Aug 29, 2014

To all who admired Burgess Laughlin, I'm sorry to say he has passed away. Please find his obituary message on his main website:

If you would like to say something about Burgess, feel free to use the comment section here.

Burgess, you will be missed.

Mar 12, 2014

If I were a wealthy donor…

In The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, I briefly discussed "the rule of inverse interest."

As the work of Celsus [a pagan philosophizer, c. 130-200 CE] illustrates, a reason/faith debater need not write a whole book on faith, a book on reason, or a book on the conflict between them. Instead, a debater might insert comments about faith and reason amongst a great number of other comments about religion, philosophy, or their applications to daily life. The principle here is the rule of inverse interest: Generally, the more fundamental the concept, the less sustained discussion it receives. This is due not to the perversity of the authors but to the nature of ideas such as reason and faith: They are fundamental. Once presented, these ideas serve as the base for other ideas and need no further discussion unless rejected by another debater. (p. 23)

In cultural history, it is a fact that the most fundamental ideas have received little discussion compared to issues of application. In two cases in our culture, fundamental ideas should receive more attention by philosophical activists:
1. Philosophical naturalism vs. supernaturalism.
2. Reason vs. mysticism.

The first dichotomy is a question in the most fundamental branch of philosophy, metaphysics. What is real? Is there one natural world in which every entity has a definite nature, or are there two worlds, the natural and the supernatural?

The second dichotomy is a question of the next-most fundamental branch of philosophy, epistemology. What can we know and how? Other branches—ethics and politics, in particular—logically stand on and therefore depend on metaphysics and epistemology. Thus, philosophically, naturalism vs. supernaturalism and reason vs. mysticism are crucial.

Attention to the two issues is most important for an intellectual movement that wants to change a whole culture. Supernaturalism and mysticism are old and well established; a small, new philosophical movement opposing it must establish its own foundation assertively. That does not mean every activist needs to devote full time to the project. However, someone needs to do so. Some individual or small organization needs to say what naturalism and reason are, how they differ from supernaturalism and mysticism, and what the effects of applying these ideas have been and could be in our culture.

If I were a wealthy donor, I would fund one activist individual to support naturalism. he would be someone who understands the issues, their effects on the other branches of philosophy, and their effects on daily life. This activist, over a matter of years, might create a website, write essays, present lectures, enter formal debates, write books, and perhaps start a small institution. He would be a voice devoted to the issue. If I were a wealthy donor, I would do the same for supporting reason.

Then all the work done now by today's pro-naturalism, pro-reason intellectual activists in the fields of ethics, politics, and political policy-setting would know that the deepest fundamentals were being injected into the culture to prepare the way for radical change.

Burgess Laughliin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and the Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, described here.

Aug 29, 2013

BkRev: Humphry's Final Exit

Derek Humphry, Final Exit: The practicalities of self-deliverance and assisted suicide for the dying, New York, Delta (Random House), 2002, 220 pages

The title of this book is accurate. The book is about killing yourself if faced with a terminal, painful disease. The book is a guide to the many details that need attention, from making sure your death does not inadvertently involve loved ones in a criminal investigation, to wearing a baseball cap so that the bill of the cap will keep the plastic bag, which is over your head, from being drawn into your mouth with each inhalation.

The author makes sure the reader is suitable for suicide. Someone who is merely depressed, for example, should seek counseling not suicide. Once the reader determines that he is qualified for suicide, he can then follow the detailed guidelines for one of the options available. For instance, if one's own physician will not help by prescribing drugs, then the terminally ill person can purchase sedatives, a plastic bag, and other equipment. The author provides a checklist.

The main point of the book is that one must be prepared for a suicide that is both effective and least unpleasant as possible under the circumstances.

The author assumes the reader has no knowledge of chemistry and no experience with any of the ethical and legal issues involved. However, readers can skim parts of the short book. Not all parts apply to all readers, but they are all worth at least a quick reading. At each subject change, the author usually provides a guide to the reader, explaining each section's appropriateness for some readers but not for other readers.

For several decades, Derek Humphry, the author, worked as a journalist in England and in the USA. He helped found and manage euthanasia organizations. At 83, he now lives in Oregon, the first state in the USA to legalize suicide for terminally ill individuals. His books, which initially mainstream publishers would not accept, have been commercial successes. He has assisted three suicides, in the cautious manner he describes and recommends.

The chapters are many and short. The titles are largely self-explanatory and arc from making the decision to end one's life if medically doomed, to rejecting methods that are too risky, and then to the "final act." A few chapter titles are:

Ch. 1: The Most Difficult Decision
Ch. 2: Shopping for the Right Doctor
Ch. 3: Beware of the Law
Ch. 4: The Hospice Option
Ch. 11: Who Shall Know?
Ch. 16: Letters to Be Written
Ch. 20: Storing Drugs
Ch. 22: Self-Deliverance Using a Plastic Bag
Ch. 23: A Speedier Way: Inert Gases
Ch. 24: The Checklist
Ch. 25: The Final Act

Throughout these and other chapters, the author writes clearly and succinctly, with only enough repetition to make sure readers do not miss key points.

I recommend a casual reading of this book now, and then a second, close reading if and when the appropriate time comes to apply it. I hope that need never comes for you or for me. I hope to fully pursue my highest values in life for as long as I can, and then die naturally.

Aug 1, 2013

Best approach to disputes in the Objectivist movement?

I have been a student of Objectivism, and a member of the Objectivist movement, for 50 years. I have seen conflicts arise and fade. I am learning that there is a proper procedure for outside individuals—those who are not directly involved—to approach these conflicts. Part of that procedure consists of asking and answering these questions: 

(1) Exactly what is the type of conflict? Is it philosophical, personal, something else, or a combination?

