John Lewis, In Memoriam

[Brant Gaede]

I have stayed out of this thread up to now because I did not--and do not--agree with Dr. Lewis's approach in applying morality to war. It cuts to the fundaments of human nature, so this is a big deal to me.

Added to this, I don't like using eulogies or memorial occasions to discuss politics. I can do that at other times, as I have done and will continue to do. A funeral is a hell of a place to try to persuade people of anything. And heckling (including responding in kind) and bickering at a funeral is a total waste of time.

Dr. Lewis was a studied intellectual on the pro-reason side who, I believe, was honest and had good intentions.

Even in my disagreement, he gave me (and many others) a lot to think about. Some premises to examine. Some perspectives that were not obvious. He helped me use my mind better than I did before. And that is a very good thing.

So I grieve his loss.

May he rest in peace.

Michael

I have stayed out of this thread up to now because I did not--and do not--agree with Dr. Lewis's approach in applying morality to war. It cuts to the fundaments of human nature, so this is a big deal to me.

Added to this, I don't like using eulogies or memorial occasions to discuss politics. I can do that at other times, as I have done and will continue to do. A funeral is a hell of a place to try to persuade people of anything. And heckling (including responding in kind) and bickering at a funeral is a total waste of time.

Dr. Lewis was a studied intellectual on the pro-reason side who, I believe, was honest and had good intentions.

Even in my disagreement, he gave me (and many others) a lot to think about. Some premises to examine. Some perspectives that were not obvious. He helped me use my mind better than I did before. And that is a very good thing.

So I grieve his loss.

May he rest in peace.

Michael

Rest in peace, yes. Not discuss ideas?--no. Sorry, but it's a way the man stays with us. This isn't a funeral and OL isn't a funeral parlor.

--Brant

discuss!!!!!!!

[Brant Gaede]

> I don't like using eulogies or memorial occasions to discuss politics...A funeral is a hell of a place to try to persuade people of anything. And heckling (including responding in kind) and bickering at a funeral is a total waste of time. [MSK]

I agree. Another thread should have been started. I started this thread to remember some positive -personal- characteristics of the man.

They're been excluded?

--Brant

you can start a thread, but not own it

[Brant Gaede]

All in all, after reviewing the thread it's quite splittable as all now being discussed has significant momentum.

--Brant

[Mark]

From Dennis:

Don’t admit you made an unwarranted accusation. Just call it a "quibble" and try to change the subject.

My accusation was warranted and the other (related) subject is more important. I liked William Scherk’s comments on it, by the way.

... [in 2001] Dr. Lewis opposed removing Saddam Hussein from power while leaving Iran in a position to expand their Islamic empire.

Iran hasn’t stolen any land in my lifetime. You might say Muslims are colonizing Europe, but this is immigration demographics, not empire -- the Europeans are bringing it on themselves.

In 2001 Dr. Lewis may have opposed bombing Iraq (no stop for breath) while not bombing Iran first, but:

• From then to 2003 he knew how to keep quiet while all the principal ARI writers lobbied for invading Iraq.
  
• 
  
• In 2004 he approved of the invasion, though he thought it would have been better sooner.
  

[Guyau]

. . .

. . . This isn't a funeral and OL isn't a funeral parlor.

As ever, these forums are suitable places for spitting on the graves of your opponents.

[Brant Gaede]

. . .

. . . This isn't a funeral and OL isn't a funeral parlor.

As ever, these forums are suitable places for spitting on the graves of your opponents.

Or discussing ideas. Mildly interesting to read about Nathan Hawking again. I don't know about his ideas, but it's tough to go like that at that comparatively young age. It used to be more common than not: Shelley, Byron and Keats.

--Brant

[Mark]

Addressing aspects of Lewis’s professional career isn’t "spitting on his grave." His death is an occasion for summing up what intellectuals should remember him for. "Die on the other side of the earth for lies." And men did die.

