Dennis Hardin

I assure you that Rand's view of empiricism had absolutely nothing to do with B.F. Skinner. From Wikipedia: You may have noticed that Rand considers thinking to play a major role in the "causal account of a (human) organism's behavior." "Skinner's epistemology"? Oddly ehough, without thinking, there is no such thing as epistemology.

Yes, the headline does say something about God's design and the unsuitability of the human body for football. . (Ice hockey, as all civilized people know, is the only professional sport in North America that condones bashing an opposing player’s brains out.) . The concussion tragedy (it is too important to term an "issue") is a dreadful stain on hockey and the Jurassic decision makers of the NHL are increasingly having to pay attention to it. Everyone has opinions on how to reduce the risk but some of them, such as rink size, would cost serious money even if everybody could agree, so I am not hopeful anything effective will take place soon. Speaking of dreadful stains, now that it has come to light that certain NFL teams allow their players to offer bounties to teammates who seriously injure opposing players--i.e., knock them out of the game, preferably for the season--I feel the need to retract my previous indictment of pro hockey for condoning fighting, I wonder if they added an extra bonus to the bounty if the injured player was permanently paralyzed. Except perhaps for child rapist Jerry Sandusky,I cannot conceive of more contemptible behavior in all of professional sports.The players and coaches involved should be criminally prosecuted. I used to like The New Orleans Saints, mainly because of quarterback Drew Brees. They're swine. They disgust me.

Adam, Glad you found my review helpful. I have no idea whether the film's portrayal of Thatcher's dementia is factual or not. If the film distorted the truth, I would have a problem with that. But I did not feel that this aspect of the film detracted from Thatcher's greatness in any way. On the contrary, her heroic struggle to overcome her condition just makes her seem all the more admirable.

Michael, David Barton makes the same point in the link I referenced above. One main problem with that interpretation is with the all-encompassing words, "...in any sense, founded..." The word "founded" refers to the philosophical origins of the government, not its guiding principles, and the phrase "in any sense" rules out any and all Christian-related interpretations of what the U.S. government stands for, not just the specific meaning of theocracy. The wording of the treaty was designed to completely dispense with any connection between the U.S. government and Christianity. That's the only logical reason for using those specific words. For the interpretation you are making, the writers of the treaty could simply have said: "The U.S. government is in no way allied with the Christian religion," but the statement in the treaty is much more broadly exclusive than that. Of course, you can easily respond by saying: "Well, maybe the treaty's author just got careless with his words." Or: "Well, maybe that specific wording had different implications 200 plus years ago." And to that I say: "Well, maybe the entire treaty was encrypted and none of the words mean what they appear to mean." Either you take the historical document at face value, or we spend endless hours debating the literary merits of fairy tales. The issue would be unlikely to arise in a treaty with France. There is no reason to address the question of our religious heritage in a treaty where the other nation's religion was not a key source of potential conflict. Another problem with the "well, It said X, but they really meant Y" argument is that, as noted in the excerpt previously quoted, the actual wording was noncontroversial at the time. Here's the excerpt again: To repeat: we can either take the wording of the Treaty of Tripoli at face value, or we can play pedantic ping-pong all day long. If it's all the same to you, I'd rather swap housekeeping secrets. I've got some real doozies.

You're way off target. First, I know that evaluation can be (a) a moral one, or (b) whether a statement is true or false. Evaluation always implies a standard of value, and truth or falsehood is certainly one such standard. So is monetary worth, or level of competence or skill, or the effectiveness of means to ends, etc. The term can mean very different things depending on the context. So what? I made very clear that I was using it in the context of moral evaluation—i.e., good for me or bad for me. Once again, I have to say I have no idea what point you are making, or how this shows that I am "way off target."

Here’s a fascinating example of the historical spin game. In 1797, the United States signed a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli that contained the following provision: As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries. From Wallbuilders (David Barton): From a “Separationist” website: We could debate until we’re all blue in the face about which one is “truth” and which one is a “useful fiction.” Or we could simply take the wording of the treaty itself at face value. I don't think the words "in any sense" leave a lot of wiggle room. Is there any historical topic that's immune to noxious, interminable debate? This one certainly should be.

