Category: Personal

“I will confine my answer to a single, fundamental aspect of this question. I will name only one principle, the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent today and which is responsible for the spread of evil in the world. That principle is: One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment….

The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of ‘saving everyone’s soul’ -nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. It means: (a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one’s own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; (b) that one must make one’s moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so.

This last means that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debates, but that one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere ‘I don’t agree with you’ is sufficient to negate any implications of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one’s views may be morally required. But in no case and in no situation may one permit one’s own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent.” (The Virtue of Selfishness “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society,” https://courses.aynrand.org/works/how-does-one-lead-a-rational-life-in-an-irrational-society/)

I read this article when I was about 15 or 16 years old. It’s been over thirty years now, and I’ve re-read it many times.

I’ve tried to live by it, but I’ll admit there have been times when I’ve failed to pronounce moral judgment where I should have. Usually, this was when I was lapsing into some form of altruism, and “felt sorry” for someone, or when I was just afraid for no good reason.

But, even when I try to live by it, I never quite know when it is necessary to make my moral evaluations known to others. Sometimes, it’s clear that I do not need to pronounce any sort of moral judgment. For instance, my online Spanish tutor is quite religious, and during our conversations in Spanish, she will sometimes talk about going to church every Sunday. In that circumstance, I don’t think it’s necessary, or appropriate, to tell her I think Christianity is an institution that has caused 2,000 years of irrationality and human misery.  I also don’t consider this a moral breach on her part. She is from a poor country, with people who are generally less educated, and everyone is quite religious. I consider her religiosity to be a genuine error of knowledge, and our relationship is so delimited, that it would make no sense to try to change her mind. When she talks about church, I just engage in the conversation, and ask her questions about it. For instance, she once said she goes to a Church online, and I asked her, genuinely curious: “How do they handle communion?” (She told me that they pull out their own bread and wine, and the preacher blesses it from a distance -makes as much sense as in person, I guess.)

At other times, I don’t always know where that line is -of when I need to speak out, and say something. I recently had something happen, which I cannot discuss, where I did speak out, but I still don’t know if it was right, or if I should have remained silent. Unfortunately, the older I get, I realize that it is sometimes very hard to apply the virtues, especially when I’m acting on less than perfect knowledge, and I am under an extreme “time crunch”, where I have to make a decision quickly. It also takes me time to “process” certain facts, and it can be months later before I realize the implications of something.

I will say that, even today, it can still cause me a lot of anxiety to pronounce moral judgment. It is sometimes an extreme act of will to proceed with the right course. It seems so contrary to everything that many people in society implicitly and explicitly pressure us to do, whether those people are authors, journalists, teachers, intellectuals, religious figures, or, quite frequently, lawyers.

 

September 1, 2021

The first lecture I attended was about the writing of Dostoevsky. I’ve never read any Dostoevsky, and the lecture seemed to depend on having a working knowledge of the author. As a result, my notes were not very good.

I gather from it that Ayn Rand liked Dostoevsky, which is somewhat incongruous, given her own philosophy and viewpoint on fiction writing. Rand is regarded in most Objectivist circles as focusing on heroes, rather than villains. The hero doesn’t necessarily always win in Ayn Rand’s writing. Kira Argounova in We The Living can’t be said to “win”. She is the sort of hero who is “destroyed but not defeated”. But, the focus for Rand is on the hero.

Ayn Rand explicitly said that she didn’t care to write fiction focused on the “bad guys”. Whether she thought all fiction that focused on the bad guys was “inherently bad”, I’m less sure on. The way I’ve interpreted her writing on this subject, she simply didn’t personally care to focus on villains.

I have written a couple of novelettes and short stories focused on a “bad guy”, by which I mean someone I would not care to emulate, and that I consider to have made wrong choices. ( http://comeandreadit.com/index.php/2018/05/21/resentment/ http://dwcookfiction.com/index.php/2018/11/13/impunity/ )  For me, writing these characters is an attempt to understand the nature of evil. I am, in that process, “focusing on evil”, but it’s with an eye towards understanding.

The lecturer said that Rand liked the writing of Dostoevsky that focused on demons, devils, or the possessed. The lecturer said that the actual demons of Dostoevsky are the ideas the lurk in the shadows of their spirt. Other writers portray a Garden of Eden, while Dostoevsky portrays a “Garden of Evil”.

The lecturer warned that while reading Dostoevsky, you should keep several things in mind: (1) He’s an artist, and the characters do not necessarily represent him, unlike Ayn Rand, whose primary characters are people she considers to be like herself in important respects. Dostoevsky is “creating, not confessing”. (2) Some of his ideas are, in fact, dangerous and wrong. The lecturer said Ayn Rand said it was like entering a chamber of horrors with a powerful guide. (3) Dostoevsky aspired to be the poet of the good, but the good for him wasn’t efficacious.  (The lecturer had additional things to say on this last point, but I missed it.)

