George Smith's Styrofoam Pod Thread

[jordanz]

Ni

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

[Ellen Stuttle]

The message read: "Life is an audition."

For what role? (I'd better start practicing.)

Ellen

___

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

[Guyau]

George Smith,

I know these exchanges with you concerning some of your published works has arisen in an odd way, but I hope you will not mind my addition to this public exchange with you.

I don't know if you remember meeting me, but you and I talked briefly over lunch one day some years ago at a conference at which you were presenting a paper. I would just like to repeat here for you and the readers something I told you and something I asked you at that time.

I was very impressed with your essay "Justice Entrepreneurship" that was published in The Journal of Libertarian Studies many years ago. I am not and have never been an anarchocapitalist. But I have always seen your essay as one of the most important compositions supporting that position.

The question I asked you when we met, the question I would here like to repeat to you publicly, is the following. In your book Atheism: The Case Against God, you considered various arguments that have been constructed for the existence of God. One element you relied on in your refutations seemed to be Ayn Rand's thesis that existence is identity. The possibility of a being defined by negating characteristics of other regular beings was rejected in your treatment. I asked you if this element in your view was something you had learned by reading Rand, and if I recall correctly, you answered No. I think you also said that it was from Feuerbach that you had taken this element.

Is my recollection of that correct?

Also, there is another question I asked you, and I'm sorry to say that I now can no longer remember your reply. That question was: Why did you not treat the Ontological Argument in this book?

I hope I have not made errors in my memory of these works of yours and that you will not be discouraged if I have.

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Has anything substantial ever been written on the Objectivist view of humor?

Yes, volumes and volumes from the brightest of Objectivist lights--Ellen Moore, Jason Alexander, and now pretty much the whole group of blighted children who live low in the cornfield down the road.

Toi hoi hoi.

RCR

Actually, several threads here on OL discuss humor from an Objectivist standpoint, including quotes from Ayn Rand.

The Humour of Ayn Rand (discussion of humor with Rand quotes)

SATIRE AS A MORAL MESSAGE? (discussion of humor with Rand quotes)

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Humor, Ford Hall Forum Response (anecdotes of Rand's humor)

Online Objectivist Mediocrity (discussion of mediocrity and quality in online Objectivist humor amid broader discussion)

The ultimate Objectivist put-down (included for the hell of it because I like it so much)

I also suggest the section Humor - OL LOLOLOLOL for many items of humor with Objectivist themes (amid other kinds of humor).

Michael

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

[Rich Engle]

Has anything substantial ever been written on the Objectivist view of humor?

To my recollection, there have been several formal attempts at writing such a book. If you have ever seen the film "Spinal Tap," think about what happened to all their drummers-- I think that's what happened.

If it ever does get done, I imagine it will be much like a book I was given as a child, pertaining to Lyndon Johnson, called "The Johnson Wit." It is extremely thin, and not all too good. But if you want to try, I just checked and you can still get the used hardback (which is probably about 75 pages), for 2.95 U.S.

rde

A quick trip on and off the Bitter Bus

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

[reason.on]

Actually, several threads here on OL discuss humor from an Objectivist standpoint, including quotes from Ayn Rand.

The Humour of Ayn Rand (discussion of humor with Rand quotes)

SATIRE AS A MORAL MESSAGE? (discussion of humor with Rand quotes)

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Humor, Ford Hall Forum Response (anecdotes of Rand's humor)

Online Objectivist Mediocrity (discussion of mediocrity and quality in online Objectivist humor amid broader discussion)

The ultimate Objectivist put-down (included for the hell of it because I like it so much)

I also suggest the section Humor - OL LOLOLOLOL for many items of humor with Objectivist themes (amid other kinds of humor).

Following the serious note, I'm wondering if there has ever been an "Objectivist" study of Koestler's *The Act of Creation* (which deals at length with the subject of humor). I seem to recall that Rand dismissed Koestler's work, but I'm not certain.

RCR

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

[L W HALL]

In the interest of doing justice to the discourse with George Smith, it would be nice to see the last several posts which are directed at George, as well as his replies moved to their own thread. Someone who is browsing the site and is familiar with him may miss out on a good discusssion by it being hidden(contained?) within one which appears to be mainly centered on Adam Reed.

It is not my intent to tell Michael or Kat how to run their site, but more to do justice to the exchanges between George and other knowledgeable posters on OL.

L W

(Note from Administrator: This post has been copied from here.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whew!

Done copying everything. The thread is now open.

Michael

[Judith]

My favorite "message" T-shirt was one I purchased many years ago in a speciality shop near UCLA. It sticks in my mind because I visited Barbara Branden once while wearing it. It made her laugh, shake her head, and say something to the effect of "That about sums it up."

*grin* I just ordered one that says, "If I'm talking, you should be taking notes" I haven't had a chance to wear it yet....

Wow. George Smith himself, in the (virtual) flesh. I love the Objectivist world.

