About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 4:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, no, Joe, change it if you can to the verbatim Paglia line: "there are no female MOZARTS because there are no female Jack the Rippers"


Post 1

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 6:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alec, I see your point...but I don't think I can edit after the fact...:(

Post 2

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 7:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

You can still edit the article.  I have done this in my articles to add links after the articles posted.

By the way, I can name one fine female composer of orchestral scores for television: Shirley Walker.  She composed the music for "Space: Above and Beyond," the animated "Batman" series, and others.  She is not Mozart, but neither are most male composers, although John Williams might rival him.


Luke Setzer


Post 3

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 11:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Francis Fukuyama is a historian, but I wasn't aware that he is a bioethicist.  Is this in fact the same person (cited in your article) that wrote The End of History and the Last Man in the early nineties? 

Post 4

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 6:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete, it is the same person, and according to his website
(http://www.sais-jhu.edu/Faculty/fukuyama/Biography) he is also a member of the President's Council of Bioethics.

Luke, thanks. BTW, here is Paglia's justification for such a quote:
"Serial, or sex murder...is a perversion of make intelligence. It is a criminal abstraction. masculine in its deranged egotism and orderliness. It is the asocial equivalent of philosophy, mathematics, and music. There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper." (She does mention the literary archetype of the "femme fatale," but they too are usually created by men...)

And I am glad to hear someone else recognize William's gift, too often I've heard him denigrated, probably because of the movie connection...BAH!

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 10:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As far as I personally know, the superior men to whom superior women surrender are still around - and I know because I am such a man.

My wife is Director of Production for a company that designs methods for manufacturing newly discovered peptides and proteins, which are used in medicine to correct genetic defects. She is in charge of most of the world's production of new peptides for clinical trials. And, as has been known since the days of Bruriah, women who choose to be more efficatious, more productive people also develop a much higher capacity for romantic enjoyment than Fukuyama's traditional wallflower housewives. One of the Superior Man's deserved rewards.

Of course, none of this should be subject to any government intervention one way or the other. But what religious conservatives like Fukuyama are decrying is not "social engineering." Prozac and Ritalin are only used, in free societies, by people who choose the effects of those drugs over the alternative. Fukuyama is a conservative who longs for the return of the days of weak women. His phony "bioethics" should be its own punishment.

Post 6

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 11:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd be interested to know what a psychiatrist who works with Prozac and Ritalin, rather than a "bioethicist," has to say about the effects of those drugs. I'm certain that most psychiatrists and psychologists would strongly disagree with Fukuyama.

I have no knowledge of Ritalin, but I do know both men and women who take Prozac or an equivalent -- and from everything I can observe and they report, all that happens is that they cease being depressed and return to the sorts of people they were before they were hit with a paralyzing clinical depression. And from what I have read about anti-depressive medication, that is precisely what it is intended to do.

Adam: "And, as has been known since the days of Bruriah, women who choose to be more efficatious, more productive people also develop a much higher capacity for romantic enjoyment than Fukuyama's traditional wallflower housewives,"

Hear! Hear!

Barbara

Post 7

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 11:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam wrote:

"As far as I personally know, the superior men to whom superior women surrender are still around - and I know because I am such a man."

Hahahaha! Bravo, Adam! You've made my day. Your delightful claim is not bombast or conceit. It is not false immodesty. It is the simple truth, stated in a way that is a breathtaking "Up yours!" to humility-mongers. Though I still believe it would be advisable for you to stop talking occasionally, I know you to be one *very* smart cookie. I hereby induct you into the NEM Hall of Fame! :-)

Linz

Actually, I've figured out a way to stop you talking - lock you in a room with Diabolical. *One* of you would have to stop. Eventually. Wouldn't he?! Hahahaha!



Post 8

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 11:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Prozac and Ritalin are only used, in free societies, by people who choose the effects of those drugs over the alternative."

Adam, just curious: what do you mean by "the alternative?"

And even if I believed the above (ok, we're not forced at gunpoint to take them, I will concede that), what about children who may or may not actually need Ritalin, yet who are forced by parents to take it? And then there is the Szaszian argument to contend with...(BTW, as much as I admire Szasz, I am not 100 percent convinced on the mental illness as myth idea; leaving room for actual cases of chemical inbalances...is there any recommended rebuttals of his work besides those of Nathaniel Branden, which I've read already?)