You seem to be taking a quasi-religious interpretation of evaluation here, as if the act of evaluation always involved an explicit act of “passing moral judgment." That's a misunderstanding of what evaluation means from an Objectivist perspective. In Objectivism, evaluation simply means awareness of the beneficial or harmful relationship of some aspect of reality toward oneself and one's own life. This is Objectivism 101. Here is how Nathaniel Branden explained this issue in The Psychology of Self-Esteem: I have no idea what you mean when you say that constant evaluation requires making judgments based on fragments of evidence. Neither cognition nor evaluation properly occurs in a vacuum. Both processes require an awareness of the full context of one's knowledge, and that includes an awareness of the unknown. To make an evaluation outside that context – in other words, to take a concrete-bound approach to knowledge – is transparently irrational. In the course of daily living, obviously, much of the process of conscious awareness becomes automatized. There is no need to be constantly engaged in a conscious process of re-evaluating aspects of reality with which we are familiar, any more than there is any need to identify every car we see as a “car.” But the process of identification and evaluation continues on a subconscious level, and becomes conscious again in response to something new and unfamiliar or, based on prior experience, potentially harmful.

I saw 'The Iron Lady" last night and truly enjoyed it. Some fans of Margaret Thatcher have been very critical of the film, but for the most part, I thought the film was a fair and accurate tribute to one of the great world leaders of the 20th century.. It is a British film, not a Hollywood production, which helps to explain why Thatcher is portrayed as a strong and admirable leader despite the fact that she was an ardent conservative. Her heroic battle against the destructive power of labor unions in Britain is particularly relevant to the situation which faces the United States today, and I thought the film's treatment of this controversy was excellent. I had forgotten the intensity of the opposition she faced, not only from other members of Parliament but also the British people. The violent street demonstrations against her policies are reminiscent of those we see in parts of Europe today. Thatcher is portrayed as a brilliant, confident woman who was willing to stand alone when all those around her preferred to stick their heads in the sand. She understood that the unions were destroying the British economy and had to be stopped, whatever the cost. The highlights of her political career are given in flashbacks from the perspective of her present struggle with dementia, which serves as a kind of subplot to the historical drama. No doubt this was a major reason that so many of her fans were not happy with the film. Despite this, I thought the filmmakers were very sympathetic to her current plight. In fact, the way her battle with dementia is depicted underscores the touching personal story of her intense love for her late husband, Denis Thatcher, and the depth of their life-long attachment. She cannot let go of him, and her dementia serves to keep his persona alive as an imaginary companion. Early in the story, when Denis asks the young Margaret Roberts for her hand in marriage, she begs him to understand that she wants much more out of life than the role of a housewife. It struck me that this scene could have been lifted from an Ayn Rand novel. Denis accepts her for the strong, independent, ambitious woman she is, and their powerful emotional bond is sealed for life. Meryl Streep gives one of the greatest performances by an actress I have ever seen. Not once did I ever feel that I was watching an actress portray Margaret Thatcher. Streep becomes Margaret Thatcher, down to the slightest gesture and expression. Jim Broadbent also does a fantastic job in the role of Denis Thatcher. The wondrous intimacy of their romantic interaction throughout the film reveals an essential aspect of the "Iron Lady" that most people might never have imagined. One thing that disappointed me about the film was the scant attention devoted to Thatcher's relationship with President Ronald Reagan, and the bond they developed as two world leaders engaged in the same epic, global struggle to preserve the free world. Given the film's many, many virtues, however, I would have to say this oversight was not so glaring as it might have been otherwise. At no point in this film did I get the sense that the filmmakers felt any need to apologize for Margaret Thatcher's greatness. Thank goodness Hollywood didn't get its grimy fingers on it.

My main concern with regard to Peikoff--or any other thinker--is simply that of assessing the validity of what he says. Since many people regard him as the leading expert on Objectivism, this becomes even more important in his particular case. He has a great deal to offer. There is no question about that. Despite its flaws, I still think OPAR is a major achievement. And I'm looking forward to reading his book on the DIM hypothesis. Understanding Objectivism--a book based on the superb course of lectures he gave shortly following Ayn Rand's death--will be released in a few days, and I'm very eager to read it. At the same time, much of what he says is also very destructive to Objectivism, and, therefore, damaging to the cause of spreading Objectivist ideas. The only antidote to that destructiveness--especially with respect to using morality primarily as a tool of condemnation--is understanding where he goes wrong and clarifying a more rational alternative. I certanly don't waste any negative emotional energy on Peikoff or any other public figure whose statements I might criticize. Fot the most part, I save my emotions for the people I deal with in my personal and professional life. In that context, I agree that holding on to negativity tends to have a destructive impact on one's overall well-being. That's why I operate on the principle of benevolence toward just about everybody, and avoid those people whose behavior makes such benevolence difficult or impossible. At the same time, cognition does indeed demand evaluation, as Peikoff says in "Fact and Value." I would have to say that, morally, Peikoff--like most people--falls into that vast gray area Ayn Rand describes in "The Cult of Moral Grayness." One cannot "forgive" behaviors that the person refuses to change. But since Peikoff is not (thankfully) someone I must deal with on a personal level, that's purely an intellectual issue for me, not an emotional one.

