Pineapple: The Greatest Pizza Topping Ever?
Apparently Amy Peikoff does not think so.
Life is Not Suffering: An Open Letter to Dr. Jordan Peterson
An Open Letter to Dr. Jordan Peterson Regarding Suffering, Ethics, and Happiness
Dear Dr. Peterson,Thank you for your defense of individualism in general and of free-speech in particular, and for your defiance of academic nihilism in general and Neo Marxist Postmodernism in particular. Your bestselling 12 Rules for Life; An Antidote to Chaos, your prominence on the Intellectual Dark Web, and your packed out auditoriums around the world, are encouraging signs that Enlightenment values survive the onslaughts from without and within. However, in the name of that Enlightenment project, I ask you to consider whether you break your rule number ten, about being precise in your speech, when you say: “Life is suffering.”You say: “Life is suffering. That’s clear. There is no more basic, irrefutable truth,” and that this conviction is the “cornerstone” of your belief. If you had said instead: “everyone experiences suffering”, or: “life involves suffering,” who could disagree? But I respectfully dispute your assertion that: “life IS suffering”. If that were literally true, the obvious solution would be to end it. And if it were clear that: “the baseline of life, is something like unbearable suffering,” what sort of sadist would you have to be to purposely bring a new child into a life sentence of that? Your rules, as I understand them, are predicated on the belief that people are capable of dealing with the challenges of life so that suffering can be marginalized rather than being “the norm”. So why do you insist that: “life IS suffering?” What have I missed? [1]I have read The Gulag Archipelago and many other horror stories of history, and my second book is about life in Pol Pot’s Kampuchea, so I know of what you speak. But since the Enlightenment we have considered dark ages, plagues, genocides, famines and the like to be aberrations of life as it could and should be. I am a quadriplegic, and members of my family have suffered worse afflictions, so I’m no stranger to suffering – not many people are. But we consider illnesses that make suffering the norm for the afflicted and their loved ones for a period of time to be aberrations, which are to be relieved and in most cases cured. When your daughter suffered so terribly for so long, you didn’t say: “that’s life!” You tried to cure her, on the assumption that her suffering was not life as it was meant to be and could be. And you know better than your opponents how the refusal to accept the inevitability of physical suffering has steadily reduced its prevalence decade by decade for the last two or three centuries. There can be suffering in life – but life is not suffering! [2]If I understand the genesis of your life-is-suffering premise correctly, it evolved because, when your thinking progressed past the Christianity and socialism of your youth, you were confronted with relativists and subjectivists left and right, and you knew that they were leading us down the lane to chaos and destruction. So, like Rene Descartes, you searched for a foundation that you could not doubt. And you found it in: “The reality of suffering. It brooks no arguments. Nihilists cannot undermine it with skepticism. Totalitarians cannot banish it. Cynics cannot escape from its reality. Suffering is real, and the artful infliction of suffering on another, for its own sake, is wrong. That became the cornerstone of [your] belief.” Then you deduced that: “to place the alleviation of unnecessary pain and suffering at the pinnacle of your hierarchy of value is to work to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth”. In other words, the relief of suffering became your ethical axiom and your standard of value, by reference to which you rank your hierarchy of values, from increased suffering (the bad) to decreased suffering (the good). As Rene Descartes said, I think therefore I am, you in effect said: people suffer therefore they value. [2]The problem is that, as Rene Descartes’ followers soon discovered, Cartesian doubt is not a valid foundation for a philosophy. Likewise, I submit, it does not yield a valid standard of value for an ethic (although I suspect its utility is derived from its link to the right standard – I’ll get to that). For one thing, a literal-minded believer might draw the conclusion I intimated above. For another it is only applicable to the negatives of life, it doesn’t motivate the positives. And it gets tangled up on the emotional level because emotions are derived from values, so if you derive your values from emotion, you go in circles.Your search for an objective standard, against which effects can be ranked as good to bad and human causes as virtues to vices, is the vital step that multiculturalists amongst others have long since abandoned, leaving them unwilling to defend any Western value no matter how beneficial, against contrary values of other cultures no matter how detrimental, because moral relativism leaves each culture with its own inviolate “narrative” that may not be judged except on its own terms. Religions provide