I posted to this thread after reading the hagiography: "... down-to-earth niceness. Unpretentious. Sort of a boyish, innocent enthusiasm ... a certain elusive benevolence ... ." Oh brother. Tell that to the men at Walter Reed. Spit on their graves.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do, though not during the procession or speeches. During the obseques of important folks (like Kim Jong Il) I have been known to shout abuse. Similarly with deaths of controversial figures in the world of politics, law, religion, entertainment, newsmaking, or in the case of John Lewis, Objectivism.

William,

Does this mean you approve of the tactics of the Westboro Baptist Church shouting and protesting at funerals of gays and soldiers?

If you lost someone you loved, would you welcome that kind of behavior from strangers at his or her funeral?

Or hell, forget about the funeral. How about on the Facebook page of someone who knew that person?

I don't know why the image of kicking a sick dog comes to mind...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> Addressing aspects of Lewis’s professional career isn’t "spitting on his grave." [Mark]

You weren't addressing "aspects"; you were only looking for negative aspects. You were using this thread to try to tear him down and have nothing positive to say about him.

I already pointed out to you that you could use another thread whose purpose that might be.

Some people keep evading or dodging the point about what is *appropriate* to a thread like this by changing claiming it is the same as "never speak ill of the dead" -- which no one has said.

[Brant Gaede]

Addressing aspects of Lewis’s professional career isn’t "spitting on his grave." His death is an occasion for summing up what intellectuals should remember him for. "Die on the other side of the earth for lies." And men did die.

I posted to this thread after reading the hagiography: "... down-to-earth niceness. Unpretentious. Sort of a boyish, innocent enthusiasm ... a certain elusive benevolence ... ." Oh brother. Tell that to the men at Walter Reed. Spit on their graves.

I didn't know anything about Lewis until he died and still know little beyond the fact that ARI is basically a neo-con front. It's like the people who run it have an intellectual tank to impose their ideas on the culture with Ayn Rand strapped to the front. Without expanding on the subject, I suspect there is a lot to do there with its fund-raising. Well, I will say that Leonard Peikoff has made himself stupid and insane with his reductio ad absurdum war-mongering pontifications.

I have to agree with your general approach regarding ARI--the anti-war stuff, though I'm probably less anti-war than you are. It's just that when I think it through I'm still looking for proper a war to fight. I suspect a bigger war is coming because of the wars that are winding down or ended (Iraq and Afghanistan) centered on oil and, now, nuclear proliferation. The latter may start between India and Pakistan with the U.S. supporting India. I think this war or that war will start this summer, August or September, and will be used to help Obama get re-elected. It will probably involve Iran with the other one starting somewhat later. The irony is Saudi Arabia and Iran have a common interest in keeping the oil flowing while they are divided by religion. Since, short-term, money trumps religion, I don't see the need for the great U.S. military presence in the area.

Last, the war within war: It seems that some people are pro-war against Islam and terrorism but anti-war as has happened since 9-11. I think that more general notion is what needs to be examined. Considering the insult of 9-11 I supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2011, but wanted it to be an in and out deal. I also supported putting an army into Kuwait, but not using it to invade Iraq--and certainly not to invade Iran. Only to stabilize the region and to bend Saddam to our will without beating him up. I simply wasn't tuned into the perfidy of our great leaders and whom they actually represented leaving me with Afghanistan only. But that in turn begs the question of why 9-11 happened to begin with.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Specious Comparisons

> As ever, these forums are suitable places for spitting on the graves of your opponents. [stephen]

In the RoR post linked to, Luke Setzer uses comparisons to Castro. In this thread, WSS brings up Kim Jong Il.

Yes, if someone were to pen an epitaph to a monster, someone with no redeeming qualities worth mentioning, it -would- be appropriate to spit on his grave in such a thread.

But how much brains does it take to take to understand that John Lewis (or any Objectivist intellectual with whom you may have strong disagreements about the application of philosophy or in other areas) is not a monster, does not deserve comparisons to Castro or Kim Jong Il?

