Rand's notions of Kant and Hume

[George H. Smith]

PC: "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond gives arguments for other factors that drive history than just "philosophy only". [#213]

GHS: Our debate was never about the "philosophy only" thesis. Even Peikoff doesn't argue that.

"Philosophy only" is a shorthand for "only fundamental philosophy changes a culture profoundly", which I used in the very preceding post [#212] so I wouldn't have to keep repeating a long phrase. Surely that ought to have been clear from the context.

And even that is shorthand for the idea that Peikoff has expressed that philosophy trumps everything else. If there are bad ideas or mistakes in other intellectual fields they are caused by or short-circuited by philosophy and if there are bad events, such as the conditions in Germany or the geographic conditions worldwide discussed by Jared Diamond, they would have been far worse if not for good philosophy and would have been overcome if the culture was imbued with a positive philosophy.

Again, I wasn't contesting either of these points. My objection to the Rand/Peikoff approach had to do with the claim that a philosopher's ideas in metaphysics and epistemology are ultimately more influential than his ideas in political philosophy. Diamond's book, Guns, Germs, and Disease, has no bearing whatsoever on this issue.

But GHS would have seen that if he'd read my several posts questioning Peikoff's theory (or finding it limited) more carefully.

Don't you know that I take extensive notes on everything you post? After all, I wouldn't want to forget any thought that spews from your mind like saliva from a Bulldog.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I have a number of things I would like to say about your interesting post, but I need to give some thought about how to formulate them succinctly.

I'm thinking that is going to hurt, isn't it? Assuming that you survive the attempt.

I am reminded of Bertrand Russell's remark that most people would rather die than think; in fact, many do.

It's a wonder that you are still alive.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Okay, now you're insulting Engle as well. Is that 'wit'?

You truly don't get the principles about not name-calling, ad hominems, and *civiilty*, do you?

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

I read The Ominous Parallels ages ago.

As time passes, I am questioning more and more the importance of the role philosophy plays in creating and maintaining evil dictatorships. Irrespective of whether Kant or any other philosopher was at root in some of the ideas in the air in Germany at the time, for the life of me, I don't see how those ideas changed and/or dissipated with military victory. By that logic, either the now-peaceful Germany should be trying to do it all again, or the only way to convince certain populations who hold the "wrong premises" in metaphysics and epistemology is to bash them over the head until they get it.

Your point is a subset of the broader question of to what extent, if any, philosophy has influenced the course of political history. A few thoughts....

1) It is necessary to distinguish between philosophers and philosophy. At certain periods in history, such as in 18th century America, philosophers had an enormous influence. The names John Locke and Algernon Sidney immediately come to mind, but, then as now, average Americans didn't read weighty philosophical tomes. But they were avid readers of newspapers, and beginning in the 1720s, the popularized accounts of Locke and Sidney in Cato's Letters (by Trenchard and Gordon)were widely reprinted in American newspapers. Trenchard and Gordon were "intellectuals" in Hayek's sense; i.e., they were intermediaries between specialists in ideas and the general public. (For more on Hayek's view of intellectuals and their influence, see my article at: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1997/le970901-01.html )

In contrast, the modern day influence of philosophers on political developments is virtually nil. Nevertheless, various philosophies, however vague and ill-formed they may be, continue to exert a considerable influence.

2) Another key distinction is that between political theory and political thought. The formal and systematic approach of political theory may influence the shakers and movers in politics, but rarely do they influence the political thought of general public in that form. Generally speaking, the political thought of the general public tends to be diffuse and elastic.

3) In the case of Nazi Germany, I doubt if many Germans, apart from the ideologues, cared all that much about the details of, or justification for, Hitler's ideas, as expressed in Mein Kampf. In a time of economic turmoil caused by hyper-inflation (a result of the war guilt myth from WWI, which burdened Germany with impossible reparations), they were looking for a savior, and they found one in Hitler. They also found convenient scapegoats for their problems in the Jews, and a sense of collective power in the mass demonstrations that the Nazis perfected to a fine art.

I may have a few more things to say about this later.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Civility (and Reasoned Discourse)

> Okay, now you're insulting Engle as well. [PC]

Yes, sometimes as in the above case, one can complain that "Johnny started it!' and yes, sometimes one is provoked beyond control or proportional response.

But the trick is not to constantly or repeatedly be incivil or insulting as a matter of course each time a debate gets pointed or infuriates to you.