Post 9

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 11:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I'd be interested to know what a psychiatrist who works with Prozac and Ritalin, rather than a "bioethicist," has to say about the effects of those drugs."

Barbara, do you think there is any value in bioethics as a field? I ask because I think some ideas in Objectivism (or is it more accurate to say some of Rand's personal beliefs?) border on what could be called bioethics. And you may be right that most psychiatrists and psychologists would disagree with Fukayama, but can we trust them with our minds when the study between mind and brain is still in its infancy? Especially when the people taking the drugs themselves are not necessarily qualified to understand the differences between actual brain disorders and external factors triggering depression, crime, etc., I don't think the idea of bioethics is such a bad idea, if it has a basis in liberty. I would rather trust an objective bioethicist over a psychiatrist who would allow medicine to fall into the hands of a coercive state. (And we've seen the healing arts perverted by the Nazi's, it's not a far cry to imagine psychiatry in the hands of a more sophisticated, subtly coercive state, one whose tactics do not involve outright force but the more subtle tyranny of a P.C. agenda combined with the pseudo science of the "mental illness as myth" metaphor).

Post 10

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 12:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe said: what about children who may or may not actually need Ritalin, yet who are forced by parents to take it?

Joe, you (and others) might be interested to know that in some situations, schools have required parents to either put their child on Ritalin (or a comparable medication) or find alternative education for that child. In other words: Don't send your child to this school without his meds.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 3:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz wrote: 

Actually, I've figured out a way to stop you [Adam] talking - lock you in a room with Diabolical. *One* of you would have to stop. Eventually. Wouldn't he?! Hahahaha!



You might have to administer one of those drugs to stop that.  :)

Thought-provoking article, Joe!

PS - BTW, Luke, I also like the work of Rachel Portman in film scores, who was the first woman composer to win an Academy Award in that category.  I loved her scores to "The Cider House Rules" and "Chocolat."

(Edited by sciabarra on 11/29, 4:06am)


Post 12

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 6:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Paglia is always good for the soundbite. In this case, simply not true. There have been many female "Mozarts" (in art, literature, science, philosophy (one of them created a little thing called Objectivism). And, one Jack the Ripper ( Aileen Wuornos). Not to mention, female killers of the non serial variety.

But, more importantly Joe, this is a good article. I see a book somewhere... :)



Post 13

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 11:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Paglia is always good for the soundbite. In this case, simply not true. There have been many female "Mozarts" (in art, literature, science, philosophy (one of them created a little thing called Objectivism). And, one Jack the Ripper ( Aileen Wuornos). Not to mention, female killers of the non serial variety."

Good examples, John, but I don't think we need to take Paglia literally to understand what she means. Paglia herself provides a few examples of female killers, including the Papin Sisters, Lizzie Borden, and Hungarian Countess Erzsebet Bathory. But they seem to be exceptions to the rule, that rule that associates male creation with phallic projection and women with passive, or stationary creation. Keeping in mind, however, that the so-called masculine and feminine traits are not bound by the gender of the body, I think her argument is that when you do see these women composers, artists, philosophers, and serial killers, they are exercising the more more masculine characteristics (the killer portrayed in MONSTER seemed pretty masculine to me...) Paglia also points out that even though, in a day and age where women can now vote, run corporations, and participate in the sciences and arts, we have not seen a great increase in female composers or artists, so it couldn't have been the oppression of woman that prevented woman from projecting themselves.

You mention the creator of a "little thing called Objectivism"...There is a prime example of a woman who called on her masculine traits to the point of being delighted when she received father's day cards! Ayn Rand was a fascinating defier of gender roles. I do discuss this in my essay "THE TRICKSTER ARCHETYPE AND OBJECTIVISM":

"As a woman novelist and philosopher, it may appear that Rand...contradicts the almost exclusively male Trickster archetype. But it might be said that a certain synthesis of male and female characteristics can be detected in Rand the person...Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian theorist, called Rand " 'the most courageous man in America.' 'Did he say man?' asked Ayn. 'Yes,' he replied. Ayn was delighted." (Branden 1986, 189).
Rand was never a mother, and, like her, all of her major characters embody a similar "non-productive creativity..." Rand boldly proclaimed the union of mind and body, of the sensual and the spiritual. Like the Trickster, who "moves between heaven and earth, " and "is very concerned with sensual, earthly affairs," she often portrays in her novels... a "hyper-active sexuality [that]never results in any offspring" When Hyde tells us that such sexual intensity is integrated to spiritual concerns, he also describes a central motif of the Randian canon.

