a\u003E, I criticized Peikoff's theory of meaning, which asserts that \"the meaning of a concept consists of the units ... it integrates.\" This Objectivist theory of meaning, as I noted in that post, contains both platonist and positivistic aspects. It separates meaning from individual intent and turns concepts into quasi-platonist entities that literally transcribe the world. As a theory of meaning, it is not merely absurd according to the the standards of good sense, but even in terms of Rand's own philosophy. To be sure, Objectivism contains its fair share of absurdities. However, many of Rand's metaphysical and epistemological doctrines, if interpreted generously, have at least an aura of plausibility about them. They at least attempt to\u0026nbsp;pay lip service to common sense and practical efficacy. But the Objectivist theory of meaning seems bad all the way through. It's not only bad philosophy, it's bad Objectivism as well. It is not consistent with Rand's own theory of \"unit economy,\" or with Rand's career as a writer of fiction. Meaning cannot be confined to the literally true, as Rand's theory of meaning, if it were consistently applied, would demand.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003ESo how do we account for so bad a theory, bad even by Objectivist standards, in the very bowels of the Rand's epistemology? I suspect that the badness of the theory stems from the fact that it was devised, not to actually develop an understanding of real, practical meaning, but merely to serve a very limited polemical end of \"refuting\" the analytical synthetic dichotomy. In Peikoff's essay, the Objectivist theory of meaning constitutes the main argument against the ASD:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIt follows [from the Objectivist theory of meaning] that there are no grounds on which to distinguish \"analytic\" from \"synthetic\" propositions. Whether one states that \"A man is a rational animal,\" or that \"A man has only two eyes\" -- in both cases, the predicted characteristics are true of man and are, therefore, included in the concept \"man.\" [100]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff's argument is a non sequitar. It is based on the erroneous assumption that the purpose of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy is to drive a wedge between logic from fact. I've already discussed the purpose of the ASD \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/01\/ayn-rand-epistemology-29.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E and \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/02\/ayn-rand-epistemology-30.html#more\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E. The ASD does not seperate logic from fact; it merely distinguishes between propositions based on empirical research and those based on analysis of meaning. Peikoff, Rand and their followers seem to be congenitally incapable of understanding this distinction. They resent attacks on rationalistic speculation (i.e., \"pure reason\"), perhaps because such attacks would deprive Objectivism of its chief \u003Ci\u003Emodus operendi\u003C\/i\u003E. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIs there a compelling reason for distinguishing between propositions based on analysis of meaning and propositions based on empirical research? Of course there is. Any philosophy which attempts to determine matters of fact by analyzing the meaning of words is clearly guilty of adopting a pernicious approach. So why not have a tool which allows us to make this distinction?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIs it possible that the ASD is misused by some philosophers? Of course it is. What tool isn't misused? I would contend that the chief abuse of the ASD is to assume that all propositions are exclusively analytic or synthetic. It seems to me that some statements can be both, depending on their source. To the extent that a statement is an expression of empirical research and testing, it is \"synthetic.\" To the extent that it is based on little more than an analysis of meaning (i.e., definition mongering), it is analytic. Contrary to Peikoff's assertion, analytic statements can in fact contain information about reality: they may in fact be empirically true. However, if they are based only on an analysis of meaning, they have no epistemological warrant. They can't be trusted. They may be true, but until they're tested, we can't know whether they are true or false. Only when empirical evidence has been brought forward in their favor can they be entertained as viable conjectures about the matters of fact. But in that case they're no longer solely analytical. The statement \"Man is a rational animal\" goes from being an analytical statement (assuming it really is one) to a synthetic statement once it becomes a testable hypothesis about the real world. If it remains merely \"true by definition,\" then one cannot rationally assume it is true \"in reality.\" Truth is not determined by definitions or meaning. Truth is determined by observation, experimentation, and the testing of hypotheses. Once the rudiments of truth are broached and begin to illuminate the mind, meanings are brought forward to describe that truth. Meanings are not true in and of themselves, but are merely symbols used to express and relate assertions, some of which may describe matters of fact. Rand and Peikoff, with their mania for definitions and literal truth, somehow never understood this. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7611550949346366969\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7611550949346366969","title":"184 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7611550949346366969"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7611550949346366969"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/05\/ayn-rand-epistemology-37.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 37"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"184"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6020737286550253335"},"published":{"$t":"2013-04-20T08:01:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-25T19:00:29.684-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Essentialism"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 36"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 9: Thinking in Essentials Redux\u003C\/b\u003E. Peikoff resumes his jihad against nominalism with the following bit of libelous persiflage:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nOn a rational view of definition, a definition organizes and condenses — and thus helps one to retain — a wealth of knowledge about the characteristics of a concept's units. On the nominalist view, it is precisely this knowledge that is discarded when one defines a concept: as soon as a defining characteristic is chosen, all the other characteristics of the units are banished from the concept, which shrivels to a mere definition. For instance, as long as a child's concept of \"man\" is retained ostensively, the child knows that man has a head, two eyes, two arms, etc.; on the nominalist view as soon as the child defines \"man,\" he discards all this knowledge; thereafter, \"man\" means to him only: \"a thing with rationality and animality.\" [IOTE, 104]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNote the complete absence of empirical examples to support Peikoff's contentions: which nominalists, after all, believe the people discard knowledge after defining words? Is it too much to ask for names, followed by documented evidence? This absence of evidence is not only intentional, but necessary: there can be no examples because it's unlikely any nominalist ever held the position attributed them by Peikoff in this passage. What Peikoff and other Objectivists still can't seem to grasp is that definitions define words, not concepts. The definition explains how a particular word is to be used. It gives the meaning of the word in different terms. Neither Rand nor Peikoff ever bothered to provide evidence for the assertion that definitions organize and condense knowledge about the characteristics of a concept's units. Since definitions only express the same meaning in different words, they add no knowledge about external matters of fact (other than knowledge about word usage). \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI'm not aware of any philosopher, nominalist or otherwise, who believes the definitions allow one to \"banish\" all the other characteristics of a concept. The philosopher who comes closest to this position (at least in practice) is, ironically, Ayn Rand. While Rand certainly would not have supported the position that definitions allow one to discard inessential characteristics, she did suggest that such characteristics can be ignored due to the need for \"unit-economy.\" Consider the following passage:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIt is the principle of unit-economy that necessitates the definition of concepts in terms of \u003Ci\u003Eessential \u003C\/i\u003Echaracteristics. If, when in doubt, a man recalls a concept's definition [i.e., he focuses on the \"essential\" characteristics to the detriment of the \"inessential\" characteristics] the essential characteristic(s) will give him an instantaneous grasp of the concept's meaning, i.e., the nature of its referents. For example, if he is considering some social theory and recalls that \"man is a rational animal,\" he will evaluate the validity of the theory accordingly; but if, instead, he recalls that\u0026nbsp; \"man is an animal possessing a thumb,\" his evaluation and conclusion will be quite different. [IOTE, 65]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand is using \"unit-economy\" as an excuse for adopting a cliff notes view of knowledge. The meaning of a concept may include (for Rand) all the characteristics of its referents, but in practice one can ignore most of these characteristics and concentrate merely on the essential ones, those which are used in the definition, because, she insists, the essential characteristics supposedly gives one an \"instantaneous grasp of the concept's meaning.\" Judging merely in terms of practical consequences, it is difficult to distinguish between Rand's theory (where non-essential characteristics can be ignored) and the theory Peikoff ascribes to \"nominalists\" (where non-essential characteristics are \"banished\"). Whether banished or ignored makes not a jot of difference when it comes to practical consequences. In either case, characteristics deemed as \"non-essential\" play no part in the evaluation and ultimate conclusion. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSince nominalists are not in fact guilty of Peikoff's allegations against them, Rand alone stands indited. Like many ideologues on the extreme ends of the spectrum, Peikoff is guilty of projection. He is making accusations against his adversaries which more aptly describe his own philosophy and that of his mentor. Peikoff has long touted Rand's ability to \"think in essentials.\" But what is this \"thinking in essentials\" other than an ignoring of non-essentials? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff continues his rant against nominalism in the following vein:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nOn the nominalist view, the process of defining a concept is a process of cutting the concept off from its referents, and of systematically evading what one knows about their characteristics. Definition, the very tool which is designed to promote conceptual integration, becomes an agent of its destruction, a means of \u003Ci\u003Edisintegration\u003C\/i\u003E. [IOTE, 104]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhy isn't \"thinking in essentials\" a \"systematic evading\" of \"what one knows about a referent's characteristics?\" Why isn't Rand guilty, when she ignores \"non-essentials,\" of \"cutting the concept off from its referents?\" Rand and Peikoff are guilty of that which they (falsely) accuse their adversaries. Rand's very example of thinking in essentials demonstrates the cognitive destruction of her approach. Rand would have us evaluate social theories on the basis of her definition of man, i.e., on her (largely unsubstantiated) conjecture that man is a \"rational animal.\" This definition would dismiss, without a jot of evidence, the immense body of work accomplished by sociologists like Vilfredo Pareto and social psychologists like Jonathan Haidt. If there is anyone guilty of evasion and cognitive \"disintegration,\" it is Rand, not her (mostly imaginary) philosophical enemies. Rand wanted to believe that the course of history could be changed through arguments and definition -- that, in short, human nature could be altered through mere patter. It's not facts or hard data that Rand deals with, but only her own wishful thinking. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6020737286550253335\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6020737286550253335","title":"131 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6020737286550253335"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6020737286550253335"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/04\/ayn-rand-epistemology-36.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 36"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"131"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6892950634062340624"},"published":{"$t":"2013-04-10T15:22:00.004-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T10:07:34.317-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 35"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 8: Propostions Redux. \u003C\/b\u003EOne attractive feature of Peikoff's essay on the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy is that it contains several unequivocal statements about some of Rand's more controversial opinions. Hence we find in the essay the clearest expression of Rand's views about the relation between concepts and propositions:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWithout a theory of concepts as a foundation, one cannot, in reason, adopt \u003Ci\u003Eany\u003C\/i\u003E theory about the nature or kinds of propositions: propositions are only combinations of concepts. [IOTE, 97]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis view is manifestly false. Indeed, it's so palpably erroneous that one wonders why Rand adopted it. Perhaps she considered it necessary to nip the horrors of linguistic analysis in the bud. If so, she chose a cure that was worse than the disease.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThat propositions are more than just combinations of concepts can be observed from how propositions affect and even create meaning. The meaning of words (which for Rand symbolize concepts) changes depending on how they are used in propositions. And many words have no meaning at all if used by themselves. Objectivists seem to be guilty of the fallacy that, merely because each word has a dictionary meaning, that words (and by implication concepts) mean something when used outside of propositions. However, most words convey no meaning when not used in a proposition.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAssume that a stranger shouted at you \"Broccoli!\" Would you have any idea what he meant? You would not. If instead he shouted \"I like broccoli\" or \"I hate broccoli\" you would know immediately what he meant. But the word by itself, unless used as an answer to a question (e.g., \"What vegetable would you like?\"), conveys no meaning\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSome words do convey meanings by themselves, such as \"Help!\" \"Damn!\" and \"Idiot!\" These words convey meaning because we assume \"help\" means \"I need help,\" \"Damn\" means \"I'm frustrated,\" and \"Idiot!\" means \"You are an idiot.\" These words imply propositions, which convey meaning. If they did not imply a readily understood proposition, these words, when uttered by themselves, would be as meaningless as utterances of \"Broccoli\" or \"Triceps.\" To convey meaning you have to say something about an idea, or express an emotion, or attempt to attract attention.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPropositions affect meanings of the words. A proposition is simply not the sum of its meanings. How words are combined, the syntax of the sentence, affects individual meanings. Consider the following propositions.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Col\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EScientologists hate cats.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003ECats hate scientologists.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EScientologists hate the cat.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EScientologists hate a cat.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ol\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPropositions 1 and 2 use the exact same words, yet they don't mean the same thing. How words are combined is at least as important as the words themselves. Yet there is more to it than that. The meaning of these sentences is also affected by the overall context in which they are used and even by the tone in which they are expressed. Note as well how the meanings of the words are altered by adding the and a in propositions 3 and 4.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nYet this is not all. The meanings are affected by the context in which the propositions are expressed. If a stranger came up to you and said \"I hate the cat,\" you wouldn't be sure what specific cat he might be referring to. But if you knew the person had a cat named Felix and assumed that the phrase \"the cat\" meant Felix, then you would know \"precisely\" what was meant by \"the cat.\" Note, however, that the precision derives, not from a clearer definition of the terms the or cat, but from greater information of the context in which the phrase is uttered. Knowledge derives from knowledge about things, not from \"knowledge\" about the meanings of words. Words merely express and communicate claims about matters of fact. They are not facts in and of themselves.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAs I have repeatedly emphasized, words have no meaning independent of the meanings those who use them wish to convey. Therefore, there is no such thing as \"true\" meaning: there is only the meaning than a given individual is attempting to express. That meaning might be well or ill expressed; but the point is to try to understand what a person actually means, rather than merely interpreting (or, rather, misinterpreting) the words they use. We want to know, not what words mean, but what people mean by the words they use. This is an important distinction that Rand refused to grasp.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSuppose two individuals, Peter and Paul, both announce, \"I hate cats.\" Do the words mean the same thing in both instances? Not necessarily. Let us suppose Peter enjoys torturing, dismembering, and butchering cats. Paul, on the other hand, owns a couple of cats and generally treats cats well. This being the case, can we conclude that Peter and Paul mean the exact same thing by the words \u003Ci\u003EI hate cats\u003C\/i\u003E?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nObviously not. We have every reason to believe that Peter is telling the literal truth. Paul, however, is either lying or he is being sarcastic. He might really mean, \"I like cats, but sometimes they get on my nerves.\" Much would depend on how Paul enunciates the phrase \u003Ci\u003EI hate cats\u003C\/i\u003E. If he speaks in a tone that's clearly sarcastic, it will be obvious that he doesn't really hate cats. A proposition can mean something entirely different, perhaps even opposite of the literal meaning of the words, depending on the tone with which the words are enunciated. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHence, Peikoff's statement is not true. Propositions are much more than a mere combination of concepts. Propositions mean whatever they're meant to mean by those who use them. They are attempts at expression. There is no relevant meaning independent, or contrary to, this intended meaning. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6892950634062340624\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6892950634062340624","title":"14 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6892950634062340624"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6892950634062340624"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/04\/ayn-rand-epistemology-35.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 35"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"14"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-56675557863302630"},"published":{"$t":"2013-04-06T21:22:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-04-06T21:22:15.541-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"That's What You Said The Last Two Times"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=t9oWW3yHuAQ\"\u003E\"We're going to get it right\"\u003C\/a\u003E - Atlas Shrugged Part 3 producer John Aglialoro"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/56675557863302630\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=56675557863302630","title":"24 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/56675557863302630"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/56675557863302630"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/04\/thats-what-you-said-last-two-times.html","title":"That's What You Said The Last Two Times"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"24"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3847034025062990925"},"published":{"$t":"2013-03-29T08:48:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T10:15:59.105-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 34"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 7: Naming and Knowledge.\u003C\/b\u003E I have repeatedly insisted that definitions define word usage. Perhaps, before we go any further, this needs to be fleshed out a bit. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNaming an object, a process, or an attribute involves little if any knowledge. Take the word \u003Ci\u003Epoison\u003C\/i\u003E. This term can be defined as any chemical substance that injures, impairs, or kills an organism. Note that this definition doesn't actually specify what chemical substances are in fact poisons or whether such substances exist. It merely states that if a chemical substance injures, impairs, or kills, then we will call it a \"poison.\" \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nDoes this definition of \u003Ci\u003Epoison \u003C\/i\u003Eprovide any non-trivial information about matters of fact? No, it does not. It is quite possible to know the definition of poison and yet know nothing of any specific poison. The definition of poison merely provides a naming convention. If you come across a substance that harms or kills an organism, it's \"poison.\" But a naming convention is not knowledge. Knowing what to call things is different from knowing \u003Ci\u003Eabout \u003C\/i\u003Ethings.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EWhat are called \"analytical truths\" are merely deductions from naming conventions. This is why analytical truths are considered empty and tautological. They provide little if any information about matters of fact. They merely explain how various objects of thought are labeled. Hence the bad repute which definitional arguments have. Matters of fact cannot be determined on the basis of naming conventions. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn his essay on the Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy, Peikoff writes, \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nDenying that concepts have an objective basis in the facts of reality, nominalists declare that the source of concepts is a subjective human decision: men \u003Ci\u003Earbitrarily\u003C\/i\u003E select certain characteristics to serve as the basis (the \"essentials\") for a classification; thereafter, they agree to apply the same term to any concretes that happen to exhibit these \"essentials.\" [IOTE, 96]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff has provided here a malicious and distorted version of the theory I limned earlier in this post. He begins by declaring that nominalists deny \"that concepts have an objective basis in the facts of reality.\" I'm not aware of a single nominalist who has ever said such a thing. Neither Locke, Hume, or Berkeley ever make such a statement. Peikoff really needs to provide specific examples and citations if he wishes to be taken seriously. Peikoff next attributes to nominalists the belief that the \"source of concepts is a subjective human decision.\" Again, who among the major nominalists believes such a thing? Nominalists merely believe that \u003Ci\u003Ewords \u003C\/i\u003Eare \"subjective\" human decisions. Peikoff is here guilty of confusing concepts with words and then applying his confusion to the views of nominalists. Next we find Peikoff trotting out Rand's favorite scare-word, \"arbitrary.\" The nominalists, according to Peikoff, believe that essential characteristics are \"arbitrarily selected.\" This suggests that such characteristics are picked at random, like tickets at a lottery. This is yet another malicious distortion. Nominalists usually talk about concepts being formed on the basis of \"convenience.\" This is little different from Rand's own theory, which claims that concepts are formed on the basis of cognitive efficiency.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff proceeds with a masterful bit of malicious distortion, as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n[Nominalists] commonly advance the [analytic-synthetic] dichotomy as a self-contained primary, independent of any theory of concepts. Indeed, they usually insist that the issue of concept-formation --- since it is \"empirical,\" not \"logical\" --- is outside the province of philosophy. (!) (Thus, they use the dichotomy to discredit in advance any inquiry into the issues on which the dichotomy itself depends.) [IOTE, 97]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff begins here with an entirely unsubstantiated, and indeed, not entirely coherent allegation: nominalists take the analytic-synthetic dichotomy as a \"primary\"! I suppose what Peikoff is suggesting is that nominalists don't provide reasons for accepting the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. That allegation is simply not true. The analytic-synthetic dichotomy, as I pointed out in an \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/01\/ayn-rand-epistemology-29.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eearlier post\u003C\/a\u003E, is an attack on rationalistic speculation. It attempts to demonstrate the futility of determining matters of fact by analyzing the meanings of words. It constitutes a frontal assault on Rand's own methods used in rationalizing Objectivism. That is why Peikoff resents the dichotomy and tries to refute it.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHaving accused nominalists of taking the ASD as a primary, Peikoff next does an about face and accuses nominalists of being too empirical. Since such criticism could easily make Peikoff look bad, he places the word empirical in quotes, as if to suggest that the nominalist appeal to facts is phony. After all, aren't these the same folks who believe in the ASD for no reason at all? Peikoff, having distorted and caricaturized nominalism in this fashion can now deliver the final blow: nominalists have the nerve to insist that the issue of concept-formation is \"outside the province of philosophy\"! \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHere we find the primary motive for Rand's and Peikoff's hatred of the ASD encaspulated in a single sentence. If by \"philosophy\" we mean \"the attempt to determine matters of fact on the basis of logical, rhetorical, and moral constructions,\" then the nominalists are guilty as charged. The nominalist believes that matters of fact should be determined empirically, presumably through \"scientific\" and\/or \"peer reviewed\" research. Rand and Peikoff believe that concept-formation should be determined in much the same way that Aristotle determined facts about the physical universe: that is, through arm-chair speculation vaguely based on notions derived from \"common sense.\" It didn't work for Aristotle; why should we expect it to work for Rand and Peikoff? Concept-formation is an issue dealing with matters of fact. It is far too complicated a subject to be determined via arm chair speculation based on \"common sense\" or introspection. It requires sophisticated research techniques combined with exhaustive criticism and peer review. To render an appeal to \"philosophy\" (i.e., rationalistic speculation) as a kind of badge of honor demonstrates just the sort of empirical irresponsibility that characterizes the Objectivist \u003Ci\u003Emodus operendi\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff next trots out Rand's theory of concept formation as the answer to the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Once again, Peikoff demonstrates his cluelessnes about the ASD. The origin of concepts are irrelevant to this issue. The ASD, to the extent that it has relevance, is primarily about drawing a distinction between assertions based on empirical observations and assertions based on the analysis of meaning. If we wish to communicate meanings or consciously think about them, it helps to name them. But the act of naming fails to provide non-trivial information about matters of fact. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWe can see that this is so by returning to the example of \u003Ci\u003Epoison\u003C\/i\u003E. Knowing the definition of \u003Ci\u003Epoison \u003C\/i\u003Edoes not provide any knowledge about poisons; it merely states that any chemical substance we come across that harms, impairs, or kills organisms we will label as poison. Knowledge only arises when we discover, through empirical research, substances that correspond to our definition. The definition itself tells us nothing of reality, only what some attribute or substance, whether real or not, may be labeled.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNow an Objectivist could argue, in response to this, that the concept \u003Ci\u003Epoison \u003C\/i\u003Ecould only be formed after some individual had discovered, through observation and experimentation, the actual substance. Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant. If the concept of \u003Ci\u003Epoison \u003C\/i\u003Ecould only be developed after an acquaintance of an actual chemical substance that harms, impairs, and\/or kills, that is of little consequence: the definition of poison still remains a naming convention. Knowledge of matters of fact does not arise from meaning; it arises only when we assume that a given meaning describes an actual matter of fact. The fact that a given meaning was originally inspired by empirical observation does not in any way reflect on the potential validity or usefulness of the ASD. Meanings are neither true or false, valid or invalid, they just are. Rand's favorite tautology, \u003Ci\u003EA is A\u003C\/i\u003E, applies, not to facts, but to meanings. The identification of matters of fact is a much more complicated matter which is best represented by the phrase \u003Ci\u003EA exists\u003C\/i\u003E or \u003Ci\u003EA is\u003C\/i\u003E. (And the identification of attributes involves predication, i.e, \u003Ci\u003EA is B\u003C\/i\u003E.) Once a meaning is formed, it can be used to describe both fact and fiction, truth and error. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nFurther evidence for this point of view can be derived from the fact that some concepts really do begin their careers \u003Ci\u003Eprior \u003C\/i\u003Eto experience. \u003Ci\u003ERobot\u003C\/i\u003E, for example, is a term first introduced\u0026nbsp; by the Czech playwright Karel Čapek, who used it to describe creatures produced by a factory in his play \u003Ci\u003ER.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)\u003C\/i\u003E. But the meaning or concept of \u003Ci\u003Erobots \u003C\/i\u003Eantedates the term and originates in ancient mythology. \u003Ci\u003EAtom\u003C\/i\u003E is an example of another term that began prior to any experience or evidence of atoms. When scientific evidence for the existence of atoms began to emerge, the meaning of the term had to be revised. But that often happens with meanings. If a person comes across something new in the factual world, he will often hunt for some familiar meaning to describe it. This is the primary reason why words have multiple related meanings. Often when confronted with something new, people don't invent a new meaning to describe it; instead they adapt an older meaning to fit the new discovery. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nBy implication, Objectivism assumes that matters of fact can only be determined if concepts are originally based on facts. This theory involves a complete confusion of the role of concepts in cognition. Concepts are items of description. They are like the various colors of paint plastered on a canvas. By itself, a smudge of paint tells us nothing about matters of fact. Only when the paint is organized into a picture, can it represent an object in reality. Meanings act the same way. By themselves, they are cognitively inert. Only when organized into propositions can they represent matters of fact.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3847034025062990925\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3847034025062990925","title":"9 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3847034025062990925"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3847034025062990925"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/03\/ayn-rand-epistemology-34.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 34"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"9"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1012236259027133349"},"published":{"$t":"2013-03-26T07:21:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-03-26T11:41:22.432-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 33"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 6\u003C\/b\u003E:\u003Cb\u003E Identity, Understanding, and Platonism.\u003C\/b\u003E Where do concepts exist? Where do they reside? In his essay on the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, Peikoff makes the following assertion:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWhat, then, is the meaning of the concept \"man\"? \"Man\" means a certain type of entity, a rational animal, including \u003Ci\u003Eall\u003C\/i\u003E the characteristics of this entity (anatomical, physiological, psychological, etc. as well as the relation of those characteristics to those of other entities) --- all the characteristics already known, and all those ever to be discovered. Whatever is true of the entity, is meant by the concept. \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIt follows that there are no grounds on which to distinguish \"analytic\" from \"synthetic\" propositions. Whether one states that \"A man is a rational animal,\" or that \"A man has only two eyes\" --- in both cases, the predicated characteristics are true of man and are, therefore, included in the concept \"man.\" [IOTE, 100]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nI have already \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/03\/ayn-rand-epistemology-32.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ecriticized this view of meaning\u003C\/a\u003E on the assumption that a person can only mean what he knows. It could also be criticized for assuming that people always mean what is \"true of the entity.\" What if they mean something else? What if they intend to use words to deceive or to rationalize? But there's another criticism I would like to introduce in this post, one which I have previously broached but which needs to be explained in more detail. Peikoff speaks about\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003Ethe\u003C\/i\u003E concept \"man.\" This concept, he says, includes \"all the characteristics already known, and all those ever to be discovered.\" Now the concepts that people actually have in their minds don't, as far as we can tell, include \"all the characteristics known and to be discovered.\" How could they? An individual's conception of something can only include what \u003Ci\u003Ehe \u003C\/i\u003Eknows of it. Peikoff, however, writes of concepts as if they are some sort of supra-human thing, identical in all respects regardless of where they might reside.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EKeep in mind, Objectivists claim that concepts are \"produced by man's consciousness in accordance with the facts of reality, as mental integrations of factual data computed by man --- as the products of a cognitive method of classification whose processes must be performed by man, but whose content is dictated by reality.\" [IOTE, 53] If concepts are produced by man's consciousness from \"mental integrations,\" how can they include information that was in fact never\u0026nbsp;observed, perceived, remembered and integrated by any mind? The actual concepts produced by an individual's consciousness (assuming, per implausible, that consciousness does in fact, solely by its own resources, produce concepts) cannot possibly be the concepts imagined by Rand and Peikoff. An individual's concept of \u003Ci\u003Eman \u003C\/i\u003Ecannot possibly include things he doesn't know and has never experienced. So if there is such a concept that does include \"whatever is true of the entity,\" whether known or unknown, where does that concept reside? In whose mind or brain does it linger?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe insistence that concepts including everything about their referents has led not only this critic, but \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.reasonpapers.com\/pdf\/20\/rp_20_3.pdf%5D\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eothers\u003C\/a\u003E as well, to conclude that Objectivists have unwittingly turned concepts into \"quasi-Platonic entitites.\" The actual conceptions that people have of things, being produced, as Rand insists, by their own minds, can hardly contain information that is \"unknown.\" Information that is unknown is information that has never been held in someone's mind; for if it had been held in someone's mind, it would have been known at least in that one instance. A concept containing unknown information must therefore exist \u003Ci\u003Eoutside \u003C\/i\u003Eof the mind. Where, then, can this non-mental concept exist, if not in some quasi-Platonic realm?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nObviously Rand did not intend to embrace a quasi-Platonic view of concepts. The fact that her theory implies such a view mostly like arises from a confusion between identity and understanding. Each person has their own conceptions of things; but these concepts, although unique to each individual, refer to common sets of objects that are given the same names. To decorate her concepts with an aura of objectivity, Rand sought to downplay the unique, personal nature of concepts. She tacitly assumed that for a concept to be \"objective,\" it had to be the same for everyone. If the concept of \u003Ci\u003Eman \u003C\/i\u003Ewere not identical for every individual, then how could people communicate? After all, wouldn't the concept have to be identical if it were referring to the same thing? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhat Rand failed to fully grasp is that a concept could be the same in so far as it referred to the same set of objects, and yet be different in in terms of its depth of understanding, the amount of information it contained, and the degree of truth and falsity which it exhibited. Everyone could know what a man is, yet have different notions of the nature of men. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAt times, Rand seems to suggest that misunderstandings arise often (if not solely) from some sort of misidentification or confusion over what a thing is or what it should be called. As Rand herself puts it, the people she dislikes (and they constitute a very large group) are guilty of denying that \"A is A.\" Oddly enough, she provides little if any specific examples of this, other than a few vague suggestions based on various misreadings of Kant, Hume, and other modern philosophers. Generally speaking, errors and falsehoods arise, not from misidentification or mislabeling, but from mistaken notions about the referents of concepts. People usually know what things are (in the sense that they can name them and distinguish them from other objects). Where they lapse into error is in the predications: in their notions of the characteristics of things. For example, a person may entertain false notions concerning human nature. Rand herself was guilty of that. Yet these false notions don't prevent them from being able to distinguish human beings from other animals. There's no evidence that Rand, despite her erroneous views about human beings, ever had trouble distinguishing a man from an ape or any other animal.\u0026nbsp; Grasping that a given object belongs to a specific class of things turns out not to be very difficult or controversial. We usually know how to name and group objects into classes. It's our assertions about these classes of objects where the trouble begins. Rand somehow failed to grasp this distinction.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1012236259027133349\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1012236259027133349","title":"27 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1012236259027133349"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1012236259027133349"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/03\/ayn-rand-epistemology-33.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 33"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"27"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8728762225167422458"},"published":{"$t":"2013-03-19T10:15:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T10:24:04.372-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 32"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 5: Meaning, Intention, and Truth.\u003C\/b\u003E In my last post, I criticized the Objectivist theory of meaning for being both quasi-Platonist and quasi-positivist. However, that only skims the surface of what is wrong with the theory. There is a much more serious problem with the Objectivist theory of meaning, which is this: \u003Ci\u003Eit is not true\u003C\/i\u003E. As a theory of meaning, it is inextricably incoherent. It confuses meaning and truth. If taken to its ultimate, logical conclusion, it would assert that all meaning is true, which would imply that no one could ever mean something that was false. In practical terms, it encourages Rand's followers to become obssessed with\u0026nbsp;how conclusions are made, rather than with whether such conclusions can be tested.\u0026nbsp;Such are the fruits of Rand's attempt to build a theory of definitions and concepts on the out-moded and anti-scientific views of Plato and Aristotle. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff declares that \"a concept means the existents which it integrates.\" [IOTE, 98] Meaning, however, doesn't work like that. An individual, particularly an egotist, may presume he means, when using some word, all the \"integrated\" existents; but really he only means what he asserts of it. If a man believes that, in speaking of something, he means everything about it, he is obviously deluded; for he cannot possibly know \u003Ci\u003Eeverything\u003C\/i\u003E about an object; nor would it be a cognitive ideal worth striving for, since most knowledge is trivial and not worth knowing at all. What people mean when they say something or think about something is merely \u003Ci\u003Etheir\u003C\/i\u003E conception of the things they are speaking or thinking about. Such a conception, to the extent that it contains true information about matters of fact, is always partial and inadequate. Knowledge is not a mirror: it does not exhaustively describe, or minutely characterize, its objects. It doesn't have to. Human beings only require enough information to survive and procreate. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThere are Objectivists who, while admiting that knowledge is not a mirror, nevertheless refuse to accept the inevitable consequences of this premise. They are caught up in Rand's conspiratorial theories about the history of philosophy. Rand contended that philosophers were engaged (whether wittingly or not) in a \"concerted\" attack on man's mind. To prove this absurd contention, Rand, like any birther of 9ll truther, began hunting for \"evidence.\" This she achieved by maliciously misinterpreting\u0026nbsp;the views of various philosophers concerning words and definitions. Since the Middle Ages, philosophers had grown tired of arguing about words. In scholastic philosphy, words had meanings independent of the speaker's or thinker's intentions. Since words actually don't have meanings independent of what people intend by them, this led to senseless arguments about the \"true\" meanings of words. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand tried to revive the old scholastic tradition. She thought she could avoid the worst implications of this doctrine by suggesting that only concepts have \"true\" meanings, while words are merely symbols. But in practice this turns out to be a one of those \"distinctions without a difference.\" A concept \u003Ci\u003Eis\u003C\/i\u003E a meaning. Declaring that some concepts have \"true\" meanings while others have false is to engage in senseless patter. I've covered all this in a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/10\/ayn-rand-epistemology-19.html#more\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eprevious post\u003C\/a\u003E; but since Rand's followers and apologists seem incapable of understanding it, it bears repeating: \u003Ci\u003Ea concept expresses whatever meaning it was meant to express. There are no \"true\" or \"false\" meanings, there is only the meaning that the individual is in fact trying to express.\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSince concepts are meanings, they don't need definitions. Indeed, for a concept, a definition is redundant.\u0026nbsp;Definitions define word usage, and therefore apply only to words. Meanings are what they are regardless of whether a word exists to express them. It is believed that human beings deal with as many as two million distinct meanings; yet the vocabularly of the average individual is less than 10,000 words. Therefore there are meanings (and \u003Ci\u003Eipso facto\u003C\/i\u003E concepts) that are not attached to words or verbal definitions (and all defintions are verbal!). Words merely express meanings in a form that can be communicated and dealt with consciously. Definitions merely express those meanings in other words. The actual meanings (or concepts) exist independently of the words and their verbal definitions, and would exist whether there were any words to express them. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHaving decided that every concept has a true meaning, Rand now had at her disposal a powerful verbal cudgel with which to beat her adversaries. Instead of trying to establish her assertions about matters of fact on the basis of peer reviewed research and experimentation, Rand chose to base her philosophy on her rather eccentric definitions, which were arbitrarily declared as \"true.\" While such a procedure failed to establish the veracity of any of Rand's doctrines, it did have a powerful effect in another, more sinister direction. Being under the illusion that truth is determined by the accuracy and precision of one's definitions and (what perhaps amounts to the same thing) on \"proper\" concept formation, Rand's followers adopted the practice of defending Objectivism, not with scientific evidence or peer reviewed research, but with long and futile arguments about words. The Objectivist assumes that only he has access to the \"true\" meanings of words, and that everyone else is using words (and the concepts the words represent) \"improperly.\" According to Objectivism, without \"true\" meanings and \"proper\" definitions, no assertion of the truth is \"valid.\" False meanings lead to false propositions, which in turn lead to false conclusions. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe practical consequence of this theory of meaning is that it leads Objectivists to waste time attempting to evaluate the cognitive process leading to a given conclusion, rather than merely testing it against reality. If you're primarily concerned with rationalizing your beliefs, there is much to be said for the Objectivist way of evaluating conclusions. If you're engaged in rationalization, the last thing you want is to have your conclusions tested against reality. Much better to argue about whether one's definitions are \"true\" or whether one's concepts were formed \"properly.\" But if you care more about truth than rationalization, then you will find arguments about words and concepts to be a waste time. It's not words or concepts that are important, but the things they represent. Nor is it important how a conclusion is reached, but rather, whether the conclusion can be corroborated via empirical evidence. If someone declares that there is a naked woman in his apartment, the best way to test this claim it is to go to the individual's apartment and see if there is in fact a naked woman lounging therein. Very little can be discovered by examining whether the claim is based on concepts that were formed \"properly\" or whether the individual's definitions are \"true,\" \"precise, \" and \"accurate.\" "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8728762225167422458\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8728762225167422458","title":"56 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8728762225167422458"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8728762225167422458"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/03\/ayn-rand-epistemology-32.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 32"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"56"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2459140041720361446"},"published":{"$t":"2013-03-12T20:02:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T10:27:36.461-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 31"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 4: Objectivist theory of meaning.\u003C\/b\u003E After providing a brief summary of Rand's theory of concepts, Peikoff introduces the Objectivist theory of meaning:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nSince a word is a symbol for a concept, it has no meaning apart from the content of the concept it symbolizes. And since a concept is an integration of units, \u003Ci\u003Eit\u003C\/i\u003E has no content or meaning apart from its units. \u003Ci\u003EThe meaning of a concept consists of the units — the existents — which it integrates, including all the characteristics of these units.\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nObserve that concepts mean \u003Ci\u003Eexistents\u003C\/i\u003E, not arbitrarily selected portions of existents.... \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ci\u003EMetaphysically\u003C\/i\u003E, an entity is: all of the things which it is. Each of its characteristics has the same metaphysical status: each constitutes a part of the entity's identity.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ci\u003EEpistemologically\u003C\/i\u003E, all the characteristics of the entities subsumed under a concept are discovered by the same basic method: by observation of these entities. The initial similarities, on the basis of which certain concretes were isolated and conceptually integrated, were grasped by a process of observation; all subsequently discovered characteristics of these concretes are discovered by the same method (no matter how complex the inductive processes involved may become).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe fact that certain characteristics are, at a given time, \u003Ci\u003Eunknown\u003C\/i\u003E to man, does not indicate that these characteristics are excluded from the entity — \u003Ci\u003Eor from the concept.\u003C\/i\u003E A is A; existents are what they are, independent of the state of human knowledge; and a concept means the existents which it integrates. Thus, a concept subsumes and includes \u003Ci\u003Eall\u003C\/i\u003E the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known. [IOTE, 98-99]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand's strange doctrine that \"a concept means the existents which it integrates\" leads her to adopt a quasi-Platonist view of concepts. Concepts are not seen as psychological processes occurring within an actual human brain, but as ideal forms which real concepts can approach, if never quite match. Peikoff complains about the Platonic \"essence-accident\" dichotomy, which he suggests is at the root of the ASD. But there is a dichotomy in Rand that is far more perplexing and gratuitous: \u003Ci\u003Ethe dichotomy between concepts as immaculate representations subsuming all the characteristics of a referent, and the actual concepts human beings hold within their minds\u003C\/i\u003E. Apologists for Rand will undoubtedly cry foul over my description of the Objectivist theory. But I have merely drawn out what is clearly implied by the theory itself. \"A concept subsumes and includes \u003Ci\u003Eall\u003C\/i\u003E the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known,\" declares Peikoff (undoubtedly speaking for Rand). How can a concept existing in a human mind include not-yet-known information? The only way this theory makes any sense is to assume that a concept is a kind of ideal construct, which our minds are trying to approach. Actual concepts (i.e., concepts existing in human minds) must fall short of that ideal construct, because human beings, as even Rand admits, are fallible. On this view of concepts, the aim of knowledge would be to approach that ideal concept as much as is\u0026nbsp;humanly possible.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EI suspect no Objectivist would ever put Rand's theory of meaning in quite these terms. They might instead insist on the phrase \"known and not-yet-known.\" A concept, they might argue, is merely what is \u003Ci\u003Epotentially\u003C\/i\u003E known; it does not assume infallibility. This take on the theory, however, merely introduces even more troublesome implications. \u003Ci\u003ENot-yet-known\u003C\/i\u003E is every bit as impossible a standard as \u003Ci\u003Eall the characteristics of a referent\u003C\/i\u003E. For how does one know whether one knows \u003Ci\u003Eall\u003C\/i\u003E the characteristics, or that one has attained the limits of the potentially knowable? That is a receding horizon, impossible ever to reach. On either interpretation, a dichotomy is created between Rand's ideal concept and the concepts that exist in human minds.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhile Rand's view of concepts verges toward a non-naturalistic Platonism in one direction, in another it embraces a strange kind of quasi-posivitism. Concepts, Rand declares, mean the \u003Ci\u003Eexistents\u003C\/i\u003E which they integrate. This suggests that concepts \u003Ci\u003Emust\u003C\/i\u003E mean only things that exist, never something that might not exist, like \u003Ci\u003Ecentaurs \u003C\/i\u003Eor \u003Ci\u003Elaissez-faire capitalism\u003C\/i\u003E. This doctrine seems little more than exaggeration and gross caricature of the very worst sort of positivism. It is odd to find so curious and hideous a growth emerging from what is supposed to be a stringently anti-positivist philosophy.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand could have avoided both the quasi-Platonism and the quasi-positivism in her theory of meaning if she had merely accepted the obvious fact that concepts are idealized descriptions which can be used to describe both fact or fiction, both truth and lies. Rand recognized that words are symbols; she failed to realize, however, that concepts, percepts, and, for that matter, all mental datum are symbols as well. Knowledge is merely symbols mediated by conjecture. Knowledge doesn't just name or identify things; on the contrary, it makes assertions about what it names and identifies. Only when concepts are combined into propositions can they become conjectures about reality which can be tested, either scientifically or in the practice of everyday life, and either falsified or corroborated.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand's theory of meaning, if it were ever consistently applied, would make the attainment of knowledge very difficult, if not impossible. For it would disparage many of the essential tools of trial and error, such as hypothesis and counter-factuals, because they depend on \"invalid\" concepts (i.e., concepts that aren't integrated from observed existents). Luckily for Rand and her Objectivist followers, her theory of meaning was never meant to be applied in real life. It's mere window dressing, a rationalization devised to beat down epistemological theories Rand and her disciples disagreed with. If taken serious and applied consistently, Rand's theory collapses into palpable absurdities. \n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2459140041720361446\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2459140041720361446","title":"151 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2459140041720361446"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2459140041720361446"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/03\/ayn-rand-epistemology-31.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 31"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"151"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-553015410761391063"},"published":{"$t":"2013-02-25T19:31:00.002-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T10:35:18.128-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Fallacies of Objectivist Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 30"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 3: Definitional Arguments.\u003C\/b\u003E One of the principle philosophical vices of Objectivism is a mania for rationalizing on the basis of tautologies. Closely associated with this is a concomitant mania for rationalizing on the basis of definitions. This in large measure explains Rand's doctrine of \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/09\/ayn-rand-epistemology-16.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eimmaculate definitions\u003C\/a\u003E (i.e., her belief that definitions can be true or false). The problem with definitional reasoning is that it begs the question. Instead of basing arguments on facts, it bases it on definitions; and definitions, which only define word usage, are \"arbitrary.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn the opening of his essay on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, Peikoff provides the following anecdote about a discussion he had with a professor which illustrates how Objectivists use definitions and logic to evade facts while assuming the very point at issue:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nSome years ago, I was defending capitalism in a discussion with a prominent professor of philosophy. In answer to his charge that capitalism leads to coercive monopolies, I explained that such monopolies are caused by government intervention in the economy and logically impossible under capitalism.... The professor was singularly unmoved by my argument, replying:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\"Logically impossible? Of course -- granted your definitions. You're merely saying that, no matter what proportion of the market it controls, you won't call a business a 'coercive monopoly' if it occurs in a system you call 'capitalism.' Your view is true by arbitrary fiat, it's a matter of semantics, it's logically true but not factually true. Leave logic aside now; be serious and consider the actual empirical facts on this matter.\"\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nDoubts arise, of course, as to whether Peikoff has accurately related the professor's argument. But even if this professor said what Peikoff claims he said, the professor nonetheless has a point. Objectivists do in fact tend to resort to definitional arguments. Such arguments suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. Grant someone's definitions, and the rest follows, logically. But since definitions merely establish what one means by the words one uses, this is not enough. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf Peikoff's professor had really said, \"Leave logic aside now,\" he was making a poor argument for his case. He would have been better served by saying, \"Leave definitions aside now; let's start with the actual facts of the matter.\" \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhile Peikoff is entirely free to define capitalism any way he pleases, he's not free to assume that his definition accords to anything we find in reality. That's empirical question dependent on the actual facts relevant to the case at hand. Peikoff's proof that \"coercive\" monopolies cannot arise under capitalism is entirely circular. It's contained in his definitions of capitalism and coercive monopoly. Arguing from definitions is not how one ascertains truth. If you're serious about acquiring true knowledge of reality, you have to go beyond your definitions of words and actually test your actual beliefs (as opposed to the meanings of your terms) against reality. And that's what Peikoff does not want to do, because it's much more difficult to establish his views on the basis of empirical testing rather than on speculation based on arbitrary definitions. To begin with, capitalism as he defines it has never existed, nor is it plausible that such a system ever will exist. If we seek out systems that approximate Peikoff's definition, we find that his assertions about \"coercive\" monopoly a tad bit exaggerated. What we find when we look at the \"lightly\" regulated capitalism of the nineteenth century is a very strong desire on the part of many firms to discover and attain monopolistic advantages, which sometimes led to monopolies which even Peikoff would admit are \"coercive.\" It is often through such monopoly advantages that profits are secured against the uncertainties of market competition; and profits are the lifeblood of every business.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt matters little if Peikoff responds by insisting that his (and Rand's) definitions are \"true.\" Definitions define the meaning of words. How one goes about defining one's terms is, at least initially, entirely\u0026nbsp;\"arbitrary.\" Once\u0026nbsp;one's terms are\u0026nbsp;defined, one needs to stick to the initial definitions, or risk equivocation. But the meaning chosen is neither true or false. As I have repeatedly elucidated when discussing the Objectivist view of definitions, words by themselves don't tell us anything about reality. It's only when something about reality is asserted using these terms that the issue of truth is broached. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe issue of monopolies under \"capitalism\" is very complex. Any sophisticated understanding of political systems strongly suggests that the sort of \"laissez-faire\" or \"unregulated\" capitalism imagined by Rand is a fantasy. Human beings tend to respond to incentives; and built-in to any social system featuring widespread division of labor are incentives, spread across various factions, against the vague, poorly defined \"unregulated\" capitalism advocated by Objectivists. Politicians don't want laissez-faire; lawyers don't want it; speculators and investors don't want it; most businessman don't want; the rich don't want it; the poor don't want it. It turns out that, when the matter is examined closely, almost everyone wants at least something from the government: security for their investments, security for their employment, security for the old age, security against natural disaster, security against the vicissitudes of competitive life. Real life (as opposed to the type of existence imagined by Rand) remains threatened from all sides by uncertainties. Individuals seek hedges against this uncertainty; and the government, as the most powerful institution in society, remains for many the most attractive hedge of all. Given the constitution of human nature, it's extremely unlikely that very many individuals can be persuaded by a mere ideology not to regard government as an attractive hedge against uncertainty. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSo when we come to investigating the monopolistic side of \"capitalism,\" it simply will not do to dream up how things would work in an imaginary, political unfeasible version of the system. Empiricism requires that we stick to plausible versions of that system, not merely imaginary ones. Once we do so, we are confronted by a far more ambiguous set of facts, none of which yield the simple, easy answers propagated by political ideologies. "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/553015410761391063\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=553015410761391063","title":"353 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/553015410761391063"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/553015410761391063"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/02\/ayn-rand-epistemology-30.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 30"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"353"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8905659820560994605"},"published":{"$t":"2013-01-31T11:47:00.001-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T10:40:42.308-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 29"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 2: Facts empirical, logic ideal.\u003C\/b\u003E This subject was fleshed out in an \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2010\/09\/objectivism-metaphysics-part-11.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eearlier post\u003C\/a\u003E in my series of on Rand's metaphysics. I wrote:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIt is the real world, not logic, which makes a thing true. Facts, nature, reality constitute the standard of truth, not logic. I would also note that, while there exists an infinite number of logical expressions (after all, every mathematic equation is a logical expression, and there are an infinite number of such expressions), only a small fraction of those will find exemplification in existence. Logical validity is therefore no warrant of truth.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPeikoff's attack on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy is primarily an attack on the distinction, central to \"metaphysical\" realism, that facts are empirical and logic is ideal. In order to carry out his attack, Peikoff draws inferences from the analytic-synthetic dichotomy that only the most doltish philosophers would ever dream of accepting:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAnalytic truths ... are non-empirical -- because they say nothing about the world of experience. No fact can ever cast doubt on them, they are immune from future correction -- because they are immune from reality....\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSynthetic propositions, on the other hand, \u003Ci\u003Eare\u003C\/i\u003E factual -- and for this, man pays a price. The price is that they are contingent, uncertain and unprovable.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe theory of the analytic synthetic dichotomy presents men with the following choices: If your statement is proved, it says nothing about that which exists; if it is about existents, it cannot be proved. If it is demonstrated by logical argument, it represents a subjective convention; if it asserts a fact, logic cannot establish it. If you validate it by an appeal to the meanings of your concepts, then it is cut off from reality; if you validate it by an appeal to your percepts, then you cannot be certain of it. [IOTE, 93-94]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHere we find a choice example of a failure to get the point. When Wittgenstien wrote, \"The propositions of logic all say the same thing: that is nothing,\" this was not meant as an attack against logic or truth; it was meant as an attack against rationalistic speculation. Logic, by it's own devices, can only insure that the conclusion of an argument are consistent with its premises (i.e., that it says \"the same thing,\" as Wittgenstien puts it). It's not the function of logic to determine whether the premises or the conclusion are true. While logic can be a very useful tool in testing and arriving at truth, it is not itself true, nor is it a fail-safe test of truth. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EIf there's a flaw in analytic synthetic dichotomy (at least in the version presented by Peikoff), it arises from the expression \"analytic truth.\" There is, properly speaking,\u0026nbsp;no such thing. All truth is empirical (i.e., synthetic). Now this does not mean, as Peikoff incorrectly infers, that no analytical propositions can be empirically true. Many undoubtedly are. But they are not true for logical reasons; they are true because they serve as appropriate descriptions of reality. \u003Ci\u003E2 + 2 = 4\u003C\/i\u003E, if taken as an analytical statement, is not true, it's merely correct. As an empirical statement, it may be true in some instances and false in others. As Karl Popper has pointed out, if you place two plus two drops in a dry flask, you will never get four drops out of that flask. A logical argument, assuming it's valid, is correct; it may also be true; but if true, the truth comes from reality, not from logic. Logic tests the validity (i.e., the correctness) of arguments. It is not a test of truth (although it can be used to falsify universal statements). Empirical testing, rather than logic, is the test of truth. Logic may play a critical role in the empirical testing; but one should not confuse the method with the result. Grammar is the method of speaking and writing correctly; but grammar isn't true of reality, nor is grammatical speech even necessary for making oneself understood.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAnother misunderstanding that emerges from Peikoff's analysis of the ASD involves a failure to distinguish between significant and trivial truth. Modern philosophers object to true analytical propositions, not because they wish to deny \u003Ci\u003EA is A\u003C\/i\u003E or \u003Ci\u003Eexistence exists\u003C\/i\u003E, but because they find such propositions to be trivial and unworthy of\u0026nbsp;any philosopher who is attempting to convey significant insights about the real world. Such propositions are trivial because nothing specific can ever be deduced from them. From a tautological premise, only tautological conclusions can be deduced. A philosophically literate person should know this, but, as David Stove explains, philosophers sometimes forget this important truth:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nJust so, the fact that philosophers all know that necessary truths have only necessarily-true consequences, and tautologies only tautological ones, is no guarantee that they will always bring this knowledge to bear in cases where they should. It is perfectly possible that they will mistake a particular argument, say, from a tautological premise to a contingent conclusion, for a valid one.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNot only is this possible: it is a temptation to which everyone, including philosophers, is constantly exposed. For we all want, as it is perfectly reasonable to want, our conclusions to be as interesting as possible, our premises to be as certain as possible, and our reasoning to be as conclusive as possible. And who cannot see that this threefold want, if it is not restrained by our own better knowledge, will sometimes lead us to imagine that these three desiderata have all been maximally satisfied at once: for example, that some non-tautological conclusion has been rigorously derived from a tautological premise?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt is in just this way that millions of people, some of them philosophers, \u003Ci\u003Ehave\u003C\/i\u003E concluded that all human effort is ineffectual, from the premise that whatever will be, will be; have concluded that everyone is selfish, from the premise that a man's desires are necessarily \u003Ci\u003Ehis\u003C\/i\u003E desires; have concluded, from the tautology that every effect has a cause, that every event has a cause. Shall I go on? Shall I mention … Hegel, fixing the number of planets, with no other premises than truths of logic? Bentham, whose only real argument from \"the principle of of utility\" was, that \"it is but a tautology to say, that the more consistently pursued, the better it must ever be for mankind?\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTedium forbids that this list be lengthened: we have all heard this complaint far too often. Ever since Francis Bacon, a hurricane of complaint has been blowing, to the effect that philosophers have tried to do \"a priori,\" or \"deductively,\" or \"speculatively,\" what can only be done \"inductively\" or \"a posteriori,\" or \"naturalistically,\" if it can be done at all…. This hurricane of complaint is blowing still…. But it is, and always has been, essentially right….\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n… it must be admitted that this temptation to produce non tautological rabbits out of tautological hats is especially strong for philosophers. For consider. Rigorously valid reasoning is both part of philosophers' subject-matter, and one of their boasts; philosophers' conclusions are, characteristically, extremely general and interesting, not to say amazing; and yet, except \u003Ci\u003Eper accidens\u003C\/i\u003E, they have no more knowledge of any contingent matter [i.e., matter of fact], that could serve as the premises of their reasonings, than the next man has. Any special expertise which they possess is all confined to \"the realm of essence\" [i.e., the meanings of words]. Clearly, therefore, it must be an \u003Ci\u003Eoccupational\u003C\/i\u003E hazard for philosophers to be tempted to milk interesting results out of tautologies; even though they are also the very people who best know that the thing cannot be done. [\u003Ci\u003EIdols of the Age\u003C\/i\u003E, 156-157]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhen David Stove declares that all philosophers know that only tautological conclusions can be drawn from tautological premises, he obviously betrays ignorance of Rand and her disciples. For in Objectivism we discover philosophers who appear entirely innocent of the empirical vacuity of tautologies. And it is largely in the service of perserving this rather quaint philosophical illiteracy that Peikoff trots out his \"refutation\" of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. While Objectivists are opposed to rationalism in others, they are not opposed to rationalism in their own speculations; and that is why they must attack the distinction between tautological (i.e., analytical) propositions and synthetic propositions (i.e., statements about matters of fact). Objectivism cannot be an empirical philosophy for the simple reason that too many of its core doctrines fail to accord with reality. Man is not a blank slate governed by general premises; physical reality is not \"logical\"; definitions do not define concepts; morality cannot be founded solely on reason; laissez-faire capitalism is not a politically feasible system. Objectivist views on these matters cannot be defended on the basis of empirical research and testing. They can only be defended speculatively, on the basis of tautologies and empirically vacuous generalizations. Peikoff's attack on the ASD is an attack on empiricism from a rationalistic perspective. "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8905659820560994605\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8905659820560994605","title":"90 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8905659820560994605"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8905659820560994605"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/01\/ayn-rand-epistemology-29.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 29"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"90"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2206702626785877957"},"published":{"$t":"2013-01-23T17:53:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T10:41:59.642-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"analytic-sythetic dichotomy"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Peikoff"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 28"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EAnalytic-Synthetic Dichotomy 1: Intro.\u003C\/b\u003E From the confusions of Rand's theory of definitions we descend into the incoherencies of Peikoff's criticism of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Hardly the most agreeable of tasks, but it's time someone took a critical eye on the Peikoff's main contribution to Objectivist epistemology.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWikipedia explains the analytic-synthetic dichotomy as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe analytic–synthetic distinction (also called the analytic–synthetic dichotomy) is a conceptual distinction, used primarily in philosophy to distinguish propositions into two types: analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. Analytic propositions are true by virtue of their meaning, while synthetic propositions are true by how their meaning relates to the world.[1] However, philosophers have used the terms in very different ways. Furthermore, philosophers have debated whether there is a legitimate distinction.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThe first problem we confront in Peikoff's essay is the following claim:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe tenets underlying [the analytic-synthetic dichotomy] permeate our intellectual atmosphere like the germs of an epistemological black plague waiting to infect and cut down any idea that claims the support of conclusive logical argumentation, a plague that spreads subjectivism and conceptual devastation in its wake.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis plague is ... accepted, in some form, by virtually every influential contemporary philosopher -- pragmatist, logical positivist, analyst and existentialist alike.... The theory ... penetrates every corner of our culture, reaching, directly or indirectly, into every human life, issue and concern. It's carriers are many, its forms subtly diverse, its basic causes complex and hidden -- and its early symptoms prosaic and seemingly benign. But it is deadly. [IOTE, 89]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nAll of these claims are, of course, grossly implausible. Most people neither care about nor even comprehend the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Nor is it true that \"virtually every influential contemporary philosopher\" accepts the theory \"in some form.