Funny -- I was bowled over by ATCAG when I read it, and although it refers to Ayn Rand, and although I had been referred to Ayn Rand by another person a few months before and had actually picked up "Atlas Shrugged" (but not yet read it; it was sitting in my collection unread), I never pursued more of Rand's writings as a result of reading that book. In a bit of Jungian serendipity, yet some more new friends I met in grad school referred me to Rand a few months later, and I finally picked up my copy of "Atlas" and read it -- and thereby changed the course of my life.

Judith

[Ross Barlow]

George, I have mentioned this before elsewhere, but I will state it here again. I am indebted to *Atheism: The Case Against God* for turning my interests back once again to philosophy in general and to Rand’s works in particular some 25 years ago. I ended up renewing old visions, going back to college and finishing old goals. Again, thanks.

In the 60s and early 70s, I had focused a lot of study on Objectivism and philosophy but did not keep it up during the years of my most extreme climbing. Then, in the early 80s, I was doing a critical study of Christianity and got a hold of ATCAG. It was a refreshing plunge back into rigorous philosophical reasoning again. (Barbara’s *The Passion of Ayn Rand* added additional inspiration for me when it came out.)

One of the Rand quotations you put in ATCAG electrified me and, more than anything else, made me re-read Atlas Shrugged after so many years. This is the quote:

“A rational process is a *moral* process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest — but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes responsibility for thinking.”

This quote says it all.

I was studying calligraphy at the time I read ATCAG, and I wrote out the above quotation in my best Carolingian Bookhand on 2’X3’ parchment, framed. It is dated October 1982, and it is the last (and best) work of calligraphy I ever did, as ill health made the art too painful to continue. My sister has it stored back in the States and has the instructions that, if I ever croak before you, she is to send it to you.

-Ross Barlow.

[Kat]

George!!!!!

purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Welcome to Objectivist Living. It's great to have you here. Like many others have said, your book really hit home with me. We were just talking about your book in another thread about Dawkins. Atheism: The Case Against God had a very powerful impact on me. I haven't been the same since. You're awesome.

Since you are interested in Objectivist humor, I hope you enjoy our story, The Virtue of Silliness.

:hug:

Kat

[Rich Engle]

T-shirts:

A good one (available in both shirt and hat form): "Me: Like you, only better."

Great icebreaker at cocktail parties...

Edited October 20, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Barbara Branden]

Damn it, RCR -- how did I miss the discussions of humor by Jason Alexander and Ellen Moore! They must have been real knee-slappers.

Well, George, what are all the ways in which you hate the Brandens?

And by the way, may we expect visits from Roland?

Barbara

[Guyau]

Mr. Ross,

You asked in post #31 if there had been an "Objectivist" study of the The Act of Creation by Arthur Koestler.

There have been two such studies in Objectivity. I will show you the Abstract of one of these two essays here. If you would like a copy of either essay, contact me.

(The two Objectitivity essays do not include a discussion of Koestler's ideas concerning humor. I have gotten the impression that Koestler's ideas on this are not so important as what Freud put together in his little book---which I recommend---titled Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.)

ABSTRACT

“Intuition, the Subconscious, and Acquisition of Knowledge” by Kathleen Touchstone

Objectivity V1N6, pp. 107–36

The sense of intuition under scrutiny here is what is variously called intuitive thought or subconscious thought. In The Act of Creation Arthur Koestler makes the case for a large measure of subconscious thought in creative endeavors, with special focus on the creativity in major scientific advances. In Koestler’s picture, intuition is a means of knowledge.

Ayn Rand champions the view that reason is the only means to knowledge. Intuition has no part. By reason she means our conscious conceptual faculty that logically identifies and integrates the evidence of the senses.

Touchstone reconciles considerably these two contrasting views by looking into their different conceptions of intuition. She examines the testimony of many great creators concerning the role of the subconscious in their achievements. She dissects Koestler’s characterization of such feats and assimilates their subconscious phases into the operation of sovereign reason in the acquisition of knowledge.

Questions of the reality and nature of the subconscious, and its role in creative thought, leads Touchstone to an examination of contemporary scientific research on dreams. She then surveys the research on cerebral lateralization (left brain, right brain) occurring in numerous elements of cognition, conscious and subconscious. . . .

[Barbara Branden]

Touchstone:

"In The Act of Creation Arthur Koestler makes the case for a large measure of subconscious thought in creative endeavors."

"Ayn Rand champions the view that reason is the only means to knowledge."

Stephen, I think the disagreement is more apparent than real, and is a function of differing terminology. I agree with Koestler that reliance on the subconscious is crucial in the creative process -- but Rand also would agree. Especially in her talks on fiction-writing, she again and again made this point. But she, unlike Koestler, did not call it intuition.

After I mop up a few assignments I'm involved with, I'm planning to turn my lectures on thinking into a book for a general audience. In the original version, I did not discuss the creative process; I simply did not understand it well enough. But now I want to devote considerable space to it. There's still much I do not know, but of one thing I'm certain: that if, in the actual process of writing, (or painting, or composing music) one does not treat one's subconscious as if every word emanating from it is pure gold -- then there is no creative process.