I continue examining the gender issues as they pertain to Rand in the followup essay, "THE HERO CYCLE AND OBJECTIVISM." Both can be found at . As far as a book, well, that book's been written, FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF AYN RAND. I don't think I could possibly top that! I have to thank Chris Sciabarra and Mimi Gladstein's book for providing a crucial part my essays, and for their bravery in even publishing that book in the face of, from what I understand, a very hostile intellectual environment.

Post 14

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 7:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

I think I hint in you, also from memories of past comments, an attraction to Camille Paglia similar to my own.

Threesome of the century!

Alec

(Edited by Alec Mouhibian on 11/29, 7:48pm)


Post 15

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 7:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Joe M: "Barbara, do you think there is any value in bioethics as a field?"

Theoretically, yes. But not without some agreement on the standard and purpose of ethics.

Joe: " And you may be right that most psychiatrists and psychologists would disagree with Fukayama, but can we trust them with our minds when the study between mind and brain is still in its infancy?"

We don't have to blindly trust them with our minds. There is so much evidence to be had indicating that these medicines do relieve depression -- evidence from hundreds of thousands of people who have been helped by them. We don't know quite how aspirin works, or why -- but we certainly know that it works. And for years, neurosurgeons have saved lives and minds by operating on the brain, although the knowledge of the relationship between mind and brain is largely unknown.

Joe: "The people taking the drugs themselves are not necessarily qualified to understand the differences between actual brain disorders and external factors triggering depression, crime, etc."

Why do they have to be qualified? People necessarily take all sorts of drugs without knowing their exact mechanism; very often science does not know the exact mechanism. It would be interesting to know, and valuable, but not essential so long as we know that the drug has beneficial effects. One could say that without understanding the mechanism, without understanding the relationship between the particular drug and the part of the body or brain it is directed to, we cannot know what the long term effects may be. Well, for many thousands of drugs on the market, the long term results are in; for newer drugs, the results are not in, and one must decide whether the potential benefit of a new drug does or does not outweigh its possible long-term disadvantages.

Joe: "I would rather trust an objective bioethicist over a psychiatrist who would allow medicine to fall into the hands of a coercive state."

Why do you blame psychiatrists for the fact that medicine is now largely in the hands of the state? Blame psychiatric and medical unions in part, but not necessarily individual psychiatrists. And why do you assume that bioethicists would somehow stop medicine from falling into state hands?

I'm not sure I understand the last sentence of your post. Would you spell it out?

Barbara

Post 16

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I do have a certain fascination with her Alec, though a threesome could be scary...from what I hear, she talks a mile a minute and never stops! I used to work down the street from the University where she teaches in Philly, if I catch her on the street, I'll propose the idea...;)

Post 17

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara, thanks for your answers. I personally agree with you when you say "not without some agreement on the standard and purpose of ethics." I am concerned about who will ultimately decide those standards and ethics in our current culture.
I understand what you are saying about people taking drugs without knowing how they work...I think I am more concerned about people taking drugs without knowing why they are being prescribed, if it is true that there are ulterior motives behind the ones prescribing them. I am not concerned about faith in the drug as much as faith in the doctors. (I can hear the cries of paranoia now...)But after reading Szasz, combined with personal experiences and observations, I am not so sure that it is paranoia (the need for objectivity in this discussion is a must, I realize. I am not a conspiracy theorist, even if I have entertained some ideas.)
I don't doubt that drugs can affect our brains and our minds. But something in your post bothers me, and I don't think you intend to equate the two (Because you write that "we don't have to blindly trust them with our minds"). But not everyone in our society is as rational, and does precisely that, I fear. The claim you make about medicine (we don't quite know how aspirin works, but we know it does) have been made about religion and prayer. The difference, as you point out, is that there are objective quantifiable tests that can be done...I do not doubt the power of the drugs. I worry about the power of the drugs in the wrong hands. I can speak of one relation with a psychologist who admitted to me that he tried to control others with psychology because he couldn't control his own life. And I worry about the people who would substitute religion with drugs. There have been news reports of the benefits of prayer and faith, with claims of scientific evidence to prove the reports. Not trying to understand themselves, not trying to face their problems, but escaping them. Better living through chemistry. Like a soma trip from BRAVE NEW WORLD. (It is this that made me fear the viability of BRAVE NEW WORLD more than 1984. I know far too many people who would accept this kind of control willingly.)

