On His Popeness

Does this (via The Drudge Report) not sound like something from The Onion?

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

I happen to agree with Benedict in this case, but when the Pope passes as a champion of "firm evidence" against "dubious ideology" what does that say about the state of discourse on whatever topic? If only he could see his way around to the same viewpoint on religion and morality.

On Giant Religious Icons

I'd prefer the cell tower.

Creve Coeur-based CIS Communications has put forth a proposal to conceal a cell phone tower for U.S. Cellular inside a 95-foot cross to be built on land owned by the Way of Faith Christian Center. Church members have agreed to lease space on church property as long as the tower is designed as a simple Christian icon instead of a metal tangle of bars and wires.

On Ayn Rand

Diana over at NoodleFood linked to this grotesquely ignorant summary of Ayn Rand and her work. Not having the energy herself to take on the challenge of rebutting it immediately, I have accepted the challenge.

The egotist's egotist, author Ayn Rand (born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum)...

So far, so good. Except for the confusion of "egotist" with "egoist." But I doubt most people would understand the difference.

...is the patron saint of Thinking You're Better Than Everybody Else.

Okay, here we go. If “Thinking You're Better Than Everybody Else” is this author's attempt to summarize Rand's ideas, then perhaps he should attempt to actually read some of those ideas first-hand. Yet the extent, or rather the lack, of intellectual honesty displayed yields little hope that even that would be of any use to him. Rand's philosophy is not, in any fundamental sense, concerned with one's relationship or attitude toward others. It doesn't ignore those relationships or attitudes, yet they are secondary and subservient to the furtherance of one's own life and well-being. What her philosophy does demand is that one think the best of one's self, and expect the best of others in return.

Her most famous novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, are massive dramatizations of Objectivism,...

Yup.

...her self-spun Oscar-the-Grouch philosophy for success.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Certainly I think Rand would take “self-spun” as a compliment, insofar as it indicates the product of her own independent mind. Yet the author here seems to use it as an epithet, implying something primitive and unsophisticated. The “Oscar-the-Grouch” bit is what I don't understand. If the author meant to imply that Rand's philosophy is pessimistic, then nothing could be further from the truth. A true Oscar-the-Grouch philosophy can be seen in the modern intellectuals who claim that all values are merely relative or illusory. Objectivism holds that meaningful values are within man's reach, to an almost unlimited extent. What could be more optimistic? And as for Objectivism being a “philosophy for success,” well, what would you expect? A philosophy for failure? Presumably the author considers his own ideas, if he has any, to be such a philosophy, a claim which I wouldn't dispute.

Objectivism champions ego and accomplishment, shuns all religion as folly,...

That it does.

...and condemns any form of charity or altruism as counterproductive to society.

Objectivism does hold, as one of its consequences, that altruism is counterproductive to society. Yet the effect of altruism on society as such is not of primary concern. Altruism's negative effects on those who practice it (and even on their alleged beneficiaries), in short on individual people, is of primary concern. Human beings survive, and make their lives worth the survival, only by pursuing the values which sustain life and make it worth sustaining. Altruism is the opposite of this; it is giving up and sacrificing greater values to lesser ones. How can this result in anything but misery and death?

As for charity, when practiced for its own sake, it falls into the broader category of altruism which I just discussed. On the other hand, if practiced under the umbrella of justice (and I mean here the Objectivist conception of justice,) if the recipient of charity is in some way deserving of it, then Rand would certainly not regard it as a vice, but a virtue. If a person falls on hard times through no fault of their own, or if they want to better themselves by pursuing an education but have not the material means required, then it is entirely appropriate to help them and for them to receive help from others who wish to do so.

Rand's novels often focus on protagonists (invariably men)...

Kira Argounova, Donimique Francon, Dagny Taggart...

...who are shunned by others because of their genius,...

Yes, Rand's protagonists are often shunned by others. But it is not merely “others” in general, but certain specific others: those who lacked the independent judgment to recognize and embrace the genius of her protagonists, whether because of passive ignorance or willful evasion. Yet Rand also portrayed the opposite kind of person. Hank Rearden has Dagny Taggart and Ken Dannager; Howard Roark has Austin Heller and Roger Enright, just to name a few. The significance lies not merely in that genius is rejected by others, but the type of others, illustrated through the contrast, who reject it.

...but then persevere over the foolishness of morons to prove said genius and emerge triumphant.

So they do, and more power to them.

Not surprisingly, she saw humility as a weakness and regarded laughing at yourself as "spitting in your own face."

