Rand's notions of Kant and Hume

[Philip Coates]

> Plato's influence on the Renaissance is "totally non-controversial" for anyone who has read even a modicum of history of the period. You can find it in virtually any elementary history textbook. [GHS]

Do you know that the Objectivist view of the history of ideas -does- disagree with some of the standard views and that much of the history of ideas -- what led to what or more germane here, whether there are deeper influences in a very complex and crowded time -is- controversial?

Do you always engage in this insulting "anyone who knows anything" "only an idiot" "I intend to be even more contemptuous and insulting" "only an evader..."you're making this up as you go along"...argument from intimidation style of arguing?

Seems like you learned Rand's worst and most abusive habits of arguing. I bet it's real persuasive.

Were you absent when they taught basic civility in having a discussion? Do you do this with everyone who gets you angry on the internet, or should I consider myself especially privileged?

Edited May 13, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

> Plato's influence on the Renaissance is "totally non-controversial" for anyone who has read even a modicum of history of the period. You can find it in virtually any elementary history textbook. [GHS]

Do you know that the Objectivist view of the history of ideas -does- disagree with some of the standard views and that much of the history of ideas -- what led to what or more germane here, whether there are deeper influences in a very complex and crowded time -is- controversial?

Okay, cite a source or provide some representative quotations.

You keep referring to the "Objectivist view of the history of ideas," as if Rand or Peikoff or some unnamed Objectivist actually developed a philosophy of history, whereas all we really have are some dogmatic pronouncements and some ad hoc examples.

Do you always engage in this insulting "anyone who knows anything" "only an idiot" "I intend to be even more contemptuous and insulting" "only an evader..."you're making this up as you go along"...argument from intimidation style of arguing?

You will note that my expressions of contempt have been recent. I have spent a lot of time responding to your posts. When you demanded examples, I gave them. When you wanted arguments, I provided them. But none of this made the least bit of difference. When you didn't simply ignore points that you obviously couldn't answer, you resorted to the same hackneyed rationalizations. And I have gotten sick of it.

It wouldn't matter if I presented a hundred examples to support a point, or wrote ten pages of argument. The major tenets of your a priori theory of history are nonfalsifiable in principle. (In this respect the Randian approach bears an eerie resemblance to the Marxian approach to history that was so effectively criticized by Karl Popper.) There is no historical fact that cannot be explained away or rationalized by your dogmatic assumptions, so history merely becomes a way to illustrate your assumptions rather than a way to test them.

Any reasonable person with a knowledge of history would admit that there are some areas in which Aristotle's influence was deleterious. The fact that you will not even concede one instance, the fact that you insist on rationalizing every example so it will fit your preconception that Aristotle was a "good guy," is a sure indication that I am not dealing with a serious thinker.

Seems like you learned Rand's worst and most abusive habits of arguing. I bet it's real persuasive.

If you don't like my abuse, then stop abusing me by wasting my time. You can do this by responding to my points in a serious way, instead of by merely reciting the standard Randian catechism over and over again. I've heard that catechism countless times before, and I don't need to hear it again. Do some original thinking for a change.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> You can do this by responding to my points in a serious way [GHS]

Actually, I think it is -you- who has not been responding to my points in a serious way. I've made a number of posts and arguments that you've simply ignored.

But I haven't responded by calling you names or questioning your honesty.

So, let's drop it. We clearly don't have much to say to each other.

-----

At some point, on this site or elsewhere, I will make a post or do an essay offering more detail on what moves the course of history and what are the most fundamental causes and how the philosophical and non-philosophical interact and how the 'conventional wisdom' of many historians is often superficial and wrong --- but it won't be in an (abusive) dialogue with you.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

> You can do this by responding to my points in a serious way [GHS]

Actually, I think it is -you- who has not been responding to my points in a serious way. I've made a number of posts and arguments that you've simply ignored.

Repost those "arguments," or refer me to them, and I will respond to them. But make sure that they really are arguments and not merely bare assertions.

But I haven't responded by calling you names or questioning your honesty.

Stop your bellyaching. There are many ways of insulting people without doing so explicitly, and you are proficient in a number of them.

So, let's drop it. We clearly don't have much to say to each other.

