A Few Kant Quotes

[Newberry]

Having said that, however, I don't trust Newberry's interpretations of Kant and postmodernist aesthetic theorists or artists (or his interpretations of much of anything else, really), and I can't imagine the nightmare that it would be to try to discuss with him something as complex as Kant and various postmodernist's views when I haven't been able to get straight answers out of him regarding his views on much simpler subjects.

Ah, Jonathan,

You miss the most simple point of all. We don't share a common point or premise. So what seems like a nightmares or non-straight answers are due to that fundamental difference. I really don't know how anyone resolves these kind of differences; without a common base of understanding authentic communication is impossible.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Having said that, however, I don't trust Newberry's interpretations of Kant and postmodernist aesthetic theorists or artists (or his interpretations of much of anything else, really), and I can't imagine the nightmare that it would be to try to discuss with him something as complex as Kant and various postmodernist's views when I haven't been able to get straight answers out of him regarding his views on much simpler subjects.

Ah, Jonathan,

You miss the most simple point of all. We don't share a common point or premise. So what seems like a nightmares or non-straight answers are due to that fundamental difference. I really don't know how anyone resolves these kind of differences; without a common base of understanding authentic communication is impossible.

Michael

You seriously expect Jonathan to understand what you've just written?

reb

[Newberry]

Well said Roger. [the second post above]

(Except I don't know why you would be reluctant to engage me. )

Michael

Edited July 17, 2008 by Newberry

[Newberry]

You seriously expect Jonathan to understand what you've just written?

reb

Well if he did then it would be a good common point to work from. Now, if you didn't understand it then we got to start with something more simple. ;) Do you have a suggestion?

Michael

Edited July 17, 2008 by Newberry

[Roger Bissell]

You seriously expect Jonathan to understand what you've just written?

reb

Well if he did then it would be a good common point to work from. Now, if you didn't understand it then we got to start with something more simple. ;) Do you have a suggestion?

Michael

Sorry, I'm still scratching my head over how my complying with requests for badgeringly requested material (which is then cursorily dismissed instead of engaged with), then trying to provoke the badgerer into engaging with the material (i.e., offering anything more than a cursory dismissal), constitutes heinous wrong-doing on my part. I guess I must have more in common with Diana Hsieh and Leslie Perigo than I thought.

Repugnantly & unjustly,

NAME aka The Crank

[Roger Bissell]

Well said Roger. [the second post above]

(Except I don't know why you would be reluctant to engage me. )

Michael

Michael, I'm glad you approve of the substance of my post on Kant's view of art (or at least how I stated it?).

As for engaging you on Kant's COJ, I won't be reluctant once I have a decent overall grasp of it! :thumbsup:

I'm just (currently) cherry-picking and quoting things from it that I think are interesting and/or valuable and/or sound similar to Rand's views -- and scratching my head at the dismissive comments of those who do not see those features in the quoted material. :hmm:

REB

[Roger Bissell]

MY "INVISIBLE RESPONSES"....AND INTEGRITY SMEARING:

[...] Michael, my point was that I didn't find -any- of the quotes (except for the one I named) supportive of the idea that Kant is profound, interesting, valuable, a precursor of Objectivism.

One of them doesn't demonstrate an anticipation of the Oist trichotomy. One has a narrow and superficial view of humor.[...] Then several people --- ignoring the fact that I RESPONDED IN SEVERAL POSTS by saying that I didn't find the Kant quotes persuasive and gave a succinct reason in each case --- claimed that I had been unwilling to respond at all.

Incorrect (unless you are not including me as one of the "several people"). I chided you for not "rolling up your sleeves" and ~engaging~ with the ideas, which you instead, at most and at long last, ~cursorily dismissed~. (Except for Bill P's quote, which you approved of.)

Even when I later provided extensive further argument and examples -- such as in post 178 of the "Heresy" thread regarding Kant's quasi-trichotomy ideas, or earlier in this thread when I provided a quote comparing Rand's 1976 Q-A comments that highlighted the similarity between her views on humor and those of Kant and Koestler -- you made no substantial reply.

And I must confess that I was stunned that you did not find the passage by Kant on humor to be interesting. I found it charming and ~fascinating~. Not only interestingly insightful and similar to Rand and Koestler, but revealing of what "the most evil man in history" found amusing. To each his own, I guess.

REB

[Ellen Stuttle]

However, I will offer a couple of quotes from Kant's COJ that are, again, suggestive of ideas Rand developed. (Recall that I argued that Kant's and Rand's views of humor were startlingly similar, despite the claims of some that Kant was simplistic &c.)