\" I'm no expert in contemporary philosopher, but even I know that Willard Quine's essay \"Two Dogmas of Empiricism,\" which attacks the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, is one of the most influential philosophy papers of the 20th century. Quine's essay was published 1951, more than fifteen years before Peikoff's attack on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy appeared in \u003Ci\u003EThe Objectivist\u003C\/i\u003E. Peikoff's assertion that \"virtually every influential contemporary philosopher\" accepts the theory suggests that Peikoff either (1) had never read Quine's essay; or (2) that he is just making things up for rhetorical effect.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhy does Peikoff attack the analytic-synthetic dichotomy? There are several reasons, but the main one stems from Rand's fondness for definitions and tautologies, i.e., for \"analytic\" truths. The analytic-synthetic dichotomy exposes the triviality and empirical vacuity of analytic statements; therefore, Peikoff had to be sent, pen in hand, to vanquish it. It is important not to get sidetracked by Peikoff's bold assertions about the horrors of the\u0026nbsp;ASD. It's all nonsense and window dressing. What's really at issue is the Objectivist view of the relation between logic and fact and Rand's naive belief that tautologies such as \u003Ci\u003Eexistence exists\u003C\/i\u003E and \u003Ci\u003EA is A \u003C\/i\u003Econstitute significant insights into the nature of reality. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2206702626785877957\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2206702626785877957","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2206702626785877957"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2206702626785877957"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/01\/ayn-rand-epistemology-28.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 28"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8181307430479877294"},"published":{"$t":"2013-01-16T09:34:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-01-16T09:40:26.366-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 27"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cstrong\u003EDefinitions: postscript.\u003C\/strong\u003E Many Objectivists and even some non-Objectivists have difficulty understanding what is wrong with Rand's view of definitions. They remain hung up on several myths which Rand uses to give an aura of credence to her view. These myths are: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Col\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EPrecision in words is extremely important\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EDenials of the importance of word precision are motivated by a dishonest\u0026nbsp;desire to attack human knowledge\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EMisuse of language (e.g., through equivocation) demonstrates the need of precise definitions\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ol\u003E\nLet's examine each of these myths:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E1. This is the myth that people hold on most tenaciously, because it intuitively seems correct and even irrefragible. To deny that word precision is important seems tantamount to an endorsement of imprecision and sloppy thinking. But this misses the whole point of the criticism of definitions. The precision allegedly emerging from definitions is spurious. Words are imprecise not because they are ill-defined, but because speech is representative and symbolic. Language is loose \u003Cem\u003Ebecause\u003C\/em\u003E it is significant. It covers many instances indiscriminately, without necessarily making finer distinctions. In other words, \"imprecision\" derives from Rand's \"unit-economy.\" \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\nSuch precision and detail that language is capable of achieving does not derive from definitions, but rather from the more exhaustive use of language. A murder can be described in one sentence or 100 sentences. Assuming that both descriptions are accurate, which is going to be more \"precise\"? Obviously, the longer, more detailed description! Precision therefore emerges from descriptive detail, not from definitions. Where quantification is possible, precision can be achieved with much greater economy. But since most human judgments are qualitative, rather than quantitative in nature, precision requires large amounts of detail. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf Objectivists were better at recognizing and applying the insight embedded in Rand's \"unit-economy,\" perhaps they wouldn't be so quick to make such a fuss about precision.\u0026nbsp;In practical matters,\u0026nbsp;precision is not always necessary.\u0026nbsp;If a guest in my house is looking for butter and I say \"The butter's in the refrigerator,\" that may not be all that precise (where \u003Cem\u003Eexactly\u003C\/em\u003E is the butter?), but it is precise enough for practical purposes. If I am sending someone to the moon, the instructions will have to be much more precise -- so much so that they won't be entirely conveyable by means of language, but will inevitably require exhaustive training and repetition in order to be conveyed. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n2. Rand blithely assumes that anyone who challenges her view of definitions and language must be motivated by a desire to attack man's conceptual faculty. Since such individuals are, by definition as it were, evil, there is no point in trying to understand, let alone refute them. Rand and her followers have yet to display any evidence that they understand Wittgenstein or Popper or Pareto or anyone else who might attack the essentialist account of definitions. They are incapable of stating the views of their opponents without grossly distorting them. There are powerful motivations behind this. Rand required a cognitive scapegoat in order to explain why most people refuse to agree with her moral and political philosophy. Rand would not for a moment have\u0026nbsp;even considered the very real possibility that she might be wrong in her ethics and politics or that others may have different preferences which, based on their own unique proclivities, might be \"right.\" Rand wanted to believe, in defiance of Hume's is-ought gap, that her preferences were absolutely\u0026nbsp;\"right\" and \"true.\" Unfortunately, most arguments on behalf of moral ends, however circuitous they may be, resolve in the final analysis to some form or variety of ad hominem. Rand's attempt to argue morality through epistemology terminates in the same ad hominem conclusions that characterize most, if not all, of Rand's moral arguments.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\n3. As was noted by the sociologist Pareto and empirically corroborated by social psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt, human beings tend to act accept ideologies for largely unconscious reasons and only provide \"reasons\" and \"arguments\" to provide an illusion of logical rigor for what actually has a non-rational source. In other words, the conscious mind, as Jonathan Haidt puts it, is often little more than a press secretary engaged in spin. The most common tactic individuals resort to when engaged in spinning is equivocation. The rationalizer leverages the vagueness most words suffer from (because of unit-economy) to attain his end. Rand herself provides an apposite example of the process. Objectivism is largely spin: a rationalization of Rand's personal preferences, formed (unwittingly) largely via unconscious cerebrations. This explains why the logic of Rand's \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2008\/02\/life-as-ultimate-value.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Earguments\u003C\/a\u003E are so poor and unconvincing to those who hold different preferences (or are more fastidious about the logic of their beliefs). \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\nBecause so many ideologues are engaged in rationalization via equivocation, it leaves the impression that many individuals don't know the meanings of terms. But this is a false impression. People play fast and loose with the meanings of words not because they don't know the \"correct\" definitions; rather, they do so because they're more interested in justifying their preferences then discovering mundane, uninspiring truth. It's a problem, not of \"improper\" definitions or \"improper\" concept formation, but of a pretence of knowledge combined with a human-all-too-human desire to avoid having our preferences and ideologies subjected to effective criticism.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\nIn any case, you're not going to stop ideologues from rationalizing by insisting that they define their terms \"precisely\" and \"correctly.\" You'll only make their rationalizations more long-winded and absurd."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8181307430479877294\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=8181307430479877294","title":"20 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8181307430479877294"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/8181307430479877294"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/01\/ayn-rand-epistemology-27.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 27"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"20"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7197173728810964"},"published":{"$t":"2013-01-07T19:13:00.003-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-25T19:15:00.066-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 26"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cstrong\u003EDefinitions: conclusion.\u003C\/strong\u003E Rand's theory of definitions constitutes one of the most Aristolean aspects of her philosophy. There are, to be sure, changes (e.g., essences are \"epistemological\" rather than \"metaphysical\"), but in the end these changes amount to very little. Objectivism is an essentialistic, definition-based philosophy. As I've noted in earlier posts, definitions are at the heart of Rand's epistemology. Rand suggests that the reason why people disagree with her about morality and politics is that they are guilty of holding \"wrong\" or inaccurate definitions. If we all formed definitions \"properly,\" we'd all agree with Objectivism.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn this series on definitions, I have sought to show why Rand's theory is erroneous. Rand tacitly thought of meaning as being something different than the concept. So if an individual ascribed the wrong meaning to a specific concept, they were in effect using the wrong definition. However, if I define tomatos as a fruit with an orange rind, I am not actually guilty of using a wrong definition; I'm guilty of improper word usage. Fruit with an orange rind is itself a concept, as is any meaning whatsoever. That's essentially all that a concept is: a meaning. What word is connected to a specific meaning is a matter of convention. A specific meaning can neither be true or false. It merely \u003Ci\u003Eis\u003C\/i\u003E. Nor does it matter one jot whether a proposed meaning accords with anything in reality. The meaning\/concept of \u003Cem\u003Eunicorn\u003C\/em\u003E is every bit as \"valid\" as the meaning\/concept of \u003Cem\u003Ehorse\u003C\/em\u003E. What is important is what we assert of a specific meaning within the confines of a proposition. The proposition \u003Cem\u003EUnicorns exist\u003C\/em\u003E is false; the proposition \u003Cem\u003EHorses exist\u003C\/em\u003E is true.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EFollowing Aristotle, Rand bases her theory of definition on classical essentialism. But this doctrine has been decisively refuted by Wittgenstien. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nConsider … the activities that we call \"games\". I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic Games, and so on. What is common to them all?—Don't say: \"There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games' \"—but look and see whether there is anything common to all.—For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look !—Look for example at board-games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card-games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ballgames, much that is common is retained, but much is lost.—Are they all 'amusing'? Compare chess with noughts and crosses [i.e. tic-tac-toe]. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience [i.e. solitaire]. In ball games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck; and at the difference between skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared! And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; can see how similarities crop up and disappear.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAnd the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand made no effort to respond to Wittgenstein beyond the following verbal perslifage:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAs reporters, linguistic analysts were accurate: Wittgenstein's theory that a concept refers to a conglomoration of things vaguely tied together by a \"family resemblance\" is a perfect description of the state of a mind out of focus. [IOTE, 78]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAs a refutation of Wittgenstein's theory, this simply will not do. Rand begs far too many questions. She assumes that unless every word we used can be perfectly summarized in a defining formula, the only alternative is that our minds are out of focus. But this only establishes that Rand did not understand Wittgenstein's theory. If Rand had been serious about refuting Wittgenstein's theory, she would have provided a defining formula for the concept \u003Ci\u003Egame\u003C\/i\u003E that was not open to any of Wittgenstein's objections. Since Rand was (apparently) incapable of providing such a refutation, she resorted to her usual ad hominem and ad consequentiam tactics.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf it be argued that the concept \u003Cem\u003Egame\u003C\/em\u003E is merely one of those \"exceptions that prove the rule,\" and that, in fairness, one should concentrate on simpler, easier to define concepts, then let us glance at a simpler concept — say, the concept \u0026nbsp;\u003Cem\u003Ebachelor\u003C\/em\u003E. Google defines \u003Cem\u003Ebachelor\u003C\/em\u003E as \"A man who is not and has never been married.\" How well does this definition apply in reality?\u0026nbsp; Hardly with immaculate precision. In some contexts, it begins to break down. Is the pope a bachelor? Is a young man who has been in an irreversible coma since childhood a bachelor? What about a Eunuch? Or an elderly senile gentleman who has never been married? What determines the usage of the word \u003Ci\u003Ebachelor\u003C\/i\u003E is far more subtle and nuanced than can be limned in a mere definition.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt would, therefore, appear that Wittgenstein is right: words generally cannot be squeezed into simple, defining formulas. There are no essences defining what a concept is. Language is more complicated than that. The complexity of language\u0026nbsp;is required for the mind to adequately grasp and communicate the complexities and nuances of the real world. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C!------\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7197173728810964\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=7197173728810964","title":"14 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7197173728810964"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/7197173728810964"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/01\/ayn-rand-epistemology-26.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 26"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"14"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2655385789599564020"},"published":{"$t":"2013-01-05T00:03:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-01-05T00:03:35.369-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Twinkies Are The New Rearden Metal."},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/hammeroftruth.com\/2012\/sign-of-the-times-who-is-john-galt-sign-adorns-closed-hostess-store\/\"\u003EWho knew?\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-_v4JSiUTlmA\/UOfdxJI18bI\/AAAAAAAAAO8\/JG-AhUxvOGI\/s1600\/hostess-john-galt-1.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"328\" width=\"400\" src=\"http:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-_v4JSiUTlmA\/UOfdxJI18bI\/AAAAAAAAAO8\/JG-AhUxvOGI\/s400\/hostess-john-galt-1.jpg\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\n\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2655385789599564020\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2655385789599564020","title":"21 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2655385789599564020"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2655385789599564020"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/01\/twinkies-are-new-rearden-metal.html","title":"Twinkies Are The New Rearden Metal."}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-_v4JSiUTlmA\/UOfdxJI18bI\/AAAAAAAAAO8\/JG-AhUxvOGI\/s72-c\/hostess-john-galt-1.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"21"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6664530355931000697"},"published":{"$t":"2013-01-04T15:12:00.001-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-01-04T15:13:06.316-08:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"\"100 Voices\" Reviewed"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Occasional ARCHNblog contributor Neil Parille \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.scribd.com\/doc\/118620534\/The-Six-Million-Dollar-Rand-Review-of-100-Voices-An-Oral-History-of-Ayn-Rand\"\u003Etakes a look\u003C\/a\u003E at the Ayn Rand Institute's latest retouching job: \"100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand\". Kind and generous, beloved of children and small animals, never a cross word spoken etc.\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6664530355931000697\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6664530355931000697","title":"8 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6664530355931000697"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6664530355931000697"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2013\/01\/100-voices-reviewed.html","title":"\"100 Voices\" Reviewed"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"8"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-78163730661429341"},"published":{"$t":"2012-12-17T17:53:00.003-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T11:12:11.453-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 25"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EDefinitions 10: Doctrine of Ostensive Definition.\u003C\/b\u003E In my last post, I noted that definitions lead to an infinite regress. Once a word has been defined, then you need to define the words used in the definition. But the words of those definitions need to be defined as well; and this process must go on forever. How does Objectivism propose to evade this infinite regress? Through their theory of ostensive definition. Rand introduces it as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWith certain significant exceptions, every concept can be defined and communicated in terms of other concepts. The exceptions are concepts referring to sensations, and metaphysical axioms.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSensations are the primary material of consciousness and, therefore, cannot be communicated by means of the material which is derived from them. The existential causes of sensations can be described and defined in conceptual terms (e.g., the wavelengths of light and the structure of the human eye, which produce the sensations of color), but one cannot communicate what color is like, to a person who is born blind. To define the meaning of the concept “blue,” for instance, one must point to some blue objects to signify, in effect: “I mean this.” Such an identification of a concept is known as an “ostensive definition.”\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOstensive definitions are usually regarded as applicable only to conceptualized sensations. But they are applicable to axioms as well. Since axiomatic concepts are identifications of irreducible primaries, the only way to define one is by means of an ostensive definition—e.g., to define “existence,” one would have to sweep one’s arm around and say: “I mean this.”\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNow while Rand admits that most concepts are defined in terms of other concepts, she fails to note any infinite regress problems that might arise as a consequence. However, an Objectivist could argue that all concepts are ultimately defined by ostensive definitions, thus preventing the regress from stretching into infinity. Peikoff, in his \u003Ci\u003EObjectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand\u003C\/i\u003E, adopts just such a position:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nMaterialists sometimes regard the concept of \"consciousness\" as unscientific on the grounds that it cannot be defined. This overlooks the fact that \u003Ci\u003Ethere cannot be an infinite regress of definitions. All definitions reduce ultimately to certain primary concepts, which can be specified only ostensively\u003C\/i\u003E; axiomatic concepts necessarily belong to this category. The concept of \"matter,\" by contrast, is not an axiomatic concept and does require a definition, which it does not yet have; it requires an analytical definition that will integrate the facts of energy, particle theory, and more. To provide such a definition is not, however, the task of philosophy, which makes no specialized study of matter, but of physics. As far as philosophic usage is concerned, \"matter\" denotes merely the objects of extrospection or, more precisely, that of which all such objects are made. In this usage, the concept of \"matter,\" like that of \"consciousness,\" can be specified only ostensively. [34, italics added] \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nNote how Peikoff's acknowledgement that definitions must be reducible to \"primary\" concepts that can be \"specified\" ostensively is brought up in the context in a discussion, not of definitions, but of materialism. It's merely an aside, casually tossed to the reader like a bone to a dog. He doesn't even attempt to establish this aside, but takes it for granted, as if it were obviously true and therefore beyond all doubt and discussion. But it is not obviously true; on the contrary, it is, as Hume would say, a palpable absurdity.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMany concepts (or, rather, words) cannot be defined ostensively; at least not in any meaningful sense. Nor is it plausible that they can be defined in terms of words that can be defined ostensively. That is because the terms don't actually refer to things that can be pointed at, but to psychic states or to inferred objects or to complex processes taking place over a period of time. Can the concepts of \u003Ci\u003Eutility\u003C\/i\u003E, or \u003Ci\u003Eneutrino\u003C\/i\u003E, or \u003Ci\u003Esimultaneity\u003C\/i\u003E, or \u003Ci\u003Erecession\u003C\/i\u003E be understood, defined, and\/or \"specified\" through a regression to the primary concepts upon which they are (allegedly) ultimately based? Of course not. How do we know this? Because no one actually explains what they mean by defining all their terms (including all the terms used in their definitions) until they reach \"primary\" concepts that can be \"specified\" ostensively. Knowledge doesn't work that way. A person either understands a concept or he doesn't. If he doesn't understand the concept, pointing at something will only help if the concept directly refers to the thing pointed at. If the thing refers to something that cannot be pointed at, pointing is no longer an option, even if you began hunting, through the regress of definitions, for terms that can be \"specified\" ostensively. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPartly this is due to the sheer impracticality of such an enterprise. The understanding of a complex concept is itself very complex. It cannot be reduced to\u0026nbsp;\"primaries\" defined ostensively, because there is often an immense amount of inference and sheer conjecture going on behind the scenes. Indeed, there are likely unconsious cogitative processes going on that Objectivism not only knows nothing of, but (by implication) denies altogether. Again, knowledge does not work in the simplistic fashion imagined by Aristotle, Rand, and Peikoff. There are no simple hierarchies that can be reduced to a perceptual base that can be defined (or \"specified\") ostensively. If I don't know what an elephant is, it can be \"specified\" for me by pointing at an actual elephant. But that won't ever work for \u003Ci\u003Eutility\u003C\/i\u003E, or \u003Ci\u003Eneutrino\u003C\/i\u003E, or \u003Ci\u003Esimultaneity\u003C\/i\u003E, or \u003Ci\u003Erecession\u003C\/i\u003E, among a multitude of other concepts that decorate and inform our cerebrations. If I know what those things are but don't know the word used to specify them, a definition might help. But in that case, the definition is being used to assist me with word usage rather than understanding. If I don't know what these words refer to, if I have no understanding of them, no definition will ever make up for this lack, since a definition merely provides the same meaning (i.e., the same understanding) in different words. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThere is another issue here as well. Popper argued that definitions lead to an infinite regress. But in practice that is not the case. Since there are only\u0026nbsp;a finite number of words, the attempt to define all words in terms of other words leads, not to infinity, but merely to words previously defined. In other words, it leads to a circle -- which is to say, question begging. Concepts must be understood apart from definitions if they are to be understood at all. Definitions, in any case, don't define concepts; as I have repeatedly insisted, definitions define only word usage. They match words with meanings. To understand a concept is to understand its meaning. To understand a concept's definition is merely to know the name of the concept. \n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/78163730661429341\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=78163730661429341","title":"9 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/78163730661429341"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/78163730661429341"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/12\/ayn-rand-epistemology-25.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 25"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"9"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-256968164071543178"},"published":{"$t":"2012-12-04T10:03:00.004-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-12-17T10:26:00.464-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Popper"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 24"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cstrong\u003EDefinitions 9: Doctrine of Verbalism.\u003C\/strong\u003E Rand is very clear on the relation between knowledge and definitions:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions. [IOTE, 49]\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nDefinitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration. [RM, 77]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThere is a serious problem with the Objectivist view of definitions that neither Rand nor her followers have ever adequately answered. The truth and falsehood of man's knowledge cannot possibly rest on definitions, because definitions are ultimately circular. One word is merely defined by other words; so that to expect to find truth and rationality in definitions is to expect what can never be found. As Karl Popper explained in \u003Cem\u003EThe Open Society and Its Enemies\u003C\/em\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nSince Aristotle, it has become widely known that one cannot prove all statements, and that an attempt to do so would break down because it would lead only to an infinite regression of proofs. But neither he nor, apparently, a great many modern writers seems to realize that the analogous attempt to define the meaning of all our terms must, in the same way, lead to an infinite regression of definitions. The following passage from Crossman's Plato To-day is characteristic of a view which by implication is held by many contemporary philosophers of repute, for example, by Wittgenstein: '. . . if we do not know precisely the meaning of the words we use, we cannot discuss anything profitably. Most of the futile arguments on which we all waste time are largely due to the fact that we each have our own vague meaning for the words we use and assume that our opponents are using them in the same sense. If we defined our terms to start with, we could have far more profitable discussions. Again, we have only to read the daily papers to observe that propaganda (the modern counterpart of rhetoric) depends largely for its success on confusing the meaning of the terms. If politicians were compelled by law to define any term they wished to use, they would lose most of their popular appeal, their speeches would be shorter, and many of their disagreements would be found to be purely verbal.' This passage is very characteristic of one of the prejudices which we owe to Aristotle, of the prejudice that language can be made more precise by the use of definitions. Let us consider whether this can really be done.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nFirst, we can see clearly that if 'politicians' (or anybody else) 'were compelled by law to define any term they wished to use', their speeches would not be shorter, but infinitely long. For a definition cannot establish the meaning of a term any more than a logical derivation can establish the truth of a statement; both can only shift this problem back. The derivation shifts the problem of truth back to the premises, the definition shifts the problem of meaning back to the defining terms (i.e., the terms that make up the defining formula). But these, for many reasons, are likely to be just as vague and confusing as the terms we started with; and in any case, we should have to go on to define them in turn; which leads to new terms which too must be defined. And so on, to infinity. One sees that the demand that all our terms should be defined is just as untenable as the demand that all our statements should be proved.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAt first sight this criticism may seem unfair. It may be said that what people have in mind, if they demand definitions, is the elimination of the ambiguities so often connected with words such as 'democracy', 'liberty', 'duty', 'religion', etc.; that it is clearly impossible to define all our terms, but possible to define some of these more dangerous terms and to leave it at that; and that the defining terms have just to be accepted, i.e., that we must stop after a step or two in order to avoid an infinite regression. This defence, however, is untenable. Admittedly, the terms mentioned are much misused. But I deny that the attempt to define them can improve matters. It can only make matters worse. That by 'defining their terms' even once, and leaving the defining terms undefined, the politicians would not be able to make their speeches shorter, is clear; for any essentialist definition, i.e. one that 'defines our terms' (as opposed to the nominalist one which introduces new technical terms), means the substitution of a long story for a short one, as we have seen. Besides, the attempt to define terms would only increase the vagueness and confusion. For since we cannot demand that all the defining terms should be defined in their turn, a clever politician or philosopher could easily satisfy the demand for definitions. If asked what he means by 'democracy', for example, he could say 'the rule of the general will' or 'the rule of the spirit of the people'; and since he has now given a definition, and so satisfied the highest standards of precision, nobody will dare to criticize him any longer. And, indeed, how could he be criticized, since the demand that 'rule' or 'people' or 'will' or 'spirit' should be defined in their turn, puts us well on the way to an infinite regression so that everybody would hesitate to raise it? But should it be raised in spite of all that, then it can be equally easily satisfied. On the other hand, a quarrel about the question whether the definition was correct, or true, can only lead to an empty controversy about words.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThus the essentialist view of definition breaks down, even if it does not, with Aristotle, attempt to establish the 'principles' of our knowledge, but only makes the apparently more modest demand that we should 'define the meaning of our terms'.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nBut undoubtedly, the demand that we speak clearly and without ambiguity is very important, and must be satisfied. Can the nominalist view satisfy it? And can nominalism escape the infinite regression?\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIt can. For the nominalist position there is no difficulty which corresponds to the infinite regression. As we have seen, science does not use definitions in order to determine the meaning of its terms, but only in order to introduce handy shorthand labels. And it does not depend on definitions; all definitions can be omitted without loss to the information imparted. It follows from this that in science, all the terms that are really needed must be undefined terms. How then do the sciences make sure of the meanings of their terms? Various replies to this question have been suggested, but I do not think that any of them is satisfactory. The situation seems to be this. Aristotelianism and related philosophies have told us for such a long time how important it is to get a precise knowledge of the meaning of our terms that we are all inclined to believe it. And we continue to cling to this creed in spite of the unquestionable fact that philosophy, which for twenty centuries has worried about the meaning of its terms, is not only full of verbalism but also appallingly vague and ambiguous, while a science like physics which worries hardly at all about terms and their meaning, but about facts instead, has achieved great precision. This, surely, should be taken as indicating that, under Aristotelian influence, the importance of the meaning of terms has been grossly exaggerated. But I think that it indicates even more. For not only does this concentration on the problem of meaning fail to establish precision; it is itself the main source of vagueness, ambiguity, and confusion.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIn science, we take care that the statements we make should never depend upon the meaning of our terms. Even where the terms are defined, we never try to derive any information from the definition, or to base any argument upon it. This is why our terms make so little trouble. We do not overburden them. We try to attach to them as little weight as possible. We do not take their 'meaning' too seriously. We are always conscious that our terms are a little vague (since we have learnt to use them only in practical applications) and we reach precision not by reducing their penumbra of vagueness, but rather by keeping well within it, by carefully phrasing our sentences in such a way that the possible shades of meaning of our terms do not matter. This is how we avoid quarrelling about words.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe view that the precision of science and of scientific language depends upon the precision of its terms is certainly very plausible, but it is none the less, I believe, a mere prejudice. The precision of a language depends, rather, just upon the fact that it takes care not to burden its terms with the task of being precise. A term like 'sand-dune' or 'wind' is certainly very vague. (How many inches high must a little sand-hill be in order to be called 'sand-dune'? How quickly must the air move in order to be called 'wind'?) However, for many of the geologist's purposes, these terms are quite sufficiently precise; and for other purposes, when a higher degree of differentiation is needed, he can always say 'dunes between 4 and 30 feet high' or 'wind of a velocity of between 20 and 40 miles an hour'. And the position in the more exact sciences is analogous. In physical measurements, for instance, we always take care to consider the range within which there may be an error; and precision does not consist in trying to reduce this range to nothing, or in pretending that there is no such range, but rather in its explicit recognition.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nEven where a term has made trouble, as for instance the term 'simultaneity' in physics, it was not because its meaning was imprecise or ambiguous, but rather because of some intuitive theory which induced us to burden the term with too much meaning, or with too 'precise' a meaning, rather than with too little. What Einstein found in his analysis of simultaneity was that, when speaking of simultaneous events, physicists made a false assumption which would have been unchallengeable were there signals of infinite velocity. The fault was not that they did not mean anything, or that their meaning was ambiguous, or the term not precise enough; what Einstein found was, rather, that the elimination of a theoretical assumption, unnoticed so far because of its intuitive self-evidence, was able to remove a difficulty which had arisen in science. Accordingly, he was not really concerned with a question of the meaning of a term, but rather with the truth of a theory. It is very unlikely that it would have led to much if someone had started, apart from a definite physical problem, to improve the concept of simultaneity by analysing its 'essential] meaning', or even by analysing what physicists 'really mean' when they speak of simultaneity.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nI think we can learn from this example that we should not attempt to cross our bridges before we come to them. And I also think that the preoccupation with questions concerning the meaning of terms, such as their vagueness or their ambiguity, can certainly not be justified by an appeal to Einstein's example. Such a preoccupation rests, rather, on the assumption that much depends upon the meaning of our terms, and that we operate with this meaning; and therefore it must lead to verbalism and scholasticism. From this point of view, we may criticize a doctrine like that of Wittgenstein, who holds that while science investigates matters of fact, it is the business of philosophy to clarify the meaning of terms, thereby purging our language, and eliminating linguistic puzzles. It is characteristic of the views of this school that they do not lead to any chain of argument that could be rationally criticized; the school therefore addresses its subtle analyses exclusively to the small esoteric circle of the initiated. This seems to suggest that any preoccupation with meaning tends to lead to that result which is so typical of Aristotelianism: scholasticism and mysticism.