standards of value, which they get from revelations delivered via prophets and written down in holy texts, e.g. the Ten Commandments – but their validity in the end has to be taken on faith. The New Atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, absorb parts of the Judeo-Christian ethic, then kick out the foundation on which they stand, trusting that the ethical precepts will remain naturally as self evidently valid. I agree with you that their hijacked morality will not stand generation to generation without its foundation, but may be used selectively by corrupt power wielders (as the communists did).Ayn Rand took a decidedly different approach. She started by identifying why living entities need values at all, then why humans need fundamental moral values, and her answers identified what the standard of values must be. She observed that living entities have values because they face a constant alternative: life or death. To a rosebush, its chlorophyll and sunshine are values; to a bird its wings and worms are values, because these promote the entity’s life. We humans can’t live by a rosebush’s values because our nature doesn’t include the capacity of photosynthesis, neither can we live by a bird’s values because our nature doesn’t include wings and instincts – we must live according to the values that our nature demands. But human nature doesn’t compel us to engage our human means of promoting our lives, we have to discover and implement our pro-life values by choice. We are the only species that can act against the requirements of its nature. But we cannot escape the consequences of our choices – hence our need for a pro-life code of moral values to live by.If we choose to live, we have to identify our human nature and live accordingly. Some requirements of our life function automatically, such as heartbeats, immune systems, reflexes etcetera. But our distinctively human means of survival is reason, and reason is volitional. That is why we need to discover and hold our values consciously, and choose to act to gain and/or keep them voluntarily. A human being is a rational animal; therefore it ought to act rationally, if it wants to live. But it is not always self-evident whether an action is pro-life or anti-life in the long run. The range of choices we are confronted with are unlimited, and the repercussions of any action stretch into an expanding tree of effects that lead to causes that lead to future effects ad infinitum, which makes it impossible to calculate the effects of actions pragmatically (Utilitarianism notwithstanding). We need moral values in the form of principles that apply across-the-board to keep our options within the bounds of the pro-life. E.g. you may choose carpentry or accounting because both are ways of being productive, which is a virtue, but choosing to be a wastrel by default is not within the bounds of pro-life virtue.We learn our values from our parents and/or the culture we grow up in, but sooner or later, in one way or another, we ask why this is good and that is bad. If I understand you correctly, your ultimate answer is: because this reduces suffering and that increases it. Ayn Rand’s ultimate answer is: because this is for your life as a human being and that is against it. According to her Objectivist Ethics, the proper standard of value, as dictated by the nature of reality including human nature, is: “man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.” It follows that since reason is our species’ most fundamental means of survival, it must be our primary value, and that since its operation is volitional, rationality must be our primary virtue. When that primary is coupled with other identifications of reality and human nature, the virtues of: independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness and pride can be identified, and the initiation of force as an especially pernicious vice.[3]Where Objectivist virtues coincide with Judeo-Christian virtues, it gives a non-sacrificial reason for following them, where it differs, it sets out its reasons. So adherents of the Objectivist Ethics aren’t expected to sacrifice their lives out of duty to commandments accepted on faith, or sacrifice their best interests as a duty to other people or society. They are expected to judge their best interest in an all-aspects-of-a-whole-of-life context, as the nature of our existence demands. E.g. they are expected to appreciate that delayed gratification is not a sacrifice and that respecting the rights of others is not being unselfish, rather these are principled applications of rational pro-life self-interest.As I intimated above: I suspect the utility of your life-is-suffering standard of value lies in its link to the pro-life standard of value. On the level of sensations, suffering is a pain, which is your body’s way of telling you what to avoid for the sake of your life. So if you are anti-pain you are pro-life – unless your body is malfunctioning, or you know something it doesn’t. Sometimes you have to override your motivation to avoid pain, such as the pain of an injection or amputation. On the emotional level too, the role of suffering is to warn you that you