Labels and Contradictions

 Posted by on 8 November 2002 at 6:08 pm  Uncategorized
Nov 082002
 

As an admirer of much of Brink Lindsey’s writing, it is with a twinge of sadness that I must agree with Arthur Silber’s analysis of the deep philosophical problems of Lindsey’s views of capitalism. Arthur’s analysis of the dire consequences of Lindsey’s breed of altruism-driven semi-libertarianism is dead-on. He writes that Lindsey “is helping the enemy in the long run” and it ought to be “clear to everyone that it is the principles of altruism and statism that have brought us to our current state, and that more of the same will not cure the problem, but only make it worse.” Augh! Why must people cling so tenaciously to that pseudo-ethics of altruism?!?

(For my analysis of the four necessary philosophical pillars of libertarianism — reason, egoism, mind-body integration, and harmony of interests — see the transcript of my lecture The Philosophical Underpinnings of Capitalism.)

Since Lindsey’s comments concerned his reluctant use of the term libertarian, let me offer some offhand comments about ideological labels. (These comments really don’t apply much to Lindsey himself.)

I often hear people argue that they don’t like ideological labels, as they are too restrictive and confining. Such people claim to be staunch individualists, who aren’t going to march lockstep with the crowd, whether it be the crowd of Marxists, libertarians, Objectivist, or socialists. In my personal experience, such people wish to be free from logic and consistency, not dogmatism. They want to be able to advocate whatever incoherent hodgepodge of ideas they please, without any reference to systematic integration. The are dressing up unreason as individualism. Such people are at best deeply epistemologically confused.

Of course, people do sometimes reject (or only begrudgingly accept) particular ideological labels for good reason. Sometimes, no single position describes their views accurately. (I face just this problem in philosophy of mind. Lindsey seems to face the same problem in politics, although I do believe he also faces a much larger problem, that of incompatibility between his altruism and his advocacy of limited capitalism.) The solution to such problems is to create a new label, to form a new concept that does accurately capture what ought to be a systematic and consistent viewpoint. At other times, a person’s view may simply not be well-settled enough to be properly categorized one way or another — yet. But a label would be appropriate at a later date. Both of these reasons to reject particular labels with respect to particular ideas are legitimate. Unlike with the people discussed above, the problem is not with the labels per se, but the accuracy of those labels.

As a parting note, let me simply pass on my observation that most people, including far too many intellectuals, have little to no capacity to recognize contradictions between ideas. On multiple occasions, I’ve seen people laud the glories of service to others in one breath and the sanctity of individual happiness in the next. Scientologists routinely claim to also be Christians. People wonder whether Objectivism is compatible with Buddhism or Christianity. Most scientists believe in God. The examples go on and on. Sadly enough, learning to detect contradictions between ideas is a skill that most people simply have never developed.

Personally, I blame government schooling. :-)


Share This Post

Legal Announcement

 Posted by on 4 November 2002 at 7:12 pm  Uncategorized
Nov 042002
 

I have been told that I am being sued by Front Sight Management. I was referred to this web site http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us:8490/DistrictCourt/asp/CaseNo.asp, case number 02-A-458392. I have no other information as to the nature of the complaint or whether it is related to my web site or not. On the advice of my attorney, I will offer no further comment on this matter at the moment.


Share This Post

2003 TOC Summer Seminar

 Posted by on 3 November 2002 at 8:55 am  Uncategorized
Nov 032002
 

The dates and location of the 2003 Summer Seminar of The Objectivist Center has been announced! It will be from June 28 to July 5 at Bentley College in Waltham, Massachusetts.

I’ll be giving a revised version of my introductory course, Objectivism 101. I’m also proposing a lecture on the philosophy of mind.


Share This Post

Skirts and Posts

 Posted by on 2 November 2002 at 6:44 pm  Uncategorized
Nov 022002
 

In the comments on this post by The Blogging God of Objectivism (more commonly known as Arthur Silber), Alex Knapp posted this great quip: “Writing should be like a woman’s skirt–long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to be interesting.”

I’ll have to quote that to some of the feminists at Boulder one of these days! ;-)


Share This Post

Home Early

 Posted by on 2 November 2002 at 4:30 pm  Uncategorized
Nov 022002
 

Paul and I are home early from our trip to Vegas, so I should be able to do a bit of blogging this weekend on various philosophical matters.

