What an amazing fan letter:
Dear Mr. French,
First of all, we have to tell you that your ‘Mises’ blog is fantastic. The breadth of subject matter, the depth of scholarship, and the overarching wit and sense of humor distinguish it from virtually every other blog in its space. We know that’s not news to you, but it’s always nice to hear it from someone else. As a matter of fact, we were stunned that it was not chosen to be among the Wall Street Journal’s Top 25 Economics Blogs. (They certainly weren’t paying attention to your Alexa U.S. traffic rank of 4,854!)
We have spent months researching economy blogs and ‘Mises’ stands out for posts that are intelligent and educational without being pedantic. And even though you are coming from a very distinct point of view, you don’t beat readers over the head with it. You address timely topics and explain in them in layman’s English (mostly).
We are also impressed that your writers do their own writing and thinking in stark contrast to so many economics ‘bloggers’ who merely cut and paste the work of others, making only the minimal creative effort of putting a headline and single-sentence comment on it.
Your range of topics is mind-bogglingly broad, from economic policy and healthcare reform to WWI, pornography, intellectual property, music piracy, advertising, public education, labor unions, nuclear energy, mobile phones, and on and on. The selection of topics virtually guarantees readers will find something compelling, informative and, often, entertaining every day.
Your headlines are real gems as well. Some of our favorites:
‘Global temperature Changes Caused by Postage Stamp Increase’
‘What’s Wrong with Advertising on the Moon?’
‘Michael Moore Kills Capitalism with Kool-Aid’
‘How Mao Dealt With Green Shoots’
‘Keep Your Self-Righteous Fingers Off My Processed Food’
‘If We Don’t Recover, It’s Your Fault’
‘Green Baptists Preach Salvation by Breaking Car Windows’
Your writing style is approachable and often conversational, inviting the reader in for a chat as opposed to a lecture. Your writers craft many memorable lines but here are some of our favorites:
‘So there we go, the typical NYT theory that we are all as stupid as Pavlovian dogs, but governments are as smart as Pavlov.’
‘Moore is a rather simple guy. He is likable. He sees the world as good guys (people with no money) and bad guys (people with money).’
”Goddess of the Market’ by Jennifer Burns just arrived. I ripped open the package and got stuck reading and reading and reading. The emails, phonecalls, and IMs just had to wait.’
‘So when you look up at the night sky, instead of seeing the same old ‘Man in the Moon’ face, you could see the Nike swoosh or the McDonald’s arches. And what’s wrong with that?’
We very much enjoy your blog and would like to give you more exposure here in the United States and around the world.
We are John Wilpers, global blog coordinator, and Laurent Belsie, Money editor, for The Christian Science Monitor, an award-winning international news organization that covers news and feature stories from every corner of the globe. The Monitor has won hundreds of journalism honors including seven Pulitzer Prizes and more than a dozen Overseas Press Club Awards
Earlier this year, the 100-year-old Monitor became the first nationally circulated newspaper to replace its daily print edition with its website plus a weekly print and daily e-mail edition. Nearly 2 million readers visit the Monitor’s website every month and that number is growing significantly.
To keep the momentum going, we are expanding. We are looking for enlightening, informative posts from bloggers writing about the economy. And we were pleased and excited to find the ‘Mises Economics Blog.’
We would like to extend an invitation to you for your blog to appear on the Money page of csmonitor.com as part of a family of high-quality blogs we are assembling there. We would be co-hosting your blog, running it on our site in parallel with your own, although we would link back to you for all comments and interactivity.
What we offer here is more impact and visibility through a larger audience that wants to understand what’s going on, craves a global context, and tends to be very rich in C-level executives and people with graduate educations. We hope further for a multiplier effect by aggregating a number of high-quality economy blogs that will draw more readers for each other.
We’d like to discuss a possible partnership.
Sincerely,
John Wilpers, Global Blog Coordinator
Laurent Belsie, Money Editor
The Christian Science Monitor
210 Massachusetts Avenue
Boston MA 02115
{ 75 comments }
← Previous Comments
mpolzkill,
” Thank you, you have now really come out in the open with your irrational hatred. ”
I have never concealed my “hatred” for evil. As I see it, faith as propagated by mainstream religion is inherently evil. A sensible man does not make deals with evil. He keeps it as far away from him as possible.
