Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centur

I just realized, you were quoting the fictional character John Galt from Ayn Rand and not the Scottish novelist. That sort of tells me where you stand politically. I understand why people find objectivism attractive, although philosophically her work is so shoddy that it never has had any credibility among intellectuals. :)

as for marx’s list, rather than enumerate, i will simply provide the numerals for those which i do not agree: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10… as a traditional conservative, i believe that the government has a limited role… it’s outside of the scope of this conversation what that role should be… if interested, start another thread…

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
you didn’t study Dewey enough to get what he was saying, and yet you have an opinion about how dangerous these are?


i did in fact study dewey and his pragmatic approach to education… as i stated earlier, it left little impact on me… so, i will concede the point that i could have suggested that his works be left off the list… just as you claim that many intellectuals consider rand’s work “shoddy”, just as many feel the same about dewey… because those opines are not aligned with your own, do you feel it necessary to devaluate them?.. just as you made the point that i had not read das kapital, i would ask the same of you concerning rand… have you read rand? anthem, atlas shrugged, the fountainhead, we the living, philosophy who needs it?.. just curious, because if not, then you are guilty of that which you accused me… you are simply repeating the opinions of others… consider the fact that what you say is green is only that because someone else told you it is green… can you prove to everyone else, without a doubt, that it is indeed green?..

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
but they ought not be allowed to control what gets said

i agree totally… there should be NO CENSORSHIP WHATSOEVER… i believe that we’re in agreement that censorship can be founded on either left or right sides… neither should have any control in what you or i would like to say…

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Are you a conservative in the original sense of the word, or are you a conservative in Bush’s sense?


how dare you!.. :) no, i am not a conservative in the same sense of “bush conservatism”… in fact, you would probably be very surprised to hear my liberal “social” leanings… i am a libertarian, the agnostics of the political spectrum… :)

on that note, i say good day… as i hope you do as well, i have some music to get down!.. well, music and beer to get down… oh yeah, and i have some books to burn as well :D

have a great weekend, guys,
isaac

I’m taking a break from cleaning up, so I thought I’d just butt in here.

As someone who lives in a country that is broadly socialist, I don’t seem to suffer from the loss of liberty you’re talking about Isaac.

Look at Britain in the 60’s when socialism was at its strongest; National health service, which includes dental and ophthalmic, free prescription drugs etc., publicly owned utilities, electric, water, gas; publicly owned industry, mines, publicly supported agriculture, public transport, and so on.

So, the common ownership of production and distribution. And along with it, a culture that was as vibrant, vital and free, as any in the world.

As I said, I certainly don’t recall any lack of freedoms. Even today, I still think we have more freedom of expression in the UK than exists in the US, (where it seems to be honoured more in the theory than in the practice).

Of course, it wasn’t perfect, (is anything?), but the major flaws were due to corruption and abuses by individuals, not failures of the system.

But, socialism is not an absolute, it’s not an either/or situation, and it comes in many shades.

Anyway, “harmful books”, bollox!

Dangerous books, dangerous ideas, perhaps. If you’re a king imbued with “divine right” or a priest imbued with “divine knowledge”, then anyone having an idea that you’re not, is dangerous indeed.

But book burning is OK.

Anyone who believes certain books should be burnt ought to be encouraged to gather them all together in a big pile, pour petrol liberally over them, then climb to the top of the pile and strike a match.

(Just don’t ask me to clean up the mess afterwards, I’ve had more than enough of that.) :D

Ali

Everyone seems to be arguing about what books should or shouldn’t be on the list. But few are coming to the realization that there should be no such list to begin with. Any such activity is a serious setback to free speech.
Marx had good ideas as well as bad ones. And yeah, people acting on some of his bad ideas caused other people some suffering. But ideas and words themselves don’t cause harm.
The same can be said for the Bible. People have commited some really despicable acts throughout history in the name of Jesus Christ. But I don’t think the bible is gonna make any banned book lists anytime soon.

idover, even if I were guilty of the same fault that would count as an ad hominem on your part. :) Fortunately, I have read a bunch of Rand, even perhaps more than you have. Ever read her newsletters? I have no idea if they were ever collected and published in book form (I bet they were), but when I was in school I found a binder with a whole mess of them in it in a used bookstore. I am a catholic (in the original sense of the word) reader.

In any case, it’s not a matter of whether I agree with the ideas, rather, it’s a matter for reasoned analysis and evidence. The evidence is that Dewey is highly respected (in educational theory, of course, where he is nearly sainted) but also in political theory, political philosophy, and jursiprudence. Rand on the other hand is just silly. She was a poor epistemologist, and poor ethicist, and a poor theorist generally. Her theories are riddled with contradictions. But there is a strong tendency among those who find her work attractive to avoid reasoned analysis of her arguments. At least the various members of objectivist clubs I’ve met have been like that.

