Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 I'm Scott Schiff with the Atlas Society. I'm again honored to host these two great minds, Atlas Society, senior Scholar, Steven Hicks and Atlas Society founder David Kelly. They'll be answering our questions for the next 90 minutes. Uh, we wanna encourage, uh, participation, but I've got questions from different channels as well. Uh, welcome again to both of you. Um, this, uh, this has been a great forum for, uh, getting to hear your thoughts on some philosophical ideas, so I look forward to that continuing. Um, I wanna start off, this is a little bit, um, I'm curious if you've seen anything with, uh, chat G p t, this latest ai, you know, has some people in shock it. Uh, I saw it summarize Atlas Shrugged as a Shakespearean on it. I, I, I won't read it, but, you know, it was quite stirring and, you know, it came out in seconds. And I, I'm wondering if does this offer pause about the, the nature of creativity, even the way Rand described it at, at least in some of the arts?
Speaker 1 00:01:14 Well, I have seen some of the, uh, the chat on that and some of the, uh, machine language, uh, analyses and some about whether there's political bias built into it and so on. So, it's early days for me, and I've not done a lot of investigating in it, but, uh, it certainly is intriguing, as your question suggests.
Speaker 0 00:01:34 Sure.
Speaker 2 00:01:36 I'm totally unfamiliar with this. Uh, so Scott, could you, would you mind just repeating, so there's some algorithm or some, uh,
Speaker 0 00:01:47 It's an ai, right? It's an AI program, and you can go into it and, you know, it, it seems so far to be most effective with combining different art types. Like, you know, Atlas shrugged in the form of a Shakespearean on it, or, uh, you know, just having conversations with it. I mean, uh, there have been some, uh, you know, <laugh> there have been some scare stories like that had had a negative view of humanity because, uh, you know, maybe it had been programmed with woke algorithms or something, but it, uh, but so it, it's just having these conversations and I mean, it's just spitting out these like, you know, impressive works of, of poetry and, and lyrics, uh, in its own way that, that, uh, you know, I mean, show what seems like an understanding of Rand that, that many of her critics that have never read her, you know, uh, that it, well, you'll, you'll see as, as, as more comes out about it.
Speaker 2 00:02:51 Yeah. Okay. I'll, I'll, I've gotta check this out cuz it's fascinating. I, it sounds just as a side point, but, but, you know, um, some comedy clubs will have a musical impersonator or musical, um, someone that who ask the audience, okay, gimme a topic. No, no, no, no, no. You know, the war in Ukraine or something, whatever it might be, whatever's current. And then, uh, give me a, um, a musical genre. And I was <laugh> one of them once when, um, whatever the topic was, someone said, Regor and chant for the genre, and God can comic did not do it perfectly <laugh>. Anyway, so I'm gonna look this up. But, um, getting Atlas Ru into a sonnet, I thought, uh, getting it just engulf speech to, you know, four minutes in the movie was
Speaker 1 00:03:48 <laugh>, you
Speaker 2 00:03:49 Know, a, a chore. But this is into a sonnet. My gosh, I gotta see this,
Speaker 0 00:03:56 This, it, it might have, uh, you know, having this, uh, tool might have helped or, uh, we'll, we'll see. Uh, <laugh>,
Speaker 1 00:04:05 One quick recommendation if I, uh, if I could on this. Sure. Uh, David Rosado, R o z A D o. I would recommend that people follow him on Twitter and other places where he publishes, but he is, uh, uh, a data scientist and, uh, uh, uh, a scientist of machine learning. And he's been very good at, uh, parsing out, uh, word count algorithms and using them on major media outlets, uh, to determine kind of content and whether there are ideological shifts one way or the other. Uh, and he did a quick analysis of this program that you're referring to, uh, Scott just asking it basic, uh, political questions about some of the recent political controversies we've been having over race issues and, and so on and on, uh, several of them. The, uh, the, uh, the machine or the algorithm was basically <laugh> spitting out what perfectly formed woke, or, uh, a woke answers to the kinds of questions that would put in there. So there's some serious, uh, initial concern about the alleged neutrality of the, of the algorithms.
Speaker 0 00:05:22 That's true. Uh, I've, I think I remember stories from maybe 10 or 15 years ago when they were saying that certain AI programs, you know, came off as racist or something, and I'm sure they've tried to use that as justification for programming it. Right. But, um,
Speaker 0 00:05:42 Go ahead, I'm sorry. Um, well, uh, again, we wanna encourage people to come up. I've still got, uh, other questions as well. Um, this, uh, this person John May asks, knowledge and truth are under attack, literally like never before. And the driver behind that attack is the application of power by wealthy people to increase their own wealth. That, in parenthesis, prove me wrong, democracy is threatened, peace is threatened. Some of the messaging involves wokeness. Why on earth don't you comment on the problem of the application of money to bend truth for the purpose of gaining power for the few? How is that not the reigning epistemological problem of the current age?
Speaker 2 00:06:34 Oh my gosh. Um, I, I'll take a stab at that. And, uh, Steven, and then you can pick up on the political, uh, assumptions. But the, uh, key epistemological problem of our age is the, is irrationality. It's a failure to understand the, um, the requirements of, of, you know, reaching conclusions by means of reason in observing and, uh, as opposed to, you know, shooting from the hip, uh, going by intuitions or emotions and, uh, or engaging in, in what I call foe argumentation that involves co confirmation bias and other fallacies. The, um, but look, I'll just say one thing, and I'd l love to get Steven, your, your take on this, on, on the money aspect. Money will buy you the means of communication, but of course it does. And it's, it's, it, it's no critique of the First Amendment or a free society that recognizes the right to freedom of speech.
Speaker 2 00:07:50 That whether you can speak and get an audience depends a lot on how much you can put into it on things not directly relevant to your speech, but to, to the money, your marketing ability, uh, the, your connections, whether you can get to the media, whether et cetera, et cetera. But, um, money has gone into big money has historically has gone into so many ideas that are now exploded. I mean, just, if you take even a couple hundred years back, um, the Soviets put a ton of money into life. Cincos, uh, crazy bio, uh, biology, biological theories. It didn't survive scientific scientifically because it was, um, it was not grounded. Uh, and so yeah, you can, you can buy an audience, um, and get your, your words out, but the idea that money rules assumes that the consumers of information and opinion are just passive victims that'll believe whatever you put out, that's not true.
Speaker 1 00:09:00 Mm-hmm. Yeah, I, I, I agree with that. I have a few additional thoughts. One is that, uh, I think the application of money to the spread of ideas over the last century has had a much more democratizing effect than what this question seems to suggest. Uh, an entrenchment of, uh, elites with money and being able to bend the truth to their own power, all of the media of communication that the average person has is, uh, a powerful epistemological leveler, uh, in a way that people have access to information and, and arguments and debates about the significance of the information now in a way that people have past generations didn't. So I'm inclined to, to think that the trend is going the other way. Um, the second thing is, uh, I think this would be an interesting empirical matter. I've tracked some of this, uh, kinda anecdotally, but if you think about, uh, people in power say using money to buy influence in elections, and we have this argument every time a major election comes up about who's spending money and buying hacks and so on.
Speaker 1 00:10:13 But I, I know, uh, that many, uh, times the, the winner in an election is a person who has been outspent significantly by their opponent. Uh, you know, the opponent would put a amounts of money on the order, uh, of magnitude of 20 to 30 times as much and still lose, which seems to indicate that just merely spending money to get your ideas out there and getting access is not, not a significantly decisive factor. Of course, you have to advertise, but it's not just a crude, uh, money buys power, uh, um, uh, dynamic at work. Uh, the way David was suggesting, you know, consumers are not passive victims in this case, the consumers of political information, uh, who become voters are not passive victims. They can think for themselves and make their own their own judgment on political issues. The other thing is that this is a little bit sideways, but I always think about advertising in this context where if it's simply a matter of money applied to communication channels gets you the influence that you want, then why is advertising not more successful?
