Richard's style is less intimidation and more Socratic method.  Encouraging Callum to substantiate Rand's arguments is not an attempt to coerce so much as the suggestion for an appropriate exercise for a student of philosophy.  Just because Rand didn't give anybody but Aristotle partial credit for her philosophy, doesn't mean she wasn't well versed in it. 

People have started arguments with me solely based on pamphlets they read in college about Ayn Rand.  It is disturbing how easily people can lose an argument when all they have are loosely connected and poorly remembered talking points.  "Well, all I know is that she wrote an evil, horrible book, and you are probably going to burn in hell." As Objectivism is so thoroughly entrenched in reason, I don't think there is much to fear from Callum's reading Hegel. 

Don't be fooled by his disclaimer. He's lookin' lovingly and indiscriminately at those guys on the ceiling as we speak.

And Hegel was unambiguously a totalitarian. For him the state IS the individual. It's only Goode on the Good who's incomprehensible.

I was beginning to wonder who's side you were on.

Don't be fooled by by Linz's fanciful mischaracterisation of me as a pomowanker.

Well hooray for that! I was beginning to wonder who's side you were on.

This kind of collectivist philosophy, which provides a philosophical incentive to lie, cheat, steal and murder, is the result of over 200 years of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy.

What you're claiming here is that "the evil ideas that those dead Germans gave birth to" are the cause of today's collectivist philosophy. This is an empirical claim, so it's appropriate to ask for evidence. No, I'm not "wanting the whole thing laid out in every detail." I'd be satisfied if you were to show that the aforementioned evil ideas are the same ideas that we find underpinning today's collectivist philosophy. But here you run into insuperable problems.

Take Hegel, for instance. Here are a couple of telling excerpts from Wikipedia.

Hegel's works have a reputation for their difficulty... Hegel's writing style is difficult to read; he is described by Bertrand Russell in the History of Western Philosophy as the single most difficult philosopher to understand...

For those wishing to read his work... introductions to Hegel and commentaries about Hegel may suffice. However... the reader must choose from multiple interpretations of Hegel's writings from incompatible schools of philosophy. Presumably, reading Hegel directly would be the best method of understanding him, but this task has historically proved to be beyond the average reader of philosophy. This difficulty may be the most urgent problem with respect to the legacy of Hegel.

And here is what John Stuart Mill had to say after reading an introduction to Hegel's philosophy.

I have been toiling through Stirling's Secret of Hegel. It is right to learn what Hegel is & one learns it only too well from Stirling's book. I say "too well" because I found by actual experience of Hegel that conversancy with him tends to deprave one's intellect. The attempt to unwind an apparently infinite series of self–contradictions, not disguised but openly faced & coined into... science by being stamped with a set of big abstract terms, really if persisted in impairs the acquired delicacy of perception of false reasoning & false thinking which has been gained by years of careful mental discipline with terms of real meaning. For some time after I had finished the book all such words as reflexion, development, evolution, &c., gave me a sort of sickening feeling which I have not yet entirely got rid of.

Hegel's ideas are incomprehensible. Whereas the ideas which underpin collectivist philosophy are all too readily understood. So they aren't the same ideas. The only thing that Hegelian philosophy and collectivist philosophy have in common is that both are nauseating.

There are so many collectivist philosophers worthy of criticism to choose from, if Callum were to confine himself to two boot-licking statist philosophers per press release, he would have to do one a day for a full year to properly crucify them all!

And that's just the ones whose publications are readily available in the world's universities...

Fourth, Why the hell should you care whether someone wipes his arse with Critique of Pure Reason or any one of the other gobbledygook filled tomes that he wrote? Have you got a picture of the man stapled to the roof of your bedroom or something?

You don't understand the mindset of a pomowanker with a PhD in Philosophy. *All* philosophers are good guys, stapled to his ceiling—they're his friends, his regular companions. The idea of holding them accountable for the consequences of their ideas is unimaginable. It's all just a cute parlour game with words, played by members of a cosy club of monotoned masturbators.

Of course, the only philosopher who is not on the pomowanker's ceiling is ...

(No prizes! )

First, do you have any problem with Callum's analysis, other than the fact he didn't provide an exhaustive laundry list of philosophical crackpots?

Second, you are assuming that Callum got his analysis from Rand. All he said was that he was reading Philosophy who needs it.

Third, was Rand wrong about Hegel or Kant?

Fourth, Why the hell should you care whether someone wipes his arse with Critique of Pure Reason or any one of the other gobbledygook filled tomes that he wrote? Have you got a picture of the man stapled to the roof of your bedroom or something?

I see Rand's game.

And what, pray tell, is the philosophical cornerstone upon which that welfare state is built? Whose ideas give impetus to, & justification for, those who would control us for our own good, or for the 'good of humanity?'

Have you ever thought or said the following? "The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation." You got it from Bentham. Or: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." You got it from Marx. Or: "Love thy neighbour as thyself." You got it from Christ.

Oops! Looks like you rounded up the wrong suspects, Callum.

Good post.  Perfectly appropriate for this forum.  However, your argument is complicated by having four different conclusions: 1. Lower jail times increase the murder rate. 2. Political correctness increases the murder rate. 3. Moral equivalency increases the murder rate.  4. Kantian and Hegelian philosophy are widely accepted and are increasing the murder rate.  This has led some to request a "connection of the dots". 

If we separate the arguments/conclusions, they are easier to discuss.  I realize you see them as easily connected, but you aren't writing for yourself. 

One only needs to look at Dr. Goode's perplexed response to see why you need to spell it out. And he has a PhD in philosophy...

That's why he'll never get it!

And why Kant, who preached that every individual is an end in himself, was nonetheless an arch-collectivist is never going to be spelled out in one brief op-ed about murders in NZ!

Ahem. In my defense that was what I meant. Thank you for clarifying in a way I didn't

Is the book I'm reading currently.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

I do tend strongly towards empiricism.

But the dots I was thinking of were the ones Ayn laid out in 'Philosophy who needs it?' (P4 of the book of the same name).

Quote:

'You might claim -- as most people do -- that you have never been influenced by philosophy. But I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever heard or thought the following?...

"I couldn't help it! Nobody can help anything he does." You got it from Hegel. Or: "I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil because it's selfish."

Notice that Ayn not only laid the blame on Hegel and Kant but also stated why. And given that very few NZers actually know what Kant and Hegel actually said - I think that this is important.

One only needs to look at Dr. Goode's perplexed response to see why you need to spell it out. And he has a PhD in philosophy...

Given this is being posted on this website there is more than enough dots if it were placed in a news paper or university mag ect yes you would need to frame it differently.

Another reason that crime is rising might be New Zealand following britains led. The idea that preventing an intervening in crime should be the sole job of the state. This has lead to britain becoming the most violent industrialized country in the world no surprise given the immunity it give criminals.

Tragically our police seem also to have forgotten that police forces in free societies are based on the idea that police should have no special rights and should simply do full time what private citizens do as required. Few members of the public relies that there are no special laws allowing the police to apprehend, tackle or in the extreme circumstances shoot an offender they use the same laws as ordinary citizens when they stop a criminal.

An Indian dairy owner in Auckland who was interviewed on 3 news following the stabbing committed in the dairy by the 16 year old had a point when he said "under New Zealand law we can't keep any weapons to defend our selves so when they come in we have to say welcome and take what ever you want" (note: quote not exact).

I'd say that the welfare state hypothesis wins by a country mile.

And what, pray tell, is the philosophical cornerstone upon which that welfare state is built? Whose ideas give impetus to, & justification for, those who would control us for our own good, or for the 'good of humanity?' Or do you suppose that the welfare state has emerged throughout history by chance, without conscious intent on the part of those creating it?

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

.... to which empiricists are prone, wanting the whole thing laid out in every detail every time. What I always tell folk doing press releases and op-eds is: "Don't try to dump the whole load in one go." What I always tell folk NOT doing press releases and op-eds is: "Do press releases and op-eds."

In Callum's original, in white further down the page, there *were* a few more intervening dots, as it happens, only for the perplexed they would have raised more questions than they answered and, on their own, didn't hold up. So you can blame me for the current version.

Linz

Excellent PR, even if it is a bit over the head of philosophically-challenged readers (to use a 'politically correct' term), and the philosophies of dead Germans and the boot-licking statist-socialists who implemented and continue to implement their awful ideas were rightly named as having helped create the valuelessness in western society.

Rand talked about how psychologically damaging statist societies and practices are to the young, and I'll never forget just how fashionable nihilism was in my circle of friends from my early teens through my twenties. You're doing Galt's work in your PR here and no doubt among your peers who are clearly in dire need of the 'voice of reason'. Good Job!

You have to give the reader a few more intervening dots if you expect them to make the connection.

... how about it?

First of all, qudos for writing a press release. Well done!
And all this from a 14-year old too. You put your 30+ detractors to shame for their relative inaction.

But I want to say two things that should help you to make your next press release even better:

(1) Always remember the concrete bound nature of most NZers.

Don't expect every NZer to get the link between philosophy (be it a 175 year old vintage or 175 second old one) and the various maladies that beset modern NZ society. You have to give the reader a few more intervening dots if you expect them to make the connection.

IMHO, the thrust of your argument is correct. That is, that the ideas that those dead Germans (and others) gave birth to are at the root of this problem.

(2) But never place ~all~ the blame on Kant and Hegel or any other wayward philosopher.

Never forget that Helen Clark et al. are willing proponents of these ideas. The statist politician is solely to blame for his faulty analysis and the actions that come from it. After all, by the stage that they get to parliament they are old enough and worldly enough to have become aware of more than just the Kantian and Hegelian bromides they inhaled at University. So for them to retain and reinforce those nostrums requires active participation on their part.

The evil ideas that those dead Germans gave birth to don't get into your brain and remain there by passive diffusion...

Now, I know that you don't personally lay the blame for the crime rate at Hegel's or Kant's door. But you have to articulate that because of the aforementioned concrete bound mentality of NZ readers...

Otherwise, excellent work. Keep it up!

What's the best explanation of today's violence and incivility?

Of the explanations proffered so far - some dead philosophers whose corpses are still rotting up the place, psychologists and psychiatrists peddling evil, mind-altering drugs and the rise of the welfare state - I'd say that the welfare state hypothesis wins by a country mile.

...I don't think Callum's hypothesis is that it's all the fault of a couple of dead Germans. It'd be closer to say, it's all the fault of a couple of dead Germans and those who follow them. Afterall, Callum lays the blame for the murder squarely on the murderer.

You're right, that could give pause for thought.

Although my own theory is that welfare states will always devolve to violence and worse, incivility. If people get something for nothing, then ultimately they will respect nothing, certainly not property rights, including that to life itself.

Is Kevin's hypothesis, that the blame for society's downward spiral into politically correct collectivism can be laid at the feet of the psychiatrists and psychologists, really any less plausible than Callum's hypothesis that it's all the fault of a couple of dead Germans (oh, yeah, and a dead Italian)?

In 1982, murders were still a rarity in New Zealand. The following year, the homicide rate rose sharply. As it happens, 1982 was also the year of Ayn Rand's death. Coincidence? Perhaps. But the fact that Rand's mind was the equivalent of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging device in psychological diagnosis must give pause for thought.

Kevin, I most of the time try to be civil, following recent TAS guidelines, but, I think you have to seriously consider the possibility you might be insane. Perhaps give Tom Cruise a call, I understand he's your number two now: I'm not so much thinking of seeking advice, but you could hit him up for a loan to aid you in seeking help, namely, an appointment with a psychiatrist .

The socialists [psychiatrists and Psychologists] invade our institutions. If you have a look every where they practice you will see failure. The average person doesn't like to label them as the cause of the downward spiral in society, so labels it collectivism, socialism or marxism. These are the philosophies of the Psychiatrist and Psychologist etc.

Stiffer laws, more jails do not deter crime
http://www.solopassion.com/node/2898

Because only now has its final product been completed: Political Correctness.

25 years ago, no matter how socialist the political-economic system was, here in NZ you still took responsibility for your crimes, you still did your time, you still paid restitution to the victim's family. The major revolution over the last 25 years isn't toward a free-market economy; instead, after the collapse of Soviet socialism, new tactics had to be tried. Hence, little-known Marxist Antonio Gramsci's ideas were tried out.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

This kind of collectivist philosophy, which provides a philosophical incentive to lie, cheat, steal and murder, is the result of over 200 years of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy.

Now c'mon, Callum. You've been reading too much Ayn Rand.

Murders were a rarity in New Zealand as recently as 25 years ago. Are you saying that it took 175 years of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy to reach some kind of homicidal threshold?