(2) Exactly what is the issue in dispute? If there are several issues, in what order should I resolve them?

(3) Is all the evidence available that I need in order to make a decision about which side, if either, to support?

(4) If any, what is my stake in this conflict? How does it affect my pursuit of my lifetime philosophical and personal values?

(5) Do I need to make a decision now or at any time? If so, why?

(6) If I do decide to investigate a dispute and if I uncover enough information to form a judgment, should I take a stand (which entails time and effort to formulate, present and defend), either in private or in public?

The main lesson I have learned is to wait until I can answer such questions with confidence. A secondary lesson is that Objectivism (which is a fixed set of ideas) remains unchanged no matter what happens in the Objectivist movement. (For my understanding of "movement," see )

What other approach would you suggest?

Burgess Laughlin

P. S. — Thank you to Pooja Gupta for suggesting Question 6. Thank you to Rohin Gupta for reminding me to make this available on the internet and not merely on Facebook (published as a note three years ago).

Jun 4, 2013

Is reading the news helpful or harmful?

Is reading the news helpful or harmful? This issue is important to me for several reasons. First, I am monitoring my heart rate because I have tachycardia/arrhythmia, racing and irregular heart beat. I take two medications to keep my heart rate low. Reading the news makes my heart beat faster, much faster. Reading the news cancels the effect of the two medications. For me, that illustrates the mind-body power of reading the news.

When I was younger, I was emotionally repressed, but now, at 68, my emotions—which are responses to seeing my values threatened or supported—flow freely. When I read news of a U. S. diplomat being murdered in another country, I do not merely note that fact. I see the victim suffering. I see the murderers gloating. I feel anger at the murderers and at those who allowed the murder to happen. I feel fear for the future, for me, and for my friends. Those powerful feelings have physical effects.

Second, reading the news is intellectually disruptive. It fractures my thinking about my current project. After reading the news, I must take the time to calm down emotionally, and I must reset my focus on my current project. This effort to reset is akin to the struggle fiction writers have after an interruption in their work, when they need to get back "into the story."

Third, reading the news even affects my dreams and therefore the quality of sleep. When I read the news, my dreams are stressful, anxious, and threatening. About a week ago, I stopped reading the news. My dreams have become more peaceful.

Understanding the effects of "reading the news" requires a clear grasp of what is usually meant by that term. First, what is "news"?

NEWS. "News" is a certain kind of information; it is information about past or current events; it is information that someone else, a reporter of the news, thinks (1) I have not heard before, and thinks (2) I will find it to be intriguing enough to set aside what I am doing and follow. News is information that a reporter—a fellow employee, an announcer at a sports event, or a newspaper journalist—shapes for a particular purpose and audience of his choosing.

WHAT "READING THE NEWS" DOES NOT MEAN. "Reading the news" does not mean simply reading (or listening) to acquire information. Reading a 500-page scholarly text on the decline of the Roman Empire is not "reading the news," even though the information in the book may be new to me. When I select and read such a book, I take the initiative to define my specific purpose, buy the book, develop a reading schedule, think about what I am reading, and take notes.

WHAT "READING THE NEWS" MEANS. "Reading the news" typically refers to an individual immersing himself in a stream of reports. An hourly, five-minute news segment on radio is an example. For five minutes I will hear a stream of reports about events that the reporter thinks are important for his audience. The reports are about dissimilar events (a bombing in Baghdad, a lottery prize going unclaimed, and the closing of a bridge for repairs). The reports usually are about events that are out of the control of the reader, either because they have already happened or because he lacks the power to change them. The reports are typically sketchy and provisional, subject to revision.

INTEGRATION IS KEY. The most fundamental factor distinguishing "reading the news" (in the meaning used here) and investigation is integration. In an investigation the investigator has a particular purpose that integrates his actions, the information he gains, and the information he already has. Jumping into a stream of news is an act of non-integration. "Being informed" is not a specific purpose. One can "be informed" about a topic, such as the state of one's culture, by investigating the subject once or occasionally—and then thinking in principles.

Examining a news stream does make sense for some individuals. An editorial cartoonist might frequently scan a news stream for subjects for his daily cartoon. A professional weblog writer might daily peruse a news stream looking for items suitable for principled commentary.  These individuals have a delimited purpose. They are investigating rather than drifting with the stream.

CONCLUSION. For me, the state of mind that results from "reading the news" is unpleasant emotionally, destructive cognitively, and damaging physically. That is why I have stopped "reading the news" in any form—print, internet, radio, or TV. I no longer look at my Facebook newsfeed, the quintessential example of a news stream. Instead, for particular reasons at particular times, I do visit individual Friend pages.

So far, refusing to "read the news" has brought a greater sense of peace, greater power of concentration, and greater awareness of my immediate surroundings.

Burgess Laughlin

P.S. — I began my current experiment in shunning news streams after reading Rolf Dobelli, "News is bad for you—and giving up reading it will make you happier," The Guardian, April 12, 2013, linked at the end. The article has flaws. It is an edited translation of a German newspaper column. Accordingly it lacks citations; and more examples would have made some points clearer. His main theme is accurate: purposeful investigation seeking specific information is necessary for success in life, but plunging, without a specific purpose, into a news stream created by someone else can be destructive.

Jan 22, 2013

Attracting an audience by implying their rationality or irrationality












Burgess Laughlin

Jan 20, 2013

A Personal Index for Understanding Objectivism
























workaholic, 336. writing and emotions, 237.

Burgess Laughlin