Philosophy professor on whether Trump is racist

First, consider the following syllogism:

P1 White America is racist
P2 Trump is white America (personified, as it were)
C Trump is racist

This is a valid syllogism -- the premises follow from the conclusion -- but each of the premises is controversial, resting on how we define "white America" and "racist", and how precisely we could establish that Trump is white America personified.  (Alternatively, although less provocatively, we could simply replace P2 with P2': Trump is white and American.  All we need to do in order to make the argument unmistakably valid is to state somewhere in a second premise that Trump is an instance falling under the generalization about white America in the first premise.  Toning down the second premise to something like "Trump is a white American" makes that premise uncontroversial, leaving us with controversial premise P1 as the key point of contention for purposes of this argument.)

In any case, this would appear to be an argument supported wholeheartedly by philosophy professor George Yancy (Emory U.)

How did I discover and notice Yancy?  Well, first, as I stated in an addendum to a previous posting, "Try getting a philosopher concerned with his reputation to affirm that Trump is more than probably, or likely, or certainly a racist, given the existing evidence."  Then, as I was going through the "Analysis: Academics" subsection of the wikipedia article on Trump's racial views, Yancy is mentioned as follows:

George Yancy, a professor at Emory University known for his work on racial issues, concluded that Trump is racist, describing his outlook as "a case of unabashed white supremacist ideas."^[1]

Now, in Yancy's case, coming to such a conclusion need not occur on the basis of an examination of the statements and actions of Trump over the years.  Why?  Because he endorses Premise 1 of the syllogism.  That is to say, Trump - being a white American - is racist because white America is racist.  In other words, he isn't exactly singling out Trump as a contrast case with most or all of the rest of white America.  Given his endorsed premise, it follows uninterestingly and uncontroversially that Trump is a racist.

That would make the inclusion of Yancy in the wikipedia article rather unhelpful.  I was, after all, looking for a philosopher willing to stake his reputation on the claim that Trump is surely or almost surely a racist given the evidence (namely, his statements, the things his enemies usually point to).  But in his case, such a "conclusion" (on the basis of a syllogism itself, where the evidence then really concerns the truth or untruth of premise 1) is uninteresting, uninformative, and predetermined.  What I was looking for was a philosopher who would characterize Trump's statements over the years as definitely racist, as the Democrats, "progressives" and leftists usually affirm.

In other words, if Trump says (just for instance) "Mexico is not sending its best, it's sending rapists, drug dealers and other criminals, and maybe even some fine people [who would thereby be among Mexico's best, right? -UP], etc.", I'd like to see a philosophy professor state (with explanation, of course) that this is definitely a racist and anti-immigrant statement.  If the Democrats could get one or more philosophy professors to endorse that, then that would add some prima facie credibility to their claims -- i.e., that someone well-trained in the art of parsing statements would draw the implication that the Democrats almost uniformly draw from a statement such as Trump's here.

The Democrats treat it as a given, uncontroversial, that the bolded statement above is racist and anti-immigrant.  But the case of Yancy wouldn't help them out here, if what's really in contention in his case is his endorsement of Premise 1 (and whatever evidence he would marshal for that) rather than this or that statement of Trump's.

What I think is going on here, among the Democrats, is a cheap and lazy way of arguing for a controversial position, or for disqualifying and de-legitimizing from the get-go a debatable opposition position.  From my (admittedly short-of-Democrat-standards) vantage point, Trump is making a (controversial) statement about illegal immigration that makes reference not to race but to a nation which borders the USA to the South.  The Democrats, in all their hubris, have decided that statements like the bolded one above are racist dog-whistles (and that the rest of us had better go along with their characterization lest we be complicit in the dog-whistling) and should be disqualified from serious consideration on that basis.

And what I'm saying is, if they're so convinced of such a thing, and especially if they're right about being so convinced, they should have little trouble finding philosophers who would endorse the "racist dog-whistle" take on Trump's Mexico statement.  Yancy isn't of help in this case as long as Trump's being a racist follows automatically from his endorsement of Premise 1.  They should be able to find some other philosopher(s), preferably one who isn't invested in or prepared to endorse Premise 1, who would construe his Mexico statement the way they do.

Since the community of philosophers isn't the same as the left-wing echo chamber, I have my doubts that the Democrats can find any such philosopher(s).  Perhaps this would be the time to offer a Caplan-style bet to Democrats on whether they can locate at least one philosopher willing to state that Trump's Mexico remarks are racist or racist dog-whistling.