I have been thinking a great deal about the requirements of integrity lately, particularly Gail Wynand’s very serious game of ruining men of integrity in The Fountainhead:

It began with the case of Dwight Carson. Dwight Carson was a talented young writer who had achieved the spotless reputation of a man passionately devoted to his convictions. He upheld the cause of the individual against the masses. He wrote for magazines of great prestige and small circulation, which were no threat to Wynand. Wynand bought Dwight Carson. He forced Carson to write a column in the Banner, dedicated to preaching the superiority of the masses over the man of genius. It was a bad column, dull and unconvincing; it made many people angry. It was a waste of space and of a big salary. Wynand insisted on continuing it.

Even Alvah Scarret was shocked by Carson’s apostasy. “Anybody else, Gail,” he said, “but, honest, I didn’t expect it of Carson.” Wynand laughed; he laughed too long, as if he could not stop it; his laughter had an edge of hysteria. Scarret frowned; he did not like the sight of Wynand being unable to control an emotion; it contradicted everything he knew of Wynand; it gave Scarret a funny feeling of apprehension, like the sight of a tiny crack in a solid wall; the crack could not possibly endanger the wall–except that it had no business being there.

A few months later Wynand bought a young writer from a radical magazine, a man known for his honesty, and put him to work on a series of articles glorifying exceptional men and damning the masses. That, too, made a great many of his readers angry. He continued it. He seemed not to care any longer about the delicate signs of effect on circulation.

He hired a sensitive poet to cover baseball games. He hired an art expert to handle financial news. He got a socialist to defend factory owners and a conservative to champion labor. He forced an atheist to write on the glories of religion. He made a disciplined scientist proclaim the superiority of mystical intuition over the scientific method. He gave a great symphony conductor a munificent yearly income, for no work at all, on the sole condition that he never conduct an orchestra again.

Some of these men had refused, at first. But they surrendered when they found themselves on the edge of bankruptcy through a series of untraceable circumstances within a few years. Some of the men were famous, others obscure. Wynand showed no interest in the previous standing of his prey. He showed no interest in men of glittering success who had commercialized their careers and held no particular beliefs of any kind. His victims had a single attribute in common: their immaculate integrity.

Once they were broken, Wynand continued to pay them scrupulously. But he felt no further concern for them and no desire to see them again. Dwight Carson became a dipsomaniac. Two men became drug addicts. One committed suicide. This last was too much for Scarret. “Isn’t it going too far, Gail?” he asked. “That was practically murder.”

“Not at all,” said Wynand, “I was merely an outside circumstance. The cause was in him. If lightning strikes a rotten tree and it collapses, it’s not the fault of the lightning.”

“But what do you call a healthy tree?” “They don’t exist, Alvah,” said Wynand cheerfully, “they don’t exist.”

In the novel, only Roark, the genuinely healthy tree, is impervious to Wynand’s attempts to break him:

When Roark entered the office, Wynand said: “How do you do, Mr. Roark,” his voice gracious and formal. No memory of intimacy remained on his blank, courteous face.

Roark handed him the plans of the house and a large perspective drawing. Wynand studied each sheet. He held the drawing for a long time. Then he looked up.

“I am very much impressed, Mr. Roark.” The voice was offensively correct. “I have been quite impressed by you from the first. I have thought it over and I want to make a special deal with you.”

His glance was directed at Roark with a soft emphasis, almost with tenderness; as if he were showing that he wished to treat Roark cautiously, to spare him intact for a purpose of his own.

He lifted the sketch and held it up between two fingers, letting all the light hit it straight on; the white sheet glowed as a reflector for a moment, pushing the black pencil lines eloquently forward.

“You want to see this house erected?” Wynand asked softly.

“You want it very much?”

“Yes,” said Roark.

Wynand did not move his hand, only parted his fingers and let the cardboard drop face down on the desk.

“It will be erected, Mr. Roark. Just as you designed it. Just as it stands on this sketch. On one condition.”

Roark sat leaning back, his hands in his pockets, attentive, waiting.

“You don’t want to ask me what condition, Mr. Roark? Very well, I’ll tell you. I shall accept this house on condition that you accept the deal I offer you. I wish to sign a contract whereby you will be sole architect for any building I undertake to erect in the future. As you realize, this would be quite an assignment. I venture to say I control more structural work than any other single person in the country. Every man in your profession has wanted to be known as my exclusive architect. I am offering it to you. In exchange, you will have to submit yourself to certain conditions. Before I name them, I’d like to point out some of the consequences, should you refuse. As you may have heard, I do not like to be refused. The power I hold can work two ways. It would be easy for me to arrange that no commission be available to you anywhere in this country. You have a small following of your own, but no prospective employer can withstand the kind of pressure I am in a position to exert. You have gone through wasted periods of your life before. They were nothing, compared to the blockade I can impose. You might have to go back to a granite quarry–oh yes, I know about that, summer of 1928, the Francon quarry in Connecticut–how?–private detectives, Mr. Roark–you might have to go back to a granite quarry, only I shall see to it that the quarries also will be closed to you. Now I’ll tell you what I want of you.”