The lecturer then went over the Brothers Karamazov, with one brother described as wanting justice in this world, now, and the other brother wanting religious justice. (I assume that means justice for bad people when they die.) I haven’t read the novel, so I didn’t get that much from her description. She also spoke of a short story called “Dream of a Ridiculous Man”, and discussed something about the character of Gail Wynand from “The Fountainhead”, but I haven’t read the former short story either, so I didn’t get much from it.

###

The next lecture I attended that day concerned the environmentalist movement. I try to be very careful about what I say regarding this issue. I do not understand the science involved, and don’t have enough time to study it in great detail. I am skeptical that the news media presents what the scientific establishment is saying in its full context. I think that the news media is more likely to report on a scientific study that shows average global temperatures going up than they are a study that does not.

I also think that there is so much government funding of science at this point, that it has become captured by ideology. What I mean by “ideology” here is this: There is an “issue of fact” as to whether, for instance, average global temperatures are going up, and that it is an inadvertent result of human activity. This is purely a matter of developing measurements and scientific experiments that are accurate enough to make this determination. This is the science side of things. However, assuming this fact was established, it would say nothing about the value judgment we should draw from it. Maybe it’s not bad enough to do anything about? Maybe some people benefit, and other people don’t? How do we weigh these benefits and losses? Why do we assume that some given average global temperature is better, just because it is “natural” (not a result of human activity)? These questions are a question of values, and therefore ideology comes into play. I think that government-funded scientists who promote the notion that the “ideal state” is zero effect on the ecology by human beings tend to get the funding, while those who do not, tend not to get jobs.

The lecturer was attempting to show how philosophy shapes he we look at policy on energy. His analysis consisted of showing how the “dominant narrative” on energy policy sort of “filters down” to the masses in our society.

He moved fairly quickly, so my notes get pretty sketchy at points, but I think he presented a system in which energy policy starts out with the Researchers, who do the original work on energy policy. Next come the “Synthesizers” who put together the best works of the Researchers. Next are the “Disseminators”, who communicate the ideas to the media. From there the ideas go to the “Evaluators”, who are the people who say “What do we do about what’s true?” For instance, this would be the editors at the New York Times.

The lecturer said that the dominant narrative is that we should eliminate fossil fuels as quickly as possible. I wonder if it isn’t the case that the media is simply “cherry picking” the research that supports this narrative, and that there is an enormous amount of research that would oppose it or present other alternative approaches to the problem. (This is mere suspicion/supposition on my part. I do not know for sure.)

The lecturer also said there are “designated experts” who are basically “hybrid disseminators/evaluators”. They are people regarded as speaking for the best experts on what is true, and to do about it. This includes: spokespersons for the UN, Al Gore, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Amory Lovins, and Bill McKibben. I was only familiar with some of these names.

With this context in mind, of how the dominant ideas on energy policy are filtering down to the masses, which is our society’s “knowledge system”, the lecturer made some observations. First, our “knowledge system” supports the elimination of fossil fuels and other forms of cost-effective energy, while ignoring the costs. The relevant facts are these: (1) Fossil fuels can provide cost effective energy. (2) We need cost-effective energy to flourish as individuals and as a race. (3) Billions of people around the world lack cost-effective energy, and suffer because of it. He noted a woman in Gambia who had no access to an incubator for her newborn, which died as a result.

Second, our knowledge system supports the elimination of nuclear energy. Most of the anti-fossil fuel movement is also anti-nuclear. Nuclear power is typically excluded from renewable mandates from governments.

Third, our knowledge system opposes “big hydro-power”. The Sierra Club fights hydro-power and pays no price for this in terms of support or contributions:

“Sierra Club Opposes Large Scale Hydro”

https://www.sierraclub.org/maine/hydropower

Fourth, our knowledge system is unconcerned about mass opposition to solar and wind power. I think what he means here is that there is a lot of opposition to the need to mine the resources to build large scale solar and wind power generation. There is opposition to the construction of the transmission facilities it would take to move the power from the wind farms and solar farms to the cities. There is opposition to building large-scale wind farms and solar farms because it will damage animal habitat:

“These large projects are increasingly drawing opposition from environmental activists and local residents who say they are ardent supporters of clean energy. Their objections range from a desire to keep the land unspoiled to protection for endangered species to concerns that their views would no longer be as beautiful.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-powers-land-grab-hits-a-snag-environmentalists-11622816381

Despite this opposition, there is no outcry by our experts over the irrationality of saying that we cannot have any fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, or even large-scale solar/wind farms, which basically means we cannot have electrical power.