Speaker 1 00:11:31 The fact, when you talk with advertisers and they have their millions and multimillion dollar budgets, they know that of course they have to do advertising in order to get the attention of the customers. But, uh, customers are very savvy at tuning out and evaluating. Uh, and the question is not why is so ad or advertising so powerful, powerful, and able to shape our minds and preferences and make us buy stuff that we don't really need when the reality, uh, seems to be the opposite. That advertising is a, is an influencer, but it's a, it's a weak influencer. Uh, and if, uh, if spending money on a, uh, to, to get the influence that you wanted would work, then advertisers would be able to spend their dollars much better, uh, in order to get the results. Instead, they know, as they often complain, they're just wasting 50 or 60% of their advertising budget to, uh, to no effect.
Speaker 0 00:12:30 Well, another aspect of that, JAG just did a great interview with Dr. Aaron Karady, who was, uh, basically fired from uc, Irvine, for opposing the VA mandate and, and suing them over it. And so that's another type of where you kind of do have, there's a, a pressure of feeling you have to go along to continue to get paid in certain fields.
Speaker 1 00:13:01 Hmm.
Speaker 0 00:13:04 Just another, uh, aspect of it. But, uh, decel, uh, Dre, we, uh, we engaged little yesterday in the happy hour. He had a question in the chat, should we be Sian about reasoning?
Speaker 2 00:13:19 Uh, um,
Speaker 2 00:13:25 That in my logic textbook, the Art of Reasoning, uh, in the most recent edition, I added a section on base and underneath a lot of help, cuz I cannot wrap my mind around that method. But, um, you, as I understand the method, and I assume the questioner is familiar with it, um, basian analysis, you have to, you have to start with some initial prior, let's call a prior, uh, uh, guesstimate of what the initial probability of a hypothesis is. And there's something, it's always struck me as arbitrary about that because a hypothesis, and, you know, hopefully it's based, it, there's some evidence that points you toward it. But, uh, uh, and Bayesians will say that, um, whatever your prior is, it doesn't matter. It'll get corrected over time as you get more evidence. Um, and there's probably, there's something to that. Um, it's been used widely in, uh, science, medicine, other fields, um, to refine, uh, formulas and, uh, uh, understanding diseases or other complex systems that are not like Billy Ball physics, where you can just, uh, you know, very simple comp, you know, but college level computations, thanks, tha thanks to Newton, which is now, you know, wasn't always obvious, but, uh, now those are simple because there's, uh, just masks and, and velocity.
Speaker 2 00:15:03 But in complex systems, you have to do a lot more significant testing. And base basian theory may be a useful tool. I don't think it's the only tool. Um, and I would counsel anyone. Um, so I, I would not say that it seemed compatible with the, with, for example, the objective is theology. It just is one among many inductive tools that, um, anyone engaged in real science, real investigation can use, but only in, in taking account of all of other methods and the context of previous knowledge.
Speaker 0 00:15:46 Good. Uh, Steven, anything you wanted to add?
Speaker 1 00:15:49 No, nothing to add.
Speaker 0 00:15:52 Okay. Well, um, again, we wanna encourage people with questions to ask. I still have, uh, many more questions myself. Um, you know, how do you differentiate when someone is being, uh, practical versus pragmatic or, or a pragmatist, I should say?
Speaker 1 00:16:19 Uh, well, I'll take a quick jump on that one. Um, the word pragma, going back to the Greek means that deed or work, or practicality. So in that sense, being practical and breathing pragmatic are synonyms at etymologically. Um, the difference between pragma with a small P and pragmatism is that pragmatism is an explicit, uh, philosophy about what it is to be practical. And the pragmatist historically came out of a somewhat skeptical tradition that we've been, uh, arguing about the nature of truth and what is certainty, uh, and arguing that, uh, all of these abstract prior concerns about first getting strong knowledge or, or, or, or truth claims that we can believe within a certain amount of, uh, with a strong amount of certainty before we act on them, uh, is not reflective of actual human action and maybe, uh, uh, a, uh, kind a, a donkey type of, of of quest for something that's un on unrealizable.
Speaker 1 00:17:38 So pragmatism as a philosophy then says we shouldn't be first concerned about truth and knowledge. Instead, what we should do is just act, just try things and see what works or not. And if it works, then, uh, the next time we seem to be in the same situation, do the same sort of thing, but be open to the idea that circumstances change a lot. And so we might need to, uh, be flexible in our, in our action. So it emphasizes action more than knowledge emphasizes flexibility more than firm principles. And on the basis of that, then, as a matter of conclusion, says that's what it is to be a practical person. By contrast, uh, uh, a non pragmatist would say we should be concerned with, with knowledge and consistently applying our knowledge. Knowledge is not a shm hysterical quest that we can't acquire it. And that, uh, uh, once we acquire knowledge, uh, we should translate that into principles of action and stick with those, uh, principles of action, uh, consistently. Uh, and that those principles of action will be quite universal and, and general guides throughout one's life. Now, that's a be trying to make a neutral, uh, just statement about the difference between a pragmatist and a non pragmatist understanding of, uh, knowledge and action.
Speaker 0 00:19:15 Yeah, I just end up, uh, getting accused of being a pragmatist for suggesting that, uh, you know, we take actions in the world to influence policy and things like that. So, uh, that's where the question came from. But I wanna welcome John to the stage. John, thanks for your patience.
Speaker 4 00:19:35 Thank you. This is an elementary question, not even sophomore, and it goes to epistemology and mysticism and the boundary between the two. Uh, for instance, if I develop a theory about what some fact is, um, and I want to test it against, uh, a positivistic or empirical principle, um, we call that a theory, but it seems to me that the history of human knowledge is one of people developing theories or ideas about what exists, and then some technology of investigation validates or invalidates it. For instance, I might have had a theory about germs before the investigation or the invention of the microscope or about the stars before the invention of the telescope or about, uh, subatomic particles before the atomic microscope, et cetera. And so, uh, what, what do you call that part of epistemology that is, um, that defines that? And I might be, I might say that all of the mysteries of the universe amount to there must be allowing me to have some kind of a mystical belief about there ought to be something out there. And, uh, the only thing I lack is evidence that, that something exists. So I guess that's my question. How do I, what, how does epistemology become not arbitrary? Uh, why is it not arbitrary given the history of, of the acquisition of human knowledge?
Speaker 2 00:21:27 Well, I let go ahead, David. Sure. I I'll take a stab at that. Um, and Steven, this is, uh, your field as well, but, um, look, the, um, part of the part, John, part of the answer, I think is that, um, the absence of knowledge does not entail or does not provide anyone with a belief, with, with a reason for believing in, in, in anything. Um, the lack of evidence is not evidence for anything. That's the, uh, fall well-known fallacy of, uh, appeal to ignorance. Uh, we know what we know and, um, but, but just expanding continuously. And I mean, it's a, I was just talking to a friend of mine today about some sci, you know, scientific speculation, um, and just astounding. Um, I'm, I'm in awe of, of everything that the people in, in our age right now, what scientists and black matter philosophers and historians have, have established.