In all the gossip about Gail Wynand, no one had ever mentioned the expression of his face as it was in this moment. The few men who had seen it did not talk about it. Of these men, Dwight Carson had been the first. Wynand’s lips were parted, his eyes brilliant. It was an expression of sensual pleasure derived from agony–the agony of his victim or his own, or both.

“I want you to design all my future commercial structures–as the public wishes commercial structures to be designed. You’ll build Colonial houses, Rococo hotels and semi-Grecian office buildings. You’ll exercise your matchless ingenuity within forms chosen by the taste of the people–and you’ll make money for me. You’ll take your spectacular talent and make it obedient. Originality and subservience together. They call it harmony. You’ll create in your sphere what the Banner is in mine. Do you think it took no talent to create the Banner? Such will be your future career. But the house you’ve designed for me shall be erected as you designed it. It will be the last Roark building to rise on earth. Nobody will have one after mine. You’ve read about ancient rulers who put to death the architect of their palace, that no others might equal the glory he had given them. They killed the architect or cut his eyes out. Modern methods are different. For the rest of your life you’ll obey the will of the majority. I shan’t attempt to offer you any arguments. I am merely stating an alternative. You’re the kind of man who can understand plain language. You have a simple choice: if you refuse, you’ll never build anything again; if you accept, you’ll build this house which you want so much to see erected, and a great many other houses which you won’t like, but which will make money for both of us. For the rest of your life you’ll design rental developments, such as Stoneridge. That is what I want.”

He leaned forward, waiting for one of the reactions he knew well and enjoyed: a look of anger, or indignation, or ferocious pride.

“Why, of course,” said Roark gaily. “I’ll be glad to do it. That’s easy.”

He reached over, took a pencil and the first piece of paper he saw on Wynand’s desk–a letter with an imposing letterhead. He drew rapidly on the back of the letter. The motion of his hand was smooth and confident. Wynand looked at his face bent over the paper; he saw the unwrinkled forehead, the straight line of the eyebrows, attentive, but untroubled by effort.

Roark raised his head and threw the paper to Wynand across the desk.

“Is this what you want?”

Wynand’s house stood drawn on the paper–with Colonial porches, a gambrel roof, two massive chimneys, a few little pilasters, a few porthole windows. It was not a parody, it was a serious job of adaptation in what any professor would have called excellent taste.

“Good God, no!” The gasp was instinctive and immediate.

“Then shut up,” said Roark, “and don’t ever let me hear any architectural suggestions.”

Wynand slumped down in his chair and laughed. He laughed for a long time, unable to stop. It was not a happy sound.

Roark shook his head wearily. “You knew better than that. And it’s such an old one to me. My antisocial stubbornness is so well known that I didn’t think anyone would waste time trying to tempt me again.”

“Howard. I meant it. Until I saw this.”

I knew you meant it. I didn’t think you could be such a fool.”

“You knew you were taking a terrible kind of chance?”

“None at all. I had an ally I could trust.”

“What? Your integrity?”

“Yours, Gail.”

Wynand sat looking down at the surface of his desk. After a while he said:

“You’re wrong about that.”

“I don’t think so.”

Gail Wynand’s failure to break Roark is not simply a matter of Roark having something to offer Wynand. The basic issue is that Roark cannot be bought and sold because knows that to never build again would be preferable to building contrary to his artistic integrity. We discover this fact in the story of the Manhattan Bank building, below. To set the scene, we know from earlier in the chapter that Roark is desperate for the Manhattan Bank commission. If he does not get it, he will have to shut down his office. He has been waiting to hear for weeks and finally does.

The telephone rang late on Monday afternoon.

“Well, Mr. Roark, the commission’s yours,” said Weidler.

Roark bowed. It was best not to trust his voice for a few minutes.

The chairman smiled amiably, inviting him to sit down. Roark sat down by the side of the table that supported his drawings. His hand rested on the table. The polished mahogany felt warm and living under his fingers; it was almost as if he were pressing his hand against the foundations of his building; his greatest building, fifty stories to rise in the center of Manhattan.

