Dennis Hardin

There’s a joke in there somewhere about top heavy ice skaters, but I’m too busy shopping for pom-poms and foam fingers to figure it out.

Wendy’s response: Oh really. She was speaking in the past tense, huh. Sure. That’s why she said “I deeply doubt (present tense) the slant of the facts,” and then attributed her present doubt to the steadfast refusal of the tale-tellers to take responsibility for their role in the madness. Now she says she gives them a “nod of respect” for having taken responsibility. I give her a shrug of contempt for voicing a lot of stupid, irresponsible opinions without bothering to check sources that have been available for two decades.

My comment posted in support of Ninth Doctor's (on the Wendy McElroy essay at the Laissez Faire Books site): now "awaiting moderation"

Looks like the wingmen are producing--especially Dustin Penner. Kings win, 3-0. Meanwhile, Angelenos suffer a collective panic attack. OMG! A massive identity crisis looms. Aren't we supposed to be thinking about next year by now? Then again, the Kings never had the awesome wind chills of the Great White North at their backs before.

Thanks very much for all of your thoughts on this topic. The more I think about this, the more I realize how crucial this “sixth branch” really is. In fact, I’m wondering if a lack of focused attention to these “middle floors” in the Objectivist philosophical superstructure may help to explain much of the rampant confusion about Objectivism, particularly among those who think that the upper floors can somehow stand alone. I’ll have more to say about this. For now, I just want to add these additional quotes from OPAR. They are all from Chapter Six: Man.

Michael, In all seriousness, there’s a perfectly logical explanation for your mistaken Ellis’ recollection: false memory syndrome. Top Ten Mysteries of the Mind It’s not all that uncommon. Some dreams are so vivid that, years later, you swear the experience was real. The older we get, the more likely it is that we will have false memories. In fact, sometimes I wonder if my menage-a-trois with Nicole Kidman and Halle Berry is really a false memory. (I really hope not.) It all goes to show you that Kant was right. So-called “reality” is just a big fat delusion.

Michael, I checked my copy of Is Objectivism A Religion?--published in 1968--and this is exactly how it reads on pp. 297-298: Try to get some rest, anyway.

NOTE: I originally posted this in the ARI Corner on the Understanding Objectivism thread, but it got buried beneath one of those gossipy Randesque “reality show” threads. So I’m re-posting it here, because I know everyone will agree with me about how vitally important and significant this topic is. (Yeah, right.) Well, okay, maybe someone will agree with me about how vitally important and significant this topic is. Anyway, here’s what I posted before: Peikoff makes clear that this is not metaethics. This intermediate branch introduces and elaborates two basic principles: Reason as man’s means of survival, and the integration of mind and body. Peikoff seems to be saying something here that was not explicitly addressed in OPAR. I suppose Peikoff may have discussed this in his lectures on “The Philosophy of Objectivism.” I don’t recall. He devotes minimal attention to the topic, so perhaps it’s not that big of a deal. On the other hand, if man’s metaphysical nature constitutes a new “intermediate branch” of philosophy in Objectivism, that would seem to be something worthy of scholarly attention

Michael, I happen to have an original copy of Ellis' vile screed in my library and will check it later when I get home. (No telling what time that will be. It's Friday, ya know. The road home tends to meander a bit more on Fridays.) If it turns out that you're completely delusional, I'll be sure to let you know.

Take heart, Carol. You are joining a noble and historic cause. St. Louis will soon change its nickname to the Black & Blues. Seventeen years later, we shall take our revenge for stealing our beloved Rams. We will show no mercy. They will rue the day. So Saturday's the day. I shall wave pompoms for LA with a whole heart, since our latest OL visitor from Missouri did not make a good impression on me. Folks often display their worst side when faced with imminent doom. The Kings won 3 out of 4 of the regular season.match-ups. Local paper says the wingers must produce. I'll second that (whatever that means). No doubt all that cheering from up north will be an inspiration for our guys. Thanks for doing your part. LA has waited a long time for this. Who says revenge does not taste sweet???

From a gallery of photos posted on the ASP2 website Dagny in her Tesla On the set: (Left to right) Nathaniel Branden, David Kelley, Duncan Scott, unknown, John Aglialoro

Michael-- Here is a link to a prior post by Peter Reidy explaining this incident.

BTW, the above quote is found on page 158 in the chapter on “The Hierarchy of Objectivism.” Incidentally, the discussion related to the philosophical hierarchy is one of the most fascinating topics in the book. One interesting aspect of the hierarchy is how it underscores three separate (but related) aspects of reason. Reason shows up in three separate branches: (1) epistemology (“reason as man’s only means of knowledge”); (2) the metaphysical nature of man (“reason as man’s means of survival”), and (3) ethics (“rationality as the primary virtue”).

