...The Objective Standard. This will be a quarterly journal on culture and politics with all articles written from an Objectivist perspective. Given the writers (and editors) lined up--some of the best minds in Objectivism today--it promises to be stellar. If you want to know more, click on the link. If you think you don't want to know more, click on it to find out why you actually do.
I only signed up for the first week of OCON 2005, so I left San Diego yesterday.
The whole OCON 2005 experience was great fun. Highlights directly from the conference included the talks I praised (Brook, Biddle, Lewis), and the USS Midway event. On top of that, I stayed up pretty late every night chatting with people on various topics. It's nice to know that no one is going to pull out the old line "but what about the poor (or minority group x or the lousewort or this layer of pond scum or Judges 19)" when discussing ethics or politics.
Actually, now that I think about it, most people I talk to day-to-day don't even get that specific. If I say anything radical-sounding (e.g. "abolish Social Security"), most people just assert it can't be done, as if I proposed a perpetual motion machine or time travel. How depressing that people treat majority opinion as an unshakeable law of physics.
But I digress. Some of the conversations I was in focused on movies, relationships, parenting, how nice San Diego was, good and bad restaurants visited, and cartoons. I heard a lot of opinions, strongly held and defended, every time. Objectivist conferences are not the place to go if you are looking for milquetoast. However, if you are looking to hang out with people who live life and value it, passionately, I'd make a point to attend.
Elements of Thinking in Principles--Craig Biddle
The class is meant to give students an overview of what it takes to think in principles. At this, it succeeds admirably. The class covers the following topics: naming your primaries, excluding the middle, thinking in terms of essentials, minding your hierarchy of knowledge and values, and keeping context.
All of the topics are interesting, and well-integrated to the theme of thinking in principles. For instance, take the section on excluding the middle. He explains what the law of excluded middle--a restatement of the law of identity in terms of "either-or", i.e. either a principle is adhered to, or it is not--and its value for thinking in principles, the biggest of which (in my mind) is how it clarifies "degrees" of principle adherence. Mr. Biddle's statement on that: the law of excluded middle tells you there are no "degrees" of adhering to a principle, only degrees of principle violation. Living in a mixed economy? Your rights are not being upheld (you either uphold a principle or not), they are just being violated less than in a communist dictatorship.
Also of note in that section is the discussion on slippery slopes. I think anyone who hears it will learn something, and be well-armed against its abuse and overuse.
Other sections with new and extremely helpful insights are the ones on primaries and hierarchy. Pay special attention to the parts on proximate fundamentals, and the integration of value hierarchy and knowledge hierarchy.
All sections are well-concretized, and not overly so. And the pace was good for the material. The only rough spots for me were a couple in the essentializing section where I got a bit lost, and there was one example in the talk that didn't resonate with me.
It should also be pointed out that this class is not meant as an introduction for a lay audience. The class definitely assumes familiarity with the philosophy of Objectivism.
All in all, this class was stellar. It and the John Lewis talk were the highlights of the conference for me. Buy it the day it becomes available.
Ideas and the Fall of Rome--Dr. John Lewis
Ever since reading some of his articles online, I have had high expectations for John Lewis. He did not disappoint in this lecture.
The purpose of the lecture was to give an overview of the philosophical causes of the fall of Rome, and to point out some parallels between that and the current political and philosophical situation in the United States.
The two causes Dr. Lewis identifies are philosophical idealism, and the acceptance of duty in ethics. To demonstrate this, he traces the philosophical development of Rome from about 200 BC, when Romans "imported" Greek culture, to the fall of Rome between 300 and 400 AD, when the Neo-Platonists were essentially powerless to defend Rome, intellectually, against Christian dogma. The entire development is fascinating, the talk is well-paced, and Dr. Lewis analysis is spot on.
Most interesting are his thoughts on why Rome accepted the philosophical ideas they did. Romans were not original philosophical thinkers, and they took the ideas that seemed to most justify their conception of the morally and politically good. They were great doers in the world of law and politics, but had to get their philosophy from elsewhere. This is where the parallels with the US are drawn, and they are illuminating.
Excellent all-around. Highly recommended. Buy it as soon as it becomes available.
I see my posts from OCON 2005 are generating some interest (here, too). As some readers may know, one of the events at this year's conference was the tour of the aircraft carrier USS Midway, which concluded with dinner on the deck and a talk by Yaron Brook on the battle at Midway Island. It was preceded by a lecture on the history of aircraft carriers by retired Captain Talbot Manvel.
The event was great fun. Highlights include touring the 'island' (tower looking over the flight deck), with very knowledgeable docents describing its inner workings; looking at the various aircraft on the deck and in the hangar bay; and simply strolling around the flight deck and taking many, many photos.
