Dean Cook

August 31, 2021

The first lecture I attended was a comparison and contrast of Stoicism and Objectivism. The lecturer prefaced the lecture by describing an uptick in interest in the Stoic philosophy and worldview. I was not aware of this. I did a little research online. I searched for “stoic” on meetup.com and noticed a few Stoic meetup groups. I also saw some lectures concerning Stoicism that would tend to indicate it is “trendy” at the moment. (A TED talk is always a good indication of that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhn1Fe8cT0Q )

The lecturer then went over the history of Stoic philosophy, starting around 323 B.C., around the time that Alexander the Great and Aristotle died, and moving forward to the end of the Roman Republic, which he said was also the end of Stoicism. Major Roman Stoics were said to be Seneca (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/seneca/)  and Marcus Aurelius (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marcus-Aurelius-Roman-emperor).

The lecturer then discussed the Stoic belief that there are somethings that are under our control, and other things that are not. If there are things that we think we can change, but we actually cannot, this will lead to unnecessary resignation. If there are things we cannot change, but we think we can change them, then that will lead to unnecessary guilt.

The lecturer then referenced “the metaphysical versus the man-made”, which is, in my opinion, a very important essay by Ayn Rand. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysical_vs_man-made.html ) The lecturer also noted the “serenity prayer” that is said by people at alcoholics anonymous, and referenced specifically in Ayn Rand’s Essay, “The Metaphysical versus the Man-made”:

“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

Aside from the request that god give you this, and the prayer format, Ayn Rand thought this was an important piece of advice to live by, and not just for people with a drinking problem. The serenity prayer, when placed in a rational context, is a statement of recognizing the distinction between “the metaphysical and the man-made”. The “metaphysical” concerns the nature of the universe, which is generally outside one’s control. The Earth revolves around the sun because of the laws of physics. Gravity is what it is. The “man-made”, on the other hand, concerns things that are within the realm of human choice. Governments are chosen. Cultures are chosen. Laws are chosen. (Although, many of these are chosen by the default of people to question them or think about whether they are right.) You accept the metaphysical. The man-made is that which can be disagreed with. I add the caveat that you, as an individual, can only do so much to change man-made institutions in your lifetime because human beings have free will and need to be persuaded to change, which takes time. The human mind does not “turn on a dime” as it were. It tends to operate on the basis of habit or custom. The mind has a certain metaphysical nature, such that even if you are dealing with other rational people, they may not have a sufficient knowledge base, or intelligence level, to understand everything that you do at this moment in time. If you don’t recognize this aspect of the nature of the human mind, you will become extremely frustrated as an Ayn Rand fan or Objectivist trying to convince others.

The lecturer then asked what would Stoics think about this distinction Ayn Rand makes between “the metaphysical and the man-made”? He referenced the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epictetus/ ). He said Epictetus said that some things are up to us and others are not. (I assume this means under our control or not under our control.) The things that Epictetus thought were up to us included the following: opinions, impulses, desires, and aversions. The things that were not up to us included: our bodies, our reputations, and our public offices. I think this last one means whether we were of the upper classes or a slave. Basically, one’s social standing, which I assume was much more set and stratified in Ancient Greece.

The lecturer said that for Epictetus, what was up to us was essentially cognitive in nature. He also said this was similar to Objectivism. I think it is similar, but not the same, however. First, the list of things that Epictetus thought were in our control seems not necessarily “cognitive” in nature, to me, but “psychological” or “concerning the consciousness”.

I also think that some of the things that Epictetus thought were under our control are not directly under our control. For instance, a person can have an “impulse” that is not under his control. An alcoholic has an “impulse” to drink, that they must resist. They do this by not putting themselves in situations where it would be easy to drink. They do not go to bars where alcohol is served. They don’t hang out with people who drink, and they don’t keep alcohol in their house.

One can also have a “desire” that is not necessarily good for them. A man can have a “desire” to sleep with a woman who is cruel and verbally abusive towards him, perhaps because he has some psychological problem that causes him to be attracted to such women. That sexual desire, as such, is not something he can control. What he can control is whether he acts on it. He can choose not to sleep with women who are bad for him.

The same goes for “aversions”. One can have a phobia that makes them terrified of spiders, to the point that they become dysfunctional when they see one. The feeling is not under their immediate control, just what they do in the face of that feeling. (In that case, they probably need to seek therapy to develop skills for coping with the phobia, so that they can remain functional in life.)

Opinions, the last item on the list of things under our control, according to Epictetus, do seem more volitional. That concerns our thinking on a particular subject, and our judgments about people and situations. I agree that thoughts and judgments are more under our immediate control. Although, I’d note that there is the psychological phenomena of “intrusive thoughts”, which are ideas that pop into someone’s head that are negative. ( https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/managing-intrusive-thoughts )  So, you’d have to speak more of our explicit reasoning, or use of logic to achieve objectivity, and then acting on that explicit reasoning rather than some irrational fears or thoughts, as that which is under our control. (This is a fairly narrow subset of what goes on in your mind. Much of your mental state is probably not directly under your control.)

This is more my own thinking on this subject, but I don’t think Ayn Rand would disagree with it, based on what she said about emotions:

“Emotions are the automatic results of man’s value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man’s values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him—lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss…. But since the work of man’s mind is not automatic, his values, like all his premises, are the product either of his thinking or of his evasions… Emotions are produced by man’s premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly.” (“The Objectivist Ethics”, The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emotions.html )

The lecturer then discussed the Stoic distinction between “impulse” and “impression”. An impulse was defined as the psychological moment the soul stimulates an action. An impression was defined as what strikes you as being good/bad, or as being the case. Impressions do not force us to accept them, they are a kind of “gatekeeper”. (This is all from the Stoic perspective.) Your fundamental control is whether you accept impressions. If you accept them as true, then you give them your assent, but you can withhold your assent. What you think is good or bad is fundamentally under your control for the Stoics. The beliefs that you hold and the values you hold shape your own character.

The lecturer then turned to the things not under our control, according to the Stoics. (Our body, our wealth, our possessions, other people’s opinions, and things “external to your will”.)  Essentially, that is anything “outside your sovereign power of assent” -anything you purely use thought for. The state of your character is all you have control over.

This attitude probably made more sense in Ancient Greece than it does today. The Stoics would believe that one’s wealth is outside their control because their society was so caste-oriented. If you were born in the upper classes, you’d stay there. If you were born a slave, you’d die a slave. In a modern, semi-free market economy, the ability to move up the economic ladder is greater.

The Stoics thought that people place too much emphasis on material things, and life and death, rather than on improving one’s moral character. The Stoics said you should look inward and not at external things, which are largely out of your control according to them.

The lecturer then turned to the issue of “free will” in Stoicism. He said that the Stoics were determinists. The universe was composed of a blending of two things: (1) An “active principle”, and (2) “passive matter”. “Logos”, the active principle, structures everything down to the last detail. (https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html)

In light of this belief in determinism, what did the Stoics think about your autonomous mind? They said that this was a “fragment” of “logos” (or god). Your “assent”, that is your accepting an impression as true, is “fated”.

When I heard this, I thought of the Calvinists who would come later. They believed in predestination. Those who were saved were known to god, and those who where damned were also already known. There was nothing you could do in this life to become saved, if god had determined that you were already damned. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/predestination )

The lecturer noted that it is difficult to conceptualize the phenomena of free will. (I agree.) The Stoics tried to reconcile this with things like the example of a cylinder. Why does it roll? In part, it rolls because someone pushed it, but it also rolls because of its round shape.

The lecturer said that both the Stoics and Objectivists are looking for “the locus of control”. They both look to something internal. He said the difference is that Objectivists accept so-called “free will” as an exercise of your faculty. (I assume he meant “rational faculty” here, but I just have “faculty” in my notes.) He discussed something called the “dichotomy of control”, which he said Objectivism also has, but for Objectivism it is “the metaphysical versus the man-made”. I assume when he said “dichotomy of control”, he was talking about the two categories of things he discussed earlier, regarding what Stoics thought was under your control, and what was not.

The lecturer ended by noting that he thinks that Objectivism holds to the idea of mental “assent”, found in Stoicism.

In the Q&A, someone asked if the lecturer thought that Stoicism has a “malevolent universe premise”. This phrase is one adopted by Ayn Rand, and is contrasted with a “benevolent universe premise”. ( http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/malevolent_universe_premise.html )  The lecturer said yes, and gave the example of Marcus Aurelius. He said there is a sense of futility in Stoicism because everything is basically out of your control, except your own inner consciousness. Since the Stoics think you cannot influence your external world at all, the lecturer noted that they have no good reason to be virtuous, other than as a sort of “end in itself”. I’d say that this is what we mean when we speak of having a “stoic demeanor”. If something bad happens to someone, they are perceived as just keeping calm, and not showing any emotion about it. Objectivism, on the other hand, views virtue as a means to an end. (Maintaining one’s life and pursuing happiness being the end.) ( http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/happiness.html )

###

The next lecture concerned governmental regulations, and how all such regulations are improper, no matter how few.

The lecturer premised his presentation by saying that what he was saying was not “official Objectivism”. I’m always a little confused by what is and isn’t considered “Objectivism”. I thought I had heard that “Objectivism” is just what Ayn Rand wrote and published during her lifetime. Even her notes and unpublished writings would not be considered “Objectivism”, because she might have written something down privately that she later decided wasn’t correct or was poorly worded. This makes sense, because I often write something down just to put it on paper, and see if it makes sense when I read it, without necessarily endorsing it or agreeing with it. It’s sort of a way of “thinking by writing”.

The best comparison I have heard when it comes to what is considered “Objectivism” is that it is like “Newtonianism”, which is the ideas of Isaac Newton on Physics, as contained in his writings published in his lifetime. This doesn’t mean someone cannot come up with a new idea in the science of Physics that is true and a logical extension of the ideas of Newton. However, it’s not “Newtonianism”. It’s merely a new, true idea in the field of Physics. Similarly, someone can come up with new, true extensions to the ideas of Ayn Rand. It’s not “Objectivism”, just a new, true idea in the field of Philosophy. (I’d say the issue is a pretty obscure point, best left to academics with more time than I have.)

The lecturer said he started out by trying to “induce” what he meant by the concept “regulation”. He pointed out that the concept of “regulation” is not handed down by god. (Since there is no god.) To start on discovering a definition of “regulation”, he gave some examples: Environmental regulations, as promulgated by the EPA, building codes as promulgated by state and local governments, FDA regulations, immigration controls, and gun control. He said the context for all of these types of governmental action is political philosophy, which concerns the use of force and the definition of rights. From there, he provided his definition of “regulation”: A government regulation is state control over a given field of action whereby government officials dictate who may do what in that field of action.

The meaning of regulation, politically, is that there is no right to liberty. Legally, it means “preventative law”:

“If a businessman—or any other citizen—willfully and knowingly cheats or injures others (“consumers” or otherwise), it is a matter to be proved and punished in a criminal court. But the precedent which [the “consumer protection” movement] is here attempting to establish is the legal hallmark of a dictatorship: preventive law—the concept that a man is guilty until he is proved innocent by the permissive rubber stamp of a commissar or a Gauleiter.” ( http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/consumerism.html )

I think the concept of “preventative law” is essential to understanding the concept of a “regulation” on the one hand, versus a legitimate law, on the other. Almost all of the examples given by the lecturer involve the use of “preventative law”. For instance, gun control is premised on the idea that the only way to stop some people from committing murder with a gun is to prohibit everyone from owning a gun. It is “preventative” in the sense that it criminalizes the mere act of owning a gun on the off chance that someone might commit a crime with it. Similarly, most of the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration are based in the idea that people are too stupid to be trusted to make their own decisions about what types of drugs or substances they consume. Those in favor of the FDA believe everyone needs to be prohibited from making a decision on their own, just to protect a relatively small handful of imbeciles. (Imbeciles probably need to have a court-appointed guardian to take care of them, and keep them out of trouble.) Preventative law is different from an ordinary law in that it prohibits some actions that are not the bad act itself, and apply to everyone without any pre-existing judicial finding that is tailored to particular individuals. For instance, gun control is a prohibition on the act of owning a gun, aimed at preventing the bad act of murder, when there is no evidence that the gun owner intends to commit a crime with the gun.

