Alfonso Jones

Happy birthday from Milan, Italy, Michael.

Bill P

Ross -

Welcome back. I'll be looking forward to reading your posts again.

Bill P

There were war crimes committed last Monday, however: They were committed by those who organized and sponsored the flotilla itself.

Good post, Kat.

Bill P

Jordan,

For a detailed discussion of how Objectivism views charity (there is no objection to voluntary charity under certain circumstances), you may wish to consult the following article and two books:

"Benevolence versus Altruism", by Nathaniel Branden. The Objectivist Newsletter, July 1962.

Generosity: Virtue in a Civil Society, by Tibor R. Machan (1998)

Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence by David Kelley (rev. ed., 2003)

The two books are likely available through Amazon, or Laissez Faire Books. The article can be found in the bound volume containing all issues of The Objectivist Newsletter, which is probably also available through Laissez Faire Books.

Jerry -

Good references.

Regards,

Bill P

I still believe that it is one or the other. No matter how many children I save, there will always be more; and the second I choose to buy an extra cup of coffee, I make the value decision that I want that coffee more than I want to save the next child. I was surprised that you said Rand practiced charity. Doesn't that go against everything she stands for? Could you please give me some examples of her charity?

Recent publications which give some knowledge on this would include Anne Heller's "Ayn Rand and the World She Made," pages 181 - 182.

Barbara Branden, in The Passion of Ayn Rand, speaks of Rand's generosity to Thadeus Ashby, inviting him to move in with her and Frank O'Connor on the ranch when he had no money and no job. (page 197)).

Bill P

I agree with Barbara that it is worthwhile to subscribe to TIA and in particular to let others know about it. Despite the naysayers, know it alls and condescenders here, most people are ignorant of these ideas with no help from the educational establishment.

Gulch -

I agree on TIA being worthwhile. I am a subscriber and have been for some time.

Bill P

Meanwhile, we must face it, this is the real world and it's all Statist. Unfortunately, the comparative degree of it has come to matter.

Anyway, I for one am confident that the US can recover its exemplary standard of liberty once again, and this time with more conviction.

Tony

Agreed, Tony. And to condemn the USA using the same sort of language one would use for Iran or North Korea is to demonstrate shockingly poor judgment, in my view.

Bill P

What's more important, skills or content knowledge?

As will come to no one's surprise, though the teachers' colleges and the schools of education have been promoting the opposite view for some decades now, I'd say that no amount of presentation skill can make up for a serious lack of knowledge of the subject matter one is supposedly teaching.

JR

Well put, JR. Generic skill in pedagogy will not make up for a deficit lack of content to communicate.

There CAN be a conflict between teaching and research PERFORMANCE due to relative priorities given to the two at a given university, of course.

Bill P

Martin Gardner is gone from our midst at the age of 95. He is well known for his column on mathematical games and puzzles in Scientific American for many decades. He debunked pseudo science nonsense (-Fad's and Fallacies in the Name of Science-). He wrote books on mathematical puzzles, mathematical problems and popularized many scientific issues and questions. He worked with Asimov to expose scientific frauds. He was probably the best popularizers of science and mathematics of the twentieth century. His productive life was very long and he published well into what is usually regarded as "old age". His body may have been old but his mind remained young for a long, long time.

We shall not see his like like for a long, long time. R.I.P. Martin Gardner. I, for one, will miss his wit and wisdom and the just plain fun his many works provided.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Martin Gardner was always an interesting read, whether in Scientific American or elsewhere.

Bill P

> I am astounded at the number of colleagues in the Professoriate who don't want to discuss such questions, beyond saying "You must take it because it is a requirement for the degree." [bill P]

Jeff by contrast has given them (above) an extremely thorough, logical, detailed answer and has even -anticipated- questions they might have asked. Instead of just saying in effect, do it because you're told to and shut up.

(The only thing I would add to Jeff's motivational speech is that writing is thinking. And learning how to write will make you smarter. Then that has to be explained...)

Bill, you have been teaching in China for a while, I gather. What do you teach and do you find the standard stereotype that students in Asia tend to be diligent but unquestioning, comfortable with 'rote' to have been your experience?

Philip -

I'm not saying or suggesting that Jeff has done otherwise! I have commented on my astonishment that many colleagues DO NOT DO THIS (the thing he just stated that he does).

That having been said again (and hopefully understood), I comment on your question: I teach such subjects as Decision Sciences, Lean, Six Sigma, Outsourcing, etc... All moderately to extremely analytic content. I find the Chinese students to be just as questioning as those back in the USA about required courses. "Why do we need this course? I am going to be an X when I graduate. Do people in that industry use this subject?" The only difference worth noting is that they are often more polite about it - either phrasing their questions less aggressively than their Western counterparts or asking in one-on-one meetings, to preserve face.

Now, a typical class for me consists of 60% Chinese and 40% from the rest of the world, including at least 20% Westerners. But even when the classes are 100% Chinese students, the behavior of questioning is there. (I mention this to make it clear that it does not appear to be the case that the CHinese are just letting the Westerners do the questioning...)