The first sentence is fine. The last part of the second sentence is your again jumping to a conclusion based on limited evidence. Peikoff was on a crusade in Fact and Value. He was not when writing about forgiveness for OPAR. I will stand on the evidence presented. Anyone reading my post can decide for themselves whether my first restatement of Peikoff’s position implies the conclusion. What the hell does the fact that he was on a crusade have to do with anything? When has Pope Lenny ever not been leading a crusade?

I wouldn't make more of Breitbart's contribution than to assume that he must have liked the movie's procapitalist theme. His support is mentioned here.

Did anyone notice that Breitbart's name was among those listed at the end of Atlas Shrugged Part One as having contributed to the film's production?

Stephen, "Forgive me" if I'm distracting you from more important things, but I can't resist pointing out that your underlined statement above contradicts your assertion that my assessment of Peikoff's quotes are askew, since you essentially agreed with me. Peikoff's "false claim" about Kelley means that Peikoff thinks Kelley should condemn a person as "evil" for holding certain beliefs, discounting the person's potential for rational persuasion--i.e., with no regard for evidence of the "good." Cognition demands evaluation, Peikoff says, and it's okay to condemn with arbitrarily limited evidence. We can leave it there, if you like.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale if you're interested.

Not exactly one of my proudest moments, but yes, that was me. I was in a movie theatre, and three guys behind me were yelling and making a lot of noise. I told them to shut up. A shouting match ensued, and we ended up outside the theatre. It was Sunset Blvd, rather than Hollywood Blvd., not that it matters. I was doing my John Wayne act, and things didn’t exactly turn out the way they always did in his movies. It wasn’t nearly as easy to beat up three guys at once as I had expected. There is also an aftermath which the movies seem to skip over. Getting repeatedly kicked in the face tends to have problematic consequences for one’s complexion. Unlike Wayne, I didn’t have a make-up artist standing by for my next scene. I was in therapy with Dr. Branden at the time, working on purging myself of some of the delightful trappings of manhood for a boy growing up in the ‘Deep South.’ He brought it to my attention that you can keep your man card without necessarily being the baddest cat in the valley. My wounds have mostly healed now, I am glad to report.

John C. Holmes (aka "Johnny Wad") was just beginning to make porno films around that time. Branden was clearly not exactly an aficionado of porn, or he would have known better than to say such things. I participated in a few 'Seminar' recording sessions. At that time, given my familiarity with the official Objectivist view on sex (e.g., Francisco's speech in Atlas Shrugged), I wasn't about to educate him.

Apparently both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden agreed to be interviewed for the book. According to this brief excerpt (which I found on Amazon), Weiss does have an accurate grasp of some aspects of Objectivist history. Based on this, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I read his book.

Each individual is responsible for earning his or her own redemption. Often, however, they need education on how and why their actions were wrong or immoral before they can see the need for such corrective action.

Rand, Peikoff, and Branden, not one of them ever projected evil as the heart of the human condition. They uniformly and repeatedly proclaimed the contrary. There is nothing that Peikoff, Rand, or Branden ever wrote or publicly said that "seems to indicate" that the core task of morality is condemnation. Peikoff certainly did, Stephen. In "Fact and Value," Peikoff explicitly states that it is much more important to condemn evil ideas than to praise and reward evidence of a person’s efforts at rational thinking. Here are some excerpts from “Fact and Value.” Peikoff is saying here that it’s okay to condemn people before any effort to discover how they came to their mistaken beliefs, or whether they are open to rethinking their “inherently dishonest” ideas. Once again, Peikoff is saying that there is no justification for ever extending the benefit of the doubt to people who have not fully integrated their beliefs and values. You talk to people and discover that they are not fully integrated Objectivists? Then to hell with them. Ignore any good elements you may discover in such people. They have nothing of value to offer. Your cognition of the irrationality of the ideas they hold demands an evaluation of them as evil. Peikoff starts off by saying that many people struggle to grasp the full meaning of objectivity, but then goes on to say that such people are “rejecting” the concept of objectivity and therefore must be banished from the Objectivist movement. He says nothing about giving them the benefit of the doubt and making an effort to help them gain a full understanding of the meaning of objectivity. He says nothing about looking for the good and encouraging it. Cognition demands evaluation. Fledgling Objectivists who continue to hold any irrational ideas must be “evaluated” for doing so—i.e., condemned. “Fact and Value” amounts to Peikoff’s fully developed, comprehensive philosophical statement that it is much more important to condemn the “evil” we detect in others (i.e., their irrational beliefs) than it is to reward and encourage the “good” in others--the rational elements in their thinking that has the potential of developing into full, integrated rationality.