are acting against your life – provided your emotions are programmed correctly. But there’s the rub! Your emotions are derived from your values; achieving them gives you a positive emotion, losing them a negative emotion; so if you derive your values from an emotion you are going in circles.If a virtue is based on a pro-life action, let’s say on being productive, and you act immorally, let’s say by being lazy or destructive, you will suffer a negative emotion, let’s say shame or anxiety. That’s if your emotions are functioning as nature intended (as they do automatically for animals and infants) i.e. to encourage pro-life action. But if they are malfunctioning, let’s say with a work phobia, the malfunction can be identified and overridden, or reprogrammed with the help of psychotherapy. Whereas, if your moral value is based on an anti-suffering standard, you don’t question whether the emotion you suffer is malfunctioning because it is your standard. Let’s say you suffer from a work phobia, the obvious “solution” is to stop working. You might notice that the “solution” has bad effects on your life, but if you, therefore reverse your “solution”, you have moved on from an anti-suffering standard to a pro-life standard of value.Life can involve suffering, but acting virtuously, according to a pro-life morality, minimizes it, because the pro-life is the anti-suffering. Life can also involve happiness, and because the pro-life is the pro-happiness, acting virtuously maximizes it. But by happiness I don’t mean hedonism. As Ayn Rand put it: “Happiness is not to be achieved at the command of emotional whims. Happiness is not the satisfaction of whatever irrational wishes you might blindly attempt to indulge. Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy – a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind’s fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.” [4]The pursuit of happiness, as enshrined as an inalienable right in the American Declaration of Independence, is a distinctively Enlightenment perspective. But it is rooted in the Ancient Greek concept of Eudaemonia, which makes it a distinctively Western perspective. Life as suffering is a distinctively Eastern perspective. “Four Noble Truths on Suffering” constitute the cornerstone of Buddhism. But in the two and a half millennia of its reign, what did that religion do to improved the lot of human beings on this earth? The aim of Buddhism is not to improve your here-and-now, but for you to accept your suffering, which you deserve because of sins you committed in previous lives, and from which there is no escape, not even in death. In Western philosophy this “metaphysical pessimism” rears its head when philosophers turn away from this knowable reality, towards an otherworldly and/or unknowable realm. For example: Saint Augustine (who ushered in the Dark Ages), Arthur Schopenhauer and the existentialists (who ushered in the nihilism of postmodernism and…)The philosophers who ushered in the knowledge and will to make this world a better place for humans to live in, were those who turned their face to this reality, to identify how we can know it, and how we can turn that knowledge into power, and turn that power into pro-human-life values. For example: Aristotle, and Saint Thomas Aquinas (who ushered in the Renaissance); and Francis Bacon, John Locke, Isaac Newton, and the “metaphysical optimists” of the Enlightenment. Whatever pro-human-life premises were bequeathed by the Judeo-Christian heritage, it was the revival of the Greek pro-reason influence that gave birth to the Enlightenment. And it was the Enlightenment’s elevation of reason and rights that gave birth to modern science, industry, political liberty, capitalism - and the products and services that stopped humans dying like flies, allowing the world’s population to rise from 1 to 7 billion, increasing life expectancy from 30 to 70 years, and reducing the prevalence of suffering so far that the prospect of a person living to a hundred and dying peacefully in bed, never having experienced acute or chronic pain, is no longer inconceivable.Ayn Rand’s philosophy could be placed on the “metaphysical optimism” side of the divide, but she preferred to call it “the benevolent universe premise”, and she would probably call your view “the malevolent universe premise,” (which is akin to your “Hobbesian by temperament” identification). By “benevolent” Rand didn’t mean that the universe is designed to help or be kind to us, but that it does not play dice with us, so we can learn its laws, and by obeying them, we can command it to improve our lives. Which, if I understand them correctly, is what your twelve rules are designed to do. Your first rule is that we must stand up straight, with our shoulders back, accept responsibility and apply effort. This is, I submit, like most of your rules, a pro-life action. The ultimate purpose of such an action is the maintenance of your life (and the lives of your loved ones, and secondarily everyone else’s). But that ultimate benefit may be experienced along the way as relief of suffering – or as happiness. So pursuit of happiness is not only a political right but is morally right. When it comes to the best therapeutic strategy for people in a psychologically disturbed state, I bow to your expertise. But when it comes to a whole-of-life moral strategy, the maximization of the happiness reward has to be the other side of the minimizing of suffering coin. And, I submit, the more glorious side.So… Yours sincerely, John DawsonOn the beach in Melbourne [1] Jordan B. Peterson, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos; Penguin, Random House Canada, 2018, p.161[2] Peterson, 12 Rules, pp.197,198[3] Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness; A New Concept of Egoism, New York, The New American Library, 1964, pp.vii-34. Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Dutton, Penguin Group, New York, 1991, pp.206–324[4] Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Random House, New York, 1957 p.1022Lisa VanDamme Reads and Discusses “Rizpah,” by Alfred Tennyson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlC2wvqxQc8If you enjoyed this, consider joining Lisa VanDamme's literature group "Read With Me."http://lisavandamme.com/introducing-read-with-me/I.Wailing, wailing, wailing, the wind over land and sea– And Willy’s voice in the wind, ‘O mother, come out to me.’ Why should he call me to-night, when he knows that I cannot go? For the downs are as bright as day, and the full moon stares at the snow.II.We should be seen, my dear; they would spy us out of the town. The loud black nights for us, and the storm rushing over the down, When I cannot see my own hand, but am led by the creak of the chain, And grovel and grope for my son till I find myself drenched with the rain.III.Anything fallen again? nay–what was there left to fall? I have taken them home, I have number’d the bones, I have hidden them all. What am I saying? and what are you? do you come as a spy? Falls? what falls? who knows? As the tree falls so must it lie.IV.Who let her in? how long has she been? you–what have you heard? Why did you sit so quiet? you never have spoken a word. O–to pray with me–yes–a lady–none of their spies– But the night has crept into my heart, and begun to darken my eyes.V.Ah–you, that have lived so soft, what should you know of the night, The blast and the burning shame and the bitter frost and the fright? I have done it, while you were asleep–you were only made for the day. I have gather’d my baby together–and now you may go your way.VI.Nay–for it’s kind of you, Madam, to sit by an old dying wife. But say nothing hard of my boy, I have only an hour of life. I kiss’d my boy in the prison, before he went out to die. ‘They dared me to do it,’ he said, and he never has told me a lie. I whipt him for robbing an orchard once when he was but a child– ‘The farmer dared me to do it,’ he said; he was always so wild– And idle–and couldn’t be idle–my Willy–he never could rest. The King should have made him a soldier, he would have been one of his best.VII.But he lived with a lot of wild mates, and they never would let him be good; They swore that he dare not rob the mail, and he swore that he would; And he took no life, but he took one purse, and when all was done He flung it among his fellows–I’ll none of it, said my son.VIII.I came into court to the Judge and the lawyers. I told them my tale, God’s own truth–but they kill’d him, they kill’d him for robbing the mail. They hang’d him in chains for a show–we had always borne a good name– To be hang’d for a thief–and then put away–isn’t that enough shame? Dust to dust–low down–let us hide! but they set him so high That all the ships of the world could stare at him, passing by. God ’ill pardon the hell-black raven and horrible fowls of the air, But not the black heart of the lawyer who kill’d him and hang’d him there.IX.And the jailer forced me away. I had bid him my last goodbye; They had fasten’d the door of his cell. ‘O mother!’ I heard him cry. I couldn’t get back tho’ I tried, he had something further to say, And now I never shall know it. The jailer forced me away.X.Then since I couldn’t but hear that cry of my boy that was dead, They seized me and shut me up: they fasten’d me down on my bed. ‘Mother, O mother!’–he call’d in the dark to me year after year– They beat me for that, they beat me–you know that I couldn’t but hear; And then at the last they found I had grown so stupid and still They let me abroad again–but the creatures had worked their will.XI.Flesh of my flesh was gone, but bone of my bone was left– I stole them all from the lawyers–and you, will you call it a theft?– My baby, the bones that had suck’d me, the bones that had laughed and had cried– Theirs? O no! they are mine–not theirs–they had moved in my side.XII.Do you think I was scared by the bones? I kiss’d ’em, I buried ’em all– I can’t dig deep, I am old–in the night by the churchyard wall. My Willy ’ill rise up whole when the trumpet of judgment ’ill sound, But I charge you never to say that I laid him in holy ground.XIII.They would scratch him up–they would hang him again on the cursed tree. Sin? O yes–we are sinners, I know–let all that be, And read me a Bible verse of the Lord’s good will toward men– ‘Full of compassion and mercy, the Lord’–let me hear it again; ‘Full of compassion and mercy–long-suffering.’ Yes, O yes! For the lawyer is born but to murder–the Saviour lives but to bless. He’ll never put on the black cap except for the worst of the worst, And the first may be last–I have heard it in church–and the last may be first. Suffering–O long-suffering–yes, as the Lord must know, Year after year in the mist and the wind and the shower and the snow.XIV.Heard, have you? what? they have told you he never repented his sin. How do they know it? are they his mother? are you of his kin? Heard! have you ever heard, when the storm on the downs began, The wind that ’ill wail like a child and the sea that ’ill moan like a man?XV.Election, Election and Reprobation–it’s all very well. But I go to-night to my boy, and I shall not find him in Hell. For I cared so much for my boy that the Lord has look’d into my care, And He means me I’m sure to be happy with Willy, I know not where.XVI.And if he be lost–but to save my soul, that is all your desire: Do you think that I care for my soul if my boy be gone to the fire? I have been with God in the dark–go, go, you may leave me alone– You never have borne a child–you are just as hard as a stone.XVII.Madam, I beg your pardon! I think that you mean to be kind, But I cannot hear what you say for my Willy’s voice in the wind– The snow and the sky so bright–he used but to call in the dark, And he calls to me now from the church and not from the gibbet– for hark! Nay–you can hear it yourself–it is coming–shaking the walls– Willy–the moon’s in a cloud–Good-night. I am going. He calls.Racism Endorsed at Harvard University
"Danielle D'Souza Gill explains an incredible racial discrimination scandal at Harvard University that the mainstream media is largely ignoring... in under 90 seconds!"
Learn more at Students for Fair Admissions -- "a nonprofit membership group of more than 20,000 students, parents, and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional." Their mission is to support and participate in litigation that will restore the original principles of America's civil rights movement: "A student’s race and ethnicity should not be factors that either harm or help that student to gain admission to a competitive university."
Our take: the diversity that does matter in universities is intellectual -- something sadly missing in a Harvard education indoctrination.
Twas The Night Before Christmas
by Clement Clarke MooreTwas the night before Christmas, when all through the house Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse; The stockings were hung by the chimney with care In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there;The children were nestled all snug in their beds, While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads; And mamma in her kerchief, and I in my cap, Had just settled our brains for a long winter's nap,Then out on the lawn there arose such a clatter, I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter. Away to the window I flew like a flash, Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below, When, what to my wondering eyes should appear, But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer,With a little old driver, so lively and quick, I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick. More rapid than eagles his coursers they came, And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name:Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen! On, Comet! on, Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen! To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall! Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!"As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly, When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky; So up to the house-top the coursers they flew, With the sleigh full of Toys, and St. Nicholas too.And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof The prancing and pawing of each little hoof. As I drew in my head, and was turning around, Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound.He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot, And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot; A bundle of Toys he had flung on his back, And he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.His eyes—how they twinkled! his dimples how merry! His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry! His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow, And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow;The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth, And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath; He had a broad face and a little round belly, That shook when he laughed, like a bowlful of jelly.He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf, And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself; A wink of his eye and a twist of his head, Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread;He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work, And filled all the stockings; then turned with a jerk, And laying his finger aside of his nose, And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle, And away they all flew like the down of a thistle. But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight, "Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night."Education: Discipline Is Not A Bad Word
