Philosophy – Page 2

Book Review of “Explaining Postmodernism”, by Stephen R.C. Hicks

This is the best non-fiction book I’ve read in a decade. I highly recommend it. The over-all value of the book lies in tracing the origins of what I find to be a common tactic when debating a leftist. You present them with arguments, facts, and logic, and, at the end, they will say something like:

“Well this is all just your white male prejudice,”; “that’s only logic, come down to reality,”; “those are just your definitions, and all definitions are ultimately arbitrary”; or, even, “I don’t feel that you’re right, and why is your logic better than my feelings?”

Hicks has provided an explanation, lying in the history of philosophy, for why so many people seem to consider such responses to a logical argument to be persuasive. That explanation lies, mostly, in the ideas of dead, white, male philosophers who lived two-hundred years ago. Those notions have slowly “trickled down” to the masses, and infect the majority of people’s minds today -especially any college student with a “gender studies” or “black studies” degree.

The author expressly states his theme in his table of contents:

“Thesis: The failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible, and the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary.” (Table of Contents, Pg. i.)

Did I find this, in fact, to be his theme based on my reading of the book? Overall, I’d say, yes. I’ll start with Hicks’ definition of “postmodernism”:

“Postmodernism rejects the entire Enlightenment project. It holds that the modernist premises of the Enlightenment were untenable from the beginning…” (Pg 14)

“Postmodernism reject the Enlightenment project in the most fundamental way possible -by attacking its essential philosophical themes. Postmodernism rejects the reason and the individualism that the entire Enlightenment would depend upon.” (Pg. 14)

His definition of “postmodern” is basically a “negative definition”. He defines it as an attack on the Enlightenment. What does he think the Enlightenment stood for?

“In philosophy, modernism’s essentials are located in the formative figures of Francis Bacon…Rene Descartes…, for their influence upon epistemology, and more comprehensively in John Locke…for his influence upon all aspects of philosophy.” (Pg. 7)

“Bacon, Descartes ,and Locke are modern because of their philosophical naturalism, their profound confidence in reason, and especially in the case of Locke, their individualism. Modern thinkers stress that perception and reason are the human means of knowing nature -in contrast to the pre-modern reliance upon tradition, faith, and mysticism. Modern thinkers stress human autonomy and the human capacity for forming one’s character -in contrast to the pre-modern emphasis upon dependence and original sin. Modern thinkers emphasize the individual…“ (Pg. 7)

To sum up, Hicks sees three “types” of philosophical attitudes in the Western World:

The “Pre-modern”, as exemplified by the Christian Medieval, and, probably, the Ancient Greek worlds;

the “modern” attitude, which started around the time of Francis Bacon; and

the “postmodern”, whose origins he goes on to explain later in the book.

What was the “failure of epistemology” he says “made postmodernism possible”? He doesn’t spend too much time explaining what “epistemology” is. He clearly is familiar with, and sympathetic to, Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. I assume he generally agrees with what she said in “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”. I also think he is assuming people reading his book will already have some general understanding of the subject of philosophy and its basic questions. But, early on, he defines what he views as the “Enlightenment epistemology”, which is:

“If one emphasizes that reason is the faculty of understanding nature, then that epistemology systematically applied yields science. Enlightenment thinkers laid the foundations of all the major branches of science. In mathematics, Isaac Newton….developed the calculus….Linnaeus…a comprehensive biological taxonomy…Lavoisier…the foundations of chemistry.” (Pg. 9)

Hicks says there were:

“…philosophical weaknesses…” that had “….emerged clearly by the middle of the eighteenth century, in the skepticism of David Hume’s empiricism and the dead-end reached by traditional rationalism.” (Pg. 24)

But, he says that the real “counter-Enlightenment” started from 1780 to 1815 with a split between Anglo-American culture on the one hand and German culture on the other. (Pg. 24) In Germany:

“Immanuel Kant is the most significant thinker of the Counter-Enlightenment.” (Pg. 27)

Kant’s priority was to defend religion from the Enlightenment:

“I here therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” (See Second Preface to the Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant.)

How did Kant “deny knowledge in order to make room for faith”, according to Hicks?

“The fundamental question of reason is its relationship to reality. Is reason capable of knowing reality -or is it not? Is our rational faculty a cognitive function, taking its material from reality…or is it not? This is the question that divides philosophers into pro- and anti- reason camps…the question that divides the rational gnostics and the skeptics, and this was Kant’s question in his Critique of Pure Reason.” (Pg. 28)

“Kant was crystal clear about his answer. Reality -real, noumenal reality- is forever closed off to reason, and reason is limited to awareness and understanding of its own subjective products….Limited to knowledge of phenomena that it has itself constructed according to its own design, reason cannot know anything outside itself.” (Pg. 29)

In this way, reason was, according to Kant, limited to the “phenomenal realm”, while the “noumenal realm”, the realm of religion, was off limits to reason. (Pg. 29)

Since Kant posited his epistemic system to save religion, how did it come to be used by a bunch of largely, “irreligious”, if not atheistic, post-modern intellectuals? The rest of Chapter Two of Hick’s book lays out the “evolution” of Kant’s way of thinking by subsequent German philosophers, especially Hegel, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard. He sums these subsequent, pre-twentieth-century philosophers at the end of Chapter 2 in this way:

“The legacy of the irrationalists for the twentieth century included four key themes:

1. An agreement with Kant that reason is impotent to know reality;

2. an agreement with Hegel that reality is deeply conflictual and/or absurd;

3. a conclusion that reason is therefore trumped by claims based on feeling, instinct, or leaps of faith; and

4. that the non-rational and the irrational yield deep truths about reality.” (Pg. 57)

In the Twentieth Century, Hicks sees this tradition as having been continued by most major philosophers such as Martin Heidegger, who “…agreed with Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer that by exploring his feelings -especially his dark and anguished feelings of dread and guilt- he could approach Being.” (Pg. 59)

According to Hicks:

“Heidegger offered to his followers the following conclusions, all of which are accepted by the mainstream of postmodernism with slight modifications:

1. Conflict and contradiction are the deepest truths of realty;

2. Reason is subjective and impotent to reach truths about reality;

3. Reason’s elements -words and concepts- are obstacles that must be un-crusted, subjected to Destruktion, or otherwise unmasked;

4. Logical contradiction is neither a sign of failure nor of anything particularly significant at all;

5. Feelings, especially morbid feelings of anxiety and dread, are a deeper guide than reason;

6. The entire Western tradition of philosophy -whether Platonic, Aristotelian, Lockean, or Cartesian- based as it is on the law of non-contradiction and the subject/object distinction, is the enemy to overcome.” (Pg. 65-66)

Note that little has been said about the political views of post-modern intellectuals yet. Hicks observes that, in fact, most post-modern intellectuals are on the political left. (Pg. 84) Starting at Chapter 4, he addresses the connection between the epistemology and metaphysics advanced by German philosophers since Kant, and its political implications. The reason for the modern socialist’s rejection of reason lies in the failure of socialism in theory and in practice:

“As modernists, the [early] socialists argued that socialism could be proved by evidence and rational analysis, and that once the evidence was in, socialism’s moral and economic superiority to capitalism would be clear to anyone with an open mind.” (Pg. 86)

Free market economists, such as Ludwig von Mises, Milton Freedman, and Friedrich Hayek, have largely won the debate when it comes to the theoretical case for capitalism over socialism. (Pg. 87) The moral/political debate is more “up for grabs”, but, even here:

“…the leading thesis is that some form of [classical] liberalism in the broadest sense is essential to protecting civil rights and civil society…” (Pg. 87)

By the 21st Century the:

“…empirical evidence has been much harder on socialism. Economically, in practice the capitalist nations are increasingly productive and prosperous…every socialist experiment has ended in dismal economic failure…Morally and politically…every liberal capitalist country has a solid record of being humane, for by and large respecting rights and freedoms, and for making it possible for people to put together fruitful and meaningful lives. Socialist practice has time and time again proved itself more brutal than the worst dictatorships in history prior to the twentieth century.” (Pg. 87-88)

The success of the capitalist world and the failure of the socialist nations created a “crisis of faith” for those on the left. As Hicks notes:

“This is a moment of truth for anyone who has experienced the agony of a deeply cherished hypothesis run aground on the rocks of reality. What do you do? Do you abandon your theory and go with the facts -or do you try to find a way to maintain your belief in your theory?” (Pg. 89)

Hicks believes the modern left’s abandonment of reality and reason in favor of “post-modern thinking” is their effort to “have their cake and eat it too”:

“Here then, is my second hypothesis about post-modernism: Postmodernism is the academic far Left’s epistemological strategy for responding to the crisis caused by the failures of socialism in theory and in practice.” (Pg. 89)

Hicks notes that just as religious thinkers faced a “crisis of faith” during the Enlightenment, in which it was widely recognized that there was no way to prove the existence of god on “naturalistic” and rational grounds, so to, by the 1950’s and 1960’s, there was no way for socialists to use naturalistic and rational grounds to justify socialism. It had failed in theory and in practice, and, with revelations about the brutality of the Soviet Union, it had very little moral standing left. (Pg. 89-90) If they wanted to hold onto socialism, they had to reject reason and reality:

“Postmodernism is born of the marriage of Left politics and skeptical epistemology….Confronted by harsh evidence and ruthless logic, the far left had a reply: That is only logic and evidence; logic and evidence are subjective, you cannot really prove anything; feelings are deeper than logic; and our feelings say socialism.” (Pg. 90)

The rest of Chapter Four describes the evolution of modern anti-individualist thought, starting with Rousseau and moving on to Hegel and Marx.