Speaker 2 00:22:41 Um, it's all, it's all inspiring, but it's only, you know, ev every advance raises new questions. That's kind of a cliche. And those questions need to be answered in the same way that the knowledge we have already acquired is by reason, by observation, by, uh, using what evidence we have to raise questions. And there are questions, you know, some questions are, are, are grounded in facts. That is, there's something like, take the germs. We know that something is causing illness, and we, at a certain point in time, we had evidence, we had knowledge that, um,
Speaker 4 00:23:25 Well, wait, wait, right there, I mean, maybe returning to the fallacy of ignorance, there's a, people get sick, people wonder why. It's the nature of humanity, of the human brain to wonder why, and to seek explanations. And the from comes religion, but it also therefore comes science and knowledge. So we wonder why, and the application of the why gives us the tools of discovery. So how do you draw that line?
Speaker 1 00:23:58 I can jump in a little here. Uh, I'm, you know, struck by, uh, John's examples of the germs and the atoms prior to microscopes and, uh, atomic microscopes and so on. It, it does strike me that even if we don't have direct perceptual evidence of this, we do have, uh, a capacity for imagination. And we come up with, in some cases, speculative hypotheses, and we, uh, engage in analogical thinking, where we transfer what we know from one domain into this current unknown domain, and try out ideas in that area. And all of that is in the asking y and seeking possible explanations stage, uh, before we have anything that we would call, we would call knowledge. So I would say that that is part of human cognitive capacity, uh, and it is indeed a source of, uh, scientific knowledge. And, uh, it, it's one very often in the history of science, one of the stages our thinking goes through before we get into kinda serious, hardcore, hardcore science.
Speaker 1 00:25:17 But I would resist the idea that in some sense, that that is mystical or that, uh, any sort of non-rational language is the right language to use to describe what we are doing when we are at that stage of, uh, semi knowledge or pre-knowledge, uh, mysticism, at least as it's used in religion and in, uh, in, uh, cognitive studies more generally, usually means a, a non-rational source of knowledge. Uh, that's, that's non censory. It's non-conceptual, it's non propositional, and it can't be explained by, uh, by, by those who don't have that mystical experience. So how does that sound, John?
Speaker 4 00:26:04 Uh, thank that was, uh, that was ex very good, Stephen. Thank you. Um, okay, so let, let's examine further your, the term. I do wanna let Daniel get in a little bit. Well, okay, but pre-knowledge, uh, what, uh, is that, how do we distinguish pre-knowledge from knowledge or from religiosity? I mean, when, you know, there's
Speaker 1 00:26:28 Something, well, that's why I think that the formal canons of epistemology are going to come in when you are speculating or trying out, uh, you know, imaginative hypotheses. You need to self reflectively, be aware that you are doing so. And so, you know, we will say things, you know, this is just a speculation, or I'm only trying out a hypothesis here. And so you are not, uh, assigning any knowledge claim to what you are doing at that stage. You're trying to come up with, uh, a model, uh, of some sort that you are then going to put to, uh, the empirical test if you're able to do so, or to see if it fits with your, uh, what you know in other domains, some sort of coherence test. So you, you are putting yourself in a mode where, uh, you are, um, assigning some degree of probability or possibility only to the ideas that you are entertaining. Now, if you're not doing that, if you're making a stronger claim than the evidence warrants, or if you're speculating, but you're not acknowledging that you're speculating, then, right? Some forms of religiosity, uh, uh, wishful thinking, faithfulness and so on, that kind of language becomes more appropriate to describe what's going on.
Speaker 4 00:27:56 Okay. So we're dealing with what the rules for what a knowledge claim is at some point. Is that not arbitrary? The rules? No,
Speaker 2 00:28:08 I,
Speaker 2 00:28:10 John, can I answer that? There, there is, yeah. There is an epistemological question, uh, or issue goes back a long way called the problem or the criterion, um, to, to, to distinguish knowledge from, you know, not knowledge, beliefs that don't count as knowledge. We need some criterion for distinguishing them. And, um, and then how do we justify the criterion? So I think that's related to your question. Um, why is it not arbitrary? The distinction? Um, because if the criteria for establishing something as true and not, you know, something, we know our arbitrary then we're, we're just going around in circles, um, and we haven't gotten anywhere. But there is an answer to that, which is the axioms, we all knowledge is governed by axioms. That there's a world there, it exists, that things have identities, that we are conscious and can, and that consciousness, our, our minds are, um, functioned by grasping a reality.
Speaker 2 00:29:24 Although we can go wrong in many ways at conceptual level, all of this is, um, foundational. And we, uh, these things are axioms in the sense that they are self-evident. You can observe their truth, and they are not, you can't analyze 'em any further or ask why, why, why is existence in Axian? Well, what would you take as an answer? Something outside existence? No, it's, these are, uh, part and parcel of, uh, or not part and parcel. They are the foundation of epistemology and of metaphysic. So if, if you compromise them, if you negate them, uh, then you are out of the cognitive business, you are, um, doing something else. But it's not knowledge. And so it's not our, I I I think one of the, one of the great things about the objectiveness to theology is that it does have an answer to that problem with the criteria. And, um, I could send you an essay I wrote some years ago on this, but, um, not to, not to, um, get, you know, into that. It's, uh,
Speaker 4 00:30:52 Thank you, David.
Speaker 2 00:30:55 Let, lemme just add, add one a anecdote. Uh, I was at a debate, um, sometime back, uh, about intelligent design. The theory that, um, the best scientific theory of, uh, nature is that it was designed by some intelligent being. Um, and they don't specify that it's a Christian God of the Islam, God, it's just an intelligent being. And I asked the, um, the person who is defending that thesis, okay, if that's a h scientific hypothesis, is there any evidence that would, uh, trouble you about that? Any evidence that would count against that? And I'm not invoking proper's false viability, Jesus, there, it's just that if this is a theory about the world that's based, uh, that it's scientific in nature, it must be based on something. And that means there you at least you'd be able to imagine evidence against it. If, if, if you were to find that evidence, you know, run an experiment, do a test, whatever, and find evidence that was inconsistent with it. And he had no answer, it was obviously a matter.
Speaker 4 00:32:08 Briefly, briefly, David, my point is only that before the microscope, a theory of germs was nothing more than a religion the moment after it became knowledge. That's all I'm trying to say. That's my question. Thank you, John.
Speaker 2 00:32:28 Okay. I think that's, there's more to say about this, John, but I, I do wanna
Speaker 0 00:32:33 Give some others a chance. We, we may come back to it if we have time. Uh, Daniel, thank you for your patience,
Speaker 1 00:32:40 Scott.
Speaker 0 00:32:41 Oh, go ahead.
Speaker 1 00:32:42 I'm not quite ready to let this one go. Just go ahead. Use of the word religion there on that, that germs existed if was entertaining that idea before being able to verify it with microscopes and so on. Uh, I agree. There are lots of people who had that idea. Were speculating, but I don't think the religion is the right word. Cause if we wanna call something religious, uh, standard, we have to be saying that in some sense what we are believing in is a non-natural or a supernatural being or entity or reality. And belief in a germ at that stage is, it's not appealing to any sort of supernatural causation. And the other way we use religion is to say that the person is believing it in a, in a non-rational fashion. They, they, they're claiming some sort of mystical insight or it's a matter of faith. And I don't see that that's the case either in the history of germ theory, the people who were proposing it as a hypothesis weren't doing any of those things. They were saying this is a hypothesis, uh, this is something that we can imagine that fits with various other models. We just don't yet have any empirical evidence of it. So it's not fully scientific, but it certainly is, uh, not a candidate, but religious, uh, belief, I
Speaker 0 00:34:09 It could be a whole, uh, episode. Um, <laugh> Daniel, thank you for joining us. Go ahead. Are you able to unmute? It's the, uh, bottom right button. Um, hear me there? You're there. You're all
Speaker 5 00:34:32 Right. Great. Yeah, so I have a, uh, meta meta ethics question. Uh, it's so involves life value, um, and facing a fundamental alternative. So, so this comes from the o the objectives notion that life is the standard of value and only entities that face a fundamental alternative can have values. And ran gives the, the thought experiment about a, an immortal instructural robot that can, it can have no goals or values. And related to that, my question is, uh, suppose technology got advanced enough, like say, nanotechnology, biotechnology, life extension technology to where demand's physical survival is for all intensive purposes guaranteed, and using the notion life is a standard of value, and for man, that means, that would mean, say, survival qua man, qua rational being in that context. What, what would survival qua man mean?