,,,,,,

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you . . .

...Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating

...If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools

...If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you

[Rudyard Kipling, "If"]

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

Okay, now you're insulting Engle as well. Is that 'wit'?

You truly don't get the principles about not name-calling, ad hominems, and *civiilty*, do you?

Rich is fully capable of taking care of himself. He isn't a whiner, unlike someone on this list who shall remain nameless.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Subject: Civility and Calm, Reasoned Discourse

I fall short on the "civility and calm" part, whereas you fall short on the "reasoned" part. I prefer my shortcoming to yours.

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you . . .

...Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating

...If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools

...If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you

[Rudyard Kipling, "If"]

Kipling never had to deal with you.

See the happy moron,

He doesn't give a damn.

I wish I were a moron

My God, perhaps I am!

-(Sometimes attributed to Ogden Nash)

As much as I enjoy insulting you, Phil, I would prefer to get this discussion back on track. So how about answering this key question: Do you agree with Peikoff's interpretation of Kant's influence? If not, why not?

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> My objection to the Rand/Peikoff approach had to do with the claim that a philosopher's ideas in metaphysics and epistemology are ultimately more influential than his ideas in political philosophy. Diamond's book, Guns, Germs, and Disease, has no bearing whatsoever on this issue. [GHS]

That's true. But my points on Diamond weren't in direct response to you on that issue.

I was expressing my disagreement with some aspects of the Rand/Peikoff on causality in the realm of important ideas. But on the above matter, "the claim that a philosopher's ideas in metaphysics and epistemology are ultimately more influential than his ideas in political philosophy."

You haven't completely spelled out your reasons for disagreement, and I haven't spelled out my ideas for agreement with what I'll abreviate as PME - the primacy of metaphysics and epistemology.

,,,,,,

(I'm disinclined to put mine in the context of a debate with you or relegated to this thread and maybe even this site -- as we've seen how that has degenerated venomously. I may lay them out when I have time in another venue. But it will take time, because it's a complicated subject. And I would like to see this topic discussed in good faith and with benevolence. It has to do with the fact that more fundamental ideas - taken seriously, integrated - have more power because they affect, underlie, and condition more things. I've actually already published a piece related to this.)

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

> My objection to the Rand/Peikoff approach had to do with the claim that a philosopher's ideas in metaphysics and epistemology are ultimately more influential than his ideas in political philosophy. Diamond's book, Guns, Germs, and Disease, has no bearing whatsoever on this issue. [GHS]

That's true. But my points on Diamond weren't in direct response to you on that issue.

I was expressing my disagreement with some aspects of the Rand/Peikoff on causality in the realm of important ideas.

This is but one example of why it is so damned frustrating to discuss anything with you. My original remark, which even you quoted in your post, was: "Our debate was never about the "philosophy only" thesis."

To which you replied:

"Philosophy only" is a shorthand for "only fundamental philosophy changes a culture profoundly", which I used in the very preceding post [#212] so I wouldn't have to keep repeating a long phrase. Surely that ought to have been clear from the context.

Yet now you say: "That's true. But my points on Diamond weren't in direct response to you on that issue."

Christ, almighty! Every time you blink, it's a new day.

You haven't completely spelled out your reasons for disagreement, and I haven't spelled out my ideas for agreement with what I'll abbreviate as PME - the primacy of metaphysics and epistemology.

This is just flat dishonesty on your part, and you know it. I've posted a lot on this subject, giving both reasons and historical examples, and all you say in response is that I have not "completely spelled out" my reasons.

Moreover, as I have noted before, I am not obligated to disprove a theory for which no evidence has been given. You haven't provided a scintilla of evidence; all you do is bitch and moan and play the victim when I call you on your evasive maneuvers.

(I'm disinclined to put mine in the context of a debate with you or relegated to this thread and maybe even this site -- as we've seen how that has degenerated venomously. I may lay them out when I have time in another venue.

Yeah, Phil, right. When it comes time to actually defend your position, you beat a cowardly retreat. Maybe you can post your defense where no one can find it; that way, no one can criticize it.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

As time passes, I am questioning more and more the importance of the role philosophy plays in creating and maintaining evil dictatorships. Irrespective of whether Kant or any other philosopher was at root in some of the ideas in the air in Germany at the time, for the life of me, I don't see how those ideas changed and/or dissipated with military victory. By that logic, either the now-peaceful Germany should be trying to do it all again, or the only way to convince certain populations who hold the "wrong premises" in metaphysics and epistemology is to bash them over the head until they get it.