The lecturer said that, morally, the basis of government regulation is sacrifice. It is the sacrifice of the innovator to the stagnant. For instance, Frank Lloyd Wright wanted to build a particular building, but city inspectors wouldn’t let him because they said that his building wouldn’t be to code. The lecturer also said that governmental regulation is the sacrifice of the productive to parasites. He gave the example of teacher’s unions not wanting to go back to work after COVID-19.

The lecturer then went over when governmental force can be used. He said that it must be “retaliatory”, which means it generally comes “after the fact” of an initiation of physical force. ( http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/retaliatory_force.html )

However, the lecturer noted that “after the fact” can mean different things in different contexts. The threat of force is still an initiation of physical force. So, for instance, the mere drawing of a gun in many circumstances could be considered an initiation of physical force. You do not have to wait for someone to aim and pull the trigger. (I would note that this is very context-dependent. Drawing a gun, for instance because you see a dangerous animal, is not an initiation of physical force. It is preparing the weapon in the face of a credible threat.)  The lecturer noted that probably 90% of all initiations of physical force are in the form of a threat of force.

The lecturer then asked: But, what constitutes a threat?

First, he said that the threat must be an “objective threat”. I assume by this, he means there is some factual basis for it, and not, for instance, a mere “feeling” of being threatened. A person might have an irrational fear, perhaps because they are on drugs, of harm from someone, but that does not constitute an objective threat. (A threat in reality.) The lecturer said that there must be: (1) objective evidence; (2) of a specific harm; (3) to specific individuals; (4) posed by specific acts.

I am a little concerned with the lecturer’s use of the criterion of “specific harm”. I am particularly concerned with the term “harm”. That seems too broad to me. Many would claim that mean words constitute a harm. (Such as telling someone they are too fat, or calling a minority certain words.) I’m not sure why the lecturer didn’t want to say “specific physical force” here, or maybe a “specific physical harm”, since all threats of force would involve that. For instance, a robber tells someone “your money or your life”. That is a threat of physical harm. More specifically, it a threat of physical injury or death. I’d say all threats of force involve the threat of bodily injury or death. If a robber says: “Give me your money or I’ll call you a jerk,” it’s not even a robbery. It’s more like verbally abusive panhandling. So, I would change his criterion for what threats constitute an initiation of physical force to: (1) objective evidence; (2) of bodily injury or death; (3) to specific individuals; (4) posed by specific acts.

Also, implicit in the “bodily injury or death” criterion is the use of force to effectuate the bodily injury or death. For instance, a person could have invented the formula for curing a disease, and then threaten to withhold it unless everyone pays him a million dollars. I do not think this is an initiation of physical force, even though it could result in bodily injury or death to those unwilling or unable to pay the million dollars for the cure to the disease. Based on this, perhaps an even better formulation is: (1) objective evidence; (2a) of bodily injury or death; (2b) that would be caused by the use of force; (3) to specific individuals; (4) posed by specific acts.

My notes show that the lecturer then discussed various specific examples of what would and would not constitute a threat such that it is an initiation of physical force. He discussed the example of requiring everyone to wear masks in public to fight COVID-19. He said that this would violate the criterion that a threat of physical force be to “specific individuals”. A statistical group that would get a disease is not sufficient to make everyone wear masks. I am not sure if this is the primary problem with a mask mandate. I think the problem might be one of what is called “foreseeability” in tort law. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/foreseeability) After all, you can fire a gun into a crowd of people, without it being aimed at a specific individual. Regardless of who the bullet kills, that is an initiation of physical force, I believe. However, I might be dropping context, since we are talking about threats of force which constitute an initiation of physical force, rather than an actual use of force that constitutes an initiation of physical force. (In other words, actually using the force, rather than threatening it, might have a different set of criteria for what constitutes an initiation of physical force.)

The next example I have from my notes is that of a “Typhoid Mary” -that is someone who is infected with a disease and doesn’t take any efforts to isolate themselves from others to avoid disease transmission. The lecturer believed that you could stop a particular individual with a disease from going out in public, if you have good enough evidence that they are in fact infected with a disease, and refuse to take steps to avoid infecting others. (I assume all of this would need to be shown in a court with due process. This normally would occur in the context of a suit for injunctive relief.) I think that under true laissez faire capitalism, this would probably not be a major issue, anyway. If all streets, sidewalks, and roads are privately owned, then the owners will set standards of use for them. This could include rules like not going out on the public streets if you are known to be infectious. During a pandemic, the owners of roads, sidewalks, parks, buildings, and other city infrastructure could set conditions for use, including mask or vaccine rules, if they so choose.

The speaker seemed to qualify the Typhoid Mary example by bringing in a concept of “negligence”. So, if you undertake an act that has a high probability of resulting in injury or death to another, then that could be considered a threat of force such that it would constitute an initiation of physical force.

He gave the example of building codes. In that case, someone could sue for injunctive relief if there was a sufficient threat another person’s actions would result in injury, damage to property, or death. He didn’t specify, but what I think he was thinking of is the example of someone who builds a tall skyscraper with shoddy materials and workmanship. (Like the condo in Florida that collapsed in 2021. https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-miami-area-condo-collapse/2021/06/29/1010976101/timeline-what-we-know-so-far-about-what-led-up-to-the-surfside-condo-collapse) In that case, if the building collapses, it might fall onto a neighbor’s property killing, or injuring them. As such, one can go to court, and get an injunction. (This is likely covered under the common law of nuisance.)

The lecturer then discussed immigration controls. He said that there could be no “collective guilt”. So, the mere fact that some immigrants come to the United States and commit crimes could not be used as a justification for restricting immigration generally. (This would also apply to gun control. Just because one person who owns a gun commits a crime, doesn’t say anything about other people who own guns.)

In the question and answer period, the lecturer said that prohibiting immigration is not rightly based in the concept of “sovereignty”. You’ll often hear this term as the justification for immigration controls. People will say something along the lines of: “Letting Mexicans into the US is a violation of US sovereignty”:

“Borders are a fundamental aspect of national sovereignty. They are, in part, what defines a country…” (https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/07/how-think-about-immigration-kevin-d-williamson/ )

“First, the right of self-defense is a vital, ineliminable aspect of sovereignty. If it is eliminated, a state is no longer a sovereign; it becomes a subject, at the mercy of its federal master’s fancy.” ( https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/07/sovereignty-preempted-andrew-c-mccarthy/ )

The lecturer said all “sovereignty” means is that the US police force doesn’t have to allow, for instance, the Mexican police force, to operate within the United States. Sovereignty is just jurisdiction, according to the speaker. He also noted that the “flip side” of this understanding of sovereignty is that a country can rightly extend its jurisdiction into the territory of another country to protect individual rights. For instance, when the United States took over California and Texas from Mexico, this is a legitimate exercise of sovereignty to protect individual rights. The people occupying Texas, for instance, had their individual rights better protected in the Union than they did under the dictatorship of General Santa Anna.  ( https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/santa-anna-antonio-lopez-de )

The speaker discussed environmental regulations at some length in the question and answer period. The question was: “When does pollution become a violation of rights?” The speaker said that you would need to prove it in court. I think current nuisance and trespass law can cover the issue of one person’s pollution going onto another person’s property and causing damage to their property or getting them sick, pretty well. (Furthermore, you can seek injunctive relief in the face of the objective threat that such activity might pose, before you actually get sick.)

The speaker also addressed the issue of everyone putting small quantities of something in the air, and then it builds up over time to unsafe levels. For instance, you’ve got 100 energy generation plants. Each one is not producing enough toxic smoke to cause any injury, but all 100 of them together are producing enough to cause actual injury. I have thought some about this issue myself, and I do not have a definitive answer yet.

The speaker believed that the government can set a limit of total quantity of toxic material released into the atmosphere. This would need to be determined based on the best scientific information available. Beyond that limit, it would represent a threat of force such that it was an initiation of physical force. So, it might be that there can be 50 energy plants, each emitting a small quantity of toxin in the air, such that it is not going to cause physical injury or death to anyone. After that point is reached, there is a law that says no new emissions can occur. At that point, someone wanting to build a new energy production plant would need to use a different technology or somehow control their emissions.

This might work, but I think a major question at that point is: what governmental body makes this determination? I certainly don’t think the legislature can hand over the power to make this determination through regulations, like Congress did with the EPA. This is a delegation of legislative power to an unelected body of bureaucrats. Congress would need to pass specific laws, for specific emissions. I also am not sure that Congress is the best organization in government to make this decision. I think it would make more sense to leave the issue of the level of emissions that are considered safe to be determined by the courts. Private citizens can get together and file class action lawsuits against specific emitters of pollution, and then prove in court that the level of emissions beyond a certain point caused bodily injury or death, or would cause such bodily injury or death. The courts can then impose injunctive relief on specific industries that is narrowly tailored to serve that purpose. Possibly, there is a role for Congress there, also, in terms of crafting the legislation that would create the cause of action that would form the basis of suit. Congress might also want to create special trial courts with specific jurisdiction to handle such lawsuits. There would be a lot of details to work out here, but this might be a reasonable solution to this particular problem.

That said, I’m not entirely convinced that the lecturer’s proposed solution is the proper, capitalist, solution. No one owns the atmosphere. Why should some people be able to stop other people from using it as they see fit? In the face of toxic material in the atmosphere, it might make more sense for people to get together and deal with that problem through contract. Government’s role is then reduced to enforcing contracts in courts. For instance, if a group of people don’t like the level of a particular material in the Earth’s atmosphere, then they can all sign a contract agreeing to build some sort of machine or device that would remove that material from the atmosphere. (Basically, like building a giant air purifier for the atmosphere.) Or, they can get together beforehand, and sign a contract agreeing to limit emissions.

“Free rider” problems with such a contract can be resolved by making the contract contingent on a certain percentage of the population signing the contract before it becomes effective. So, the contract basically says something like:

“I agree not to pollute the atmosphere with substance X. This contract shall become effective upon 90% of the rest of the population also signing this contract.”

This way, a signatory to the contract is not bound to do anything until enough other people have also agreed to it. He does not limit his ability to profit under the current system of pollution until others have also agreed to limit their emissions.

Even if a small minority of people continue to want to pollute, if 90% of people agree not to do so by contract, then they can effectively solve the problem. They can all agree not to use any energy company that does not abide by the contract, thereby making it unprofitable to continue business in that manner. The small number of “holdouts” can be boycotted, if it is of sufficient concern, by means of another contingency contract. In that case, the 10% of the population not signing the contract essentially become economic pariahs and don’t get to participate in the wider economy, which would be so disadvantageous, that no rational person would do it. At that point, you’re left with just a few crazy people holding out, and none of them are likely to be the owners of factories or powerplants in the first place.

This was the solution to the “free rider problem” Objectivist economist George Reisman proposed in his book “Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics”:

“The substance of the free – rider argument is the gratuitous assumption that people lack sufficient rationality to act in their own interest in cases in which they cannot receive corresponding direct payment, and hence must be forced to act in their own interest in such cases.” (George Reisman, “Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics”, Kindle Ed., Location 5375)

“The truth is that private citizens are capable on their own of providing for necessary activities for which it may not be possible to arrange the normal system of payment for goods or services received . This is true even in cases requiring the cooperation of millions of individuals . There is no reason why in such cases individuals could not agree to contribute to the financing of a project on a contingency basis, namely , on the basis of a sufficient number of other individuals making the same pledge. Whether it is a matter of a hundred ship owners concerned with constructing a lighthouse or a million property owners concerned with building a dam to prevent flood damage (or perhaps installing catalytic converters on their automobiles to reduce smog ) , there is no reason why an arrangement could not be made whereby the individual pledges his contribution on the condition of an equal or otherwise comparable contribution being pledged by a certain percentage of other such individuals.”(George Reisman, “Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics”, Kindle Ed., Location 5381)

Implementing such a contract regime is, in some ways, no different from what happens in the legislature. There has to be sufficient public support for any law regulating emissions in order to get it through Congress. Ideally, although usually not in practice, this requires advocates of the law to go out and convince the voters to be in favor of the law and write their Congressman. A contract regime like I am proposing eliminates the possibility of special interests or other lobbies pushing through a law without broad support, which happens all the time in Congress. Special interest groups use political pull and graft to push through legislation intended to enrich themselves at everyone else’s expense. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/lobbying.html)  Under a contract regime like George Reisman proposes, the advocates of limiting a particular emission actually have to go out and convince people with good arguments and science. They cannot just hire a lobby to push a law through the legislature, where the law is covertly intended to benefit the lobbyists at the expense of everyone else.