My understanding of Objectivism has always incorporated the five traditional branches of philosophy—metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics. Have you ever noticed that, in OPAR, Peikoff does not go directly from the last topic on epistemology to the subject of ethics? Chapters 2 through 5 all deal with epistemology (sense perception & volition, concept-formation, objectivity and reason). But the discussion of ethics begins, not with Chapter 6, but with Chapter 7 (The Good). Chapter 6 is on Man. In Understanding Objectivism, Peikoff clarifies what appears to be an Objectivist innovation: an intermediate branch between epistemology and ethics—the metaphysical nature of man. Peikoff states: Peikoff makes clear that this is not metaethics. This intermediate branch introduces and elaborates two basic principles: Reason as man’s means of survival, and the integration of mind and body. Peikoff seems to be making something explicit here that was merely implied in OPAR. I suppose Peikoff may have discussed this in his lectures on “The Philosophy of Objectivism,” but I honestly don’t recall this “intermediate branch” of philosophy ever being mentioned before.

Michael, Stalin found Siberian labor camps to be a helpful educational resource for correcting misinterpretations of Soviet history. Their position on limited government has been a real handicap for the Objectivist hierarchy. It occurs to me that branding all dissidents as irreconcilably evil hasn’t proven to be nearly as effective.

Carol--Harriman and McCaskey disagreed about some complex issues related to the Objectivist philosophy of science. The bone-headed skepticism of Karl Popper is neither complex nor controversial as far as Objectivism is concerned.

Why would you want to apply the falsifiability nonsense of a skeptical modernist fool like Karl Popper to Objectivism? Popper rejected empirical induction as a scientific method and argued that all human knowledge is irreducibly conjectural. He denied that anything could ever be proven and upheld a totally irrational view of what qualifies as “truth.” You cannot get farther away from Objectivism than the “theories” of Karl Popper. You might argue that happiness would invariably be part of one’s rational self-interest, but prosperity and material success are concrete values that a self-interested person might well regard as unimportant. Devotion to some artistic ambition, for example, might take priority over both. But the fact that someone might follow a code of rational self-interest and not achieve happiness shows only that human beings are fallible. Nothing more. No moral code can guarantee a successful life.

Carol, You’re speaking of Lon Chaney, Sr, of course, the silent film actor. (His son, Lon Chaney, Jr., was equally famous for his Wolf Man roles.) Chaney the Senior was most famous for his role as "The Phantom of the Opera"—probably the most famous (and maybe the scariest) silent film of all time. When I moved to Los Angeles in 1971, my first job was as a security guard at Universal Studios. On week-ends, I went on hourly tours of the various sound stages to insure all was well. I always looked forward to visiting stage 28 where much of the original "Phantom of the Opera" film set was still preserved, intact, almost 50 years after the film was released. I remember it as being a bit unsettling, but infinitely fascinating. I understand it is still there today. (I’ve read conflicting reports on whether the stage 28 set is actually the original or whether it may have been partially rebuilt after being destroyed by fire,)

Take heart, Carol. You are joining a noble and historic cause. St. Louis will soon change its nickname to the Black & Blues. Seventeen years later, we shall take our revenge for stealing our beloved Rams. We will show no mercy. They will rue the day.

This thread was started in June, 2010, by Mary Lee Harsha. It was inspired by a recorded lecture series on the “Visibility Principle” by Ellen Kenner. Harsha asked whether Kenner had acknowledged any debt to the ortho-Objectivist incarnation of Mephistopheles, Nathaniel Branden, for the origination and development of this psychological principle. Based on Kenner’s affiliation with orthodox Objectivism, several people, myself included, were highly skeptical about that. No one had heard Kenner's lecture course, so Harsha's question went unanswered. At the time, Kenner’s book, The Selfish Path to Romance: How to Love With Passion and Reason, (which she was co-authoring with Edwin Locke) had not yet been published. Well, the book was published in February, 2011, and it includes the following footnote in the chapter titled, “The Visibility Principle.” Here is the referenced quote from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics: ”And so, as when we wish to see our own face, we do so by looking in the mirror, in the same way when we wish to know ourselves we can obtain that knowledge by looking at the one we love.” (p. 6) This is obviously a drastic minimization of Branden’s contribution. During the years they were associated, Rand never questioned the originality of Branden's lectures and essays on this topic. But I suppose we should acknowledge, grudgingly, that Kenner and Locke are at least making some modest effort at historical accuracy. Bless their duplicitous little hearts.

I've heard that too, Carol, and in Today's Movie Gossip issue it says he got the part. See also post # 54 where DH himself confirms it. Good choice. [i think it's time for me to put up a 'banter' sign in case new members should wonder what the hell we are talking about here ... ] I only agreed to do it on the condition that the script would be redone to include a hot love scene between Dr. Ferris and Lillian. This will highight the contrast between Francisco--the pretender--and the true Don Juan "playboy," Ferris. I thought this was important from the perspective of plot development and philosophical theme. It had nothing to do with the fact that Lillian happens to be smokin' hot (though some cynics will probably say otherwise).