My contention is that any such "philosopher" would short of expectations for philosophical-level reasoning skills, and that the Democrats are poor reasoners on this subject.  But it would be mighty interesting if not entertaining if such a "philosopher" went out on the Democrats' "Trump is dog-whistling" limb using the standard tools of philosophy.  We would definitely learn something from such a case, and that would be a good thing for all concerned.  That should be motivation enough for Democrats, who presumably care about their intellectual credibility, to locate any such supposed philosopher(s).

[Note: In that addendum to my earlier posting I already mentioned Trump's remarks about Judge Curiel as being objectively racist but that the better explanation is Trump's equal-opportunity jackassery.  (Trump was focusing on a "conflicted judge" angle and impugned his integrity much as he has, in his usual style, impugned the integrity of other judges in other instances.)  This was called out by fellow Republicans like then-Speaker Ryan as genuinely a racist comment in its implications.  This is uncontroversial enough to be something Democrats and Republicans can agree about.  But they're not in agreement on whether a whole host of other statements from Trump -- his Mexico statement kicking off his campaign, paraphrased and bolded above, being a headline instance -- are in fact racist, explicitly or by implication.  I'd just like to see if there is a reputable philosopher who will endorse the Democrats' purportedly intellectually superior interpretations of such statements.]

[Addendum 1/23/09: My attention has been brought to this draft by Jennifer Saul (philosophy, Sheffield) and I see that some further dialectical treatment of this is required in a future post, namely within the context of my note above about Trump's equal-opportunity jackassery....]

The "Ayn Rand is for children" meme

It is truer than any of her clueless leftist player-haters could barely begin to realize at this point; they are supremely foolish(ly ignorant) as to the why.

I mean, Kira Peikoff didn't turn out that bad, did she?

Peikoff's Philosophy of Education course (1985, according to the Russian Radical bibliography I have right here, and around the time daughter Kira is born).  Integrate with observable concrete outcome of such an approach, 27ish years later.  (Additional exercise: integrate Understanding Objectivism and The Romantic Manifesto with observable concrete outcome of the UO and TRM approach, namely: this here blog.  Integrate; assign A+ grade, a.k.a.: "Perfective." [Further exercise: Integrate the foregoing with The DIM Hypothesis.  Earn perfectivist medal badge.  Await further instruction, from self, of course.])  Compare/contrast to the Comprachico alternative, which pretty much exemplifies what the educational Left has to offer to the young - and, in turn, the caliber of minds emerging from our current, non-Jefferstotelian public school system.

Check, and mate.

(About the only thing that the Chicago Bozo and I agree on is the need for a philosophically-educated citizenry and - in generic terms - about the current cultural bankruptcy in America.  But I "get" Rand and he clearly doesn't, while I also know when to keep my own yap shut about Nietzsche.  The Reginster book (Affirming Life) was quite helpful, BTW, for understanding Nietzsche.  Why won't the Chicago Bozo even bother to read secondary Rand literature that has a clue about Rand?  It's Salon.com and Alternet.org hit pieces, when it could be Russian Radical, OPAR, Virtuous Egoist, and Gotthelf.  Vice of one-sidedness, I declare for all with wisdom-loving ears to hear!  My knowledge of Nietzsche could totally kick the ass of his "knowledge" of Rand (which amounts to: jack shit), and my study so far has been secondary literature only - Kaufmann and Reginster - in addition to that Fountainhead intro describing the author's sense-of-life similarities to Nietzsche, which ties in with a Kaufmann editorial footnote to a key aphorism, referencing Aristotle and the noble soul as a lover of self, which sheds crucial light on the egoist character of Rand's perfectivist eudaimonism.  All of a sudden, Rand looks like an Aristotelianized post-Nietzschean, which sounds way cooler than what Bozo-Boy evidently has to offer, which reeks of a politicized, Us-vs.-Them, pathologically elitist, mean-spirited, and - worst of all - malevolent-universe-ish mindset.  Consider: Is it some kind of effing accident that the American cultural dialectic is evidently converging on Ayn Rand, an avowed neo-Aristotelian?  No, it is not.  Ayn Rand is for children, and adults, all of whom have a vital need to integrate mentally.  I mean, duhhhh!  Also, my knowledge of the film canon vastly exceeds the Chicago Bozo's, and aesthetics is central to philosophy (just like Nietzsche would have said, Bozo-Boy).  So clearly I'm a vastly superior philosopher than he, at this time.  Also, Aristotle is the obvious perfectivist trump card in philosophical debate, and I'm definitely more Aristotelian than he!  And also much more capitalist in ethos, as anyone with a clue ought to be.  I blog about individualism (and in connection with eudaimonism, a moral theory with uniquely deep meaning-of-life resonance); he does not.  Strike three, the Bozo's out!)

