10-30-10 Hodgepodge
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Craig Biddle: "Justice for John P. McCaskey"
Note: I have retracted this endorsement.
Second Note: Kendall J makes the following pertinent comment: "Even if Peikoff had morally condemned McCaskey, the Rand citation does not in any way imply that he is obligated to explain himself."
Third Note: The interested reader may find links to statements about this matter by ARI and Leonard Peikoff here.
Craig Biddle has posted a call for justice for John McCaskey at his personal web site. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the Peikoff-McCaskey dispute, and find that the piece clarifies many of the issues involved. I am grateful for that clarification, as well as for the fact that he took this stand.
Although I would normally include some salient quote(s) from such an article at this point, I will not do so here since the context of everything Biddle says is extremely important and he deserves a full and fair hearing.
I will, however, cite the quotation Biddle drew from Ayn Rand that most clarified things for me:
"When one pronounces a moral judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer 'Why?' and to prove one's case -- to oneself and to any rational inquirer." -- Ayn Rand, "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?," in The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet, 1964), p. 84.Based on my knowledge of this dispute, including what I have gathered from this piece, I fully agree with Biddle.
Although it should be clear to anyone reading Biddle's piece, let me briefly emphasize that my agreement with Biddle and my consequent support of McCaskey do not imply a repudiation of Leonard Peikoff.
In addition, I remain a supporter of the Ayn Rand Institute.
Note: I have retracted this endorsement.
Second Note: Kendall J makes the following pertinent comment: "Even if Peikoff had morally condemned McCaskey, the Rand citation does not in any way imply that he is obligated to explain himself."
Third Note: The interested reader may find links to statements about this matter by ARI and Leonard Peikoff here.
Weekend Reading
"Coloradans can avoid the mistakes of Massachusetts, save money, and protect their health care freedoms by voting for Amendment 63. What more could one ask for?" -- Paul Hsieh in "The 'Right To Health Care Choice' is right for Colorado" at The Denver Post. (Dr. Hsieh was also recently interviewed at Capitalism Magazine on the subject of the pros and cons of ObamaCare.)
"This year’s ballot presents voters with a mystery. Amendments 62 and 63 are based on opposite political premises, yet many prominent groups either endorse both or oppose both. What explains this contradiction?" -- Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong in "A62, A63 reveal ideological rifts" at The Denver Daily News
"The choice in the upcoming election boils down to whether you think you are your brother's keeper or whether you have a right to live your own life as you see fit." -- Charlotte Cushman in "The Real Choice This Election" at American Thinker
How to Spot Voting Fraud
Speaking of elections, there may, unfortunately, be a few opportunities for last-minute activism right before you vote.
Popping up Everywhere
Some time ago, Amit Ghate called the frequency of Objectivist editorials in mainstream publications a "welcome problem." The same sometimes goes with other random mentions.
Here are a couple of good ones from this week: First, my favorite productivity blog, Lifehacker, devoted an entry to Francisco d'Anconia's "money speech" -- "Is Money the Root of All Evil?" -- this week. The entry itself was noncommittal, but it did link to the full text at Capitalism Magazine. Second, through Paul Hsieh and Amit Ghate, I learned about a fascinating Wall Street Journal blog entry about a turning point in intellectual property history. "What Smartphone Makers Can Learn From the Sewing Machine Patent War," drew on an academic article by Adam Mossoff, who is affiliated with ARI.
-- CAV
Second Note: Kendall J makes the following pertinent comment: "Even if Peikoff had morally condemned McCaskey, the Rand citation does not in any way imply that he is obligated to explain himself."
Third Note: The interested reader may find links to statements about this matter by ARI and Leonard Peikoff here.
Weekend Reading
"Coloradans can avoid the mistakes of Massachusetts, save money, and protect their health care freedoms by voting for Amendment 63. What more could one ask for?" -- Paul Hsieh in "The 'Right To Health Care Choice' is right for Colorado" at The Denver Post. (Dr. Hsieh was also recently interviewed at Capitalism Magazine on the subject of the pros and cons of ObamaCare.)
"This year’s ballot presents voters with a mystery. Amendments 62 and 63 are based on opposite political premises, yet many prominent groups either endorse both or oppose both. What explains this contradiction?" -- Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong in "A62, A63 reveal ideological rifts" at The Denver Daily News
"The choice in the upcoming election boils down to whether you think you are your brother's keeper or whether you have a right to live your own life as you see fit." -- Charlotte Cushman in "The Real Choice This Election" at American Thinker
How to Spot Voting Fraud
Speaking of elections, there may, unfortunately, be a few opportunities for last-minute activism right before you vote.
Popping up Everywhere
Some time ago, Amit Ghate called the frequency of Objectivist editorials in mainstream publications a "welcome problem." The same sometimes goes with other random mentions.
Here are a couple of good ones from this week: First, my favorite productivity blog, Lifehacker, devoted an entry to Francisco d'Anconia's "money speech" -- "Is Money the Root of All Evil?" -- this week. The entry itself was noncommittal, but it did link to the full text at Capitalism Magazine. Second, through Paul Hsieh and Amit Ghate, I learned about a fascinating Wall Street Journal blog entry about a turning point in intellectual property history. "What Smartphone Makers Can Learn From the Sewing Machine Patent War," drew on an academic article by Adam Mossoff, who is affiliated with ARI.
-- CAV
Updates
11-3-10: Added note of retraction to first section.
11-5-10: Added second note to first section.
11-13-10: Added a third note to first section.
11-5-10: Added second note to first section.
11-13-10: Added a third note to first section.
4 comments:
Heh, the popping up everywhere thing is practically endemic. Yahtzee Crowshaw, a VIDEO GAME reviewer on the ESCAPIST has mentioned Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism like FOUR TIMES in his reviews.
That is FOUR TIMES more than he's mentioned any other philosophy/philosopher. Ever.
I'm not a video gamer, but I vaguely recall a Rand reference within a video game itself something like a year or so ago.
It's nice to have such a thing be endemic!
Gus, I know you have already retracted this statement, but since this use the Rand citation that I find most egregiously misquoted I wanted to leave a clarfication.
*Even if* Peikoff had morally condemned McCaskey, the Rand citation does not in any way imply that he is obligated to explain himself. A very clear reading of the Rand essay shows that the fact of morally condemning *in and of itself* is not sufficient to obligate explanation.
It is a very sloppy piece of logic on Biddle's part.
Kendall,
Thank you for mentioning that, and I have to admit being embarrassed not to have caught that myself.
Specifically, she says, "be prepared." This really means, "know what you're talking about." No more. No less.
There can be numerous reasons why stating one's rationale for a given judgement can be inappropriate, even if only because it is not the enquirer's business.
Gus
Post a Comment