Chapter 6 discusses Marxism in historical context. Hicks notes that classical Marxism believes socialism would arise in the more advanced capitalist countries, like England and the United States, first. In actual practice, it arose in semi-feudalistic countries like Russia, Eastern Europe, and China. As such, Twentieth Century Marxists, like Lenin, had to modify their thinking to rationalize the need for a violent and brutal aristocracy to bring about socialism. (Pg. 138 to 141)

By the 1950’s and 1960’s the failure of socialism to arise “spontaneously”, as predicted by Marx, resulted in several different strategies to be tried by socialists. Some subtly changed their ethical standards from “need to equality”, which could include the inequalities experienced by small businesses versus big businesses (pg. 151), or the inequality supposedly present between the races. (Pg. 152)

Other mid-twentieth-century Marxists said wealth was bad anyway, giving rise to the environmentalist movement. (Pg. 153).

A third group of Marxists turned to violence in an effort to move the proletarian revolution along in the First World. (Pg. 165-170) As Hicks notes, several international terrorist groups with ties to Marxist thought, including the Weathermen in the US, and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the Middle East, arose in the early 1960’s.

What does Hicks consider to be the motives of the 21^st Century postmodern left? He notes that postmodernist thinking contains a whole host of contradictions:

“On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.” (Pg. 184)

“On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.” (Pg. 184)

“Values are subjective -but sexism and racism are really evil.” (Pg. 184)

“Tolerance is good and dominance is bad -but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.” (Pg. 184)

There is a “…contradiction between the relativism and the absolutist politics…” of postmodernism. (Pg. 185)

Hicks sees three possible explanations for this seeming contradiction:

1. Postmodernists are “relativists” primarily and their absolutist leftwing politics are “secondary”. He rules out this possibility because, otherwise, there would be more “conservative” postmodernists, but they are all uniformly left-wing. (Pg. 185-186)

2. The use of postmodernism is a “Machiavellian” strategy to undermine their political enemies. (Pg. 186) When they loose an argument, they will respond with: “Of course you, a white, male, heterosexual, would say that. But we cannot know anything about ‘things in themselves’, so reason is limited.”

3. Postmodernism is ultimately a nihilistic world-view, so the contradiction doesn’t matter to a postmodernist:

“The final option is not to resolve the tension. Contradiction is a psychological form of destruction, but contradictions sometimes do not matter psychologically to those who live them, because for them ultimately nothing matters. Nihilism is close to the surface in the postmodern intellectual movement in a historically unprecedented way.” (Pg. 191-192)

The biggest flaw of the book I see may lie in the author’s treatment and evaluation of Marxism, which I think he gives more credit than it deserves. At several points, he seems to suggest that Marxism is more “pro-reason” than I think it ever was, even in its original “classical” format, as propounded by Karl Marx himself. Hicks makes an assertion about Marxist socialism that probably isn’t correct at page 86:

“As modernists, the socialists argued that socialism could be proved by evidence and rational analysis, and that once the evidence was in, socialism’s moral and economic superiority to capitalism would be clear…” (Pg. 86, emphasis added.)

He implies that he is including Marxists in the above description of “socialists”, and not just the non-Marxist socialists of the 19th Century, since he goes on to discuss the claims of “Classical Marxist socialism” on the same page. Also, later, he says:

“Beginning in the 1920’s and 1930’s there had been some early suggestions that Marxism was too rationalistic, too logical and deterministic…And early Frankfurt School theorizing had suggested that Marxism was too wedded to reason…” (Pg. 156 to 157, emphasis added.)

Hicks seems to say that Marxism, as originally conceived, is “pro-reason”, when I think it never was. Non-Marxists socialists, the so-called “utopian socialists”, would have been pro-reason, like Hicks said on page 86. The ideas of Marx probably won out over the “utopian socialists” precisely because Marx embraced the Hegelian dialectic, and didn’t depend on classical Aristotelian logic. Marxism is too “arbitrary”, or disconnected from reality, to really be disproved or proved. Any time someone tries to disprove it, a Marxist could just say that person was a “tool of the capitalist exploiters”, and, “of course”, the critic would say that:

“Aware of the fact that communism cannot be defended by reason, the Marxists proceeded to turn the fallacy of ad hominem into a formal philosophic doctrine, claiming that logic varies with men’s economic class, and that objections to communist doctrine may be dismissed as expressions of ‘bourgeois logic.’ “ (Leonard Peikoff, “Nazi Politics,” The Objectivist, Feb. 1971, 12, found at: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/polylogism.html)

Overall, I consider this to be a minor flaw of the book, which deftly traces the “philosophic genealogy” of today’s “postmodern” left. It really helped me to understand the mind of the average leftist, and how she will dismiss reason and say, I’m engaging in a logic: “…created by dead white men”. Now I see another reason why the average leftist, like some mindless automaton, will point out how I’m a white, male, “bourgeois”, heterosexual -its easier to say this than do any hard thinking about the merits of their political ideology.

(All page number references below are to the 2018, expanded hardcover edition of “Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism From Rousseau to Focault”, by Stephen R.C. Hicks, ISBN 978-0-9832584-0-7)

Dissecting “Structural Racism”

I have heard terms like “systemic racism”, “structural racism”, and “institutional racism” thrown around, mostly by white, left-leaning college students, and I was curious to discover what these terms are supposed to mean. I found a paper, written by Keith Lawrence of the “Aspen Institute on Community Change”, and by Terry Keleher, of the “Applied Research Center at UC Berkeley”, called: “Chronic Disparity: Strong and Pervasive Evidence of Racial Inequalities POVERTY OUTCOMES Structural Racism” (A free version is available here: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf)

UC Berkeley certainly has “credibility” in my mind as standing for all things “leftist” in our society, so I was convinced the second author spoke for a large academic and political constituency. I’ve never heard of the “Aspen Institute on Community Change”, but The Huffington Post, another purveyor of leftist ideology, seems to know who he is. That’s good enough to convince me that these two authors speak for the majority of left-wing academics and journalists out there on the idea of “structural racism” and what it is supposed to mean.

The paper provides the following definitions:

“Structural Racism in the U.S. is the normalization and legitimization of an array of dynamics – historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal – that routinely advantage whites while producing cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for people of color.….Structural Racism encompasses the entire system of white supremacy, diffused and infused in all aspects of society, including our history, culture, politics, economics and our entire social fabric. Structural Racism is the most profound and pervasive form of racism – all other forms of racism (e.g. institutional, interpersonal, internalized, etc.) emerge from structural racism.”
(https://www.scribd.com/document/295254225/Definitions-of-Racism-Chronic-Disparity-Self-Assessment. Free version: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

The paper goes on to say that the primary way you know “structural racism” exists is the fact that there is “inequality” among the races. In other words, so long as there are a disproportionate number of black people who are poorer than white people, then there is “structural racism”. The paper says it’s difficult, if not impossible, to actually identify any *particular* government, social, or business policy that causes “structural racism”. It’s simply assumed that it must be there because black people are poorer than white people on average:

“The key indicators of structural racism are inequalities in power, access, opportunities, treatment, and policy impacts and outcomes, whether they are intentional or not. Structural racism is more difficult to locate in a particular institution because it involves the reinforcing effects of multiple institutions and cultural norms, past and present, continually producing new, and re-producing old forms of racism.”( https://www.scribd.com/document/295254225/Definitions-of-Racism-Chronic-Disparity-Self-Assessment. Free Version: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )
Starting in the 1960s, “Jim Crow” laws were legally abolished in the South. Laws were also passed outlawing any form of “discrimination” based on skin color in housing, jobs, and other areas of public life. Additionally, the welfare state was massively expanded, with wealth transfers from whites to blacks. (See https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf , Page 6: “Both the likelihood of receiving means-tested assistance and the length of benefit receipt differed among racial groups. In 2012, the average monthly participation rate for Blacks, 41.6 percent, was higher than that of Asians or Pacific Islanders at 17.8 percent and non-Hispanic Whites at 13.2 percent.”)

Despite all of these legal changes in the 1960’s, blacks, as a group, remain poorer than whites. (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.pdf) . Blacks also have a number problems associated with their demographic group. For instance, crime rates that are disproportionate to their percentage of the population, and heavy “black on black” crime- i.e., black criminals are mostly preying on other black people. In some years, more than fifty percent of the murders in the United States are black people being murdered by other black people, despite the fact that they are only about 13 percent of the American population. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21 (Think of the gangs in Chicago, and the almost ritualized murder that goes on there between black gang members, and you’ll see why this is the case. See Page 18 of: https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2011-Murder-Report.pdf )

There are also large numbers of black unwed single mothers raising children without a father. For instance, in 2017, according to the US Census, 6,229 thousand black children under 18 out of 13,232 black children were living in single mother households. While 11,603 thousand white children out of 53,291 thousand were living in single-mother homes. That is, 47 percent of black children were with single mothers, while 22 percent of white children were with single mothers. (See Table CH-2 and CH-3 at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/children.html )

These dismal figures create a problem for black racial collectivists like Al Sharpton, and their “white progressive allies”: They need an explanation for why, despite the fact that there is no legalized race discrimination, and even laws prohibiting race discrimination in jobs, housing, employment, and other areas, blacks still are in a lower socio-economic class from whites. They also need to explain the large numbers of single black mothers raising fatherless children, and the disproportionate amount of black crime committed -mostly against other black people. This explanation has to place the blame somewhere other than the black people making bad choices. This rationalization needs to avoid looking at the attitudes, behaviors, and choices made by black people, and look outward, at the white majority.

Furthermore, they need an explanation that will dismiss the fact that most Americans appear to oppose any kind of racial discrimination, and generally regard judging people based on skin color to be wrong. In fact, they need to explain how the laws prohibiting race discrimination got passed in the first place. If Americans are mostly racist, why would a racist white majority pass laws that prohibit firing someone because of their skin color?