###

The next session was a panel discussion between several of the lecturers regarding regulation. Since this was more of a general discussion rather than an organized lecture, it had less of a “structure” for me to give the gist of here. It also involved a large Q&A session for the panelists.

Some of the things I found interesting were the following:

(1) “Regulate” in the Constitution, as in “….regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes…”, was argued to mean “regularize” at the time of the founding. One of the panelists referenced Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law School as claiming this. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/randy-e-barnett/ The panelist said that the purpose was to ensure equal protection in society, which I took as meaning everyone could participate in the economy on an equal footing, because Congress would “regularize” interstate commerce such that the rules are the same for everyone. Another panelist seemed to push back at this assertion as to the original meaning of “regulate” in the Constitution by saying that “regulate” also meant “regulating people’s lives”, at the State level, at the time of the founding. I assume this is a reference to the State’s “police power”, in which the State was seen as having the right to regulate the people in order to protect the public health, safety, and morals. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/police_powers)

(2) One of the questions was this: “Is there a philosopher who thinks that the common man is too stupid to take care of himself, giving rise to the need for the regulatory state?” One of the panelists said there are two: Plato and Immanuel Kant. His analysis of Kant on this point was particularly illuminating for me. Kant said that society, at large, creates the reality we live in. (This is because Kant believed that one cannot know “things as they really are”, but only “things as processed through the human mind”.) Although there is a separate realty for Kant, it is essentially unknowable to us. We can only know “reality as filtered through our minds”. In practical effect, this means society at large creates the reality we live in. This means that a collective group of people is always more in touch with “the truth” than any individual ever can be, since that group of people, effectively creates the reality we live in. For Kant, the “collective subjective” takes the place of the “objective”. There is a “collective mind” that expresses its will through majority vote. The majority can never be wrong because it’s interpretation of reality, which individuals can never truly know, is authoritative. Society has the wisdom that a “mere individual” lacks. (This is all according to Kant.) As such, the so-called “common man” is too stupid to regulate his own life. He needs the wisdom of the “collective mind”, as exemplified by politicians, to decide everything for him -from the cradle to the grave. This is why you see politicians like Michael Bloomberg wanting to regulate anything and everything “for your own good”, from sugary soft drinks to guns. Politicians like Michael Bloomberg believe that they speak for this “collective mind” that knows better than the individual “common man”.

###

After that, I attended a panel concerning the Montessori method, which was fairly interesting to me, since I know very little about it. It was broken down into a series of lectures, covering different age groups of children.

The overall philosophy of the Montessori method for adults was described not as “teaching” children, but as helping them to develop on their own. (I liked the notion of this.) What this means in practice depends on the age of the child.

The first age group covered were children from age one to two years old. This lecture was given by a nice older lady who had a very calm and soothing voice. She seemed extremely nurturing and kind. Certainly the kind of person I’d want teaching small children. She believed you should let the child do what they can on their own. For instance, you should let them explore their environment. This includes things like letting children turn lights on and off in a room to see that flipping the switch has an effect on the light level in the room. This made sense, although I think it’d drive you a little nuts, if you let the child do this nonstop when you’re trying to get things done. I assume in that situation, you should try to give the child something else to play with as a substitute, and perhaps try to explain to them that you need the light on (or off).

She also said that you should make anything you do with a baby into a sort of “collaborative effort” with the child. For instance, when you put on a baby’s jacket, you talk to them and discuss what you are doing, and try to get them to help: “Okay, now we’re going to put that arm in here, and then put that arm in here, and then we’re going to zip this up….”

She said that if you respect a small child in this manner, they will be less inclined to throw tantrums. I think she thought that you should try to “negotiate” with children rather than just forcing them to do things. I generally agree with this approach. I’ve seen parents who would yell at their children, and talk to them in a way I wouldn’t talk to my dog, and it always horrified me. (Then, of course, there are the parents who physically discipline their children with corporal punishment, which I think is plain child abuse.) I assume parents get very tired and stressed, which creates a lot of the yelling and spanking of children, but I think we all need to do our best to resist the urge to raise our voices to children, or hit them. If children were properly raised and educated, I believe we could eliminate a lot of the world’s problems in a single generation.

The next speaker discussed the education of children from age three to age six. The speaker said that there should be shelves of things, broken down into different subject areas. The children can then use the different learning stations as they want. A Montessori teacher doesn’t interfere with the child’s actions while the child is doing a project. The teacher only steps in if the child seems stuck. This was related to the Objectivist view on independence. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/independence.html) For instance, children should be given real tools, and allowed to use them. So, for instance, you should give a child a real hammer, and let them learn to use it. I liked this notion. I assume there are limits here, in terms of safety. You don’t hand a three-year-old a pistol and let them have at it. In Texas, you should wait until they’re at least seven for that. (Joking!)  The speaker said that the first five to six years of a child’s development are critical to who they will be as adults.

The next speaker covered the education of children from age six to twelve. This was a woman from a Montessori school in some other area of the country. (She was appearing by Zoom.) According to my notes, the name of the school was “Chesapeake Montessori School”. She discussed some sort of division game for teaching children division. When I did an internet search of “Montessori Division Game”, I found the following. ( https://www.montessorialbum.com/montessori/index.php/Division_With_the_Stamp_Game  )

She said that children will learn self-discipline by their own volition, if given enough “domain of choice”. She said that the teacher should help children begin their own investigations into what interested them.

The next speaker was the only male. He discussed the education of children from age thirteen to eighteen. It made sense to me that a man would teach children in this age group. By then, children probably need less “nurturing”, and more of a male influence. (Especially boys.) So, I was pleased to see a man teaching in this age group. I believe he ran a Montessori school in the Austin, Texas area. He said Maria Montessori wrote the least about teaching children in this age group.

He described the adolescent as a “social newborn”. He noted the insecurity of many teenagers. At about age thirteen, they start asking questions like: “What will my life be like?” He said that all Maria Montessori said about the education of teenagers was that they should go live and work on a farm. What he took from this is that the education of teenagers should be aimed at productivity, although not necessarily in agriculture. I don’t have much else in my notes, probably because I was starting to “fade out” mentally. (It was close to 5pm.)

###

Later that evening, after diner, I went to a screening of a recorded interview with Leonard Peikoff. ( https://peikoff.com/ )

I’m not sure when the interview was recorded, but I assume that it was in the last few years. Dr. Peikoff is in his mid-eighties, I believe, and has been retired from lecturing, writing, or speaking for probably the past ten years or more.

In the interview, he said that he had been living in a retirement home, but had moved to a house. He said he couldn’t handle retirement, and started looking for projects to keep himself busy. He started out learning to play jazz music, then moved on to writing fiction. He had a teacher, and wrote six to seven short stories. He then did a lecture on operetta.

He mentioned that his favorite movie is called “Whiplash”. I assume he meant this 2014 movie: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2582802/ I’ve never seen it, but it is described as: “A promising young drummer enrolls at a cut-throat music conservatory where his dreams of greatness are mentored by an instructor who will stop at nothing to realize a student’s potential.”

Peikoff described it as a movie where the student had a teacher that was mean to him, and that he felt like it was his life. From what I’ve gathered, Ayn Rand could be quite hard on Leonard Peikoff. She’d grow frustrated with him, and yell at him for not seeing what was so obvious to her. For instance, Peikoff discussed when he was writing “The Ominous Parallels” in the late 1970’s. He said he took a particular chapter to Ayn Rand to review, and she said it was so bad, she didn’t think she could work with him anymore. Peikoff said this was an example of his own “rationalism” in his method of thinking. He described this method of thinking as the mental habit of connecting words to each-other, and “building castles in the air”, mentally. After he managed to convince Ayn Rand not to give up on him, they discussed the concept of “rationalism”, and created a list of rationalist characteristics. I believe a lot of this material made its way into a lecture Peikoff gave in the 1980s, called “Understanding Objectivism”.

Peikoff also discussed his dog, which he seemed quite fond of. I found it somewhat amusing that Peikoff was a “dog person”, while Ayn Rand was such a “cat person”.

###

Later that night, I attended a Texas hold ‘em Poker tournament being put on by the organizers of the conference. I assume it was held because we were in Texas. The out-of-state attendees seemed far more impressed with being in Texas than I, as a long-time resident of the state, am. I believe they tended to think of the “cowboy individualist” culture of Texas, while forgetting that it is full of religious fundamentalists. I, on the other hand, have to put up with that type of person on an almost daily basis. It tends to eliminate some of the state’s charm for me.  A group of people at lunch one day expressed surprise that I am from Texas and was wearing a California state flag ball cap. I personally prefer California, in many ways, to Texas. I mostly continue to live here because, as an attorney, I am licensed only in Texas, and moving to a new state would be too costly for my career. The practice of law is still pretty state-specific, and I have twenty years of experience practicing law in Texas I’d be throwing away. This is not to say that Texas doesn’t have advantages over California in terms of cost of living, lower taxes, and less socialism, but an atheist Objectivist paradise, Texas is not.

I hadn’t played poker in years, and I got knocked out of the tournament pretty quickly. (Plus, I was never that good to begin with.) I only went because it was an opportunity for social interaction with other like-minded people, and that part of it was fun.

August 30, 2021

The first lecture I attended concerned Ayn Rand’s view of the concept of causality. To be honest, I haven’t thought too much about this. When I look at the discussion of causality found in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, I don’t find anything there I disagree with. I also don’t know enough about what the more “mainstream” view is on causality to say what the conflict is with Objectivism. The lecturer noted that most academic philosophers won’t engage, in any serious way, with Objectivists, so it’s difficult to even have a good discussion with them on that, or any subject. He presented what he thought the “mainstream” position was on causality, which he called “eventism” (a term he said he coined.). He then proceeded to compare and contrast that with the Randian position.  Since I don’t have a very good understanding on this issue, I took notes, but they were not very good. It was like taking a class on Calculus without having taken the classes on Geometry and Algebra first.

I think that the “mainstream position” may best be exemplified by David Hume. (Although, I am not even sure of that.) At some point in the future, I’d like to write up an essay comparing and contrasting Rand’s view on causality with that of Hume. I started reading some of David Hume’s “Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding” to that end.

One thing that did come up at a couple of points, both in the lecture, and also in the Q&A, was the question of reconciling the concept of “free will”, or the volitional aspects of the human mind, with the concept of causality. Someone in the Q&A even used the very example I’ve used before in another blog entry: “If the human brain consists of nothing but atoms, and atoms are all predictably causal, then how can people be said to have ‘free will’?” Here was my blog response to that: http://deancook.net/2015/01/15/free-will-and-determinism/ I would also add that this argument is probably an example of the fallacy of composition. It’s no different than saying water is nothing but hydrogen and oxygen, so it should behave the same as hydrogen and oxygen -which it does not. (Expose pure oxygen to a flame, or pure hydrogen, and see what happens. Just make sure you are far away when you do it.)

#

The next lecture I have in my notes concerns Ayn Rand’s view on atheism. (It was titled “Ayn Rand’s Intransigent Atheism”) This is a reference to what Ayn Rand said on the subject. She was responding to a Congressman from Texas, Bruce Alger, when she said this in a letter to him in 1963. I could only find part of the letter online, but it is in “The Letters of Ayn Rand”, which I remember reading in 1998.

According to the Texas State Historical Association, Alger was a Republican Congressman from Dallas. (How Dallas has changed!) https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/alger-bruce-reynolds.  When Alger ran and won in 1954, he was the only Republican from the Texas delegation in Congress. (At that time, the South was almost entirely Democratic, as a sort of “historical relic” of the Civil War and Reconstruction. They were nothing like the modern Democratic Party.)

In 1960, when Johnson made a campaign stop in Dallas while running for vice president on the ticket with John F. Kennedy, Alger, carrying a sign that read “LBJ Sold Out to Yankee Socialists,” led a group of protestors who insulted Johnson and spat in the direction of his wife Lady Bird. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/alger-bruce-reynolds

Sounds like my kind of man -on most issues. Unfortunately, like most of the right wing today, he was also a religious dogmatist. His letter to Miss Rand sounds like it was basically an attempt to convince her that religion was the fundamental basis of America and the Constitution. Miss Rand’s letter was a rebuttal, which she premised by saying “I agree with a large part of your political position and with many of the bills you introduced…I know and appreciate your voting record.”