[Brant Gaede]

I think ARI Watch effectively exposes ARI for what it is by using war as a club to hit it over its neo-con head. I think anybody with significant association with ARI hasn't got an Ayn Rand leg to stand on. Lewis may have represented a lot of good ideas in good and right ways, but what happened to Rand's radical vision of freedom at ARI? She herself became more of a neo-con the older she got and even advocated a "just" war against the Soviet Union. My theory is she spent 14 years dealing with the world of Atlas Shrugged but couldn't deal with the complexity of the actual world she re-entered after its publication so she retreated to her world except for such ejaculations. All NBI was for was teaching Objectivism, but that was what the novel was for. It was essentially redundant. It seemed so right in the 1960s, but what it did was play to Ayn Rand. They should have focused on individual rights, critical thinking and true individualism and--oh, by the way, if you are interested, Rand has a philosophy she thinks best supports individual rights called Objectivism. Objectivism is mostly ethics, just where it is the weakest. It's a philosophy therefore made for fictional ideal characters as imagined by a novelist who didn't know enough about people as they actually were to know what they should be and demand they should change. The four basic principles of Objectivism appertain to the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics. The first two are shared with science and aren't controversial unless you want to muck around in them because that's all you can do there unless you can come up with something that would better inform scientific methodology itself. DOES IT WORK? In ethics it's rational self interest but boy, off that base you need a lot of work. In politics the Founding Fathers got it right with rights though the Constitution can be suspect. By focusing on ethics instead of rights Rand and Branden blew off the great American historical commonality Objectivism has with the heart and soul of America and ended up with a cult for Ayn Rand. This explains its tiny existence today. But Atlas still sells like hell. She got that mostly right--right for starters. Then off the rails.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are university professors who teach and promote a certain ideology equally as evil as dictators who actually murder, imprison, torture and maim people in massive numbers?

Only Leonard Peikoff knows for sure.

(At least when the dictator is Stalin.)

Just like imitating the Westboro Baptist Church people, Peikoff's approach seems a great one to adopt and promote if you hold enough contempt for human beings.

So, sure, let's talk about Dr. Lewis and Kim Jong Il in the same breath while some people are trying to make a symbolic gesture of paying last respects.

Thank goodness there's no monopoly on human folly. You can find it on all sides--and even in the most sanctimonious person looking down his nose at the stupid people.

I mean, who would ever imagine that sharing a quiet moment to grieve the passing of someone--or respecting that moment of those who do when you opposed the person in life--is reasonable and a decent thing to do?

"Not I," said the ideologue.

"Not I," said the preacher.

"Not I," said the snoot.

"Not I," said the attention seeker.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Well, I did that funeral thingy right off the bat, but "Not I," said--uh--me?

--Brant

I keep reverting to my basest self

[Mark]

Answering Phil’s post ...

Why hunt the hills for positive aspects when the mountains of negative aspects are what really matter?

Lewis was a "monster" in the sense Marx, Hegel and other intellectuals were who promoted life-killing ideas. In the case of Lewis it was making heroes out of FDR and Truman regarding World War II, and doing it for what? To excuse the Iraq invasion and promote an Iran!

"Monster" is not quite the word I would use to describe Lewis -- Phil is trying to make his critics sound silly -- but a strong negative epithet is much in order. Intellectual scoundrel, Neo-objectivist (more or less a Neoconservative with an Objectivist veneer), hypocrite -- above all, hypocrite, mouthing Objectivist slogans in the service of the Neoconservative agenda (while denouncing Neoconservatism) -- would be better.

Brant,

Thanks for the nice things you say about ARI Watch, not that you agree with everything there, now or in future.

You write that Ayn Rand once

... advocated a "just" war against the Soviet Union.

She did say that the U.S. had a right to destroy the Soviet Union, and went on to say that she opposed doing it, that it wasn’t necessary. This is in the famous 1964 Playboy magazine interview. (Unlike other of her Q&A this interview is in the Ayn Rand corpus because she edited the transcript before publication. It contains her considered thoughts, not just off the cuff remarks.)

[9thdoctor]

"Not I," said the ideologue.

"Not I," said the preacher.

"Not I," said the snoot.

"Not I," said the attention seeker.

"I would prefer not to", said the scrivener.

[Brant Gaede]

> Addressing aspects of Lewis’s professional career isn’t "spitting on his grave." [Mark]

You weren't addressing "aspects"; you were only looking for negative aspects. You were using this thread to try to tear him down and have nothing positive to say about him.