A system of philosophy with its origins in Marx, and probably other philosophers, can provide the rationalization needed. Marxism says that the bourgeoisie fundamentally didn’t think like the proletarians, and vice versa. These two groups could not use reason and persuasion with respect to each other, because the content of their minds, their ideas, were ultimately determined by their social class -by their “material circumstances”. This is why Marx viewed socialists who believed that there could be a peaceful transition to socialism as “utopians”. They didn’t recognize what Marx saw as “reality”. Marx, on the other hand, viewed his version of socialism as “scientific” -because he embraced the “class struggle” -which in practice meant eventual warfare between the proletarians and the bourgeoisie, until the bourgeoisie could be wiped out. Only then could socialism be achieved. For Marx, the bourgeoisie couldn’t help what they were, and couldn’t help but exploit the proletarians. Individual bourgeoisie might claim to be fighting for the proletarians, but, as a whole, they invariably exploited the proletarians because of the way their minds worked, which caused their thoughts and actions to be fundamentally at odds with the proletarians.

Black racial collectivists and their white “allies” take this idea, and simply racialize it. The white majority takes the place of the bourgeoisie. Now, it is the whites, who have a system and method of thinking that is fundamentally different and at odds with blacks, who are the new “proletarians”. This paper on “structural racism” supports this idea. It says that “racism” is defined as “…race prejudice plus power.” (Page 13: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

What is “power” according to this paper?:

“The People’s Institute defines power as ‘having legitimate access to systems sanctioned by the authority of the state.’ (Chisom and Washington, op. cit., p. 36.) Other definitions which you might find useful are: 000 Power is the ability to define reality and to convince other people that it/s their definition. (Definition by Dr. Wade Nobles)…” (See Page 21: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf)
Notice this second definition, in particular. Reality isn’t simply something separate and apart from the observer. It is somehow “plastic” or “malleable”, depending on the mind that observes it. This is a Marxist notion:

“Karl Marx later provided the most succinct statement of the collectivist view of the primacy of social interaction in the preface to his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: ‘It is not men’s consciousness,’ he wrote, ‘which determines their being, but their social being which determines their consciousness.’” https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivism

For Marx it was one’s “social being”, i.e., whether he was proletarian or bourgeois, that determined “his consciousness” The content of his mind, his ideas had less to do with an independent reality, and more to do with the group he was born into. (I have written on the before: http://deancook.net/2018/08/16/karl-marx-polylogism-and-utopian-socialism-how-fundamental-philosophy-drives-history/ )

Given this Neo-Marxist view of “power” as being “…the ability to define reality and to convince other people that it/s their definition….”, the fact that there are whites, even a majority of whites, who oppose judging people in hiring and jobs based on the color of their skin, and even pass laws to outlaw it, doesn’t matter. Whites, by their invariable method of thinking, based in the nature of the “white mind”, institute social structures that “systematically” oppress black people. This is their explanation for how, today, there can be no legalized discrimination based on skin color, and how most whites express a desire that there be no such legalized discrimination, and yet blacks are still economically behind whites.

Pointing to lower average IQ scores among blacks than whites as an alternative reason for the disparity is seen as “systematic racism”. The black racial collectivists and their white apologists basically say the tests are “rigged” in favor of white people, even if the white people are all acting in good faith to create fair tests. (And “fair” is another “white idea” anyway.) They believe that IQ tests reflect the nature of the white mind, which is fundamentally different from the black mind. IQ is a “Euro-centric concept”. To the black racial collectivist, the fact that IQ tests have been shown to correlate with job success and achievement simply reflects the white majority’s ability to somehow “rig reality” to promote their race over the black race. (https://www.aei.org/society-and-culture/the-bell-curve-explained-introduction/)

The subjects of history, economics, science, and every other field, reflects “Euro-centricm” because the white mind is fundamentally not the same as the black mind. “Reason” is just another system for whites to, mostly unknowingly and unwittingly, exploit blacks. Hence, the funding for “black studies programs” at universities, where they can supposedly find this “black logic” that is fundamentally different from “white logic”.

This is why blacks who study in school, work hard, and obey the law are “acting white”. They are trying to adopt a system and method of thinking that is essential to the “white mind”, but not the “black mind”. Page 5 of the paper says this: “The acceptance by persons of color of Eurocentric values.” ( http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf)

How do they explain high levels of black on black murder compared to white on white murder, and high levels of black men abandoning their children to be raised by single mothers? According to the purveyors of “structural racism”, the reason for all of this is “internalized systemic racism” of black people by their “white oppressors”:

“INTERNAUZED RACISM: (1) The poison of racism seeping into the psyches of people of color, until people of color believe about themselves what whites believe about them — that they are inferior to whites; (2) The behavior of one person of color toward another that stems from this psychic poisoning. Often called ‘inter-racial hostility;’…” (Page 5: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

In other words, the fact that a black man murders another black man isn’t really his fault. It’s the fault of the whites who made him that way, and the white oppressors can’t even help the way that they are:

“A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States…” (Page 5: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

What is the purpose of this way of thinking? If backs and whites fundamentally think differently, by their very nature, then how can they communicate at all? How could there be any sort of dialogue or understanding between blacks and whites? I think for “race pimps” like the authors of this paper, it’s just a con game -a way of absolving individual black people of their own responsibility for where they are in life, and shifting the blame to whites, who will then feel guilty and provide more welfare and legal benefits to blacks. Hence, the push for things like “reparations”, today.

But, it’s a very dangerous game they’re playing. At some point, a sufficient number of people with this sort of “polylogist thinking” will draw the obvious conclusion from it. If blacks and whites fundamentally cannot reason or dialogue with each other, then only one method is left: Physical force. In fact, the authors of this paper seem to advocate the use of physical force by black people when they speak of what it means to be an “anti-racist”:

“(As applied to people of color), some use the term anti-racist. Others use synonyms such as freedom fighter, activist, warrior, liberation fighter, political prisoner, prisoner of war, sister, brother, etc.” (Page 6: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

Notice how most of the metaphors used here are that of people engaged in a violent struggle or war. This is because, on some level, racial collectivists, just like Marxists, believe in a “class struggle” that can only be resolved with violence. They use the language of warfare to describe themselves, because it is a war to them. This is why you can expect to see more things like the 2016 shooting of white cops in Dallas by a black racial collectivist.

These ideas have come to dominate our universities, our media, and our cultural institutions. This means the level of violence between the races will continue to escalate. In the end, the racial collectivists will get their desired race war, if we don’t repudiate ideas like “structural racism”.

The “Hot Button Issue” of Abortion

I wanted to write a little about this because I rarely do. I am also hoping that I can bring a somewhat “nuanced” viewpoint to a discussion that tends to be driven by pure emotion. Right off the bat, I will state that I do think there should generally be some legal right to terminate a pregnancy, with a recognition that there may be some legal “line drawing”, which I think reasonable parties can disagree on. If you disagree with me, please at least hear me out.

Biological evidence seems to show that a fetus does not have a rational capacity. In fact, it may be that even a newborn infant does not have a rational capacity, which develops some time after birth. This is because the cerebral cortex appears to be underdeveloped, even at birth. This feature of the human brain is responsible for most of what we think makes us human. It also appears to be the physical structure involved in what philosophers would call “the rational faculty”. The reason for this late development of the cerebral cortex has to do with how the fetal body and brain develops, which follows the path of evolution. For instance, human fetuses have gills and a tail at a very early stage. Since the cerebral cortex developed last in the our pre-human ancestors, it makes since this feature comes about last. It’s also necessary to keep brain size fairly small so thet the baby can pass through the mother’s birth canal. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100712154422.htm

The fact that a cerebral cortex is not fully developed even at birth is significant to me because rights are based in the fact that human beings can deal with each other on the basis of reason and persuasion, making the use of physical force against each other unnecessary:

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind…” (Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand.)

However, the point at which a baby develops a rational faculty in biology is probably not fully understood, and I will move forward with the rest of my argument on this issue without reference to whether a baby or a fetus has a sufficiently developed cerebral cortex or not. My argument for some legal right to abortion for some period of time during pregnancy doesn’t stand or fall on the issue of when the cerebral cortex is sufficiently developed.

How are rights violated? Rights are violated by other’s use of force to deprive you of a value against your will.

“Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.” (The Virtue of Selfishness, “The Nature of Government”, Ayn Rand)

This does not mean that force can never be used. It just means the times that force can be used are limited to those in which you are not trying to deprive another person of a value. For instance, force can be used in retaliation or self-defense.

Of special note in this context, is that there are times a person can use force against others, and it isn’t just when they are defending themselves or using retaliatory force.

There are at least two types force you can use to protect yourself:

1. Self-defense from intentional murder or other crime.
2. Use of force to prevent an unintentional collision with another person. For instance, if you use force to stop someone who has tripped from falling into you and knocking you over.

My position is that terminating a pregnancy is like this second type of use of force. It’s not force used in self defense. It is force used to stop the purely reflexive act of a fetus in attaching itself to a mother’s body during pregnancy, or the act of removing it once it has reflexively attached itself to the mother’s body.

Why would a woman need to terminate a pregnancy? All pregnancies are inherently risky for a woman. Women still die in child birth in the first world.

If she becomes pregnant and decides that she doesn’t want to take that risk, then she cannot reason with the fetus to explain why she wants it to detach itself from her body. It’s a purely reflexive act, regardless of how developed a fetus’ brain is.

Abortion is analogous to self-defense. The minimum of force is being used to detach the fetus, similar to how the minimum of force is used to prevent someone from killing you.

Does it matter that the mother chose to have sex, while In the above scenario of someone tripping and falling into you, you didn’t choose to have someone fall on you?

I would note that this would still justify abortion in the cases of rape. Since a woman who is raped didn’t choose to have sex in that scenario, my analogy is “spot on”.

At this point we are dancing around whether the fetus has any rights. What are rights? Why do we need them? This is where I and a religious advocate of rights part ways. We have fundamentally different definitions of “rights” and their basis.