During the course of Miss Rand’s letter, she said something like: “I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one.”

The lecturer attempted to provide the context for what Miss Rand meant here. He noted that the expression “militant atheist” likely originated with Lenin and the Soviets, who the lecturer said spoke of “militant atheism”. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/9194/pdf The Soviet “League of Militant Atheists” initiated physical force to attempt to disestablish religion:

“The ‘Godless Five-Year Plan,’ launched in 1928, gave local cells of the anti-religious organization, League of Militant Atheists, new tools to disestablish religion. Churches were closed and stripped of their property, as well as any educational or welfare activities that went beyond simple liturgy.  Leaders of the church were imprisoned and sometimes executed, on the grounds of being anti-revolution.” https://www.history.com/news/joseph-stalin-religion-atheism-ussr

I’m guessing that Congressman Alger probably said something in his letter along the lines of: “Atheists will try to force Christians not to be Christian with the power of the state, or by the use of physical force or violence.” Miss Rand was then responding that she was not “militant”, by which I suspect she meant she did not believe in the initiation of physical force, even if it was aimed at religion. Although she considered religion to be bad for the individual, and bad for mankind, her position would be that you cannot force someone to be rational. Each individual must choose rationality for themselves, according to Miss Rand. All atheists can try to do is persuade people with the spoken and written word:

“Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/freedom.html

The speaker said that when Miss Rand said she was an “intransigent” atheist, what she meant was that she refused to speak with anyone on any basis but reason. He then compared and contrasted Miss Rand’s view on atheism with that of the “New Atheists”, like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. (I don’t have in my notes what he meant on this, or how he thought they are different from Rand.) The speaker also referenced a “fireside chat” Dennis Prager had with someone who is in the “orbit of Objectivism”, which I had not seen. I went and looked it up, and found it here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vReb-quiAsY.  (It’s over an hour long, so I doubt I’ll sit down and watch it, because I probably wouldn’t learn much new.) I am not sure if the lecturer at OCON agreed what was said in this YouTube video or not.

The lecturer then went over what Ayn Rand’s journals say about why she became an atheist at 13: (1) Theism is rationally untenable; and (2) it is degrading to man because it makes human beings imperfect by nature. It was the lecturer’s position that most of Ayn Rand’s later, adult, writings on religion relate back to these two things. I agree that these two themes can be found throughout her writings on religion:

“It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man’s mind.” (Leonard Peikoff, “Maybe You’re Wrong”, The Objectivist Forum, April 1981. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html)

“What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being…. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.” (Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html )

The lecturer also contrasted Rand with Richard Dawkins. He noted that in “The God Hypothesis”, Dawkins says that the existence of god just has a “very low probability”. (I haven’t read this, so I don’t know if this is an accurate portrayal of Dawkin’s position.) The lecturer said that Rand wouldn’t put it this way. She would say the “god hypothesis” isn’t even a hypothesis. For instance, there is a hypothesis that there is life on Mars, which has evidence one way or the other. I don’t have it in my notes, but I think Rand would say that the concept of god, as presented, isn’t even capable of proof or refutation. A notion not capable of at least being refuted isn’t really a “hypothesis” at all. Also, Rand, and Peikoff, would note that the concept of god is something that is “arbitrary”, something that is neither true nor false, because there is no evidence presented for it by those making the assertion. Theists assert that such proof is neither necessary nor desirable, because it is a matter of faith. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html

The lecturer went over what is called the “cosmological argument” for god, which I think he said usually rests on the idea that existence itself, requires an explanation. It is exemplified by questions like “If god doesn’t exist, then who created the universe?” The Randian position is that the universe, that is the sum total of all existence, merely is. Existence, as such, can neither go into or out of existence. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/universe.html

The lecturer then discussed some other aspects of the cosmological argument for god that I didn’t quite catch. But, I think he was basically saying they were taking certain ideas out of context, such as “consciousness”, “creation” and “nothing”. For Rand, “consciousness” is that which perceives that which exists, so to speak of a consciousness that perceived “nothing”, as religionists claim god did before he created the universe, is to speak of something that could not be a consciousness. To speak of “creation” for Rand is to speak of a rearranging of material elements human beings find in nature. For instance, we create a house by chopping down trees. We rearrange the wood in trees into the form of something that can protect us from the elements. So, to speak of “creating” the universe makes no sense. For Rand, “nothing” is always a sort of “relational concept”, or “contextual concept”. For instance, if someone says: “What do you have in your pocket?” and you say: “Nothing.” What you mean is you don’t have keys in your pocket, or a wallet, or any other thing of significance to your life. You don’t mean that there is some sort of “thing of non-existence” in your pocket. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/zero,_reification_of.html. The example the lecturer gave on this last point was the concept of “uncle”. You cannot be an “uncle” without nieces and nephews. It is a relational concept to other people.

In the Q&A, I have that there was discussion about “meaning” and “purpose” in religion. I don’t remember what the question and answer were, exactly. But, I think this is a big part of the appeal of religion for the good people who are religious. (As opposed to the religionists who are power-lusters and/or hate reason.) There was also a question about how to deal with theists, but I don’t have any notes on what the lecturer’s response was.

Overall, I could have “taken or left” the lecture on atheism. I’m pretty familiar with the arguments, and counterarguments, and I’m confident that atheism, as presented by Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff, is correct.

#

The next lecture I attended that day involved a discussion of the Montessori Method, but applied to personal growth for adults, rather than explicitly for education of children. I am not overly familiar with the details of the Montessori Method, although my parents sent me to a Montessori school from about age 4 to 6. I have no children of my own, but I have heard enough good things about it that I’d want to send children to a Montessori school, if I had any.

According to the lecturer, Maria Montessori had the following guiding principles when it came to educating children: (1) A vision of the human potential; (2) A method for nurturing this potential. In practice the lecturer said the teacher must be on the lookout for signs of “calm focus” in the child, even if infrequent. This should be encouraged. For instance, a child poking at a bug, or trying to get into a chair.  She said that the furniture and other items in the Montessori school should be “child sized” to allow children to manipulate them in accordance with their physical and mental capabilities. It is also important to create a model of the larger world: a world that is ordered and changeable through the child’s rational efforts. (Hence the tiny tables and chairs.) Regarding discipline, I got the impression that the child should be left alone when they are engaged in “calm focus” and “purposeful action”. The educator should only intervene if the child “misbehaves”, which I assume means things like acting physically aggressive towards other children, or engaging in some sort of destructive activity towards property. (Although that is my own interpretation. I really haven’t studied this much.)

I do think that this sounds like the best way to educate children. I think another aspect of the Montessori method is having “learning stations” set up for children to use when they want to, but they are pretty much free to learn at their own pace. I guess the counterargument would be that if you don’t ever make a kid sit down and actually learn, for instance, simple arithmetic, he might never do so. I would guess the Montessori people have a rebuttal to this, but I don’t know what it is. Overall, though, I think I’d rather let a child learn as they want to, rather than forcing it. They can learn arithmetic, or whatever, when they decide it is useful for their life.

At any rate, the lecturer then went on to discuss how the Montessori method might be helpful for adults. (The task of “self-parenting” that all adults must do.)  She discussed various principles for achieving the “vision of our own potential”. We are capable of achieving happiness through independent rational work, and are therefore worthy of reverence.  The method for achieving that potential, according to the lecturer, was to practice “rigorous self-observation” and “loving self guidance”. (These were terms she used in describing the Montessori method for education of children, I think.)

The lecturer then asked the audience to use this method in practice, in our own heads. She said we should think of a current situation on which we could use some “self-parenting”. For me, I chose social situations, and meeting new people. I tend to be fairly taciturn around new people, especially large groups of people. (I’m sure this comes from a lifetime of habits and attitudes, -some good, and some bad.) I have down in my notes that I have difficulty coming up with “icebreakers” for new people. Now, I usually try to have a repertoire of “small talk” programmed into my subconscious that I can draw on. This would be things like the weather outside, or “common questions” like “Where are you from?” or “What do you do for a living?” This way, I can try to start up a conversation with someone based on topics that almost everyone will have some sort of response to. (As opposed to starting off with: “What is your view of quantum mechanics, and its implications for free will?”, which are questions most people haven’t even thought to ask.) The lecturer then said you should ask yourself what emotions you are usually feeling in this situation? For me, it is usually some degree of anxiety, especially in large groups. But, also, it tends to be some level of “sense of futility”, that no one in this group of people will be worth my time, so: “Why bother?”.

After you’ve analyzed your emotional response, you are supposed to consider the “content of the value judgment” you are making, and what “underlying core premises” you are operating from. For me, the sense of anxiety probably comes from a fear of being an outcast, or a sort of visceral fear of violence or death at the hands of the “tribe” or “mob”. Most of us deal from an early age with groups of bullies in public schools, so this is likely an “echo” from my childhood fears. Additionally, I certainly don’t like feeling lonely. Sometimes, that feeling cannot be avoided. If a group of people are sufficiently irrational, then it is preferable to be alone than to be with that group. If an inner-city teenager’s only choice is to be alone or join a gang, then being alone is preferable. That “tribal impulse” is probably an impulse inherent in the human mind that must be resisted at times. This is part of the reason people can be susceptible to cults. They have an irrational desire to belong, that overrides their desire to live. (See, for instance, what happened at Jonestown in 1978. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mass-suicide-at-jonestown )

The other feeling I tend to have when amongst large groups of people is the feeling of “futility”. This likely stems from going for long periods of time without finding people with whom I share enough in common to really “connect” with them on anything but a superficial level. You can master “small talk”, but if that is all you ever have with anyone, it becomes boring pretty quickly. “Small talk” is a means to an end- a way of getting the conversation going to see if you can have “big talk” with someone.

I tend to interact with two groups of people in my day-to-day life: Other lawyers and people who dance. I’ve made friendships from both of these groups, but that leaves out the other important thing in my life -Objectivism. Unfortunately, most of the dancers and lawyers I encounter are religious, which means I am unable to discuss an important aspect of my life with them. I had one former dancing friend who gave me a Bible and tried to “convert” me when he found out I was atheist. When he realized I was uninterested, I think he started resenting me a bit, and the friendship eventually fizzled out. I’ve also had a few “leftwing lawyer” friends in the past, but the things that would come out of their mouths tended to horrify me. For instance, one lawyer friend told me something to the effect of he hoped a virus would wipe out all white people as payback for slavery and imperialism. (This was pre-COVID-19.) The naked expression of nihilism was shocking to me. That relationship also didn’t last. The sense of “futility”, especially when it comes to dating women, can be quite strong.  (I will add that just because someone is interested in Objectivism doesn’t mean I will connect with them either. I’ve met some fairly dysfunctional people interested in Objectivism, who had nothing else going on in their lives.)

So, what is the value judgment I am making when it comes to my sense of “futility” about meeting people? Probably, I tend to expect the worst from people, or maybe I focus too much on the worst in people. I probably need to learn to practice the old legal adage: “Innocent until proven guilty,” more.  But, also, I think you’ve just got to recognize that making friends and lovers is tough. It’s tough for everyone, Objectivist or otherwise. I just need to keep trying. It points to the need for practicing the virtue of resilience or pride.

#

The next event that day was a sort of panel discussion between some of the lecturers at the conference. One of the people on the panel was Peter Schwartz, who I hadn’t seen in person before. That was pretty exciting for me, since I remembered listening to a lecture by him back in the 1990’s when I was at the University of Texas. Back then, you still had to order cassette tapes via mail order from a company associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, known as Second Renaissance Books. I sent away for his lecture “The Politics of Pragmatism”, and listened to it on a Sony Walkman. Now, you can download it: https://estore.aynrand.org/products/the-politics-of-pragmatism-mp3-download

I listened to it over and over in my car, especially when I was driving to and from Dallas to Austin. I was too broke to be going out and buying a bunch of taped lectures, so I listened to the ones I had repeatedly. Seeing him in person was pretty fun for me -kind of nostalgic. The last night of the conference, at a reception, I approached him, said hello, shook his hand, and told him I used to listen to this particular lecture a lot. I’m not really into sports stars or rock stars, but meeting him in person was kind of the equivalent of that for me.