Here’s another, rather pertinent question: who would count as a traditional conservative? Would Adam Smith? You know what he had to say about corporate entities? Or Locke? You have read the letter on tolerance? Or the 2nd Treatise? they don’t say what you seem to think they say. The idea of “traditional conservativism” of the sort that informs Rand’s work (and libertarians - are you a libertarian?) is simply a myth. There has never been a time in which (a) people actually espoused the minimal police state in the form that you describe, or (b) a state was organized that way. “Traditional conservativism” is the secular equivalent of Christian Fundamentalism. We long for the good old days, but our sense of the good old days is based on a bit of modern mythmaking. Just as contemporary Christian Fundamentalsim has almost nothing in common with early Christianity, so too with what people think of as traditional conservativism. So why call it “traditional”? For the obvious reason - it gives it authority, legitimacy. But it is a new thing, as new as bushian neo-con stuff. Good way to hoodwink people who don’t actually read Locke, Burke, Smith, or whoever. But I do. :)

i’m too hungover to cohere a valid response… ick…

nonetheless, this seems to have turned into a pissing contest, a childish “well i’ve…” game… and we seem to now be off topic?.. so this will be my last response… we both have more important things to do… so it will be likely that you’ll get the last word :)… i would bet that you’re still angry that rand bashed dewey in her speech at west point in 1974 :)… did dewey ever speak at west point?.. but i also recall that she bashed libertarians as hijacking the objective philosophy… can’t recall if it’s that same speech or not… she also bashed nixon and william james in that same speech…

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
contemporary Christian Fundamentalsim has almost nothing in common with early Christianity


i get what you’re saying, but the problem is that you’ve stirred in the people with the principle… the people may have changed, and the things they say have changed, but Christianity itself has not changed… of course, you could be referring to an entirely new separatist group that has only the word “Christian” in common with Christianity… and i can agree with this… in fact, i was talking with a Christian friend about this very point last night… he is a more “moderate” Christian (not moderate in the political sense)… he tries to avoid judging others, and he doesn’t press his beliefs upon anyone else… you could certainly tell he’s a Christian by his words and actions, though… a very respectable person… and then you have the pat buchanans… someone for whom i have little respect… he believes he is doing God’s work, when in fact, he’s driving people like myself away everytime he speaks… knowing this, i can certainly understand why i’ve heard comparisons of Christians to militant Islamic groups… think eric rudolph… but, at the same time, i’m incredibly annoyed by groups that seem to want to remove any semblance of God/Christ from public…

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The idea of “traditional conservativism” of the sort that informs Rand’s work (and libertarians - are you a libertarian?) is simply a myth

wow… for you to suggest that an IDEA is a myth is absolutely absurd… how can it be a myth when it’s on thousands of pieces of paper on my bookshelf at this very moment?.. are those pages myths as well?.. or maybe you didn’t communicate this point well… or maybe i’m too hungover and hungry :D

so, we’ve spent how many precious minutes not changing the other’s mind?.. in fact, i am probably going to read “anthem” again today and a few other rand essays… rand is a superior philosopher… maybe she’s attacked because people think she makes too much sense?.. it seems that maybe they didn’t understand her and wanted to kill it?.. i thought that was the conservatives’ job :D

good sunday,
isaac

Well, I think you misunderstood me. I was using “myth” in teh anthropologist’s sense of the term - a narrative which functions as a central organizing worldview for a culture. Sometimes such myths are based on fact (Washington really did exist and had a good reputation even if he didn’t chop down a cherry tree). Sometimes they are created wholesale (e.g., most of the central myths of the world’s major religions). Sometimes there is more fact that fiction (think Kennedy and “camelot” or MLK jr and non-violent protest) sometimes there is more fiction than fact, but the factual nature is not the primary thing to worry about. It’s how the texts function in (re)producing a given worldview.

In that sense there is the “myth” of traditional conservativism - one that is interestingly based more on fictional accounts of what conservatives like Burke et al said than on what they actually said. Contemporary “traditional conservativism” is not traditional, it is a new thing.

