Atlas Society's 2011 Summer Seminar in Anaheim, CA


Dennis Hardin

Recommended Posts

I didn't hear Part 1 of David Kelley's lecture on perceiving causality, so I really shouldn't comment on Part 2. I will say that Part 2 was not particularly interesting to me, but that could at least partly be because it wasn't intended as a stand-alone lecture. However, I did get a good idea while listening to it. It has to do with Identity and Causality. Briefly, if we can perceive causality, we should be able to perceive identity -- and if we can't perceive identity, we probably can't perceive causality either. Two interesting places to begin one's inquiry and thinking, I would say.

There were several (I'm told) good talks I wasn't able to attend. I've already mentioned the fantastic talk on the Supreme Court and liberty by Timothy Sandefur, as well as Tibor Machan's fine talks. (Tibor also came in Tuesday morning to give me a special introduction, which I really appreciated. I had to talk a little faster, though, since I didn't have my full 45 minutes left, and I barely finished in time. Sorry, all you folks who wanted to ask questions!)

The one other talk I have to mention is the one by the guy who wrote Radicals for Capitalism, Brian Doherty, one of the senior editors for Reason magazine. He made a really good point about the most important aspect of changing the world is changing people, one at a time -- i.e., focusing on the individual, beginning with yourself. He also made the very helpful point that you, as an individual, can carve out for yourself a very satisfactory life and happiness, even within the setting of a decaying society that is rocked by economic hard times and assaults on liberty. He really conveyed an over-riding concern with individual happiness and fulfillment, rather than "saving the world." This is very much along the lines of some comments Nathaniel Branden made several years ago, when asked what he thought was the best way to influence the world in the direction of reason and freedom. Become the best and most moral you can be at your career, so that you are a good example of your ideals. If I had to point to one thing that would have been my "money's worth" for the seminar's content, that would be it.

Becky and I also made some new friends, so it was a plus from that standpoint, too -- as well as getting to chat with old friends. It's not clear whether future events by TAS or Free Minds are going to be as long and allow as much social time. If the content can be better focused, perhaps that would be for the better. But I'd hate to see the maverick speakers get squeezed out by the move to significantly reduce the number of presentations. I think it's better to include some talks we wouldn't necessarily put in our "short list" (and I know full well that my talks would fit that category for many), in order to keep intellectual ferment and exploration alive and well in the "Open Objectivist" wing of the movement.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Almost forgot -- although I didn't hear him speak (Becky did and said he was good), I had the pleasure of meeting Stephen Hicks for the first time. What a breath of fresh air that guy is!

I also checked out some of his video clips on philosophy of education. Damned good stuff! Very clear and succinct. I wish there were several dozen folks like him spread around the country in major universities.

I should mention I had a brief, though nice, chat with Duncan Scott. His new video project, "Inside the Mind of Ayn Rand," sounds very challenging and very exciting. I think he's just the guy to be doing it. I trust him to get it right.

REB

P.S. (added later) -- I was only able to attend the last 10 minutes of Barbara Branden's talk, but Becky tells me she liked it a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Stephen Hicks gave a brilliant, fascinating talk entitled “Using Great Entrepreneurs to Teach Great Philosophy.” This was, for me, the highlight of the entire Atlas Society Seminar.

The main subject he discussed was the relevance of certain principles of character, managerial leadership and political economy to the success of the great entrepreneurs. His analysis used several different perspectives and levels of organization (e.g., the individual, the company and the nation). The various perspectives included ethics (egoism, predation and altruism), markets (production vs restraint of trade) and political theory (libertarianism, mixed economy and socialism). Dr. Hicks presented his overview of these issues, then proceeded to tie it all together using the historical examples of J.J. Hill and John D. Rockefeller and the contemporary examples of John Allison, Francesca Clark and Mary Mazzio.

In the course of his discussion, Dr. Hicks presented a breathtaking flowchart which integrated ethical principles with political economy and government power to illustrate the pathological roots of the mixed economy. You can take a look at his flowchart here.

Basically, the chart shows how productive individuals have been locked in a historical war with predatory individuals and how the outcome of that war (today’s mixed economy) has been dictated by certain key principles; e.g., conflicting ethical views (egoism, altruism and predation) have led to endless battles in which the tactics and strategies depend on ethics as well as conflicting attitudes about governmental intervention. Among other things, the chart illustrates the disasters which result from “unintended consequences.” Dr. Hicks has three different titles for his amazing chart:

Academic title: “The Sociology of Dysfunctional Nonstandard Political-Economic Systems.”

Public Intellectual title: “The Evolution of the Mixed Economy.”

Casual title: “How We Got Into This Frackin’ Mess.”

(I'm particularly fond of that last one. :rolleyes: )

You can read about some of the other courses taught by Dr. Hicks at his website. (I'm delighted to learn that a new, expanded version of his superb book, Explaining Postmodernism, will be published in mid-August.) You might also want to visit the website of The Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship of Rockford College, where Dr. Hicks teaches philosophy. I was fortunate to have an opportunity to talk with Dr. Hicks about some of the plans he has for expanding the Center’s educational activities.