Yes, Rand regarded humility as a weakness. To understand why is best explained through her attitude toward its opposite: pride. Rand described pride as "moral ambitiousness." It is the sense that we are capable of sustaining our own lives and that our lives are worth sustaining, that we are the worthy beneficiaries of our own moral action. It should not be confused, as it often is, with hubris, or "inflated" pride, which would be antithetical to the Objectivist virtues of honesty (not faking reality) and independence (maintaining a primary orientation to reality, as opposed to placing the opinions of others above reality and one's own apprehension of it.) Humility is the opposite of this, the view that one is worthless, unworthy of living and fundamentally incapable of doing so.

Admittedly, I'm not entirely familiar with Rand's view on humor, but I expect that the "laughing at yourself" statement, while true in some sense, requires some qualification. From my understanding, Rand regarded humor as a tool of trivialization and ridicule. I doubt very much whether she would have had a serious problem with laughing at the idiosyncratic habits that we all have, or laughing off a mistake we make in one of our imperfect moments. (Like when you go to put the cereal back in the refrigerator and the milk back in the pantry after breakfast, because you're just not awake yet.) And I find it hard to believe that Rand's famous late-night philosophical discussions would have been entirely free of humor. What Rand would have disliked was the trivialization and ridicule of that which is most dear to one's self. To ridicule one's own values is not to have any values.

So, just how much did Rand believe in her own philosophy? Let's just say a lot.

Why should she not believe her own philosophy? Oh, I forgot: modern philosophy is just playing games with ideas, which have nothing to do with reality.

With signature modesty, she ranked herself as the philosophical equal of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

In college Rand was asked by a professor which philosopher's ideas she agreed with. She replied that her ideas were not yet part of the history of philosophy... but would be. It would seem she was correct.

On Ruling Guiltless Men

I encountered two articles this week that reminded me of the scene from Atlas Shrugged in which Dr. Ferris tells Hank Rearden:

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

The first is this article (via Matt Drudge) about a man in California facing jail time for making improvements to his own property.

The second (via Gus Van Horn) is about a proposed ordinance in Chicago banning red-light-camera detectors.

On Tiger Woods and the "Playoffs"

Those who follow the PGA Tour to any extent will have heard of the FedEx Cup, the so-called "playoffs" of the PGA season. To tell the truth, I'm largely indifferent to this new format: mildly interested to see who wins, but not to the point that I'll be paying more attention than usual. If the PGA Tour wants to have their own version of the playoffs in other sports, then set up the format like other playoffs: survive and advance, play well each week or go home. Of course, that would lead to a greater possibility that big names like Vijay Singh, Jim Furyk and Phil Mikelson might not be around by the Tour Championship. Or even Tiger. (Indeed, Singh missed the cut this week, so in any other sport, he'd be finished.) Instead, we have a complicated points system that basically ensures that the top players will still be among the 30 that play in the final week of the "playoffs."

Because of that points system, Tiger Woods had the luxury of taking the first week off and not playing. There have been opinions on both sides of the debate as to whether this helps of hurts the FedEx Cup concept. To be honest, I don't know, and I don't particularly care. What I have a hard time with are those (including his arch-nemesis Rory "Foot-in-Mouth" Sabbatini) who say Tiger had an "obligation" to play in all of the FedEx Cup events. I'm incredulous at the suggestion that somehow Tiger hasn't done enough for the PGA Tour. I'm firmly convinced that the Tour wouldn't be half as popular as it is without Tiger. If Tiger wants to take an extra week off to spend time with his wife and newborn child after playing the British Open, the WGC-Bridgestone Invitational and the PGA Championship in the course of four weeks, I think he's earned that prerogative.

Besides, it might give the rest of the field a fighting chance.

On Bottled Water

This strikes me somewhat like the Emperor's New Clothes, complete with an elitist tailor:

"There are so many people that are uneducated about water," [Chappaqua, N.Y. water bar owner Diane] Felicissimo said.

I'm officially declaring the Emperor naked.

On the Uncycloversity

At least they're honest:

Uncycloversity is a space for the destruction and abuse of your brain and everything associated with it. Its primary goals are to:

• Destroy and subvert all content, learning materials, resources, and curricula for all age groups in all languages
• Waste your valuable time on so-called "projects" and communities written by morons
• Obtain as much of your money as possible

Uncycloversity rejects both learning and teaching, as well as everything else. For more misinformation and disinformation about Uncycloversity, see an outline of our policies.

On Independence (Part 1)

Today (July 3) is the anniversary of Pickett's Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg, and tomorrow is, of course, Independence Day. Having recently visited some of the sites and seen some of the artifacts of these two historic events, and inspired by Dan Edge's reverence for our founding documents, I thought I'd offer some reflections on my trip, on the events and on their meaning today.