Speaker 2 00:35:46 Um, I, I'll jump in with one point. Um, I've never liked that example of ran. Um, it, it just raises too many sci-fi questions, <laugh>, um, and counter speculation. Um, but leaving that aside, the notion that life is contingent, um, that it's in an alternative has two elements. One is we are, uh, subject to death if we do not at any time, if, if we run into an accident, if we do not provide for ourselves. And second, that's, that's one thing we are vulnerable second, but it's also the case, the meaning of mortality is also, uh, is also that we're going to die at some point, we are going to pass away. So what you're doing is imagining Daniel that, um, okay, we've solved the, the, uh, necessity of death issue and we can now live indefinitely. But, um, unless, unless you can extend that in some way to say that we are actually indestructible, that we will continue at not just as alive, but as the people that we are, the individuals, the rational thinking, conscious subjects in physical bodies that we are right now, uh, unless you're saying that we be, we could become invulnerable in that sense.
Speaker 2 00:37:22 I, to my mind, that would change the ethics, or at least certainly raise the question cuz it would mean we're more like stones or mountains that have no values. But, um, I don't think any, I I'm not aware of anyone saying that. Um, and, uh, of course there's a whole nother question. If we were, if death was not a, you know, something that we would all encounter and we would live forever, Stephen wrote years and years ago, Steven, you remember that paper you read on what would it like to be immortal? Yeah. Um, I do remember it does raise, it does embrace some issues about how that would change our values, goals, expectations and so forth. So I, I'm not dismissing the question. I'm just saying that it doesn't get, it doesn't invalidate the whole point about life as, as an alternative.
Speaker 5 00:38:24 So I guess, I guess also I meant, I was trying to convey that it was ins, instruct ins, instructability, we part of that, that essentially, like you were saying, death is, is in, it's not a thing anymore as far as the physical body goes. And so the phy the existence of the physical body is unconditional. Would, would survival qua man have any meaning at that point?
Speaker 1 00:38:48 Can I, for one further clarification on that thought experiment. So is it that in principle one would be, uh, immortal so you could continue to do various things to maintain your immortality, I don't know, getting a liver transplant every hundred years or, or whatever it is? Or is that, uh, <laugh> the,
Speaker 5 00:39:10 Uh, yeah, I'm talking
Speaker 1 00:39:11 The, the immortality would be fixed and, and so could you still opt out of life if you chose or had, has one literally become indestructible?
Speaker 5 00:39:23 That's a good question. I would say someone could opt out so they could, they could in, in their life voluntarily if they so chose.
Speaker 1 00:39:31 Yeah. And that makes it a more interesting question because then you still have the option there, and then you're gonna have to make a value judgment about whether you want to stay alive or not. And, uh, how do you make that value judgment, judgment in that, uh, uh, thought experiment set of conditions?
Speaker 0 00:39:52 And I think, uh, you know, a lot of life extension is just about stopping the diseases of aging, and there's almost, uh, an element of being truly indestructible that that seems like, you know, I mean, you can sort of theoretically imagine it, but it's almost a violation of the law of identity that something can't just be turned into like, you know, liquified or, or turned into a gas or pulverized. But, uh, even in the Highlander, you could get your head cut off. But, uh, <laugh>, I want to welcome, uh, Liberty Sham rocker, uh, <laugh>, I dunno why I'm using that name. Connie, welcome to the stage.
Speaker 6 00:40:33 Oh, either one's fine. Call me anything but late for a dinner,
Speaker 2 00:40:38 <laugh>. Nice.
Speaker 0 00:40:42 Any question?
Speaker 6 00:40:45 I do, um, recently, um, I think, you know, I'm on the council board of you are The Power, and we're currently doing a rebranding and setting up eyelet allies and different things like that. So I've been, uh, forced to look at different things that I hadn't perspective-wise before in doing, you know, my, my charts and so forth. And, um, it's looking like, um, an E S G score is becoming more and more important with things. And, uh, I'm just wondering the impact because I, I know that it's gone everything, whether it be global or countrywide down to the individual. So I was just, just wondering what the panel feels about the importance of ESGs.
Speaker 2 00:41:41 Oh, man. Um, Steven,
Speaker 1 00:41:45 And, and remind me, ESG is, uh, environment sustainability and
Speaker 0 00:41:52 What's the governance, maybe? Governance.
Speaker 1 00:41:55 Governance, yes. Right. Yeah. So this is, yeah, has evolved outta the, the business ethics literature and then more narrowly within that, the corporate governance literature. And it, it, uh, to my mind is, uh, just two debates ruled into one. One is just general concerns about environmental issues and the sustainability, uh, issues is just another repackaging of environmental issues. And then issues of, of governance about what, uh, you know, what proper corporate governance should be, uh, to the extent things should be based on property rights or democratic criteria, respect for rights and various kinds of constituencies. So, you know, at a high level of abstraction, I think the, the issues are perfectly fine. Uh, what should one's environmental policy be, and what should one's governance policy be? The, uh, the difficult thing is that, uh, people who have been, for the most part, pushing the E S G have a very narrow understanding of what the correct answers to environmental policy are, uh, uh, uh, and what the right answers to proper corporate governance are.
Speaker 1 00:43:18 And for the most part, they've not been coming outta a, a business-friendly or a market-friendly understanding of the way, uh, business should be done. And almost all of the, the, uh, the paradigms or, or the theories that I have seen do start with an assumption either that businesses and corporations are, are amoral, in which case they need to have various ethical principles kinda imposed upon them or grafted upon them from the outside, or that, uh, corporations and business more generally are immoral. And so, uh, E S G then is a tool to, uh, counter what, what's seen as nefarious corporate influence. So depending, uh, on whether you read ESG and the more generic or the more specific sense, I think the answer would be different. So I think the only way to respond to your question particular is to get down into the weeds and start looking at particular e ESG criteria and, and packages of criteria and, uh, uh, analyzing them on the merits.
Speaker 2 00:44:28 Well, can I just jump in with a question for, for, uh, Liberty? I'm, I'm sorry, Connie. Thank you. Um, Connie, um, when it, it's a question about the social component of e sg. Um, does that mean, or the social or governance, I'm not sure, um, does that fold in a stakeholder versus a shareholder model of, uh, the way corporations should work?
Speaker 6 00:45:00 Um, actually both. Um, you know, when you're looking at, at a nonprofit, you've got to look at, you know, at the OKRs of it. And, you know, of course you want to portray empathy, and you want to, to put a weight to every cause that you're working on and so forth. But at the same time, there's lots of causes out there, but you've gotta have somebody come with money. So I, I'd say both
Speaker 4 00:45:37 Isn't the philosophies of liberty, are they not about self dominion and self ownership? And I regard e s G as contrary to the very idea of property rights
Speaker 1 00:45:56 Say quickly. I mean, it can be, but also it can be compatible with property rights. So property rights, for example, are one way of solving environmental problems now that your property is something that I can't throw my trash on. So I, as a responsible neighbor to you and respect your property rights, and that's how we're gonna solve that particular problem. The, uh, the non-property rights assumption though, is typically to say that property rights, uh, bring various other problems, and we can't expect people, uh, who are taking their property rights seriously to care about other people's properties. So we need to have some external body impose, uh, don't throw trash restriction on both of us and, and, uh, and have some governance method that's gonna enforce it.