As Dr. Hicks explained in his exceptional talk, entrepreneurship is a metaphor for life; it is all about translating goals into action. And one key to the success of many entrepreneurs has been their uncanny ability to re-invent themselves at various points in their lives.

Dr. Hicks and The Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship appear to have set their sights on re-inventing free market capitalism and a profound respect for ethics and individual rights in the United States of America and the world.

Edited by Dennis Hardin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one other talk I have to mention is the one by the guy who wrote Radicals for Capitalism, Brian Doherty, one of the senior editors for Reason magazine. He made a really good point about the most important aspect of changing the world is changing people, one at a time -- i.e., focusing on the individual, beginning with yourself.

REB

I prefer to accentuate the positive whenever possible, so I will have only a minimal amount to say about the Atlas Society seminar beyond the presentation by Dr. Stephen Hicks. Barbara Branden and David Kelley both did a wonderful job with their talks, although both were mainly going over ground they had covered before. My lengthy discussions with Barbara and David on the final evening of the conference meant a great deal to me on a personal level. In fact, as far as I am concerned, if it had not been for the opportunity for social interaction with other Objectivists, the conference would have been an overwhelming disappointment.

I deliberately avoided some of the speakers because of their libertarian orientation. If you’ve heard one genius pontificate on the inadvisability of using physical force, you’ve heard them all. If I get the time to write further comments about the various lectures I did hear, most of what I have to say will be highly critical.

Since Roger said some nice things about Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty, I feel the need to offer a different view. My strongest complaint about the seminar would be the puzzling agenda of topics and speakers, and Doherty is a prime example. Doherty presents himself as a fan of Ayn Rand, but I have to ask: Did anyone bother to read his comments about Ayn Rand in his libertarian history book, Radicals for Capitalism? Here's how he introduces the discussion of Ayn Rand in his book:

"The Russian-born novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand was the most popular libertarian of all and simultaneously the most hated. As I libertarian, if you don't love her, you are apt to feel embarrassed by her, burdened by her omnipresence and the occasional fanaticism of her followers." (p. 11)

That was written by a fan of Ayn Rand? You could have fooled me. Here is how this “fan” describes Atlas Shrugged in his book:

"Rand and her fans think Atlas presents an inspirational vision. Rand's aesthetic philosophy says that art is meant to provide emotional fuel for man by showing him values made real, by providing him with the joy of living temporarily in a world where everything is as it should be. However, the novel is for most of its length literally nightmarish. It focuses more intensely on the terror of destruction and decay than it does on the glory of achievement and growth. While Rand clearly spoke in the name of peace, liberty, and achievement (though her ideological enemies have rarely granted her the respect of noticing that's what she explicitly stood for), the novel supplies plenty of ammunition to those who accuse it of being written in a spirit of hate." (p. 227)

With fans like this, Rand did not really need detractors. These words could easily have made it into National Review as a companion piece to Whittaker Chambers (“Big Sister is Watching You”). Frankly, these remarks make me wonder if Doherty even read Atlas Shrugged.

In addition to his unflattering comments about Ayn Rand, Doherty’s book also includes some footnotes which are naively sympatheitic to the rabid anti-Branden viewpoint of James Valliant in The Passion of the Ayn Rand Critics. I am too disgusted by his stupid, ill-considered remarks to repeat them here.

I forced myself to listen to his talk in spite of my misgivings. I thought it was an utterly boring waste of valuable time. No offense, Roger, but changing the world one person at a time, starting with ourselves, was a trite cliche fifty years ago when Readers Digest printed it for the first time.

Now let me turn to the more positive aspects of Doherty’s talk. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one other talk I have to mention is the one by the guy who wrote Radicals for Capitalism, Brian Doherty, one of the senior editors for Reason magazine. He made a really good point about the most important aspect of changing the world is changing people, one at a time -- i.e., focusing on the individual, beginning with yourself.

There are six and a quarter billion people on earth (and growing daily). Time to get busy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the course of his discussion, Dr. Hicks presented a breathtaking flowchart which integrated ethical principles with political economy and government power to illustrate the pathological roots of the mixed economy. You can take a look at his flowchart here.

Basically, the chart shows how productive individuals have been locked in a historical war with predatory individuals and how the outcome of that war (today's mixed economy) has been dictated by certain key principles; e.g., conflicting ethical views (egoism, altruism and predation) have led to endless battles in which the tactics and strategies depend on ethics as well as conflicting attitudes about governmental intervention. Among other things, the chart illustrates the disasters which result from "unintended consequences." Dr. Hicks has three different titles for his amazing chart:

You can read about some of the other courses taught by Dr. Hicks at his website. (I'm delighted to learn that a new, expanded version of his superb book, Explaining Postmodernism, will be published in mid-August.) You might also want to visit the website of The Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship of Rockford College, where Dr. Hicks teaches philosophy. I was fortunate to have an opportunity to talk with Dr. Hicks about some of the plans he has for expanding the Center's educational activities.