That does not mean the people who follow these religions are necessarily evil. Part of the reason is that few ever follow them down to the last letter. When faced with choices that they can understand, they mostly act like the rational human beings they were meant by nature to be. That, however, is too complex for a pea-brain like you to understand.
And did you ever wonder why people do not follow their religions to the last letter? Ha Ha Ha!!! Welcome to reality again, pea-brain. That’s because if they followed the diktats of their religions, they would be dead, not alive.
But then who am I to stop you from evading all this. For the third time, get back into your rabbit hole at the double.
mpolzkill,
” Some people of the major religions abide by the law, others don’t, so anyone who looks elsewhere for the reasons is some kind of nut? ”
No. But someone who refuses to connect the dots even when the connection is obvious sure is an idiot. Try giving an explanation for why people of different religions have been at each others’ throats and killng each other by the millions all through history. Out here where I live, that still happens. People call them communal riots or religious pogroms.
To know more, you need to step out of wonderland.
Uhhh. Hell to the yes!
Bala,
My last post was somewhat inarticulate, sorry about that! What I meant to say that your definitions result in neatly categorizing any substantive challenges to your belief as logical fallacies. Therefore you do not need to engage in any substantive debate.
We’re already in a Tower of Babel situation here, as you’ve sidestepped all of my inquiries. You’re simply feeding my prejudice that objectivism does not stem from any sort of intellectual curiousity, but rather a complete lack of it.
“Could you please point me to a Randian critique of Kantian philosophy?”
This is not a trick question, and I cannot think of a more straightforward way to pose it. I’m interested to know more about Rand’s impression of Kant. Links to any articles, essays, etc would be appreciated. Hopefully no book recommendations, as I already have too many on my plate currently.
Thanks.
Mr. Eko said: “This is not a trick question”
Haha, there is no other kind of question once it enters the funhouse of this character’s mind, believe me.
“Tower of Babel”
Excellent: I believe this is the key metaphor to understanding the modern world.
I agree that no strings should be attached. The devil is in the details of course!
I believe the goal of the Mises Institute is to “Advance Scholarship of Liberty in the Tradition of the Austrian School.” Seeking out a wider audience advances that goal.
My take on the CSM is they typically allow and encourage freedom of ideas. For this reason, I believe they will allow writers here to express their opinions openly.
On the surface, I’d say this is a great opportunity to expose the ideas expressed by those who contribute to this blog to a worldwide audience. Congratulations Misis.org!
Mr. Eko,
You said,
” What I meant to say that your definitions result in neatly categorizing any substantive challenges to your belief as logical fallacies. ”
There are two possibilities.
1. My definitions are wrong – In that case, you could explain why they are and I shall stand corrected.
2. My definitions are right – In that case, you probably need to shed your inhibitions and start understanding the implications of accepting the definitions I have presented.
It is incorrect on your part to say that I have sidestepped your questions because I have indeed addressed the most important one of them – the definition of my most fundamental axiom. Once the axioms are clear, the rest is only a matter of logic.
And indeed, Objectivism does not stem from “intellectual curiosity” but out of a desire to give man, the rational animal with a volitional consciousness, a means of answering the 3 most important questions that only philosophy can answer – “Where am I?”, “How do I know it?” and “What should I do?”. Finding the right answers means, for man, the difference between life and death. Such serious matters ought not to be addressed out of mere “curiosity”.
Finally, sorry about reading too much into your question. I guess it may have been uncalled for defensiveness. If you really wish to understand the Randian critique of Kantianism or other “popular” philosophies, these are scattered across a few of Rand’s non-fiction books. You could try the following. They are all compilations of essays on various relevant topics.
1. The Virtue of Selfishness
2. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
3. Philosophy – Who needs it
These 3 should suffice for all practical purposes. I don’t, however, think I can condense them into a brief note out here and assume that you really wish to understand what Rand said.
Bala and mpolzkill: What are the odds of you taking your ridiculous rants against each other off line so that I can read other people’s comments easily and not have to sort through your pissing contest?
Oh it really not so hard to do, “Elastigirl”. Each comment is in a box. When you see our names at the head, don’t read the contents therein.
At any rate and anyway, there’s not much here. You’ll notice on any forum that has anything remotely to do with religion, public atheists will quickly take up their tired crusade. If you’ll look, I wasn’t the one to drag the conversation exclusively to religion and I wasn’t the first to follow where it was being dragged.
Also, there is a very good chance your wish would be fufilled, if those who wish to attack me would only follow my link they can rant to their hearts’ content.