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nHow would Rand have responded to Popper's charge that definitions lead to an infinite regress? While Rand did not specifically address the question, she did leave some hints on how it might be addressed. In my next post, I will examine these hints. "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/256968164071543178\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=256968164071543178","title":"5 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/256968164071543178"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/256968164071543178"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/12\/ayn-rand-epistemology-24.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 24"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"5"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1889500274140098733"},"published":{"$t":"2012-11-26T19:24:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-12-04T09:57:13.926-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Popper"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 23"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EDefinitions 8: Doctrine of the Hierarchy of Knowledge.\u003C\/b\u003E Rand had the habit of drawing dubious premises from trivial premises. With her doctrine of the hierarchy of knowledge, we find her at her old tricks:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n[There is a] long conceptual chain that starts from simple, ostensive definitions and rises to higher and still higher concepts, forming a hierarchical structure of knowledge so complex that no electronic computer could approach it. It is by means of such chains that man has to acquire and retain his knowledge of reality. [RM, 18]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nTo know the exact meaning of the concepts one is using, one must know their correct definitions, one must be able to retrace the specific (logical, not chronological) steps by which they were formed, and one must be able to demonstrate their connection to their base in perceptual reality. [IOTE, 50]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThat some concepts are \"wider\" than others — that animal, for example, is wider than mammal, and mammal wider than deer — is something so trivial that hardly anyone has bothered making a fuss about it before Rand. But the way some Objectivists talk about the hierarchy of knowledge, you would think that only Rand noticed it, while everyone else is in denial that concepts have any such structure. \"Knowledge is hierarchal,\" Rand's disciples keep insisting; to which the obvious retort is, \"So what!\" The problem with Rand's hierarchy of knowledge is not that it is wrong but that Objectivists exaggerate its importance. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EYet there is more to the hierarchy of knowledge than just its mere triviality. In the first place, technically speaking, it's not a hierarchy of knowledge, \u003Ci\u003Ebut a hierarchy of concepts\u003C\/i\u003E. No concept, in and of itself, can tell us anything about reality. It's only when we assert something about that concept within the confines of a proposition that the adventure of knowledge begins. Even if we ignore this objection, and interpret the hierarchy of knowledge merely to mean a hierarchy of concepts, Objectivists are nonetheless guilty of drawing dubious inferences from the notion. Perhaps the most widespread dubious assumption has to do with the idea of what Objectivists call \"reduction.\" Objectivists claim that high-level abstractions can be connected to reality by traveling \"backward\" through the hierarchy of concepts, thereby identifying the \"logical sequence\" by which a concept is related to perceptual data. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHere we find in the very bowels of the Objectivist epistemology a notion strongly reminiscent of Humean empiricism. In his \u003Ci\u003EInquiry on Human Knowledge\u003C\/i\u003E, Hume wrote:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIf I ask why you believe any particular matter of fact ... , you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or sense; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHume is here interested in assertions about matters of fact. He is proposing a test for judging the accuracy or validity of such assertions. Objectivists are suggesting a test for judging the factual basis of concepts. As I have explained in earlier posts, concepts cannot be tested this way, since concepts, by themselves, don't say anything about facts: only propositions accomplish this task. But if we ignore this objection, it would seem that Objectivists are attempting something along the same lines as Hume. They seek a method of connecting their knowledge to reality. And since they are under the illusion that concepts (rather than propositions) constitute knowledge, they propose this reduction of high-level concepts \"backwards\" through the hierarchy of knowledge to the empirical knowledge at the bottom of the hierarchy.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThere are two main problems with this. In the first place, unlike Hume, Objectivists are not really interested in fact checking their empirical claims. Objectivists may talk about traveling backward through the hierarchy, but that's not an intinerary Objectivists are likely to follow much in practice. Rand's brief foray into empiricism is mere lip service. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt's just as well that Randian empiricism is little more than an empty gesture, rather than a rooted habit of thought. For it turns out that Humean empiricism, however noble in its intention, is not entirely workable as a practical method. It was decisively refuted by Karl Popper in his \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.atmos.washington.edu\/~davidc\/ATMS211\/articles_required\/Popper60_knowledge.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Earticle\u003C\/a\u003E \"Knowledge without Authority.\" In that article Popper notes that \"most of our assertions are not based on observations [i.e., Hume's sense data, or Rand's \"perceptual data\"] but upon all kinds of other sources.\" And Popper goes on to show that the attempt to trace knowledge \"backwards\" to its empirical source is a fool's errand. If you went about questioning other people about the empirical sources of their knowledge, \"you would in fact never arrive at all those observations ... the existence of which the empiricist believes.\" The chief problem with this sort of crude empiricism is that it assumes the existence of pure, unadultered observation which takes in nothing but the facts. Observation, however, does not work that way. As Popper notes:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nEvery [observer] must always make ample use, in his report, of his knowledge of persons, places, things, linguistic usages, social conventions, and so on. He cannot rely merely upon his eyes or ears, especially if his report is to be of use in justifying any assertion worth justifying. But this fact must always raise new questions as to the sources of those elements of his knowledge which are not immediately observational.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThis is why the programme of tracing all knowledge to its ultimate source in observation is logically impossible to carry through: it leads to an infinite regress. \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAlthough Rand probably never considered these objections to her empirical reductivism, some Objectivists might believe that, fortuitously, she escapes Popper's criticism by her differentiation between data and percepts:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nA “perception” is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of single stimuli, but of entities, of things. An animal is guided, not merely by immediate sensations, but by percepts. [VOS, 19]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe problem here is that Rand does not go far enough. She gratuiously assumes that sense data are mere undiscriminated stimuli, as if when Hume talked of checking one's facts via the evidence of the senses, he really meant checking them on the basis of mere stimuli. Hume meant no such thing. He had in mind something very similar to Rand's percepts, although he didn't devise any theory about how percepts arise out of stimuli. Nor are Rand's percepts quite the heuristic products that Popper has in mind. There may be some interpretion involved in Randian percepts, at least in terms of distinguishing objects, entitites, things, etc. But it clearly involves nothing as sophisticated as knowledge of persons, places, or things, let alone knowledge of linguistic usage or social conventions assumed by Popper. Rand's percepts are integrations; interpretation is too strong a word to describe them. After all, the Randian percept is identified with the \"given\" and the \"self-evident.\" In short, Rand's perceptual knowledge is just the sort of pure observation that Hume had in mind when he talked about sense data. Therefore, Popper's criticism applies to Randian empiricism as well as the Humean variety. Tracing back one's concepts through the hierarchy to the perceptual data they are allegedly tied to is not an adequate test for claims about matters of fact. What might be an adequate test? Popper proposes the following:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n[I]f we are doubtful about an assertion, then the normal procedure is to test it, rather than ask for its sources; and if we find independent corroboration, than we shall often accept the assertion without bothering at all about sources. \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1889500274140098733\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1889500274140098733","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1889500274140098733"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1889500274140098733"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/11\/ayn-rand-epistemology-23.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 23"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2530001655616411366"},"published":{"$t":"2012-11-09T10:33:00.001-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-11-26T19:26:59.757-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 22"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cstrong\u003EDefinitions 7: Doctrine of the Homogenuity of Reality.\u003C\/strong\u003E The doctrine of essentialism, as Karl Popper has noted, regards knowledge as sort of syllogistic encyclopaedia containing the intuitive definitions of all essences. Rand's view of knowledge is not so very different. She believed that human beings \"organize concepts into propositions\" and that the truth of these propositions rests on the \"truth and falsehood of the definitions of the concepts\" used in the propositions, which in turn rests on the truth or falsehoods of\u0026nbsp;the \"designations of \u003Ci\u003Eessential\u003C\/i\u003E characteristics.\" Knowledge, Rand insisted, was an integrated whole, tied together by definitions: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nSince the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence. [IOTE, 40]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003ERand's belief the integration of knowledge into a vast inter-related hierarchy of concepts has led her most orthodox disciple, Leonard Peikoff, into an almost quasi-Hegelian view of knowledge. As Chris Sciabarra explains:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nLeonard Peikoff received his doctorate in philosophy at New York University in 1964 under the direction of Sydney Hook. Peikoff's dissertation was titled \"The Status of the Law of Contradiction in Classic Logical Ontologism.\" His mentor criticized him as \"monist\" and a \"Hegelian,\" but this did not deter Peikoff from his Objectivist predilections. Yet like a genuine Hegelian, Peikoff argues that no philosophical problems can be resolved in a vacuum, since all issues are interconnected. Admitting to a tendency toward rationalism, Peikoff never tires of quoting \"The True is the Whole.\" He repeats this credo in his books, articles, and courses, warning of the danger of \"one-sided distortions.\" [Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, 121]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe conviction that knowledge consists in a kind of integrated, logical whole implies a specific metaphysical perspective. If knowledge exists as an integrated whole, than the world itself must be some sort of holistic, integrated phenomenon. Hence, we find Objectivists contending that reality is \"logical.\" Peikoff himself, during his brief incursion as a talk show host, once insisted that reality was not, as some maintained, inordinately complex. For any great complexity would soon enough destroy the Objectivist ideal of knowledge as an integrated whole. As would, for example, the reality of surds. For the Objectivist view of knowledge to work, reality must be relatively simple, interconnected, intelligible, logical, and orderly. Mystifying complexities, unintelligibility, the absurd, the incalculable must be ruled out of court altogether.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe problem with this view is that it does not accord with the facts. The world doesn't have the pristine, simple homogenuity that Objectivism tacitly requires. To be sure, the opposite isn't true either: the world is not a pluralist chaos either. Again, we find Objectivism confronting us with false alternatives. The world contains both order and chaos, both intelligibility and unintelligibility, both the calculable and the incalculable. The world is intelligible enough for us to survive in it; but not so intelligible that we can fathom all its depths. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe Objectivist view of an orderly, logical, intelligible world is not consistent with a realist metaphysics or with evolutionary psychology. To declare that the world is thoroughly logical and intelligible is to suggest that the world was devised or created for the benefit of the human mind, which is hardly a view plausible to a thoroughly consistent and chastened realism. On the atheistic premises propounded by Objectivists, the mind must be a product of evolution. Under such a view, it is unlikely to assume that reality was tailor-made to fit the mind. And as a matter of fact, we don't find it to be. On the quantum level, reality baffles the mind. Nor has anyone discovered any coherent logic that enjoys empire over fact. Logic is a method of thought, not a law of matter. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe Objectivist view is only plausible on idealist premises. This perhaps accounts for Peikoff's Hegelian tendencies, and for Rand's sympathy for Brand Blandshard's book \u003Ci\u003EReason and Analysis\u003C\/i\u003E, which was \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.nathanielbranden.com\/review-of-reason-and-analysis\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ereviewed\u003C\/a\u003E positively in The Objectivist Newsletter.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u0026nbsp; "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2530001655616411366\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2530001655616411366","title":"7 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2530001655616411366"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2530001655616411366"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/11\/ayn-rand-epistemology-22.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 22"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"7"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4938464710166652939"},"published":{"$t":"2012-11-02T21:49:00.003-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-11-02T21:50:18.207-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Objectivists And Personal Responsibility"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"In which John Aglialoro, the producer of the double-bomb \"Atlas Shrugged\" series and David Kelley, founder of the Atlas Society and official script consultant to the project, place the blame for these spectacular failures \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/johnaglialoro.blogspot.co.nz\/2012\/11\/to-win-or-not-to-win.html\"\u003Eon everyone but themselves\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/4938464710166652939\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=4938464710166652939","title":"24 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4938464710166652939"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4938464710166652939"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/11\/objectivists-and-personal-responsibility.html","title":"Objectivists And Personal Responsibility"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"24"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2869824435659469417"},"published":{"$t":"2012-11-01T18:53:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-11-26T19:28:02.608-08:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Popper"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 21"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cstrong\u003EDefinitions 6: Doctrine of Essentialism.\u003C\/strong\u003E Karl Popper provides the following gloss on essentialism:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nLike Plato, Aristotle believed that we obtain all knowledge ultimately by an intuitive grasp of the essences of things. 'We can know a thing only by knowing its essence', Aristotle writes, and 'to know a thing is to know its essence'. A 'basic premiss' is, according to him, nothing but a statement describing the essence of a thing. But such a statement is just what he calls a definition. Thus all '\u003Ci\u003Ebasic premisses of proofs\u003C\/i\u003E' are \u003Ci\u003Edefinitions\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n...Aristotle considers the term to be defined as a name of the essence of a thing, and the defining formula as the description of that essence. And he insists that the defining formula must give an exhaustive description of the essence or the essential properties of the thing in question; thus a statement like 'A puppy has four legs', although true, is not a satisfactory definition, since it does not exhaust what may be called the essence of puppiness, but holds true of a horse also; and similarly the statement 'A puppy is brown', although it may be true of some, is not true of all puppies; and it describes what is not an essential but merely an accidental property of the defined term.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nBut the most difficult question is how we can get hold of definitions or basic premisses, and make sure that they are correct - that we have not erred, not grasped the wrong essence. Although Aristotle is not very clear on this point, there can be little doubt that, in the main, he again follows Plato.... Aristotle's view is less radical and less inspired than Plato's, but in the end it amounts to the same. For although he teaches that we arrive at the definition only after we have made many observations, he admits that sense experience does not in itself grasp the universal essence, and that it cannot, therefore, fully determine a definition. Eventually he simply postulates that we possess an intellectual intuition, a mental or intellectual faculty which enables us unerringly to grasp the essences of things, and to know them. And he further assumes that if we know an essence intuitively, we must be capable of describing it and therefore of defining it. (His arguments in the \u003Ci\u003EPosterior Analytics\u003C\/i\u003E in favour of this theory are surprisingly weak. They consist merely in pointing out that our knowledge of the basic premisses cannot be demonstrative, since this would lead to an infinite regress, and that the basic premisses must be at least as true and as certain as the conclusions based upon them. 'It follows from this', he writes, 'that there cannot be demonstrative knowledge of the primary premisses; and since nothing but intellectual intuition can be more true than demonstrative knowledge, it follows that it must be intellectual intuition that grasps the basic premisses.' In the \u003Ci\u003EDe Anima\u003C\/i\u003E, and in the theological part of the \u003Ci\u003EMetaphysics\u003C\/i\u003E, we find more of an argument; for here we have a \u003Ci\u003Etheory\u003C\/i\u003E of intellectual intuition - that it comes into contact with its object, the essence, and that it even becomes one with its object. 'Actual knowledge is identical with its object.')\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSumming up this brief analysis, we can give, I believe, a fair description of the Aristotelian ideal of perfect and complete knowledge if we say that he saw the ultimate aim of all inquiry in the compilation of an encyclopaedia containing the intuitive definitions of all essences, that is to say, their names together with their defining formulae; and that he considered the progress of knowledge as consisting in the gradual accumulation of such an encyclopaedia, in expanding it as well as in filling up the gaps in it and, of course, in the syllogistic derivation from it of 'the whole body of facts' which constitute demonstrative knowledge.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EWhen it comes to essences and definitions, Rand generally follows Aristotle, although, here and there,\u0026nbsp;she adds her own little wrinkles. Rand defines the \"essence of a concept\" as \"that fundamental characteristic(s) of its units on which the greatest number of other characteristics depend, and which distinguishes these units from all other existents within the field of man's knowledge.\" [IOTE, 52] Here we find Rand echoing, in her own terms, Aristotle's distinction between essential and accidental properties. Rand also imagines knowledge as a kind of \u003Ci\u003Eintegrated\u003C\/i\u003E encyclopedia cataloguing the entire \"hierarchy\" of knowledge:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nTruth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of \u003Ci\u003Eessential\u003C\/i\u003E characteristics. [IOTE, 48]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nAnd Rand concludes, ominously:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions. [IOTE, 49]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nWhere Rand \u003Ci\u003Eappears\u003C\/i\u003E to differ from Aristotle is when it comes to issue of how essences are discovered and identified. Rand rejects Aristotle's \"intellectual intuition\" in favor of what she calls \"reason.\" While this \"reason\" always remains scandalously vague, Rand did provide a bit of hint on how one goes about discovering essential characteristics (i.e., essences):\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nNow observe . . . the process of determining an essential characteristic: the rule of fundamentality. When a given group of existents has more than one characteristic distinguishing it from other existents, man must observe the relationships among these various characteristics and discover the one on which all the others (or the greatest number of others) depend, i.e., the fundamental characteristic without which the others would not be possible. This fundamental characteristic is the essential distinguishing characteristic of the existents involved, and the proper defining characteristic of the concept.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis is as detailed an explanation that Rand ever bothered to provide on how to identify essences. For Rand, thinking in essentials involves observing relationships among various characteristics and discovering the one on which most of the others \"depend.\" This dependence Rand describes as \"the fundamental characteristic without which the others would not be possible.\" This, however, is an intolerably vague standard. Rand attempts to defend it by showing how the essence of man is discovered. Since \"rationality,\" according to Rand, \"explains\" more characteristics of man than any other characteristic, \u003Cem\u003Erationality\u003C\/em\u003E is therefore the essence of man. If this seems like special pleading, well, that is what it amounts to. It is not even clear that \"rationality\" would be the essence of man according to Rand's own theory of essence. There is a large body of evidence compiled by social thinkers like Pareto, by evolutionary psychologists like Steven Pinker, and by social psychologists like Jonathan Haidt which challenge the Rand's touching faith in man's rationality. But it hardly matters in any case. Rand's method of thinking in essentials is merely a rationalization of her own unique brand of rationalism. In practical terms, Rand's essentialism is merely thinking in terms of vague generalizations, which are arbitrarily regarded as \"essential.\" It is the method of an inveterate rationalizer. It is not a method used in science or in any field of inquiry where truth takes precedence over ideology.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nLeonard Peikoff, in his brief memoir \"My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand,\" not only praises Rand for \"thinking in essentials,\" but credits Aristotle for pioneering the intellectual tools required to develop this methodology:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe concept of \"essential\" was originated by Aristotle in connection with his theory of definitions. He used the term to name the quality that makes an entity the distinctive kind of entity thing it is, as against what he called \"accidental\" qualities. For example, having a rational faculty is essential to being a man. But having blue eyes rather than green is not; it is a mere detail or accident of a particular case. Ayn Rand's commitment to essentials grew out of this Aristotlean theory, although she modified the concept significantly and expanded its role in human thought. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nFor Ayn Rand, thinking in essentials was not restricted to the issue of definitions. It was a method of understanding any complex situation by deliberately setting aside irrelevancies — such as insignificant details, superficial similarities, unimportant differences — and going instead to the heart of the matter, to the aspects which, as we may say, constitute the distinctive core of the situation. This is something Ayn Rand herself did brilliantly. I always thought of her, metaphorically, as possessing a special power of vision, which could penetrate beneath the surface data that most people see, just as an X-ray machine penetrates beneath the flesh that meets our eyes to reveal the crucial underlying structures. [VOR, 342]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTwo questions immediately arise from Peikoff's effusive praise. Peikoff describes Rand's \"thinking in essentials\" as \"a special power of vision, which could penetrate beneath the surface data that most people see.\" What is the difference between this \"special power\" and Aristotle's \"intellectual intuition\"? Furthermore, if Rand was so brilliant at going \"to the heart of the matter,\" why was she so wrong about human nature, the history of philosophy, and the role of ideas in history? Assuming that Rand did in fact follow some special method of thought derived from Aristotle (an assumption almost certainly false), we can only judge the efficacy of the method by the quality of its conclusions. We have extensively documented at ARCHN Rand's innumerable\u0026nbsp;errors of logic and fact. If there was a method to all this madness it must\u0026nbsp;be a very\u0026nbsp;bad method. Thinking in essentials sounds great as a catch phrase. But no method of thought works well in practice unless its conclusions are rigorously criticized and tested by experience. Rand loathed criticism of her ideas and treated anyone who dared to\u0026nbsp;challenge her with hostility and contempt. Her method of thinking in essentials could therefore only serve to confirm her errors; and that seems to be its main function in her philosophy.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHuman nature and human society are two very complex realities. They cannot be mastered merely through \"proper\" concept formations, \"proper\" definitions, and thinking in terms of essentials and the \"rule of fundamentality.\" They can only be mastered through extensive immersion in the subjects themselves, coupled with intense self and peer criticism. When going through Rand's writings on politics and psychology, one is constantly struck by the sheer ignorance of the woman. She often seems way\u0026nbsp;out of her depth, not because of any lack of intelligence, but simply out of a lack of mastery of the subject at hand. Her essentialism consists in little more than ignoring inconvenient facts (e.g., the role of desire in human\u0026nbsp;motivation) or\u0026nbsp;concealing her ignorance in generalities (e.g., her remarks about Kant, Hume, Russell, etc.).\u0026nbsp;She is too ignorant to even be aware of her ignorance; and therefore her writings suffer from what can only be described as deep rooted \u003Cem\u003Epretence of knowledge\u003C\/em\u003E.\u003C!------\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2869824435659469417\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2869824435659469417","title":"9 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2869824435659469417"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2869824435659469417"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/11\/ayn-rand-epistemology-21.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 21"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"9"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-9005520554201453738"},"published":{"$t":"2012-10-31T17:35:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-10-31T17:36:13.300-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Looking Forward to Part 3"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"Atlas Shrugged Part 2 \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/boxofficemojo.com\/movies\/?page=weekend\u0026amp;id=atlasshruggedpart2.htm\"\u003Eearned a wretched $91,000\u003C\/a\u003E in its third weekend, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/boxofficemojo.com\/movies\/?page=weekend\u0026amp;id=atlasshrugged.htm\"\u003Ecompared to the $468,000\u003C\/a\u003E even its turkey predecessor was bringing in at the same point in its run.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIncidentally, Box Office Mojo estimates that Sandy may have affected sales by \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.boxofficemojo.com\/news\/?id=3554\u0026amp;p=.htm\"\u003E\"at worst 10%\"\u003C\/a\u003E."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/9005520554201453738\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=9005520554201453738","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/9005520554201453738"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/9005520554201453738"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/10\/looking-forward-to-part-3.html","title":"Looking Forward to Part 3"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5772764334509094336"},"published":{"$t":"2012-10-23T16:44:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-10-23T16:46:48.349-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Atlas 2: An Even Bigger Bomb?"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.altfg.com\/blog\/movie\/atlas-shrugged-part-2-box-office\/\"\u003ENo surprises there\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nDespite opening far wider than its predecessor, it's currently falling even faster and harder. Box Office Mojo has \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/boxofficemojo.com\/showdowns\/chart\/?view=daily\u0026amp;id=atlasshrugged.htm\"\u003Ethe brutal numbers\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nProducer Harmon Kaslow claims that his movie is \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/blog.atlasshruggedmovie.com\/2012\/10\/atlas-shrugged-producer-says-atlas-not.html\"\u003E\"not for everyone\"\u003C\/a\u003E. Clearly he is a master of understatement.\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\nAnd don't forget the\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/store.atlasshruggedmovie.com\/official-atlas-shrugged-movie-brass-money-clip\/\"\u003Eunintentionally ironic\u0026nbsp;merchandising\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5772764334509094336\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5772764334509094336","title":"13 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5772764334509094336"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5772764334509094336"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/10\/atlas-2-even-bigger-bomb.html","title":"Atlas 2: An Even Bigger Bomb?"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"13"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-701201629020733025"},"published":{"$t":"2012-10-21T13:45:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-10-21T13:45:51.095-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 20"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EDefinitions 5: Doctrine of Essence.\u003C\/b\u003E Rand introduces essences in the chapter on definitions.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cselfish dna=\"dna\"\u003E\u003Cselfish genes=\"genes\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cselfish dna=\"dna\"\u003E\u003Cselfish genes=\"genes\"\u003E\nIt is Aristotle who first formulated the principles of correct definition. It is Aristotle who identified the fact that only concretes exist. But Aristotle held that definitions refer to metaphysical essences, which exist in concretes as a special element or formative power, and he held that the process of concept-formation depends on a kind of direct intuition by which man’s mind grasps these essences and forms concepts accordingly.\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cselfish dna=\"dna\"\u003E\u003Cselfish genes=\"genes\"\u003E\nAristotle regarded “essence” as metaphysical; Objectivism regards it as epistemological.\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cselfish dna=\"dna\"\u003E\u003Cselfish genes=\"genes\"\u003E\nObjectivism holds that the essence of a concept is that fundamental characteristic(s) of its units on which the greatest number of other characteristics depend, and which distinguishes these units from all other existents within the field of a man’s knowledge. Thus the essence of a concept is determined contextually and may be altered with the growth of man’s knowledge. The metaphysical referent of man’s concepts is not a special, separate metaphysical essence, but the total of the facts of reality he has observed, and this total determines which characteristics of a given group of existents he designates as essential. An essential characteristic is factual, in the sense that it does exist, does determine other characteristics and does distinguish a group of existents from all others; it is epistemological in the sense that the classification of “essential characteristic” is a device of man’s method of cognition—a means of classifying, condensing and integrating an ever-growing body of knowledge.\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cselfish dna=\"dna\"\u003E\u003Cselfish genes=\"genes\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt is important to note the various connections that Rand maintains between essence, concepts, and definitions. She begins by introducing the Aristotle's view of essence. For Aristotle, essences are \"metaphysical.\" They exist \"in\" concretes as a special element or \"formative power.\" Rand, however, regards these essences as \"epistemological.\" I've attempted to unpack the meaning of this phrase in another post; I will focus in this post on another side of the issue.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\nThere are two potential reasons why Rand dismisses the notion of \"metaphysical\" essences. The first reason is that she appears to believe that metaphysical essences would make concept formation too easy. I've already \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/08\/ayn-rand-epistemolgy-12.html#more\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ecriticized\u003C\/a\u003E this rationalization for dismissing metaphysical essences, so there's no need to add anything here. The second reason stems from the Aristolean notion that essences are a formative power which quite literally makes a thing what it is. Presumably Rand would have rejected this Platonic element embedded in Aristotle's thought. Essences are not powers; they are merely themes of discourse: a strand of identity by which one class of objects is distinguished from another.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPhilosophically, essences are normally \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Essence\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Edefined\u003C\/a\u003E as \"the attribute or set of attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.\" Rand seems to have regarded essences as being those attributes by which an object is defined. This is why essences are brought up in her chapter on definitions. Since the essence provides the materials out of which a definition is made, it would be no exaggeration to say that, for Rand at least, an essence constitutes a concept's definition.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNow there is one potential problem here that, as we begin to explore the essentialistic aspects of Rand's epistemology, will begin to assume greater importance. Rand regarded definitions as \"the condensation of a vast body of observations.\" Definitions, Rand declared, are not descriptions. \"If a definition were to list all the characteristics [of a concept's referents], it would defeat it's own purpose: it would provide an indiscriminate, undifferentiated and, in effect, pre-conceptual conglomoration of characteristics which would not serve to distinguish the units from all other existents, nor the concept from all other concepts. A definition must identify the \u003Ci\u003Enature\u003C\/i\u003E of the units, i.e., the \u003Ci\u003Eessential\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/i\u003Echaracteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are.\" [IOTE, 42]\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf, however, a definition does not exhaustively describe what a thing is; if it is a mere condensation of knowledge: then does this not imply that essences are also non-descriptive condensations as well? If so, this is deeply problematic. If an essence makes an object what it is, the implication here is that \u003Ci\u003Ea condensation of knowledge\u003C\/i\u003E, a handful of attributes rather than all the attributes of the object, are what make the thing what it is. But this position seems to imply the Aristotlean doctrine that essences are metaphysical (i.e., that they are formative powers).