1. In section 49 (The faculties of the mind which constitute genius), Kant wrote:

The imagination (as a productive faculty of cognition) is a powerful agent for creating, as it were, a second nature out of the material supplied to it by actual nature...[T]he material can be borrowed by us from nature in accordance with [the law of association], but be worked up by us into something else--namely what surpasses nature.

Two comments on this: first, Kant's "creating...a second nature" I take to be equivalent to Rand's "re-creation of reality." (Kant is not the first philosopher, of art or otherwise, to use this phrase.) Secondly, "something...[that] surpasses nature" I take to be equivalent to Aristotle's and Rand's view of art as things as the[y] "can" and "ought" to be (instead of as they are).

Just from that quote, I wouldn't take it as "equivalent," though I would take it as "similar." Of course, you and I have differences on whether Aristotle is correctly interpreted as implying "ought" to be. I'm not trying to re-do that question, just to point out that I don't take Aristotle's and Rand's views as "equivalent," though I do take them as "similar." From the quote alone, it seems to me that Kant is being more similar to my understanding of Aristotle, according to which there's no requirement for what "surpasses nature" to be a statement of how nature ought to be (or even necessarily how nature "can" be).

For instance, a projection of imaginary monstrous figures, nightmarish creatures, isn't a projection of how nature can be and wouldn't, for most people, be a projection of how nature ought to be; but it would surpass nature; it would have larger dimensions of fearful creaturehood; it would exaggerate features of nature.

That seems to me the sense in which Kant is using "surpasses." (If so, then I'd go with Kant on that one, not Rand. Among the features of Rand's aesthetics with which I quarrel is the "can and ought to be" clause.)

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

Here's a link to a very short essay of Kant's on a legal / ethical issue --- the essay is titled "The Injustice of Counterfeiting Books."

I thought it might be of interest for those looking for some of the more accessible Kant.

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/fne/essay3.html

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Alfonso Jones]

Here's one which will upset:

Excerpt fromOn the Relationship of Theory to Practice in Political RightImmanuel Kant1792Man's freedom as a human being, as a principle for the constitution of a commonwealth, can be expressed in the following formula. No-one can compel me to be happy in accordance with his conception of the welfare of others, for each may seek his happiness in whatever way he sees fit, so long as he does not infringe upon the freedom of others to pursue a similar end which can be reconciled with the freedom of everyone else within a workable general law — i. e., he must accord to others the same right as he enjoys himself. A government might be established on the principle of benevolence towards the people, like that of a father towards his children. Under such a paternal government, the subjects, as immature children who cannot distinguish what is truly useful or harmful to themselves, would be obliged to behave purely passively and to rely upon the judgment of the head of state as to how they ought to be happy, and upon his kindness in willing their happiness at all. Such a government is the greatest conceivable despotism, i. e. , a constitution which suspends the entire freedom of its subjects, who thenceforth have no rights whatsoever. The only conceivable government for men who are capable of possessing rights, even if the ruler is benevolent, is not a paternal but a patriotic government. A patriotic attitude is one where everyone in the state, not excepting its head, regards the commonwealth as a maternal womb, or the land as the paternal ground from which he himself sprang and which he must leave to his descendants as a treasured pledge. Each regards himself as authorized to protect the rights of the commonwealth by laws of the general will, but not to submit it to his personal use at his own absolute pleasure. This right of freedom belongs to each member of the commonwealth as a human being, in so far as each is a being capable of possessing rights.

From: http://www.constitution.org/kant/rtppr.txt

Edited July 17, 2008 by Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

MY "INVISIBLE RESPONSES"....AND INTEGRITY SMEARING:

> What I don't understand about you, is that you are not "happy" with the quotes provided. [Michael N]

Michael, my point was that I didn't find -any- of the quotes (except for the one I named) supportive of the idea that Kant is profound, interesting, valuable, a precursor of Objectivism.

One of them doesn't demonstrate an anticipation of the Oist trichotomy. One has a narrow and superficial view of humor. Several of them you posted were simply unintelligible. I couldn't bring myself to respond with more than a few sentences to those quotes, but agreed with you that the problem is that they were hard to untangle or rationalistic. I also responded by making a parody of them. It's legitimate to respond with humor in some cases.

Then several people --- ignoring the fact that I RESPONDED IN SEVERAL POSTS by saying that I didn't find the Kant quotes persuasive and gave a succinct reason in each case --- claimed that I had been unwilling to respond at all.