The panel discussion was called “Conservatives Versus Capitalism”. The discussion seemed to center around two things: (1) The history of the conservative movement, and Rand’s rocky relationship with that movement; (2) whether the conservatives, as a group, are better or worse than the socialists in the Democratic party.

There was a lot of discussion of Donald Trump, with most of it being hostile towards Trump and anyone who voted for him. I get the impression that the majority of people associated with the Ayn Rand Institute are so hostile towards Trump that they do not think there is any good reason to vote for him. However, there are some notable exceptions to that. I was rather surprised to learn after this conference that Leonard Peikoff voted for Trump, gave money to his campaign, and also stated publicly that he was voting for Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phxhzlWsl0o   (Full Disclosure: I, very reluctantly, voted for Trump in 2020. http://deancook.net/2020/10/24/i-voted-for-donald-trump/ )

One of the best bits of analysis I heard about conservatives came from Peter Schwartz. He said that conservatives did not want to give up the ethics of altruism. ( http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html ) Instead, conservatives wanted to reconcile that belief system with capitalism, which is impossible. People rightly saw this as contradictory, and so they found the conservatives’ arguments unconvincing. Conservatives had no answer to the statists in favor of socialism, other than to say that altruism should be voluntary. But, as Schwartz noted, if you see the individual as a servant, then how could he be free to choose? The result, according to Schwartz, is that when the conservatives do take a stand, it tends to dissipate very quickly. He noted how the Tea Party, which was pretty strong in opposing the Obama administration, and helped bring the Republicans back to power in Congress in 2010, quickly dissipated. Schwartz said the dead end of conservatism today is “Trumpism” – which doesn’t even pay lip service to capitalism. It’s just mindless nationalism and tribalism. Unfortunately, I think this is largely true. I just thought that empowering the progressive left when their base was destroying major cities with rioting was beyond the pale, and had to be rebuked by re-electing Trump. I also thought Biden was so old that he might die in office, and we’d have Kamala Harris as President. (I think a Harris presidency would be a disaster.)

The last thing I have in my notes was a recording of Ayn Rand giving a Q&A session. I tried to write down some of the more interesting questions and answers, but I cannot guarantee the accuracy of my transcriptions. There were some interesting questions about Howard Roark from The Fountainhead:

Q: “How does Roark remain untouched in his struggle?”

A: When Roark had bad stuff happen to him, he would merely regret it.

Q: “How are Roark and Henry Cameron different in this regard?” https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/the-fountainhead/character-analysis/henry-cameron

A: Cameron started drinking to deal with it. Basically, he became an alcoholic.

Q: “Why did Roark never cry?”

A: Rand said it’s okay for men to cry, but she didn’t see Roark doing it, because “pain only goes down so far” for Roark. But, Roark would admit that he is suffering.

(I have been known to cry, so, I was interested in this. Although I try to do so only in private.)

Then there was a question about how to develop a good ability to use metaphors in writing. Rand defined a metaphor as a comparison of two concretes based on an abstraction they have in common. For instance, “the snow was white as sugar”. She said she would walk around and, if she saw something, she would try to come up with a metaphor. I try to do this some myself. I always have a tough time with metaphors when I write. I think I’m too “literal”. So, to me, if the snow is white, I’m just going to think: “The snow is white.”

There was also the following question: “Could there be an honest communist?” Rand quickly answered that question with a definitive “No.” The follow-up question was then: What about Andrei the ‘good communist’ from her novel We The Living. https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?kn=we%20the%20living%20by%20ayn%20rand&sts=t&cm_sp=SearchF-_-TopNavISS-_-Results

The answer Ayn Rand gave “floored me”, since it wasn’t what I’d always heard on Internet forums over the years: She said she “stretched a point” for the purposes of fiction, although she said that she liked that character. She said something about Andrei growing up poor and in a backwards country, which somewhat excused it. I had read on an Internet forum in the 1990’s that Ayn Rand thought there were “honest communists” at the early part of the Russian revolution, but they were eventually all killed off or exiled. (That will teach me to listen to what some random person says on the Internet.)

There was also an interesting question that was something like: “Is a principle invalid if it cannot be applied in every conceivable context?” Miss Rand said that was an example of “context dropping” and “philosophical rationalism”, but I didn’t quite understand the answer, or the question, and I’d like to hear it again.

Later that evening, there was a talent show, called “OCON’s got Talent”. It was quite the show, and I’ll leave it at that.

[Note: If you found this blog post of value, please consider a gratuity. Give whatever amount you think the post was worth. (Please do not send me money if you know me off the Internet.) http://deancook.net/donate/]

August 29, 2021

The first lecture was related to the concept of purpose, using the novel Atlas Shrugged for many of the examples to illustrate the Randian view on purpose.

For Rand “purpose” is a value to be pursued. It is something which one acts to gain and or keep. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/purpose.html) Rand presents three “cardinal values” of the Objectivist ethics: Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem.

I think these three “cardinal values” for Objectivism all have to do with states of the human mind. An online dictionary gives one of the definitions of “reason” as “…the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic..” Reason concerns having a connection between the content of your mind and the facts of reality. As was discussed in an earlier blog post concerning day 3 of the 2021 OCON, Objectivism says some of the methods used to achieve this correspondence between your mind and reality are “reduction” and “integration”. Additionally, we use deduction to draw inferences about the things around us based on generalized principles, and we use the scientific method to learn general principles of nature. Learning these methods of rationality helps us to achieve the value of reason -the goal of corresponding the contents of our minds to the facts of reality.

“Self-Esteem” is defined by an online dictionary as “…a feeling of having respect for yourself and your abilities…” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-esteem) Rand defines it as a person’s “…inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.” (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-esteem.html)  Self-Esteem is about valuing yourself -having self-love. This is clearly a mental state, which requires you to implement certain standards of action to achieve. Someone who has no job, sits around all day playing X-box, smoking pot, and living in their parent’s basement, with no plan for the future, will have great difficulty avoiding a feeling of self-contempt. (At least not without evading the facts, which is a “mental house of cards” that will eventually fall.)

An online dictionary defines “purpose” as “….the feeling of being determined to do or achieve something…”,as in: “She wrote with purpose…” Another definition that is illuminating is “…the aim or goal of a person : what a person is trying to do, become, etc….”. For Rand, “purpose” is very connected to having some meaningful work that one does, but I cannot find a satisfactory definition of it in her non-fiction writing, now, although she does state that a person without purpose will be, essentially “rudderless” in life:

“A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man’s life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find…” (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/purpose.html)

Clearly, her characters, like John Galt, Howard Roark, and Hank Reardon are all examples of men with a purpose, and you can gather a clear understanding of what she means by reading about these characters. I would refer anyone to her novels, especially The Fountainhead, for understanding the man who has purpose.

In my view, “purpose” is similar to self-esteem, in that it is a more of a feeling in your mind. Reason concerns having an ordered thought process. Purpose is more of an emotion -a sense of satisfaction or mental ease.

The speaker at this OCON lecture also presented the concept of “purpose” as a “…some state of our psychology we are trying to achieve…”

The lecturer then said: “But what is that state?”

He also presents various characters and scenes from Atlas Shrugged to illustrate what Rand meant by “purpose”. He noted that Francisco d’Anconia always asked as a child, “What for?” when he was presented with a proposed task or activity. Francisco is a character from Rand’s novels with purpose. James Taggart, one of the villains from Atlas Shrugged, is presented as a man without purpose.

I would note that most very religious people do not consider “Reason” or “Self Esteem” to be values. In fact, they are likely to regard them as vices or “sinful”. However, religious people tend to be very interested in some concept of “purpose”. In a sense, there are three “types” of people out there when it comes to purpose. First, there are the people like Francisco d’Anconia and Howard Roark -men who find purpose primarily in their creative work. Second, there are men like James Taggart, who essentially have no purpose. On a smaller scale than James Taggart, I think these are the people who live in their parents’ basement, smoke pot all day, play X-box, and don’t even look for a job. A third “mental attitude” concerning a sense of purpose are the religious types. They claim to find purpose in following the commandments of some alleged supernatural authority.

I’d say one of the two most common retorts you will hear from a religious person if you are atheist is: (1) What will keep people moral without religion, and (2) What is the point of life without god? This second question reflects the religionists’ belief that purpose is important, but they don’t believe there can be any purpose if the universe is simply a mechanism that exists without some sort of creator and a divine plan.

I think that the sense of purpose we feel, that psychological state, reflects our nature as living beings. Evolutionarily speaking, unless human beings had a sense of accomplishment or happiness when they achieved the values necessary for their survival, they wouldn’t last long. The sense of purpose, that psychological state, is ingrained in our minds because of what we are and what we need to live. I also believe that religion hijacks our desire to achieve that state of purpose and puts it out of our reach. By seeking something that is outside the realm of reality as their ultimate purpose, the religionist makes the things that they can achieve, such as family, career, friendship, and love, seem meaningless by comparison.

The second lecture I attended that day was given by a medical doctor who is an infectious disease specialist, who works for the Centers for Disease Control. He also seemed very familiar with and friendly towards Objectivism. His lecture concerned the COVID-19 outbreak, and his views on the public and private sector’s responses to it. (Especially the CDC’s response.) He presented Taiwan as a good example of how to deal with a pandemic. He said Taiwan had no lock-downs.  (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/taiwan-coronavirus-covid-response)  He said the primary failure in the United States was the failure to test enough people for COVID-19 early on. The FDA wouldn’t let the CDC hand out test kits or market them. There was government opposition to home test kits, and the Maryland governor had to hide COVID-19 test kits purchased from South Kora, for fear that the Federal government would confiscate them. (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maryland-hiding-testing-kits-purchased-south-korea-us/story?id=70434840)  As a result of the poor Federal government response, by March of 2020, state governors were panicking, and started imposing lock-downs.

The  speaker said there are essentially two different “philosophies” on how to handle a pandemic. One is the “abstinence only” approach proposed by some when it comes to HIV. In other words, just telling people not to have sex. With COVID-19, this “abstinence” approach takes the form of government lock-downs. The other approach, preferred by the speaker, is “harm reduction”. I’ve heard this term used to describe how to deal with the drug problem. For instance, instead of telling people not to do drugs, they are provided with clean needles to avoid disease transmission. The speaker said that the Federal and State governments in the US mostly went with the “abstinence only” approach when it came to COVID-19.

The speaker also discussed the role of experts when it comes to something like a disease pandemic. He said their role is to brief, and inform the public and public officials. However, I think the problem with most government-funded experts is that they tend to become nothing but a mouthpiece for the status quo. As Ayn Rand noted in her article “The Establishing of an Establishment”, when government money is used to fund scientific investigation, politicians have insufficient knowledge to know which scientific theories or ideas are good or bad. Even a conscientious politician is not omniscient. He cannot be expected to know if a particular theory in physics, chemistry, biology, or medicine represents the work of the next Isaac Newton, or of some charlatan looking to make a quick buck from the public trough with his design for a perpetual motion machine. All a well-meaning government official can do is rely on the known experts in the field to tell him who should get government money. In other words, government money goes not to the innovators, but to those who are already established:

“How would Washington bureaucrats—or Congressmen, for that matter—know which scientist to encourage, particularly in so controversial a field as social science? The safest method is to choose men who have achieved some sort of reputation. Whether their reputation is deserved or not, whether their achievements are valid or not, whether they rose by merit, pull, publicity or accident, are questions which the awarders do not and cannot consider. When personal judgment is inoperative (or forbidden), men’s first concern is not how to choose, but how to justify their choice. This will necessarily prompt committee members, bureaucrats and politicians to gravitate toward ‘prestigious names.’ The result is to help establish those already established—i.e., to entrench the status quo.” (Philosophy: Who Needs It, “The Establishing of an Establishment”, Ayn Rand.)

More generally, I’m always suspicious of experts because so many of them seem to have a political agenda. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of whether human beings are responsible for changes in average global temperatures. It’s such a politicized issue, that I don’t know what to believe. I don’t trust government-funded academics to tell me the truth, as opposed to just wanting to make sure they keep the government funding coming in.