Speech on child discipline at OCON 2018 by Charlotte Cushman. Author of Montessori: Why it Matters for Your Child's Success and Happiness.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z3j7y8iDjYVideo: Jonathan Hoenig on A New Textbook of Americanism
In this episode of "Exploring Minds", Jonathan Hoenig and Michele Carroll explore Jonathan's new book "A New Textbook of Americanism"Andrew Bernstein on America’s Coming Race War
In this four part series Dr. Bernstein explains why both the so-called Right and the Left both unite under the collectivist banner of racism in their opposition to capitalism, and why the principle of individualism can reverse this trend.Link: America’s Coming Race War Capitalism’s Enemies Are Pushing America Toward a Race War (Part 1 of 4)
Andrew Bernstein on America’s Coming Race War
In this four part series Dr. Bernstein explains why both the so-called Right and the Left both unite under the collectivist banner of racism in their opposition to capitalism, and why the principle of individualism can reverse this trend.Link: America’s Coming Race War Capitalism’s Enemies Are Pushing America Toward a Race War (Part 1 of 4)
The Best Trade Policy for America: Unilateral Free Trade
Writes Richard Salsman on the Fallout from the Trade Wars | AIER
"Given the benefits of free trade, the best policy any government can adopt is unilateral free trade (with non-enemy governments), which means free trade regardless of whether other governments also adopt freer trade. Tariffs should only be enacted to secure revenues (e.g., to help fund a navy, the merchant marines, or port infrastructure) and should be low and uniform in rate (applied equally to all imports, wherever sourced, not in discriminatory or targeted ways). Better-motivated (pro-trade) nations pursue bilateral or multilateral trade agreements, and although that’s better than “trade wars,” such approaches, in contrast to unilateralism, waste time and invite costly lobbying and cronyism."
To learn why read his entire article Fallout from the Trade Wars.
Video: Tour of the Moon in 4K
Take a virtual tour of the Moon in all-new 4K resolution, thanks to data provided by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft. As the visualization moves around the near side, far side, north and south poles, we highlight interesting features, sites, and information gathered on the lunar terrain.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr5Pj6GQL2oMake Literature a Part of Your Life with “Read with Me”
From Lisa VanDamme:I am writing to notify you about two big Read With Me announcements.
The first is that the app is now available free of charge, to eliminate the financial barrier in front of anyone who can't afford it or doesn't understand its value. If you go to the web app, or download the app for iPhone or Android, you will have immediate access to the full library of works, including Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris and Ninety Three, Sinclair Lewis's Arrowsmith, Tolstoy's Kreutzer Sonata, and more.
The second is that on December 2nd, a week from Sunday, I will begin leading readers through Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. If you'd like to join me and other members on this literary journey, now is the perfect time to download the app.
Dostoevsky said of his faith, “My hosanna has passed through a great crucible of doubt.” I believe it is that crucible – that fathomless depth and merciless rigor of thought, that unyielding determination to leave no psychological stone unturned, that intensity of moral ambition – that makes Dostoevsky required reading for everyone, believers and non-believers alike.
Too often, we adopt our own convictions with unthinking ease, rather than subjecting them to a crucible. My goal in starting Read With Me was to create a community of readers and accompany them on a journey through great works of literature that will challenge, deepen, and expand our outlook on life. Dostoevsky will.
As I said, anyone and everyone can now try Read With Me, because there is no longer a required subscription fee. I am a zealot on a literary mission, determined to show people what they stand to gain when they crack the pages of musty, old, beautiful, timeless books. Those who enjoy, and can afford, and want to support the existence of this program can become voluntary $10/month subscribers through Patreon.
I am not a professional actor. I am not a literary scholar. What I am is a sincere reader and a passionate lover of literature. You can think of the Read With Me app as providing you a book-loving friend in your pocket, always happy to read to you from my heart and to share with you what fascinates me about what we are reading.
Try Read With Me. Share it with the would-be readers in your life. Make literature part of your life.
Lisa VanDamme’s Wonderful Literature Program “Read with Me” is Now Free
From Lisa VanDamme:I am writing to notify you about two big Read With Me announcements.