So let's summarize my responses to the Kant Quotes. I actually had 8 DIFFERENT RESPONSES on two different threads, that I recall (maybe there was a ninth?)

1. Bill's enlightenment quote - Response: Kant makes good and interesting points there

2. Roger's trichotomy quote - Response: I don't see this as anticipating Oism, the trichotomy has a very specific meaning (and this ain't it)

3. Roger's humor quote - Response: too narrow a characterization of humor.

4. Your several hard-to-follow quotes - Response: congratulations if you can understand them, I can't ...another point against Kant's value

5. Some of your quotes - Response: rationalistic, packed with floating abstractions (you used the word Platonic) ..another point against Kant's 'interest' and value

6. Some of your quotes - Response: too abstract only with no concretes, explanation ...you agreed with me

7.& 8. Two parodies (which cast some of the above responses in an additional, humorous way)

Even worse than denying that I had **any response**, several people said THIS (LACK OF RESPONSE) DEMONSTRATED I was not engaging them in "Good Faith" and tried to read my mind and suggest rather clearly that I (disingenuously?) wanted to delay or raise side issues or 'meta' issues to derail the conversation, thereby attacking my motives and integrity.

When I pointed out to the person who raised that last issue, viewing him as someone I could talk to and have a friendly discussion with, the reason WHY I consider the 'meta' or method and approach issues important, instead of acknowledging or 'responding' to any of the points I made --- he simply ignored them and escalated his attack on my lack of good faith.

And he broadened it by saying that I was frequently doing this kind of stall or smokescreen? attempt to dodge topics on lots of other occasions.

My shock was that this individual (and one other who supported him) wouldn't have entertained the possibility that my greater interest in issues of method, 'meta' issues, was honestly greater and more what I wanted to talk about (at least at greater length) than some other issues.

WHEN TO CUT YOUR LOSSES:

The policy that I would recommend to everyone is that if you are an honest person who has good reasons for what you want to focus on and it is not that hard to see, in fact most people commend you for your single minded interest in the truth, but you have a 'friend' or interlocutor who maybe is a cynic or always finds some hidden (dark) explanation with regard to people and questions your integrity in this area, you are probably better off not having that kind of friend or debating partner.

Maybe you try once, as I did with REB in my **very important post #26** yesterday, entitled ISSUES OF METHOD, SKILLS, APPROACHES, ATTITUDE, because I thought he simply misunderstood my reasons and that that could be easily corrected.

But when a clear explanation like THAT is ignored, with very rare exceptions you're better off bailing out. You will get absolutely nowhere with such people.

(More important, their view of you is not only unjust, but fundamentally repugnant.)

By the way, I intend to write more somewhere in some venue on the topic of post 26. It's crucial to human success and happiness. And the future of Objectivism.

Phil, you are different from most people and we know and accept that, but you have to accept it too. I guess you have hence this last post. If you want something and don't get it, it might help if you got right on it with whomsoever instead of letting things pile up so you suddenly explode on the situation. That might be hard if your time is short.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

ISSUES OF METHOD, SKILLS, APPROACHES, ATTITUDE

> this distracting meta-argument (that you are so good at).

Roger, that sounds a bit contemptuous. But if meta-argument does not mean disingenuous, but instead means discussions about method, steps, procedure, process, these are actually what interests me quite often much more than discussions about content.

My interest in Kant, unless he turns out to have really brilliant and unique insights in some areas, is minimal compared to that . . . although I may be willing to go a few more rounds looking at quotes from him.

Reasons why my interest in method is so primary:

I am a teacher and every day I see the problems students get into in every subject coming from using the wrong analysis, thinking, or work method. The reasons Objectivists fail or missperceive or missargue or fail to persuade the world often tend to be that they are using a wrong thinking method or a wrong argument or conversation method.

Rationalism is an error of method that will completely derail one as a thinker. But there are many others. (Aside: Civility is an issue of method, of how one approaches people and whether they are open to reason and how one approaches persuasion.)

Steering a conversation to these 'meta' issues to me is not distracting. It's what's of primary importance and what makes good analysis possible. Feel free to disagree, but this is why I'm *constantly* focused on these kinds of issues within or underlying the topic.

(I would hope the reader would respect this -- I've certainly been reasonably clear about most of it, I think.)

Phil,

I have given this some thought and I think in this thread you made essentially the same mistake in thinking method that you accuse others of doing.

A proper thinking method as I understand it is to correctly identify something, correctly identify the context, then evaluate it. In that order.

I presume you agree with me on that.