Michael,

It would be interesting to conduct a survey of the relevant literature, to determine how much Immanuel Kant's reputation and philosophical standing have changed in Germany between 1933 and 2010.

Did the defeat of the Nazis lead to a turn away from Kantianism?

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

PC: You haven't completely spelled out your reasons for disagreement

GHS: I've posted a lot on this subject, giving both reasons and historical examples

I haven't reread every single one of your posts, so it's unfair to accuse me (again) of dishonesty rather than error. My recollection is that you've talked considerably more about Kant in post after post than compared the influence of political ideas to that of metaphysics and epistemology.

If you have made a compelling case on the wider issue, well fleshed out and reasonably well-supported, just point me to that post or posts and I will reread them.

GHS: I am not obligated to disprove a theory for which no evidence has been given

You need to build a positive case for your view. Even if Rand and Peikofff provided not arguments or historical cases (which I would dispute) you are claiming that metaphysics and epistemology don't 'trump' political considerations. Even though it's stated in the negative, that is still a positive claim on your part that would require discussing the relative influence of M, E and P in the ancient world, in the third world, in the history of the West, the history of Asia. Or at least one or two of those or the equivalent. You need to *give historical cases and explore them*, since your thesis is a historical one, not just quote scholars who abstractly agree with you and who themselves aren't giving much detail.

Again, if you've done this sort of discussion of history in different times and places, please point to it. Or if you think it's not necessary, I would be interested why not. You are free to say it's a very large task which you hope to tackle later and I would accept that without Georgistic moralizing or psychologizing that you are beating a "cowardly" retreat.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Robert C: It would be interesting to conduct a survey of the relevant literature, to determine how much Immanuel Kant's reputation and philosophical standing have changed in Germany between 1933 and 2010. Did the defeat of the Nazis lead to a turn away from Kantianism?

Excellent and highly relevant question. I would love to see someone who had the time to hunt down a great deal of literature do this.

Also tracing both the direct and the indirect influences of the post Kant thinkers who led toward Nazi ideas. Fichte? Schelling? Nietzsche? Any other major advocates of irrationalism, emotionalism, collectivism, altruism, authoritarianism?

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

PC: You haven't completely spelled out your reasons for disagreement

GHS: I've posted a lot on this subject, giving both reasons and historical examples

I haven't reread every single one of your posts, so it's unfair to accuse me (again) of dishonesty rather than error. My recollection is that you've talked considerably more about Kant in post after post than compared the influence of political ideas to that of metaphysics and epistemology.

If you have made a compelling case on the wider issue, well fleshed out and reasonably well-supported, just point me to that post or posts and I will reread them.

GHS: I am not obligated to disprove a theory for which no evidence has been given

You need to build a positive case for your view. Even if Rand and Peikofff provided not arguments or historical cases (which I would dispute) you are claiming that metaphysics and epistemology don't 'trump' political considerations. Even though it's stated in the negative, that is still a positive claim on your part that would require discussing the relative influence of M, E and P in the ancient world, in the third world, in the history of the West, the history of Asia. Or at least one or two of those or the equivalent. You need to *give historical cases and explore them*, since your thesis is a historical one, not just quote scholars who abstractly agree with you and who themselves aren't giving much detail.

This is more of your bullshit. Take the case of Kant, for example, who defended the moral autonomy of the individual and a libertarian theory of equal rights. When Peikoff comes along and declares that such ideas are inconsequential, both in terms of Kant's overall philosophy and his influence, then he has the burden to prove why this is so. He never does this, and neither have you. And you never will.