Speaker 0 00:46:51 Great. Uh, let's, uh, bring in poodle Schnoodle. Thanks for, uh, joining. Are you able to, Hey,
Speaker 7 00:47:01 Guys, go ahead. Can you hear me? Oh, yeah. Okay, great. Great, great, great. Um, Steven, hey, uh, I love your book, um, on post-modernism. Um, oh,
Speaker 1 00:47:09 Thank you.
Speaker 7 00:47:10 Yeah. Yeah. So if you look on the back, <laugh> back of my, uh, profile there, I have the poem, you know, turning, turning in the widening Gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer, things fall apart and the center cannot hold. Yes, Mary Anarchy is loosed upon the world. And I, I put that poem on the back of my profile because that's <laugh> really how I feel. Um, in recent years, um, there's been a lot of really bad thinking. I don't even know if you could classify it as thinking, certainly not recent and not logic. Um, you know, we've got Kanye West, uh, on television, uh, blaming, you know, the typical scape scape, scapegoats the Jews, and then people like Alex Jones and, and Trump denying that. Um, he, uh, he lost the election, which I feel has, uh, an acidic effect on the democratic process. Um, and not just from the left or right, but from both sides.
Speaker 7 00:48:09 A lot of ideological thinking. Not much of this language is glued to reality. It's not really, uh, careful. And, and, you know, bringing this back to your book on post-modernism, I saw it as an attempt your book to, to really, um, it was your attempt to combat nonsense in a way. You know, you gave the example of the very early post-modernists in their attempt to, uh, uh, salvage, uh, communist, uh, uh, economic ideals by basically denying reality. Uh, if I read that correctly, and I see this blame game. Yeah, yeah. And I see this blame game going on this very kind of communistic mindset or, um, this very bad inarticulated, um, language on tv. Is there any way that we can sort of <laugh> combat, uh, these, um, you know, these identity politics? I think they're really getting outta hand. Uh, I feel that they are, um, breaking society apart.
Speaker 7 00:49:17 I feel that anytime a group of folks is doing better or worse, if they're doing better, it must be that they've cheated somehow to get there. And if they're doing worse, it's because the rest of the world is against them. Um, and, and I just don't find that to be, I, I, I find that type of thinking to be very, very simplistic. And, and, and so far as I, I understand from having read, uh, at least just one book of yours, I, I, I think, I think you believe, uh, same. What what can we do to sort of, you know, and then if, I don't know if how often you're on clubhouse, but if you go in some of these rooms, um, the lower the IQ of the room, the more of this blame game goes on, the more hatred, the more anger. What, what can we, we do? What can we do to, uh, to, to, to what, what advice do you have question for, for us that really want to, um, you know, turn people on to critical thinking? What, what, what's your suggestion?
Speaker 1 00:50:14 Well, that's a, a, a very thoughtful, heartfelt question. I, I was struck, and I especially liked your phrase, uh, thinking that is not glued to reality. Uh, that, that's great. So that's gluing your thinking to reality. Perhaps borrow that at some point. But yes. Um, I think you're absolutely right. There are a lot of disturbing trends, uh, cognitive and antico trends that are out there and all kinds of, uh, movements and people coming out of, uh, out of the woodwork and coming up with all kinds of, uh, kinds of crazy thing. And rather than simply being marginalized, they do seem to, uh, have loud voices. And to be, uh, able to leverage their views and, and, uh, important cultural sectors and all of that is very, very distressing. Uh, at the same time, I'm, I'm tempted to, to go back to, uh, CP Snow, who in the middle part of the 20th century, an interesting essay called the Two Cultures was talking about intellectual culture in mostly the, uh, the Anglo English speaking at that time where there was a, this bifurcation between rational, uh, scientific logical, progressive thinking, uh, in the intellectual world.
Speaker 1 00:51:38 And that was mostly in the sciences and the social sciences and related disciplines as well. But then, uh, a distressing amount of irrationalism that had captured the art world and much of the humanities, uh, where to the extent that you are explicitly irrational in your, uh, beliefs and your lifestyle, you are celebrated within that subculture. And snow was wondering how we had gotten to the point where among intellectuals are supposed to be educated people, we could have these two older opposite cultures, uh, both of which despised each other. And they seemed to have, uh, split the intellectual turf. Among that one side was taking the humanities and taking it in an increasingly irrational direction. The other side was taking the sciences and taking it in a more rational, progressive direction. And then, what can we do to overcome this dichotomy and have a, a more unified, integrated, uh, science and humanistic culture in a, in a progressive direction?
Speaker 1 00:52:49 So, sociologically, it seems that we're, we're in a similar situation to that, um, you know, as David was alluding to earlier, in this, this clubhouse, we start talking to the scientists and the engineers and the technologists, and it's just astounding currently how much they are learning and doing and creating. And there's a very healthy, uh, uh, intellectual and value subculture at work. And that still is a huge part of who we are. But then at the same time, we have the, the Postmoderns and all of their offshoots, and they're a big part of who we're culturally right now. And, uh, it seems to be an inexhaustible, uh, uh, well, of resentments and abilities to shock us and find new ways to, uh, to do, uh, disgusting and, and irrational things. So we have this incredibly bifurcated culture. And so your, your question, I think is the right one.
Speaker 1 00:53:48 What can we do to, uh, to, uh, to get past this? Now, my view, it's not my view alone. I think it's the view is that bad philosophy is the most important cause for our current, uh, uh, predicaments. Uh, just as, uh, good philosophy, uh, significant portion of it coming out of the enlightenment are, are the, the cause of good things that are, that are in our culture. So what I do think there's a, a huge division of labor here in all cultural areas and intellectual areas have work to do, uh, the most important battle is, is the philosophical battle. So what I would say is not that, uh, you know, become a philosopher, but at least be philosophical about whatever, uh, your area of expertise is, and, uh, uh, be an up to speed, decent, thoughtful, uh, person with good philosophy and bring that to bear in your cultural sphere. Mm-hmm. That would be the thing that's most rewarding to you and the most likely to, uh, to, uh, to help us, uh, with our problem.
Speaker 7 00:55:01 But, uh, no short answer to convince people, um, that, that are idiots, that they're actually not thinking Well, <laugh>. Yeah. I mean, no short answer to I view thinking as a very difficult process. You know, it takes some time That's right. To do it's right. And, and, and I think a lot of folks believe that, um, stating an opinion, or, you know what, like, let's say you have this Alex Jones character who's really interesting to listen to because he's has this, he's like the norm from Cheers. Remember Norm, he's really good at bringing up these little tidbits of information, uh, you know, uh, in 1947 on July 13th, such and such happened, right? And then he'll bring up another little tidbit of information, you know, did you know that Jaus Khan had 99 wives or something? Okay. So, and then he, you know, he's great and imaginative, so he can, he can sew this relationship between, you know, the 99 wives of Genus Khan and whatever happened on June 13th, 1947.