The claim that Christianity has remained the same is likewise a myth, and a preposterous one. It is a relatively easy thing to identify at least 7 different groups/communities inspired by Jesus in the first century or so - let’s not worry about later centuries. The variety of beliefs would astonish you. E.g., most early groups took Jesus to be a teacher. Not divine, not crucified, not born of a virgin, just a teacher with a cynic like wit and approach. (The Cynics were not “cynical” in the modern sense, by the way…) Other groups took Jesus to be a teacher with a message that looks a lot like Eastern notions of enlightenment through special, hidden wisdom. Some thought that there were 2 gods, the old false god and a true one. Some thought there were as many gods as there were days of the years. I could go on. And it is relatively easy to trace the emergence of what would become Catholicism from a very messy stew. Most - the vast, vast majority - of Christians know almost nothing about Christian history, however. Here we’d need to talk about the Q gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, and other early sources. For that matter “Christianity” is a myth - there has never been unity, certainly not at the beginning when things were even more diverse than they are now.

I honestly don’t know if Dewey ever spoke at WP. I did not know that Rand had. I don’t think that’s significant, however. Bush has spoken at WP, and I find him even more preposterous as a thinker (gotta wash my mouth out for even putting those words in proximity) than Rand. Rand at least had some command of the language, the rhetoric of theory, even if she was deeply confused about things.

BTW, try an experiment for me. Go ask your Christian friend about the Q gospel, or the “two source” hypothesis, or about the gnostic elements in John, or about the “Pillars of Jerusalem” community and their problems with Paul, or about the Gospel of Mary, or the Didache, or…well that’s a good list.

No, I don’t want the last word, I look forward to your comments.

edit: oh, we do have one thing in common. “I guess I’m a hockey fan before I am a man.” The NHL needs something to help it back. Just wait till Crosby hits the big time. :)

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
If you want a really harmful book, try this one.

Harmful to the ear that is :laugh:

So what’s wrong with commies? Stalin was a bad dude, but all them folks living in Kibbutzs growing gardens, dunno, they just never seemed threatening to me…

I’d like to clarify my view on this subject of “harmful books”. When I said I agreed with Isaac on this one, I meant these books are not ones I would dash out and buy to read myself. A lot of the books on the list are either political books or ramblings by people who history has proven to be wackos or murdering scoundrels. Thus, there is nothing of any value in there to me personally as I have no interest in studying politics or the ramblings of wackos. Are the books “harmful”? Probably not to most sane people. There are those in the world though who will read into some of these books more than is there and distort the meanings. This happens and will continue to happen as long as we exist as human beings.

TG

Ooo noooo… TG, you really should read this stuff. Knowledge is power my man. It helps to understand the wacko to keep him in check. :) Mein Kampf is quite the eye opener when you compare Hitler’s ramblings to some of the baloney that modern politics tries to pull. Not that we are in a Nazi state, but it is good to know the tricks to not be suckered IMO. Understanding is important… just so long as you don’t buy into the wackos ideas.

i’m assuming when you reference burke, you are speaking of edmund burke… the same whig who supported the american colonies (sort of), but then vehemently opposed the french revolution… even karl marx has ripped into that guy, calling him “vulgar” and a “sycophat”… both liberals and conservatives lay some claim to him/his writings from some standpoint… so i can’t agree with your observation that he is a conservative… at best, he was a well versed writer who wasn’t really sure of/stable in his own political beliefs… rand, on the other hand, was very secure in her writings :)… maybe your beef with rand is her opposition to collectivist ideals?.. of course, i expect you’ll continue to bash whenever you can… :)

concerning the tag “traditional”, i now see your point… but i could care less if my political opines were packaged under the name “blue kitty fart juice”, as long as the contents of that package are to my liking… at best, you can argue that the word “traditional” cannot be validated… but does that make the underlying stump less sound?.. you were able to effectively attack the title, but you have not been successful in attacking the body…

so from now on, i would prefer that you call me a “blue kitty fartist”… :D

as for my friend, i will leave him out of this… i respect him greatly and it will be left at that… in all honesty, i have little knowledge of Christianity, as i am spirirutal before i am religious… and i have little interest in the matter… all i know is that Christian does not necessarily equate with “good”… just as you have to be careful with whom you speak when buying a new car, you similarily have to monitor others’ words and actions and compare them to what you already know is “good” and “right” to you… ah! there’s some of the objectivist in me!..

thanks for asking for a response, let’s wrap this up soon and start some other thread of silly banter to distract me from thinking too much! :)

isaac

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
There are those in the world though who will read into some of these books more than is there and distort the meanings. This happens and will continue to happen as long as we exist as human beings.

With that criteria in mind there’s no way The Bible, Koran, and all other closely related documents should not be on that list. Look at the killings still happening today in the name of these writings. Look at the killings happening in the name of stopping the killings. Look at history and start counting the dead. It goes back of centuries…

…oh never mind. That list is for writings of the 19th and 20th centuries. The Bible, etc., aren’t eligible. If they were I’m confident these folks would have put them number one with a bullet on the list. …you think?