As Dr. Hicks explained in his exceptional talk, entrepreneurship is a metaphor for life; it is all about translating goals into action. And one key to the success of many entrepreneurs has been there uncanny ability to re-invent themselves at various points in their lives.

Dr. Hicks and The Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship appear to have set their sights on re-inventing free market capitalism and a profound respect for ethics and individual rights in the United States of America and the world.

Dennis:

Thank you so much for those links. I will make excellent use of them.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to Dennis Hardin for inducing me — clearly not by his intention — to become more intrigued by Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism, which I had not read. I may, now, even buy it. Doherty puts his descriptive finger on what had given me disquiet over a third of a century and six iterations of reading Atlas, but which had eluded my own isolation and clear description:

Rand and her fans think Atlas presents an inspirational vision. Rand's aesthetic philosophy says that art is meant to provide emotional fuel for man by showing him values made real, by providing him with the joy of living temporarily in a world where everything is as it should be. However, the novel is for most of its length literally nightmarish. It focuses more intensely on the terror of destruction and decay than it does on the glory of achievement and growth. While Rand clearly spoke in the name of peace, liberty, and achievement (though her ideological enemies have rarely granted her the respect of noticing that's what she explicitly stood for), the novel supplies plenty of ammunition to those who accuse it of being written in a spirit of hate. [p. 227 — emphasis added]

Doherty is no smear-monger of the ilk of Whittaker Chambers by saying this. He is, unfortunately, fairly descriptive. Not that the context of the full plot of Atlas doesn't ultimately redeem most of the nightmares (and I have to wonder what Dennis omitted of Doherty's context in quoting this).

Yet to say that the nightmarish quality of much of the book is disquieting in its emphasis is, to me, stating what has always been obvious. Perhaps that's a source of the novel's power. Rand's admiration for the technical strengths of Dostoevsky's writing is material here. She didn't care for his "cathedral of horrors," but she complimented how he conveyed its gestalt and tone. I always saw much more of Dostoevsky than Hugo in Atlas, and nearly the reverse in The Fountainhead.

As for being a Rand "fan," that's always been a misnomer. A host of people have admired her or even just granted her due respect for her talents without being "fans." That term implies a level of slavish devotion to the personal traits of a creator or performer, quite apart from his or her achievements. So, also, does the mutually-reinforcing and -reifying creation of a "fandom" as a community.

Doherty may not be a thorough-going "fan of Ayn Rand." So what? Neither am I, despite being avidly, passionately caught up in her fiction and non-fiction for decades. "Friend" makes sense, for those who knew her, which number dwindles each year. "Admirer" suggests a modicum of distance and independence. "Fan" tries, implicitly, to fudge these together, suggesting that admiration can bring at least an imitation of a personal connection, which has now not been possible with Rand for three decades.

Edited by Greybird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Hicks and The Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship appear to have set their sights on re-inventing free market capitalism and a profound respect for ethics and individual rights in the United States of America and the world.

Dennis:

Thank you so much for those links. I will make excellent use of them.

Adam

Adam--You are very welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Russian-born novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand was the most popular libertarian of all and simultaneously the most hated. As I libertarian, if you don't love her, you are apt to feel embarrassed by her, burdened by her omnipresence and the occasional fanaticism of her followers." (p. 11)

That was written by a fan of Ayn Rand? You could have fooled me.

I find many of her followers embarrassing. Need I name names?

Here is how this “fan” describes Atlas Shrugged in his book:

"Rand and her fans think Atlas presents an inspirational vision. Rand's aesthetic philosophy says that art is meant to provide emotional fuel for man by showing him values made real, by providing him with the joy of living temporarily in a world where everything is as it should be. However, the novel is for most of its length literally nightmarish. It focuses more intensely on the terror of destruction and decay than it does on the glory of achievement and growth. While Rand clearly spoke in the name of peace, liberty, and achievement (though her ideological enemies have rarely granted her the respect of noticing that's what she explicitly stood for), the novel supplies plenty of ammunition to those who accuse it of being written in a spirit of hate." (p. 227)

This is like complaining about Agatha Christie on the grounds that each of her murder mysteries has a murderer in the cast. How malevolent, right? Kafka is nightmarish, not Rand (I'm thinking here of The Trial). How do you do drama without depicting conflict? Does Doherty give any examples of libertarian fiction that he approves of? Even Beethoven’s Pastoral Symphony has a storm sequence in the middle. This has me imagining the literary equivalent of the Pachelbel Canon, conflict free but necessarily brief. How about something by O’Henry? But even The Gift of the Magi is bittersweet, however uplifting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doherty is no smear-monger of the ilk of Whittaker Chambers by saying this. He is, unfortunately, fairly descriptive. Not that the context of the full plot of Atlas doesn't ultimately redeem most of the nightmares (and I have to wonder what Dennis omitted of Doherty's context in quoting this).

Oh, I'll be more than willing to supply you with all the disgusting context you want.