I didn't spend four decades immersed in a study of the history of ideas so I could waste my time arguing with an ignorant fool. So write whatever you like, but I'm not going to read your posts -- at least not on this thread -- any longer. I'd rather read the phone book. It's more interesting and better written, for one thing, and it actually contains some information, for another.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

For an excellent review of The Ominous Parallels by the libertarian historian David Gordon, see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon13.html

Dr. Gordon -- whose review was originally published in 1982 under the title "The Butcher of Königsberg?" -- eviscerates Peikoff's book on virtually every level, factual and theoretical.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

If you start out with the premise Rand-Peikoff is the absolutely right stuff then you validate your arguments by referencing it. This is why it is necessary to immerse yourself in ~Objectivism~ for at least ten years getting it all right, then you can dish it out to (and save) the world. So if you want to find Kant you go to Rand-Peikoff. It won't be the historical Kant but the Kant that Rand (if not Peikoff too) created decades ago. That's the one that counts. ~Objectivism~ is the mighty fortress out of the gates of which will pour an army of acolytes (educated by Phil and his ilk) that will take over American culture displacing the dominant Judeo-Christian altruistic (evil) irrational one under the banner of Rand-Peikoff.

--Brant

The Slaughter of the Acolytes: rated I for Idiotic, coming to a theater near you not soon

Edited May 16, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Evidence, Making a Case

GHS: Kant, for example, who defended the moral autonomy of the individual and a libertarian theory of equal rights. When Peikoff comes along and declares that such ideas are inconsequential, both in terms of Kant's overall philosophy and his influence, then he has the burden to prove why this is so.

Are you simply not reading what I say?

I said this: "You need to build a positive case for your view." Then just a little later in the same paragraph I said: "you are claiming that metaphysics and epistemology don't 'trump' political considerations." It's as obvious as a simple English paragraph that I was not talking about the burden of proof (or at least providing evidence or argument) re a *theory of Kant*, but the burden of proof on a *theory of historical causation*.

Jesus H. Christ!

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Neil Parille]

This article by David Steele is also good:

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2002_08/steele-kant.html

-Neil

[Philip Coates]

I also said (in the same post you dismiss as "bullshit"):

"1. You are claiming that metaphysics and epistemology don't 'trump' political considerations... [that] would require discussing the relative influence of M, E and P in the ancient world, in the third world, in the history of the West, the history of Asia. Or at least one or two of those or the equivalent.

You need to *give historical cases and explore them*, since your thesis is a historical one, not just quote scholars who abstractly agree with you and who themselves aren't giving much detail.

2. Again, if you've done this sort of discussion of history in different times and places, please point to it."

[Numbers and emphasis added.]

From your last post, are you unwilling - or unable at this time - to do either 1 or 2?

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

You write:

It would be interesting to conduct a survey of the relevant literature, to determine how much Immanuel Kant's reputation and philosophical standing have changed in Germany between 1933 and 2010.

Did the defeat of the Nazis lead to a turn away from Kantianism?

1. Were most philosophy professors Kantians in 1933?

2. Isn't it likely that the current philosophical scene in Germany is worse than in 1933 if viewed in terms of Kantians vs. post-modernists? Yet things aren't as bad as in '33. The strikes me as a problem for Peikoff's theory.

Although this doesn't disprove Peikoff's theory, is it just a coincidence that he is a philosopher and also thinks philosophers are the most influential group of people. Wasn't it a poet who said that poets were the "unknown regulators of mankind" or something like that? Von Mises thought that the embrace of socialism was largely for economic reasons. Etc.

-Neil

Edited May 16, 2010 by Neil Parille

[George H. Smith]

There are some important issues here, so I'm going to renege on my previous resolution. Fortunately, it only takes a minute for me to calm down from dealing with Phil's blusterings, which is roughly the same amount of time that it takes me to calm down after my dog pees on the floor.

Subject: Evidence, Making a Case

GHS: Kant, for example, who defended the moral autonomy of the individual and a libertarian theory of equal rights. When Peikoff comes along and declares that such ideas are inconsequential, both in terms of Kant's overall philosophy and his influence, then he has the burden to prove why this is so.

Are you simply not reading what I say?

I said this: "You need to build a positive case for your view." Then just a little later in the same paragraph I said: "you are claiming that metaphysics and epistemology don't 'trump' political considerations." It's as obvious as a simple English paragraph that I was not talking about the burden of proof (or at least providing evidence or argument) re a *theory of Kant*, but the burden of proof on a *theory of historical causation*.

Jesus H. Christ!

First, I never said that "metaphysics and epistemology don't 'trump' political considerations" on all occasions. That is your fabrication. I have argued that we need to examine the facts of history first and then decide which has exerted the most influence in a given context. It is Peikoff who defends a general theory of history, so has the obligation to prove that theory. To say, as I do, that we should study history is not a "theory"; it is simply doing history.