Now here, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe your main complaint about incorrect thinking method with many Objectivist discussions is that the "correctly identify something, correctly identify the context" part gets shortchanged and the "evaluate it" part gets undue emphasis. After that, then personal attacks start.

Did I get that right?

If that is the case, I humbly suggest that you screwed up on getting the context right in this thread about Kant. Then started seeing things like "sounds a bit contemptuous," attacks on your integrity, and so forth where they simply do not exist.

I will explain. The context of this thread is that it is a discussion by people who have read Kant, studied him, written about him extensively over years (mostly on forums) and much of their writing is free and easily available online. You treated them as if they were sophomoric Objectivists who ape Rand's opinions and never crack open a volume of the person from mankind's hall of fame they critique.

Your demand for quotes and so forth from these people is akin to someone barging in on a discussion you are having with another Objectivist about Rand, demand that you provide quotes from her and accuse you of having a defective thinking method and not knowing anything about Rand because you haven't provide those quotes. The initial presumption is that you know nothing about Rand. I think you would either be amused or find that insulting.

Yet you did that with others about Kant. If you are going to make demands on people, I suggest you first look at who you are talking to. That's a big honking context.

Simply put, if you talk down to an expert on his subject of expertise with your own version of personal attacks, you take what you get. And people who post on OL (btw - who come here of their own free will) are SMART. They will be amused or insulted if you treat them like dummies.

I believe people are perplexed by your taking-it-all-personal attitude because it does not occur to them that you got that context wrong. From your posts, you are using the concept of Objectivist discussion as an all-inclusive grab bag to mean discussions by novices and experts alike. That's a premise you would do well to check.

I have followed several Objectivist forums for a few years now and this is an error you make that I see repeated over and over (talking down to an expert as if he were a beginner—often without knowing much about the subject of expertise yourself). And it always results in abrasive conflict.

Now here is another problem with Objectivist thinking methods, and this one is my turn: admitting when you are wrong. I see this problem with your posts in this thread. It honks at me. They are overly-defensive and talk around the point that you demanded Kant, got Kant, then didn't know what to do with that situation since it disproved your initial thesis about defective thinking methods.

You were wrong and it stung. (That's what you communicate in your posts.) To me, it would be a whole lot easier to say, "Sorry. I screwed up. I forgot who I was talking to."

But that's me. I personally cannot imagine getting anything right if I do not get it wrong at times. I have learned to get pleasure out of correcting myself and getting it right. (It was hard to do at first, too. This problem was a direct result of my initial blinding adherence to Objectivism. An... er... incorrect thinking method in application. I will gladly elaborate later if you like.)

All your long-winded feelings-hurt posts communicate to me is that you vastly prefer talking about Phil over talking about Kant or even the thinking methods you brought up. I do not think you are a victim of anything other than your own misunderstanding.

But it's your head, not mine.

I do wish you well. (Hell, I like you.)

Michael

[Jonathan]

You miss the most simple point of all. We don't share a common point or premise. So what seems like a nightmares or non-straight answers are due to that fundamental difference.

You used to say similar things to me, but I think it was usually more along the lines that you didn't think that you could teach me how to evolve a romantic soul like yours. Is that what you still mean?

I really don't know how anyone resolves these kind of differences; without a common base of understanding authentic communication is impossible.

I think that this is probably where our approaches differ: My view is that I'm capable of error, and that any hypothesis or belief of mine should undergo rigorous scrutiny, preferably by me, but if someone else points to an error in my thinking, I should be open to considering their arguments and to correcting my views rather than pondering the improbability of their being able to evolve a grand, romantic soul like mine. I think that my general approach to ideas includes testing theories and looking for evidence which doesn't support them, where your approach seems to be to ignore or deny unwanted evidence and to imagine that the feelings you've had about something is confirmation that your initial prejudicial judgement was correct.

I'm reminded of the time that you felt that you had been given a very clear perspective on me based on having viewed a work of art that Rich Engle posted and that I hadn't commented on. Apparently you felt that Rich and I were basically the same person because you had found both of our views disagreeable earlier in the discussion, and we therefore must have had exactly the same tastes in art? I think it's one among many good examples of your sloppy thinking and your careless methods of "confirming" your judgments of art, people and their ideas.

So, yes, I agree with you that we have fundamental differences.

J

P.S. This topic reminds me of Peter Cresswell's brilliant feat of seeing AC/DC's You Shook Me All Night Long as helping us to "feel our anger and rage." Remember that? Even after being hounded by Irfan Khawaja about the song's meaning, Cresswell kept his head buried way up his ass and refused to consider that his opinion might be ridiculous. Man, those were the good old days.