"Checkmate, asshole."

Two more months of checkmating guaranteed!  And then what?  ;-)

-UP

:-p

A Real-Life Heroine, in Perfectivist Terms

Reddit's /r/philosophy: a fucking joke (and a silver lining)

Exhibit A

It's all too obvious from this example (and it's only one among many) that the malicious, cowardly Rand-hating thugs who infest this otherwise-important social-media outlet for widely-viewed intellectual discourse don't care to have an argument on a level field of play.  (Cowards! Weaklings! BUMS!)  The downvoting patterns are specifically directed at burying Yours Truly's eminently sensible, factually-supported responses to the well-upvoted anti-Rand idiocy that is rampant there.  That's not philosophy, that's a playground mentality intended to deceive the readership about the true nature of the discussion taking place there.  This is the kind of crowd grown and bred by the university philosophy departments these days?  That shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, given the disgusting, pathological, politically-motivated pattern of behavior by a number of "eminent figures" in that profession.

I really don't know how this problem could be solved; it's a failing of the format that would not happen on a genuine Usenet-style format of old.  It's a problem that reddit itself is going to have to fix by some useful and workable change of the format.

(There's also some other software problem that has been resulting in a whole lot of my posted comments being filtered by a spambot for reasons not yet ascertained by the mods there.  Oh, well.  It's discouraging enough to see what I spend much time posting there get buried by anonymous cowards when my comments do show up.  (This is aside from the general feel someone such as myself gets from discussing Rand on /r/"philosophy": that I'm wading through a crowd of irrational bigots, probably much like trying to defend theism on /r/atheism.  [Oh, if you think religious people can be irrational bigots, just watch the way so many of those in the "new atheist" movement react like poo-flinging monkeys toward anyone religious.  "Liberals" can be much lower than the "conservatives" they so often stereotype.])   Discouragement is the malicious cowards' motivation, of course.  I shall have to adjust my own course of action accordingly.  One thing I'm sure of, however, is this: this epistemic aggression will not stand, man.  Not in the long run.  BUP.)

Perhaps the most discouraging thing of all - as a general proposition, not just in terms of concrete instances of injustice or against whom such malicious behavior is directed - is how the stifling of pro-Rand voices has implications beyond merely that for the nature and quality of philosophic discourse.  As Peikoff explained at great length in Chapter 8 of OPAR, on the virtues, the effects of a little dishonesty, by the nature of reality and how all rational cognition is integrated, cannot but spread like a cancer to more and more facets of the dishonest person's existence.  (The case of Nathaniel Branden's progressively worse and increasingly all-encompassing deceptions of Ayn Rand until it blew all up in the end - as it had to - serves as a striking illustration of the principle.)  As anyone who reads this blogs regularly knows, this culture desperately needs an infusion of Aristotelianism in order to address its problems and challenges (much less move above and beyond toward a positive: big-time cultural flourishing).  I don't know how many times it has to happen, for people to get the point that where Aristotelianism (or something like it - e.g., Jeffersonianism) is alive and well, cultures and societies have flourished in ways they didn't before.

As it happens, the single most influential intellectual figure on the American public scene for the last half century up until the present (who else would it be besides Rand?) is - as some of the nation's leading scholars of Aristotle will tell you - also a neo-Aristotelian.  This makes it quite inescapable that in any serious discussion about how to move America forward into a period of enlightenment and flourishing - about what ideas to preach, what behaviors to encourage, what strategies to pursue - the name "Ayn Rand" cannot just somehow be pushed off to the side as irrelevant.  This is simply the nature of things, an unalterable reality, an undeniable absolute.  I think that if there were some way around that, I would have thought of it by now.  But the (perfectivist) principle involved precludes it.  It has to.  Rand shares too fundamental a similarity to Aristotle and Jefferson for it not to be so.  One doesn't have to like this reality to acknowledge it.  Me, I've simply become accustomed to it; it matters not what my feelings about Rand are.  I'm a perfectivist, and she's a forerunner of the idea, and that's all there is to it.

So, given all this, assuming that it's an infusion of Aristotelianism that we need, why couldn't we just say "let's go with Aristotle and/or Jefferson, they provide the best examples to follow."  Okay, but how then do you manage to evade the logical consequence that Rand must enter the discussion?  I can't think of a single fucking way it can happen.  It's either-or.  Either you accept Aristotelianism and Jeffersonianism - and therefore accept Rand in some fundamentally important sense - or you reject Rand and thereby in effect reject Aristotelianism and Jeffersonianism.  The reddit /r/"philosophy" thugs, and all too many people in the academy, have chosen the latter course.  What are the American People going to think about that when they come to find all this out?  "mouse, meet Cat."