You are free not to respond to my posts, in which case I will have nothing to reply to. And I am free to respond to any of your posts, as I see fit.

At some point, on this site or elsewhere, I will make a post or do an essay offering more detail on what moves the course of history and what are the most fundamental causes and how the philosophical and non-philosophical interact and how the 'conventional wisdom' of many historians is often superficial and wrong --- but it won't be in an (abusive) dialogue with you.

Bully for you. Do you actually plan on reading some history before instructing others on how they should read history? Just curious.

It may not be addressed to Oists and Lbtns because, frankly I find most of you, and us a pain in the ass.

The feeling is mutual, I'm sure.

Ghs

[Ellen Stuttle]

I've never bought the idea that Kant himself was "evil" -- and I still wish that someone (hint, hint, George) who has the CD-ROM would search Rand's items in The Objectivist Newsletter to see if my recollection is right that there's a comment about Kant by her in which she says that "in terms of his influence," or very similar wording, she'd evaluate Kant as the most evil man in philosophy's history.

There are only five references to Kant in "The Objectivist Newsletter," and none of them corresponds to your recollection.

She does of course mention Kant's influence -- e.g.: "Our age is witnessing the ultimate climax, the cashing-in on a long process of destruction, at the end of the road laid out by Kant."

Ghs

Belated thanks for looking.

Doubly puzzling to me is that I have a vague memory of having referenced in an old post on Old Atlantis both the quote I think is somewhere and the one from "Brief Summary" to contrast the wording of the two. But maybe I'm remembering chimera.

Ah, well, I haven't time to do any searching myself now, since L and I are about to leave town for a conference and then some vacation.

Interesting material you're posting. I wish I did have time for further pursuit.

Re the Kepler story in The Sleepwalkers, which you reference. Kepler fascinates me, with his strong mystic proclivities eventually resulting in a major scientific development. Fortunate that among the complexities of his make-up, he was unable to rest with getting an answer that disagreed with the observations and kept at it and at it until finally impelled to abandon his effort to resolve the discrepancy between theory and measurement by employing epicycles.

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

Re the Kepler story in The Sleepwalkers, which you reference. Kepler fascinates me, with his strong mystic proclivities eventually resulting in a major scientific development. Fortunate that among the complexities of his make-up, he was unable to rest with getting an answer that disagreed with the observations and kept at it and at it until finally impelled to abandon his effort to resolve the discrepancy between theory and measurement by employing epicycles.

Ellen

Kepler was certainly one of the more interesting and complex figures in the history of science. He had the type of mind that an orthodox O'ist would find nearly impossible to explain.

Ghs

[Ellen Stuttle]

In matters such as this, the Randian approach to history is truly a theater of the absurd.

[....]

Phil: this is a good use of the quote function. I didn't include his whole post, just enough for a start, but the date/time is displayed so you can easily go back and see the full post I'm replying to. You can do it too, I'm sure of it.

Not only is the date/time displayed, there is the feature of the little arrow to the left of the date/time line -- a little arrow which provides a direct link to the post being quoted. Thus a person can click on the little arrow and easily find the context from which the quoted material comes.

The way you do it, Phil, on the other hand, requires searching for the quoted post.

If you're going to insist on using your way, could you at least manage to give the number of the post from which you're quoting?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Kepler was certainly one of the more interesting and complex figures in the history of science. He had the type of mind that an orthodox O'ist would find nearly impossible to explain.

Ghs

Yeah.

Similar issue to Plato's influence on the Renaissance -- all sorts of wildly mystical stuff involved in Renaissance imaginings and theorizings. The Theater of Memory, e.g., the heavy interest in astrology and numerology and mythology... (Astrology, btw, wasn't then actually a causal theory -- an idea that astrological influences make things happen on earth. This way of interpreting astrology arose after the start of modern science. It was instead a theory of macrocosm and microcosm -- "as above, so below," both "above" and "below" being considered part of a unified whole which was all of a pattern.)

Just doesn't fit the O'ist categorizations.

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

Kepler was certainly one of the more interesting and complex figures in the history of science. He had the type of mind that an orthodox O'ist would find nearly impossible to explain.

Ghs

Yeah.