Second, I offered Kant as an example of Peikoff's approach. You do know what an example is, don't you? If you were capable of abstraction, you would be able to see how the example of Kant can be generalized to apply to other figures in history.

Ghs

[ginny]

Robert,

You write:

It would be interesting to conduct a survey of the relevant literature, to determine how much Immanuel Kant's reputation and philosophical standing have changed in Germany between 1933 and 2010.

Did the defeat of the Nazis lead to a turn away from Kantianism?

1. Were most philosophy professors Kantians in 1933?

2. Isn't it likely that the current philosophical scene in Germany is worse than in 1933 if viewed in terms of Kantians vs. post-modernists? Yet things aren't as bad as in '33. The strikes me as a problem for Peikoff's theory.

Although this doesn't disprove Peikoff's theory, is it just a coincidence that he is a philosopher and also thinks philosophers are the most influential group of people. Wasn't it a poet who said that poets were the "unknown regulators of mankind" or something like that? Von Mises thought that the embrace of socialism was largely for economic reasons. Etc.

-Neil

Neil you are spot-on. As some on this forum may remember, my mother grew up in the Weimar era. When (only once) I asked her about Hitler, all she talked about was the jobs he provided and the much-needed food he delivered. Philosophy had nothing to do with it. It wasn't even studied in schools, where physical prowess was the main thing. Reading was actually actively discouraged. Filing the stomach took the place of learning.

[George H. Smith]

1. Were most philosophy professors Kantians in 1933?

Permit me to reply to this question, tongue-in-cheek, with the classic Randian twist.

The very fact that you asked this question reveals your profound failure to understand the brilliant insights revealed by Professor Peikoff in The Ominous Parallels. It doesn't matter in the least whether or not German philosophy professors in 1933 regarded themselves as Kantians. Most -- following a direct line from Plato to Kant to Hegel -- were Kantians in essentials, whether they knew it or not, so any historical inquiry into the specifics of this matter are irrelevant.

Q.E.D.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Subject: word twisting

GHS: I never said that "metaphysics and epistemology don't 'trump' political considerations" on all occasions. That is your fabrication.

Your exact words were: "My objection to the Rand/Peikoff approach had to do with the claim that a philosopher's ideas in metaphysics and epistemology are ultimately more influential than his ideas in political philosophy. [#226]

My point was the need for historical examples and explanation. I didn't say you held it on **on all occasions**. That would be silly. Where did I add those three words?

It would be like taking a quote that "Man needs productive work" and dropping the idea of implied context man doesn't need productive work **on all occasions**. What if he's a baby, a student, on life support, terminally ill, lobotomized? -- Maybe the reason you have trouble with what I write is that you rephrase what I say?

[Philip Coates]

Once again, you can't just keeping repeating about Kant only:

You are claiming that metaphysics and epistemology don't 'trump' political considerations... [that] would require discussing the relative influence of M, E and P in the ancient world, in the third world, in the history of the West, the history of Asia. Or at least one or two of those or the equivalent...

You need to *give historical cases and explore them*

[George H. Smith]

Subject: word twisting

GHS: I never said that "metaphysics and epistemology don't 'trump' political considerations" on all occasions. That is your fabrication.

Your exact words were: "My objection to the Rand/Peikoff approach had to do with the claim that a philosopher's ideas in metaphysics and epistemology are ultimately more influential than his ideas in political philosophy. [#226]

My point was the need for historical examples and explanation.

No, you claimed that I have a burden of proof, which is much different than examples and explanation. I never denied that ideas in metaphysics and epistemology may sometimes be more influential than political ideas; I merely denied this when formulated, in effect, as a universal law of history.

As for examples and explanations, I have already provided a number of these, such as Aristotle's influence on slavery and Kant's influence on German liberalism. You ignored all such examples.

My position, once again, is that these issues need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, as we study the particular facts of specific thinkers and historical events.

I have now made my position crystal clear, so we needn't waste any more time on this.

Previously, in the hope of getting this discussion back on track, I asked you a simple question that you decided, for whatever reason, to ignore. So I will ask it again:

Do you agree with Peikoff's assessment of Kant's influence?

This is an honest question, so how about giving an honest answer. You don't even need to provide an explanation unless you want to. I merely want to know what your position is on this matter. A simple yes or no would suffice.

I have been a model of civility in this post, in the hope that this might change your manner of responding to me. We shall see....

Ghs