Rights imply an autonomous actor who needs to take action to gain the values necessary for living. A fetus, by its very nature is physically attached to the mother. Choice doesn’t play a role in its existence.

If the mother could somehow transfer the fetus to an artificial womb, with no health danger to the mother, that would be something to consider, but we don’t have that technology yet. That means, for now, abortion is the only option for a woman who doesn’t want to risk her health with a pregnancy.

Parenthetically, I think a woman shouldn’t be able to force a man who isn’t her husband to pay child support. If a woman wants the father of her child to pay for her child, she should enter into a contract with him. I also think a man should have no right to see a child or be a part of its life without a contract with the mother. This “contract” is basically what marriage is about -or should be under an ideal political system. (That, and the sharing of one’s finances and property with the other person.)

At this point the more wild-eyed will go with the ‘reductio ad absurdum ‘ argument: “If abortion is okay, then you must think killing newborn babies is okay, since they cannot take care of themselves and there is a health-cost imposed on the mother by that too. Furthermore, maybe science will show that the rational faculty doesn’t fully develop until age 2.”

My response is: 1) the baby is detached, biologically, from the mother after birth. 2) Given that fact of biological detachment, it makes sense to “draw the line”, legally, there and presume a baby is capable of rational thought, even if such capacity may not still arise for some time. These are the minimum criteria I hold for an organism being accorded individual rights: 1, A biologically distinct organism, that, 2, has a rational faculty or capacity of some sort, necessitating that you can deal with it on the basis of reason and persuasion, unlike the lower animals that you can only deal with by means of force.

Should the “line” for when abortion is legal be drawn somewhere before birth? Say, at seven months, or even six? Should some regulation of the types of abortions, or when abortions are allowed prior to 9 months, be in place? I am willing to entertain those sorts of arguments. (Assuming no unusually high level of health threat to the mother, or some massive birth defect is discovered, after the general prohibition date, in which case there should be a judicial exception of some sort.)

Would I personally want my wife or girlfriend to have an abortion? Assuming that: One, she hadn’t been raped, two, she had no unusually high level of health risk, and, three, the fetus had no birth defects, then I wouldn’t want her to do it. I’d ask her not to, and try to talk her out of it. But, at the end of the day, I recognize it’s not my body, it’s not my health risk, and it’s not my decision.

The Fundamental Flaw of Environmentalism

People will tell me that the “science” of “Climate Change” is settled.

First, what they mean by “climate change” isn’t clear. Do they mean we’ve had ice ages and sustained warming periods where average global temperatures have gone up?

If that’s what they mean, the geological evidence for past ice ages seems pretty strong to me.

On the other hand, if they mean human beings are generating more CO2, and this is causing average global temperatures to go up more than they would without this activity, then I want to know how they know this. Ultimately, they’re going to say that this knowledge is based on observations and measurements, such as measuring the temperature of sea water on a daily basis. This knowledge is combined with what we know about the nature of CO2, which is that more of it seems to trap more sunlight than if there is less of it.

However, even if this is true, when you suggest any sort of solution that involves the use of technology and voluntary human cooperation, they will say that will not work. For instance, if sea levels are rising due to increasing average global temperatures, maybe the best solution is to just build dikes and reclaim land like the Dutch have done in the past. We could also put giant mirrors in orbit around the Earth to reduce the amount of sunlight entering the Earth’s atmosphere, thereby reducing average global temperatures. (https://www.livescience.com/22202-space-mirrors-global-warming.html )
An even simpler, and presently available, solution is nuclear power, which seems to have a very small “carbon footprint”. (https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/co2-emissions1.jpg)

If you start suggesting any of these solutions to an Environmentalist, however, they will always say that these scientific and engineering solutions will fail. For instance, they will say the dikes will break, the giant orbiting mirrors will trigger another ice age, and nuclear power plants will melt down. Why do they always see failure in every technological and engineering solution?

Because they believe human beings are so limited in their mental capacity that they are incapable of producing a viable technological solution, much less in engaging in voluntary, non-coercive and non-governmental projects to solve any actual problem.

This points to a fundamental aspect of the Environmentalist ideology. They believe human beings are not capable of the production of the values we need to survive. And, why do they believe we cannot produce the values we need to survive? Because they believe the human mind is impotent, which means they believe that the human mind is not able to understand or comprehend reality. Human reason is impotent to the environmentalist.

But, if the human mind is not able to understand or comprehend reality, then how can they be sure that “climate change” is real? That involves the use of human reasoning, which they’ve said is impotent to solve any actual problem. (Or, they simply think human reason is inherently bad, and that we should live at stone-age levels of technology, which is functionally the same: anti-reason and anti-science.)

It’s one or the other. Either science and the human mind are capable of recognizing and solving problems, or it is not, in which case they should stop making proclamations about how “the science is settled” on man-made climate change.

This is the fundamental flaw of the ideology Environmentalism: They want to have their cake of science and reason at the same time they’re eating it.

Barack Obama: Tribalist-In-Chief

In my previous blog entry, I described the “tribalistic mindset” and showed that it is the “anti-conceptual mindset”. I also opined that the possible reason for this uptick in discussion of the concept of “tribalism” was due to the election of Donald Trump. Commentators on the left seem to have seized on the idea to explain his rise, and also seem to be blaming Trump for what they see as more “tribalism” in our society and political system.

However, if we are going point fingers at politicians, then we need to take a look at Trump’s predecessor. The Obama administration fanned the forces of tribalism like no other President, and he severely damaged race-relations in the United States.

The intellectual groundwork of the Obama administration’s facilitation of tribalism lies in key aspects of the leftist ideology.

First, most leftists admire or tend to follow the ideas of Karl Marx. So, his ideas on the nature of the human mind, logic, and reason are important in understanding how leftist thinking tends to encourage the anti-conceptual, tribal mindset.

The Marxist epistemology is “polylogist”. (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/polylogism.html). He thought your class determines your consciousness. For Marx, what class you are born into determines your logic, which is unique and distinct from other classes. The proletarians have their method of thinking, the bourgeoisie have theirs, the aristocracy theirs, etc. For Marx, there could be no reasoning with those who control the factors of production, because they fundamentally don’t think like proletarians. Only violence could bring about socialism. You couldn’t reason with members of the bourgeoisie any more than you could reason with a species of lower animal. (See my previous blog post for more on this: https://deancook.net/2018/08/16/karl-marx-polylogism-and-utopian-socialism-how-fundamental-philosophy-drives-history/ )

Marxist polylogism is not very different from those who believe that your race determines your method of thinking, and that other races fundamentally cannot understand you. An example of racial polylogism can be seen in an article discussing how the author believes a policy of “colorblindness”, i.e. *not* treating people differently because of their race is morally bad:

“Colorblindness creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives.” (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism)

Note how the author of this article focuses on “cultural heritage” (i.e., tribalism), and how black people have “unique perspectives…”, thereby giving the article a distinct whiff of racial polylogism. (But, that’s apparently okay when the author is black.)

Marxism appears to have either “set the seeds” for racial polylogism, or it has the same philosophic basis as racial polylogism.

According to Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff, the ideas of Marx were an outgrowth of the ideas of the philosophy of Hegel, who was in turn the intellectual progeny of Immanuel Kant. I haven’t studied Marx, Hegel, or Kant enough to know if this assertion is correct. (I take nothing on faith, even when Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff said it.) I note it here as a possible “lead” on the “philosophic roots” of the ideas of Marx and how those same ideas also led to racial polylogism:

“There are two different kinds of subjectivism, distinguished by their answers to the question: whose consciousness creates reality? Kant rejected the older of these two, which was the view that each man’s feelings create a private universe for him. Instead, Kant ushered in the era of social subjectivism—the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality. In Kant’s system, mankind as a whole is the decisive group; what creates the phenomenal world is not the idiosyncrasies of particular individuals, but the mental structure common to all men.

Later philosophers accepted Kant’s fundamental approach, but carried it a step further. If, many claimed, the mind’s structure is a brute given, which cannot be explained—as Kant had said—then there is no reason why all men should have the same mental structure. There is no reason why mankind should not be splintered into competing groups, each defined by its own distinctive type of consciousness, each vying with the others to capture and control reality.

The first world movement thus to pluralize the Kantian position was Marxism, which propounded a social subjectivism in terms of competing economic classes. On this issue, as on many others, the Nazis follow the Marxists, but substitute race for class.” (_The Ominous Parallels_ Leonard Peikoff, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html)

The second aspect of the leftist mindset that tends to foster tribalistic thinking is modern philosophy’s rejection of reason. This modern rejection is summed up in an Encyclopedia Britannica article:

“As indicated in the preceding section, many of the characteristic doctrines of postmodernism constitute or imply some form of metaphysical, epistemological, or ethical relativism. (It should be noted, however, that some postmodernists vehemently reject the relativist label.) Postmodernists deny that there are aspects of reality that are objective; that there are statements about reality that are objectively true or false; that it is possible to have knowledge of such statements (objective knowledge); that it is possible for human beings to know some things with certainty; and that there are objective, or absolute, moral values. Reality, knowledge, and value are constructed by discourses; hence they can vary with them. This means that the discourse of modern science, when considered apart from the evidential standards internal to it, has no greater purchase on the truth than do alternative perspectives, including (for example) astrology and witchcraft. Postmodernists sometimes characterize the evidential standards of science, including the use of reason and logic, as ‘Enlightenment rationality.‘” https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy (Accessed on 12-15-2018)

As a result, post-modern intellectuals tend to believe that reason is nothing more than a “tool of oppression” over the non-white races:

“A philosophy and religion professor at Syracuse University gave an interview to The New York Times Thursday in which he critiqued the notion of pure reason as simply being a ‘white male Euro-Christian construction.’” (https://dailycaller.com/2015/07/03/professor-reason-itself-is-a-white-male-construct/)

I’d note that this attitude about reason serves as great “psychological cover” for a leftist because any time they loose a debate, they can just say your logic, evidence, and reason is nothing more than a “tool of oppression” by the “white, male, heterosexual patriarchy”, and disregard it.