Speaker 7 00:56:02 And, and then his listeners are like, they slapped themselves in the head, and they're like, geez, why didn't I notice that? You know, I, it, it's just that, uh, the folks listening to him, or any conspiracy theory, I think they don't realize the difference between reasoning, um, and, uh, the brain's, uh, tendency to, to, to just create patterns, you know? And I think that's, um, I think, you know, especially with this guy, uh, Kanye West, he's throwing out all these very, very old tropes. And I think his audience for the first time is like hearing this. Um, they may not be, um, <laugh>, you know, as, as well versed in the history of, uh, anti-Semitic tropes, and then Reptilians and Anki, and then the Nazis, and blah, blah, blah, blah. And, and if they're introduced to this, um, to them it appears to be, uh, almost sensemaking in a way. So when I go into these rooms on Clubhouse and I try to explain, look, you're thinking is wrong, um, if you wanna learn about economics, just please read a basic book on economics, or if you wanna know about history, read a generic history book and their retort as well, you know, you know, those mainstream history books, we can't trust them. So I, I don't know what to do about it. Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:57:21 Um, I would just add, I'd like to add one thing. Um, I, I'd love the fact that you've, uh, yates's, uh, poem second coming is one of my favorites. And when I think about these issues, uh, and the contrast, Stephen Drew, um, going back to CP Snow, uh, about the two cultures, the, the line that just really hits me is in the first stanza, when it, when it says the ceremony of innocence is round the best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Speaker 7 00:58:06 Exactly. Because because irrational, passionate language, I, I do wanna get it is interesting, you know, all
Speaker 2 00:58:15 Right. And that is, um,
Speaker 2 00:58:21 You know, when Yates wrote that a century ago or more, I mean, it was presion, but my God, what a description of our age and of the division of the con stark contrast between the crap that's out in public media and, um, on political, moral, um, social topics and its infected literature and other academic fields versus the extraordinary technology that over my lifetime, I'm in my seventies now, I wrote my thesis on an electric typewriter, remember what the, those were. I mean, someone invented the internet in computers, all that stuff. And, uh, the brain power that goes into that, and the sheer intelligence, um, and the conviction once, you know, a rational conviction, um, there are people out there with that. So here's my, I guess my point, Iran has been criticized a lot for being, uh,
Speaker 2 00:59:29 Emphatic in expressing her views. Well, I think we need more emphaticness, we need more intensity among the, uh, the best. And you know, it in other clubhouse rooms, you know, you're, I appreciate you <laugh>, you're up against this, um, uh, a difficult task. But I think if we, if we said, look, there's certain things that are true, and we're not taking any prisoners on this. It is, uh, this is the way it is. And if you don't, if, if you think, if, if you're gonna view this stuff that has no basis, I'm not gonna listen to you. Shut up. That's my one,
Speaker 1 01:00:15 One more thought here is, uh, in response to this, this very good question. I, I think there is no short answer. The, there is the long road of philosophy and the long road for each of us in, in education. That's a multi-year process. And, and philosophy in thinking about whatever one's thinking about is always going to be, uh, hard work. Um, but at the same time, if we step away from that perspective and think about the, the history and the sociology of it, I, I, we go back to, uh, Yates and his generation, yes, there were the data and the surrealists in other forms of Irrationalism, uh, on this other side of the, the culture. There was all of the good progressive, scientific rational stuff that was going on. We jumped 50 years to, uh, uh, Rand's, uh, generation sixties. He had the performance artists and all kinds of, uh, druggies and weirdos going on.
Speaker 1 01:01:16 And the same time, the other side of the culture is making progress economically, scientifically, and so on. And now in our generation, we still have the same divide. So perhaps one of the cautiously optimistic lessons is that overall our culture is progressive, rational and scientific, uh, uh, and it can absorb and tolerate, uh, a significant minority of people who are just outright irrational. So that irrationals are, you know, likely going be with us for all time, but maybe we are describing them outsized cultural power, uh, and that in fact, we're a lot healthier than we thinks journalistic or sociological empirical evidence for it
Speaker 0 01:02:05 Staying ahead of the wave <laugh>. Yeah. Um, Brian, thank you for your patience. Uh, no worries. Thanks Scott. Um,
Speaker 8 01:02:18 Yeah. Um, so, uh, professor Hicks, I mean, I think it would be great to see you, uh, you know, do a more lengthy discussion on, uh, meta ethics. Uh, and, uh, I, I would love to see a commentary going through say, like the summary of, um, uh, rand's, uh, philosophy as listed out on say, like, uh, internet encyclopedia philosophy or something like that, um,
Speaker 1 01:02:46 As a
Speaker 8 01:02:46 Backdrop. Um, I have, yeah, I have several questions, so I'm trying to pick one. And, um, I think ultimately, yeah, one of them is really, I'm really, I I want to hear what you think are, um, what you think is maybe even the biggest concern, um, in meta ethics today. Is it, is it, uh, you know, is it error theory? Is it, um, you know, um, what do you think sort of the biggest issue is in, in meta ethics today? And then if I had to say there, there might be a related second question, I guess, you know, why should people adopt, um, Rand's philosophy and why partic in particular, what I want to ask is why should people who are spiritual and or religious and have that as a basis for their ethics, adopt her philosophy? Um, anyway, that's my question.
Speaker 1 01:03:34 Yeah. On, on the first question, I don't think I have a good answer about, uh, cause I'm not, uh, for the last, uh, at least five years reading much of what's going on in meta ethics right now. I've been working on other things, so I can't, uh, I can't answer that question. Uh,
Speaker 8 01:03:52 Getting a tan on a beach, is that, no, I'm just kidding.
Speaker 1 01:03:56 <laugh>. Um, that, that's part of the plan for next summer. I guess <laugh> <laugh> well deserved. So the third question was a, was an interesting one. Uh, if you start with people who are religious, uh, and they have a certain understanding of what ethics is, uh, how would one talk to them about making objective ethics attractive to them? Um, I think my, my first thing there would be a, a, a pushback for more clarification on what we mean by the religious ethics, because that's an awfully big tent. And in religious ethics, there are lots of people who are worldly, uh, in their ethics. They wanna live a, a happy life in the era and now, and that means, you know, making a good living, having rewarding friendships and, and a good sex life and raising their families and traveling the world. And they, uh, think that requires also, you know, having strong moral principles and that, uh, some sort of spiritual being is the underwriter of those moral values. And that's what their religious ethics, uh, consists in. But that's, uh, in market contrast to, you know, more extreme forms of religious ethic that are much more aesthetic and, uh, anti-human and anti anti worldly. So I think first, if you're talking with religious people, you need to listen to them and get a better sense for what's going on in their understanding of, of, uh, of religion. So then you can respond more precisely.
Speaker 8 01:05:48 Yeah, I think, um, if I was to be more clear, um, I would just say, uh, I actually think that like there's a great opportunity sort of to resolve, um, what appears to be like inherent selfishness in the way that Rand's philosophy is prevent presented to say sort of like, uh, maybe Christian ethics of selflessness. I, I think those things can be resolved, but I also think people would be hesitant to resolve them if they thought that they would have to also give up their belief in God. And I, and I think that's the conflict I'm really getting at, because I think actually in practice, many Christians believe exactly the thing that, you know, Rand believes about work ethic and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1 01:06:30 Right? Well, I do know personally a lot of people who are, they think of themselves as Christian objects, um, and, uh, you know, effect for many of them, what, what it seems to amount to is, uh, everything in objectivism, just a belief in a God as an overseer manager of the universe in a very general sense. Um, and so they are, you know, close to being pantheistic in, uh, in, in that sense. So, um, but I did like the way you, you, you put it, then you start to say, even if you resolved, say the, the apparent dichotomy between their understanding of selflessness and the objectiveness understanding of self-interest, there would still be other issues that would need to be attended to. They're still going hang on to a belief in God because they're, God is doing other, uh, intellectual or psychological work for them. And you need to know what that is in order to know how to respond.
Speaker 8 01:07:40 Sure. For instance, the afterlife, I guess, which goes back to the earlier question of, you know, if we become indestructible, are some people motivated, perhaps Yeah. To meet their maker if they believe in a maker,
Speaker 1 01:07:50 Right? Yeah, sure. Yeah.
Speaker 2 01:07:53 If I could add something here. Over the years, um, I've asked, uh, people who have religious beliefs and mostly focusing on people that had a lot of respect for, um, including people who worked, worked for the Atlas Society, but you know, they were not in positions that required their, that they'd be objectives, just that they'd be skilled and responsible in what they do. Um, but I've asked, what does religion do for you? And I've, I've given a lot of thought to it. I, I've made out a chart of all the things, all the needs that religion potentially sat or once satisfied and, and still some of them satisfied. For example, religion no longer, uh, provides a whole lot of, uh, information. It's not a player in the, uh, explanation of nature. We have science now, um, or the control of nature. We have science and technology. But one of the things I kept hearing was someone to look after me, someone who's got that I can appeal to when my life is not, when I'm feeling my life is not going well as well as I'd want, or I'm in danger or I'm threatened. Um, and I think that's, that's a powerful motive.
Speaker 2 01:09:26 And then of course, the end of life's issues. You know, religion still has a major role to play in giving people a sense of the meaning of, of their lives and what happens at the end. Um, and that, that's, those are hard, uh, because from a secular standpoint, the end is the end. So, um, but the ethics, um, is also crucial. I, I agree. And if you think about Americans anyway, and a lot of people elsewhere in the world, are they functioning like altruists, really? No. They all wanna make good incomes. They want their kids to flourish and do well and make even better incomes. Um, they go on vacations, uh, and they do not spend their money down, like the philosopher Peter Singer advocates that we spend to the point where we are no better off than third world people. Um, by giving away everything above that level to third world people, uh, no, very few people operate on that basis, thankfully and rightly.
Speaker 2 01:10:41 But I do think it is important, as Steven was saying, and, and you are alluding to, to clarify that selfishness is, does not mean it includes benevolence. Lemme put it that way. It's not my own. Um, views here, that it includes benevolence. It is not savage. It's a win-win way of dealing with people. And, um, but sacrifice is not good. And people think of, uh, you know, they, they feel like I've gotta sacrifice something or I can't justify my life. It's like, you know, moral laundering. Uh, so anyway, an upset. I, there's a lot more we could say, but, um, the first thing I would do in, in terms of talking with people is just ask, okay, what, what is religion doing for you? Because you can't, you can't address people or, or change minds without knowing where their minds are.
Speaker 0 01:11:57 It's almost like not being able to assume a Marxist is automatically evil.
Speaker 2 01:12:03 You could say that. Okay.
Speaker 1 01:12:06 <laugh>, <laugh>, you mentioned the, uh, chart. David. Uh, I would like to see that if you've got that published somewhere, that could be a, a useful, useful tool. Another category, uh, just in response to this very good question. Uh, another circle of people I know, uh, we're, we're all getting older now, but, uh, people when they became parents in their late twenties and early thirties, and these were usually, you know, professional people, well educated, doing well in their careers, and they started their families when they were, were in a position of doing so, and they were not at all, especially religious until they had their children. And then when their children were old enough, they started going to church. And I would talk about with them about why they were doing so. And it wasn't really that they had changed their metaphysics and they were believing in supernatural beings or changed their epistemology, and now we're becoming more faithful and, and religious.
Speaker 1 01:13:03 But it was, uh, a matter of ethics that they wanted to have a social, uh, uh, reinforcing, uh, uh, institution that was going to, to instill in their children and reinforce what they were doing at home. That there are these very firm moral principles, and you need to be a good person in order. And according to these principles. And, uh, from their perspective, when they were, these were people who would read a lot about how to raise your children and so on. So they were clearly prospecting for where am I going to get a moral code and some sort of, uh, institution that can help me instill a strong moral code in my children. And the only, or the best answer they were coming up with was, uh, kind of organized religion, and that's really the only reason they were going to, going to church. They might also get some additional social benefits out of it, but that was, that was really, really the driver.
Speaker 2 01:14:10 Great. Steven? Yeah. Yeah, I'm reading completely,
Speaker 8 01:14:14 Um, just as a way of thanks if I may. Uh, so David and Emil, I thought your tenure was wonderful. Um, thanks for that, Steven. I think, you know, when I read at least the summary of brand, I'm not deeply read, but you know, it's this sort of development process of the youth that she sees as, you know, when it's flawed, there's a bad outcome. So maybe the, maybe in a sense, I think really what I'm, I'm trying, you know, to almost ask is, you know, might certain groups of people that don't strictly hold to the atheist subjectivist view actually have, you know, common goals in mind, and even some methods that might, you know, if we take sort of an older view and philosophy through the light of reason, even if they see that as a divine gift, uh, be aiming at the same ends. Um, anyway, that, that I'll stop there. And, uh, just wanna thank you for your answers.
Speaker 2 01:15:06 No, no, thanks for, that's a good question. Thank you.
Speaker 0 01:15:08 Great. Um, I, uh, do wanna recognize senior scholar Richard Salzman in the audience. He did have a question in the chat. He may not be available, but, uh, he says, for decades now, we've seen documentaries and movies about Nazis. Why is there such a dearth of similar coverage of the Soviet Union and malas China? Is there any philosophical explanation of this? The, the latter country's inflicted 10 times more death in misery?
Speaker 2 01:15:42 Mm-hmm. Oh, man. Um, the question is later follow. It's a lot more <laugh> carefully than I do, but, but part of the answer is just obvious. The left appealed to equality and the brotherhood of man, the Nazi, the left totalitarians, um, the right, um, appealed to a hierarchical, uh, exclusionary. You know, in the case of the Nazis ar Arian dominance, uh, ethnic superiority, and for a lot of people, those are the issues, equality versus hierarchy. They don't think about freedom versus collectivism, and that's why they don't see these two as, uh, both the Nazis and the communists. That's similar. But the reason that, that, uh, you don't see many movies on the horrors of communism is that it's still in many minds of, of many artists, thinkers, philosophers, whatever. Um, it is still regarded as a, a flawed approach to an ideal. Whereas the Nazis are a flawed approach to a negative ideal hate, hateful pool.
Speaker 2 01:17:11 And it comes from, um, you know, it's the same, it goes back, I can trace it back to the, uh, the attitudes in the New Testament that, um, you know, uh, blessed are the poor for they shall inherit the earth, but be that as it may. Um, I do want, in that respect, I do want to recommend, um, an article that's on our website by, uh, Alan Kz, K O R s, uh, on, it's called After Socialism. It was a, something he wrote a gave it as a talk many years ago. For, for us it is devastating about the, the, the, the, the body count of communism and why it has never been acknowledged. And if you ever heard Alan co speak, um, he sounds like a New Testament, a Old Testament prophet, um, <laugh>. And, uh, I mean, it's the most powerful thing I've ever received, so, or heard anyway. Um, but I think it traces back to, um, uh, the political affiliation of people on liberal side toward, uh, an altruist basis for their political beliefs. And that's why, I mean, years ago, uh, the political, I think are called James Burnham. Um, according to phrase, gosh, there is no enemy to the left. We may think they're mistaken, we don't think they're evil.
Speaker 2 01:19:00 But Steven, you followed this a lot more closely than I have.
Speaker 1 01:19:03 Yeah, no, I agree with, uh, everything you said. Let me, uh, second, especially the recommendation of Alan K's piece on this, uh, it's, it's absolutely first rate and, uh, morally, morally compelling. There's a, there's a lot more work to do and holding, uh, communisms feet to the fire for, its, its disasters. Just a, you know, a couple of additional quick thoughts. Uh, Richard's question was asking about philosophical reasons. And there is, uh, in philosophy, a divide between, I think this is a false division between those who judge according to intents and motives, and those who judge according to consequences. And in this case, uh, it's clear that, uh, many people are not judging according to consequences. So the fact that the communist body count is much higher than the national socialist body count, that's a consequentialist consideration, and that doesn't register. Instead, what they're looking at are, is the intense or the, the motivation involved, and they're David's point about, uh, uh, are you motivated by equality or are you motivated by hierarchy?
Speaker 1 01:20:15 That is the decisive issue. And if you're more comfortable with the, with equality and opposed to hierarchy, then that's going to be the one you focus on. And since the Nazis were hierarchy people, uh, that's the one that you were going to most demonize. So it's a, a more, uh, deontological, uh, ethical principle, uh, uh, as one standard of judgment at an operative. Now that's, uh, uh, perhaps pitching a little bit, uh, uh, higher than is appropriate in this case, but also a lot of it's going to have to do. Uh, cause, you know, Dr. Salzmann's question is about the movie Indice in particular. And so we'd need to know something about the demographics of people in the movie industry as well. And, uh, a lot of, uh, the great creativity in the movement industry was homegrown Americans, but a lot of it also was people who got out of Germany and Central Europe in the middle part of the 20th century because of the rise of Nazim.
Speaker 1 01:21:19 Uh, and many of them were already left leaning in their sympathies toward communism, and they came over to America and then went to work in creative fields and in Hollywood here. So you might just for demographic reasons, expect to have a higher proportion of people attacking, uh, political developments, including Nazi in, in the movies than, than, uh, than, uh, what's going on in in the Soviet Union. I think also though, uh, one other thing just is that the Holocaust is a horrible, horrible event. And as horrible as the Gulag was in, in Siberia, um, there is something extra, you know, evil and demonic about the way the Holocaust was, was, uh, was carried out. And so that may be a thing that's an additional factor that pushes us over the tipping edge to seeing the Nazis as uniquely evil and, uh, and, and capturing the imagine of people imagination rather of people in the, uh, in the film industry. Uh, and so, uh, another part of the explanation why there's so much more focus there.
Speaker 0 01:22:41 Great. Thank you for that. Um, just, uh, in our last few minutes, uh, you know, even though we're rational animals, did, uh, did Iran not, uh, grant enough to the part of us that we share with animals by, you know, she basically thought the conceptual realm changed everything, but it, it's not like a light switch. It, there's kind of a, of a more of a dimmer effect. And I mean, I, I see jealousy in my dogs and things like that.
Speaker 2 01:23:12 <laugh>
Speaker 1 01:23:13 <laugh>,
Speaker 2 01:23:15 Yeah. Mike has have personalities. Uh, and I have to remind myself every once in a while that their personalities are completely, uh, my attribution to them. I mean, they have different personalities, but I don't know what a cat psychology is, so I'm reading my own into them. But, um, no, but I, there's something you gotta keep in mind. Rand's ethics is biocentric. She's, she's all human beings as, uh, a species and she put human life in the context of a kind of ecology. What, what do species of different, what do animals of different species require to make, uh, to meet their needs through the exercise of their capacities? And it's very easy to put, um, her ethics into that context. Um, she, she focuses on, on human beings, of course, cuz she was doing ethics, uh, which in rests on the, on the capacity for choice free will and so forth.
Speaker 2 01:24:27 So we need an ethics. Animals don't need an ethics to have their, as far as we know, none of them have volition in the way we do, but, which I consider an open scientific question. Um, but, so I don't want to get into that issue, but any but the, um, but Rand did, um, actually almost uniquely among philosophers, ethical philosophers, I think took account of the basic biological facts of human existence. Um, I don't know, Steven, you've more up on ethics than I am, but, uh, my sense is that there are very few, um, ethical philosophers, at least in the Anglo-American, uh, tradition and maybe continental as well, that, um, who, who don't just start with human life, but go back to, okay, hu, human life is life. What's life about
Speaker 1 01:25:37 Right now? No, that point is, is absolutely right. Historically, almost the entirety of the history of ethics is the assumption that ethics is a free floating, uh, area of investigation. In some cases, it's explicitly divorced from, from, uh, uh, not only biology, but the entire natural world. Um, now Aristotle is an exception. He has a largely biocentric basis for his ethics. Uh, and the hedonists would be, uh, another example of some nod toward biology. But, uh, until you get into the modern world, not very much at all, Nietzsche is another exception where he is explicitly, uh, basing his ethics on a, an understanding of, uh, human biology and, uh, kinda reducing psychology to, uh, to biological imperatives. And then, uh, you know, much of 20th century, uh, ethics in the first part of the 20th century, uh, it was, was explicitly, uh, non naturalistic. Right?
Speaker 1 01:26:50 Right. There's no way at all of connecting, you know, ethics to, to the natural world. So rand and, uh, an interesting coy of, uh, women philosophers in the middle part of the 20th century are, are really pioneers at reintroducing, uh, biology to, to ethics. Now, I think, you know, perhaps in the question, uh, you know, there are, when you get down into the weeds of it and you start looking at specific issues, you know, what's Fran's view about the relationship between love and sex and this, that and the other thing, did she, uh, uh, take as much account of, uh, biology as, uh, as one should, uh, you know, there, I think we're, we're open to argument, but at least, uh, in the general tenon approach of her philosophy, uh, <laugh>, it is one of the most important points about Rand that, uh, ethics needs to be situated biologically.
Speaker 0 01:27:51 Sure. I just mean, you know, when you see things like Coco signing, for example, so sometimes the, the line gets blurred between what is conceptual understanding?
Speaker 1 01:28:05 Yeah, this,
Speaker 0 01:28:06 But, uh,
Speaker 1 01:28:07 Well, of course it gets blurred and, uh, uh, but at the same time, there is a difference in kind that comes into effect. Uh, now <laugh>, you know, if, if we start saying, you know, what other species are there out there that do math and get jokes and compose poems and think about, uh, a hundred years into the future and the far reaches of the galaxy and, uh, do archeology and so on, <laugh>, uh, the, the range and power of our conceptual faculty, you know, at the, at the margins, yes, other animals have some degree of intelligence, but nonetheless, there is something extraordinarily <laugh> beyond that threshold about human beings. And that is hugely significant to, uh, uh, vast amounts of what it is to be a human.
Speaker 0 01:29:01 This, uh, almost circles back to my first point about chat, g p t and creativity. So, uh, oh, there we're, yeah, it's full circles. Yeah. Actually a good, uh, place to wrap up. Um, you know, we are doing big things next year at the Atlas Society and, uh, we had a, um, a donor, uh, for this year agree to match all new donors. So every $5 means $10 for our student initiatives. Uh, all current donors, anything they give over their 2021 giving will also be matched. So, um, you know, as you evaluate, uh, your year end philanthropic, um, givings, uh, I hope you take into account the full scope of our impact, uh, great sessions like this and decide to include the Atlas Society in your, uh, year end plans. So thank you both. Thank you to everyone for joining us with questions and, uh, we'll, uh, come back and do this again next month.
Speaker 1 01:30:03 All right, thanks David, and thanks Scott for hosting.
Speaker 0 01:30:06 Um, great. Thank you.
Speaker 2 01:30:07 Thanks all, uh, as well and to all of our participants for great questions.