The first is that the app is now available free of charge, to eliminate the financial barrier in front of anyone who can't afford it or doesn't understand its value. If you go to the web app, or download the app for iPhone or Android, you will have immediate access to the full library of works, including Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris and Ninety Three, Sinclair Lewis's Arrowsmith, Tolstoy's Kreutzer Sonata, and more.
The second is that on December 2nd, a week from Sunday, I will begin leading readers through Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. If you'd like to join me and other members on this literary journey, now is the perfect time to download the app.
Dostoevsky said of his faith, “My hosanna has passed through a great crucible of doubt.” I believe it is that crucible – that fathomless depth and merciless rigor of thought, that unyielding determination to leave no psychological stone unturned, that intensity of moral ambition – that makes Dostoevsky required reading for everyone, believers and non-believers alike.
Too often, we adopt our own convictions with unthinking ease, rather than subjecting them to a crucible. My goal in starting Read With Me was to create a community of readers and accompany them on a journey through great works of literature that will challenge, deepen, and expand our outlook on life. Dostoevsky will.
As I said, anyone and everyone can now try Read With Me, because there is no longer a required subscription fee. I am a zealot on a literary mission, determined to show people what they stand to gain when they crack the pages of musty, old, beautiful, timeless books. Those who enjoy, and can afford, and want to support the existence of this program can become voluntary $10/month subscribers through Patreon.
I am not a professional actor. I am not a literary scholar. What I am is a sincere reader and a passionate lover of literature. You can think of the Read With Me app as providing you a book-loving friend in your pocket, always happy to read to you from my heart and to share with you what fascinates me about what we are reading.
Try Read With Me. Share it with the would-be readers in your life. Make literature part of your life.
How Much Can We Blame On The Legacy of Slavery?
The profound Professor Walter E. Williams looks at progress in the black community and the impact of slavery on life today.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW61CeB3nLYRichard Feynman – The Character of Physical Law
The wonderful Richard Feynman lectures at Cornell on The Character of Physical Law - Part 1 The Law of Gravitationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mhkYbznBkSalsman vs. Buffet on Investing
Richard Salsman exposes the falsehoods behind the active vs passive false alternative in The Daily Capitalist.Writes Salsman in "Buffett Won the Bet – and Missed the Point":
Mr. Buffett writes, “Investors, on average and over time, will do better with a low-cost index fund than with a group of funds of funds.” Well, that’s surely true for capital whose owners are willing to forgo potentially higher returns in exchange for lower risk and the guaranteed mediocrity of average gains and losses. For all other capital, however, the opposite is true. It takes outsized gains like Mr. Buffett’s to inspire and arm us to make progress. Similarly it can take outsized gains and losses to expose the truth, promote the outperformers, and keep yesterday’s under-performing strategies and managers from interfering with a better tomorrow.
Active-passive is thus a false choice. All investing success depends on active thinking, buying and selling.
Still, Buffett concludes with cynicism:“Human behavior won’t change. Wealthy individuals, pension funds, endowments and the like will continue to feel they deserve something ‘extra’ in investment advice. Those advisors who cleverly play to this expectation will get very rich. This year the magic potion may be hedge funds, next year something else. The likely result from this parade of promises is predicted in an adage: ‘When a person with money meets a person with experience, the one with experience ends up with the money and the one with money leaves with experience.’”
It’s true that human nature is constant, but our natural capacity for reason and infinite progress is precisely what makes such cynicism naïve. In all cases, better inputs make consistent outperformance possible. Berkshire Hathaway’s track record proves this for stock picking and allocating. Our track record proves this for using price relationships to forecast headwinds, tailwinds and inflection points, and to profitably allocate within one or more of the 5 major asset classes and subclasses.
Read the rest at The Daily Capitalist.
Salsman: Socialism Works Wonderfully
Writes Richard Salsman on why Socialism Worked in Venezuela | AIER:
"...socialists don’t expect their system to work in the sense of creating liberty, prosperity, and peace. First and foremost, they expect it to work to seize the means of production, human capital included. Then they expect it to entail, in their own words, a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” They expect it’ll destroy liberty and prosperity. In this sense, history demonstrates unequivocally that socialism works wonderfully."
Definitely worth a read.