It was a cinch, Daunce. At the audition, all I had to do was read one line. "We're after power and we mean it, Mr. Rearden." I smiled, doing my best Joe Biden impersonation. They hired me on the spot.

On the Set of Atlas Shrugged Part II A reason.com report on the movie now shooting around the Los Angeles area.

Dennis got himself all balled up in his discussion of the NIOF principle and its relationship to rights (in Rands approach). For example, he pointed out that the NIOF principle is not included in Rand's definition of a "right." This is true but irrelevant. The initiation of force is the method by which rights are violated, according to Rand, and it would be senseless to include the method of violation in the definition of a "right." What Rand did do was to incorporate the notion of "freedom of action" in her definition of rights. She then said that rights define man's freedom of action in a social context. This means that we use rights to distinguish between the initiatory and retaliatory uses of force. Thus after we identify a given action as the initiation of force, we then condemn that action as a violation of rights. Dennis said he agreed with this (having changed his mind from an earlier position), but he then ignored everything and went off on a tangent. He declared, in effect, that we first identify a rights violation and then call this the "initiation of force." This has everything ass-backward. It makes nonsense of Rand's basic point, because it leaves us no objective standard by which to identify a rights violation in the first place. It was with good reason that Rand attempted to link fraud and breach of contract to the NIOF principle, by calling them "indirect" uses of force. (Herbert Spencer similarly called fraud and breach of contract "indirect aggression.") This was no idle exercise by Rand. It was an essential extension of her NIOF principle, as applied to situations that do not necessarily involve violence against individuals. Ghs Let me see if I got this right. George says that we use rights to distinguish between the initiatory and retaliatory uses of force. We agree on that much. Then he says: “after we identify a given action as the initiation of force, we then condemn that action as a violation of rights.” In other words, we observe the initiation of force, and then conclude that rights have been violated. Force alone, it seems, according to George, is our "objective standard" for identifying a rights violation. He contrasts this approach with my alleged misconception that “we first identify a rights violation and then call this the ‘initiation of force.’ “ If we do that, he says, we are left with “no objective standard by which to identify a rights violation in the first place..” I’m feeling a bit light-headed, at this point. Shall we descend from the clouds and concretize what these two approaches mean in practice? I know that’s going to make life uncomfortable for George, but cognition tends to work much better if we actually know what the fuck we are talking about. George’s scenario: Someone steals my wallet. That’s an initiation of force. George says: “we identify a given action as the initiation of force,and then we condemn that action as a violation of rights.” According to George, since stealing is an initiation of force, we can now condemn that act of stealing as a violation of rights. Dennis’ scenario: We have identified, prior to the theft, that property is a right, because it is an objective requirement of human survival. Someone steals my wallet. Based on my principle that property is a right, we condemn the theft as an initiation of force. Put even more simply: George says: Stealing is an initiation of force, therefore stealing is a violation of rights. Dennis says: Stealing is a violation of my right of property, therefore stealing is an initiation of force. George correctly characterizes my position as that of maintaining that the delineation of rights comes first. His position, the best way I can make sense of it, is that the act of initiating force comes first. He seems to be arguing that, without force, we don’t know what our rights are. For him, acts of force serve as an “objective criteria” defining the meaning of rights. That is totally false and utterly contradictory to Objectivism. Force is not the “objective standard” for rights. That standard is the objective requirements of human nature. Now let’s look again at what Ayn Rand says. Thus, for Ayn Rand, rights are not in any sense defined by the initiation of force. The objective criteria for defining rights are the objective requirements of human life and human nature. We determine when a rights’ violation has taken place by the standard of whether coercion has been used to interfere with the individual's exercise of his rights. The process of defining rights begins with a grasp of the requirements of human nature—not some random act of initiating force. When George says: “Thus after we identify a given action as the initiation of force, we then condemn that action as a violation of rights”—he is the one who has it bass ackwards. We begin with an understanding of rights—and then define what constitutes a violation of such rights. Without a prior understanding of rights, we have no way of knowing what is or is not initiatory force. (This, of course, is why the typical libertarian's allegiance to the NIOF "principle"--out of context-- is hopelessly misguided and futile.) And I will repeat the following one more time. (Who knows? Ghs might actually make an honest effort to grasp what Rand is saying some day.) The bottom line of all this, once again, is that the anarchist's wish-fulfillment theory of "private defense agencies" constitutes a threat to the objective control of force, and therefore amounts to an act of initiatory force. The government, consistent with its role of protecting individual rights, can therefore use retaliatory force to put a stop to such chicanery. Note: It occurs to me that the radical misinterpretation of the Objectivist theory of individual rights manifest in George's above post may well be a key to understanding the whole wacky anarcho-capitalist syndrome. His bizarre viewpoint is the polar opposite to that of Ayn Rand. I hope to elaborate further on that hypothesis in the near future.

The status of the movie has now been officially changed to "filming." IMDB "Lights! Camera! Wait! Where the hell is Lillian? Somebody go knock on her trailer door and tell her and Gaede to knock it off! We've got a world to save!"