Barbara

[George H. Smith]

The question I asked you when we met, the question I would here like to repeat to you publicly, is the following. In your book Atheism: The Case Against God, you considered various arguments that have been constructed for the existence of God. One element you relied on in your refutations seemed to be Ayn Rand's thesis that existence is identity. The possibility of a being defined by negating characteristics of other regular beings was rejected in your treatment. I asked you if this element in your view was something you had learned by reading Rand, and if I recall correctly, you answered No. I think you also said that it was from Feuerbach that you had taken this element.

Is my recollection of that correct?

Also, there is another question I asked you, and I'm sorry to say that I now can no longer remember your reply. That question was: Why did you not treat the Ontological Argument in this book?

I'm afraid I don't remember our conversation.

The philosophic importance of "identity" is something I got from Rand. Actually, the importance of identity as applied to the concept of God is something I got from Nathaniel Branden's lecture on "The Concept of God," which is a lecture in his "Basic Principles of Objectivism" series. (I footnote this lecture on p. 41 of ATCAG.)

Our conversation may have pertained specifically to the negative way, which is the attempt to define "god" solely in terms of negative characteristics. If so, I was correct to say that I originally became aware of the problems in this approach from Feuerbach; I read The Essence of Christianity (which I highly recommend) while in high school, during my "freethought" days, before I had read anything by Rand. The discussion by Antony Flew in God and Philosophy also influenced me.

Many people have asked why I didn't include a discussion of the Ontological Argument in ATCAG. The major reason is that ATCAG was aimed at a general audience, and I regarded the Ontological Argument as a technical argument that is of interest only to professional philosophers and theologians. A related reason is that the argument never made much sense to me. Most arguments for the existence of God have at least a superficial plausibility, but when most people hear the Ontological Argument they react with, "Huh?"

It takes a while just to explain the philosophical context of conceptual realism that gave the Ontological Argument some credibility when it was first proposed by Anselm. Nevertheless, in retrospect, I wish I had included a discussion of it in ATCAG, so I attempted to remedy this oversight by writing an entire chapter on it ("Metaphysical Muddles") in Why Atheism?

Ghs

[Dragonfly]

Barbara, you might find the following interesting: Hofstadter, D. R. (1985) Variations on a theme as the crux of creativity. In: Metamagical Themas, 232-259, Basic Books.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

This is off-topic, but I just discovered something interesting about this forum software. The way I managed to copy this thread over here was to make a post as if I had done it, copy the text of the original post to it and then change the name. (I'm not a geek, but I learned that trick.)

Apparently my name stays in one of the php files (God knows which, er... you know what I mean). So when you used the "quote" feature, my name appeared in the box instead of Stephen Boydstun. I have taken the liberty of correcting this.

It was strange reading my name being quoted with, "The question I asked you when we met..." followed by your answer, "I'm afraid I don't remember our conversation."

I didn't remember it either. Then it dawned on me. There was good reason. It wasn't me who had the conversation.

Michael

[Mike Hardy]

After I mop up a few assignments I'm involved with, I'm planning to turn my lectures on thinking into a book for a general audience.

I'm glad to hear that; I'll buy it.

Have you finished the novel you said (a few months or years

or centuries ago) you were working on? -- Mike Hardy

[Guyau]

George Smith,

. . .

I was very impressed with your essay "Justice Entrepreneurship" that was published in The Journal of Libertarian Studies many years ago. I am not and have never been an anarchocapitalist. But I have always seen your essay as one of the most important compositions supporting that position.

. . .

At the Pacific Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association in San Francisco this coming March, there is an Author-Meets-Critics session for a book of which I had not yet heard:

Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society*

Gary Chartier (Cambridge 2013)

Roderick Long will chair the APA session. Chartier describes himself as a left-wing market anarchist.

The Ayn Rand Society will be having a session at this APA Meeting. The topic of the session will be Capitalism, Limited Government, and Morality. Michael Huemer will be the presenter; Harry Binswanger will comment.

[william.scherk]

At the Pacific Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association ... Michael Huemer will be the presenter; Harry Binswanger will comment.

Now this is (objectivish) ecumenicism!

[Xray]

The discussion by Antony Flew in God and Philosophy also influenced me.

In his later years, A. Flew renounced atheism. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/arts/17flew.html?_r=0

What happened to Flew that suddenly made him argue from a premise he had spent most of his professional life exposing as false?

[BaalChatzaf]

The discussion by Antony Flew in God and Philosophy also influenced me.

In his later years, A. Flew renounced atheism. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/arts/17flew.html?_r=0

What happened to Flew that suddenly made him argue from a premise he had spent most of his professional life in exposing as false?

The premis God Exists has neither been proved or disproved. Likewise its negation. There is no empirical evidence supporting the premise that God exist (or does not exist). That leaves the proposition in a limbo state, neither proved nor disproved.

Ba'al Chatzaf