In the early part of June, my wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C. for some sightseeing and included in our trip Williamsburg, Virginia; Thomas Jefferson's Monticello estate in Charlottesville, Virginia; Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; and Philadelphia. For as long as I can remember, I have been far more fascinated by the Founding Fathers and the principles of liberty and independence that they fought for than with the Twelve Apostles and Christianity, so visiting these sites is probably as close to making a religious pilgrimage as I am ever likely to come.

It almost seems superfluous to say that Washington is a city brimming with history, and the centerpiece of that history truly is the National Archives. The Archives building is, in a city filled with monumental edifices, unremarkable, sitting a block off of the National Mall. Its contents, however, are unique, and without them the rest of the city would have no reason to exist. I will say little else, except that the post to which I linked above at The Edge of Reason captures the mood of seeing these documents very well. The actual text of the documents is difficult to read, John Hancock's oversized signature on the Declaration of Independence is mostly faded, but the basics are still there. Hunting for the signatures of men like Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin on the Declaration and of George Washington and James Madison on the Constitution somehow gives reality to these otherwise "Marble Men." Here is what they did.

Of all that we saw in Washington, I will take note here of only one other thing. Inscribed in the steps of the Lincoln Memorial is a marker, denoting the spot where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his immortal "I Have a Dream" speech. I am not thoroughly familiar with Dr. King's entire beliefs and actions, but this speech alone stands as monument to what political equality ought to mean in this country, to the "self-evident" truth "that all men are created equal." It is unfortunate that the modern civil rights leadership bears so little resemblance to Dr. King's exhortation to judge not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." They have since resorted instead to "do not judge me at all, because of the color of my skin," which is completely antithetical to Dr. King's dream.

Leaving Washington, we visited George Washington's estate of Mount Vernon. Washington seems, in many ways, the least "knowable" of the Founding Fathers, having been given an almost god-like stature in American history. For my own part, I have generally not regarded him as one of the intellectual leaders of the Revolution. Certainly he played a vital leadership role, leading the Continental Army through a long and often brutally difficult war, returning power to the civilian authorities when victory was achieved and eventually taking on the head of the government he had helped to craft. Yet the ideological impetus for the Revolution came from men like Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and Thomas Paine. This is not to diminish Washington's role or accomplishments. Often leadership is as important as the ideas which that leadership pursues. Washington may not have been an originator of the ideas that drove the Revolution, but he firmly believed in the Enlightenment ideals of his time (he could not have done what he did were it otherwise) and knew how to inspire other men to follow those ideals.

Our visit to Washington's estate at Mount Vernon reinforced his credentials as a man of the Enlightenment. Washington was an originator of ideas in his primary area of interest. His first love was not the army nor politics: it was farming. Washington constantly sought to improve the efficiency of his farming operations, changing his primary cash crop from tobacco, which is very hard on the top soil, to wheat as well as designing and building a new circular barn for threshing the wheat. (The programs at Mount Vernon say things like, "Washington knew that the new nation would have to feed itself." This quickly becomes patronizing. I suppose to most ears it sounds better than, "Washington wanted to make his farms as profitable as possible." I prefer the latter.) He may not have been a polymath like Jefferson or Franklin, but he was every bit as steeped in the Enlightenment philosophy of the period and put it to practice. The visit certainly improved my respect and appreciation for the Father of Our Country.

To be continued...

On the Greens' Next "Bait and Switch"

Using solar energy in any form is now considered "greedy" by the environmentalists. We make use of 24% of the solar energy captured by plants, mostly through harvesting crops. Apparently this is considered "too much."

One reaction to the report:

An agriculture professor at the University of Melbourne, Snow Barlow, said the paper showed humans were taking up too much of an important natural resource.

"Here we are, just one species on the earth, and we're grabbing a quarter of the renewable resources … we're probably being a bit greedy."

Never mind where this guy gets his notions of "too much" and "being a bit greedy." Why don't these people just hang out a sign saying, "We hate humans!" Oh, wait; they have. They've made it very clear that they oppose everything which makes modern human life possible.

On iPhone Sales

In the first weekend of its release, the Apple iPhone sold 525,000 units. Between the cost of the phone and the two-year required service agreement with AT&T each iPhone represents approximately a $2,000 commitment on the part of the consumer. Between them, Apple and AT&T stand to take in revenues of over $1 billion over the next two years, just from this weekend's sales alone.

I'm not sure what else to say except, "Congratulations, Steve."