You ask: "Why do you blame psychiatrists for the fact that medicine is now largely in the hands of the state? Blame psychiatric and medical unions in part, but not necessarily individual psychiatrists. And why do you assume that bioethicists would somehow stop medicine from falling into state hands?"

Barbara; I was referring to the field of psychiatry by referencing psychologists in the plural, though I do believe that there may be individual doctors who believe in the cause of the state, or their own misguided agendas. But why do I blame them, either way? The arguments made by Szasz concerning Freud and his attempt to link mental illness and medicine, his attempt to replace religion with medicine, for one...(Jung was more honest in this respect, when he claimed that what they were doing was more akin to religion.) Both Jung and Szasz have written extensively on the treatment of schizophrenics, how the history of the sanitorium is tied up with the idea of social control. I believe that there is a link between social control and psychiatry from the very beginning, and that many who enter the field learn this right away. This is something I have deliberated on for a while, because I considered entering the field of psychology myself...but the more I looked into the profession, my findings revealed that many are attracted to the field to gain mastery over others (the supposed high suicide rate among psychologists is disturbing, also.) I had to confront the same tendency in myself, and concluded that the best I had to offer was my ability to listen, but I was also attracted to the idea that people would be under my influence, and I could fix their problems according to my beliefs. (I strongly identified with Nathaniel Branden's self professed hero fantasy, I call it my "messiah complex.) My theory is that psychology as a field has become a replacement for organized religion, and that the psychologist is now a substitute for the pastor. At best, I feel that psychologists can be an objective listener, offering advice, which is what a religious advisor does...
I don't believe that bioethicists necessarily would stop medicine from falling into state hands, but I do ideally believe they could, if their ideas are based in Libertarian ideals. (Any ideas how many Libertarian/Objectivist psychologists there are compared to nonobjective ones, anyone?) I think of Rand's support of Szasz in this example. It is an unknown ideal, to be sure.

I think I understand why you would want to defend psychiatry, Barbara. I remember your anecdote in PASSION concerning your panic attacks, and your footnote about the biological causes of such, and how medicine can be effective in controlling them. (BTW, in the copy of PASSION I borrowed from the library years ago, someone had crossed out the part about medicine, and replaced it with "proper diet"). This is meant with respect, but I believe you have a personal stake in defending the doctors and the use of drugs. (I am using this example with respect, mind you, towards your situation then, and only because you felt comfortable enough to make it public in your book. It is not meant as a personal attack.) I do recognize that there are chemical imbalances that may need medication. I don't know if that was your situation, but I personally think that is more the realm of neurology as opposed to psychology. And knowing you from your posts, I believe that you are defending the field of medicine and the doctors at their best, both as they are and might be, so I appreciate what you are doing. When I wrote that last sentence in question, I was writing about the psychiatrists at their worst, in a BRAVE NEW WORLD type of scenario. If you remember, the use of drugs was also coupled with forced bisexuality on the children in the story as means to control the populace. We saw the horror of reason and medicine perverted by the Nazi's, who used forced to achieve their ends. In BRAVE NEW WORLD, such force was not required, because the controlling forces had made such control appealing. I am concerned with the potential horrors of state controlled medicine because I want to see a world where the ideal doctors you write of can flourish.




Post 18

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

Ooooh, please do. I'm trying everything in my power to bring her to speak here at UCSB.

By the way, did you see her Booktv, 3 hour In Depth interview last year? Tons of fun. If you missed it, you can watch it for free online.

Got to booktv.org, click on "watch online", then on "In Depth", then on "2003", the find her face.


Post 19

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Double-post

(Edited by Alec Mouhibian on 11/30, 12:31am)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.