“I must tell you,” the chairman was saying, “that we’ve had a hell of a fight over that building of yours. Thank God it’s over. Some of our members just couldn’t swallow your radical innovations. You know how stupidly conservative some people are. But we’ve found a way to please them, and we got their consent. Mr. Weidler here was really magnificently convincing on your behalf.”

A great deal more was said by the three men. Roark barely heard it. He was thinking of the first bite of machine into earth that begins an excavation. Then he heard the chairman saying: “… and so it’s yours, on one minor condition.” He heard that and looked at the chairman.

“It’s a small compromise, and when you agree to it we can sign the contract. It’s only an inconsequential matter of the building’s appearance. I understand that you modernists attach no great importance to a mere facade, it’s the plan that counts with you, quite rightly, and we wouldn’t think of altering your plan in any way, it’s the logic of the plan that sold us on the building. So I’m sure you won’t mind.”

“What do you want?”

“It’s only a matter of a slight alteration in the facade. I’ll show you. Our Mr. Parker’s son is studying architecture and we had him draw us up a sketch, just a rough sketch to illustrate what we had in mind and to show the members of the board, because they couldn’t have visualized the compromise we offered. Here it is.”

He pulled a sketch from under the drawings on the table and handed it to Roark.

It was Roark’s building on the sketch, very neatly drawn. It was his building, but it had a simplified Doric portico in front, a cornice on top, and his ornament was replaced by a stylized Greek ornament.

Roark got up. He had to stand. He concentrated on the effort of standing. It made the rest easier. He leaned on one straight arm, his hand closed over the edge of the table, the tendons showing under the skin of his wrist.

“You see the point?” said the chairman soothingly. “Our conservatives simply refused to accept a queer stark building like yours. And they claim that the public won’t accept it either. So we hit upon a middle course. In this way, though it’s not traditional architecture of course, it will give the public the impression of what they’re accustomed to. It adds a certain air of sound, stable dignity–and that’s what we want in a bank, isn’t it? It does seem to he an unwritten law that a bank must have a Classic portico–and a bank is not exactly the right institution to parade law-breaking and rebellion. Undermines that intangible feeling of confidence, you know. People don’t trust novelty. But this is the scheme that pleased everybody. Personally, I wouldn’t insist on it, but I really don’t see that it spoils anything. And that’s what the board has decided. Of course, we don’t mean that we want you to follow this sketch. But it gives you our general idea and you’ll work it out yourself, make your own adaptation of the Classic motive to the facade.”

Then Roark answered. The men could not classify the tone of his voice; they could not decide whether it was too great a calm or too great an emotion. They concluded that it was calm, because the voice moved forward evenly, without stress, without color, each syllable spaced as by a machine; only the air in the room was not the air that vibrates to a calm voice.

They concluded that there was nothing abnormal in the manner of the man who was speaking, except the fact that his right hand would not leave the edge of the table, and when he had to move the drawings, he did it with his left hand, like a man with one arm paralyzed.

He spoke for a long time. He explained why this structure could not have a Classic motive on its facade. He explained why an honest building, like an honest man, had to he of one piece and one faith; what constituted the life source, the idea in any existing thing or creature, and why–if one smallest part committed treason to that idea–the thing or the creature was dead; and why the good, the high and the noble on earth was only that which kept its integrity.

The chairman interrupted him:

“Mr. Roark, I agree with you. There’s no answer to what you’re saying. But unfortunately, in practical life, one can’t always he so flawlessly consistent. There’s always the incalculable human element of emotion. We can’t fight that with cold logic. This discussion is actually superfluous. I can agree with you, but I can’t help you. The matter is closed. It was the board’s final decision–after more than usually prolonged consideration, as you know.”

“Will you let me appear before the board and speak to them?”

“I’m sorry, Mr. Roark, but the board will not re-open the question for further debate. It was final. I can only ask you to state whether you agree to accept the commission on our terms or not. I must admit that the board has considered the possibility of your refusal. In which case, the name of another architect, one Gordon L. Prescott, has been mentioned most favorably as an alternative. But I told the board that I felt certain you would accept.” He waited. Roark said nothing.

“You understand the situation, Mr. Roark?”

“Yes,” said Roark. His eyes were lowered. He was looking down at the drawings.

“Well?”

Roark did not answer. “Yes or no, Mr. Roark?”

Roark’s head leaned back. He closed his eyes. “No,” said Roark.