Atlas ended up a stunning dramatization of the real-world effects of airy and abstract philosophical principles, a tour de force that inspires both life–changing awe and deep and powerful repugnance. One hears – often – that the book changed a reader’s life; yet you can also hear of people, upon discovering a copy in a loved one's room, throwing it out a window ‘for their own good’ – and someone in the yard, seeing what the offending book was, running over it again and again with a lawnmower, shredding it, ensuring that this copy at least could wreak no more harm, pollute no more minds.

The plot is labyrinthine and horrifying. . .

Atlas was meant to be the final knitting of Rand’s philosophy, and its concretization. She shows us the real–world effects of embracing her philosophy – and her enemies’. We see her philosophy leading to well-being, grand achievements, wealth, brotherhood, and peace; her opponents’ leading to corruption, rot, failure, self-hate, and eventually destruction and death. Rand believed all this ferociously, and that helps explain the equally fierce revulsion her work inspires in those who can't cotton to her philosophy.

[paragraph quoted above]

Atlas is to some extent as much a wallowing in a sewer as the worst modern naturalistic literature Rand hated – possibly even worse, since she portrays the most pathetic evil causing more destruction than it ever managed to do in real life. She romanticizes the evil as much as she romanticizes the good. Yet Atlas contains passages of glorious poetry as well, pure hymns to human greatness. But she can't keep her mind on her fabled Atlantis (the heroes’ hidden home), can't keep from giving the weak and pathetic more attention than her intellect would grant they deserve. This subconscious struggle makes the book more harrowing than necessary to anyone who can't instantly click with Rand’s philosophy and sense of life.

Radicals for Capitalism, pp. 226-227

I don't see much here in the way of "redemption" for the nightmares.

Yet to say that the nightmarish quality of much of the book is disquieting in its emphasis is, to me, stating what has always been obvious. Perhaps that's a source of the novel's power. Rand's admiration for the technical strengths of Dostoevsky's writing is material here. She didn't care for his "cathedral of horrors," but she complimented how he conveyed its gestalt and tone. I always saw much more of Dostoevsky than Hugo in Atlas, and nearly the reverse in The Fountainhead.

Doherty does not merely say that parts of Atlas are "nightmarish." He clearly implies that Rand fails to "provide an inspirational vision" to her readers and, instead, focuses on a "horrifying" plot and "the terror of destruction and decay" while giving just cause to those who accuse her of writing it in a spirit of hate.

As for being a Rand "fan," that's always been a misnomer. A host of people have admired her or even just granted her due respect for her talents without being "fans." That term implies a level of slavish devotion to the personal traits of a creator or performer, quite apart from his or her achievements. So, also, does the mutually-reinforcing and -reifying creation of a "fandom" as a community.

"Fan" implies "slavish devotion" to the person's personal traits? That's ridiculous. The word "fan" can mean any number of things. I'm also a fan of Peyton Manning, Clint Eastwood, Cary Grant, Nathaniel Branden and many others. I could also name any number of things about these individuals that I do not particularly admire. Calling myself a "fan" simply means that I admire the person on some level, without implying anything about "devotion," slavish or otherwise.

Doherty may not be a thorough-going "fan of Ayn Rand." So what? Neither am I,. . .

You're not a "fan" of Ayn Rand? Now there's a shock. So what? So I don’t want to spend $450 to listen to this a-hole at a conference devoted to a serious study and exploration of the ideas of Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Russian-born novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand was the most popular libertarian of all and simultaneously the most hated. As I libertarian, if you don't love her, you are apt to feel embarrassed by her, burdened by her omnipresence and the occasional fanaticism of her followers." (p. 11)

That was written by a fan of Ayn Rand? You could have fooled me.

I find many of her followers embarrassing. Need I name names?

But Doherty specifically says "embarrassed by her," not merely the "occasional fanaticism" of her cringing, fawning, pathetic followers.

Here is how this “fan” describes Atlas Shrugged in his book:

"Rand and her fans think Atlas presents an inspirational vision. Rand's aesthetic philosophy says that art is meant to provide emotional fuel for man by showing him values made real, by providing him with the joy of living temporarily in a world where everything is as it should be. However, the novel is for most of its length literally nightmarish. It focuses more intensely on the terror of destruction and decay than it does on the glory of achievement and growth. While Rand clearly spoke in the name of peace, liberty, and achievement (though her ideological enemies have rarely granted her the respect of noticing that's what she explicitly stood for), the novel supplies plenty of ammunition to those who accuse it of being written in a spirit of hate." (p. 227)

This is like complaining about Agatha Christie on the grounds that each of her murder mysteries has a murderer in the cast. How malevolent, right? Kafka is nightmarish, not Rand (I'm thinking here of The Trial). How do you do drama without depicting conflict? Does Doherty give any examples of libertarian fiction that he approves of? Even Beethoven’s Pastoral Symphony has a storm sequence in the middle. This has me imagining the literary equivalent of the Pachelbel Canon, conflict free but necessarily brief. How about something by O’Henry? But even The Gift of the Magi is bittersweet, however uplifting.