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand appears to embrace this position in another passage from her chapter on definitions: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cselfish dna=\"dna\"\u003E\u003Cselfish genes=\"genes\"\u003E\nNow observe ... the process of determining an essential characteristics [i.e., an essence]: the rule of \u003Ci\u003Efundamentality\u003C\/i\u003E. When a given group of existents has more than one characteristic distinguishing it from other existents, man must observe the relationships among these various characteristics and discover the one on which all the others (or the greatest number of others) depend, i.e., the fundamental characteristic upon which the others would not be possible. This fundamental characteristic is the \u003Ci\u003Eessential\u003C\/i\u003E distinguishing characteristic of the existents involved, and the proper \u003Ci\u003Edefining\u003C\/i\u003E characteristic of the concept.\u003Cbr \/\u003E \u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003Cselfish dna=\"dna\"\u003E\u003Cselfish genes=\"genes\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003Cselfish dna=\"dna\"\u003E\u003Cselfish genes=\"genes\"\u003E\nMetaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible; epistemologically, it is the one that explains the greatest number of others. [IOTE, 45]\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cselfish dna=\"dna\"\u003E\u003Cselfish genes=\"genes\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nA few pages later [p. 52] we find the following: \"Objectivism holds that the essence of a concept is that fundamental characteristic(s) upon which the greatest number of other characteristics depend.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis doctrine implies that essences are \"metaphysical\" in some sort of quasi-Aristolean fashion. Rand confronts us with an equation of sorts. The \u003Cb\u003Efundamental characteristic\u003C\/b\u003E \u003Ci\u003Eis\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Cb\u003Ethat upon which the greatest number of other characteristic depend\u003C\/b\u003E \u003Ci\u003Eand\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Cb\u003Ethat which makes the greatest number possible\u003C\/b\u003E. Rand goes on to describe this fundamental characteristic as metaphysical and as the \"essence of a concept.\" In other words: \u003Cb\u003Efundamental characteristic\u003C\/b\u003E = \u003Cb\u003Ethat which makes the greatest number of others possible\u003C\/b\u003E = \u003Cb\u003Eessence\u003C\/b\u003E. If so, why then does Rand insist that essences are epistemological? Her actual doctrine, as expounded in IOTE, implies that essences are in fact \"metaphysical\" in a quasi-Aristolean sense. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPer usual, Rand is trying to have it both ways. She wants to embrace the Aristotlean view of essences and definitions without getting drawn into the Platonic implications of the doctrine. However, this is just not possible. The Aristotlean view of definitions and their role in cognition implies a metaphysical outlook that is at odds with science and reality. Worse, it encourages just the sort of rationalistic type of thinking and arguing that leads to a sterile scholasticism. In Objectivism, this sort of scholasticism is called \"thinking by essentials,\" and will serve as the topic for my next post. \n\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/701201629020733025\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=701201629020733025","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/701201629020733025"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/701201629020733025"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/10\/ayn-rand-epistemology-20.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 20"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1543268761579212917"},"published":{"$t":"2012-10-17T20:32:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-10-17T20:37:15.294-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Part II Commences"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Ciframe allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"315\" src=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/AF9QT43uDQU\" width=\"560\"\u003E\u003C\/iframe\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSo far seems to be tracking only slightly ahead of the former, despite being in 3x the number of cinemas this time around. Reviews say it still sucks.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/boxofficemojo.com\/showdowns\/chart\/?view=basic\u0026amp;id=atlasshrugged.htm\"\u003EOpening weekend stats\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.metacritic.com\/movie\/atlas-shrugged-part-2\"\u003EMetacritic.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.rottentomatoes.com\/m\/atlas_shrugged_part_ii\/\"\u003ERotten Tomatoes. \u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1543268761579212917\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1543268761579212917","title":"4 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1543268761579212917"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1543268761579212917"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/10\/part-ii-commences.html","title":"Part II Commences"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/AF9QT43uDQU\/default.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"4"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2037420454465278775"},"published":{"$t":"2012-10-12T08:48:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-10-12T08:50:38.772-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 19"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cstrong\u003EDefinitions 4: Doctrine of Definitions as Platonic Ideas.\u003C\/strong\u003E While Rand did not explicitly believe that definitions were analogous to platonic Ideas, her contention that definitions can be true or false implies that definitions are thoroughly platonic and exist as a kind of disembodied reality. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\nDefinitions can either be regarded as defining the \"true\" meaning of words (as Rand regards them) or as defining what people mean by the words they use (which is how dictionaries regard them). Now for Rand's view of definitions to be true, words must have meanings independent of the meanings people intend to convey when using them. An individual may be trying to convey meaning X by using word A. But if the \"true\" definition of X is B rather than A, then the individual actually means B rather than A, irrespective of his intentions. This doctrine is, of course, absurd, yet it is one that Rand appears to have embraced. Consider the most notorious example, from the introduction to \u003Cem\u003EThe Virtue of Selfishness\u003C\/em\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\nIn popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\nYet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\nThis concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EHow can the \"popular meaning\" of a word be \"wrong\"? Don't people mean what they mean? (Rand's implicit answer is: \u003Cem\u003Eno, they don't\u003C\/em\u003E.) Rand's contention that the exact meaning of the dictionary meaning of selfishness is \"concern with one's own interests\" is misleading. That may be \u003Cem\u003Eone\u003C\/em\u003E of the definitions of selfishness. But there are multiple definitions of the word. Merriam Websters provides three:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Col\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003Econcerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others \u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003Earising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others \u003Ca act=\"act\" href=\"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/null\" selfish=\"selfish\"\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003Ebeing an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function \u003Cselfish dna=\"dna\"\u003E; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication \u003Cselfish genes=\"genes\"\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/selfish\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ol\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\nIf definitions can be true or false, how can we explain the fact that most words have multiple definitions? The only way Rand could explain this is either (1) only \u003Cem\u003Eone\u003C\/em\u003E of a word's definitions is \"true\"; (2) definitions apply only to concepts rather than words, so that a word with multiple definitions actually applies to several concepts. I would venture to guess that Rand would rely upon the second explanation.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\nAre definitions applicable to concepts rather than words? No, they are not. Dictionaries define words, not concepts. But even if definitions did apply to concepts, this would not justify Rand's doctrine of definitions. Let's go back to the Rand's claims about the word selfishness. Rand insists that the \"the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word\" is: concern with one's own interests. By Rand's own epistemological theory,\u0026nbsp;her contention here is inaccurate. If we take Rand's view about definitions applying to concepts at face value, then we must assume that she is not talking about the \"word\" selfishness, but about\u0026nbsp;one of the concepts\u0026nbsp;symbolized by the word. If so, then we must assume as well that other concepts may also be symbolized by the same term; and that\u0026nbsp;these concepts may be defined just as truly as Rand's own\u0026nbsp;special version. However, if words can correspond to multiple concepts, then Rand's contention that any term has a \"true\" meaning is wrong even on her own premises. Since a term can symbolize many meanings, no term can have a single \"true\" meaning.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\nTo be sure, Rand's assertion that definitions apply to concepts, not words is mere window dressing. It is one of those doctrines that is more honored in the breach than in the observance. In practice, the distinction between concepts and words will be forgotten, and the belief that every concept has a true definition will metamorphise itself into the doctrine that every word has a true definition. We see this plainly in Rand's discussion of selfishness. When she writes about the definition of selfishness, she uses the phrase \"definition of word,\" not \"definition of concept.\" Definitions define what people mean by the words they use. Definitions merely connect words to meanings. Even Rand understood this, although she contradicts it in her epistemology.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\nIf a word could have a \"true\" definition,\u0026nbsp;then the \"true\" meaning and intended meaning of the words people use would not diverge. But they obviously do. This\u0026nbsp;is no where better illustrated than when people misuse terms: that is to say, when individuals use words that, in common usage, diverge from the meanings they are trying to express. What is interesting about these situations is that it is possible to understand what these people mean, even though they are using the wrong terms to express that meaning. The following are a couple of quotes from Dogberry in Shakespeare's \u003Cem\u003EMuch Ado About Nothing\u003C\/em\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nOne word, sir: our watch, sir, have indeed comprehended two aspicious persons, and we would have them this morning examined before your worship.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIs our whole dissembly appeared?\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\nDogberry is an example of someone using the wrong words to express what he means. That's the humor of it. But to get the joke, the audience must understand what Dogberry really means. When Dogberry says that his watch has \"comprehended to aspicious persons,\" we know he really means \"we apprehended two suspicious persons.\" When he says \"our whole dissembly,\" we know he really means \"our whole assembly.\" Now if words can\u0026nbsp;have meanings independent of what people mean by them, how could we explain (1) the divergence between \"real\" meaning and intended meaning; and (2) the fact that we can sometimes understand what a person really means, even when they use the wrong words. The humor arising from verbal gaffes is only explicable on the view that definitions define word usage, rather than the \"true\" meanings of words (or the concepts the words symbolize). Words do not have \"true\" meanings; they are merely vehicles to convey the intended meaning of those using the words. It's the intended meaning, not the \"true\" meaning, that counts. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\nBecause Rand assumed that words had a true meaning independent of what people intended when using them, she often struggled to understand other point of views. She would read her own meanings into the words other people used and wind up distorting what others meant. There's ample evidence of this in her marginalia, and in her treatment of rival points of view. At times, it is as if Rand assumes that people say what they don't mean, that their words have a reality independent of their intent. Words, Rand suggested, when strung together into premises, could actually change an individual's personality. Ideas could become integrated into the subconscious, and from that vantage point work all kinds of mischief. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\nRand's views on these issues would be bad enough even if they were mere speculative theories serving no other purpose than to rationalize an ideological agenda. But when taken seriously and applied in practice, these views can easily take a malicious turn. It's bad enough to put words in people's mouth; but even worse is putting meanings into their thoughts. The belief that \u003Cem\u003Econcepts\u003C\/em\u003E have true meanings, in practice, leads to the belief that \u003Cem\u003Ewords\u003C\/em\u003E have true meanings; and that belief in turn leads not merely to senseless arguments about the meaning of words, but to the denial and\/or evasion of what people mean by the words they use. To repeat again what I have said: It's the intended meaning, not the \"true\" meaning, that counts. To insist on a separation between intended and true meaning can only lead to misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what other people mean by the words they use. At it's very best, its bad manners to insist that people don't mean what they do in fact mean; at its worst, it's downright malicious."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2037420454465278775\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2037420454465278775","title":"15 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2037420454465278775"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2037420454465278775"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/10\/ayn-rand-epistemology-19.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 19"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"15"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4311272301090373680"},"published":{"$t":"2012-10-04T15:31:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-10-04T15:31:28.050-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 18"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EDefinitions 3: Doctrine of Anti-Concept and Invalid Concept.\u003C\/b\u003E In Rand's infamous chapter on definitions in Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology, we find the following bewildering assertion:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThere are such things as invalid concepts, i. e. words that represent attempts to integrate errors, contradictions, or false propositions, such as concepts originating in mysticism -- or word without specific definitions, without referents, which can mean anything to anyone, such as modern \"anti-concepts.\" Invalid concepts appear occasionally in men's languages, but are usually - though not necessarily - short-lived, since they lead to cognitive dead-ends. An invalid concept invalidates every proposition or process of thought in which it is used as a cognitive assertion. [IOTE, 49]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe most astonishing claim in this paragraph is the final sentence. Invalid concepts spread a kind of curse of invalidity upon everything which uses them as a \"cognitive assertion.\" I'll assume that by \"cognitive assertion,\" Rand means, an assertion about reality. If interpreted in this manner, is the statement true? Hardly. I've already, in previous posts, refuted it. Merely because a concept refers to extra-empirical entitites, or to contradictory beliefs, or to the unreal does not invalidate the concept! Nor does using those so-called \"invalid\" concepts, even in assertions about reality, invalidate those assertions. The concept bandersnatch can be used in \"valid\" (i.e., \"true,\" \"real\") assertions about reality, namely: \u003Ci\u003EThe bandersnatch is a swift moving creature with a long neck invented by Lewis Carroll.\u003C\/i\u003E Or: \u003Ci\u003EThe banderstatch does not exist\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWithout realizing it, Rand's decision to regard some concepts as \"invalid\" not only places concepts referring to mythological creatures beyond the cognitive pale, it also casts a shadow of invalidity over concepts that refer to erroneous ideas. After all, should \u003Ci\u003EMarxism\u003C\/i\u003E be regarded as an invalid concept? After all, \u003Ci\u003EMarxism\u003C\/i\u003E integrates errors, contradictions, and false propositions. But if \u003Ci\u003EMarxism\u003C\/i\u003E is an invalid concept, how are we supposed to refer to that body of thought that Karl Marx inflicted upon the world?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThe difficulties of Rand's notion of an invalid concept become clearly manifest when she discusses the (allegedly) \"invalid\" concept of God:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThis is precisely one, if not the essential one, of the epistemological objections to the concept \"God\". It is not a concept. At best, one could say it is a concept in the sense in which a dramatist uses concepts to create a character. It is an isolation of actual characteristics of man combined with the projection of impossible irrational characteristics which do not arise from reality - such as omnipotence and omniscience. [IOTE, 148]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand begins by declaring that \u003Ci\u003EGod\u003C\/i\u003E is not a concept; then she says \u003Ci\u003EGod\u003C\/i\u003E is a concept in the sense of concepts used to create characters in fiction. She will later go on to declare that \u003Ci\u003EGod\u003C\/i\u003E is not a concept because \u003Ci\u003EGod\u003C\/i\u003E is \"sui generis.\" Rand could have saved herself these equivocations by merely realizing that the category of validity does not apply to concepts.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand leaps into an even deeper epistemological mire with her notion of \"anti-concepts.\" Consider the following:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAn anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate . . . .\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nOne of today’s fashionable anti-concepts is “polarization.” Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad—undesirable, socially destructive, evil—something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It is used mainly in political issues and serves as a kind of “argument from intimidation”: it replaces a discussion of the merits (the truth or falsehood) of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would “polarize” the country—which is supposed to make one’s opponents retreat, protesting that they didn’t mean it. Mean—what? . . .\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIt is doubtful—even in the midst of today’s intellectual decadence—that one could get away with declaring explicitly: “Let us abolish all debate on fundamental principles!” (though some men have tried it). If, however, one declares; “Don’t let us polarize,” and suggests a vague image of warring camps ready to fight (with no mention of the fight’s object), one has a chance to silence the mentally weary. The use of “polarization” as a pejorative term means: the suppression of fundamental principles. Such is the pattern of the function of anti-concepts.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nEven if Rand's caricature of \u003Ci\u003Epolarization\u003C\/i\u003E had merit, it would not justify slandering the term as an \"anti-concept.\" The meaning of the \u003Ci\u003Epolarization\u003C\/i\u003E is sufficiently clear to those who use it: \"A concentration, as of groups, forces, or interests, about two conflicting or contrasting positions.\" Why did Rand object to it? Mainly because \u003Ci\u003Epolarization\u003C\/i\u003E was one of her principle debating tricks. Rand liked to argue that there were only two stark alternatives, her own and something far worse. Hence we all must choose between the most extreme form of laissez-faire capitalism and the most extreme form of totalitarian communism; between an uncompromising selfishness and complete self-sacrifice; between free will even to the point of choosing one's own personality and total determinism. Rand refused to acknowledge that there might be a middle ground between these opposing extremes. She refused because, once the middle ground is acknowledged, Rand's extreme positions on these issues become very difficult to defend. If we can only choose between laissez-faire capitalism on the one side and totalitarian communism on the other, then of course any sensible person will choose laissez-faire. But there are far more choices than merely these two extremes: choices running from the lightly but intelligently regulated capitalism advocated by conservatives to a more aggressive and intrusive approach to regulation advocated by those on the left. Rand, however, did not want to bother framing arguments against these less extreme positions. So Rand turned to polarization tactics. When she was called out on it, instead of responding to specific criticisms and giving a detailed, reasonable explanation of why an uncompromising laissez-faire would be preferable to even the light-regulated model favored by conservatives, she tried to crush her advesaries by declaring polarization an \"anti-concept.\" No argument, just verbal mumbo jumbo. That is really what Rand's concept-centered, definition-obsessive approach leads to in the end: verbal mumbo jumbo. Instead of honoring what other people mean by the words they use, she arbitrarily declares their meanings null and void, as mere \"anti-concepts\" not worth even discussing. Her definitions, which often flout and even trample upon the meanings established by common usage, are then declared as the only \"true\" and legitimate ones, and we all must mean what Rand means, even when we obviously don't. This mode of argumentation was rooted deep within Rand's nature. It prevented her from engaging in any constructive debate with those who disagreed with her. It plagues orthodox Objectivism to this very day. In terms of practical consequence, Rand's belief that some concepts \"obliterate\" other concepts is merely another manifestation of the sort of senseless scholasticism that, like a noisome disease, infects her philosophy. No progress in knowledge or science can be achieved by arbitrarily asserting that some meanings constitute \"anti-concepts,\" while others are \"invalid.\" All meanings, all concepts, all ideas are justifiable in and of themselves. Their role is to express or describe some entity, process, attribute, feeling, experience, etc.; whether one's meaning refers to something real or fanciful, true or false, inimical to other meanings or not is entirely beside the point. It may be just as important for us to describe our errors, illusions, and mis-steps as it is to describe objective truth. How can we know what is false and\/or illusory if we can't describe it?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand's attempt to deprive us of words she disapproved of must be considered not merely foolish and mischievous, but sinister as well. There is an Orwellian component to Rand's notions of invalid concepts and anti-concepts that should put us all on our guard. Rand would deprive us, for example, of the words necessary to explain what is wrong with Objectivism. Epistemologically, what could be more sinister than that? \n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/4311272301090373680\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=4311272301090373680","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4311272301090373680"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/4311272301090373680"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/10\/ayn-rand-epistemology-18.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 18"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6374614871000758874"},"published":{"$t":"2012-09-29T08:50:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-11-01T08:29:22.631-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 17"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cstrong\u003EDefinitions 2: Doctrine of Concepts as the Principle Unit of Knowledge\u003C\/strong\u003E. This doctrine is expounded in Rand's Epistemological workshops:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EProf F:\u003C\/b\u003E My question is about the relationships between concepts and propositions. Concepts are logically prior, aren't they?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EAR:\u003C\/b\u003E Yes.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EProf F:\u003C\/b\u003E If every concept is based upon a definition, isn't that definition itself a proposition?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EAR:\u003C\/b\u003E Oh yes.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EProf F:\u003C\/b\u003E Well then, the concept is in this case based on a proposition.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EAR:\u003C\/b\u003E No, but the first concepts are not. First level concepts, concepts of perceptual concretes, are held without definitions.... They are held first without definitions, mainly in visual form, or through other sensory images. By the time you accumulate enough of them, you can progress to propositions, to making use of concepts, organizing them into sentences which communicate something. And the concepts you form from then on, which are abstractions from abstractions, those you couldn't hold visually; they require formal definitions. By the time you get to them, you are already capable of forming abstractions.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAnd observe that that's true even by simple empirical verification: if you see how a child learns to speak, he doesn't start by uttering sentences. He first utters single words, and then after a while, when he has enough of them, he begins to try to communicate in sentences....\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EProf B:\u003C\/b\u003E It is still true that every concept is prior to any proposition that contains the concept. You have to have the concept before you can use it in a proposition....\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EProf F:\u003C\/b\u003E Yes.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cb\u003EAR:\u003C\/b\u003E There is something I would like to add. There is a passage in the book where I said every concept stands for a number of implicit propositions. And even so, chronologically we have to acquire concepts first, and then we begin to learn propositions. Logically implicit in a concept is a proposition, only a child couldn't possibly think of it. He doesn't have the means yet to say, \"By the word 'table' I mean such and such a category of existents [with all their characteristics].\" [IOTE, 177-178]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThe theory limned in these remarks could be reduced to the following:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Col\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003ELogically, concepts are prior to propositions.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EEmpirically, concepts are prior to propositions because concepts are learned first (that is, children spouts words before they spout propositions).\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EThis implies that concepts are the basic unit of knowledge. If your concepts are screwed up, it doesn't matter how you use them in propositions, your knowledge will be compromised.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003ENonetheless, propositions are logically implicit in concepts.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ol\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI will counter these four propositions with the following five conjectures:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Col\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EConcepts are not logically prior to propositions.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EThe fact that children speak in single words before they speak in sentences is irrelevant to the question of whether concepts or propositions are the basic unit of knowledge.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003ENeither conceputalization nor the ability to name things constitute knowledge in the realist sense of the term.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EKnowledge can only be expressed in propositions.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003EPropositions constitute the basic unit of knowledge, not concepts.\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ol\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nLet's flesh out these five conjectures:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(1) Strictly speaking, concepts are not logically prior to propositions. Temporal priority in no way establishes logical priority. Logic applies to arguments and propositions, not concepts or words. Concepts are neither logical nor illogical, valid or invalid. Propositions may depend on concepts in the sense that a proposition is made up of concepts. But that dependence is not strictly logical. The logic arises from the relation of individual concepts to other concepts. \u003Ci\u003EA = non-A\u003C\/i\u003E is a contradiction because two diametrically opposite conceptions are involved and placed within a proposition. A concept by itself cannot contradict anything.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(2) When a child utters his first words, is he forming concepts or is he merely learning the names of things? Unless a definite, fact based answer to this question can be founded and defended (using peer reviewed research), it is pointless to insist that, merely because children learn words before they develop the ability to speak in sentences, that this means that concepts are the principle unit of knowledge or the source of cognitive mischief in anyone who disagrees with Rand's definitions.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(3) If you believe in realism (i.e., that both matter and consciousness exist, and that knowledge involves a conscious mind understanding a substantive world), then familiarity with words, concepts, ideas, essences and other mental arcana do not constitute knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is hence a contradiction in terms. On realist premises, knowledge is not made up of concepts or ideas, but rather on what we assert about our concepts and ideas; and assertions always involve propositions. Knowledge is fundamentally propositional, not conceptual. A concept by itself tells us nothing. It conveys no information about reality. Until one asserts something of a concept, it remains little more than a mental figment. Concepts only convey knowledge when they are assumed to symbolize some object, property, or process in reality; and that assumption involves making a tacit assertion about the concept in question. The concept \u003Ci\u003Etable\u003C\/i\u003E, in and of itself, conjures up merely the mental object of flat objects with legs. Only when we begin to assert that \u003Ci\u003Etables exist\u003C\/i\u003E does the concept become a vehicle for knowledge. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(4) To circumvent the rather obvious fact that no knowledge can be conveyed by concepts alone, Rand introduces the notion that propositions are \"logically implicit\" in concepts. What sort of propositions does Rand have in mind? She gives one example, the proposition \"logically implicit\" in the concept \u003Ci\u003Etable\u003C\/i\u003E: \"By the word 'table' I mean such and such a category of existents.\" What Rand is here suggesting is that conceptualization involves assertions of existence. When you form a concept \"properly,\" you assume that the concept refers to something that exists. Hence all \"valid\" concepts provide information about reality. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe problem with this way of conceiving concept-formation is that it doesn't square easily with concepts of fictional or even hypothetical phenomenon. What of such concepts as \u003Ci\u003Eunicorn\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Egriffen\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Ecentaur\u003C\/i\u003E,\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003Ejaberwocky\u003C\/i\u003E? or \u003Ci\u003Einfinity\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Eeternal\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Eever\u003C\/i\u003E-\u003Ci\u003Elasting\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Eafter\u003C\/i\u003E-\u003Ci\u003Elife\u003C\/i\u003E? Or \u003Ci\u003Ephilogestin\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Eaether\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Etachyon\u003C\/i\u003E? Rand would have to consider many of these concepts as \"invalid,\" which seems to suggest that something went wrong when they were formed. But is this really true? Are these concepts \"invalid\" because they were formed improperly, or is it merely certain assertions made about them that are \"invalid\"? If I say, \u003Ci\u003Ephlogiston exists\u003C\/i\u003E, I am saying something that is untrue and (in keeping with Objectivist word usage) \"invalid.\" But if I say, \u003Ci\u003Ephlogiston does not exist\u003C\/i\u003E, I am uttering something that is true. It is a strange conceit to assume that a concept is \"invalid\" merely because the referent of the concept does not exist (or hasn't been proved to exist). It is even stranger to imply that such invalid concepts are the consequence of \"improper\" concept-formation. If the implications of Rand's views on concept are taken to be credited, the only \"proper\" concepts are those that relate to \"such and such a category of existents.\" \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSuch implications are so absurd that even Rand shrunk from explicitly embracing them. But they remain a festering wound in the fabric of the Objectivist epistemology all the same. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(5) If we merely assume that all knowledge, in the sense that it can be communicated and consciously thought about, is fundamentally propositional, all the absurdities of Rand's concept-centered view of knowledge instantly vanish like a bad dream. We can then entertain all concepts, whether they refer to anything real or not. Concepts are descriptions; and why should we banish descriptions of the unreal and the unproven? They have a place in story-telling, hypothesis, and counter-factuals. Rand's belief that concepts constitute the principle unit of knowledge leads, in practice (as it must inevitably), to senseless quibbles about the meaning of words. But nothing is more futile than to argue about the meanings of words. Far more fruitful to argue about whether this or that assertion about matters of fact is true!"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6374614871000758874\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6374614871000758874","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6374614871000758874"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6374614871000758874"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/09\/ayn-rand-epistemology-17.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 17"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6636884821668262041"},"published":{"$t":"2012-09-25T20:16:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-11-01T08:30:01.425-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 16"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EDefinitions 1: The Doctrine of Immaculate Definitions.\u003C\/b\u003E For Rand, the basic unit of human knowledge is the concept, which she \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandlexicon.com\/lexicon\/concepts.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Edefined\u003C\/a\u003E as follows: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nA concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNote the phrase \"united by a specific definition.\" According to Rand, definitions are a necessary component to conceptual knowledge: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWords transform concepts into (mental) entities; \u003Ci\u003Edefinitions\u003C\/i\u003E provide them with \u003Ci\u003Eidentity\u003C\/i\u003E. (Words without definitions are not language but inarticulate sounds.) [IOTE, 11]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHere Rand commits an error that it as the core of her view of definitions. She confuses definitions with meanings. While definitions state the meaning of words, they are not identical with that meaning. They cannot be identical because, as even Rand admits, definitions are condensations of knowledge. The meaning of most words is far too complex to be summed up in a brief definition. That is one reason why it is possible to know the meaning of a word without being able to provide its definition. Rand, however, insists that people must be able to define their abstract concepts if their knowledge is to be \"valid.\" She (implicitly) denies that people can know even when they can't define their terms. This view, however, does not accord with experience. A definition merely states the meaning of one word in terms of other words. It's a way of saying the same thing with different words. The ability to define one's terms measures, not knowledge, but verbal fluency. An articulate person can describe the same thing in a variety of different ways, using different terms. That's all a definition is: saying the same thing using different words. The purpose of definitions is to establish common usage in the words people use, so they know what they mean when they write or speak. Definitions connect meanings (i.e., concepts) to words. Definitions have nothing to do with concept formation. Concepts already express meanings: it's a built-in feature. A concept without a meaning would not be a concept. Definitions merely connect concepts to conventions of word usage. For communication purposes, it is useful that we ascribe similar meanings to identical words. Otherwise, we will never understand one another. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhen declaring that words \"without definitions\" are \"inarticulate sounds,\" Rand misses the point. What she should have said is that words without meanings are inarticulate sounds. Words can only be defined in terms of other words. In the end, there must be a meaning separate from the word itself.