I already pointed out to you that you could use another thread whose purpose that might be.

Some people keep evading or dodging the point about what is *appropriate* to a thread like this by changing claiming it is the same as "never speak ill of the dead" -- which no one has said.

Careful there, Phil. You've left the door open for him to argue "aspects" yes or no. That concedes it's not wrong for him to be on this thread for it's an invitation for him to continue. I support his being here since Michael hasn't spun this business off into a new thread, but if he had the old thread would now be dead in the water. I think this funeral thing is trite, frankly. No one I remember has ever celebrated John Lewis on OL before. Where's the fan club? It's you and Dennis, heretofore inactive, and Dennis is more into the ideas.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Answering Phil’s post ...

Why hunt the hills for positive aspects when the mountains of negative aspects are what really matter?

Lewis was a "monster" in the sense Marx, Hegel and other intellectuals were who promoted life-killing ideas. In the case of Lewis it was making heroes out of FDR and Truman regarding World War II, and doing it for what? To excuse the Iraq invasion and promote an Iran!

"Monster" is not quite the word I would use to describe Lewis -- Phil is trying to make his critics sound silly -- but a strong negative epithet is much in order. Intellectual scoundrel, Neo-objectivist (more or less a Neoconservative with an Objectivist veneer), hypocrite -- above all, hypocrite, mouthing Objectivist slogans in the service of the Neoconservative agenda (while denouncing Neoconservatism) -- would be better.

Brant,

Thanks for the nice things you say about ARI Watch, not that you agree with everything there, now or in future.

You write that Ayn Rand once

... advocated a "just" war against the Soviet Union.

She did say that the U.S. had a right to destroy the Soviet Union, and went on to say that she opposed doing it, that it wasn't necessary. This is in the famous 1964 Playboy magazine interview. (Unlike other of her Q&A this interview is in the Ayn Rand corpus because she edited the transcript before publication. It contains her considered thoughts, not just off the cuff remarks.)

No, I was at the FHF when she said that in the Q and A. I'd change "advocated" to "hope" except I can't remember the precise quotation. At the time I was dumbfounded. Actual War with the Soviets, as opposed to the de facto conflict since WWII, would have had to have been GTW with hundreds of millions dead or wishing they were dead. Utter destruction. She was clear as a bell and strong as hell, but obviously there was no Nathaniel Branden there to talk her down with reasoned comments as only, it seems, he could do. But even his talk downs didn't have much sticking power. She tended to revert. However, I do think that with more thinking of all significant considerations that she would not have championed GTW and I never heard her do any such thing. Off the cuff, she frequently didn't take time to think things through.

--Brant

[Reidy]

This talk of inevitable nuclear war reminds me of what people were saying during the Cuban missile crisis, the mining of Haiphong harbor and the Reagan presidency (at least the first six years). It didn't happen.

[Brant Gaede]

This talk of inevitable nuclear war reminds me of what people were saying during the Cuban missile crisis, the mining of Haiphong harbor and the Reagan presidency (at least the first six years). It didn't happen.

I didn't know it didn't happen!!! Thx!

On the surface the Cuban missile crisis was the closest. Under the surface, the Reagen years were even closer if you can believe some of the stories that have bounced around. I can't evaluate the latter. I still wonder if Castro had actual control of Soviet nukes. I don't wonder that the inexperience and incompetence of the Kennedy Administration had a lot to do with it, because the Bay of Pigs caused the Soviets under K. to grossly over-reach. But I never heard of nuclear war being "inevitable" except from a big-wig Chinese in the late 1960s.

--Brant

I'll take the historical luck

[Selene]

Brant:

We came close during the Berlin crisis which led to the airlift, but we, according to Curtis Le May, were not ready for all out war with Russia then.

It was estimated that West Berlin only had food for about five (5) weeks and Stalin wanted no compromises.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Brant:

We came close during the Berlin crisis which led to the airlift, but we, according to Curtis Le May, were not ready for all out war with Russia then.

It was estimated that West Berlin only had food for about five (5) weeks and Stalin wanted no compromises.