Lastly, of course it is ridiculous to try to explain a joke to a Randroid, but please do tell me what else I said that was ridiculous. And do it on my page if you like, or whatever.
Well, I’m about ready to wrap it up too. Although I did find mpolzkill & Bala’s dialogue to be amusing.
Bala, give me a substantive answer to my initial query (the current matter/energy in the universe and its origins) or I am terminating this dialogue. The same laws of thermodynamics and physics existed then, so it’s not that difficult.
And thank you for the recommendations. I’m always interested in hearing the counter-arguments to what I believe to be true. Intellectual curiousity, I suppose.
Mr. Eko,
Firstly, I do not know enough about the science of the study of the universe. Whatever I say is based on the most casual of readings. Still, since you insist that I reply, here are my two bits of “wisdom”.
You said
” How do you reconcile that “faith” with the fact that a continually expanding universe indicates a beginning point? ”
I do not need to reconcile anything because my position does not contradict this statement of yours. As I stated earlier, the statement “Existence exists” does not mean that what exists at this moment is what existed all along. It could have been in a different configuration at some point in the past and could be in yet another at some point in the future.
If the data available shows that the universe is expanding, it is indeed probable that at some point in time, all the matter that now constitutes the universe might have been concentrated in a small region of space or might have even existed in a form different from matter. However, I would hesitate to call that the “beginning”, the way you are doing. The reasons are what I have cited above. In effect, I am disagreeing with your use of the word “beginning”.
As for the laws of Thermodynamics, these are the “laws” that form the “axioms” of a scientist studying the form of energy we call heat and how it influences the behaviour of matter. These are the “laws” by which the scientist tries to predict and study outcomes. These laws also define the limits of the science and the scientist. The “law” in itself is a hypothesis that happens – note the use of the word “happens” – to explain observations on the effects of heat on matter, especially gaseous matter.
Bala, your reply is quite good for someone who claims only some casual reading.
Beginning is a loose term; that’s a fair point. Observing our expanding universe, and extrapolating backwards in time, we eventually reach a point where the matter becomes so condensed that all the fundamental forces converge. I consider the beginning to be at this instant – as far as science can take us. Anything before that is speculative. Rapidly diverging matter points to some sort of “Big Bang” type event before then – I am comfortable speculating this.
But where did the matter originate from? No one can answer this, and therefore no one can determine another one’s speculation to be wrong. It’s conceivable that an entity outside of this universe created/caused it, as we have not observed matter/energy being created in this universe (first law of thermodynamics). It’s conceivable that the matter always existed (it’s eternal). It’s conceivable that the matter existed in a different form, as you said. It’s conceivable that science will be able to explain it some time in the future. Some don’t see any reason to pick an option (agnostic). Some do pick (athiests and the religious). Note that I am defining athiests as those who definitively state that a deity does not exist.
Another important point you mention is that it really is misleading to use the term “laws”, and I am in complete agreement with your last paragraph regarding the limits of science. So yes, faith got me to the alternative that I chose, based on which one I personally found to be the most logical (I’m lazy and wanted to take the shortest leap of faith).
Mr. Eko,
You said
” Note that I am defining athiests as those who definitively state that a deity does not exist. ”
While you do so, you are making a few implicit assumptions. You are acknowledging the axiomatic nature of the concept of “Existence” when you talk of the “existence of a deity”. The “Deity” as you speak of, is therefore necessarily a part of Existence.
The important point here is the next important axiom – that of Identity. What is the identity of the “existent” that you call the Deity? What aspects of its identity give it the ability to create existence out of non-existence? You need to define these clearly. That in itself will show the metaphysical impossibility of a deity.
Further, the previous paagraph shows that you have assumed that the deity created existence. But in this very statement lies the contradiction in the concept of the deity. As I had identified above, the deity is a part of existence. How then could the deity predate existence and then create it? Did the deity then create himself into existence out of non-existence?
This is a sample of the reasons for which atheists like me reject the concept of a deity
Mr. Eko,
Just continuing on my last post. You have also misinterpreted my statement on “the limits of science”.
If you look a little closely at the last paragraph where I have mentioned it, I said
‘ These laws also define the limits of the science and the scientist. ‘
Please note that I by using the specific identifier “the” I am referring to the particular science of Thermodynamics. My statement is therefore to be interpreted as identifying the limits on the science of Thermodynamics (and of the scientist who studies Thermodynamics) and not on science per se.