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EWhat I have satirically called the \"doctrine of immaculate definitions\" involves the following premises:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Col\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003Ethat definitions define concepts, not words\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003Ethat definitions can be true or false\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003Cli\u003Ethat the truth or falsity of a definition depends on whether the definition's concept was formed \"properly\"\u003C\/li\u003E\n\u003C\/ol\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand explicitly accepts the first and second of these premises, and strongly implies the third one. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(1) Do definitions define concepts, rather than words? How can they? Concepts are self-defining. They need no definition. To know a concept is to know its meaning, even if you can't provide a verbal definition.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPart of Rand's confusions arise from her belief that words are a necessary part of concept-formation: \"The process of forming a concept is not complete until its constiuent units have been integrated into a single mental unit by means of a specific word.\" [IOTE, 19] While words, for Rand, don't precede concepts, they do \"complete the process.\" This view of the matter, however, does not accord with experience. It fails to explain, for example, how it is that sometimes people are at a loss for words: they know what they mean, but they just don't know what words to use to express that meaning. Under the Objectivist view, it becomes impossible to explain this phenomenon. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAs a world-famous writer, Rand was far more articulate than most people. She seems to have assumed that the process of articulation was equivalent to the process of understanding. If a person couldn't express what they meant, this was taken as evidence of improper concept formation and false definitions, rather than merely a poor facility for expressing oneself. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(2) Can a definition be true? Can it be false? It can be neither (at least not in the sense meant by Rand). Definitions describe the meaning people ascribe to the words they use. If a definition fails as a description of what a person means, then the definition is incorrect or inadequate, not false. To repeat what I said earlier: definitions merely connect meanings to words. They define word usage, which, in a social context, is a mere convention. When Rand insists that definitions can be true or false, she resembles the German lady who said that, while Englishmen called a certain object \u003Ci\u003Ebread\u003C\/i\u003E, and Frenchmen called it \u003Ci\u003Epain\u003C\/i\u003E, \"in reality\" it was \u003Ci\u003EBrod\u003C\/i\u003E. The actual words we use to convey what we mean are entirely arbitrary: they are social conventions, and different peoples often use entirely different words to mean the same thing. How do Objectivist fail to understand something so simple? (Answer: a superstitious fear of the word \u003Ci\u003Earbitrary\u003C\/i\u003E.)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf definitions could be true or false, what would a \"false\" definition look like? Rand never explains her view in a satisfactory manner. Usually when people talk about the truth or falsity of definitions, they mean the truth and falsity of \u003Ci\u003Etheir\u003C\/i\u003E definitions. But in so much as an individual defines his own terms, he is only explaining what he means by the words \u003Ci\u003Ehe\u003C\/i\u003E uses. He cannot, however, dicate how others use those words. There's no \"true\" or \"false\" way of using words; only the ways established by \"common usage.\" Generally speaking, it is best to use words in the same way as most people use them; that is to say, one should follow common usuage as much as possible. If you insist on redefining words in a unique way to yourself, you're bound to be misunderstood.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSometimes when people say a definition is \"false,\" what they really mean is that the definition describes something that doesn't correspond to reality. For example, let us consider a Marxist definition of \u003Ci\u003Ecapitalism\u003C\/i\u003E. Rand would almost certainly describe such a definition as \"false.\" However, in describing it as false Rand is confounding meaning with referent. Anyone, even a Marxist, can define terms in whatever way he pleases. If, when using the term \u003Ci\u003Ecapitalism\u003C\/i\u003E, the Marxist means it in a Marxist way, then his marxist definition of \u003Ci\u003Ecapitalism\u003C\/i\u003E truly describes what he means when he uses the term. The fact that his meaning of capitalism may not refer to anything in reality is irrelevant. After all, would Rand insist that the common definition of a unicorn was false because unicorns don't exist? An individual, whether he is a Marxist, an Objectivist, or Scientologist, means what he means, and there's an end to it. Whether those meanings refer to anything in reality is a separate question. A meaning, a concept, an idea, in and of itself, cannot be true or false. It's only when concepts are combined into assertions, theories, hypothesis that the question of truth enters the arena.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(3) Does the \"truth\" of \"falsity\" of a definition rest on whether a concept is formed \"properly\"? Of course not. Since definitions can neither be true nor false, how they (or the concepts they describe) are formed is utterly beside the point. Moreover, since most concepts are formed largely by unconscious cerebrations, it's a false ideal to insist that they be formed \"properly.\" How a person forms their concepts is largely irrelevant. It's what he asserts about those concepts that matters. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6636884821668262041\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6636884821668262041","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6636884821668262041"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6636884821668262041"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/09\/ayn-rand-epistemology-16.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 16"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6150234793046450058"},"published":{"$t":"2012-09-18T18:17:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-11-01T08:30:24.705-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Fallacies of Objectivist Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 15"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EDefinitions: Introduction.\u003C\/b\u003E The heart and soul of Rand's \u003Ci\u003EIntroduction to Objectivism Epistemology\u003C\/i\u003E is the chapter on definitions. I have already \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/08\/ayn-rand-epistemolgy-12.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Esuggested\u003C\/a\u003E that Rand's view of essence is far more important to her epistemology than her much heralded (by Objectivists) hypothesis of measurement-ommission. The problem of universals can easily be recast as the problem of essences. For Objectivism, essences constitute the essential distinguishing characteristic of a concept's referents, and the \"proper\" defining characteristic of that concept. I'll get into the details of Rand's view of such arcana as \"fundamental characteristic\" and \"essential characteristics\" and a later time. What is important now is to appreciate the importance of essences and definitions to the Objectivist Epistemology. Following Aristotle, Objectivism contends that definitions refer to the essence of a concept. Aristotle considered these essences as metaphysical; Objectivism considers them \"epistemological.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nGiven the intimate relation of essences to definitions, it could easily be contended that Rand's problem of universals is tantamount to the problem of definitions. In any case, that is the practical upshot of the Objectivist Epistemology. The first four chapters of IOTE, which discuss concept formation, are without practical consequence. Concept formation is in fact much more complicated process than Rand's speculative musings about it would suggest; and moreover, as I contended in earlier posts, since so much of the work of concept formation is done by the cognitive unconscious, reading the first four chapters of IOTE will not improve your ability to form concepts. The mind simply does not work as Rand contends. Knowing about measurement-omission and conceptual common denominators is quite irrelevant to forming concepts. Rand's theory of concept formation is mere window dressing. Only when we come to her chapter on definitions (the longest chapter in IOTE) do we find doctrines that have any\u0026nbsp;practical import. It is for this reason that I regard the chapter as constituting the heart and soul of the Objectivist epistemology. Essentially, Rand believes in the doctrine of immaculate definitions. For Rand, \"\u003Cem\u003EThe truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions\u003C\/em\u003E.\" This doctrine is not only false, it's exceedingly mischievous and even malicious. If taken to heart, it becomes a solvent which disorganizes the mind and renders rational thought very difficult. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003ERand's contention that definitions can be true or false rests or is implicated in the following doctrines (not all of which are consistent with one another or consistently adhered to by Rand and her orthodox disciples):\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(1) \u003Cb\u003EDoctrine of Immaculate Definitions\u003C\/b\u003E: definitions do not, according to Rand, establish word usage, but are necessary to the \"proper\" formation of concepts.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(2) \u003Cb\u003EDoctrine of Concepts as the Principle Unit of Knowledge\u003C\/b\u003E: a concept stands for a number of \"implicit\" propositions.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(3) \u003Cb\u003EDoctrine of Anti-Concept and Invalid Concept\u003C\/b\u003E: concepts, like definitions, can be true and false. Some concepts are even \"anti-concepts\"!\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(4) \u003Cb\u003EDoctrine of Definitions as Platonic Ideas\u003C\/b\u003E: words can have a meaning independent of what people mean when they use them; that is to say, the \"true\" meaning of the word (i.e., the \"true\" definition of the concept which the word symbolizes) trumps the intended meaning of the person using the word.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(5) \u003Cb\u003EDoctrine of Essence\u003C\/b\u003E: the essence of a concept is the fundamental characteristic of the concept's referent upon which the greatest number of other characteristics depend and which distinguishes the referent from other referents in its class.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(6) \u003Cb\u003EDoctrine of Essentialism\u003C\/b\u003E: defining concepts via their \"essential\" characteristics is critical to accurate, clear, and insighful thinking. Thinking in terms of essentials is a powerful way of cutting straight to the heart of the matter.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(7) \u003Cb\u003EDoctrine of the Contextuality of Definitions\u003C\/b\u003E. definitions and essences are \"contextual.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(8) \u003Cb\u003EDoctrine of Hiearchy of Knowledge\u003C\/b\u003E: concepts and their essences exist in a hierarchy which connects even the most abstract conceptions to reality.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(9) \u003Cb\u003EDoctrine of Verbalism\u003C\/b\u003E: clear thought depends on the truth and clarity of one's definitions.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(10) \u003Cb\u003EDoctrine of Ostensive Definition\u003C\/b\u003E: definitions of concepts start with pointing at things and saying, \"I mean that!\" \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn the next posts, I will examine each of these doctrines, showing how each is either explicitly or implicitly held by Rand and her disciples and how each creates hosts of insoluble problems.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6150234793046450058\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6150234793046450058","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6150234793046450058"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6150234793046450058"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/09\/ayn-rand-epistemology-15.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 15"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3042364322566678875"},"published":{"$t":"2012-09-10T20:06:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T11:28:39.836-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Ethics\/Morality"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 14"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003ERelation of moral concepts to reality.\u003C\/b\u003E Rand contended that the failure of \"modern\" philosophers to solve the \"problem\" of universals led to a \"concerted attack\" on man's conceptual faculty. A closer reading, however, suggests that Rand believed that \"abstract\" concepts constituted the chief problem, rather than just conceptual knowledge in general. In \u003Ci\u003EIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology\u003C\/i\u003E, Rand argued that the formation of concepts refering to \"perceptual concretes\" is \"fairly simple.\" [21] Only when the \"conceptual chain\" moves away from these perceptual concretes do problems emerge. In other words, it's not so much a \"concerted attack\" on man's conceptual faculty that concerns Rand. Despite Hume and Kant, Rand does not contend that people have trouble learning such concepts as \u003Ci\u003Efish\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Ebanana\u003C\/i\u003E, or \u003Ci\u003Epenis\u003C\/i\u003E. It's the moral concepts that tend to preoccupy Rand. The primary practical \u003Ci\u003Eraison d'etre\u003C\/i\u003E of \u003Ci\u003EIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology\u003C\/i\u003E is to demonstrate the connection of Rand's moral concepts to reality. How does it fare in this regard?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nPer usual with Rand, not very well. In IOTE, Rand prefers to discuss simple \"perceptual concrete\" concepts, like \u003Ci\u003Etable\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Efurniture\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Edesk\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Eman\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Eanimal\u003C\/i\u003E, etc. She says very little about moral concepts. The one exception is the concept justice, which gets an entire \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandlexicon.com\/lexicon\/justice.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eparagraph\u003C\/a\u003E of analysis: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWhat fact of reality gave rise to the concept “justice”? The fact that man must draw conclusions about the things, people and events around him, i.e., must judge and evaluate them. Is his judgment automatically right? No. What causes his judgment to be wrong? The lack of sufficient evidence, or his evasion of the evidence, or his inclusion of considerations other than the facts of the case. How, then, is he to arrive at the right judgment? By basing it exclusively on the factual evidence and by considering all the relevant evidence available. But isn’t this a description of “objectivity”? Yes, “objective judgment” is one of the wider categories to which the concept “justice” belongs. What distinguishes “justice” from other instances of objective judgment? When one evaluates the nature or actions of inanimate objects, the criterion of judgment is determined by the particular purpose for which one evaluates them. But how does one determine a criterion for evaluating the character and actions of men, in view of the fact that men possess the faculty of volition? What science can provide an objective criterion of evaluation in regard to volitional matters? Ethics. Now, do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a man’s character and\/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion? Yes. That concept is “justice.”\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nShe begins by asking which facts in reality gives rise to the concept justice, and then spends the rest of the paragraph artfully dodging the question. Instead of showing what the concept refers to, she opts instead to explain why human beings need justice, which is a different question altogether. Once again Rand makes big claims, only to let us down. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThe simple fact of the matter is that IOTE does not explain how moral concepts are connected to reality. We get (vague and not entirely satisfactory) explanations of how concepts such as \u003Ci\u003Etable\u003C\/i\u003E and \u003Ci\u003Eman \u003C\/i\u003Erefer to various\u0026nbsp;\"perceptual concretes\" in reality; but on the issue of moral concepts, she is either evasive or silent. Why is this? It's really quite simple: Rand could not give a coherent explanation of how her moral values relate to reality because her moral theory is wrong. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMorality can refer to two possible elements of reality: (1) to some kind of quasi-Platonic \"transcendental\" values; or (2) to natural needs of each individual person, as reflected in their desires, sentiments, and other predominant emotions. Rand referred to the first type of values as \u003Ci\u003Eintrinsic\u003C\/i\u003E, the second type as \u003Ci\u003Esubjective\u003C\/i\u003E. She claimed to have discovered a third type, which she called \"objective.\" But she never explained what this third type referred to in reality. Instead, she merely attacked both \"intrinsic\" and \"subjective\" values for being arbitrary. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNow it is not clear that \"intrinsic\" moral values exist (or, if they do exist, that we can know anything about them). However, if such values did exist (and we could establish and verify their existence), they would hardly be arbitrary. On the contrary, they would be fixed absolutes. What could be less arbitrary than an absolute? And even subjective values, as long as they are rooted in the natural, long-terms needs of each individual, suffer from no taint of the arbitrary. Such values are not, as Rand constantly impugned, mere whims, but are in fact important data necessary for making moral calculations. A creature who experienced no emotions, desires, sentiments would be incapable of leading a moral life. (For a\u0026nbsp;more advanced treatment of this topic, see \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2008\/01\/motivation.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E.)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSo while Rand's primary goal in her epistemology is to defend the universality and \"absolute\" character of moral values, the actual epistemology conspicuously fails in achieving this goal. But while IOTE may fail in terms of raw theory, in terms of practical consequence, it becomes mighty handy as a tool of rationalization. Rand may have failed in providing a coherent explanation of how her \"objective\" moral values relate to reality; but she could develop out of her epistemological theories useful verbalizing tricks to delight her followers and confound her enemies. The most useful of all these rationalizations relates to her view of definitions, which will require a number of posts to anatomize.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3042364322566678875\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3042364322566678875","title":"8 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3042364322566678875"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3042364322566678875"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/09\/ayn-rand-epistemology-14.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 14"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"8"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3164851966203659921"},"published":{"$t":"2012-09-10T15:26:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-09-10T15:26:28.984-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"The Objectivization of Cato?"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.slate.com\/articles\/news_and_politics\/politics\/2012\/09\/the_new_president_of_the_cato_institute_wants_the_think_tank_to_adopt_the_personal_philosophy_of_ayn_rand_as_policy_.html\"\u003E“Cato will become a more Objectivist organization.\"\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;- New president John Allison, via tweet by Arthur Zey.\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3164851966203659921\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3164851966203659921","title":"5 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3164851966203659921"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3164851966203659921"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/09\/the-objectivization-of-cato.html","title":"The Objectivization of Cato?"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"5"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2679691417287992575"},"published":{"$t":"2012-09-09T13:22:00.003-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-09-09T13:28:12.311-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"It's Just Like Atlas Shrugged!"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/1.bp.blogspot.com\/-NdUeeqyhMPA\/UEz5kCABDjI\/AAAAAAAAAOY\/N8bbMk8bT-Q\/s1600\/090912krugman1-blog480.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"252\" src=\"http:\/\/1.bp.blogspot.com\/-NdUeeqyhMPA\/UEz5kCABDjI\/AAAAAAAAAOY\/N8bbMk8bT-Q\/s320\/090912krugman1-blog480.jpg\" width=\"320\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com\/2012\/09\/09\/government-employment\/\"\u003ENot.\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;Here's the number of US Government employees per capita in the last decade. The brief spike in 2010 was the temporary census hiring."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2679691417287992575\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2679691417287992575","title":"11 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2679691417287992575"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2679691417287992575"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/09\/its-just-like-atlas-shrugged.html","title":"It's Just Like Atlas Shrugged!"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/1.bp.blogspot.com\/-NdUeeqyhMPA\/UEz5kCABDjI\/AAAAAAAAAOY\/N8bbMk8bT-Q\/s72-c\/090912krugman1-blog480.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"11"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1446984663871768567"},"published":{"$t":"2012-08-31T13:06:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T11:24:55.846-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Ethics\/Morality"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 13"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EUniversals, definitions, and morality.\u003C\/b\u003E In the 1949 book \u003Ci\u003EIdeas Have Consequences\u003C\/i\u003E, Richard Weaver advanced the following rather unusual argument:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nLike MacBeth, Western man made an evil decision, which has become the efficient and final cause of other evil decisions. It occurred in the late fourteenth century, and what the witches said to the protagonist of this drama was that man could realize himself more fully if he would only abandon his belief in the existence of transcendentals. The powers of darkness were working subtly, as always, and they couched this proposition in the seemingly innocent form of an attack upon universals. The defeat of logical realism in the great medieval debate was the crucial event in the history of Western culture; from this flowed those acts which issue now in modern decadence. [2-3]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nAlthough Weaver's argument is phrased in platonistic terminology, in practical terms, it is not much different from Rand's:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nMost philosophers did not intend to invalidate conceptual knowledge, but its defenders did more to destroy it than did its enemies. They were unable to offer a solution to the ‘problem of universals,’ that is: to define the nature and source of abstractions, to determine the relationship of concepts to perceptual data—and to prove the validity of scientific induction.... The philosophers were unable to refute the witch-doctors claim that their concepts were as arbitrary as his whims and that their scientific knowledge had no greater metaphysical validity than his revelations.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nThe differences in these two arguments is mostly terminological. Weaver seems more focused on the relation between universals and what he calls \"transcendentals,\" by which he means, moral law. Rand, on the other hand, stresses the link between universals and knowledge in general, particularly \"scientific\" knowledge, which she contrasts with religious revelation. However, when we examine IOTE more closely, we find that Rand shares Weaver's passion for moral universals. The attack on universals, for both Rand and Weaver, is primarily an attack on the moral foundations of Western society. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003ERand makes a lot of noise about conceptual knowledge and the validity of concepts, but if we examine\u0026nbsp;\u003Ci\u003EIntroduction to\u0026nbsp;Objectivist Epistemology\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;more closely, we notice a distinction which its author makes between various types of concepts. There are concepts that refer to \"perceptual concretes,\" such as \u003Ci\u003Etable\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Ealligator\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Ebook\u003C\/i\u003E; and then there are more \"abstract\" concepts, such as \u003Ci\u003Ejustice\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Eselfish\u003C\/i\u003E, and \u003Ci\u003Ealtruism\u003C\/i\u003E. When Rand talks about the \"concerted attack\u0026nbsp;on man's conceptual faculty,\" I suspect she means not man's \u003Ci\u003Eentire\u003C\/i\u003E conceptual faculty, but only that portion of the faculty that involves high-level\u0026nbsp;abstract concepts. After all, Rand acknowledges that most (if not all) men can grasp concepts that refer to \"perceptual concretes.\" Consider the following passage:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAfter the first stage of learning certain fundamentals, there is no particular order in which a child learns new concepts.... His full, independent conceptual development does not begin until he has acquired sufficient vocabulary to be able to form sentences -- i.e., be able to think (at which time he can bring order to his haphazard conceptual equipment). Up to that time, he is able to retain referents of his concepts by perceptual, predominantly visual means; as his conceptual chain moves farther and farther away from perceptual concretes, the issue of verbal definitions becomes crucial. It is at this point that all hell breaks loose.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn other words, regardless of modern philosophy's \"concerted attack on man's conceptual knowledge,\" human beings can still distinguish a hawk from a handsaw. But when\u0026nbsp;they enter the lofty realm of pure abstraction, away from the relative safety of \"perceptual concretes,\" \"all hell breaks loose.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand continues her onslaught against good sense with the following:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nApart from the fact that educational methods of most of his elders are such that, instead of helping him, they tend to cripple his further development, a child's own choice and motivation are crucial at this point. [Here Rand is trying to have it both ways: she wants to blame the educational system without in any way mitigating the moral responsibility of the child. However, if the child's motivation is so \"crucial,\" then it's difficult to see how the educational methods of his elders should be worth even mentioning.] There are many different ways in which children proceed to learn new words thereafter. Some (a very small minority) proceed straight on, by the same method as before, i.e., by treating words as concepts, by requiring a clear, first-hand understanding (\u003Ci\u003Ewithin the context of their knowledge\u003C\/i\u003E) of the exact meaning of every word they learn, never allowing a break in the chain linking their concepts to the facts of reality. Some proceed by the road of approximations, where the fog deepens with every step, where the use of words is guided by a the feeling: \"I kinda know what I mean.\" Some switch from cognition to imitation, substituting memorizing for understanding, and adopt something as close to a parrot's psycho-epistemology as a human brain can come -- learning, not concepts nor words, but string of sounds whose referents are not the facts of reality, but the facial expressions and emotional vibrations of their elders. And some (the overwhelming majority) adopt a precarious mixture of different degrees of all three methods. [IOTE, 20-21]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\nIf you want to know why Rand considered epistemology important, this passage is the best explanation you'll likely ever find. Although she doesn't say so explicitly, what she is attempting to explain is why most people don't agree with the Objectivist views on ethics and politics. Rand acknowledges that everyone is capable of forming concepts of perceptual concretes. They all know what \u003Ci\u003Emilk\u003C\/i\u003E, \u003Ci\u003Echimney\u003C\/i\u003E, and \u003Ci\u003Ecar\u003C\/i\u003E refers to in reality. It's when it comes to higher level concepts, \"abstractions from abstractions,\" that they lose their way. Which abstractions does she have in mind? Although she doesn't make this explicitly clear, it's\u0026nbsp;primarily the moral and political abstractions that she cares about. After all, we don't find Rand complaining about people's conceptual views of cooking or sports. Kant's influence does not extend to our high-level abstractions concerning pie-baking or baseball. It's morality where, for Rand, \"all hell breaks loose.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nConsider the following \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandlexicon.com\/lexicon\/selfishness.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Epassage\u003C\/a\u003E: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nYet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand insists that the popular usage of the word selfishness is wrong. But how can a meaning be wrong? Meaning, like Rand's favorite mantra, \u003Ci\u003EA is A\u003C\/i\u003E, is tautological: a person means what he means. There is no right or wrong about it. Now a person's meaning, when it asserts something about reality, may be untrue and\/or confused, but he still means those untrue or confused assertions; and so the meaning, taken in and of itself, is neither right or wrong, it just is. The primary goal of Rand's Objectivist epistemology, it's \u003Ci\u003Eraison d'etre\u003C\/i\u003E, is to circumvent these obvious facts about meaning. Rand wants to assert that only \u003Ci\u003Eher\u003C\/i\u003E meanings are \"right\" and \"true,\" and that everyone who disagrees with her is wrong and confused. Why are non-Objectivists wrong and confused? Because they haven't formed their concepts \"properly.\" They failed to grasp the \"exact\" meaning of every word they learned; they relied too much on mere \"imitation,\" instead of understanding; and they wound up taking the wide, bland\u0026nbsp;\"road of approximations,\" instead of the steep,\u0026nbsp;narrow, winding path of exactitude. If people, as children, had merely been more attentive, more focused, more vigilant in how they formed concepts; if they had made certain of the precise chain that\u0026nbsp;connected their concepts with reality; then they would accept Rand's definitions of moral and political abstractions. And once the basic moral and political definitions of Objectivism are accepted, the rest follows. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ci\u003EIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology\u003C\/i\u003E, despite its formal subject matter, is not primarily, at its core, a book about epistemology. On the contrary, it is a book about morality. The Objectivist view of concepts, essences, and definitions is an argument for morality by other other means. Rand had a moral and political agenda that constitutes the very heart and life blood of her philosophy. In the absence of this agenda, she would never bothered her head about problems of universals and the \"validity\" of conceptual knowledge. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand had always argued that her morality was connected to the facts of reality. Her epistemology is supposed to establish this connection. But does it? In my next post, I will examine Rand's attempt to connect moral concepts with reality. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1446984663871768567\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1446984663871768567","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1446984663871768567"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1446984663871768567"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/08\/ayn-rand-epistemology-13.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 13"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3986247457524167445"},"published":{"$t":"2012-08-27T10:15:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-08-15T11:18:42.444-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemolgy 12"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EEssences as \"epistemological.\"\u003C\/b\u003E Rand explains this rather odd juxtaposition of terms as follows:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nLet us note . . . the radical difference between Aristotle’s view of concepts and the Objectivist view, particularly in regard to the issue of essential characteristics.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt is Aristotle who first formulated the principles of correct definition. It is Aristotle who identified the fact that only concretes exist. But Aristotle held that definitions refer to metaphysical essences, which exist in concretes as a special element or formative power, and he held that the process of concept-formation depends on a kind of direct intuition by which man’s mind grasps these essences and forms concepts accordingly.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAristotle regarded “essence” as metaphysical; Objectivism regards it as epistemological.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nObjectivism holds that the essence of a concept is that fundamental characteristic(s) of its units on which the greatest number of other characteristics depend, and which distinguishes these units from all other existents within the field of man's knowledge. Thus the essence of a concept is determined contextually and may be altered with the growth of man's knowledge. [IOTE, 52]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThe so-called \"problem of universals,\" which Rand's \u003Ci\u003EIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology\u003C\/i\u003E attempts to resolve, is far more inextricably connected with the issue of essences than with theories of concept formation and measurement-omission. Hence Rand's alleged solution to this problem arises more from her position on essence than it does from her measurement-omission hypothesis. Wikipedia defines essence as \"the attribute or set of attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.\" The problem of universals could easily be recast as the problem of essences; because a specific view of essence will entail a specific view of universals. Universals are known through their essence: that is to say, the essence \u003Ci\u003Edefines\u003C\/i\u003E the universal. The term puppy, taken as a universal term\u0026nbsp;(i.e., as a term that can cover multiple particular instances of puppies) is determined and\/or defined by its essence. Puppies are distinguished from other living creatures because they all share the essence of \u003Ci\u003Epuppiness\u003C\/i\u003E. What, however, is this \"puppiness\"? What does \"puppiness\" refer to in reality? How is it identified? How is it known?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAristotle's solution appears to be something along the following lines: there is a property of puppiness that determines whether a living creature is a puppy or not. Once this property is identified, the idea or concept of a puppy can be formed. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAristotle's theory is rather crude; but that doesn't mean there might not be an important truth engrained within it. We find in reality classes of things which, as far as we can tell, have an independent existence, not merely as particulars, but as an independent, \"objective\" class. As I noted in my previous post, some groups of particulars do seem to be grouped together by something more than just \"fundamental characteristics.\" There are, it would seem, in reality, various natural kinds, such as chemical elements or biological species, that exist as a real set, rather than merely as a group of things lumped together for the convenience of cognitive processing (as Objectivism implicitly assumes). While there might not exist any literal, simple essence (or essences), this does not mean that natural kinds do not exist or that they are difficult to identify. I suspect that most people recognize that human beings, dogs, cats, elephants, etc. all exist as natural kinds. Children can recognize these natural kinds, and biology can explain their rational basis. Therefore, Aristotle was at least partially correct: essences do in fact refer to something \"in\" reality; and in that sense some essences may be described as \"metaphysical.\" There may, of course, also exist essences that do not refer to natural kinds, but are developed for the convenience of cognition, as Rand implicitly assumes. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf there is a single thread running through the Objectivist philosophy, it is Rand's horror of the arbitrary. She hated the arbitrary in all its forms: arbitrary political power, arbitrary moral pronouncements, arbitrary cognitive judgments. She equated the arbitrary with the subjective and the unreal. This being the case, it is odd to find Rand adopting a view of universals that opens herself to very same charge she so recklessly leveled against positions she differed with. Under Rand's view, an essence of a concept \"is that fundamental characteristic(s) of its units on which the greatest number of other characteristics depend, and which distinguishes these units from all other existents within the field of man's knowledge.\" What do concepts refer to \u003Ci\u003Ein\u003C\/i\u003E reality? Not to any distinct class or natural kind. No, they only refer to groups of objects classed on the basis of a \"fundamental characteristic.