Both talks were interesting, informative, and inspiring. I won't go into the details, mainly because I wasn't taking notes at either. Hey, I'm on vacation.
This was a private event, but USS Midway is a floating museum open to the public. I'd highly recommend touring it if you are ever in San Diego.
Ayn Rand's Philosophic Achievement--Harry Binswanger
In these two lectures, Dr. Binswanger presents what he sees as the top philosophical achievements of Ayn Rand (lecture 1), and what idea underlies all of these achievements (lecture 2).
If you are an Objectivist, there is not much, if any, new content in the lectures. The six achievements, and Dr. Binswanger's description of them, will be familiar to you, even if you never thought of them in the context of 'greatest philosophical achievements of a great mind.' They are: the primacy of existence, her theory of concepts, reason as volitional, man's life as the standard of morality, the moral basis of individual rights, and the psycho-epistemological basis of art.
The underlying idea Dr. Binswanger identifies is: objectivity. Given the name of the philosophy in question, this insight seems underwhelming.
I will confirm this when I get home and check my library, but I am pretty sure that a lot of the content in this lecture was also in a series of articles Dr. Binswanger wrote in The Objectivist Forum, not too long after Ayn Rand's death. Every issue of The Objectivist Forum can be bought as one hardcover edition at the Ayn Rand Bookstore, at a very reasonable price. I'd recommend doing that over buying the tapes of these lectures.
I am currently in San Diego, attending the 2005 Objectivist Conference (OCON 2005). For Objectivists and other interested persons, I thought I'd give comments on lectures and events in the conference, when I have time.
For my first attempt, I will start with comments on Yaron Brook's talk The Neo-Conservatives--Friend or Foe?
This lecture I liked quite a bit. The talk starts off by giving a lot of the history and current policy positions of neo-conservatives. Dr. Brook also explains why the neo-conservatives are gaining in influence: they make "morally toned pronouncements," unlike pragmatist Republicans and even more pragmatic (and loopy) liberals. Even in today's America, moral confidence and certitude sell well.
I don't think I'm giving much away by saying Dr. Brook puts neocons squarely on the "foe" side. He shows that the neocons are not friends of liberty (the quote from Gertrude Himmelfarb was especially frightening), but merely altruists who see America as the power that can bring order to a fractured world, by sacrificing American soldiers on all continents where there is unrest and strife.
Dr. Brooks more powerful statements definitely come in the last third of the talk. A lot of what comes before is build-up that occasionally fails to engage. But it is all useful information, and that last third is extremely worthwhile.
Let me put it this way: if you are an Objectivist, and you think neocons aren't so bad because they sound pro-American, buy the CD to disabuse yourself of that thought. And if you know better, buy a copy to remind yourself, then buy a second copy to give to any friends who are having trouble understanding.
A group of Objectivist college students have started a publication called The Undercurrent. Their goal, according to Gena Gorlin, Editor? Addressing her audience directly, she writes "[w]e aim to introduce you to a practical philosophy--one that could radically alter politics, culture, and every avenue of your life."
This is a laudable goal, and I hope they succeed in convincing many college students of the value of Ayn Rand's brilliant philosophy.
A special note I must make: Rebecca Knapp's "The Liberal Slant on the Liberal War" is wonderful, and employs a subtle twist in the conclusion. I had to read it two or three times because, on this site, subtlety is decidedly unemployed.
Another must-read op-ed from Alex Epstein, this time exposing the religous right's claim that they promote a "culture of life" as smokescreen to cover what they really stand for: suffering.
And just to demonstrate to yourself how far these nuts will go, read this Bill Bennett op-ed proclaiming that it is fine and dandy for the executive to step in and enforce its idea of a constitution any time it disagrees with the interpretation of the judiciary. The specific law here mentioned is the "Terri's Law" passed by the Florida legislature, which essentially gave Governor Bush the power to overrule the courts and legislate on his own. So, what do you call a situation where one man writes, interprets and executes laws as he sees fit, with no oversight? Oh yeah, dictatorship.
...that occurred to me after reading this commentary in the March 11 TIA Daily:
The bad news: the Kurds have struck a deal with the Shiites that will allow
"moderate" Islamist Ibrahim al-Jaafari to become the new Iraqi prime minister.
The good news: none of this was a cake walk for the Shiite Islamists. It took
them three weeks after the election results were announced just to form a
government....
If this is the good news, isn't Iraq doomed? After all, it took Hitler over ten years after World War I to become Chancellor, and even then his Nazi Party did not have a majority in the Reichstag.
The obvious follow-up question is this: what standard does one use to call the above news 'good,' or even a mix of bad and good?