Adam

Close to what? The danger of GTW came somewhat later. Screw Stalin. We could have busted that blockade open on the ground just as we could have torn down the Berlin Wall when they were putting it up.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

At the risk of hijacking this thread - and my humble apologies in advance - Here are some comments John (remember him?) made at a talk about his career as a professor and how to have some impact in that. The whole thing is available on the ARI 'in memoriam' webpage for him.

[These are my hurried notes taken from playing back the web lecture. Warning: to get it all down I drop letters, abbreviate, leave out punctuation and caps. The payoff is that I usually get -everything- the lecturer said and I don't make gross content mistakes, even if sometimes cryptic.]

(") john lewis first oist to teach simult at two top 20 universities - prgm on pol, econ, philo at both..students at duke are -really- bright. but econ not exp to hist of pol, pol not exp to philo, philo not exp to the real world. he teaches ancient pol. philo - read the sources - plato, aristotle, cicero, machiavelli, etc. john's objctv not to convince but to 'mainstream ' ayn rand - seminar in which inserted 'what is capitalism' and the francisco money speech, full prof who not agree attended thanked anthem fndtn for fact able to have conf., couple weeks later calls john i'll be away can you lecture to my class - history of economics class - what readings to bone up on? no teach ayn rand. asked him why? see she's important, not certain i agree, but see that has to be read and understood and every time i open my mouth about her i get it wrong. so, you're the objvst and know what you're talking about.

.... john did indep study w ar..and then 'obj philo of ar.' sixty students went thru those two course. syllabus based on 12 steps in opar. read all of atlas w 30-50 pg articles each week, 3/4 didn't drop, unusual for this sort of optional or low credit course.

...the atlas shr course. designed from scene to scene major scenes instead of synops of chapters. what is most imp scene pedagog can bring up...and always altern rdg expl disagrees. e.g., 20th cent motor car event and speech & read comm. manifesto next to that. you don't know how many students read comm. manifest and say 'that's it? this killed 50 million?' and he says yes, now you're getting something to understand the power of ideas.

...trying to become known among duke fac. as 'the greek guy' - so whenever jrnl of pol econ gets something on the greeks in it they send it to him for prepub rvw. also kn as 'the objvst' and refer to him as that. one dept chr. rec. paper on atlas and marked it up and emailed him 'would you mind looking at this - frankly i don't know what i'm doing...you're the objectivist'..he put his own comments on top of his sat down for two hour conv w student, int in rdng more..leaves a legacy.. some of these students impacted hard to know which. learned in ten years the student who walks up immed after class 'boy that was great, i'm really convinced' is lost. goes to the social work class next and says 'boy that was great...' student who walks up 'i don't wuite get what is this selfishness stuff. got to think about that'

/continues to write for clsscl jrnls, writes reviews...intrstng: contacted by editor of book on (practical) medical ethics. doing 2nd ed, willing to put in chapter. read by 100k students a year. ch. on health care rights. he had article on univ rt to health care...would be glad, priv, meet deadline on one condition title is 'there is no right to health care'...contract is in the mail.

...what add up to? leave something behind in people's mind so th abou twrld in diff way. seeing great results. assn for priv ent ed went to fourth annual conf. require panel on moral fndtns din't exit five years ago..thik solely result of ari...econ was considered to be value-free, econ not have to do with ends. competing panels others want to present their moral views. /asked to sit as guest on duke med ctr ethics board, write and form policy for duke med ctr, a multi-billion dollar org. first mtg - what do w shortage of crit drugs - their idea is to ration them. asked chair if has happened yet. make more drugs - his spiel on why ratn wrong...rationing was taken out of the statement...

,,,,,,

q&a (was just a.l.a. or l.t.t. orig talk - 25 or 30 min each):

--three times addressed first yr class of med students on health care/medical rights. how powerful and diff. the arg is that rts are rts to action.

--follow up req him to come bec of his talk prev week inv two of the dean's to hear what he had to say. how to get their attention: student says 'medicine the only prfssn where you walk into a room and someone says take your pants down and you do it' and john replied: 'you know i have no problem doing that for a doctor, but i have a big problem doing it for hillary clinton or harry reed...now can we talk about the relationship between government force and hwat is nec to treat someone medically.'