Similar issue to Plato's influence on the Renaissance -- all sorts of wildly mystical stuff involved in Renaissance imaginings and theorizings. The Theater of Memory, e.g., the heavy interest in astrology and numerology and mythology... (Astrology, btw, wasn't then actually a causal theory -- an idea that astrological influences make things happen on earth. This way of interpreting astrology arose after the start of modern science. It was instead a theory of macrocosm and microcosm -- "as above, so below," both "above" and "below" being considered part of a unified whole which was all of a pattern.)

Just doesn't fit the O'ist categorizations.

Ellen

The explosion of mystical and other heretical ideas during the Renaissance may be partially attributable to something that the historian Gordon Leff discusses in his great book, Heresy in the Later Middle Ages (Manchester University Press, 1967).

As Leff points out, in 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council decreed that there should be no more new religious orders. Before that time, the Catholic Church had been able to control many potential heresies (such as the Franciscan emphasis on apostolic poverty) by channeling their adherents into monasteries. But when this safety valve was turned off, there was no place for the purveyors of heretical ideas to go except to the general public. As Leff (p. 14) puts it:

"[W]hat distinguished the period from c. 1215 to 1450 was the fact that these impulses no longer found an outlet in the foundation of new religious orders under the aegis of the church. Instead these centuries witnessed a series of extra-regular movements outside it. In this sense the difference between the earlier and later was less one of spirituality than of ecumenicality: between the church's ability to canalize the main religious currents and alienation from them."

Just a thought....

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

You cannot find history through Objectivism any more than you can find physics. If Objectivism is to have any philosophical grace it must stay out of the way while sanctioning great endeavors.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I finally located my copy of The Sleepwalkers -- it had cleverly hidden itself behind some other books, probably because it didn't want to be defaced any more by my extensive marginalia -- and I can't say that Koestler supports my earlier claim that Kepler got his idea of the Five Solids from Plato. On the contrary, in a passage quoted by Koestler, Kepler credits the Holy Ghost for his inspiration, which is certainly a higher authority than Plato.

I was correct about one thing, however. Kepler's interest in the five solids was far more than a passing fancy or a temporary theoretical model. Regarding Kepler's obsession with the five solids, Koestler (p. 254) writes:

We have the privilege of witnessing one of the rare recorded instances of a false inspiration, a supreme hoax of the Socratic daimon , the inner voice that speaks with such infallible, intuitive certainty to the deluded mind. That unforgettable moment before the figure on the blackboard carried the same inner conviction as Archimedes' Eureka or Newton's flash of insight about the falling apple. But there are few instances where a delusion led to momentous and true scientific discoveries and yielded new Laws of Nature. This is the ultimate fascination of Kepler -- both as an individual and as a case history. For Kepler's belief in the five perfect bodies was not a passing fancy, but remained with him, in a modified version, to the end of his life, showing all the symptoms of a paranoid delusion; and yet it functioned as the vigor motrix, the spur of his immortal achievements. He wrote the Mysterium Cosmographicum when he was twenty-five, but he published a second edition of it a quarter-century later, towards the end, when he had done his life work, discovered his three Laws, destroyed the Ptolematic universe, and laid the foundations of modern cosmology. The dedication to this second edition, written at the age of fifty, betrays the persistence of the idee fixe...[a lengthy quotation from Kepler follows].

Ghs

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

[...] Kepler's interest in the five solids was far more than a passing fancy or a temporary theoretical model. Regarding Kepler's obsession with the five solids, Koestler (p. 254) writes:

[...] there are few instances where a delusion led to momentous and true scientific discoveries and yielded new Laws of Nature. This is the ultimate fascination of Kepler -- both as an individual and as a case history. For Kepler's belief in the five perfect bodies was not a passing fancy, but remained with him, in a modified version, to the end of his life, showing all the symptoms of a paranoid delusion; and yet it functioned as the vigor motrix, the spur of his immortal achievements. He wrote the Mysterium Cosmographicum when he was twenty-five, but he published a second edition of it a quarter-century later, towards the end, when he had done his life work, discovered his three Laws, destroyed the Ptolematic universe, and laid the foundations of modern cosmology. The dedication to this second edition, written at the age of fifty, betrays the persistence of the idee fixe...[a lengthy quotation from Kepler follows].