The third intellectual basis of leftism that tends to promote tribalism is its promotion of collectivism. It is a core tenant of leftism that groups are more important than individuals. Quoting from the Encyclopedia Britannica Article on “Collectivism”:

“The earliest modern, influential expression of collectivist ideas in the West is in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Du contrat social, of 1762 (see social contract), in which it is argued that the individual finds his true being and freedom only in submission to the “general will” of the community. In the early 19th century the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel argued that the individual realizes his true being and freedom only in unqualified submission to the laws and institutions of the nation-state, which to Hegel was the highest embodiment of social morality. Karl Marx later provided the most succinct statement of the collectivist view of the primacy of social interaction in the preface to his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: ‘It is not men’s consciousness,’ he wrote, ‘which determines their being, but their social being which determines their consciousness.’

Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism.”(https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivism , last accessed on 12-16-2018, emphasis added.)

For Marx, the father of modern collectivism, it was not (individual) men’s consciousness which determines their “being”, but their “social being”, which determines their consciousness. In other words, the individual is nothing, and the group, the collective, is all.

These systems of thought held by the Obama administration, the modern rejection of reason and the promotion of collectivism, create the proper “psychological attitude” for tribalistic thinking to flourish. This is because if reason is impotent, and if service to the group is considered as all-important, then an individual will consider his mind incapable of choosing what group he should serve. He’ll simply seek to join a group based on concretes like the fact that they look like him and talk like him:

“Now what are the nature and the causes of modern tribalism? Philosophically, tribalism is the product of irrationalism and collectivism. It is a logical consequence of modern philosophy. If men accept the notion that reason is not valid, what is to guide them and how are they to live? Obviously, they will seek to join some group -any group- which claims the ability to lead them and to provide some sort of knowledge acquired by some sort of unspecified means. If men accept the notion that the individual is helpless, intellectually and morally, that he has no mind and no rights, that he is nothing, but the group is all, and his only moral significance lies in selfless service to the group -they will be pulled obediently to join a group. But which group? Well, if you believe that you have no mind and no moral value, you cannot have the confidence to make choices -so the only thing for you to do is to join an unchosen group, the group into which you were born, the group to which you were predestined to belong by the sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient power of your body chemistry.

This is, of course, racism. But, if your group is small enough, it will not be called “racism”: it will be called ’ethnicity’” (“Global Balkanization”, Ayn Rand, _The Voice of Reason_, https://www.amazon.com/Voice-Reason-Objectivist-Thought-Library-ebook/dp/B002OSXD7I/)

As we have seen, the philosophic roots of the Obama administration’s facilitation of tribalism lie in the ideas of mostly dead, white male philosophers, like Karl Marx. However, many previous leftist presidents have ascribed to similar philosophies. The Obama administration went further and actively promoted tribalism.

This promotion of tribalism started even before Barack Obama was President, although it has only become common knowledge in recent months, because the news media actively suppressed the information. In January of 2018, a photo surfaced showing a then-Senator Obama smiling and posing with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. (http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/Decade-old-photo-of-Obama-with-Louis-Farrakhan-surfaces_164857663) (Farrakhan is a tribal mentality through and through. I recommend doing an Internet search and reading some of the things he has written and said if you are unfamiliar.)

This photo was taken during a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus meeting with Farrakhan on Capitol Hill, which demonstrates where the loyalties of the entire Congressional “Black Caucus” lie.

If this photo had come out prior to the Presidential election of 2008, it is opined that Obama would not have been elected. The photo is the moral equivalent to a white Presidential candidate posing and smiling with the leader of Aryan Nations. (http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/27/obama-farrakhan-photo-dershowitz-says-he-would-not-support-him-if-he-knew-about-picture)

Obama managed to hide his promotion of tribalism pretty well until a later event in 2012. This was the shooting of a black teenager, Trayvon Martin, by George Zimmerman, a homeowner living in Florida. (Zimmerman was subsequently acquitted at trial.)

Obama chose to inject himself into a purely local matter of criminal law. (http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/23/president-obama-statement-on-trayvon-martin-case/) He aided and abetted the news media in doing its best to ensure that George Zimmerman wouldn’t get a fair trial.

But, more than that, Obama made a statement that I think did more damage to race relations than possibly anything else he said before or since. When commenting on the shooting, Obama noted:

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” (https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-had-son-hed-look-trayvon-171805699.html)

This was like saying: “I am with black people because you look like me. I’m not the President of the United States, who serves abstract, and important, concepts like justice, rights, and the rule of law. I am the mouthpiece of a racial pressure group, and I will do everything I can to promote that racial group’s ‘collective good’, at the expense of the individual rights of people who don’t belong to that racial group.”

Why did Obama do this? Probably because:

“The case resonates with many black Americans, a key voting group during Obama’s 2008 election, who see it as an example of bias toward blacks.” (https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-had-son-hed-look-trayvon-171805699.html)

I suspect so many black Americans were convinced George Zimmerman was guilty because many of them hold the tribal premise to some greater or lesser degree, although I obviously don’t have statistics to back that up. I’m not sure how one would even measure “tribalistic impulse” of a particular group of people, but I would like to see such a study. I suspect the results on the level of “tribalistic impulse” of American blacks, compared to American whites or Asians, would be stunningly high.

I believe Obama thought he had to say “If I have a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” to appease black Americans, but it was more than appeasement. It was active endorsement and promotion of the tribalistic impulse. It was encouragement to unleash some of the worst tendencies amongst some black Americans.

This pandering by Obama gave aid and comfort to the group known as “Black Lives Matter”, a group that always assumes if a white cop shoots a black man, then the shooting was unjust. For instance, when Michael Brown was shot by Officer Darren Wilson in Missouri, it was determined by the United States Department of Justice that Officer Wilson did nothing wrong:

“Based on this investigation, the Department has concluded that Darren Wilson’s actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits uses of deadly force that are “objectively unreasonable,” as defined by the United States Supreme Court. The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. Accordingly, under the governing federal law and relevant standards set forth in the USAM, it is not appropriate to present this matter to a federal grand jury for indictment, and it should therefore be closed without prosecution.” (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf)

Despite that, there was a rush to judgment by what the media portrays as the “black leadership”. Jessie Jackson called it a “Crime of Injustice”. Al Sharpton, another tribalist, also shilled for Michael Brown in the face of the facts. (https://www.businessinsider.com/al-sharpton-denounces-darren-wilsons-excuse-michael-brown)

Always taking the side of a black person over a white person, without knowing any of the facts, demonstrates that the slogan “Black Lives Matters” is nothing but a statement of tribalism by the “black leadership”. (The notion of a “black leadership” is tribalism too, but the news media seems to believe Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton speak for black people, so that is how I refer to them.)

Despite the tendency of “Black Lives Matter” to always take the side of a black man, even when the facts didn’t support it, Obama expressed solidarity with the “Black Lives Matter” movement, and even went so far as to accuse police of widespread racial discrimination himself:

“’As a young man, there were times when I was driving and I got stopped and I didn’t know why,’ he [Obama] said.” (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/257811-obama-defends-black-lives-matter)

I don’t think Barack Obama is, himself a tribalist, but I think his philosophy, ideology, and method of thinking drives him to pander to those who *are* tribalists. Another example of that pandering could be seen when it came to Obama’s policies on immigration.

When it comes to issues of immigration policy, Obama supported open borders, which I, more or less, also support. I believe that policy is consistent with freedom and free markets. (https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/02/07/ayn-rand-on-immigration) But, Obama didn’t support the policy because he’s committed to Capitalism. He supported it because of the need to appeal to Hispanic voters, who, to the extent they are concerned about open borders, are likely concerned out of feelings of tribalism, rather than concepts of justice, freedom of movement, and the free market. This tribalism is why you will see people flying Mexican flags at pro-immigration rallies in the United States:

“‘Native-born Americans suspect that it is they, and not the immigrant, who are being forced to adapt’ to social changes caused by migration, he [Obama] said….’When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment…’ (https://dailycaller.com/2014/11/16/shock-flashback-obama-says-illegal-immigration-hurts-blue-collar-americans-strains-welfare-video/

Flying Mexican flags at pro-immigration rallies shows that, rather than being primarily about the abstract concepts of freedom and free markets, most of the “pro-immigration” sentiment of the Democratic Party is an expression of “Latin-American nationalism”, i.e., tribalism. They care less about the abstract concept of freedom of immigration than they do about ensuring that members of their racial and ethnic group can come and go as they please, into and out of, the United States. Would the “Hispanic leadership” in the Democratic Party care so much about immigration if most of the immigrants were German, or Chinese? (I doubt it.) Obama’s policies on immigration were another appeal to a tribalistic pressure group, just like his support of “Black Lives Matter”.

The tribal mentality discards reason because he is, fundamentally, the anti-conceptual mentality. (https://deancook.net/2018/12/15/what-is-tribalism-it-is-the-anti-conceptual-mentality/) This means tribalists will be strongly tempted to use force and violence when dealing with others outside their own ethnic group because they have no other recourse:

“Warfare -permanent warfare- is the hallmark of tribal existence. A tribe -with its rules, dogmas, traditions, and arrested mental development- is not a productive organization. Tribes subsist on the edge of starvation, at the mercy of natural disasters, less successfully than herds of animals. War amongst other, momentarily luckier tribes, in the hope of looting some meager hoard, is their chronic emergency means of survival. The inculcation of hatred for other tribes is a necessary tool of tribal rulers, who need scapegoats to blame for the misery of their own subjects.