Excellent points, Andrew. I couldn't possibly agree more.

Thanks, Stephen. Here is what Peikoff says in OPAR. . . This is a major improvement over Peikoff’s response to the questioner in my opening post. (Rather than consulting a dictionary, Pope Lenny might want to re-read OPAR.) Here, he at least acknowledges that forgiveness can be earned in the case of some “moral offenses,” even “sizable” ones. Again, however, he seems to deny the very possibility of atonement in the case of many immoral behaviors—e.g., a major robbery or deception. I could understand murder, but robbery and deception? Those two are clearly redeemable. He had to include deception, of course, in case anyone might have imagined that the Great Satan—Nathaniel Branden—could ever redeem himself. (I had to laugh when I saw that. Peikoff can never be accused of ‘objectivity’ when it comes to the Brandens.) Even so, the superior insight contained in Branden’s remarks with respect to the technology of implementing a moral code—and the implications for atonement--can only be measured in light years. Peikoff obviously thinks this a non-issue for the good people of the world. As he sees it, the ‘responsibility’ for solving it apparently rests with the “bad people.” Of course, Branden not only raised this issue, he largely answered it in his books, particularly The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem. Thanks very much to all those who recognized the importance of this issue and offered thoughtful contributions—Stephen, Andrew, X-ray, Michael, William, Brant, Reidy, David. Much food for thought here. Hopefully I will find more time for follow-up soon. Alas, there is only so much time in the day.

Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff on the topic of Forgiveness: And then there is Peikoff. . . Question: What does it it mean to forgive, and how does one get there? Some might argue that it is wrong to deal with other people as if one is a psychologist, and therefore Peikoff’s position is correct. It is not your place to teach people how to be moral. There is some validity to that position, at least in the context of people you don’t care about. But look again at the question that was posed: What does it it mean to forgive, and how does one get there? The questioner obviously wants to know if there is a way for a person to earn forgiveness. Branden says yes—if you care about the person, you try to understand where they were coming from, and then help them to see that what they did was immoral, because very often they do not see it. You do not have to be a psychologist to show someone you care about why what they did was wrong, and then give them a chance to earn redemption by correcting their behavior. Peikoff’s answer to the question “how does one do it?” is that you don’t. He clearly implies that, when it comes to evil, there is no such thing as forgiveness or redemption. To forgive is to sanction and encourage corruption. Banish the person to social Siberia. Period. End of story. Then Peikoff wonders why more people don’t flock to the Objectivist cause, and blames “tolerationists” like Branden for subverting the concept of objective moral judgment. Could there be a more vivid way of illustrating the stark contrast between "open" and "closed" Objectivism?

According to IMDB, Duke Sandefur (whose TV credits include Walker, Texas Ranger and Mortal Combat) will replace Brian Patrick O’Toole as the primary script writer for Atlas Shrugged Part 2. Television actor and director John Putch (Cougar Town, Ugly Betty) was previously named director, replacing Paul Johansson. Based on his prior association with Sandefur, industry insiders speculate that martial arts star Chuck Norris will take over the role of John Galt. In a key scene that was not in the novel, Galt will wipe out an outlaw bureaucrat biker gang led by Wesley Mouch. Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Kate Upton is not expected to play the role of Dagny Taggart (or any other role, for that matter).

Why do so many Objectivists piddle on quantum physics, when experiment has shown quantum physics is right on the mark? Ba'al ChatzafBecause electrons cannot spin up and spin down at the same time, and there is no such thing as an experiment which proves that they can. In other words, because A is A.

http://www.audible.c...0303142&sr=1-13 http://www.amazon.co...30303447&sr=8-1 Thanks, Ninth. The Noel Coward Audio Collection includes the three duologues I mentioned. Glad to know they're available.