Ghs

Yes.

A memory which I'm quite, quite sure is accurate is that of typing out the whole passage from which you've quoted, plus material which proceeds and which follows, and talking about that exact section of The Sleepwalkers for posts on NB's old weblist in 2004 or 2005. There was a discussion re "self-esteem" and whether "self-esteem" could result from a deluded notion.

Well...sure did, I was suggesting, in Kepler's case. He remained with the feeling of having been immensely blessed by that vision at the blackboard, although his inspiration turned out to be quite wrong in the details of the mathematics.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

The explosion of mystical and other heretical ideas during the Renaissance may be partially attributable to something that the historian Gordon Leff discusses in his great book, Heresy in the Later Middle Ages (Manchester University Press, 1967).

As Leff points out, in 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council decreed that there should be no more new religious orders. Before that time, the Catholic Church had been able to control many potential heresies (such as the Franciscan emphasis on apostolic poverty) by channeling their adherents into monasteries. But when this safety valve was turned off, there was no place for the purveyors of heretical ideas to go except to the general public. As Leff (p. 14) puts it:

"[W]hat distinguished the period from c. 1215 to 1450 was the fact that these impulses no longer found an outlet in the foundation of new religious orders under the aegis of the church. Instead these centuries witnessed a series of extra-regular movements outside it. In this sense the difference between the earlier and later was less one of spirituality than of ecumenicality: between the church's ability to canalize the main religious currents and alienation from them."

Just a thought....

Ghs

Maybe something similar is happening re Academy and State today -- with more and more people becoming more and more disenchanted by what they're taught in the universities. I think/hope the AGW thing is going to be an important factor in the disenchantment.

"Just a thought...."

On the near-eve of heading to the Heartland Conference -- an extra-academic meeting of people from many places round the planet, some of whom have large philosophic disagreements on this and that with each other but all of whom are incensed by the selling science down the tubes over the AGW hysteria.

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

A memory which I'm quite, quite sure is accurate is that of typing out the whole passage from which you've quoted, plus material which proceeds and which follows, and talking about that exact section of The Sleepwalkers for posts on NB's old weblist in 2004 or 2005. There was a discussion re "self-esteem" and whether "self-esteem" could result from a deluded notion.

Well...sure did, I was suggesting, in Kepler's case. He remained with the feeling of having been immensely blessed by that vision at the blackboard, although his inspiration turned out to be quite wrong in the details of the mathematics.

Ellen

Kepler was not one to hide his light under a bushel. In the passage that I didn't quote (the one that follows the lengthy quote in my last post), Kepler left no doubt about what he thought of his early work with the five solids:

Nearly twenty-five years has passed since I published the present little book....Although I was then still quite young and this publication my first work on astronomy, nevertheless its success in the following years proclaims with a loud voice that never before has anybody published a more significant, happier, and in view of its subject, worthier first book. It would be a mistake to regard it as a pure invention of my mind....For as if a heavenly oracle had dictated it to me, the published book was in all its parts immediately recognized as excellent and true throughout (as it is the rule with obvious acts of God).

It doesn't sound to me like Kepler had a self-esteem problem.

I sometime wonder if Ayn Rand might have been happier if she had lived in this earlier era, when thinkers could display their considerable egos without being subjected to public ridicule. Of course, like Bruno and Servetus, she might have been burned at the stake for heresy, but such was the downside of being a genius in those days.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Re the Kepler story in The Sleepwalkers, which you reference. Kepler fascinates me, with his strong mystic proclivities eventually resulting in a major scientific development. Fortunate that among the complexities of his make-up, he was unable to rest with getting an answer that disagreed with the observations and kept at it and at it until finally impelled to abandon his effort to resolve the discrepancy between theory and measurement by employing epicycles.

Ellen

Kepler was certainly one of the more interesting and complex figures in the history of science. He had the type of mind that an orthodox O'ist would find nearly impossible to explain.

Ghs

So did Einstein and Feynman. Einstein was a bit of a mystic who got it right fairly often and Feynman had no use for philosophy whatsoever. He was a practical genius. Faraday, who with the collaboration of Maxwell produced the first working theory of electromagnetic fields was a religious man whose notion of the field was a reflection of his religious views. Galileo was an obedient Catholic. Newton was a total mystic and a God-Phreak. Read the Scholium in Book III of -Principia Mathematica-.