There is no tyranny worse than ethnic rule -since it is an unchosen serfdom one is asked to accept as a value, and since it applies primarily to one’s mind.” (“Global Balkanization, Ayn Rand, _The Voice of Reason_ https://www.amazon.com/Voice-Reason-Objectivist-Thought-Library-ebook/dp/B002OSXD7I/)

So, the consequences of Barack Obama’s pandering to the tribal mentalities in our country was predictable. Here are a few examples:

(1) Riots in Ferguson Missouri and elsewhere. (“Ferguson riots: Ruling sparks night of violence” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30190224)

(2) “Occupations” of College Campuses by leftist thugs.

A couple of these “occupations” have been memorable for their totalitarian tendencies. A journalism professor at the University of Missouri was so enamored with the little totalitarian “no go zone” she and other campus minority groups had created on campus, that she, and the brutes following her, sought to exclude journalists from the area. When one journalist defied her, she famously yelled out: “Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here!”( https://www.yahoo.com/news/mizzou-professor-some-muscle-protests-resigns-143632236.html)

Deep down in this professor’s soul, and in the soul of every leftist academic, “muscle”, i.e., naked force, is what matters. This is because reason is an illusion to them, thanks to “post-modern thinking” and Marxism.

At Evergreen College in the Pacific Northwest, a college professor was forced to resign after he questioned the wisdom of asking white students to “voluntarily” leave the college campus for a day. ( https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/evergreen-professor-plans-to-sue-college-for-385-million/ )

Given the violent nature of the “anti-conceptual, tribalist mindset”, it won’t be long before the “voluntary” aspect of Evergreen’s “ethnic cleansing dry-run” is dropped in favor of the use of force.

But, the riots and the “college occupations” at least had the virtue of not leading to the loss of human life. The bloody climax of the Obama administration’s race policy was seen in my hometown of Dallas, Texas. In July of 2016, a sniper shot twelve white police officers, specifically because they were white, in what was described as the deadliest day for law enforcement officers since the September 11 attacks in 2001. (https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/07/07/shots-fired-during-downtown-dallas-protests/ )

Ultimately, I believe that much of our recent history has been driven by mostly dead, white, male philosophers, like Karl Marx. However, if we are going to start looking at political and social “conduits” for the philosophy driving tribalism, then our 44^th President was one such conduit. If we’re going to point fingers at politicians for the uptick in tribalism in America, then we need to start with the villainous Presidency of Barack H. Obama.

Context-Dropping

Someone posted this article on Facebook about a drink company getting sued because they claim that their product is “all natural”, but it contains what the plaintiffs in the lawsuit say are not natural ingredients. https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/463609871/beaumont-costales-files-class-action-lawsuit-against-lacroix-water

I jokingly responded with: “They meant ‘natural’ in the sense that everything that exists was created by the big bang”. Obviously, this is not what is meant by “natural”, as most of us use that term, in drink or food products, so it was recognized I was making a joke.

I regard what I did there as what Ayn Rand called “context dropping”. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/context-dropping.html

When done seriously, and not in the context of a joke, it indicates a serious thinking problem, especially if it is a “mental habit”.

In Objectivism, context is considered a very important concept. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/context.html
The Objectivist view of concept-formation depends on having a context. So, for instance, when you form the concept “cat”, you do so in a certain context. You see two or more concrete instances of cats, which have distinct identities. They might have different colors and different amounts of fur and size. One cat may be old, while the other cat is young. But, when you look at those two concrete cats in comparison to, say, a parrot, their similarities, are much greater than any of their differences. According to Objectivism, you cannot form the concept “cat” without a “foil” of some other entity that is so different, that these two entities seem similar by comparison. (You’ve then achieved what Objectivism calls the “unit perspective” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/unit.html
on cats, and can then say that you are omitting the differences between the two cats on the premise that they must have some size, color, and amount of fur, but it can be any within certain ranges, which is “measurement-ommission” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/measurement.html
.)

I think if you are a “habitual context dropper”, then your mind would be paralyzed, because you couldn’t form concepts with any great success.

However, in logic, I think what I was jokingly doing would be considered the “fallacy of equivocation”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

The “fallacy of equivocation” is an example of an “informal fallacy”. https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions.html

However, I’ve noticed that most of the informal fallacies in logic seem like instances of what Rand called “context dropping”. For instance, argument ad hominem involves attacking someone’s character or motives for holding a particular viewpoint rather than the truth or falsity of that viewpoint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Pointing out bad motives can sometimes be a valid form of critique, such as when you are pointing out that a witness in court has a motive to lie about what they are testifying about. That has to do with whether the witness is an accurate reporter of *facts observed*, whether they are “credible”, rather than a *logical argument*, which, assuming the truth of the facts used, is independent of the credibility of the person making the logical argument. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

So, what I suspect is that all informal fallacies in logic are really just common examples of what Rand called “context dropping”. Unfortunately, Miss Rand didn’t write much on what she considered to be “context dropping”, although I noted early on in my reading of her that she used the term a good bit. It’s unfortunate that she didn’t write more on this, as I believe she coined it. The closest I’ve ever seen to the same meaning is “taking something out of context”. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+something+out+of+context

However, that has more to do with just misrepresenting what someone said by quoting just some small portion of what they said. “Context dropping” as Miss Rand used the term is more about something that goes on within the mind of the person, with their own thinking, which becomes incorrect because of their failure to “hold context”.

Evidence

Lets say Albert tells me he saw Victor commit a murder 30 years ago.

Victor categorically denies it.

I say to Albert: Do you have any physical evidence of this murder? (Even a dead body?)

Albert: No

I say to Albert: Do you have any other witnesses that can corroborate what you are saying?

Albert: No, in fact some of the people who I say were there say they don’t remember this.

I say to Albert: Where were you when this happened?

Albert: I was at a party.

Me: Were you drinking?

Albert: Yes.

Me: How long ago did this happen?

Albert: 30 years ago.

I don’t actually think Albert has said anything here. All he has is his statement, and he admits that he was drinking. I know drinking alters perception of reality and memory. https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/aa63.htm

Albert has no credibility, and I’m simply going to regard his assertion as “arbitrary”. He has no credible evidence to back up this assertion. Albert’s assertion is neither true nor false. It is simply “arbitrary”. It’s like the claim: “There’s an invisible gremlin on my shoulder, but only I can see it. Now prove that I’m lying.” The onus of proof is on he, or she, who makes the assertion.

“‘Arbitrary’ means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. [An arbitrary idea is] a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html

If your response is: “You can’t prove Albert didn’t see this murder,” then you’re essentially asking Victor to “prove a negative”. Victor says it didn’t happen. How is he supposed to present evidence of something that didn’t happen, when the person making the assertion hasn’t really presented any credible evidence for it?

Now lets say two people both make an assertion that on two separate, and unrelated, occasions, Victor committed two separate murders. They both admit they had been drinking at the time, and have no other witnesses to corroborate what they assert, nor do they have any physical evidence to back up what they assert. The fact that two people (or three, or four) make completely unrelated assertions doesn’t somehow make any one of those assertions more or less true. You cannot say “A is true because B is true,” and then turn around and say: “B is true because A is true.” I think this is an example of “Begging the Question”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

If you could show that Victor had, in fact committed one murder with some independent evidence of that murder, then that probably would be some evidence that he had committed the second murder. This is because we know that someone who does an action one time will tend to act in accordance with a pattern or habit when doing the same action on another occasion. But, you’d first have to put forth some independent evidence that he committed the first murder. Simply using the unsupported assertion that Victor committed a first murder to prove that he committed a second, unrelated, murder, and, in turn, using that second, unsupported assertion of an unrelated murder to prove that he committed the first murder, is bad reasoning.

Now lets say you were accusing Victor of some sort of sex crime, like indecent exposure or attempted rape. Victor says it didn’t happen. He denies it. If a person claims that they had been drinking alcohol 30 years ago when they witnessed this incident, does that hurt their credibility as a witness? Yes. The analysis is the same. If they have no physical evidence of this, and no other witnesses to corroborate their story, then the accuser has made what can only be described as an arbitrary assertion with no credible evidence to back it up.

The fact that a second accuser comes forward and makes an accusation of a separate, unrelated sex crime, where the accuser admits she was very intoxicated, doesn’t somehow make it more or less likely that the other accusation is true. If fifty women come forward making fifty different claims of completely unrelated criminal acts on separate occasions, that doesn’t somehow make any one of those accusations any more or less true unless you can show that at least one of those accusations is true with independent evidence. (In which case you could say the one independently established assertion is proof of a habit.)

Most people will accept my reasoning on the murder, but will want to say that attempted rape is different. They will likely say that women are generally embarrassed or ashamed to report rape, and that this is evidence that a woman, on any given occasion, is telling the truth. This is the fallacy of division. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division Even if 99% of the women making rape allegations are telling the truth, that doesn’t mean you can say, in any given instance, that a woman accusing a man of rape is telling the truth. We know that some percentage of women make false rape accusations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case So, you cannot simply assume that any particular woman, in any particular case, is telling the truth.

Applying these principles to the case of Judge Kavanaugh, we have two women who admit that they were drinking when each of these incidents happened. I base my understanding of the situation on two news articles, that I recommend you read:

First alleged incident: http://www.waxahachietx.com/zz/news/20180916/kavanaugh-accuser-speaks-out-on-sexual-assault-claim

Second alleged incident: https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-yale-deborah-ramirez-2018-9

As far as I can tell, neither of these women has found any independent witnesses to corroborate what they’ve said. Neither of them has any evidence other than their assertion that they witnessed this, and they have less credibility in my mind than Judge Kavanaugh, because they both admit they had been drinking when these incidents allegedly occurred, while Kavanaugh says it didn’t happen. I say “credibility in my mind” because I don’t know either these women or Judge Kavanaugh personally, so I only have the information contained in news articles on which to assess credibility.