Good point. How was Rand supposed to describe the decline and fall of a civilization? Was she supposed to have included touching hospital scenes of train wreck amputees being seduced by sexy but slightly perverted nurses? Maybe Doherty would have preferred some scenes of orgiastic debauchery similar to La Dolce Vita?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How was Rand supposed to describe the decline and fall of a civilization? Was she supposed to have included touching hospital scenes of train wreck amputees being seduced by sexy but slightly perverted nurses? Maybe Doherty would have preferred some scenes of orgiastic debauchery similar to La Dolce Vita?

Where is John Waters when we really need him? :rolleyes:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How was Rand supposed to describe the decline and fall of a civilization? Was she supposed to have included touching hospital scenes of train wreck amputees being seduced by sexy but slightly perverted nurses? Maybe Doherty would have preferred some scenes of orgiastic debauchery similar to La Dolce Vita?

Where is John Waters when we really need him? :rolleyes:

Ghs

240px-John_Waters_at_EIFF_cropped.jpg<<<<that is one funky dude!

wiki link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doherty is no smear-monger of the ilk of Whittaker Chambers by saying this. He is, unfortunately, fairly descriptive. Not that the context of the full plot of Atlas doesn't ultimately redeem most of the nightmares (and I have to wonder what Dennis omitted of Doherty's context in quoting this).

Oh, I'll be more than willing to supply you with all the disgusting context you want.

Atlas ended up a stunning dramatization of the real-world effects of airy and abstract philosophical principles, a tour de force that inspires both life–changing awe and deep and powerful repugnance. One hears – often – that the book changed a reader's life; yet you can also hear of people, upon discovering a copy in a loved one's room, throwing it out a window 'for their own good' – and someone in the yard, seeing what the offending book was, running over it again and again with a lawnmower, shredding it, ensuring that this copy at least could wreak no more harm, pollute no more minds.

The plot is labyrinthine and horrifying. . .

Atlas was meant to be the final knitting of Rand's philosophy, and its concretization. She shows us the real–world effects of embracing her philosophy – and her enemies'. We see her philosophy leading to well-being, grand achievements, wealth, brotherhood, and peace; her opponents' leading to corruption, rot, failure, self-hate, and eventually destruction and death. Rand believed all this ferociously, and that helps explain the equally fierce revulsion her work inspires in those who can't cotton to her philosophy.

[paragraph quoted above]

Atlas is to some extent as much a wallowing in a sewer as the worst modern naturalistic literature Rand hated – possibly even worse, since she portrays the most pathetic evil causing more destruction than it ever managed to do in real life. She romanticizes the evil as much as she romanticizes the good. Yet Atlas contains passages of glorious poetry as well, pure hymns to human greatness. But she can't keep her mind on her fabled Atlantis (the heroes' hidden home), can't keep from giving the weak and pathetic more attention than her intellect would grant they deserve. This subconscious struggle makes the book more harrowing than necessary to anyone who can't instantly click with Rand's philosophy and sense of life.

Radicals for Capitalism, pp. 226-227

I don't see much here in the way of "redemption" for the nightmares.

Yet to say that the nightmarish quality of much of the book is disquieting in its emphasis is, to me, stating what has always been obvious. Perhaps that's a source of the novel's power. Rand's admiration for the technical strengths of Dostoevsky's writing is material here. She didn't care for his "cathedral of horrors," but she complimented how he conveyed its gestalt and tone. I always saw much more of Dostoevsky than Hugo in Atlas, and nearly the reverse in The Fountainhead.

Doherty does not merely say that parts of Atlas are "nightmarish." He clearly implies that Rand fails to "provide an inspirational vision" to her readers and, instead, focuses on a "horrifying" plot and "the terror of destruction and decay" while giving just cause to those who accuse her of writing it in a spirit of hate.

As for being a Rand "fan," that's always been a misnomer. A host of people have admired her or even just granted her due respect for her talents without being "fans." That term implies a level of slavish devotion to the personal traits of a creator or performer, quite apart from his or her achievements. So, also, does the mutually-reinforcing and -reifying creation of a "fandom" as a community.

"Fan" implies "slavish devotion" to the person's personal traits? That's ridiculous. The word "fan" can mean any number of things. I'm also a fan of Peyton Manning, Clint Eastwood, Cary Grant, Nathaniel Branden and many others. I could also name any number of things about these individuals that I do not particularly admire. Calling myself a "fan" simply means that I admire the person on some level, without implying anything about "devotion," slavish or otherwise.

Doherty may not be a thorough-going "fan of Ayn Rand." So what? Neither am I,. . .

You're not a "fan" of Ayn Rand? Now there's a shock. So what? So I don't want to spend $450 to listen to this a-hole at a conference devoted to a serious study and exploration of the ideas of Ayn Rand.