There were other issues touched on in the lecture, but it felt a little like I was trying to drink from a firehose. The amount of information the lecturer was attempting to convey in an hour and a half was too much for me to take good notes. I think the lecture would have been better if it were broken down into about three one-hour lectures.

###

The last lecture I have concerned the nature of evil. I don’t have much to say on this lecture for two reasons. First, I ran out of pages in my composition notebook about this time, so my notes are incomplete.  Second, I thought the lecture contained some good points, but didn’t seem sufficiently concrete for me to really grasp what the lecturer was trying to convey. It seemed like he was just sharing his thoughts on the topic somewhat extemporaneously.

I’ll share some of my own thoughts on the nature of evil, as I think it relates to Ayn Rand’s philosophy here.

Ayn Rand defined the good as that which is pro-life. In other words, that which promotes or enhances man’s life. On a concrete level, penicillin is good because it cures disease. Clothing is good because it keeps you warm and protects you from the elements. Food is good because it nourishes and sustains your body. Shelter is good because it protects you from the elements. Sex is good because it is a source of pleasure and of having children. Reading fiction is good because it lets you imagine other people and other ways of living. Friendship is good because it lets you learn about things you enjoy from other people, and to have companionship concerning what is important to you in your life. Knowledge is good because it allows you to create the things that you need in order to live. Happiness is good because it provides you with the emotional incentive to live. Self-knowledge and introspection is good because it lets you correct character defects to better live your life. A long-range perspective of what you need will help you to live beyond the range of the moment. From these concrete things that are good, you can generalize to that which all people must act to gain and or keep, because they are fundamentally important to their lives. Reason is important because an ordered mind connected to reality enhances your life with knowledge and understanding. Self-esteem is important because it provides the individual with the confidence that he is worthy of living and of happiness. Purpose is important because it provides you with a long-range perspective on your life, and acts as a measuring stick in gauging your choices over a lifetime.

“Evil” for Rand’s philosophy is that which is the anti-life. That which negates, opposes or destroys that which is necessary for living is the evil. Fundamentally, evil is the refusal to think:

“Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict ‘It is.’” (Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/evil.html )

For me, it has always been difficult to believe that someone would deliberately unfocus their mind. Since I cannot get inside other people’s heads to see what is going on first-hand, I can only look into my own mind, and also observe what other people say and do, in order to try to infer what is going on inside their heads. I have never been fully convinced that Ayn Rand’s description of evil is actually happening in some other people’s minds.

I try to be on the lookout for it in my own mind, which is the only one I can ultimately perceive directly, and the only one that I can control.

Rationalization certainly seems like something real that matches Ayn Rand’s definition of evil. I try to be on the lookout for this, in myself and in others. I define rationalization as giving a fake explanation for an action or behavior that really has nothing to do with your explanation. Examples might include the following: You might tell yourself that you are in love with a girl one night, even though you really just want to have sex. An alcoholic might say they normally wouldn’t drink anymore, but it’s their friend’s bachelor party, so they’ll drink just this one time. A smoker might say they are too stressed to stop smoking this week.

A more vicious example of rationalization might be the rapist who tells himself his victim was dressed too provocatively, or she shouldn’t have been out walking alone late at night, so she got what she deserved.

There was a story back in 2020 about someone in Portland Oregon who murdered another man in cold blood, because he was on the political right. The murderer, Michael Reinoehl, was a Black Lives Matter and Antifa supporter.  He claimed he was protecting his black friend, although the video footage of the murder showed him lying in wait for his victim, stalking him, and then shooting him:

“Reinoehl is seen hiding in an alcove of the garage and reaching into a pouch or waistband as Danielson and a friend, Chandler Pappas, walk south on Third Avenue.

Homicide Detective Rico Beniga wrote that Reinoehl ‘conceals himself, waits and watches’ as Danielson and Pappas pass him.

After the two men go by, Reinoehl followed them, walking west across the street moments before the gunshots were fired, police said.” https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/09/arrest-warrant-against-michael-reinoehl-for-2nd-degree-murder-unlawful-use-of-a-firearm-unsealed.html

In an interview, Reinoehl’s sister described him as:

“…an ‘impulsive’ person who let his ‘worst emotions guide his actions’ — and then tried to rationalize them afterward.” https://nypost.com/2020/09/04/michael-reinoehls-sister-relieved-feds-killed-him/

An essential feature of rationalization is the evasion of your true motives or reasons for taking some action. In the case of Michael Reinoehl, it sounds like he simply let his emotions guide him, and then justified his reasons with left-wing rhetoric after the fact.

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/]