After a while the chairman asked: “Do you realize what you’re doing?”

“Quite,” said Roark.

“Good God!” Weidler cried suddenly. “Don’t you know how big a commission this is? You’re a young man, you won’t get another chance like this. And… all right, damn it all, I’ll say it! You need this! I know how badly you need it!”

Roark gathered the drawings from the table, rolled them together and put them under his arm.

“It’s sheer insanity!” Weidler moaned. “I want you. We want your building. You need the commission. Do you have to be quite so fanatical and selfless about it?”

“What?” Roark asked incredulously.

“Fanatical and selfless.”

Roark smiled. He looked down at his drawings. His elbow moved a little, pressing them to his body. He said:

“That was the most selfish thing you’ve ever seen a man do.” He walked back to his office. He gathered his drawing instruments and the few things he had there. It made one package and he carded it under his arm. He locked the door and gave the key to the rental agent. He told the agent that he was closing his office. He walked home and left the package there. Then he went to Mike’s Donnigan’s house.

Some Objectivists occasionally wonder whether such “extreme” action was really necessary for Roark. I say: Yes, absolutely positively without a doubt, YES! Roark would have been a broken man, a pale shadow of an architect, if he had been willing to sell his vision for the sake of a particular commission. He would have lost the right to insist upon his moral vision with other clients. His artistic integrity would have been revealed as a sham for all the world to see. He would have been as bad off as Dwight Carson, if not worse.

Of course, we all need not care about architecture so much. But we ought to care deeply and passionately about our work and values, whatever that may be. Thus a physician ought never recommend unnecessary procedures for the sake of greater reimbursement, even if such would help fund his development of a cancer treatment. A programmer should never create programs that don’t work so as to create more business down the road. A salesman should never lie about a product’s benefits in order to make a sale now. Such actions are simply beyond the pale, in the same way that a Classical facade on proposed building is for Roark.

In short, the point of Roark’s declining the Manhattan Bank building is not to show us the evils of Classical facades or the glories of modern architecture. The point is a broader, moral one about the need for a deep and inviolate integrityabout our values — if we are to have lives worth living at all.


Share This Post

Mountains of Mail (and Snow Too)

 Posted by on 29 October 2002 at 10:26 pm  Uncategorized
Oct 292002
 

The mountains of e-mail piling up in my inbox will simply have to sit for a while, as Paul and I are headed to Front Sight for a repeat of the Four Day Defensive Handgun Course. (Sorry folks!) Unfortunately, I haven’t yet gotten any sort of reply from Piazza about my most recent e-mail to him. (For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, go check out my Front Sight, Ignatius Piazza, and Scientology? mini web site.) Nevertheless, I hope to be able to talk to Naish while I’m there — if only to turn my Ambassador Program materials in to him.


Share This Post

Original Sin

 Posted by on 28 October 2002 at 8:31 am  Uncategorized
Oct 282002
 

Arthur Silber has served up an excellent post on original sin. Having been raised an atheist, I’ve never managed to wrap my mind around the moral monstrosity that is the doctrine of original sin. How anyone could look at a newborn baby and declare him or her sinful is beyond me. But John Calvin managed:

The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. This is not liability for another’s fault. For when it is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which punishment is justly due. Hence Augustine, though he often terms it another’s sin, (that he may more clearly show how it comes to us by descent,) at the same time asserts that it is each individual’s own sin. And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that “death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” (Rom. 5: 12;) that is, are involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not for another’s, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 8, emphasis added

Oh yes, Christianity is a religion that loves humanity!


Share This Post

Jesus The Scientologist?

 Posted by on 27 October 2002 at 8:38 am  Uncategorized
Oct 272002
 

I just got my first pro-Scientology e-mail from someone called “Beka,” under the subject “Jesus The Scientologist”:

If Jesus came back to Earth what would he see. He would see folk being electroshocked in asylums rather than being shown a little kindness and allowed to recover. He would see the education system decaying with the students being prescribed drugs rather than having their study problems addressed. He would see drug-crazed kids going on shooting sprees wiping out their teachers and classmates. He would be in grief with what he saw….

http://www.kalgoorlie.com/forum/showthread.asp?parentId=0&messageId=854&subjectId=1

(The post on the message board also added this tidbit: “Jesus would look around for those people in society who were doing something effective to handle the situation and he would find the Church of Scientology. And Jesus would become a Scientologist himself.”)