I don't need anybody telling me anything about Atlas Shrugged, much less a twit like B.D. I stopped reading his magazine too and miss it not at all. That was after subscribing for over 35 years, which for me was ten years too many. Nathaniel Branden is the only person who ever made a comment about Atlas that I found valuable and worthwhile that I hadn't already thought of, namely that there was no excuse for letting Rearden fly around Colorado for a month looking for Dagny except Rand may have needed it for plot purposes.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With fans like this, Rand did not really need detractors. These words could easily have made it into National Review as a companion piece to Whittaker Chambers (“Big Sister is Watching You”). Frankly, these remarks make me wonder if Doherty even read Atlas Shrugged.

This has probably been posted before on OL, but in any case here is William Buckley discussing the review by Chambers:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5KmPLkiqnO8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With fans like this, Rand did not really need detractors. These words could easily have made it into National Review as a companion piece to Whittaker Chambers ("Big Sister is Watching You"). Frankly, these remarks make me wonder if Doherty even read Atlas Shrugged.

This has probably been posted before on OL, but in any case here is William Buckley discussing the review by Chambers:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5KmPLkiqnO8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ghs

I lost intellectual respect for Buckley in 1964 when he published the suggestion that for Goldwater to win election to the Presidency he might run with Eisenhower as his running mate. A few years later I read his lengthy analysis in Esquire of someone incarcerated in New Jersey for murder championing his innocence. He wasn't, but he got sprung eventually with Buckley's help by pleading guilty to a lesser charge. He then did a heinous crime in California that was almost resultant in murder and got tossed back in the slammer. Norman Mailer did the same kind of moral-intellectualizing crap and got another murderer out who then murdered a NYC waiter. When I read his Esquire article all I could think of was all this beating around the bush with no strong case or facts he can get to the point of. I bet then the SOB did do the crime. Buckley was an intellectual dilettante. A very light cultural force while alive and nothing at all now.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buckley was an intellectual dilettante. A very light cultural force while alive and nothing at all now.

--Brant

That he surely was Brant, but he still gave the best public answer on whether he smoked weed, when, on the Johnny Carson Show, he admitted he smoked pot "...on his boat off the coast outside the three mile limit."

William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman have long supported legalizing marijuana. Years ago, Buckley publicly announced that . Now 78 years old and giving up ownership of the
National Review
, Buckley writes in
National Review Online
in support of complete legalization and speaks as well of medical cannabis:

But the stodgy inertia most politicians feel is up against a creeping reality. It is that marijuana for medical relief is a movement which is attracting voters who are pretty assertive on the subject. Every state ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana has been approved, often by wide margins. Of course we have here collisions of federal and state authority. Federal authority technically supervenes state laws, but federal authority in the matter is being challenged on grounds of medical self-government. It simply isn't so that there are substitutes equally efficacious. Richard Brookhiser, the widely respected author and editor, has written on the subject for The New York Observer. He had a bout of cancer and found relief from chemotherapy only in marijuana — which he consumed, and discarded after the affliction was gone.
Source

I remember the show. My football buds were watching it with me and we almost dropped the bong when it came out of his mouth!

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buckley was an intellectual dilettante. A very light cultural force while alive and nothing at all now.

--Brant

That he surely was Brant, but he still gave the best public answer on whether he smoked weed, when, on the Johnny Carson Show, he admitted he smoked pot "...on his boat off the coast outside the three mile limit."

William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman have long supported legalizing marijuana. Years ago, Buckley publicly announced that . Now 78 years old and giving up ownership of the
National Review
, Buckley writes in
National Review Online
in support of complete legalization and speaks as well of medical cannabis:

But the stodgy inertia most politicians feel is up against a creeping reality. It is that marijuana for medical relief is a movement which is attracting voters who are pretty assertive on the subject. Every state ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana has been approved, often by wide margins. Of course we have here collisions of federal and state authority. Federal authority technically supervenes state laws, but federal authority in the matter is being challenged on grounds of medical self-government. It simply isn't so that there are substitutes equally efficacious. Richard Brookhiser, the widely respected author and editor, has written on the subject for The New York Observer. He had a bout of cancer and found relief from chemotherapy only in marijuana — which he consumed, and discarded after the affliction was gone.
Source

I remember the show. My football buds were watching it with me and we almost dropped the bong when it came out of his mouth!

Adam

Did he champion the lives lost and destroyed and mangled by the drug wars? I'm not saying he didn't.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .

If we can perceive causality, we should be able to perceive identity -- and if we can't perceive identity, we probably can't perceive causality either. . . .

Concerning perception of identity: A, B, C, D

Concerning perception of causality, click on the links in here, especially the Yale one:

. . .

Harriman inclines to think that higher animals have direct experience of causation (cf. Enright 1991, §II). Like us, they “perceive that various actions they take make certain things happen. But they cannot go on to infer any generalizations from these perceptions” (28). The important thing is that Harriman rightly affirms that the human animal perceives some causal relations directly. (See “Hume – Experience of Cause and Effect” above* and Yale.) From those percepts, general causal principles (from “Pushed balls roll” to “Applied torque causes onset of rolling”) are formed after the general pattern of how universal concepts are formed from percepts. Harriman’s book is an attempt to spell out more specifically the abstraction process from elementary causal principles such as “pushed balls roll” to general scientific principles—the tremendous abstraction process that is ampliative induction—illustrated by episodes in the history of science (join with Note 27).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1996, he was pretty clear in this Open Mind interview. There is a transcript also.