Bill P

I do think it's reasonable for students to wonder why the school is requiring them to study something they don't want to study and don't see the relevance of. I attempted to address such questions directly, in class, from Day One.

JR

Certainly so, Jeff. I am astounded at the number of colleagues in the Professoriate who don't want to discuss such questions, beyond saying "You must take it because it is a requirement for the degree." (Which is saying nothing - - - the question is why the requirement, not a request for confirmation of the fact of the requirement.) I always do this on day 1 (as well as in the syllabus).

Bill P

Sad news. Chris will be missed here on OL, and elsewhere.

Bill P

Happy birthday, Barbara!

Bill P

Subject: George and Jeff -- Repeatedly Substituting Elitism, Arrogance, and Superiority for Careful Argument

Ghs: > A professional in a given field is usually far more qualified to talk about the standards and practices of his discipline than an amateur.

PC: Argument from Intimidation; Argument from Authority....etc.

Here and elsewhere in your post, you have misrepresented my point by selectively snipping it, and I'm not going to waste my time in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff.

If you would care to address the points I actually made, without transforming them into easy targets via selective snipping. then I will respond in a serious way.

It is becoming clear why you don't like the quote function. That would make it more difficult to engage in your ethically challenged method of responding.

Ghs

George -

You're not getting a pork chop in return.

Bill P

> Are you really unaware of Plato's influence on the Renaissance? If so, a simple Google search... [GHS]

PC: Usually when we post [or write in an essay] arguments or claims, we don't require people to search the internet for the support that wasn't provided. Unless something is totally non-controversial, it's a good idea (not in every case, I'll grant you) to offer a bit of argument or an example or two. Offering 'support' is English comp 101. Something I always teach my students.

Plato's influence on the Renaissance is "totally non-controversial" for anyone who has read even a modicum of history of the period. You can find it in virtually any elementary history textbook. Yet here you are defending sweeping historical generalizations about Plato and Aristotle without exhibiting even a rudimentary knowledge of history.

Ghs: Plato's influence on Kepler is illustrated by Kepler's attempt to fit the six known planets into a scheme based on Plato's five solids.

PC: That is neither a fundamental part of Platonic philosophy, nor a fundamental of Kepler's major accomplishments.

How would you know?

I expressly offered this as an illustration. If you want to know more about Plato's influence on Kepler, then read something -- anything.

Ghs: Galileo admired Plato principally for his emphasis on mathematics and for his belief that mathematics will reveal the inner nature of things. (This attitude reflected the Pythagorean influence on Plato).

PC: The fact that Galileo admired Plato for this doesn't mean that he got it from Plato.

Again, how would you know? Moreover, do you think that most of the totalitarian thinkers cited by Peikoff actually got their ideas directly from Kant?

Plus, the rationalistic, otherworldly, deductive Plato was hardly an example for the experimental, fact-based, test it out approach to science of Galileo. Aristotle - although, yes, sometimes rationalistic and Platonic - his revolutionary emphasis on concretes, on investigation (the biological treatises and his gathering of specimens and dissecting them and inducing principles; other efforts at cataloging first and inducing later - compiling the constitutions of the Greek states and colonies....) ..that inductive and fact-based and fact-loving approach is what is akin to that of Galileo.

Galileo was fiercely anti-Aristotelian in his approach to science, but that doesn't matter to you, does it? After all, what do facts matter when you, through some mystical insight, know that Aristotle was really the main man behind Galileo's work? This is not only absurd, it is also presumptuous in the extreme.

The irony is that so many of the Renaissance scientists -thought- they were rejecting Aristotelianism, when what they were rejecting is some of his mistakes and those of later thinkers (especially the church) who froze some of his ideas into dogma.

Sure, Phil, whatever you say. Your citadel of faith is impregnable against any possible assault by reason or historical facts.

And, again, how could you possibly know any of this? If you didn't even know about the strong Platonic current in Renaissance thought, you obviously know next to nothing about that period. Oh, but I almost forgot! You read this in Rand and/or Peikoff, so it must be true!

Ghs: [Mathematics] is something we don't find in Aristotle, whose approach to science (including physics) was essentially based on a biological model.

PC: And the biological model, as I just described, is far more pro-science, pro-induction than the Platonic idea that we don't discover anything we just remember it from a previous life.

Once again, you have to go DEEPER to see the fundamental philosophical roots.

Right, Phil. We need to go deeper and deeper until we find something favorable to Aristotle that you can dub "fundamental." I could scarcely ask for a better and more pitiful example of the a priori approach to history that I discussed earlier. Aristotle's influence, for you, functions very much like Hegel's Absolute Spirit -- a force that manifests and develops itself through history, regardless of what people thought they were doing.

Ghs

George -

We're getting a marvelously clear illustration of the use of the Randian concept of "thinking in fundamentals" as, instead, "disregarding everything which does not fit with what I assume to be facts about reality, while keeping precisely those things which fit with my preconceptions."

Amazing.

Bill P

I had never thought Rich was a narcissist.

--Brant

I used to be, before my intellectual hair fell out

Is that a typo above, where perchance you meant "before my intellectual heir fell out?"