The Ayn Rand Institute has presented a white paper regarding how to deal with pandemics and infectious diseases for those who are interested in a deeper dive into this issue. (https://newideal.aynrand.org/pandemic-response/)

The last thing I have in my notes for that day wasn’t a lecture, but a dramatic presentation of a play, “Mona Vanna”, followed by a Q&A with the actors and the producers of the play. (https://www.amazon.com/Monna-Vanna-Play-Three-Acts/dp/1561141666) It’s the story of a woman who offers herself sexually to an invader in exchange for sparing her city. Since she’s married, that presents some obvious conflict with her husband, amongst others. I was unfamiliar with the play, and knew nothing about it, going into it. I enjoyed the actors’ dramatization of it. Afterward, there was some lively discussion with an audience member concerning how realistic the motives of some of the characters were. Additionally, there was a lecture regarding the biography of the author of the play.

[Note: If you found this blog post of value, please consider a gratuity. Give whatever amount you think the post was worth. (Please do not send me money if you know me off the Internet.) http://deancook.net/donate/]

The first lecture I attended was on the Objectivist virtue of pride.

The speaker started by referencing a scene from Atlas Shrugged, where Reardon is trying to find the motivation to go to a party being thrown by his wife. Reardon is in a loveless marriage with a woman whose behavior he finds bewildering and senseless. She seems to do things just to make him miserable, but, at the start of the novel, he cannot believe it is intentional. Reardon knows the party will be filled with her friends, whom he despises. Eventually, he goes to the party, very reluctantly. (I’m going from memory, and it’s been a number of years since I read Atlas, but I believe this is an accurate description.)

The speaker said the virtue of pride helps us to avoid making the mistake Reardon makes here.

The speaker then gave a second example, which comes from a feeling most of us have felt at one time or another. This is when we need to do specific things to advance our careers or long-term life goals, but part of us doesn’t want to. So, for instance, (my example), a person writing a novel might not want to sit down at his computer on any given day and actually put words on paper. He finds excuses not to begin writing, or gets easily distracted. I don’t believe the speaker called it this, but I call this a problem of motivation. The speaker noted that this is sort of the converse of the situation Reardon was in. It’s when we know we should do something, but don’t want to, while for Reardon, it was something he thought he should do, but was mistaken. (Reardon didn’t need to go to his wife’s party. What he needed to do was call a divorce lawyer.)

I tried to come up for a word for what Reardon was feeling and doing. He feels a lack of motivation to go to his wife’s terrible party, that has terrible people, but that is a good feeling. Unlike the situation of a writer who cannot bring himself to write due to a motivational lapse, Reardon’s feeling is rational and justified. In the end, the only expression I could come up with for Reardon’s behavior is a sort of slang expression: “Knuckling Under”.  This is the idea of giving in, or submitting, in the face of unfair pressure from others.

The speaker said that the problem of motivation, such as a writer might feel, is another situation where practicing the virtue of pride can help.

The speaker then went on to discuss the “feeling of pride” as contrasted with the “concept of pride”. An example of the “feeling of pride” given by the speaker was also from Atlas Shrugged, when Dagny first meets Galt, and she describes his mouth as having the “shape of pride”. (Or something along those lines.)

My notes aren’t good on this point, but I think the speaker was focused more on the “concept of pride” rather than the “feeling of pride”. I would assume this is because a feeling is not something immediately under your control. Either you feel it, or you don’t. According to Objectivism, you choose the express ideas that you hold. Emotions and feelings are automatic, although they should change over time, depending on the express ideas you adopt and practice. (Feelings for Objectivism, I think, are ultimately a reflection of the ideas you hold.) Think about it like being an insomniac. He cannot “force” himself to sleep. He can take actions during the day, and over weeks, that will (sometimes) help him sleep better in the future, such as not drinking as much coffee, adhering to a regular sleep schedule, (possibly) meditating, etc. But, those are explicit lifestyle choices that improve a bodily function that is not directly under one’s control. (Take what I say on the Objectivist view of emotions in this paragraph with a “grain of salt”. It is not something I understand very well, and I have not thought about or studied it extensively.)

The Speaker said the lecture would look at the two aspects found in the definition of pride found in “The Objectivist Ethics”, in The Virtue of Selfishness. The first is the phrase “values of character”, and the second is the phrase “moral ambitiousness”. (It’s possible he said these are two ways Rand defines pride, I’m not sure from my notes.) (See http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pride.html .)

Values of Character:

“Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned—that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character—that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind—that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining…” (Galt’s Speech, Atlas Shrugged)

The speaker started out by asking: what is “character”?

He described it as an entrenched, on-going state that makes you want to act in a certain way. He used the expression “emotional dispositions”, and noted that some people have certain “entrenched” behavior patterns. He used the example of “socially awkward people” versus people who are very “gregarious”. He said these attitudes are a product of the premises held in your mind. (“Premises” is one of those words in Objectivism that has somewhat unique significance, and is sort of a “term of art” you’’ll hear in Objectivist circles. EG, “benevolent universe premise”, “check your premises”, and “tribal premise”.)

An online dictionary defines “character” as “one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/character), which is not too far off from what I think the speaker and Rand meant in the quote above about pride.

The speaker then discussed another scene in Atlas Shrugged. (This one was at the party that I think Reardon’s wife was throwing that he didn’t want to go to.) Francisco approaches Reardon and deduces what he feels regarding the party, about how it is a victory over the storm and the elements.  I have in my notes the speaker said that Reardon tells Francisco this is evil, though I’m not too sure of my notes on that point. (I don’t remember Reardon’s reaction.) The speaker then talked about the idea of “implicit premises”, and said you can only hold contradictions in your mind if one premise is explicit and the other is implicit.

I tend to think this is correct. Someone might explicitly reject Christianity, for instance, yet, still feel some fear of death and going to hell because they were raised from a young age with those ideas. It’s not that easy to unshackle your mind from those notions when they have been buried in your subconscious from an early time. A woman might explicitly say she is morally equal to men, but allow herself to get sucked into an abusive relationship, perhaps because she accepted ideas from early childhood that taught her to be a human punching bag for some man. A criminal out of prison may want to reform, yet all he seems to be able to do is think about ways he could rob a bank. An alcoholic might want to quit drinking, but have such intense anxieties, that he cannot find the source of, that he is constantly tempted to drink. Your behavior patterns and your emotional response to things get programmed by what ideas you’ve come to accept in the past, and now, perhaps even forgotten that you once explicitly accepted those ideas. This is why self-analysis is critical to personal growth.

For Objectivism, as I understand it, there is no shame in having bad habits or behavior patterns. It’s what you do about it that matters. Are you working on it? Are you, if necessary, getting therapy? When you have negative emotions, do you stop to think about why you feel that way?

The speaker then went on to talk about another phrase from Galt’s speech, concerning pride:

“…that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul…” (Galt’s Speech, Atlas Shrugged)

The speaker asked what does it mean to “make a soul”? He noted that you don’t have direct control over your “soul”. This has to do with the Objectivist view on free will. (See what I said above, and the examples I gave, such as the atheist who cannot quite give up his fear of going to hell.) Obviously, “soul” here means something other than a supernatural entity. When Rand speaks of a “soul” she means one’s consciousness, or one’s mind.

The speaker gives another example from Atlas Shrugged to illustrate his point that you don’t have direct control over your “soul”. When the government passes a bunch of regulations to kill the new industries arising in Colorado, Reardon temporarily looses motivation. Then, he talks with Dagny about the guy who invented the motor they found, and that he actually existed, which regains his sense of self-efficacy.

My notes then got a little bit vague for a page or so, but I think the speaker gave additional examples of situations where Reardon basically had an “internal conflict” in his mind, which caused him problems throughout the novel. (Such as when Reardon has sex with Dagny, and hates himself, and her, for it.)

The speaker then asked: How would better practicing the virtue of pride of helped Reardon?

He then jumped to Rand’s idea of “moral ambitiousness”, as it helps to define the virtue of pride:

“The virtue of Pride can best be described by the term: ‘moral ambitiousness.’” (“The Objectivist Ethics”, The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand)

Here, he gave some fairly good practical guidance on practicing this virtue. For instance, he said, when you don’t want to work, you shouldn’t just try to “force it”. You should first think about why you don’t want to work on something.

He also noted that when people do something they do not want to do, such as a sex addict, (or, I assume, a drug user), they should attempt to look at why they feel compelled to do that.

The speaker didn’t say this, but I suspect addicts may require therapy or other treatment. But, going out and getting a therapist, and committing to therapy would, in my opinion, be practicing the virtue of pride too. You are sufficiently “morally ambitious” to seek mental health treatment -to believe that you can change. That is an accomplishment. (I do have in my notes that the speaker mentioned seeking therapy.)

An example of practicing the virtue of pride from my own life involves personal finance. I haven’t always been the best when it comes to how I deal with and handle money. (What I’d call the virtue of “thrift”.) A lot of my thinking on money tended to be how I believe “poor people” think about money, without even being fully aware of this. In recent years, I’ve read books by authors like Robert Kiyosaki. One of my “take aways” from his book “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”, is that there are certain patterns of thinking and habits concerning money that tend to make poor people poor, and rich people rich. For instance, Kiyosaki says the house you live in is not an asset, because assets “put money in your pocket”. It is “poor people thinking”, if I recall what Kiyosaki thought on the subject, to believe the house you live in is an asset when it is clearly a liability. Another “personal finance guru” I’ve listened to a good bit on the radio is Dave Ramsey. Although I don’t think his strategies for getting out of debt make sense in 100% of all situations, I do think he offers much practical guidance on this topic. He comes at the issue from the standpoint of personal responsibility, and self-discipline, which includes creating a budget and having a strategy for paying off your debts.  Becoming debt-free requires a change in your thinking and behavior. In other words, you must change your character. That is the sort of “moral ambitiousness” Ayn Rand was talking about.

The next talk I attended on the 28^th was a discussion of “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand”, by Leonard Peikoff. (This book is commonly referred to as “OPAR” in Objectivism circles.) This is a systematic presentation of all aspects of Miss Rand’s philosophy in a non-fiction book, which Ayn Rand never did herself. It was written by one of her closest associates, who was also an academic philosopher. The book was based on a lecture course Leonard Peikoff would give in the 1970’s while Miss Rand was still alive.

Something the speaker said that surprised me concerned the chapter on the concept of “objectivity”. He said that Rand didn’t write much on that topic. (Which I had gathered from reading most of her published non-fiction, including “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”.) He said that most of what Peikoff wrote about the Randian view on this topic in OPAR came from his own private talks with Miss Rand.

By way of a brief explanation, chapter 4 of OPAR provides a definition of the concept of objectivity, followed by a description of two key underlying foundational concepts. These are the ideas that knowledge is both “contextual” and “hierarchical”. Peikoff says the first is necessary to “…clarify the idea of noncontradictory knowledge…” The understanding that knowledge is “hierarchical” is necessary “…to clarify the concept of ‘proof’…” “Both topics are indispensable if we are to grasp fully the nature of logic and thus objectivity.” (OPAR)

To really grasp an idea, one must understand both its context and its hierarchical nature with respect to other concepts, and ultimately what one experiences in the world of sensory-perceptual data. (What one sees, hears, tastes, smells, feels, etc.) Context must be held because “…concepts are formed in a context -by relating concretes to a field of contrasting entities. This body of relationships, which constitutes the context of the concept, is what determines its meaning.” (OPAR) An idea’s context is understood by means of the method of “integration”. “One step at a time, a man must relate a new item to his previous ideas. To the extent of his knowledge, he must search for aspects, presuppositions, implications, applications of the new that bear on his previous views (in any field); and he must identify explicitly the logical relationships he discovers. If he finds a contradiction anywhere, he must eliminate it. Judging on the available evidence, he must either amend his former views or reject the new claim.” (OPAR)

Objectivism also makes a distinction between concepts that can be grasped by observation with one’s senses versus concepts that contain so much sensory data, that it cannot be all held in one’s head as a “perceptual entity”. For instance, one can grasp a concept like “cat”, simply by observing a few cats, in contrast to, say, dogs and chickens. Its possible for a child to form this simple concept, and, for a while at least, hold a definition in terms of just pointing to examples of what he means by “cat”. By contrast, other concepts, like “art”, “organism”,  “atom”, or “culture”, “…cannot be reached directly from its concretes.” Concepts like “culture” presuppose that its concretes have been “…conceptualized earlier, usually in several stages, on increasing levels of abstraction. A definite order of concept-formation is necessary. We begin with those abstractions that are closest to the perceptually given and move gradually away from them.” Recognizing this leads to the conclusion that “…cognitive items differ in a crucial respect: in their distance from the perceptual level.” This is the “hierarchical nature of knowledge”.(OPAR)

Noticing this hierarchical aspect of knowledge leads to a second, in my opinion, very powerful, method of learning new concepts. This is the method of “reduction”: “Reduction is the means of connecting an advanced knowledge to reality by traveling backward through the hierarchical structure involved, i.e., in the reverse order of that required to reach the knowledge. ‘Reduction’ is the process of identifying in logical sequence the intermediate steps that relate a cognitive item to perceptual data.” (OPAR)

Peikoff then gives an example of reducing the concept of “friend”. Basically, he starts with a definition of friend as a type of relationship that is different from a “stranger” or an “acquaintance”. From there, he goes on to look at the nature of that “relationship” that forms the basis, specifically, of friendship. (In other words, by taking a key term from the definition, he has already taken a step backward along the conceptual hierarchy.) That relationship that signifies “friendship” involves things like “mutual knowledge”, “esteem”, and “affection”. This is another step back. It is closer to something we can perceive in reality, either in others, or through our own introspection.  From there, Peikoff “breaks down” the concept of “esteem”. What does that depend on? A favorable appraisal of a person. A recognition of qualities in another, or oneself, that are good or valuable.