The greatest physicists ever would have been condemned as mystics or pragmatists in the context of Objectivism. Which is maybe why there is not a single world class physicist who is also an Objectivist (in the Randian sense). I will go even further. There is not a single Aristotelian among the front line physicists who did the work in the post Galilean era. Virtually all followed roughly the Plato-Pythagoras program.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited May 13, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Philip Coates]

> If you're going to insist on using your way, could you at least manage to give the number of the post from which you're quoting? [Ellen]

I view this as an informal forum not an academic one with the need for precise footnoting or the like. Plus, the need for going back is slight if I've correctly snipped the point to which I'm responding.

[jriggenbach]

Reading Phil's explanation (above) of how the quote function on this website is contrary to the practice of professional writers, I was amused. You see, in my abject ignorance, I had always thought that a hallmark of the professional writer - indeed, one of the characteristics in virtue of which s/he might be justified in calling herself a professional writer - was his ability to adapt smoothly to different formats and different sets of expectations on the part of different publishers. Thus, when I was writing for radio in the 1970s and 1980s, I adopted the proofreading and copyediting marks peculiar to that industry. When I began writing for newspapers and magazines, I adopted the proofreading and copyediting marks regarded as standard in those industries. When I write here (except, out of deference to Phil, in this post), I use the quote function.

Of course, I know nothing about professional writing. I've published something over five hundred articles in major market daily newspapers and in magazines over the years, sure. I've published two books and have a third finished and now seeking a publisher. And I've written extensively for radio - both for individual major market stations and for such networks as CNN, NPR, and APM. But just as Phil knows more about the history of philosophy than George, so I'm confident that he knows more than I about what it is to be a professional writer.

JR

[Jonathan]

I've published something over five hundred articles in major market daily newspapers and in magazines over the years, sure. I've published two books and have a third finished and now seeking a publisher. And I've written extensively for radio - both for individual major market stations and for such networks as CNN, NPR, and APM.

But have you read dictionary and encyclopedia entries on writing? Phil has!

J

[George H. Smith]

> If you're going to insist on using your way, could you at least manage to give the number of the post from which you're quoting? [Ellen]

I view this as an informal forum not an academic one with the need for precise footnoting or the like. Plus, the need for going back is slight if I've correctly snipped the point to which I'm responding.

Given how much easier the quote function is to use than your antiquated method, and given how virtually everyone on OL prefers it, it amazes me that you can proclaim your method better. It's not better so far as readers are concerned, or they wouldn't be bitching about it so much, so I must ask, in a Randian spirit: Better for whom?

Moreover, it can be a pain in the ass to reply to your posts, because the arrow you use doesn't always make it clear when you are quoting someone else and when you are writing in your own words. I have found it necessary to add initials (Ghs, PC) when quoting your posts so as to avoid this confusion, and that shouldn't be necessary.

As for "correctly snipping" the point you are responding to, you frequently use only a small portion from the original post. Readers shouldn't have to trust your judgment; they should be able to check the original for themselves to see if you have omitted anything important. You have done precisely this on numerous occasions, so perhaps there is a method to your madness.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Einstein was a bit of a mystic who got it right fairly often and Feynman had no use for philosophy whatsoever. He was a practical genius. Faraday, who with the collaboration of Maxwell produced the first working theory of electromagnetic fields was a religious man whose notion of the field was a reflection of his religious views. Galileo was an obedient Catholic. Newton was a total mystic and a God-Phreak. Read the Scholium in Book III of -Principia Mathematica-.

The greatest physicists ever would have been condemned as mystics or pragmatists in the context of Objectivism. Which is maybe why there is not a single world class physicist who is also an Objectivist (in the Randian sense). I will go even further. There is not a single Aristotelian among the front line physicists who did the work in the post Galilean era. Virtually all followed roughly the Plato-Pythagoras program.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Your points are well taken, and they suggest a conclusion that is extremely important to the current debate about what is "fundamental" in the history of ideas.