I wrote her this note in response:

Hi Beka,

I fear that you may have me confused with someone who is an advocate of Christianity or Christian ethics. I am not. I am an atheist and an ethical egoist. As such, not only do I deny that Jesus was divine, but I believe his teachings of renunciation of the world and self-sacrifice to be deeply wrong. (That isn’t to say that I don’t regard the problems you cite as genuine problems though.)

Additionally, the fact that some Scientologists retain their Christian beliefs only indicates that people are often philosophically confused and inconsistent. Christianity is just as incompatible with Scientology as it is with Hinduism.

Thanks for the link, diana.


Share This Post

Hypocricy and the Marketplace of Ideas

 Posted by on 26 October 2002 at 12:57 pm  Uncategorized
Oct 262002
 

The ever-insightful Arthur Silber has an interesting post on hypocrisy and public intellectuals. His basic argument is that the question of whether an idea is true or not is wholly and entirely separate from the question of whether the advocates of the idea consistently practice it. From a purely logical reasoning perspective, I agree with Arthur. Simply put, tu quoque is a fallacy. Critics of hypocritical intellectuals should focus on the failures of their ideas, not on upon the failures of their personal lives.

That being said, we should be aware that a more complicated picture emerges when we consider the process by which people rationally investigate ideas. There are countless intellectuals in the world all vying for our attention. But there simply isn’t enough time in the day to consider all of these ideas equally. So we use various heuristics to weed out the likely bad ideas.

For example, we generally don’t bother listening to people who are unfamiliar with the major research in a given field. Of course, it is possible for someone to do brilliant work without being familiar with all of the relevant research. But it far more likely that such a person will make elementary mistakes. All else being equal, we’re far better off attending to the ideas of those knowledgeable of their field than ignorant. (Advanced degrees are at least a sign of being well-versed in a given field, which is why they are taken fairly seriously.) Of course, none of this reasoning constitutes proof by any stretch of the imagination. But it is a useful heuristic that allows us to more effectively manage the flow of ideas in our life.

Similarly, we tend to pay less attention to ideas advocated by people who fail to live up to them. Why would that be?

First, intellectuals commonly advocate all sorts of loopy ideas that could never consistently be practiced, such as genuine altruism. So by looking at whether the adherents of an idea actually practice that ideal may serve as a rough estimate of whether the idea is at all consonant with the facts of reality. After all, doesn’t the whole priest-pedophelia scandal in the Catholic Church tell us something about the ideal of chastity and the Church’s actual concern for children? At least that information should raise doubts. So hypocrisy in public intellectuals is a sign (but again, not proof) that something is amiss with their ideas.

Second, intellectuals sometimes advocate ideas as a means of controlling others rather than because they believe the ideas themselves. For example, some people argue that religion is false — but necessary for the stupid unwashed masses. Without the fear of God, such pragmatic elitists argue, the filthy hordes would run amok with no moral constraints at all! But of course, educated and refined people have no need for such delusions. So the fact that such intellectuals do not practice what they preach is a consequence of some rather nasty underlying views about humanity.

Third, intellectuals will sometimes advocate ideas because they fulfill some pathological psychological need, rather than for their relation to reality. For example, someone might argue that its morally acceptable to steal from corporations because to condemn the theft would be to condemn their father, who routinely stole from work. Or a woman might stridently argue against pre-marital sex due to her own guilt about lying to her fiancee about her virginity. Here hypocrisy alerts us to the possibility of non-rational motives for advocating an idea.

So to ignore certain intellectuals due to their hypocrisy is not irrational. We have limited time to spend investigating ideas, so we ought to use that time wisely.

That being said, I agree with Arthur that critics of ideas ought to focus their attention on the ideas themselves rather than the personal conduct of its advocates. But once the ideas have been demolished, the hypocrisy may well be noteworthy, as something of icing on the cake.


Share This Post

Scientology Update

 Posted by on 26 October 2002 at 9:36 am  Uncategorized
Oct 262002
 

I’ve just updated my “Front Sight, Ignatius Piazza, and Scientology?” mini web site. The most important addition is my third e-mail to Piazza. There I provided links to reliable information about the misdeeds of the Church of Scientology, argued that Piazza’s personal involvement the Scientology would likely seriously damage Front Sight as well as the gun rights movement, and let Naish know where my line in the sand is on this issue. I would urge anyone who thinks Piazza’s personal involvement with the Church of Scientology isn’t all that important to read that e-mail.

Piazza’s reply will be critical for me, I suspect.


Share This Post

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha