The website of Associate Professor of Philosophy M R. X. Dentith
Well, due to my contribution to this little Herald article I am getting e-mails and comments here, there and everywhere on what I might have said, implied, meant, been misquoted on and the like.
So I’d like to offer a few clarifications.
I hope that clears everything up for you. Expect to here my thought on the presentation on next week’s ‘The Dentith Files.’
Well, I’ve booked my tickets to fly down to Wellington to see Richard Gage relate his particular Conspiracy Theory about 9/11.
I’m both excited and perplexed; I’m funding this trip myself, and as an impoverished PhD student that does mean a slice of money. In that respect I have to wonder ‘Why?’ Why spend money going down to watch a Conspiracy Theorist at work?
Well, the answer to that is the excitement. Several commentators on Conspiracy Theory culture have noted that Conspiracy Theories seem to be mostly oral, or, probably more accurately, Conspiracy Theories seem more plausible when they are presented orally rather than when they are written down. This doesn’t suggest that the arguments are somehow magically better when they are spoken but rather that, in such presentations, with the charged rhetoric and the shout outs of support from the audience, you can see why people might find it all very convincing.
That’s the theory, anyway.
I’ve not had much of a chance to see a Conspiracy Theorist in action and this event should be filled with them. I shall, I must admit, be somewhat incognito; I don’t really think I’ll be able to summon the ultimate counter-argument to Gage and his theories; the environment won’t be conducive and I’m far more interested in the swing voters than the hard-core believers of either stripe. More importantly, I would like to see how the believers react and play; I’m going more as an amateur sociologist or anthropologist than I am as an epistemologist.
So, Wellington. Land of good coffee, great vegan cake and Truth in Architecture. What more does a boy need? ((Even more cake, that’s what.))
I’m quite happy to admit that I think that Objectivitists (the followers of the Randian ‘philosophy’) are foolish in their belief that Ayn Rand expressed a cogent and coherent philosophical framework. I will even go so far as to say that such followers seem to commit themselves to adhering to an inconsistent doctrine that cannot be made fit for a society. These are all philosophical issues and, if I had the time, I would probably devote a few months to reading up on the exact minutiae of Objectivism to come up with concrete examples of just how unphilosophical Rand’s polemics really are.
I worry, though, that a great many of the criticisms of Rand and her ideas are couched in a critique of her as a person as opposed to her ideas. One can see part of the reason why critiquing Rand is a useful way to critique Objectivism; she didn’t live the ideal life of her characters and some of her views, such as endorsing the actions of William Edward Hickman, a serial killer, or advocating that all her followers smoke because the evidence that smoking caused lung cancer was communist propaganda, shows that there was something a bit off about her psychology.
Still, ad hominems, in this case, are not good arguments. Plenty of legitimate philosophers live less than ideal lives in respect to the theories they advocate; it is important to remember that hypocrites can still have a point. Plenty of doctors smoke and still tell their patients not to start, for example.
I bring this up because Rand is rather fashionable at the moment, and there are plenty of new biographies coming out about her. Today I read this review of two new biographies of Ayn Rand; Anne C. Heller’s “Ayn Rand and the World She Made†and Jennifer Burn’s “Rand—Goddess of the Market.” They seem like interesting books, but the reviewer uses it as a piece to skewer Rand the person as opposed to Objectivism.
Now, admittedly, the review is of a book about Rand the person, but the reviewer is critiquing Objectivism first and foremost. Just because Rand was a very flawed person, this does not mean her philosophy was just as flawed (although, actually, it is even moreso); it is a mistake to attack the character and then infer that this means the arguments they put forward are worthless.
Rand’s fashionability in Conservative circles is bizarre and needs explaining; here was a drug-taking, atheist woman who has become the patron saint of people like Alex Jones, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh (who knows a little about drugs himself). If her arguments are wrong, then they should be critiqued.
But, and it’s a big “But!” you need to be seen to be attacking those arguments rather than the originator of them.
The ad hominem is not always fallacious; if you are criticising someone’s eye-witness testimony, then you can attack the witnesses perceptual abilities; “He’s as blind as a fruit bat!” is a good reason to dismiss his testimony to the extent he saw the assailant climb the fence. However, if someone argued that, based upon evidence, inferences, and the like, that “Jones did it!” then attacking the originator of the argument for wearing plaid on a Sunday is not a legitimate criticism.