If these entities paid attention to Rand like they're supposed to - as Aristotle and Jefferson themselves would if they were around today, since their policy is not one of evasion but integration, particularly with respect to culturally-significant author-figures (this is no-brainer shit, is it not?) - then of course Aristotle would become their center of attention as well.  One need only look at how the really smart people very much influenced by Rand end up being big-time Aristotle fans as well.

As things stand at the moment, most of the non-Randian crowd are completely oblivious to what Leonard Peikoff's lecture courses are all about.  These courses used to be in the hundreds of dollars each, making them prohibitively expensive to the very people - college undergrads - for whom they would make the most difference.  Now, they're marked down to around 10 bucks apiece.  The completely-oblivious crowd does not know what this portends, but I do, and so do those who've listened to and absorbed the material contained therein.  It spells doom for the oblivious ones (if they don't clean up their act).  There's just no getting around the fact that when college undergrads by the thousands upon thousands get their digital hands on these courses, coupled with a growing academic literature on Rand, the older generation of intellectuals is going to be replaced over time by a bunch of Randian-Aristotelians - all for the better, of course.  If I knew of a way around this eventuality, short of Apocalypse stepping the way, I think I would have figured it out by now.  But, well, you know, A is A. ;-)  And /r/"philosophy" is a fucking joke.

But seriously, what do the Rand-haters do in the event that a shit-ton of undergrads have Understanding Objectivism coursing through their veins?  Now that's an ultimate hypothetical right there, a cultural-singularity type of event beyond which we can hardly predict.  Perhaps the question to be asked first, is: will a shit-ton of undergrads have Understanding Objectivism coursing through their veins in the reasonably near future?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  To listen to the Rand-haters, one might think they don't take such an eventuality seriously because, well, of course (for them) Objectivism is obviously shit and always will be.  But they haven't listened to Understanding Objectivism, though, now have they.  So what you then have to ask is whether someone could listen to Understanding Objectivism and come out of it not taking Objectivism seriously.  But all the evidence I've inductively observed tells me that the chances of that happening are slim to none, but then again what if the available sample size is already biased and too small?  (Huh.  What a question to ask.  I wonder what cognitive methodology would boldly facilitate one's asking such questions aimed at establishing the full context.  Gee, lemme think....)  But what if it isn't?  Then what?

Well, then it comes down to an issue of how many of those intellectually-eager undergrads are going to buy up these $10 courses and proceed to go hog wild with their classmates and professors, a scenario where understanding Objectivism becomes the cool new hip fad in a way it just wasn't before.  That might depend in good part on the use of existing media for advertising this material to the right demographic.  That's a fairly capitalistic concept, ones that the people at the Ayn Rand Institute might be more well-attuned to more than just about any of the ideas-merchants out there.  First off, they have Rand books selling like hotcakes, year in and year out.  In the middle of those books are those postcards telling you where you can get more information on things like newsletters, campus clubs, recorded lecture courses, and so forth.  You have a large number of existing Objectivists who've taken these courses telling the newer students of Objectivism on Facebook or wherever that "you've got to hear this course, it will really amplify your comprehension of the philosophy."  It'll be all in (near-)unison directed toward the "newbies."  And guess what, they won't cost an arm and a leg, either!  You could get a couple dozen courses for what used to be the price for only one!  And it's all Leonard Peikoff in his brilliantly engaging and entertaining lecturing style, too!  Wow!  What a fucking bargain, huh?  A steal.  Like, could this be for real?  Did the ARI really do that?  Why listen to music online for free when you could listen to Peikoff for 25 hours for $10?  And maybe instead of getting drunk at the frat party the undies will spend that time doing the more cool thing by listening to a Peikoff lecture.  Just maybe.

What was that about BUP again?  You know, I'm feeling so much better now than when I began this posting.  Took a negative and turned it into a positive.  Lesson: don't let the filthy, scummy, slimy fucks get you down.  Thanks for guiding me in this direction, /r/"philosophy," keep up the bad work! :-D

You can't refute perfectivism. :-)

"Checkmate, asshole."

(Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go tend to my splitting sides.)

Perfecting the Art of Thinking

Nicely done, self. Keep it up! :-)

[ADDENDUM: Focus!]