God! What an effete, pompous person he was.

On legalizing drugs...WF Buckley's Open Mind Interview in 1996

BUCKLEY: Okay, if I were the drug czar, I would say, “Okay, here are the five or six popular, illegal drugs. You can get them at the federal drug store for just more than the pharmaceutical cost of producing them. Enough to sustain the overhead, but enough also to discourage a black market in them. But before you go in there you’re going to have to read a description of what this drug does to you. And if you’re in a mood to play Russian roulette, go ahead and take some crack cocaine, because the probability that you will be seriously affected by this is up around eight, ten percent.” So therefore I would give them all the warning that they needed about the toxicity that they were able to accept in indulging this habit, but I would not let the price rise to where Mr. Middleman decides that he’s going to sell you that crack cocaine, and in order to get it he’s going to fumble around in people’s living rooms or steal women’s purses or mug people.

HEFFNER: I know that my raising this point of what you wrote in August ‘95 doesn’t diminish one bit the suffering that you indicate our nation had experienced, which led you to your quest for legalization. But it’s not as simple as government drug shops. Is it, really? I mean, do you see it in this… 20:00

BUCKLEY: Well, I didn’t say that it was simple; I said that’s a way of defeating the black market. The cost of drugs is between one and two percent, the pharmaceutical cost, of what you have to pay the man on the street corner. But the way Garcia figures in this is that he encouraged a kind of detachment from reality that led a lot of people, like my young friend, to simply suspend his natural or even his cultivated sense of morality and self-restraint. In the same sense that a great courtesan might encourage people to lose restraints. Jerry Garcia encouraged to lose restraints. The guy who just died, who was famous for saying, “Turn loose and…” What was the rest of that phrase? “Tune out.”

This is as close as he comes. He basically says that the war is lost and it has severely hurt the US economically and individually.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recommend following Stephen Boydstun's links above, especially the one dtd 18 Feb 2011. It has quite a bit about David Hume's view of causality. David Kelley said a little about Hume's view. 1. His arguments were anticipated by an Islamic philosopher -- I don't believe he gave the name. 2. Hume described events as loose and separate. One event follows another, but we never observe any necessary ties between them.

Some other topics Kelley talked about were;

1. Distinguishing between perceptual awareness and perceptual judgment, e.g. seeing a table versus thinking "this is a table." He referred to his book The Evidence of the Senses

2. The Law of Causality, citing H.W.B. Joseph's 'the law of causality is the law of identity applied to action' that Ayn Rand adopted

3. Mill's Methods, and how the Method of Agreement is not reducible to "enumerative induction" (the frequent straw man of Popperians and Humeans).

4. Evidence from psychology -- the experience of agency and Albert Michotte's experiments.

Michotte wrote a book titled The Perception of Causality (1963), which sounded interesting. One experiment of Michotte's that Kelley described was a moving picture of one ball hitting another and the second ball moving only after a delay, enough of a delay that the subjects didn't judge it to be caused by the first ball.

Edited by Merlin Jetton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doherty may not be a thorough-going "fan of Ayn Rand." So what? Neither am I,. . .

You're not a "fan" of Ayn Rand? Now there's a shock. So what? So I don’t want to spend $450 to listen to this a-hole at a conference devoted to a serious study and exploration of the ideas of Ayn Rand.

Two comments here:

1. Dennis, if you attended every session, the pro-rated amount you spent to listen to Mr. Doherty was about $10. If you had paid the somewhat higher half-day rate of $50, it would have been more like $12.50 or $16.66 (I don't remember if he was in the morning or the afternoon.) Of course, the more sessions you skip, for whatever reason, the higher the pro-rated amount you spent (and apparently felt you lost) in hearing Doherty. So, flashing the $450 figure around seems a bit hyperbolic to me.

2. I re-read the pre-conference announcements from both Free Minds (Stitt & Co.) and The Atlas Society (Kelley et al), and neither of them promised "a serious study and exploration of the ideas of Ayn Rand."

Here is what Stitt and Herrick wrote:

Announcing the 2011 open Objectivism Summer Seminar: A full week of non-stop ideas and inspiration. Experience today's finest thinking and achievements in philosophy, psychology, advanced technology, politics, economics, the arts, and education. Mingle, meet, and share ideas with leading scholars, visionary doers, students -- intellectual adventurers of all ages, backgrounds, and interests. Free Minds 2011 Summer Seminar -- much more than a traditional academic conference, will feature open and constructive interaction among all participants throughout. All are welcome to join in.