--how imp is to be collegial. brad thompson at clemson, did phd. at brown while john lived in r.i. and fundmntly no one agreed w him there as no one agrees w me. how did he get thru it? two firm rules: 1-work harder than anyone else. 2-be more pleasant and collegial than anyone else. when probe mind of most profs find very deep disag. at place like duke everybody disag w everyone else at some level. embrace diff ideas in way helpful to us. there is no conc att to keep oism out of the academy. how welcoming fac has been to him. 'hes the oist, ask him' in yoiur presence.

...another rule of his: never use ar's name gratuitously, if doesn't fit in the article doesn't put her in. bec not want to be see as always going to that topic. go email from cspan to record one of his classes for am hist series. pointed out to them he was not am. historeian, that's ok we know who you are do you have any that touch on am hist at all... am defeat of japan in int relns course...five man recording team, two cameras...now avail on the cspan site. not ayn rand in it.

...in the uk, place such a high imp on learning grk..anecdote about how ded. he was in learning grk in r.i. ellen kenner: remember him studying it and occ look at road when drive with them to boston and listening to greek tape and occasionally look at the road. /john: it's said have to start early at 8 to be good at grk. john started at 37 - even laminated some grk sentences into shower so could do conjugations. (")

[The above is a fraction of what he said - as indicated by the three dots]

,,,,,,

[A word about my lecture notes. I have tons of them: all the Peikoff courses, individual lectures, TJS and TAS summer seminars, etc., but you have to try to figure out the abbrevs. for yourself. If this is of interest but if no one gets out of their armchair long enough to post any thoughtful response - or even "Thanks Phil, I learned x and would be interested in more" - I'm highly unlikely to do any more or them.]

[Jonathan]

Toothbrush in the jaw toothbrush brush tooth jaw foam dome in the foam Roman dome toothtoothbrush toothpick pickpocket socket rocket.

[william.scherk]

John David Lewis: A Man Who Lived

Posted by Craig Biddle at 8:24 pm

My good friend John Lewis died this morning having battled cancer relentlessly, and I want to say a few words here about his life.

John was one of the greatest men I’ve ever known. A husband, historian, writer, speaker, professor, musician, and friend, he pursued his values with awe-inspiring passion.

He cherished his lovely wife, Casey, and always beamed in her presence, as she did in his. My heart goes out to Casey; her loss is the greatest of all.

When John was in his 40s, he decided to change his career from businessman to intellectual. He proceeded to earn a PhD in classics from Cambridge and to achieve masterful knowledge of the history of Ancient Greece and of military history in general, which he integrated with rational philosophy thus achieving what few historians do: an understanding not only of what happened, but also of why it happened. His book and essays on the causes of war and the requirements of victory are surely the most profound ever written.

He spoke at Objectivist conferences and Tea Party events, where his courses and lectures were always among the most popular, insightful, and inspiring. He also spoke on the morality of free markets in medicine and the need to get the government out of the way so that innovators can innovate. I suspect that, had markets been free, he would still be alive.

John taught at Duke, where his primary message to students was that their minds are efficacious; that they can acquire knowledge of the world, including historical and moral truth; that they can achieve their dreams if they are willing to think and work; and that their lives are theirs to live and enjoy.

He played the drums, loved jazz, and revered precision and clarity in music, as he did in thought and communication.

And he gave me, and all of his friends, the joy of great conversation, great camaraderie, and the most valuable thing anyone can give another: an example of how to live passionately.

While I was visiting John over the holidays, he said to me that his death was of no concern to him. He did not mean that he didn’t care whether he died—on the contrary, he wanted desperately to live. What he meant was that the only thing one should concern oneself with is living and loving life. That is what John did. He lived life fully until he could live no more.

I embrace and will continue to embrace his example. I will concern myself only with living and loving life. But I loved John immensely, and I will miss him as much as I loved him. He is my hero.

[Written on Jan. 3, posted on Jan. 4, 2012]

Posted in: Announcements, Foreign Policy and War, History

From Craig Biddle at The Objectivist Standard