He also breaks down the concept of “affection” as a positive feeling one has for another. This also implies the concept of someone being good or valuable. From there, Peikoff breaks down the concept of “value”, which according to Objectivism is “that which one acts to gain and/or keep”. The process of understanding the concept of “value” is set forth in “The Objectivist Ethics”, by Ayn Rand. Ultimately it lies in the fact that we are living organisms of a certain nature, and if we want to maintain our existence, then we must pursue certain goals -values. From there, you can see individual human beings pursuing goals in order to live: eating, sleeping, finding shelter, etc. These goals are achieved with certain actions. (Working, growing food, building houses, etc.) At that point, the concept “friendship” has been mostly “reduced” to the perceptual level- to what we can see.

According to OPAR, to really grasp any idea you learn, whether at school, from other people, or in books, you must understand that idea in context, by means of integration, and also understand the hierarchical nature of that idea by means of reducing it to more immediately perceivable concepts. The processes of logic, for Objectivism, are the methods of integration and reduction -of understanding ideas in relation to other ideas, and in relation to the facts of reality. Any idea that cannot be reduced and integrated is to be dismissed as illogical.

Once you start explicitly practicing the methods of reduction and integration, you will find that it makes learning things much easier. For instance, I have found that when studying a particular textbook for a class in school, it often helps me to go to the library, and get two or three other textbooks on the same subject. I will then flip to the sections where those alternative textbooks cover the same subject. They will present the concept I am learning using slightly different wording, with slightly different examples. Why does this help? First, the other textbooks are relating the concept to other concepts that the class textbook, might not do, perhaps because it is not as a good on that point. Second, the use of other examples in the other textbooks relates the concept I am trying to learn to the facts of reality in a different way, giving me a more complete picture. This reflects a different explanation of the hierarchical nature of that idea -a slightly different, and perhaps, better, reduction of the concept.

The final lecture I have in my notes from that day was on the virtue of integrity. The lecturer said that integrity seems like a “shadow virtue” compared to the other virtues commonly listed in Objectivism. (OPAR describes the following virtues, which are all considered expressions of the primary virtue of rationality: Independence, Integrity, Honesty, Justice, Productivity, and Pride -along with a discussion on “The Initiation of Physical Force as Evil”.) The lecturer said the other virtues seem more specific, while integrity sort of covers them all. On this definition, I am not sure that I agree that integrity is any more or less of a “shadow virtue”, than, say pride. Pride, as “moral ambitiousness” seems to be about taking moral virtue seriously and committing to that course. (Although, there seems to be some overlap in my mind between integrity and pride.) The lecturer offered as her thesis that the virtue of integrity does, in fact, offer something substantial.

The lecturer noted that the cultural climate is against integrity. Politics encourages compromise over commitment to principle. She noted that our legal system is so full of rules and regulations, that it practically necessitates cheating just to survive. (My example: Think of the Internal Revenue Code.)

Since the predominant moral code of today is altruism, which requires self-harm, you have to breach integrity just to survive on that moral code.  The lecturer said that since integrity, as commonly accepted today, is connected in the minds of the public to altruism, it poses a “trap” that sucks a student of Objectivism into altruism without thinking about it. (I didn’t quite get this point.) The lecturer said that intrinsicism, in the Objectivist sense of that term, is the result. (I also didn’t get this point.)

My notes indicated the lecturer first distinguished between “Ideas Integrity” and “Action Integrity”. The former being consistency of your ideas, and the latter being correspondence of your ideas to your conduct. I take the first as, for instance, not being an advocate, of say, reason, while also being a theist. An example of the second, I think, would be something like being an atheist, then going to church, and engaging in all the formal trappings of religiosity -even saying to your friends and family that you’re religious, when you’re secretly not.

Next the lecturer discussed the value of integrity, by reference to John Galt’s speech on integrity in Atlas Shrugged. Basically, that we cannot live as animals do, on a case by case basis. Human life requires a bigger picture, with long-range planning. Integrity is the recognition that reason is man’s means of survival.

The lecturer stated that cheating always hurts you. However, I think this is only true in a fully capitalist society. In a very mixed economy, cheating may be necessary just to survive. People living in a highly regulated economy will have to pay off government officials just to be able to do business. Think of Mexico, and its notoriously corrupt police force, where you can either pay off a cop, or spend an indefinite term in a Mexican prison. (I will leave it as an open question whether our own society is so “mixed” that cheating is now necessary.)

The lecturer then notes some of the ways cheating hurts you. Most of these were related to how you are implicitly “programming” your subconscious when you cheat. These are sort of like “signals” you send to your subconscious: (1) You are telling yourself that what you believe is all just “Bull Shit”; (2) You are saying ideas aren’t true or false; (3) You are saying ideas don’t really matter. All of these, the lecturer noted, will create self-doubt.

My notes got a little “fuzzy” on some point. When they picked back up, the lecturer had moved on to very “practical” or “concrete” applications of the virtue of integrity, which I found useful. Basically, she said she wanted to look at the thinking that should take place behind the action of integrity. First, to practice integrity, the lecturer said you needed to engage in ongoing, honest introspection. By “introspection” she meant the process of cognition directed inward.  For instance, the lecturer notes, if you notice, through introspection, that you are prone to excessive caution, or unduly ambitious in setting goals, or you find your emotions tend to overreact to situations, you should be on the lookout and try to figure out why this is happening.

I think this is what the lecturer meant with this sort of introspection: Say you realize that you are so cautious that you are stuck in a “dead-end” job, or you are terrified to ask a girl out on a date because of being rejected, or whenever you go out to take a walk for exercise, you’re afraid you’re going to get mugged. Basically, you’re unwilling to take rational, calculated risks where the reward is sufficiently great. You should set a sort of “reminder” in your head, that is something like: “I’m going to be on the lookout for when I feel this way.”  Then, when you start feeling that way, you stop, and follow up with questions like: “Am I being too cautious here? What am I giving up by not taking a chance? How big is the risk if I do take a chance?” So, to take that down to a particular example. If you feel fear when trying to ask a girl out on a date, you think something like: “What’s the worst that can happen here?” (She says no.) “What is the possible reward? (She says “yes”, and you eventually fall in love.)  Furthermore, you can recognize that the more times you ask girls out on dates, the more you will face that fear, and probably, over time, it will diminish in your mind.  So even if you ask ten girls out on dates, and they all say “no”, you are still accomplishing something -the reduction and management of your fear.  Now, there may be good reason not to ask a particular girl out on a date, when you do this introspection. Perhaps you have it on good authority she likes to go out on dates with guys just to get a free meal. In that case, your fear may be well-founded, or rational, in that particular case, so you pass up even asking her out. (Everything I said in this paragraph is my own thinking, and I don’t know if the lecturer would agree with me.)

The lecturer then went on to caution against three things when introspecting to discover where you can use some “improvement of your character”. These are things to be on the lookout for: (1) Rationalization – basically a fake explanation to excuse not having integrity in a particular situation; (2) Half-truths- You only look at part of the truth, to avoid cognitive dissonance in terms of the compatibility of your ideas; (3) Evasion– You want incompatible things, or you want to avoid unpleasant issues. An example given by the lecturer of this last point was when two of your friends have a falling out, and you have to, in a sense, “choose” between them.

The lecturer also note that it is possible to make an “error of knowledge”. This is a specific idea from Objectivism, which is contrasted with a “breach of morality”. Only this latter is considered wrong or bad in Objectivism. So, for instance, you might mistakenly believe that someone is honest, because you don’t have any current evidence that they have been lying to you. This is an “error of knowledge”. Later, you might find out that they’ve been lying to you. If you continued to pretend that they hadn’t lied to you, this would be a “breach of morality”. But, the lecturer notes that you shouldn’t use the concept of “errors of knowledge” as a sort of rationalization or excuse. She noted that complacency, is, itself, a breach of morality. So, you cannot “stick your head in the sand”, and avoid gathering the facts necessary to make moral judgments.

The lecturer then discussed subjecting your moral principles to examination to make sure they are correct. I think this relates back to the distinction the lecturer made between “Ideas Integrity” and “Action Integrity”. This would relate to the former aspect of integrity -of ensuring consistency between the ideas that you hold. She said integrity is about loyalty to rational principles, not whims. For instance, (my example) you need to honestly ask yourself if holding some notion of a supreme being is consistent with your commitment to truth, logic, and the scientific method. The lecturer gave an example concerning Hank Reardon and Dagny Tagart in Atlas Shrugged. Basically, I think she meant they were not acting with full integrity, even if that was not their intent. She said Objectivism is not an ethics of intention.

The lecturer then asked what is a “principle”? It is a general truth on which other truths depend. A breach of integrity is a breach of the facts. For instance, when practicing the virtue of justice, a breach of integrity could occur in one of two ways: First, one could fail to judge at all. I take this as the sort of post-1960’s, “hippie view”, in which everyone is free to “do their own thing”, even if that results in the likes of Charles Manson. Second, one could engage in judgment without sufficient facts. I take this to be the sort of person who seems quick to jump to the worst possible conclusion, and to ascribe the worst motives to people. We all know the “church lady” type, or, more recently, the “social justice warrior” type, who goes after famous people on social media for being “racists” when they say something that isn’t 100% in line with their worldview. (Like when black racial collectivists went after radio personality Don Imus, and ultimately got him fired.) Although, I think, in the case of the “church lady type” or the “social justice warrior”, part of their problem is their underlying philosophy that leads to this sort of “judgmental” behavior. In other words, it’s inherent in religion and Marxist/Leftist thinking to engage in this sort of activity, by the logic of what they believe.

In the case of people who tend to make moral denunciations of others without having endeavored to learn all of the facts, I think that this occurs at times in Objectivist circles, usually amongst the younger people who might be new to Objectivism, and don’t fully understand it. Although, I’ve seen it with older people in this subculture, too.  At this point in my notes, I have “Objectivist virtue signaler”, which is a “recycling” of a term used to describe the “social justice warrior” types on the left who like to make loud proclamations, and condemnations of people, usually on scanty or no evidence. For instance, the left-wing “virtue signaler” will get on Facebook or Twitter, and declare that some famous person is a “racist”, based on some very vague statements they may have made in the past, that could have any of a number of meanings. I think my use of the term “Objectivist virtue signaler” is my own thinking, and not something this lecturer said. I recall hearing someone saying this in a group of people at OCON between lectures, in reference to someone, and it may have gotten into my head that way.