In fact, it is the outer limits of Thermodynamics that indicate the starting point of other sciences that seek to explain the nature of Energy, Matter, their origins and the relationship between them. My ignorance of the specific science(s) prevents me from identifying it (them) specifically, but that’s how I see it working.
Where the limits of all science as it exists today are reached, it only heralds the potential future development of newer areas of science that explain that which current science cannot. A cursory glance at the history of science shows that this precisely has been the case.
Thus, it would be highly erroneous to jump from my statement on the limits of science to postulate the existence of a deity who supposedly created all existence.
The CSM is a well-written, and often intellectually independent of any specific church’s dogma or influence of state or other powers. I am pleased that Mises.org has been recognized by such a great publisher, who conversely recognizes the potential for Mises.org to generate traffic, which is probably the best consequence of this news.
On “Christian scientists”: I don’t accept the “Big Bang”, oh wait “Inflation”, oh wait “Dark Energy” standard theory of cosmology. I don’t have faith that the available evidence indicates that that is the correct solution, but I may be wrong.
I believe that the best and most simple solution involves shockwaves (and thus irreversible in general), leaving some areas of the universe that are in our “past” out of reach of direct measurement, thus leaving great questions of the past state of the universe up to issues of faith.
I am also an atheist, I have faith that there is no supernatural god – but that doesn’t mean I think that we know everything that the natural word does yet. I admire and respect those who have faith that there was divine inspiration in some great teachers or in the creation of our wonderfully bountiful (yet dangerously scarce) natural environment, and also accept that they might just be right – but I don’t have that proof yet, so my faith remains atheistic.
Just wanted to give a more nuanced POV on the discussion here. Normally I’d just ignore such a debate in the comments to a blog, but here I expected a higher level of debate, leaving ethical judgments unused.
Bala,
Go over to lewrockwell.com – there is an article about Ayn Rand today. I had to chuckle over the irony of its timing. When I saw it as I thought of you.
“Where the limits of all science as it exists today are reached, it only heralds the potential future development of newer areas of science that explain that which current science cannot.”
You have great “faith” in future scientific discoveries that will figure everything out? This is the exact opposite of the scientific method that you hold sacrosanct. Hitchens used to use this line in debates, but has since given it up, and now is resigned to simply taking it on the chin in this area and getting it over with.
“What is the identity of the “existent” that you call the Deity?”
Trying to break your circular logic here – I do not know, since such a diety would have existed outside of our universe, therefore no aspects of its identity can be defined. And, you’re applying a higher standard to the diety’s origins that you are to matter’s origins.
Mr. Eko,
I did go through the article you referred to. I found it a fairly badly written article riddled with errors. However, since I think our discussion is not about that, at least on this discussion, I am right now refraining from pointing out the many obvious errors made by Lew.
Coming to your specific comment
” You have great “faith” in future scientific discoveries that will figure everything out? ”
You are right. I need to make a correction in my earlier statement.
Where the limits of all science as it exists today are reached, it only indicates that further attempts to explain the inexplicable will need science to expand its frontiers. Men will need to come up with better ideas than their predecessors. If and when they can, science advances.
Hope this statement avoids the display of “faith” or what I prefer to call confidence in science. I agree that my statement hinted at the omnipotence of science and the human mind. Hence the correction.
Coming now to your attempt to break my “circular logic”, your error lies in the statement “our universe”. The term is self-contradictory. Once you use the word “universe”, there is no “your universe”, “my universe” and “the other universe”. At the most, one can talk of “the universe as perceived and understood by us”.
Secondly, it does not matter therefore in which universe the deity existed at the time of creating existence. What matters is that it needs to exist to create existence but the fact that it exists makes it a part of the very existence you (theists in general) are claiming it created and predates. In short, the concept “deity” is self-contradictory if one accepts the axiom “Existence exists”. You are guilty of using the method of the “stolen concept”. To prove the possibility of your deity, you are smuggling in the very concept of existence that you are trying to deny axiomatic status to. That is only more confirmation that “Existence” is a true axiom. As Rand said, the axiomatic nature of a concept becomes most apparent when you need to accept it and use it in order to try to disprove it.
I am also an atheist, I have faith that there is no supernatural god.
I, also, am an atheist. But I don’t have faith that there is no supernatural deity. Instead, I simply have no sufficient reason for believing that such a supernatural being exists. Atheism doesn’t require faith.