It sure gives WWJD a new meaning when some wacko takes it out of context for the sake of “cause”.

TWISI ONE: If traditional fundamentalists really were getting back to their roots, as they claim, they would be advocating execution for folks for claiming the earth was round or the earth revolved around the sun. At one time the churches stance was that the earth was the center of the universe. To claim it wasn’t in the physical science sense was heresy and punishable by death. So to blindly discount science for the sake of religious rhetoric is nothing new. It’s happened before it will happening again. It’s generally based on ignorance and the inability to accept change. This invariably doesn’t mean the Bible is wrong. It’s peoples’ readings and understandings of meanings and their inability to accept findings that change those understandings that has fueled much anguish for all.

TWISI TWO: It’s way too easy to shoot the piano player.
Quote (phoo @ June 06 2005,12:19)
There are those in the world though who will read into some of these books more than is there and distort the meanings. This happens and will continue to happen as long as we exist as human beings.

With that criteria in mind there's no way The Bible, Koran, and all other closely related documents should not be on that list. Look at the killings still happening today in the name of these writings. Look at the killings happening in the name of stopping the killings. Look at history and start counting the dead. It goes back of centuries.....
You sir are absolutely correct! I see no reason for people to get their dander up about this stuff. It is the way it is and always will be.

As long as they are shooting piano players, I should be fairly safe........

TG

…and drummers, too…what lucky fates for both of us.

Lookout Elton John wannabes! :)

I will continue to criticize faulty reasoning, idover.

Re: the use of “tradiitonal” - those sorts of rhetorical moves really interest me - in this case b/c the use of “traditional” acts to legitimate in the same way that “fundamentalism” does. Both are new things, and as you say, need to be evaluated on their own merits. For me, the division between “individualism” and “collectivism” is way to simple. There are so many “collectivist moments” in individualist theory, and v.v. So those labels are not very useful. “Bashing” or “criticism” - she’s still a very poor theorist. But youa re right, at this point we’d need to look at the specifics of her arguments. I’m always up for that sort of thing, for that’s when we get down to what matters.

Again, I have to say this: I am always stunned by the apparent willingness of people to dismiss some writers as wackos without reading them. Mao, e.g., who is among the most morally reprehensible people of the last century, was no wacko.

mao not a wacko?.. would anyone fall in that category for you, or is reserved for people of a certain viewpoint?.. although we do not know each other at all, i suspect that you have used that word to describe bush, limbaugh, et al, to your friends…

i’ll agree with you, mao was no wacko… he was something far, far, worse… i’ve not the lexicon to describe him… not only was the man dangerous, but he was very untrustworthy… consider the hundred flowers campaign… he offered to the chinese people the opportunity to critique the newly formed marxist-based government, and then used that offer as bait to root out the opposition…

china is of special interest because my girlfriend’s mother was rescued as the people’s republic was formed… her aunt carried her for days as they fled the country…

in fact, mao’s intense demand for the world communist movement prompted even the soviet union’s krushchev (sp?) to cancel support during mao’s attempt to collect the agriculture industry and promote smaller unit-based manufacturing…

so, which is worse - mao’s rabid want to spread communism, or krushchev yelling and banging his shoe on the table at a UN conference?.. :)

isaac

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
so, which is worse - mao’s rabid want to spread communism, or krushchev yelling and banging his shoe on the table at a UN conference?.. …



Or Bush swearing up and down that “Democracy is on the March”, into your country whether or not you want it! Recent developments in Venezuela are getting a little unnerving (Remember El Salvador?).

I didn’t mean to bash Ayn Rand, I read Anthem at a time when I didn’t want to, in retrospect, I should re-read her works. I also read Atlas Shrugged and had a really tough time with it. I would probably get much more from it now. My perspective is quite different.

Thanks all for a stimulating discussion - Usenet and our government could learn a great deal from this group. Four pages and no one has had to invoke Godwin’s Law - That’s an unprecedented level of good nature and civility.

Be Well

.-=gp=-.

Mao was a moral monster, no question about it. If that is the definition fo “wacko” then he was “wacko.” I sort of thought the word meant “insane” or something like that. Hitler was nuts. Was Mao nuts? I think these are separate things. I would take Khrushchev. I had to look up the spelling for that.

I do think that Bush has a very distorted sense of reality. Most people in power do, and Bush has the added problem that he really is not a subtle thinker. The world is, unfortunately, a subtle place. IN any case, he is not the source of evil in the adminstration. The PNAC folks are the source of evil.

Rush Limbaugh is just an entertainer, like the folks you mentioned earlier from Fox “news.” I don’t think much of them at all.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
The PNAC folks are the source of evil.


Amen to that!!!

.-=gp=-.