[Newberry]

You miss the most simple point of all. We don't share a common point or premise. So what seems like a nightmares or non-straight answers are due to that fundamental difference.

You used to say similar things to me, but I think it was usually more along the lines that you didn't think that you could teach me how to evolve a romantic soul like yours. Is that what you still mean?

Okay, let's see if we can find a common point. The core of someone's being is not something one is taught.

[zantonavitch]

I'm no spokesperson for or defender of Kant, other than to say that the depiction of him as the most evil man who ever lived is very much overblown.

Bill P -- Well, who is? And where does Kant rate, in your view? I tend to agree with Rand: He's #1.

[zantonavitch]

At least on my first 30 or 50 readings, in my 20's, of Kant's esthetics it sounded like the gibberish that Phil and Kyrel joke about. Since then, I have read it many, many more times, and feel very comfortable understanding his style, content, and meaning.

Michael -- I'm really curious: Why did you chose to spend so much time with Kant? Was he worth it? It certainly seems like you'd have been much better off reading the aesthetics of Aristotle. Or else the philosophies and biographies of Renaissance and Enlightenment painters. Or else that of the movie-makers you admire and are interested in. Just curious...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kyrel,

There is no such thing as the most evil man in history. This kind of measurement is a metaphor at best. There is a line of monstrosity that a person crosses and it just doesn't matter anymore. Who was more evil, Hitler or Nero or Charles Manson? Only the particulars like scale are different. But the part pertaining to evil? They were all vile. Trying to decide which was morally worse is futile.

Also, I am with David Kelley on this. Ideas alone are never as evil as ideas+intent+action. To claim otherwise is to divorce the mind from the body in morality.

Rand scapegoated Kant just as surely as Hitler scapegoated the Jews. That was not her finest moment.

Michael

[zantonavitch]

Have you yet read and considered the material in my post last night on the "incomprehensible, mind-cracking Kant" on humor?

You call Kant "hyper-evil" and "clown." Yet, (1) can you honestly imagine him doing a consciously malevolent Toohey-gloat at the thought of all the destruction and suffering that has (supposedly) followed from his ideas? Or do you (like I) think that he would be appalled and try to re-think his views to see what went wrong? Do you really dismiss the idea that he was simply trying to understand reality and value the best he could, given the mess the Rationalists and Empiricists left things in?

(2) Can you really justify calling someone who devised one of the most complex, well-integrated (though erroneous) systems of philosophy in history a "clown"? What have you produced, other than bogus parodies of Kant? Please supply links to your achievements, so that we may evaluate them for their goodness and dignity.

REB

Roger -- Sorry, I didn't really read your post. It's quite long and complex. But I did skim it. Kant just never seems worthwhile to me. He also seems dangerous -- to one's mind and soul.

I consider him stunningly evil and highly clownish. And I think he did it all on purpose, with full knowledge of the consequences. Or at least with something close to it.

To judge some of my achievements, relative to "the smasher of all," maybe check out the brief remarks at The Liberal Institute website and the article section of Rebirth of Reason. I try to add to rational liberal culture -- not destroy it. I want the individual and his society to be happy -- not miserable. Kant emphatically seems to favor the opposite.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Kyrel Zantonavitch

[zantonavitch]

Roger, I don't think it's valid to ask "what have YOU produced?" when someone criticizes an important thinker or set of ideas. As you know, KZ's personal achievements are not relevant to the logic of what he has to say. That sort of belittling attack justs leads to flame wars and insults and personal hard feelings and the loss of possible friends or contacts. A movie critic is not required to have made movies or an architectural critic to have built a building to have valid things to say about the defects of a movie or building.

Philip -- Thanks for coming to my defense, but I think Roger's questions are respectful and valid enough. I'm never really insulted until someone actually insults me. And I certainly am degrading and insulting Kant. Based on my (brief) reading, I think he's pure slime. I feel sick inside to think I possibly haven't accomplished more with my life than he has with his.

As a part-time writer, I'm a contributor to human knowledge. I advance understanding. Kant is just an irrational, nonsensical confuser, underminer, and destroyer. He adds nothing. Or at least virtually nothing. And he subtracts a great deal. What a nightmare for mankind!

[Newberry]

Kyrel:

Sorry, I didn't really read your post. But I did skim it. Kant just never seems worthwhile to me. He also seems dangerous -- to one's mind and soul.