Bala,
You have to admit that the part about Rand and debating was humorous. I’m in the same situation the author described now, where you’re funneling my arguments into your logical fallacy wastebasket! Anyways, please don’t run back to your foxhole yet.
So, if you’re sticking to science as known today, we’re back at the point where gravity separates from the electro-nuclear forces, a very small fraction of a second after the Big Bang, and we have Einsteinian (is that the correct adjective?) physics as we know it. This is as far back as we can go, and you’re content with that? No curiousity as to what caused it? You want to call it quits, and simply state that existence exists? This would be fine if we had a steady-state universe, but we have a universe that collapses back into a singularity in the past that defies science. Nevertheless, you can still believe in eternal matter (no beginning and no end) and I have no way to prove you wrong.
I do remain curious as to how you can declare me wrong.
Point well taken regarding the universe as perceived and understood by us. Good definition. But this hints that there could be more (the Kantian philosophy that you abhor).
Finally, nothing was smuggled in. I am referring to existence outside of this universe (independent of existence within this universe).
Bala, speaking of his impression of some novelist’s impression of Kant:
“Rather, it confirms the impression Rand gave me about his “philosophy”.
Dig the sarcastic quotation marks!
- – - – - – - – - –
Mr. Eko:
“You have to admit that the part about Rand and debating was humorous.”
It *is* hard for we with a fuller range of human attributes to understand the ways of these sad cultists, Mr. Eko. Even more irony (you may have already seen it) and humor:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html
Delightful. Speaking of impressions, I had never read the play, and I guess this falls under “confirmation bias”, but it is everything I had ever imagined her and her lackeys to be (like Bala and Rand regarding Kant, I have never read the “novelist”). Didn’t know about her charming husband/gigolo though. I have great affection for gigolos, especially this one. Please do read it if you haven’t, I think that you will enjoy it.
Mr. Eko,
” This is as far back as we can go, and you’re content with that? No curiousity as to what caused it? ”
Who said the curiosity does not exist? I said and still say that studying that is the task of Science. It is not mine because I am not equipped with the knowledge and understanding required. However, if instead of studying, one starts a guessing game of wild bets, I am not sure that would constitute a genuine attempt at trying to understand the universe better.
Further, your question “What caused it?” is an improper one because you are implicitly assuming that there was a cause for existence per se. There can only be causes for how existence was transformed from one previous configuration to another. To assume that existence was caused, you will have to go all the way to non-existence and then claim that existence was born out of non existence. That i something that one would call the “Reification of the Zero”. I can understand defining non-existence as the absence of non-existence but not the reverse. It sounds pretty weird to me.
” I do remain curious as to how you can declare me wrong. ”
I thought I was pretty explicit about that. The word “universe” includes all existence. To then separate it as “this universe” and “that universe” is fallacious and contradicts the meaning of the word “universe”. I refuse to admit such obvious contradictions that make a mockery of the very concept of definitions.
The concept that you smuggled was the concept of “existence”. When you implied you see that existence was created by a deity, you were forced to say that the deity existed before it created existence. But logically, you cannot talk of existence before existence is created. Thus, you have smuggled the concept of existence into non-existence to justify the existence (oops!!) of your deity prior to existence. I know this sounds confusing, but the confusion is a result of your fundamentally flawed position.
I think I am wrapping up my point because you are either failing or refusing to read what I have said and forcing me to repeat it many times over. Good luck until next time on another discussion.
mpolzkill,
I saw the headline on lewrockwell.com today but didn’t read it, but I will be sure to now! I’m sure Bala will find it riddled with errors.
Thanks.
mpolzkill,
” It *is* hard for we with a fuller range of human attributes ”
Assumptions! Assumptions!! Hope things in Wonderland are fine.
OK Bala, it’s been fun sparring with you.
Bala, do you know what an assumption is? The subject was humor. I have talked with you and read your stuff for many, many hours. I have not once seen you yourself employ any humor or seem to be able to grasp when it is being used by *anyone* else.
Now, that’s just one common human trait that at the very least you are most certainly below the norm in posessing (although that all could be a cultural gulf you have with every single person here, I’ll admit). You also have no concept of religious feelings. I could go on and on. I should track down the mortifying things you’ve said about your flesh brother to perfect strangers. How much evidence do I need before what is clear to me is no longer an assumption?
(And again, if you wish to find out more about “wonderland” or heap abuse and don’t want to make “Elastigirl” angry, drop it on my page.)
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.