Spiral Progression of Knowledge

Why on earth is this concept - the spiral progression of knowledge - not all the rage even in Objectivist circles, much less wider philosophy circles? (That you'd never hear the phrase "spiral progress of knowledge" in philosophy circles outside of Objectivism . . . well, it's just part of that pattern of failure of non-Aristotelian philosophy I've been harping about.) Peikoff got into the subject in Understanding Objectivism and it's like the idea has just been hanging there for almost 30 years, hardly ever brought up, hardly ever mentioned. Google the phrase. It's all too obscure, when it damn well shouldn't be. This is one insidious thousandfold-multiplied effect of the, ahem, imperfectly exclusive format in which Understanding Objectivism currently exists. It's ridiculous. Bizarrely enough, not even Sciabarra in all his comprehensiveness explicitly incorporates this concept in his dialectical methodology. (It's gotta be there at least implicitly - I mean, it's all supposed to be integrated, right? Of course it is.)

How does such a deficiency go so unnoticed?

WTF?

I suppose I'll just have to take up the subject and develop it myself. I mean, what else has this blog been, but an exercise in the spiral progression?

Preliminary thoughts on the subject:
I think of the spiral as something like this: You have an integrated body of knowledge but it's developed only so much at a given point in time - meaning there are deficiencies or ill-formed aspects that are later recognized as such from a more advanced perspective. Certain points, concepts, concretes, principles, etc., are approached and thought about, the most cognitively-relevant aspects (in that context) being grasped and retained for future access (see: Subconscious), and then left for the time being as other points, concepts, etc. are approached and dealt with . . . and then, at some future time, the points, concepts, etc. are returned to afresh, and re-integrated, with any necessary modifications, into the newly expanded body of knowledge . . . and on it goes. This is why I find it so bizarre that Sciabarra didn't go whole-hog with this idea, because the progression is so dialectical-sounding. Hell, it's a progression, for crying out loud, a perfective activity. Then again, perhaps the whole point is that not every base has to be covered at any one time; rather, the idea is to formulate the principles by which to cover bases as knowledge expands. (Trying to cover every possible base at a given time without context-sensitivity is symptomatic, not of perfectivism, but of "perfectionism" in the perjorative sense, which holds omniscience as the standard.) That's how you get the idea that a system of thought such as Objectivism serves as its own defender, where rationality in this premise-checking, spiral-progression sense is the primary virtue. And, of course, the ancient master-integrator, Aristotle, sets the tone. I don't know how you have a fully-developed systematizing empiricism without the Spiral concept. It'll be fun to compare my future developments of the idea of the spiral progression with this seedling here, and revel in the self-reinforcing, invincible, undeniable quality of it all. :-) Also, I think there's another, all-encompassing term for this dynamic mental process: Logic. (See also: Induction and Deduction, Psycho-Epistemology, Automatization, Method.)

[ADDENDUM: Now, an assignment of sorts - a mission, if you will, should you choose to accept it: Read through the postings in this blog in reverse order going back to the start of this year, follow the many leads contained therein, and integrate, integrate, integrate! You, too, can and should become a Perfectivist through this process. You'll also earn yourself a big head-start on what's to come for this country. "To save the world is the simplest thing in the world. All one has to do is think." - Leonard Peikoff. In the meantime, while you do your own thinking, I've got a book to write....]

Bill O'Reilly: Pinhead for a Day

(I'm "on vacation" for the week but didn't want to let this one pass.)

Oh, goodness gracious:

"Seventy percent of Americans don't want that mosque down there, so don't give me the 'we' business," said O'Reilly to co-host Joy Behar; the studio audience applauded.

Fifty percent of Americans also don't believe in evolution. Point?

Afterward, when pressed by Goldberg and Behar to explain why the "Ground Zero mosque" was somehow "inappropriate," O'Reilly leaned over and pointed at Goldberg saying, "Muslims killed us on 9/11."

Ah. So, the structure of the argument is something like this:

I. Muslims killed Americans on 9/11
II. The 'Ground Zero Mosque' is built by Muslims
____________
:. The 'Ground Zero Mosque' is therefore inappropriate.

The conclusion of course is a complete non-sequitur, so one would have to be a fucking idiot to think the argument has merit. How does this blatant idiocy become a centerpiece of our nation's political discourse? This is sickness and madness and downright irrational bigotry, whether it's coming from the Wasilla Dingbat (or other cynical, scum-sucking politicians), or from Bill O'Reilly. What's more, I expect better from O'Reilly, even if he isn't an intellectual giant. You know who'd really clean his clock on this point, is FOX's own analyst, Megyn Kelly.