I consider him stunningly evil and highly clownish. And I think he did it all on purpose, with full knowledge of the consequences. Or at least with something close to it.

If you haven't read him, yet express opinions about him, what is objective about that? In fact you have not considered his writing at all. You give us nothing but your subjective take, and if that is your style in this issue, then it casts suspicion on other opinions you hold. Why not say that you are afraid to read him, and leave it at that?

Michael

[zantonavitch]

Phil, you're right that the ~logic~ of KZ's argument does not justify asking him what he has produced. But I was responding not to his logic -- because there ~is~ none -- but his ~rhetoric~, of which there is a repetitious surfeit. (He keeps recycling the same Kant-bashing remarks with no supporting evidence except his bogus "quotes.")

Roger -- Eventually I'll probably get around to discussing this guy in considerably more depth and detail -- which is a wholly legitimate request. But he's boring and unrewarding as hell -- the worst ever. So my motivation to read him is quite low. And in fairness I have already discussed the substance of his work a bit -- with my brutal attack on his hideous use of language, and a few other things. His work is deliberately almost entirely devoid of reason and sense. So it isn't fun or informative to read.

[zantonavitch]

That was not her finest moment.

Well, it was one of them. She identified the enemy and the evil beautifully. I think the world will always be grateful.

[zantonavitch]

If you haven't read him, yet express opinions about him, what is objective about that? In fact you have not considered his writing at all. You give us nothing but your subjective take, and if that is your style in this issue, then it casts suspicion on other opinions you hold. Why not say that you are afraid to read him, and leave it at that?

Michael -- I read all of your quotes of Kant and most of them in Roger's essay. But they're hard as hell to digest. I have to give them the value and time I think they deserve. I'm nothing but intrigued that you like Kant! But I have to go by my own judgment until persuaded otherwise. In this regard, even a single good and true whole paragraph by Kant would be nice to read...

[Newberry]

Michael -- I'm really curious: Why did you chose to spend so much time with Kant?

I started my college art education at 17, most of the courses where non-objective art of some variety or other. I was thrust into contemporary fine art and culture, with artists and teachers, their favorite slogan was that representational painting was dead. I didn't think so, but it put me in a challenging position. Many, many young artists in that situation abandoned fine art because they wanted to paint representational. I like to understand things at their roots, and eventually I recognized the foundations for postmodernism (also non-objective art) where to be found in Kant's aesthetics.

Was he worth it?

Sure! The understanding sets you free.

It certainly seems like you'd have been much better off reading the aesthetics of Aristotle. Or else the philosophies and biographies of Renaissance and Enlightenment painters...

I don't hold your one-sided opinion about this. Knowing the good and bad, where you want to go, and where you do not want to go, and why is an awesome approach to lots of things. Like I said, it sets you free. There is nothing to fear because one understands the big picture. Limiting yourself to only looking at the good, creates blind spots, that could mean your death or misery. In painting you cannot create light without darkness. ;)

[Brant Gaede]

Kyrel,

There is no such thing as the most evil man in history. This kind of measurement is a metaphor at best. There is a line of monstrosity that a person crosses and it just doesn't matter anymore. Who was more evil, Hitler or Nero or Charles Manson? Only the particulars like scale are different. But the part pertaining to evil? They were all vile. Trying to decide which was morally worse is futile.

Also, I am with David Kelley on this. Ideas alone are never as evil as ideas+intent+action. To claim otherwise is to divorce the mind from the body in morality.

Rand scapegoated Kant just as surely as Hitler scapegoated the Jews. That was not her finest moment.

Michael

Hitler was by far the worst.

It is unseemly to seemingly morally equivocate Rand and Hitler. Nazis scapegoating Jews was simply to set them up for dehumanization then slaughter and to leverage up for a power grab. Rand was trying to make a point about the power of philosophy and help kill what she saw as Kantian influence which led to Hitler--which made the Nazis possible! But just as economists overstate the influence of economics and anthropologists overstate the influence of culture--etc.--philosophers overstate the influence of philosophy. What has been understated is the role of human stupidity and tribalism in the evolution of human conduct and societies. That's because there are no fields of study in human stupidity. Academics with, on the average, 140 IQs are frequently stupid--more often than not stupid--or insist for professional reasons on being stupid. To legitimately study it would first require serious introspection and honesty. Ayn Rand was tremendously more honest than most of such folk which is why she grated on them so much. Liberal academics belong to a huge stupid, liberal tribe and want to be comfortable within that tribe, for the most part.

--Brant