A strong case can be made that political conditions in Europe had far more of an influence on the development of modern science than any metaphysical or epistemological premises, which often varied from one scientist to the next. Those political conditions consisted of greater freedom of inquiry, more competition in the marketplace of ideas, and the rise of independent intellectuals who, in many cases, were not beholden to either Church or State.

I would argue that these political conditions were more fundamental to the progress of science in the modern era than were any metaphysical or epistemological premises. Contemporary observers -- e.g., Spinoza, Locke, and other defenders of freedom of inquiry -- often agreed with my claim. They argued that truth will tend to emerge in a free marketplace of ideas.

As for what caused this greater freedom, it certainly didn't come from the ideas of either Plato or Aristotle. Much of it was an unintended consequence of the Protestant Reformation, which broke the intellectual stranglehold of the Catholic Church. (I say "unintended" because many of the early Protestants were more bigoted in matters of science than their Catholic counterparts.)

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Readers shouldn't have to trust your judgment; they should be able to check the original for themselves to see if you have omitted anything important.

George,

It's interesting that several ARI editors publish works with archival material and make a presumption (one they are very stubborn about) that you will gladly trust them--since they have given you no reason not to trust them--and that you do not need to check the originals.

They insist on this and insist that they are not being boneheaded. They get really belligerent when cornered about it.

I know there is a dishonest intent of manipulating public opinion with many cases, but I don't think so in all cases--and I don't think it is the whole story, anyway.

I wonder if there is an "Objectivist thing" of some sort going on here that automatically prompts this weird habit when too much lopsided Objectivism has fried one's brains. Maybe deep-seated insecurity?...

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I wonder if there is an "Objectivist thing" of some sort going on here that automatically prompts this weird habit when too much lopsided Objectivism has fried one's brains. Maybe deep-seated insecurity?...

It's what I call "actual" blank-out. It's a proprietary thing. I don't think you get the decoder ring unless you've been observed doing it.

[Philip Coates]

> adapt smoothly to different formats and different sets of expectations on the part of different publishers. [Jeff R]

Actually, different publishers tend to adopt common standards for formatting, punctuation etc. such as the Chicago Manual of Style

> Of course, I know nothing about professional writing. I've published something over five hundred articles

Argument from Intimidation or from Authority?

You and GHS tend to offer your resumes or how experienced you are or how many books you've read in your arguments. Is that supposed to silence people?

Your arguments ought to be able to stand alone. We're all equal here in terms of assessing the logic or persuasiveness of what we say.

Doesn't matter if you or your opponent de jour has read one hundred books on world history or only one. Your argument and the support you offer for it must stand or fall on their merits.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

Your arguments ought to be able to stand alone. We're all equal here in terms of assessing the logic or persuasiveness of what we say.

A professional in a given field is usually far more qualified to talk about the standards and practices of his discipline than an amateur. True, we are presumed equal when assessing the logic of an argument, but assessing the persuasiveness of an argument, which often requires knowledge of specific facts, can be a different matter.

It doesn't matter if you or your opponent de jour has read one hundred books on world history or only one. Your argument and the support you offer for it must stand or fall on their merits.

You have no way to assess the "merits" of a given argument in history -- or in medicine, anthropology, physics, and many other disciplines -- unless you have sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts. Without that knowledge, you are left with nothing more than your personal hunches about what actually happened.

The presumption that you are "equal" in matters of historical judgment to people who have actually studied history is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, but it does illustrate your a priori approach to history. Your liberal use of a priori judgments makes Kant look like a piker by comparison.

Indeed, I am beginning to suspect that you are in fact a Kantian, whether you know it or not. You must have absorbed this evil tendency from Rand's Kantian proclivities, of which she was totally unaware.

It is all becoming clear to me now. Kant's influence was so pervasive that he infected Rand unawares and, through her, he infected you.

No need to thank me for my keen diagnosis of the Kantian disease that has vitiated your philosophical views. Happy to be of service. Only one thing troubles me. Until you cure yourself of the Kantian disease, it might be immoral for me to read your posts. I will need to look into this....

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

It is all becoming clear to me now. Kant's influence was so pervasive that he infected Rand unawares and, through her, he infected you.

At least I know where I got it from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEkZxaoebvk

Get tested, people!