The third accuser has prepared an affidavit. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-michael-avenatti-reveals-julie-swetnick-today-2018-09-26/

She was careful to never say whether or not she had been drinking alcohol at the parties where she allegedly saw Judge Kavanaugh assault and gang rape women. The question of alcohol consumption is highly relevant for determining her credibility as a witness, and the fact that she was at a “party environment” suggests to me that she probably was drinking alcohol. If she had NOT been drinking, then it would make sense to put that in her affidavit, because it would make her much more credible.

If she were subject to cross-examination, the FIRST question I’d ask her is whether she had been drinking alcohol when she witnessed these things, and how much? That goes directly to her credibility given the memory impairing effects of alcohol.

Additionally, she states in line 14 of her affidavit that “I am aware of other witnesses that can attest to the truthfulness of each of the statements above.” But, she doesn’t say WHO those people are. Why not? It would instantly make her story more credible if she gave names of other witnesses who could corroborate what she’s saying. The fact that she doesn’t do so makes her story very suspicious.

The fact that she was willing to sign an affidavit, and it is therefore “sworn”, doesn’t make it more credible. Since the affidavit is not being used for any lawsuit or for any legal proceeding, I doubt she could be prosecuted for perjury, if it were shown she was lying. If anything in the affidavit was shown to be a lie, none of the lies would be considered “material”. For instance, someone could sign an affidavit saying “I swear that the sky is red,” and then post it on the Internet, but I don’t think that would make them guilty of perjury because the statement “the sky is red”, while a lie, isn’t material to anything from a legal standpoint. (There is no lawsuit where the color of the sky is an issue.)

Given the fact that she doesn’t say if she was drinking alcohol when she witnessed these things, and given the fact that she claims there were other witnesses, but didn’t name them, I regard her entire affidavit as suspect. Any reasonable person who wasn’t lying would know that others would want to know these things and would state them in the affidavit.

She has yet to give an interview. This is also very suspicious and makes what she is saying suspect. It appears that she isn’t willing to let reporters ask her any of the basic questions that are raised from reading her affidavit. Although, I’ve heard, she will give an interview on Sunday for a pay cable channel. (This also sounds strange to me.) At any rate, I hope she is asked some of these basic questions.

These are the three accusers that have come out to date. I find none of them to be credible based on the news stories I’ve seen. I am not saying they are lying. I’m saying they have not presented any credible evidence for what they are saying. I therefore regard their statements as “arbitrary” -having no evidence to back them up. Before I’m prepared to treat a man as a criminal in my personal or professional life, and denounce him and avoid him, I need some level of actual evidence to demonstrate that what the speaker is saying is true.

The other issue in my mind is: Does any of this matter?. All of these incidents of alleged rape or attempted rape are well outside the statute of limitations for prosecution. The only way this matters is in Judge Kavanaugh’s advise and consent process by the Senate. Senators can hold hearings on the issue, but where do they draw the line? Do they have to have a hearing on every outlandish accusation made by any person about a nominated Federal Judge before they can perform their advise and consent role? What if someone claimed Judge Kavanaugh was an alien sent here to take over the world? Should an obvious nut be allowed to testify? Senators have to assess credibility of potential witnesses based on news reports like the ones I’ve cited. Then they have to come up with some standard of “probable cause” on who to have as a witness, and I think, based on that, no reasonable Senator could even regard these women as credible enough to testify at a hearing.

Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris Discussion/Debate Videos – Vancouver 2018

I spent the better part of my Labor Day weekend listening to this conversation between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. I just couldn’t stop listening to them because the conversation was so interesting. I highly recommend listening to both day 1 and day 2. The moderator, Bret Weinstein, who I was unfamiliar with, did a really great job.

In the last 10 minutes of day 2, Sam and Jordan summarize their positions.

My commentary is included in brackets [Like this.]:

Jordan:

2:07:00

He agrees with Sam that we need to ground our ethical structure in something “solid and demonstrable”, but he’s not sure how we do that.

He’s not sure we can derive a value structure from YOUR experience of the observable facts. [He emphasizes the word “your”.] There are too many facts, you need a structure to interpret them, and there isn’t very much of you.

That structure is provided neurologically. You have an inbuilt structure. It’s deep. It’s partly biological its partly a consequence of your socialization.

It may be derived from facts over the evolutionary time frame, but it’s not derived from facts over your lifetime, and it can’t be.

There are too many facts in reality for us to make sense of all of them without some sort of structure. That structure is provided by evolution. We need some sort of “a priori structure”. [He used the term “a priori structure” over and over.]

[I still have my same initial criticism of Jordan on this point. Why does the world need to “make sense”? Why do we need to “make sense” of all those facts? As a Randian, I say it’s because I want to live, and if I want to live I need to deal with the facts as best I can. That provides me with a “fundamental frame work” of value -which is my life as a living organism and a human being. But, I don’t know that Jordan would accept that. So on what ground does Jordan need to have the world “make sense”?]
Sam:

2:11:00

The conversation is the point.

Making sense in a way that is consequential because these are issues are of great consequence.

It matters whether we converge on the most important issues in human life.

I’m worried that religion doesn’t give us the tools that we need to converge.

What gives us the tools is a truly open-ended conversation.

You have to look at anything that creates any obstacles to that conversation being truly open-ended.

Religion presents those obstacles first and most readily. Its the idea that certain things have been decided for all time and that there is no future evidence or argument that is admissible.

There is a section of the bookstore [Sam gives an analogy here]. In that section of the book store, we cannot say those books need revision. We can pick and chose what works of Shakespeare that we like. With religion, you have to find some “tortured” way to make the most of god’s “diabolical” [Sam’s word] utterances. [I would have preferred it if Sam hadn’t used the word “diabolical”, since I think that is unnecessarily inflammatory.]

Jordan’s style of talking about religion and narrative seems to let people off the hook on that point. [I agree. This is the biggest problem with what Jordan Peterson is saying. It lets people “off the hook” and appears to be an attempt to “shield” their religious belief from any analysis by me or others.]

No one has the “right” to their religious sectarianism at this point in history -we need to say that. [I don’t think Sam meant people don’t have a right in a political or legal sense to the free exercise of religion. I think he means they don’t have a right to say those things without their being questioned by anyone.]

************************************

You can listen to these by going to either Sam Harris’ YouTube channel or Jordan Peterson’s YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0-oC_49fq4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Z9EZE8kpo&t=6s

Karl Marx, Polylogism, and Utopian Socialism – How Fundamental Philosophy Drives History

I’m currently listening to: “The Long 19th Century:European History From 1789 to 1917” Professor Robert I.Weiner (Disk 4, Lecture 7), from ‘The Great Courses’ series.

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/long-19th-century-european-history-from-1789-to-1917.html

It is a pretty ‘middle of the road’ series with no obvious ideological skew other than, maybe, ‘slightly left of center’, since it’s a mainstream college professor.

In it, he says Karl Marx called the other socialists ‘utopians’ because they believed that socialism could be achieved through peaceful means, maybe even with the assistance of other classes. That is where the term ‘utopian socialist’ comes from.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism

Marx, on the other hand, believed that only violent class struggle could achieve socialism.

I realized when listening to this that Marx’s metaphysics and epistemology was driving his politics. He thought that your class determines your consciousness -that what class you are born into determines your logic. He was a ‘polylogist’ who believed in ‘many logics’. The proletarians have their method of thinking, the bourgeoise have theirs, the aristocracy have theirs, etc.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/polylogism.html

Thus, for Marx, there could be no reasoning with those who control the factors of production, because they fundamentally don’t think like proletarians. Only violence could bring about socialism. Any socialist who thought you could reason with the bourgeoise was a ‘utopian’ -not recognizing reality. Marxism was therefore self-described as ‘scientific socialism’.

This explains the inevitable Marxist penchant for mass killing when they took over in a country. Anyone who wanted a peaceful transition to socialism was seen as naive at best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

Later, what I think happened is others picked up this same idea of polylogism and applied it to things besides class -such as your race or ethnicity. (Specifically, a certain political group in 1930’s Germany.) Once again, without a common frame of thinking and logic, any such proponent of ‘racially unique logic’ would be led to believe that no reason or discourse is possible between the races, and that only violence or separation is the solution.

I vaguely knew about polylogism from reading Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. http://www.peikoff.com/lr/home.htm But, I never really saw how one’s views on logic and the nature of the mind could have political ramifications like they clearly did on Marx when he referred to his fellow, non-violent, socialists as ‘utopians’. Furthermore, any time a Marxist committed murder, he had the perfect rationalization handy: He is serving the forces of historical necessity, and no reasoning is possible with the forces of counter-revolution because they don’t think like him.

Fundamental philosophy really does have political and social consequences for history.

Objectivism Conference Day 6

Logic Course Day 6

Most of Day 6 was a “questions and answers” session, and I don’t have much in the way of notes.

The only notes I have concern “propositional fallacies”.

The first is “self-exclusion”, which was defined as a form of self-refutation consisting of a contradiction between the content a proposition asserts and the act of asserting it.

An example of “self-exclusion” was: “We cannot be certain of anything.” I’ve heard this before. And my understanding is basically that by saying this, you are stating something with certainty, but you just said that you cannot be certain of anything…so you wind up in a sort of paradox or internal contradiction by saying this. I’m assuming the speaker called it “self-exclusion” because the speaker is, consciously or unconsciously, looking to “exclude” their statement from the general principle it asserts.

The speaker noted that you almost never “reach” anyone by pointing out when they’ve stated a self-exclusion like this. That is also my experience. Marxists will say that your class determines your consciousness, and that you can never get away from that, yet these same Marxists came from the bourgeois, and not the proletariat that they claim to speak for. But, if that is pointed out, they’ll just come up with some sort of complicated rationalization for why they’re different. (Although this might be more of an example of the next propositional fallacy.)