My hypothesis on this phenomena: sometimes, younger people who have just discovered Objectivism will be so enthusiastic about the philosophy that they may be unwitting victims of the “Dunning-Kruger Effect”. They want to be good, but they don’t fully understand what that means, so they may try to act on ideas they don’t understand very well. They may wind up imitating Ayn Rand, and the characters from her books, rather than truly understanding them. They proclaim their love for the music of Rachmaninov and skyscrapers, take up smoking, etc. They adapt concrete things that seem to “represent Objectivism” in their minds, rather than understanding the fundamentals of the philosophy.  Leonard Peikoff discusses the concept of “rationalism” in his lecture series “Understanding Objectivism”, and how to combat it, and I think this is related to this method of thinking. The difference between the “Objectivist virtue signaler” and the Marxist/Leftist “virtue signaler” is that Objectivism actually conforms to reality and is useful for helping you live your life. As such, someone engaging in “dogmatic thinking” with respect to Objectivism will, with high probability, eventually become frustrated because what they say doesn’t seem to have any connection to actual reality in their minds. At that point, they will either do deeper thinking about Objectivism, likely using the techniques of “reduction” and “integration” already discussed in relation to Leonard Peikoff’s book, OPAR, or they will just throw up their hands and move away from Objectivism. Rand said something similar in an interview for Playboy Magazine. (See the entry on “Dogma” found in The Ayn Rand Lexicon: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/dogma.html )

The lecturer said integrity involves “checking in”, to make sure our virtues are being practiced properly. She then discussed using a sort of “cost benefit analysis”, and whether that makes sense in living our lives. She basically thought this sometimes might make sense, as long as you ask the question: “By what yardstick is it a cost or a benefit?” She gave the example of a $5 coupon for a pizza place you don’t like. You can think it’s $5 off, but since you don’t like the pizza, is it really a benefit? She noted that the common view of principles is that they are either seen as “arbitrary duties” or as “things that help people”. (I think people on the political right tend to see it as the former, and people on the left tend to see the latter.) But, the speaker noted, both of these views see principles as impediments against having too much self-interest. She noted that for Ayn Rand, principles promote wellbeing.

I think the best way to see the difference between the conventional view of principles and the “Randian viewpoint”, is to think of principles in terms of “scientific principles”. For instance, the “scientific principle” of Newtonian mechanics allows us to calculate the instantaneous velocity of a cannon ball, or a rocket fired into space. This is useful for helping us to do things like launch satellites into orbit. Rand’s view of principles is more in line with the principles espoused by Newton than the “principles” found in the Bible or the Democratic Party Platform.

The last thing I have in my notes on this lecture is the Q&A. Someone asked about a quote from “The Fountainhead”, that I believe is made by Gail Wynand. He says something like: “All love is exception making.” I believe he said it with respect to Dominique Francon, and I also think he said she could never make an exception for anyone. Basically, I think the questioner wanted to know how this “fits” with Ayn Rand’s view on the virtue of integrity, since it seems like it would contradict that. The lecturer said she didn’t have a good explanation for that, which I thought was very honest. I have remembered this quote on several occasions in my own personal, romantic life, and I’ve wondered if I was just making up a rationalization for “excusing” certain beliefs or attitudes with people I’ve been involved with. I cannot fully explain this quote from “The Fountainhead”, other than to note that Gail Wynand was, by no means, a perfect man. You have to take what he says with a “grain of salt”, as not necessarily indicating what Ayn Rand thought. Just like you wouldn’t attribute anything Ellsworth Toohey believed to Rand, since he was the villain in the novel. But, I also think there may be something there, especially when it comes to romantic relationships. I just haven’t quite figured it out yet.

The last lecture I attended that day concerned the history of medicine, given by a professional surgeon.  It was a history of the science of anatomy, specifically how difficult it was for people before modern times to legally obtain cadavers for dissection. The lecturer said it is very difficult to make any progress in medical science without first being able to understand human anatomy, which requires dissection of dead bodies. In the ancient and medieval worlds, and in most cultures, cutting open dead bodies was a religious or cultural taboo. She noted some of the historical exceptions to this. For instance, at various times in pre-modern Egypt, cutting open dead bodies was done as part of that culture’s burial ceremonies, so they learned something about internal organs. In India, children under 2 could be dissected. (I don’t remember the reason. Something to do with their religion.) In the Roman Empire, ancient physicians learned something about anatomy from wounded gladiators. From 200 A.D. to about 1400 A.D., the Church forbade dissection, meaning there wasn’t much progress. Plus, ancient Roman physician’s works became like a dogma, with many incorrect ideas. Then, around the time of the Renaissance, more progress was made. The name to remember from that period is William Harvey. I generally enjoy history of science presentations like this. It reminded me of James Burke’s “Connections” and Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos”. The discussion of William Harvey made me think of a fiction novel I read called “Quicksilver” by Neal Stephenson, which seems to be set in the same time period as Harvey. The novel is fiction, but involves historical characters, such as Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz. In the novel, the characters will do things like dissect human bodies, or vivisect dogs to learn about anatomy, in addition to studying things like physics.

[Note: If you found this blog post of value, please consider a gratuity. Give whatever amount you think the post was worth. (Please do not send me money if you know me off the Internet.) http://deancook.net/donate/]

August 26, 2021

The conference was held at the AT&T Hotel and Conference Center. This is on the UT-Austin campus.  I arrived in the afternoon on August 26. Since I live in the Dallas Fort Worth area, I could drive to the conference. I was planning to go to the swing dance at the Federation of Women’s Clubs Mansion, but it got canceled, due to the high COVID-19 infection rates in Austin. That left me without much to do that evening. After I ate, I went to a small bar/grill in the Hotel and had a beer. Listening to the two people behind my table talk about Objectivism, and “the movement”, really took me out of my sense of what “reality” is. I don’t really mean “reality” in the metaphysical sense -just in the sense of what my day-to-day social experience is, when interacting with my fellow men. The other 51 weeks out of the year, when I’m not on vacation at an Objectivism conference, I can go for months without discussing Ayn Rand or Objectivism with anyone. When I do discuss Objectivism out in “the rest of the world”, its usually going to turn into me having to explain/teach/debate with someone. That gets to be very “draining”, psychologically. These conferences are a chance for others to teach me something about Objectivism, and to have others discuss Objectivism with me -rather than having to defend against some polemic regarding Miss Rand’s philosophy. (Don’t get me wrong, engaging with “the non-Objectivist” majority in society is important, but you cannot do that all the time without it wearing on you.)

August 27, 2021

The morning of August 27, I ate breakfast at the hotel restaurant. It was outrageously expensive, but I ate there and in the adjoining bar/grill for social reasons, throughout the conference. Although I find that I do get tremendous benefit from the lectures, the major reason I go to these conferences is for the social aspect. I’ve been interested in Objectivism since I was 15. I’ll be 47 this October. My hope at the OCON’s is to make a connection with people who are at least in the same “philosophical orbit” as me. I find that I encounter people of varying degrees of knowledge and intellectual honesty at these Objectivism conferences. I don’t just assume I’m going to get along with everyone there. I’ve definitely been, shall we say, less than impressed with specific individuals I’ve met at previous OCON’s.  But, I look at my “odds” of meeting people I can possibly form friendships with, as higher than the population of people around me in my day-to-day life.

At the very least, I get a chance to see how I react when I’m around large numbers of people that, ostensively, at least, believe what I believe. Am I capable of “playing nice with others”, or am I too misanthropic?  Because I hold such a radical philosophy, and am an atheist in the South, an easy “criticism” for people to make of me is that I’m “too anti-social”, “lacking in tact”, or that I just “don’t like people”. I suspect this has more to do with the fact that many of the people in my day-to-day life don’t like the philosophy I am not afraid to espouse, or it at least causes some level of “cognitive dissonance” in them. Rather than dealing with the substance of Objectivism, it’s easy for non-intellectual people to just say: “Oh, you’re anti-social, Dean.” The Objectivism conference gives me a sort of “sanity check”.  At the conference, I’m around large numbers of people who are closer to what I believe. I have the opportunity to make a connection with others there, where I don’t have to worry about that awkward moment when they find out I’m an atheist. Can I do it? The conferences give me an opportunity to “put my money where my mouth is”, in a certain sense.

Parenthetically, that “moment of awkwardness”, when I tell someone I’m atheist, has happened many times in my life. I get to be friendly with someone. They find out I’m atheist, and, at least for a while, they become emotionally distant from me. Often, if I continue to spend time with these people, they “come around”, but the issue always remains a gulf between us. Sometimes, I sense a certain degree of resentment, from them, due to the cognitive dissonance it probably creates within their mind. When it comes to romantic relationships with very religious women, I’ve discovered, quite painfully, that the chasm is probably unbridgeable. What about atheist meetups in my local area? Can’t I meet like-minded people there? Someone might ask. These are worse than the people I’d meet going to the local non-denominational church. Most atheists will be left-wing, with Marxist thinking patterns, and open hostility toward Rand. They will probably dislike me, and I know I won’t like them.

Getting back to the conference, there were no lectures on August 27. Check-in to get your conference badge started at 2pm and ran until 6pm.

To give myself something to do during the day, I went down to the Colorado River near Congress Avenue to rent a Kayak. Unfortunately, it started raining when I got there. I hung around a bit to see if the weather would clear, but it didn’t. I headed back to the hotel.  Once there, I believe I walked around the UT-Austin campus to see how much it had changed since I went to school there in the 1990’s. (But, my notes on that are incomplete, so it may have been another day.)

There was an opening reception and dinner in the Hotel at 7pm. I apparently didn’t see the “dinner” part on the itinerary, because I wound up eating at the hotel grill, thinking the 7pm thing was just going to be drinks. The food looked good, although I did not partake. I saw an older gentleman, who I had met back at the California conference in 2018, and spoke with him some. I tried to keep notes on my phone of the people I met, their names, and a brief description of them. (I also do this in my day-to-day life, because I’m bad about remembering people’s names.) According to those notes, I met a younger fellow from South America who now lives in Miami. He wasn’t from Chile, but the moment felt very “surreal” for me, given the character from Atlas Shrugged. (In a good way.)  Based on my experience at this conference, and the past two I attended, I’ve noticed what seems like a fairly large number of Latin-American attendees. More than I would have expected. I also met a nice husband and wife who were maybe five to ten years older than me. They were local to the Austin area, and had only “discovered” Ayn Rand in the last few years. They talked about trying to get their teenage children to go with them to the conference, which sounded very “man bites dog” to my ear. These kid’s parents are encouraging an interest in Ayn Rand and Objectivism? I had to laugh at this, and explained why this was so amusing to me, based on my own, very different, experience as a teenage Ayn Rand fan.

Another pair of younger men I met appeared to be a gay couple to me, but I wasn’t 100% sure. One was in his mid-twenties and the other was in his mid-thirties. They were from California, according to my notes. I haven’t seen any scientifically done surveys on the topic of gay interest in Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Just based on what I see anecdotally, at the few conferences I’ve been to, I’d say the number of gay attendees is a higher percentage than the population in general. I know at least one of the regular speakers at these conferences is gay. I’d guess the idea of the individual versus the collective/tribe themes that you find in Miss Rand’s philosophy might resonate well with a gay person.

Another notable pair of people I encountered at the opening reception were a pair of women, who were somewhere in my age range, give or take four years. They were from California, in the Bay Area, or Silicon Valley area. At some point, we were talking about the Biden Administration bungling the Afghanistan matter. I started to say: “Biden fucked up,” but I stopped myself. (Keep in mind, by this time, I was on my second mixed drink.) Then, one of the two women called it a “cluster fuck”, and I said something to the effect of: “I was about to say he ‘fucked up’, but I didn’t want to say that to you.” They looked at each-other and giggled. One of them said: “Aww, how cute! He’s from Texas and he doesn’t want to say ‘fuck’ in front of ladies.” This made me chuckle, since I hadn’t even fully realized I had a hesitancy to “cuss in front of a woman”, or that it might stem from where I mostly grew up. It also turned out these two were both writers, working on a script for an “Atlas Shrugged” mini-series. I asked if they had acquired the legal rights, which they confirmed they had. I also, only half-joking, asked, “Will it be better than the movies?” They assured me it would be. I was very impressed by them, and I may have mentioned I write fiction, but I’m not 100% certain if I did. I encountered them a couple more times at the conference, and I was more interested in hearing what they had to say, than in talking about myself. (Seeing as how, I already know what I know.)

Overall, I found this reception/dinner quite enjoyable. It was in an out-door patio area in the middle of the hotel, surrounded by guest rooms. It was shut down by hotel staff at around 9pm, to let people sleep. I believe some people moved to the hotel bar, or some other place to continue the festivities. But, the first lecture in the morning was at 8:40am, so I decided to get some sleep.

[Note: If you found this blog post of value, please consider a gratuity. Give whatever amount you think the post was worth. (Please do not send me money if you know me off the Internet.) http://deancook.net/donate/]