\" But how are such \"fundamental characteristics\" first noted? The infant or child gazes forth and sees a bewildering array of characteristics. How\u0026nbsp;does he know\u0026nbsp;which characteristics are fundamental and should be used to form concepts, and which are not? Rand insists that a \"fundamental characteristic\" is the one on which the other characteristics \"depend,\" and which is most helpful in distinguishing one class of objects from others. But if there are no classes of objects recognized as being real classes, how can this fundamental characteristic ever be discovered in the first place? Hasn't Rand placed the cart before the horse? If there is any such \"fundamental characteristic\" of a concept, as Rand avers, wouldn't we need to first formulate and recognize the concept \u003Ci\u003Ebefore\u003C\/i\u003E its fundamental characteristic could be identified? In other words, musn't essences be metaphysical before they can be epistemological? And if essences are only and always epistemological, then doesn't this imply that there is nothing in reality (i.e., nothing \"metaphysical\") that justifies their existence? If essences are \"epistemological\"; if all they refer to is some \"fundamental characteristic,\" then doesn't this raise questions as to their objectivity? How can we be sure that a \"fundamental characteristic\" actually refers to something \"non-arbitrary\" in reality? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand defends her view of concepts on the \"the requirements of cognition.\" Reality, Rand strongly implies,\u0026nbsp;is thoroughly particular and determinate. How is the human mind to grapple with such a\u0026nbsp;bewildering layrinth of detail and complexity? Rand answers: by grouping things on the basis of their \"similarity\" (as defined by Rand via her measurement-omission hypothesis). Why isn't this view of concept formation as \"arbitrary\" as nominalism? Because, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.bristol.ac.uk\/metaphysicsofscience\/naicpapers\/gotthelf.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eclaims\u003C\/a\u003E Alan Gotthelf, \"[Rand] rejects [the nominalist] view that similarity is unanalyzable and that conceptual groupings are either arbitrary or merely pragmatic.\" But isn't that precisely what Rand's theory amounts to in the end?\u0026nbsp;Concepts, by Rand's account, are formed,\u0026nbsp;not the\u0026nbsp;basis of any objective\u0026nbsp;or \"intrinsic\" natural\u0026nbsp;kinds, but merely\u0026nbsp;on the basis of the requirements of cognition. Why isn't this tantamount to regarding conceptual grouping as pragmatic or even \"arbitrary\"?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAs we go deeper into Objectivism, it only gets worse. Rand, aware of the improbability that a child could identify the fundamental characteristic of a large class of objects, introduces an even more problematic wrinkle to her theory. She declares \"the essence of a concept is determined contextually and may be altered with the growth of man's knowledge.\" Essences depend, therefore, on the subject's \"context\" of knowledge. A specific class of objects subsumed under a specific concept may have different essences in the minds of different men. How, then, can they be regarded as \"objective\"?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nEven more to the point: if concepts are defined by their essence, wouldn't a different essence lead to a different concept? In other words, if essences can change within differing contexts of knowledge, then why can't concepts change as well? Perhaps in one context of knowledge, the concept \u003Ci\u003Eman\u003C\/i\u003E refers to rational featherless bipeds; perhaps in another, to all bipeds, rational, humanoid, or otherwise. After all, if the context of knowledge helps determines the essence, and the essence defines the concept, then why shouldn't the context help determine the concept as well? And if our concepts depend on the context of our knowledge, how can concepts \u003Ci\u003Enot\u003C\/i\u003E be arbitrary?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand insisted her concepts were objective because they were \"guided by objective criteria\":\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nObjectivity begins with the realization that man (including his every attribute and faculty, including his consciousness) is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly; that there is no escape from the law of identity, neither in the universe with which he deals nor in the workings of his own consciousness, and if he is to acquire knowledge of the first, he must discover the proper method of using the second; that there is no room for the \u003Ci\u003Earbitrary\u003C\/i\u003E in any activity of man, least of all in his method of cognition - and just as he has learned to be guided by objective criteria in making his physical tools, so he must be guided by objective criteria in forming his tools of cognition: his concepts.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nHow, then, are these objective criteria to be formed? Rand might replay: \u003Ci\u003Eon the basis of reality\u003C\/i\u003E. However, that doesn't answer our question. What, in reality, is the basis for your objectivity? It can't be on the basis of a natural kind, because, according to Objectivism, only particulars exist. It can't be the fundamental characteristics shared by various groupings of objects, because the characteristic cannot be recognized as fundamental unless it is known to belong to a class, and the class can't be known before the fundamental characteristics are identified. It would appear that Rand, in IOTE, takes the identification of classes of things, of natural kinds for granted. She assumes that the fundamental characteristic of a class of objects can be identified before knowing that they belong to a class. How is this even possible?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOne of the objections that Rand poses to the Aristolean view that essences are metaphysical is that such essences are too easy to discover. It makes concept formation \"automatic,\" like perception. But isn't concept formation, in point of fact, more like perception than otherwise? Rand stresses the difficulties involved; and, on her account, concept formation would in fact be very difficult, perhaps even impossible. Trying to form concepts on the basis of \"fundamental characteristics\" distributed randomly through an enormous array of particular concretes sounds like a task no mind could ever perform. However, if at least some groupings of particulars exist as natural kinds which can be easily identified, then most of the problems related to concepts and their so-called \"validity\" disappear. If the mind assumes right from the start that objects naturally form into classes, then concepts can be formed from one instance; and the resulting concept could be used as heuristic when confronted by similar objects. Moreover, despite all of Rand's denials to the contrary, concept formation does appear, in most respects, to be \"automatic\"; which is to say, it happens without any special conscious\u0026nbsp;attention or \"focus\" being applied. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf concept formation really were so difficult; if it depended on the identification of numerous \"fundamental characteristics\" running all through the innumerable specific concretes which the mind observes from infancy onward; and if, as Rand contended, many people did not form their concepts in the \"proper\" way, how is it that most people nonetheless classify most particulars in the same way? Why don't we see the emergence of radically different conceptual schema? Why don't nominalists have one schema, and Objectivists a radically different one? How is it that most concepts are formed in early childhood, before anyone knows anything of fundamental characteristics, essences, conceptual common denominators, and all the other obscure categories of \"proper\" concept formation? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand's view that essences are epistemological simply doesn't make sense when we try to apply it to the real world. It makes or is based on assumptions that do no accord with the facts. The most egregious of these assumptions is that concept-formation is difficult and requires an active process. There is a \"proper way\" to concept formation which must be discovered. How, or rather why, did Rand come up with such an extravagent notion? This touches upon the entire \u003Ci\u003Eraison d'etre\u003C\/i\u003E of the Objectivist epistemology, which I will explore in my next post. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3986247457524167445\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=3986247457524167445","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3986247457524167445"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/3986247457524167445"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/08\/ayn-rand-epistemolgy-12.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemolgy 12"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6223245801443263458"},"published":{"$t":"2012-08-22T15:59:00.003-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-08-22T15:59:59.850-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Rand Cultist Quote of the Day"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/observer.com\/2012\/08\/paul-ryan-ayn-rand-atlas-shrugged\/2\/\"\u003EThe ARI's Yaron Brook:\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n“Unless Ayn Rand changes the direction of the world, we are doomed to suffer another dark ages...the next renaissance will begin when her books are rediscovered after 1,000 years of darkness.”"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6223245801443263458\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=6223245801443263458","title":"21 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6223245801443263458"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/6223245801443263458"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/08\/rand-cultist-quote-of-day.html","title":"Rand Cultist Quote of the Day"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"21"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2312005597832752413"},"published":{"$t":"2012-08-21T15:11:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-09-17T09:13:19.174-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 11"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cstrong\u003ENatural kinds.\u003C\/strong\u003E Rand claimed to have solved the \"problem of universals.\" But it is not clear that she even understood this problem. Rand frames the problem as follows: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003E\nThe issue of concepts (known as \"the problem of universals\") is philosophy's central issue. Since man's knowledge is gained and held in conceptual form, the validity of man's knowledge depends on the validity of concepts. But concepts are abstractions or universals, and everything that man perceives is particular, concrete. What is the relationship between abstractions and concretes? To what precisely do concepts refer in reality? Do they refer to something real, something that exist--or are they merely inventions of man's mind, arbitrary constructs or loose approximations that cannot claim to represent knowledge?\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNow contrast that with how the issue is framed on Wikipedia: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe problem of universals is an ancient problem in metaphysics about whether universals exist. Universals are general or abstract qualities, characteristics, properties, kinds or relations, such as being male\/female, solid\/liquid\/gas, or a certain colour,[1] that can be predicated of individuals or particulars, or that individuals or particulars can be regarded as sharing or participating in. For example, Scott, Pat, and Chris have in common the universal quality of being human or humanity. While many standard cases of universals are also typically regarded as abstract objects (such as humanity), abstract objects are not necessarily universals. For example, numbers can be held to be particular yet abstract objects.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand's version of the problem of universals is different from Wikipedia's. Now I have no interest in getting into an argument over which version is \"correct.\" Wikipedia is merely relating how the mediavals originally framed the problem. Rand was far more interested in the epistemological side of the issue. In fact, she pretty much ignores the metaphysical issue — so much so that it is not always clear how to characterize Rand's position on universals. Without explicitly saying so, Rand seems to reject the view that universals exist \u003Ci\u003Ein\u003C\/i\u003E reality. Instead, she seems to adopt a version of conceptualism. Only particulars exist in reality; but concepts (which for Rand are identical with universals) correspond \"objectively\" to multiple instances of particulars in reality. But how do they do so? Rand replies: \u003Ci\u003EA concept refers to a group of particulars in reality possessing characteristics in common which differ only in their measurements.\u003C\/i\u003E This, however, is rather vague. Rand attacked nominalism for regarding \"abstractions\" as mere \"'names' which we give to arbitrary groupings of concretes on the basis of vague resemblances.\" [IOTE, 2] But why isn't Rand's own theory guilty of the same charge? What makes her theory \"objective\" and nominalism \"arbitrary\"? Rand never explains, she merely asserts.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThe human mind finds itself confronted with innumerable particulars, many of which share one or more attributes with other particulars. So how do we group them? How do we know that this grouping of particulars belongs under one concept, while this under some other? Rand states that all this classification is done by an \"active process\" of \"differentiation and integration.\" The integration, according to Objectivism, is\u0026nbsp;presumably done by observing similarities of characteristics and then omitting measurements. But a great many disparate objects share similar characteristics. There are, for example, many objects that look brown to human perception: that is to say, they share the characteristic of brownness. These objects are not, however, integrated under a single concept. We don't call brown things \"brownies.\" Why not? Curiously, Rand's answer has nothing to do with her measurement-omission theory: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe descriptive complexity of a given group of existents, the frequency of their use, and the requirements of cognition (further study) are the main reasons for the formation of new concepts. Of these reasons, the requirements of cognition, are the paramount one. The requirements of cognition forbid the arbitrary grouping of existents, both in regard to isolation and to integration. They forbid the random coining of special concepts to designate any and every group of existents with any possible combination of characteristics. For example, there is no concept to designate \"Beautiful blondes with blue eyes, 5' 5\" tall and 24 years old.\" Such entitites or groupings are identified \u003Ci\u003Edescriptively\u003C\/i\u003E. If such a special concept existed, it would lead to senseless duplication of cognitive effort (and to conceptual chaos): everything of significance discovered about that group would apply to all young woman as well. There would be no cognitive justification for such a concept -- unless some \u003Ci\u003Eessential\u003C\/i\u003E characteristic were discovered, distinguishing such blondes from all other women and requiring special study, in which case a special concept would become necessary. [IOTE, 70-71] \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand's account of the \u003Ci\u003Eraison d'etre\u003C\/i\u003E of concept formation smacks of sheer pragmatism. She seems to be arguing that concepts are formed on the basis of convenience. In what sense is this theory different from nominalism (or at least conceptualism)? Yes, I know, Objectivists insist that nominalism believes in the \"arbitrary\" grouping of existents. But which nominalists actually ascribe to that view? Without any evidence on behalf of their assertion, the Objectivist charge against nominalism is itself \"arbitrary\"! \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf you think I am picking on Rand over a small, technical detail, think again. Consider what I quoted from IOTE in my last post: Rand there contended that the concept man refers to all \"living beings who who possess the same characteristic distinguishing them from all other living species: a rational faculty—though the specific measurements of their distinguishing characteristic qua men, as well as all their other characteristics qua living beings, are different.\" [IOTE, 17] What is the problem with this passage? Mainly this: not all living beings regarded as men fit into Rand's description. Would Rand have regarded the mentally ill and the mentally retarded as \"rational\"? And if they are not rational, how can it be said that they have a \"rational faculty\"? Yet such individuals, despite their lack of anything remotely resembling a rational faculty, are universally regarded as men. In IOTE, Rand claims (without providing a shred of evidence) that \"the overwhelming majority\" of human beings form their concepts, in some degree, through loose approximations and mere imitation. [IOTE, 20-21] Are these human beings \"rational\"? Are they equipped with a \"rational faculty\"? By Rand's own admission, they provide no evidence of being equipped with such a faculty. If this is the case, by what justification are these non-rational living beings grouped under the concept man? And how come such individuals are universally regarded as men, despite Rand's claim that they are distinguished from other living beings on the basis of their \"rational faculty.\" After all, they give no appearance or evidence of having a rational faculty. So how in fact are they distinguished from other living beings? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nObjectivists sometimes resort to the \"potentiality\" argument. Most men may not actually be \"rational\" (in the Objectivist sense of the term), but they are, or so an Objectivist might claim, \"potentially\" rational. Why are they \"potentially\" rational? Because they have a \"rational faculty.\" (\"How does opium induce sleep? 'By virtue of a faculty,' namely the \u003Ci\u003Evirtus dormitiva\u003C\/i\u003E, replies the doctor in Moliere.\" F. Neitzsche, BGE, I 11) However, even if this were true about physiologically normal human beings (and it would be a presumption, in any case), it is hardly true with the mentally retarded. Such individuals have no \"rational\" faculty to speak of; or at least not in the sense that Rand is talking about. The same could be said of victims of severe brain damage. No rational faculty, potential or otherwise, operates in those individuals as well. Yet all such individuals, whether possessing, in potentiality or actuality, a full blown rational faculty, are nevertheless regarded as men, as human beings, as \u003Ci\u003EHomo saphiens\u003C\/i\u003E. Why are they so regarded? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe mentally retarded and the brain-damaged are regarded as men, not on account of any so-called \"rational faculty,\" which they are sorely lacking, but because they are part of a natural kind that the mind is capable of recognizing. They exist as a member of a distinct species which can be identified biologically. Most of the members of this species have a high degree of intelligence, at least in comparison with other living creatures. But the concept of man is not formed solely or even primarily on the basis this characteristic of intelligence. Children learn to distinguish between human beings and other animals well before they know anything about rational faculties or IQ. And adults persist in the ability to distinguish between human beings and other animals even in those cases where a rational faculty is partly or entirely missing. Rand is therefore wrong about how adults distinguish men from other living beings. She is wrong because she is trapped in what is essentially a nominalist view of particular things. Her concepts refer to actual existents \u003Ci\u003Ein\u003C\/i\u003E reality, but they don't refer to any class of existents that has a distinct reality \u003Ci\u003Eas a class\u003C\/i\u003E. For Objectivism, only particulars exist. There are no universals or natural kinds. As Rand put it, \"Aristotle regarded 'essence' as metaphysical; Objectivism regards it as \u003Ci\u003Eepistemological\u003C\/i\u003E.\" In my next post I will attempt to explain not only the logical implications of this statement, but to criticize the position it attempts to encapsulate.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2312005597832752413\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2312005597832752413","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2312005597832752413"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2312005597832752413"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/08\/ayn-rand-epistemology-11.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 11"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2497981550865342499"},"published":{"$t":"2012-08-17T13:27:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-08-17T13:30:35.769-07:00"},"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Rand and Ryan"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;\"\u003E\"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand...\u0026nbsp;\" - Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;\"\u003EThis is quite an interesting quote. It's rather along the lines of saying:\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;\"\u003E\"The reason I got involved in business, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Karl Marx...\"\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;\"\u003E\"The reason I got involved in warfare, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Mahatma Ghandi...\"\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;\"\u003E\"The reason I got involved in Judaism, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-size: 16px;\"\u003E\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;\"\u003E...\"\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"Apple-style-span\" style=\"font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2497981550865342499\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2497981550865342499","title":"22 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2497981550865342499"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2497981550865342499"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/08\/rand-and-ryan.html","title":"Rand and Ryan"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Daniel  Barnes"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/06359277853862225286"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"22"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1431775235446777255"},"published":{"$t":"2012-08-13T19:55:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-08-13T19:55:13.714-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 10"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EThe Problem of Universals.\u003C\/b\u003E Rand wrote (in an oft-quoted passage here at ARCHN): \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nTo negate man's mind, it is the conceptual level of his consciousness that has to be invalidated. Most philosophers did not intend to invalidate conceptual knowledge, but its defenders did more to destroy it than did its enemies. They were unable to offer a solution to the ‘problem of universals,’ that is: to define the nature and source of abstractions, to determine the relationship of concepts to perceptual data—and to prove the validity of scientific induction.... The philosophers were unable to refute the witch-doctors claim that their concepts were as arbitrary as his whims and that their scientific knowledge had no greater metaphysical validity than his revelations. [FTNI, 30] \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhat evidence does Rand provide for this view? No relevant evidence. Only an obscure quote from an obscure historian of pragmatism: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nAll knowledge is in terms of concepts. If these concepts correspond to something that is to be found in reality they are real and man's knowledge has a foundation in fact; if they do not correspond to anything in reality they are not real and man's knowledge is of mere figments of his own imagination. [Edward C. Moore, quoted by Rand, IOTE, 1-2] \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNote that Moore says nothing about the problem of universals and its relation to concepts. That connection Rand made on her own. I'm not aware of any major modern philosopher who has ever suggested that the failure to solve the problem of universals invalidates conceptual knowledge. Most modern philosophers ignore the whole issue. If they discuss the issue of universals at all, it is only in passing. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMore to the point, I'm not aware of any major philosopher who would endorse the view that conceptual knowledge is invalid for any reason whatsoever. Hume and Kant were considered great sceptics in their day; but neither philosopher ever claimed that all conceptual knowledge was erroneous or untrue. Indeed, both regarded the charge of being great sceptics as unfair. Hume added a pragmatic refutation of extreme scepticism in his \u003Ci\u003EEnquiry on Human Understanding\u003C\/i\u003E, and Kant added a proof of realism to the second addition of the \u003Ci\u003ECritique\u003C\/i\u003E. Idealist philosophers like Berkeley and Hegel, far from denying the validity of conceptual knowledge, regarded knowledge of concepts as the only true knowledge. Rand's assertion, therefore, that conceptual knowledge has been invalidated by the failure of modern philosophers to solve the problem of universals is blatantly false. Who doubts the truth of all conceptual knowledge because of the problem of universals? Can Rand (or any of her disciples) provide a single example? Most people have never even heard of the problem of universals. Nor do most people regard their conceptual knowledge as \"invalid.\" \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nFor the reasons outlined above, IOTE attempts to solve what, from a practical point of view, is a trivial or non-existent problem. This is the first great defect of Rand's tract. A second defect is that she does a poor job of explaining how her solution actually solves the so-called problem. Rand's solution (to be discussed in more detail in future posts) consists largely of her theory of concept formation. By showing how concepts are formed, Rand believed that she had solved the problem of universals. Unfortunately, she does not do a very good job of connecting the dots: she fails to provide an adequate explanation of how her theory of concept formation, by \"solving\" the problem of universals, manages to \"validate\" conceptual knowledge. The closest she comes to providing an explanation is in the following passage: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nNow we can answer the question: To what precisely do we refer when we designate three persons as “men?” We refer to the fact that they are living beings who possess the same characteristic distinguishing them from all other living species: a rational faculty—though the specific measurements of their distinguishing characteristic qua men, as well as all their other characteristics qua living beings, are different. (As living beings of a certain kind, they possess innumerable characteristics in common: the same shape, the same range of size, the same facial features, the same vital organs, the same fingerprints, etc., and all these characteristics differ only in their measurements). [IOTE, 17]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe claim here is that Rand's measurement omission principle of concept formation (to be discussed in a future post) solves the problem of universals. But does it? What if we ran across a \"man\" who, because he was insane or mentally retarded, did not have a rational faculty? Would he still be recognizable as a man? Here we run into an issue that is at the very heart of the \"problem of universals\" but which Rand does not broach at all: the issue of \"natural kinds.\" To this problem we will turn in my next post. "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1431775235446777255\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1431775235446777255","title":"7 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1431775235446777255"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1431775235446777255"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/08\/ayn-rand-epistemology-10.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 10"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"7"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2679315368615723218"},"published":{"$t":"2012-08-08T15:46:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-25T18:35:24.109-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"foundationalism"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 9"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003ENecessary validity of the senses.\u003C\/b\u003E Objectivism has a rather strange doctrine which could be summed up as \"the senses never err.\" Percepts are \"the given, the self-evident.\" [IOTE, 5] The validity of the senses is \"axiomatic.\" Those that attempt to deny this validity commit the \"fallacy of the stolen concept.\" As Peikoff explains: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe validity of the senses is not an independent axiom; it is a corollary of the fact of consciousness.... If man is conscious of that which is, then his means of awareness are means of \u003Ci\u003Eawareness\u003C\/i\u003E, i.e., are valid. One cannot affirm consciousness while denying its primary form, which makes all the others possible. Just as any attack on consciousness negates itself, so does any attack on the senses. If the senses are not valid, neither are any concepts, including the ones used in the attack. [OPAR, ch. 2] \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis is a very poor argument. Indeed, most of Rand's \"stolen concept\" arguments, particularly those relating to epistemology, are very poor. All \"attacks\" on the senses are ultimately attacks against the view that knowledge refers to something \"out there,\" in \"reality.\" Such attacks cannot be regarded as claims of knowledge; rather, they are radical denials of \u003Ci\u003Eall\u003C\/i\u003E knowledge. Although such denials are not true, they are not self-contradictory. But even if they were self-contradictory, it would not help Rand's case. Merely because someone makes a bad argument against \u003Ci\u003Ex\u003C\/i\u003E does not prove that \u003Ci\u003Ex\u003C\/i\u003E is \"necessarily valid.\" Bad arguments against the validity of the senses cannot be used to establish the validity of the senses!\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EMore to the point, this entire obsession with \"validity\" which haunts Objectivism is fatuous and tiresome. Imagine if someone declared: \u003Ci\u003EDelivery of mail by the post office is necessarily valid. It is an axiom, because any attempt to deny it presupposes it.\u003C\/i\u003E Now such an assertion would be regarded as palpable absurd. No sensible person would ever say such a thing, because it is a foolish way to think about the issue. What we want to know is not whether delivery of the mail is \"valid,\" but whether\u0026nbsp;it is \u003Ci\u003Ereliable\u003C\/i\u003E. The same is true about the senses. It's not validity we seek, but reliability. Using this approach clears up a great many difficulties. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nDoesn't the issue of validity solve the issue of reliability? If the senses are \"valid,\" mustn't they \u003Ci\u003Eipso facto\u003C\/i\u003E be reliable as well? But approaching the issue from this vantage point merely creates confusion. It casts the debate between two unpalatable extremes: those who affirm the validity of the senses in all instances on the one side, and those who deny the validity of the sense in all instances on the other. Neither position is all that credible. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe whole issue over the reliability of the senses arose precisely because it was found that some perceptions are not entirely veridical, but are misleading: the bent stick in the water, the railroad lines that appear to be joining in the distance, the circle that appears as an elipse, etc. Claiming that the senses are valid doesn't clear up these issues: it just pushes them further off. These anamolies must be explained; and if they can't be explained in relation to the senses, they must be explained on some other ground. Objectivism achieves the necessary validity of the senses by defining the senses as necessarily valid. But this achieves, at best, a phyric victory. Randall Dipert, in a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.reasonpapers.com\/pdf\/12\/rp_12_7.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ereview\u003C\/a\u003E of Kelley's \u003Ci\u003EEvidence of the Senses\u003C\/i\u003E, explains the problem with the Objectivist view: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nWhat is the \"realist theory of perception\" that [Kelley] defends? This is more difficult to say than one would hope, for Kelley oddly is not given to single clear statements of his main positions; he is at his best on the attack. Saying, \"Perception is always of existence reality\" comes close. So, interestingly, does saying, \"Perceptual judgments are never mistaken.\" This last assertion is of course especially curious, and requires us to turn to Kelley's analyses of \"illusions\" such as a circle that appears as an ellipse or, still better, a stick half-submerged in water that \"appears\" bent. In both the case of seeing the stick out of water and then half submerged, I think Kelley wants to say, we perceive the stick. Otherwise, it is not a case of perception at all. Kelley goes on: \"The normal look of the stick and the refracted look are simply two different forms in which one can perceive the same external attribute.\" This external attribute is \"the\" shape of the stick. Perception now is not just of a stick, but rather of a stick in relation to a background — i.e., whether it is all exposed in air, or half-submerged in water. Perception then is of a relational fact: the stick exposed, or the stick half in water (or, in the case of a circle, of the relational fact formed by the circle and the angle it is being viewed at). Mistaken \"perceptual\" judgments are then falsely abbreviated judgments about a necessarily veridical percept; \"there is no such thing as a nonveridical percept.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMy reply to this maneuver is as follows. This is all well and good. You may indeed define for your own purposes, the perceived (the percept) as that which cannot be mistaken. The perception of a stick is \"what is common to all appearances of the stick\" — at least those in which it is distinguished at all from its background,\u0026nbsp;to avoid (perhaps in an ad hoc way) \u003Ci\u003Eanything\u003C\/i\u003E appearing like the stick in suitably bad lighting, etc. But then it is our (abbreviated) perceptual judgment that can be mistaken. Whatever harm — whatever lack of certainty, unreliability, etc., that perceptual relativity formerly injected into your agenda — is now caused by the unreliability of perceptual judgments: how do we know they are correct, reliable, etc. In fact, Kelley comes dangerously close to, if not actually succeeding at, trivializing his entire enterprise. He writes: \"Perception should not be defined, then, in terms of a genus that includes hallucinations and the like, as if these were phenomena on a par with perceiving. It should be defined as a type of awareness of external objects, to be contrasted with other types of awareness.\"\u0026nbsp; But then, when is one certain that one is perceiving an object, and not in another type of awareness?\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nKelley's point is, of course, not a new one. It is that perception is a \"success\" word, like seeing and hearing. One does not say one saw a lake that was not there; one says one appeared to see the lake. But co-opting the word 'perception' for veridical awareness of a certain type (apparently just \"when the awareness is a unitary product of physiological causes\"), does not give us an interestingly realistic theory of perception. It gives us a theory of perception that is \"realist\" by definition. The main difficulty for such a tautologous realist is then to decide when he is really perceiving an object, and when he is in one of the other states of awareness. How does he test whether he is perceiving the object? He must determine that his awareness is physiologically caused by an external object. This itself requires perception -- never mind the problem of ascertaining that the object is \"external,\" consider only the problem of determining when one's own awareness is \"physiologically caused.\" \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTo sum up: Objectivism establishes the \"necessary validity\" of the senses merely by pushing the issues of perceptual reliability further up the cognitive chain. The senses may be \"necessarily valid,\" but what the senses tell us about the external world is still subject to misinterpretation and error. Sense knowledge, it turns out, is only valid if one's awareness is physiologically caused by external objects. But how does one know whether one's percepts are in fact caused by external objects? How, for that matter, does one know whether one has misinterpreted the \"evidence\" of the senses and gotten things horribly wrong? The Objectivist \"validation\" of the senses validates no claim of knowledge. It's another one of Rand's bad arguments in which we find her substituting empty tautological slogans for reasoned, evidence-based discourse."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2679315368615723218\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=2679315368615723218","title":"11 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2679315368615723218"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/2679315368615723218"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/08\/ayn-rand-epistemology-9.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 9"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"11"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5367153695820780429"},"published":{"$t":"2012-08-01T15:46:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-10-25T18:28:29.045-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Dualism"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 8"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EObjectivist Theory of Perception.\u003C\/b\u003E When it comes to the issue of perception, Rand tries to have it both ways. She seeks to be a direct realist while at the same time evading the charge of being naive or overly literal. She developed a theory that came suspiciously close to representationalism, but she fiercely denied being an indirect realist.