The second propositional fallacy that I have in my notes is the “stolen concept”. As far as I know, this is a term coined by Ayn Rand. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/stolen_concept,_fallacy_of.html

A stolen concept was defined by the speaker as a hierarchy violation consisting of the attempt to use a concept in a way that ignores or denies the prior concepts on which it depends for meaning. One example given by the speaker of a “stolen concept” was: “A fully free society is an impossible ideal.” I think what the speaker meant was that “ideal” is being used without considering what “ideal” means. An ideal is “the possible”, so to say that an ideal is “impossible” is to disregard the fact that the concept of “ideal” is hierarchically dependent on the concept of “possible”. Another example of a “stolen concept” given by the speaker was: “We have an obligation to preserve the environment.” Here, “obligation” is being used without considering its logical hierarchy. What I think the speaker meant was this: Objectivism starts out by asking “Why be moral at all?” or “Why do we need morality?” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html
Without getting into the details, which can be found in “The Objectivist Ethics” in _The Virtue of Selfishness_ by Ayn Rand, Objectivism says the concept of “moral obligation” depends on the concept of “value”, which depends on the concept of “mans life”, and the fact that you only need moral principles if you want to live. If you don’t want to live, then no moral principles are necessary. (Not only that, but no thinking, definitions, or concepts are necessary -we need to be rational in order to live.)

The idea of “hierarchy” requires a bit of explanation for someone not familiar with Objectivism. In the sense that it was being used by the speaker, “hierarchy” is a concept from Objectivism, or, at least, that is where I learned the concept. In “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, in the chapter on definitions, Rand says:

“Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence.” (See “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, Rand, Page 40, Kindle Edition, https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology-Expanded-Second-ebook/dp/B002OSXD8C/
)

What Rand meant when she spoke of “hierarchy” of concepts was the idea that certain concepts must logically depend on certain other concepts. A probable example of this is the concept “organism” compared to the concept “dog”. If you introspect a little, you will notice how the concept “dog” seems much “closer” in your mind to that which you perceive around you. How is it “closer”? You can visualize a dog in your mind with a single mental image, but how do you “visualize” an “organism”? “Organism” is a concept denoting any type of living thing, whether it is a plant, an animal, or an amoeba. You could draw a simplistic picture of a dog, but you couldn’t draw a picture of an “organism” and really “get it”. You’d have to have multiple pictures of different type of living things that are organisms. (A question here might be *which* dog do you visualize? Do you visualize a German Shepherd or a Chihuahua? But, only as compared to the concept “organism”, the concept “dog” is easier to visualize because you could visualize any particular dog you’ve seen, while you couldn’t visualize any *particular* organism you’ve seen and “grasp” the concept -you’d have to visualize different types of organisms, and doing so simultaneously would be difficult due to the “crow epistemology”, further discussed below.)

In fact, even “plant” and “animal” are concepts that seem, in some sense, to be “further” away from what you observe in the world around you. “Plant” can mean a rose, or a blade of grass, or a a tree. “Animal” can mean a squirrel, a wasp, an oyster, or a human being. Rand also seemed to believe that the concept “animal” is logically dependent on underlying concepts like “squirrel”. Although, I will note here, that Rand discussed this issue at a seminar with various people, and she seemed to indicate that it is possible a child could form a concept “in a very loose way”, like “living entity” versus “inanimate object”, and then later subdivide the concept into “man”, “animal”, “plant” on the one hand and “tables”, “rocks”, and “houses” on the other. (See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Page 204, Kindle Ed. This appendix is her speaking extemporaneously, in response to other people’s questions, so whether it would have been her definitive view on the subject upon further consideration can also be questioned.) Rand said there was the possibility of “options” in terms of how a particular child formed a concept and the chronological order in which concepts were formed. When we speak of “hierarchy” we are speaking of the “logical order” of concepts, from an adult perspective.

I think it is probably impossible to form the concept “organism” without first forming the concepts of particular types of organisms because the concept “organism” involves too much observational data to be formed as an initial matter. Your mind cannot hold all of the observations that would be necessary to form that concept without underlying concepts. This phenomena of our minds is called “the crow epistemology” or “the crow” in Objectivist circles due to a story that was told to Ayn Rand at some point. The story is found at the beginning of chapter 7, “The Cognitive Role of Concepts” in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

The concept of the “crow” can be grasped by way of the story in ITOE. You can read it there for the complete version, but here is my “run down”: Supposedly, a scientist ran an experiment in which someone hidden would observe another person walk into a clearing in the woods where a flock of crows had gathered. The crows would fly away at the approach of the person. The crows only returned to the clearing when the single person left the woods by the same route he came in. Then two people entered the forest, and went into the clearing. The crows left, and wouldn’t come back until *both* people had left. Then three people, to the same effect on the crows. Then, four people. Same effect on the crows. Then, when five people entered the woods and walked to the clearing, something different happened. Only four people left the forest, while the fifth person presumably hid somewhere in the forest near the clearing. The crows came back to the clearing because they couldn’t discern in their minds that while five people had entered the forest, only four had left.

Rand notes that regardless of whether this story is true, the phenomena can be grasped introspectively in your own mind. You can tell that “|||” is three, probably without counting. However, without counting, try to discern “|||||||||” from “|||||||||||”. It’s fairly difficult, without engaging in some sort of conceptual thought. (You might be able to discern a length difference in this example, but that wouldn’t be available to the crows in the forest, and measuring length is likely a form of conceptual consciousness anyway. If you made the lines I’ve drawn here nine random dots in a circle versus ten random dots in another circle, you probably couldn’t discern any difference without counting.)

Rand’s concept of “hierarchy” takes this fact about how our minds work, “the crow”, into account and then tries to develop a system of thinking based on it. So, she is not saying that the concept “dog” is somehow more fundamental than the concept “organism” in some sort of “metaphysical sense” -out there in the universe. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysical.html
In reality, apart from human beings, there are just things. Human beings categorize them based on the needs of their minds and lives -which are also specific things with a specific identity.

I believe this feature of the human mind and the concept of “hierarchy” has practical consequences for how you should approach learning. For instance, if you want to study Biology, the science of living organisms, you have to learn something about individual living things. You study particular frogs by dissecting them. This helps you to learn about frogs. Then, you study particular pigs by dissecting fetal pigs. This teaches you something about pigs. Then, you see what frogs and pigs have in common, as animals. Then you study particular roses and particular trees and learn what they have in common as plants. Then you can discern what both plants and animals have in common as organisms. By way of contrast, a Platonist will say there is an “ideal pig” somewhere in the Platonic realm and the pigs you see around you are just “shadows” of the ideal pig in the Platonic realm. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/platonic_realism.html https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/

Then, the Platonist will say that there is an “ideal organism” in the Platonic realm, and all organisms are just a reflection of the ideal organism in the Platonic realm, and so on. But, none of these concepts necessarily have any logical connection in the mind of a Platonist. There isn’t any hierarchy there. The “ideal features” of an organism exist in the Platonic realm in some “pure” form, while the “ideal features” of a pig also exist in the Platonic realm in their “pure form”. I doubt that a science of biology would even be considered necessary for a Platonist. The Platonist could study pigs at the same time he studies the stars and human consciousness. There is no greater or lesser connection in the mind of a Platonist between pigs and other animals than there is between pigs and the chemical composition of the interior of the sun. They’re all just a reflection of their ideal form. Furthermore, the Platonist believes he can learn something about the concept of “organism” without studying individual organisms. He just needs to “tap in” to the Platonic realm somehow.

I by no means consider myself to be an expert on Miss Rand’s epistemology, so what I’ve stated is just my own best understanding at the moment. If you found any of this interesting, I’d recommend reading three books. First, read “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” by Ayn Rand. https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology-Expanded-Second/dp/0452010306/ Then read “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Leonard Peikoff https://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/
, especially the chapter on “Objectivity”. Finally, although I am only about halfway through it, you should read “How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation” by Harry Binswanger. https://www.amazon.com/How-Know-Epistemology-Objectivist-Foundation/dp/1493753142/

This last book is by the author who was speaking at the conference, and I think what he spoke on is covered in his book, so to the extent that I’ve misinterpreted anything he said, you can learn what he thinks by reading the book.

As far as other speakers were concerned on day 6, I don’t have any notes. I think I didn’t find the other topics covered that day of sufficient interest to attend any of them, when there were still things I wanted to see on what would likely be my only extended vacation of the year from work. (This gets into what Ayn Rand described as “the hierarchy of values”. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/teleological_measurement.html
)

Looking at the pictures I took on my phone, that was the day I took a bus south on Coast Highway to a place called Crystal Cove, near the beach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Cove_State_Park Although I had never been to that specific area, it reminded me of the Southern California beaches I would go to with family and friends as a child, so the geography, climate, vegetation, ocean, and wildlife all evoked strong memories for me from years that were probably fairly formative of my personality. There was a strong “nostalgia element” for me.

Once I got off the bus, I walked through scrub brush, trails, and down a hill to the actual beach, which was quite secluded. There were few people around, which gave the area a “magical” quality to me -like being the only person left in the world. This is a feeling that I think is nice to feel from time to time, although, if prolonged, it feels quite lonely. From there, I wandered down the beach for some distance until I found a series of dilapidated houses and a small bar and restaurant near the beach. From there, I had a beer, then walked back up the highway, and eventually caught a bus back. (The buses in the area were not great in terms of how often they ran, but I preferred a slow $4 bus ride to what might have been a $20 Uber ride.)

That night, I went to a West Coast Swing dance lesson and social dance, which I enjoyed a lot. I didn’t want to leave California without West Coast swinging.