Bill P

> writing fiction...Clearly, she expected her readers to understand her -- without taking ten years from their lives. and attending courses that did not yet exist. She would have been the first person to vehemently dispute your concept of the complexity and difficulties of Objectivism.

Barbara, understanding or at least appreciating fiction is one thing, but the second step - digesting the philosophy - is quite another. Millions do the first, a small fraction do the second. The third step, integrating and applying the philosophy is the really difficult and complex part.

These later steps require a certain ability to think abstractly, to address and see the connection across an enormous range and complexity of concrete issues. Also, they are contrary to the ideas and attitudes one has internalized and which have permeated the culture across one's whole previous life. And, perhaps most importantly, another hurdle: change is hard and requires many kinds of effort on many fronts.

Yes, Rand would have disagreed with me:

It was the mistake of Rand and your initial circle around her of thinking this was all easy that led to the idea that if a hundred thousand? [i forget the number] read Atlas, the culture was doomed. And then, when that didn't happen, the bitter disillusionment, the idea that people who read it and then didn't become Objectivists was because of evasion, moral failings.

After all, if it's easy + obvious to completely become an Objectivist, people would have by now become Objectivists in much greater numbers - if they were honest and earnest and conscientious.

Philip -

It (Objectivism) is not that hard to understand. I think you are thinking of being catechized. That is a totally different proposition, and one which runs counter to the most basic principles of Objectivism.

Bill P

http://www.thefreema...ess-census-ads/

Good story at the link. Thanks for posting.

Bill P

I'm shocked! Shocked!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob -

I'm not certain what you find most shocking, but what strikes me is that the report appears in the National Enquirer and the reported tryst is not with an extraterrestrial!

Bill P

I am a Professor, and I find that my students who don't take notes lean less than those who do.

Isn't it also important whether they lean backwards or forwards? Or even sidewards?

Good catch of my silly typo (lean instead of learn). Now corrected.

Bill P

Hi Roger,

Any updates regarding Barbara's book?

I'm going through the lecture series now, but need something to look at since I'm easily distracted when reading.

And may I offer a humble suggestion of having the book made available in digital format for the Amazon Kindle, before making it available in print. That way changes can be made to it while people are already exposed to its benefits.

I look forward to your reply.

I can relate to your comment about distraction. My suggestion - - get out a pad and take some notes. It works well for me.

I am a Professor, and I find that my students who don't take notes learn less than those who do. This is actually a drawback of this modern age of "distributing the PowerPoints or other lecture notes as handouts" - the audience is, paradoxically, LESS ENGAGED than if they were taking notes. Eerily reminiscent of the letter-writer in the first lecture of Barbara Branden's lectures!

Bill P

(Edited to correct ridiculous typo where I typed "lean" instead of "learn" in the second paragraph.)

For Peikoff's sake, I hope we are right to deny all the silly speculation about an afterlife. If Peikoff ever does cross paths with Rand again in some mystical never-never land, she will surely show him the true meaning of Hell. She invested all that time and energy writing Atlas Shrugged to change the world, and he has done everything he could to bury her ideas under the moralistic cloak of a lunatic fringe.

Dennis -

Great paragraph! Imagine the amazement of Rand, wondering how it turned out this way, and so quickly? Reason transubstantiated into dogma, the first-hander into slavish followerhood.

Bill P

Powerful piece, George. For those who are interested, Rothbard's original article to which you are responding can be found at

http://mises.org/jou...983/1983_03.pdf

Bill P

Thanks. Here is another piece in which I criticize Rothbard: "Nathaniel Branden's Judgment Day: Reviewing the Reviewers" (1990).

http://www.anthonyfl...mithbranden.htm

Ghs

George -

I've read that one before. I like the piece, and I like your attitude in that piece. The notion of NB as lightweight is at odds with the observable facts. His post-1968 writing amounts to a quite formidable career of accomplishments. (I will avoid mentioning others who did not do so well post-1968!)

Bill P

Bill P

Misplaced decimal point. Would you believe 1.3 times denser?

LOL, where's the decimal point in "thirteen"?

13.0 ---> 1.30

Schmuck!

Ba'al Chaztaf

Ba'al - -

LOL.

Bill P

You are maddening. The whistle blower is named Maguire and he informed the CFTC investigator in advance of a "manipulation" which then did occur. This is not just allegation or assertion. It sounds as if you have not listened to the GATA testimony.

Suit yourself.

Why should I accept the unsubstantiated and untested assertions of a whistle-blower as fact? I think the whistle-blower has established good grounds for further investigation. Has that further investigation taken place? If so, provide some reliable documentation on the matter. What conclusions have been drawn and established? If not, I will be happen to wait until something more solid emerges.

You seem to believe that everything you believe is a fact. I do not concur.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Gulch -

YOu would do well to listen to Bob (Ba'al) carefully here. He has spoken reasonably. You just can't accept the word of every one touting "conspiracy." Else you will end up in the Alex Jones category...

If I believed everything I read on OL, I would believe, for instance:

i) Ron Paul will be (was) the Republican nominee for President in 2008

ii) The Campaign for Liberty will have millions of members by the end of 2009

Neither turned out...

Bill P