Here is what Kelley, Thomas, et al wrote:

Our Atlas Society Free Minds Summer Seminar 2011 (July 6-13) in Anaheim, California will feature a stellar set of speakers and great Objectivist camaraderie. Each year The Atlas Society and the Free Minds Institute jointly present a week-long summer program featuring presentations by some of the top minds in the country. The topics range from Objectivist epistemology to artificial intelligence, cognitive science, psychology, physics, economics, and law. (Photo at right: 2007 Summer Seminar.) Experience today's finest thinking and achievements in philosophy, psychology, advanced technology, politics, economics, the arts, and education. Mingle, meet, and share ideas with leading scholars, visionary doers, students -- intellectual adventurers of all ages, backgrounds, and interests. Participate in a free flow of ideas and shared information among the most intelligent, productive, and congenial people you’ll meet anywhere. Learn what’s being done, what can be done, and what will be done to increase the powers of the human mind, expand human liberty, and enhance human well-being and wealth around the world. The Summer Seminar is a joint venture between The Free Minds Institute and The Atlas Society. E-mail program director WIll Thomas for more information, at wthomas@atlassociety.org.

So, Dennis, it seems clear to me that there's a lot more understood to be going on at Free Minds than the "serious study and exploration" of Rand's ideas that you say the seminar was "devoted" to. And The Atlas Society was certainly on board with it, even if they wouldn't necessarily have approved of all (or even most?) of the speakers or content included in the schedule.

OK, a third point:

3. My own impression has always been that the Free Minds seminars have been devoted to advancing reason and freedom -- in particular, the Objectivist philosophy, the core of which (to me) is (rational) individualism. I have observed that the more people focus on the ~movement~ rather than ~their own~ well-being and self-interest, the more people tend to become mired in judgmentalness and unproductivity. Both Nathaniel Branden and Brian Doherty have noted this and urged people to focus on themselves and others ~as individuals~. It may be, as Dennis says, a long-standing, Reader's Digest "cliche" (i.e., factual requirement of man's survival and well-being), but then so is acknowledgment and adherence to the Law of Identity, which is much, much older, and Dennis, I don't see you or any other serious Objectivist sneering at ~that~ truism. :-)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one other talk I have to mention is the one by the guy who wrote Radicals for Capitalism, Brian Doherty, one of the senior editors for Reason magazine. He made a really good point about the most important aspect of changing the world is changing people, one at a time -- i.e., focusing on the individual, beginning with yourself.

REB

I prefer to accentuate the positive whenever possible, so I will have only a minimal amount to say about the Atlas Society seminar beyond the presentation by Dr. Stephen Hicks...If I get the time to write further comments about the various lectures I did hear, most of what I have to say will be highly critical.

I shudder to think what you might say about my talk! <_< But seriously, you did attend it, right? I haven't overlooked such a post, have I? If you have any comments, "accentuating the positive" or not, Dennis, please feel free to make them -- either here, or in a private email. I would value your thoughts about my presentation.

Since Roger said some nice things about Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty, I feel the need to offer a different view...I forced myself to listen to his talk in spite of my misgivings. I thought it was an utterly boring waste of valuable time. No offense, Roger, but changing the world one person at a time, starting with ourselves, was a trite cliche fifty years ago when Readers Digest printed it for the first time.

Fine. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. If you haven't been sick unto death of the spectacle of supposed rational individuals dragging the Objectivist movement down into a judgmental mire, nor distracted by impulses to spend valuable time joining the fray and verbally stomping some destructive or ignorant Objectivist wannabe, then you don't need Doherty's (and Branden's) message. For me, however, it was a much-welcome reminder to stay focused on ~my~ life, well-being, and happiness.

Now let me turn to the more positive aspects of Doherty’s talk. . .

Cute. I've already made (immediately above) some additional positive remarks about Doherty's talk, so I won't comment further.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave my "Logic of Liberty" talk again tonight (Monday July 18) to the Karl Hess Club in Los Angeles. About 15 were in attendance, including some folks from Orange County. I had a great time speaking, fielding questions, chatting with the attendees. Good bunch! They were quite receptive to my "tetrachotomy" approach to understanding the political spectrum and the various "ism's," but also contributed some good insights and questions. Good food at Dinah's, too! My 16-year-old, Rachel, also attested that she now understands fascism for the first time. :-)

I had a full hour to develop my topic, so I was able to extemporize a bit more than last week at Free Minds in Anaheim. As a result, I think the talk was actually more effective. The atmosphere was certainly more congenial and interest more genuine and genuinely expressed.

Mike Everling does a great job of "herding" the libertarian "cats" and keeping an interesting slate of speakers, year after year. (Becky and I heard John Hospers and Barbara Branden speak to this group in past years.) Another plus was getting to chat a good bit with "our" Stephen Reed aka Greybird. I'm sold now on the idea of starting up a monthly dinner/discussion Libertarian-Objectivist group in Nashville.

Gotta hit the hay, so we can leave bright and early for the City by the Bay. I fly back home from San Francisco airport in the mid-afternoon, and get to Nashville around 1 am. Urk. I'm definitely going to log some zee's Wednesday morning, before attempting to do any business or trombone practicing!

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now