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand left the exposition of her theory of perception to Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley. It is summed up on the \u003Ci\u003EStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy\u003C\/i\u003E as \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/ayn-rand\/\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Efollows\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nOur perceptual faculties place us in direct contact with reality. In this sense Rand's theory of perception is a version of direct realism, holding that the objects of perception are extramental entities (rather than, say, subjective experiences on the basis of which we infer entities as their causes)....\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nRand rejects the view that some perceptions are of the qualities of objects as they are independently of us (primary qualities), whereas others (secondary qualities) are caused by the primary qualities, and are entirely in the mind. Instead, she distinguishes between the content of a perception and its form; when we perceive an object as, e.g., square and red, what we perceive are its intrinsic features in a certain form, a form that is determined by the nature of the object, the nature of our perceptual organs, and the environment. Thus, we perceive the object's shape as square, and the reflectance properties of its surface as red; both are the result of the interaction of our perceptual organs with what is out there. Neither squareness nor redness belong either to the object apart from our mode of perception, or to our mode of perception apart from the object in its environment. Hence, these attributes are neither intrinsic nor subjective but relational and objective.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThus while Rand is a direct realist in the sense explained above, she is not a naive realist in the sense of regarding all perceived attributes as enjoying equal extramental status.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe point in dispute involves the term \"extramental.\" As far as I know, that is not a term either Rand or Peikoff have ever used. Its use is required only because Objectivists have never told us whether percepts are mental or not. That is an issue they have artfully dodged, and here is why: if they were to admit that percepts are mental entities (as they admit, for example, that concepts are), they would be confessing that their realism is indirect and perhaps even representational. So when the \u003Ci\u003EStanford Encylopedia\u003C\/i\u003E decided to do a write-up on Ayn Rand (under the advisement of such Objectivist worthies as David Kelley and Gregory Salmieri), they had no choice but to describe percepts as \"extra-mental.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EI suppose orthodox Objectivists might have prefered the term \"objective,\" even though it doesn't apply in this context. Yes, fine, percepts are \"objective.\" But that doesn't answer the question as to their ontological status. Now Objectivists have no problem describing concepts as both objective and as \"mental entities.\" So what's the issue with percepts? Why can't a percept be every bit as mental as a concept? Rand defines a percept as \"a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism.\" [IOTE, 5] Very well: so why can't groups of sensations integrated by the brain be regarded as \"mental\"? Percepts, after all, are only experienced in the mind. Percepts don't exist in matter. An apple becomes a percept only if it is perceived by a mind. So why isn't it mental?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe challenge is fundamental. We get signals from the external world through our sense organs. When we experience these signals within consciousness, why should we not classify them as mental? What compelling reason is there for denying their mental status?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand's main objection to regarding percepts as mental is that it leads to indirect realism and (even worse) \"representationalism.\" This form of realism, Rand believed, cuts the mind off from reality. Representationalism contends that we have \"direct\" access only to sense data (i.e., percepts); and that we subsequently infer external reality from the experience of this mental data. One problem emerges: how is this inference justified? How do we know that the sense data experienced \u003Ci\u003Ewithin\u003C\/i\u003E consciousness actually corresponds to something \u003Ci\u003Eoutside\u003C\/i\u003E of consciousness? For that matter, how do we know that there's anything out there at all, if all that we experience (directly) is sense data?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand seems to have believed that these questions could be answered by merely denying that perception is mental. Instead, she argued, perception is the \"form\" through which the mind experiences the content of reality. But why isn't this form through which the mind perceives reality itself a mental entity? Representationalists talk about perceiving reality through a screen or a veil of ideas. Objectivism is not much different. Instead of screen of ideas, we have a screen of forms. Rand tried to solve this issue by juggling terms. However, it's not clear in what respect the Objectivist view differs from the representational\/indirect view except in terms of rhetoric.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf it is argued that Rand's position is different because she stresses the process by which these forms are grasped by the mind, then I would reply: there's no reason why an indirect realist can't place the same emphasis on process. Indeed, the very inference on which indirect realism is based presupposes that there is a process involved by which the mind attains knowledge about the external material world. Representationalists contend that we infer the objects of reality from internal sense data. But this gets it backwards. Rather, we infer representationalism from the fact that we perceive external objects through perceptions. That is to say, the assumption of realism precedes, and almost certainly must precede, the assumption of representationalism. When the adventure of knowledge begins, way back in infancy, no inference from sense data is even possible. For it is grossly implausible to assume that, when the infant looks at his mother, he first thinks, \u003Ci\u003Ethat is a sense data\u003C\/i\u003E and only subsequently infers his mother from his perceptions of her. On the contrary, all the evidence we have strongly suggests that we begin as direct realists. The sense data is assumed, by a kind of biological prompting or instinct, to convey direct information about the external world right from the start. It is only very later, when (or rather if) we become discriminating philosophers, that we realize that our earlier, instinctive realism has been naive, and that we must revise it to more accurately convey what is in fact happening. If we study perception under realist assumptions, we discover a process by which the mind interprets the data of sense and forges the various\u0026nbsp; percepts or sense data (call them what you will) that flame across the individual's consciousness. Are these percepts or sense data in fact mental? How could they \u003Ci\u003Enot \u003C\/i\u003Ebe? Part of the process by which the mind discovers pertinent facts about the external world involves experiencing sense data. Realism is therefore indirect: the external world is experienced via a process that involves acquaintance of sense data. Knowledge is symbolic, rather than direct or literal.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOn realist assumptions, no other sort of knowledge is even possible. A \"direct\" knowledge would be merely knowledge of sense data, which is not knowledge at all, but merely reverie and delusion. Knowledge only arises when our sense data is taken to be a signal or report of things, entities, processes, attributes, properties existing outside of consciousness. If the mind is not intelligent enough to make this distinction, it will never know anything beyond its own dreams."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5367153695820780429\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5367153695820780429","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5367153695820780429"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5367153695820780429"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/08\/ayn-rand-epistemology-8.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 8"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-281371391686926384"},"published":{"$t":"2012-07-26T19:40:00.001-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-03-29T12:21:16.720-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"definitions"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Fallacies of Objectivist Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 7"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EFallacious Presumptions: The validity of knowledge depends on \"proper\" concept formation.\u003C\/b\u003E Rand assumes that the \"validity\" of conceptual knowledge (and therefore knowledge in general) depends on how scrupulous and careful individuals form concepts: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003E\nThe status of automatized knowledge in his mind is experienced by man as if it had a direct, effortless, self-evident quality (and certainty) of perceptual awareness. But it is \u003Ci\u003Econceptual\u003C\/i\u003E knowledge --- and its validity depends on the precision of his concepts, which require as strict a precision of meaning (i.e., as strict a knowledge of what specific referents they subsume) as the definitions of mathematical terms. (It is obvious what disasters will follow if one automatizes errors, contradictions and undefined approximations.)\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis paragraph provides the very core of what is wrong with Rand's epistemology; and it will require a number of posts to identify and elucidate all the various fallacious branches that sprout from this one trunk. Right now I wish to concentrate on the final sentence, the one embalmed in parenthesis: \u003Ci\u003EIt is obvious what disasters will follow if one automatizes errors, contradictions and undefined approximations.\u003C\/i\u003E Is it really obvious? Rand's assertion assumes the following: (1) concepts can be erroneous; (2) concepts can be contradictory; and (3) improper concept formation leads to concepts that are ill defined and merely approximate. I will contend that these three presumptions are wrong. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E(1) What does it mean to say that a concept is erroneous, or that it \"automatizes errors\"? A concept, taken by itself, can neither be true or false, erroneous or correct: it just is. Like Rand says, A is A: a concept is a concept. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAren't there concepts that don't exist? No, of course not. The very fact that a concept is brought up in discussion \u003Ci\u003Eipso facto\u003C\/i\u003E proves that it exists \u003Ci\u003Eas a concept.\u003C\/i\u003E If it be argued that the question is whether the referents of the concept exist in the \"real\" world (i.e., outside the mind), then in that case the issue goes well beyond whether the concept is \"erroneous.\" There is nothing erroneous about the concept \u003Ci\u003Eunicorn\u003C\/i\u003E. I can, for example, create propositions about this concept that are eminently true and which accord to the external world of fact. For example: \u003Ci\u003EUnicorns don't exist.\u003C\/i\u003E The fact that the referents of a concept fail to exist in no way \"invalidates\" the concept itself. Nor does the formation of a concept ever involve the automazition of errors. Errors arise when we make assertions about concepts. The concept taken by itself remains free of all such blemishes, even when the concept refers to something entirely imaginary. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhat about so-called \"conceptual errors\": don't such errors exist? Yes, such errors exist, but they don't involve erroneous concepts. Our conception of something is not the same as our concept of it. A man's conception of economics may be dim and contradictory, but this in no way affects his concept of economics, which remains clear and distinct. He knows how to identify the subject matter of economics, even if he can't make heads or tails of actual economic doctrines. He knows what the\u0026nbsp;concept \u003Ci\u003Eeconomics\u003C\/i\u003E refers to; he just doesn't understand the particular doctrines which the concept symbolizes. His lack of understanding in no way involves automatizing errors. Any erroneous presumptions he may entertain about the subject matter of economics (which the concept \u003Ci\u003Eeconomics\u003C\/i\u003E merely refers to) involves erroneous opinions concerning various propositions \u003Ci\u003Eabout\u003C\/i\u003E the subject matter of economics. Again, errors arise out of assertions, propositions, arguments, theories, not stand-alone concepts. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNow it could be objected that Rand never said errors arise out of \"stand-alone\" concepts. While she never used the term \"stand-alone,\" her position strongly implies such a view. Consider the following: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003E\nSince concepts, in the field of cognition, perform a function similar to that of numbers in the field of mathematics, the function of a proposition is similar to that of an equation: it applies conceptual abstractions to a specific problem. A proposition, however, can perform this function only if the concepts of which it is composed have precisely defined meanings. If, in the field of mathematics, numbers had no fixed, firm values, if they were mere approximations determined by the mood of their users -- so that \"5,\" for instance, could mean six-and-a-half or four-and-three-quarters in others, according the users \"convenience\" -- there would be no such thing as the science of mathematics. Yet \u003Ci\u003Ethis\u003C\/i\u003E is the manner in which most people use concepts, and are taught to do so. Above the first-level abstractions of perceptual concretes, most people hold concepts as loose approximations, without firm definitions, clear meanings, or specific referents.... Starting from the mental habit of learning words without grasping meanings, people find it impossible to grasp higher abstractions, and their conceptual development consists of condensing fog into thicker fog.... This process is encouraged and, at times, demanded by many modern teachers who purvey snatches of random, out-of-context information in undefined, unintelligible, contradictory terms. [IOTE, 75-76]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI can't unravel all the errors packed into this passage in just one post. I will merely note here that Rand provides no convincing evidence on behalf of her assertion that \"most people\" hold concepts as loose approximations. Her view, in the light of what we know from cognitive science, is grossly implausible. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nNow it could be argued that Rand's view is an attempt to explain why so many people have trouble providing definitions for the terms they use in speech. However, the inability to define one's terms in no way establishes that people don't know what they mean by what they say. How many people can define \u003Ci\u003Ethe\u003C\/i\u003E or \u003Ci\u003Eand\u003C\/i\u003E or \u003Ci\u003Ebut\u003C\/i\u003E, words that are commonly used and understood by everyone? I'll have more to say on this subject when we get to Rand's views on definitions. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(2) How can a concept be contradictory? Only arguments, propositions, assertions can be contradictory. Contradictions arise from how concepts are employed in arguments; they don't arise from the concepts themselves. Even if you conceptualized a contradictory argument, the concept itself would not be contradictory. The concept \u003Ci\u003Ead hominem\u003C\/i\u003E is not a contradictory concept, nor does is automatize contradictions. It merely refers to a type of contradiction found in argumentation. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nCan contradictions be automatized? Perhaps (it depends on what this means). But not as concepts. If a person holds contradictory ideas, it is not the ideas per se that are contradictory, but the assertions they represent. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(3) Can a concept be an ill-defined approximation? Rand seems to believe so. As we have seen from earlier quotes, Rand believed that \"most people\" hold concepts as loose approximations. Presumably, this means they haven't defined their concepts. Without \"correct\" definitions, people cannot know the exact meaning of the concepts they are using. As Rand puts it: \"To know the exact meaning of the concepts one is using, one must know their correct definitions...\" [51] \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAgain, this is a topic which will require several posts to entangle the errors involved. I will concentrate in this post on examining one important implication of Rand's view, namely, the view that concepts are\u0026nbsp; ill-defined approximations \u003Ci\u003Ebecause of\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp; \"improper\" concept formation. Objectivism implies that if only concepts were formed \"properly,\" under the guidance of a \"focused,\" rigorously \"precise\" logical awareness, then the resulting concepts would not be ill-defined approximations. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nDescribing a concept as an ill-defined approximation is misleading, for it suggests that, if only a concept were better defined, it wouldn't be a mere approximation. Rand here seems to be confusing misunderstanding with vagueness. In general, people know what they mean. They don't always do a great job of expressing their meanings to others, but that's a different issue. Where people run into trouble is when they are confronted with a subject matter that is difficult, like quantum mechanics or calculus. They may have a vague idea of what these subject matters are about; but that is all. Now is this vague idea merely an ill-defined approximation? No, not if by ill-defined one means: lacking \"precise\" definitions. If a person does not understand a concept, providing a definition will not help. For example, Wikipedia defines the uncertainty principle as \"any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental lower bound on the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be simultaneously known.\" Now if you don't already understand the uncertainty principle, providing the definition is not going to improve matters. Understanding a concept is the same as understanding its definition. There is no priority to understanding one or the other. Nor does the individual have to form a definition in order to understand the meaning of the concept. The definition merely expresses the meaning of the concept in other words. It adds nothing, cognitively speaking, one way or the other; and it is entirely possible to understand a concept without being able to provide its definition. As we shall see later on, definitions only tell us about word usage; they don't give us any additional information about the concept itself. Therefore, providing strict definitions of concepts in no way increases our precision of meaning. In any case, it is not an issue of precision, it's an issue of understanding. Either the individual understands the concept or he doesn't. If he doesn't understand the concept, he won't understand the definition. If he understands the concept, the definition adds nothing to his understanding, since its meaning is identical to the concept. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand's decision to make the concept formation a primary source of cognitive error is itself an immense error. But more of this anon."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/281371391686926384\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=281371391686926384","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/281371391686926384"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/281371391686926384"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/07\/ayn-rand-epistemology-7.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 7"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5880240661834190773"},"published":{"$t":"2012-07-17T15:33:00.002-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2013-03-29T12:16:42.899-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Fallacies of Objectivist Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"unconscious"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 6"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cb\u003EFallacious Presumptions: Rand's implicit theory of mind.\u003C\/b\u003E Although Rand never developed a complete theory of mind, an implicit theory of the mind underlies many of her epistemological assertions. Indeed, it could be argued that Rand doesn't have just one but actually several implicit theories of mind, and that she makes use of which ever one is needed for the situation at hand.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe more fully developed theory underlies Rand's view of \"automatization\":\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nLearning to speak is a process of automatizing the use (i.e., the meaning and the application) of concepts. And more: all learning involves a process of automatizing, i.e., of first acquiring knowledge by fully conscious, focused attention and observation, then of establishing mental connections which make that knowledge automatic (instantly available as a context), thus freeing man's mind to pursue further, more complex knowledge. [IOTE, 65]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EI've already \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/07\/ayn-rand-epistemology-3.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ediscussed\u003C\/a\u003E the fallacy of assuming that concepts are formed consciously. I wanted to focus here on another aspect of the fallacy: namely, the implicit belief that consciousness either does or ought to act as a kind of gatekeeper to and trainer of the unconscious. This is a critical component of Rand's implicit theory of mind. The subconscious mind is a blank mechanism which is filled by an active consciousness. Furthermore, this blank mechanism will be filled whether the conscious mind is active or not. The only question is whether it is filled by conscious direction or by \"chance.\"\nThis view of the mind, as I have repeatedly \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2007\/11\/cognitive-revolution-objectivism-part-3.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Eshown\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;on this blog, is wrong. There is no evidence that the mind works this way. On the contrary, all the evidence points to the view that a cognitive unconscious exists and that much of the work of cognition and even decision making is done unconsciously, away from the scrutiny of consciousness.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nI continue to draw attention to this issue because it is the primary empirical error in the Objectivist Epistemology. I'll have more to say about this in my next post. But I want to turn our attention right now to another strand in Rand's implicit theory of mind: her view of \"implicit\" knowledge. Rand had very little to say about implicit knowledge (and its adjunct, \"implicit\" concepts). There really isn't an Objectivist theory of implicit knowledge: merely a collection of vague hints scattered throughout her \"official\" writings. Rand did, however, attempt to define what she meant by \"implicit knowledge\":\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nImplicit knowledge is passively held material which, to be grasped, requires a special focus and process of consciousness—a process which an infant learns to perform eventually, but which an animal’s consciousness is unable to perform.) [IOTE, 57]\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nTo the extent that we can draw anything definite out of this definition, it would seem to conflict with Rand's beliefs about an \"active\" consciousness. But the definition is to vague to draw any definite conclusions.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand has more to say about implicit knowledge in the workshops published in the seconded edition of IOTE. To be sure, her remarks are a bit confused and contradictory, suggesting that she hadn't really thought things out all that clearly. She begins by making the following assertion:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nThe \"implicit\" is that which is available to your consciousness but which you have not conceptualized. For instance, if you state a certain proposition, implicit in it are certain conclusions, but you may not be aware of them... [IOTE, 159]\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis is a bit vague and inadequate. What it suggests is that implicit knowledge is nothing more than the implicit presuppositions of conscious knowledge that have yet to be identified by consciousness. But what she says elsewhere implies there is more to the theory than that:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\n\"implicit\" is a knowledge which is available to you but which you have not yet grasped consciously,\" she elucidates. \"And by 'grapsed consciously,' I mean, brought into conceptual terms.\" [IOTE, 160]\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThis, however, is a bit problematic. The idea that there may be knowledge that is not known to a person (i.e., is unconscious) but which is nonetheless \"available\" to the conscious suggests that knowledge can be developed unconsciously (just as cognitive science has demonstrated). For where does this implicit knowledge originate? It clearly doesn't originate in consciousness. How could it? Consciousness has not yet grasped and conceptualized it! But doesn't this contradict Rand's view of the subconscious mind, which \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandlexicon.com\/lexicon\/subconscious.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Edeclares\u003C\/a\u003E (among other things): \"There is nothing in the subconscious besides what you acquired by conscious means\"? Of course it does. Here we find Rand surreptitiously importing a premise into her theory which she denies in another place! \"Implicit\" knowledge can be developed without the conscious mind being aware of it!"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5880240661834190773\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=5880240661834190773","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5880240661834190773"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/5880240661834190773"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/07\/fallacious-presumptions-rands-implicit.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 6"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1829304885899978521"},"published":{"$t":"2012-07-10T16:11:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2012-07-10T16:11:08.627-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"empirical responsibility"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Epistemology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Fallacies of Objectivist Epistemology"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 5"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cstrong\u003EFallacious Presumptions: the facts upon which epistemology is based are discoverable through introspection.\u003C\/strong\u003E Early on in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand makes the following observation: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nTwo questions are involved in his every conclusion, conviction, decision, choice or claim: What do I know?—and: How do I know it? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the “How?”—which then enables the special sciences to provide the answers to the “What?”\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nEpistemology, according to Rand, tells us how we know? But how does epistemology know how we know? What gives epistemology its special authority to answer such a question? Rand never thinks to raise this query, let alone answer it. Yet it's a question that cuts to the very heart of Rand's epistemological project. It's a question Rand herself could never have answered, because her epistemology, as she conceived and practiced it, is a fraud.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Ca name='more'\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\nIf you examine IOTE critically, one thing becomes readily apparent: it is largely made up of unsubstantiated assertions. For example:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote class=\"tr_bq\"\u003E\nIn the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have consisted of attempts to escape one or the other of the two fundamental questions which cannot be escaped. Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). [78-79]\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe higher animals are able to perceive entities, motions, attributes, and certain numbers of entities. But what an animal cannot perform is the process of abstraction—of mentally separating attributes, motions or numbers from entities. It has been said [by whom?] that an animal can perceive two oranges or two potatoes, but cannot grasp the concept “two.” [16]\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nLet us now examine the process of forming the simplest concept, the concept of a single attribute (chronologically, this is not the first concept that a child would grasp; but it is the simplest one epistemologically)—for instance, the concept “length.” If a child considers a match, a pencil and a stick, he observes that length is the attribute they have in common, but their specific lengths differ. The difference is one of measurement. In order to form the concept “length,” the child’s mind retains the attribute and omits its particular measurements. [11]\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIf you try to find evidence for these various assertions either within IOTE (or anywhere else), you will come up empty. We find Rand making assertions about the thinking processes not only of adult human beings, but even animals and children. How does she know about such things? Can she read the minds of other people? Can she read the minds of children and animals? What is the epistemological warrant for her assertions about these matters of fact? How does she know that an animal cannot grasp the concept \"two\"? How does she know how a child forms the concept \"length\"? What evidence does she have on behalf of her assertion that most epistemological theories have taught either that knowledge is impossible or effortless? If anyone else made these sort of unsubstantiated statements, wouldn't Rand (or at least Peikoff) accuse that individual of uttering arbitrary assertions? \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWhen I accuse the Objectivist epistemology of being speculative and imaginary, it's Rand's \"arbitrary\" and unsubstantiated assertions that I have in mind. But Rand herself almost certainly did not regard her epistemology as arbitrary and unsubstantiated. What could she have said in defense of her epistemological claims?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRand refused to allow herself to be effectively challenged on the grounds of evidence. She regarded all challenges as hostile attacks by enemies. They were to be combatted, not with rational arguments, but with moral indignation and fierce denouncements. If we were to somehow circumvent the defense mechanisms in which Rand's epistemological arguments are encased, Rand could only have defended her theory by an appeal to introspection. Unfortunately, Rand did not have much to say about introspection. When she discusses it at all it is usually in relation to self-knowledge about emotions. She seems to have believed that through introspection one could learn not only what one feels, but why one feels it. She defined introspection as \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/aynrandlexicon.com\/lexicon\/introspection.html\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Efollows\u003C\/a\u003E: \"Introspection is a process of cognition directed inward—a process of apprehending one’s own psychological actions in regard to some existent(s) of the external world, such actions as thinking, feeling, reminiscing, etc.\" \u0026nbsp;Although this is rather vague, it does seem to include thinking, which would be the subject matter of epistemology. So it is reasonable to assume that Rand believed that epistemological knowledge could be achieved via introspection. Since Rand wrote so little about this, it's not clear exactly how much she believed could be observed through introspection. How much of IOTE is based on direct introspection, and how much is merely inferred from introspection? She never says. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThere are at least two objections that can be raised to the presumption that epistemological knowledge can be gathered through introspection: (1) \u003Cem\u003Esince the individual can only observe his own mind, how can he be sure that what is true of his mind is true of other minds?\u003C\/em\u003E and (2) \u003Cem\u003Emost cognition takes place below the threshold of consciousness and is not available to introspection.\u003C\/em\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(1) The first objection may seem trivial or overly skeptical; but it won't do to dismiss it out of hand. An Objectivist once boasted in my presence that all his concepts had been formed consciously. Now while I regard such a view as palpably delusional, I can hardly prove it so, since I have no direct access to this person's mind. Rand herself appears to have believed that her own powers of introspection dwarfed those of most other people \"Man’s consciousness is his least known and most abused vital organ,\" she once asserted. Of course, she's referring here to people in general, not to herself. Rand's own powers of introspection enabled her not merely to solve the problem of universals, but to know the exact source of all her emotions. Since no one beyond Rand herself had access to her mind, we have no choice but to take her word on this one.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIn IOTE, Rand makes quite a few ex cathedra assertions respecting how human beings form concepts. Even assuming (per impossible) that Rand gleaned information from observing her own mental processes (via introspection), how does she know that other people form concepts the same way? After all, she cannot introspect the mental processes of other people. Perhaps they form concepts using different, even better methods!\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAt this point, one can imagine an Objectivist responding along the following lines: \"Ayn Rand never claimed how other people form their concepts. She merely explained how people ought to form their concepts, if they want their conceptual knowledge to be attached to reality.\" Even if this accurately describes Rand's position, it hardly gets her in the clear, since it involves an obvious case of question begging. One cannot simply assume that Rand's theory of concept formation describes how individuals ought to form concepts if they want their knowledge to be true or \"valid.\" That assumption must be demonstrated; and to be utterly convincing, it has to be demonstrated empirically, not merely via rationalistic argumentation. If Rand's method of forming concepts is cognitively superior to that used by most other people, you would expect this to give Objectivists a competitive advantage in terms of practical success over people following other schemes of concept-formation. Is this what we find? No, it's not. If you get a list of the most successful scientists, entrepreneurs, doctors, etc., you'll find very few, if any, Objectivists. There is absolutely no evidence that familiarity with IOTE or the Objectivist theory of concept formation improves cognitive efficacy or practical success in business or science. Indeed, you could make the argument that familarity with IOTE impairs cognitive efficacy. After all, the leading Objectivist philosopher (at least according to orthodox Objectivism) still among the living is Leonard Peikoff; the leading Objectivist physicist — David Hariman. Neither individual makes a very good poster boy for the cognitive puissance of Rand's theory of concepts.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(2) I have stressed repeatedly on this site that consciousness is merely the \"tip of the iceberg,\" and that Rand's epistemological claims are unknowable via introspection. The facts upon which Rand's epistemology allegedly rest are not open to introspection. Rand cannot possibly know what she claims to know. Objectivist epistemology is merely a series of guesses of varying degrees of implausibility. It's armchair philosophizing at its very worst. Since most concepts are formed below the threshold of consciousness, attempting to describe how they are formed may in fact be a vain endeavor. There are, to be sure, a few things that can be learned in the lab. In recent decades, cognitive scientists have developed many extremely ingenious experiments, from which they can make plausible inferences about unconscious mental processes. For example, in one experiment, they create an exact, minaturized model of a room, with all the same furniture, doors, windows, etc. They show this model to a toddler. Then they show the toddler a minutarized teddy bear, which they place behind some of the furniture in the minaturized model. They subsequently ask the toddler to find the teddy bear in the real room. Two year olds can never find the teddy bear, because they can't comprehend that the model is a representation of the real room. Four year olds, on the other hand, have no problem finding the teddy bear. Between two and four years of age, children learn the ability to take regard models as representative symbols. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nIt is through such ingenious experimentations that knowledge of human cognition is advanced. Rand's method of merely imaging how children \"ought\" to think is of very little purpose. It is tantamount to following the method used by Aristotle in physics. It is an attempt to determine matters of fact through logical, moral, and rhetorical constructions, rather than through the hard work of inference from rigorous experimentation. \u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1829304885899978521\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment.g?blogID=29196034\u0026postID=1829304885899978521","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1829304885899978521"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/29196034\/posts\/default\/1829304885899978521"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com\/2012\/07\/ayn-rand-epistemology-5.html","title":"Ayn Rand \u0026 Epistemology 5"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"gregnyquist"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/13653516868316854941"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}}]}});