I realise that for people like Rand, who lived disquietening lives, showing that their lives do not match their philosophy looks like it should be a knockdown blow to the philosophy (especially given the hero worship of Rand), but still, we must deal with arguments. The ad hominem attack, in cases like these, gives us a reason to be suspicious of the philosophy but it does not tell us it is wrong.
Although I think it clearly is.
Still, all that being said, I did like the final paragraph:
The figure Ayn Rand most resembles in American life is L. Ron Hubbard, another crazed, pitiable charlatan who used trashy potboilers to whip up a cult. Unfortunately, Rand’s cult isn’t confined to Tom Cruise and a rash of Hollywood dimwits. No, its ideas and its impulses have, by drilling into the basest human instincts, captured one of America’s major political parties.
Twenty-four hours of films. Here are my preliminary notes, wrote in darkness and whilst I was quite, quite, quite sleep-deprived at the time.
The Secret Four – The “Citizen Kane” of film noir.
Zombieland – The “Citizen Kane” of zombie films.
Forbidden World – The “Citizen Kane” of mutametamorphic scifi horror.
Vice Squad – The “Citizen Kane” of a night with the Vice Squad.
Paranormal Activity – The “Citizen Kane” of “The Blair Witch Project.”
Maidens of Fetish Street – The “Citizen Kane” of Peep Shows.
Mill of the Stone Woman – The Flemish “Citizen Kane.”
Night Train to Terror – The “Citizen Kane” of portmanteau horror.
The Visitor – The “Citizen Kane” of films that should have been directed by Larry Cohen.
The Informant! – The “Citizen Kane” of Corn-related Conspiracy Thrillers.
Creature from Black Lake – The “Citizen Kane” of Bigfoot films.
Howling 2: Your Sister is a Werewolf – The “Citizen Kane” of the Howling films featuring Christopher Lee.
Commando – The “Citizen Kane” of Alyssa Milano films.
See, every film a classic of its genre… Well, that’s how I remember it, anyway.
So, on November the 21st, Richard Gage will be speaking in Wellington, advocating truth in architecture, which will lead to, apparently, a new official story about 9/11.
The presentation is a free event at Te Papa, the nation’s national museum. Now, it seems anyone can book a room at Te Papa and that someone is the person or persons who run the NZ911Truth website ((The website doesn’t have much in the way of useful or informative content (aside from linkage), although the Says who page has an interesting quote from the leader of the Greens, Jeanette Fitzsimons. I suspect that it might be unfair to make much of it without seeing the actual question she was asked, but still…)).
I’m not sure what to think about the talk; I suspect I’d have less issue with it if it weren’t occurring at the national museum. Museums are meant to be (even though sometimes they are not) repositories of facts ((I’m tempted to put that word in quotes.)) and if they are to play host to talks or presentations challenging the status quo then I’d like that challenge to be something that survives even the most casual scrutiny.
I suspect the problem, for me at least, is that the moral and intellectual responsibility that should be associated with such talks, which are often defended under the rubric of “the freedom of speech,” is in the process of being eroded away. It isn’t enough to say “We have the right to be heard!;” there is an associated duty of dealing with the consequences of what is said.
Now, I realise that a lot of the 9/11 Truthers really do think there are serious issues with the official theory of 9/11 and that they feel the need to air these issues in public; they feel they have a moral responsibility to act ((Although some of those actions, including the hounding of the family members of the victims of 9/11, are clearly immoral.)). However moral imperative isn’t warranted when you consider the epistemic duties holders of alternative theories must shoulder when presenting such hypotheses to the public. These alternative explanations of the events of the 11th of September, 2001, are elaborate houses of cards (I use the plural here because there isn’t a consistent counter-narrative to 9/11), built on the shakiest of foundations. You cannot just assert these theories on the basis of “Well, I think they’re plausible” if they do not survive scrutiny.
So… I’m angling to get some funding to travel down and attend the talk. I’m also curious as to how the interview with Kim Hill has been set up; who set it up, who is advising her, and so forth. I’ll keep my weather eye open on this, although I am somewhat swamped with paper writing duties, which is, curiously enough, all about defending mere politically endorsed theories when they are contrasted with mere Conspiracy Theories.
More news as it comes to hand.
I’ll probably have more to say about this later, but my source (who will remain anonymous) tells me that Richard Gage, an ‘architect for truth’ is giving a presentation at Te Papa on how the official theory of 9/11 is really a cover-up of an inside job by the former Executive Branch of the Government of the United States of America.