Russell Hasan's Blog

Consider this list of philosophies: Rationalism, Empiricism, Analytic philosophy, Existentialism, Phenomenology, German Idealism, Socialism, Anarcho-Socialism, State-Communism, Libertarianism, Moral Realism, Solipsism. Next, consider this list of philosophies: Platonism, Kantianism, Hegelianism, The philosophy of Nietzsche, The philosophy of Sartre, Aristotelianism, The philosophy of Wittgenstein, Marxism, The philosophy of John Locke. Each of these things are what ordinary people would call a "philosophy." But these are not one thing, these are two types of things, the first set of which, from the first list, is what I call a systematic philosophy, and the second set of which, from the second list set forth above, I would call an individual's philosophy. A systematic philosophy is a philosophical system comprised of a set of philosophical views, while an individual's philosophy is the philosophy of one individual philosopher. Note, however, that each systematic philo...

Definitions: Faith: The absence of doubts and questions, or the condition in which doubts and questions are not allowed. Skepticism: The condition in which doubts and questions and critical thinking are allowed, or the process by which a position is subjected to questions or doubts, but this is also the name of the belief that knowledge is impossible, as such. Knowledge: a position or belief which is held with the belief that it cannot be wrong or that its truth is the one and only possibility. Faith-based knowledge: knowledge that is held without doubt, without question, without testing, without evidence. Rational knowledge: knowledge that is held, and which is asserted or claimed to be known, but which is, or can be, doubted, questioned, tested, while still maintaining its status as knowledge, or knowledge which exists in a condition where doubts and questions and critical thinking are allowed. The tradition position holds that you must choose between faith-based knowledge or rationa...

In my book "Everything is Something," I set about to accomplish many things, one of which was to refute Bertrand Russell's Paradox. After finishing the book, and publishing it, I realize that I could have phrased my account of his paradox differently, and more accurately. In the book, I describe his paradox as "a set that is not a member of itself." In retrospect, it would have been more accurate for me to have described it as "the set of all sets that are not members of themselves." His logic actually makes far more sense in the second description, than in the first, which I had said. However, in "Everything is Something," I prove, and demonstrate using logic, that every set is a member of itself. A set is the set of all of its members, therefore the set is equal to the set of all of its members, therefore the set is equal to all of its members, and all of its members are within the set, therefore the set is within the set, therefore the set...

Here is a point that I have tried to get at in my previous essays, but I don't think I phrased it in quite the right way, so I attempt to here: Data is counterintuitive. This is the reason why empirical logic is preferrable to spiritual intuition. Oftentimes, a surprisingly high number of times, in fact, you will make an assumption, and hold a belief, that you know is right, and you hold this belief for days, for months, for years, or maybe even for decades, but then, when you actually look at the research, and see the data, and see what the science says, you find out that you were wrong, and the data said something completely other than what you and your intuitions had assumed, even though your assumption seems like it was likely to be right, and what the data says is counterintuitive and unexpected, maybe even strange and odd and unlikely. And it can be embarrassing, to be honest, that you were convinced you were right, and then someone else, or maybe even your own research, poin...

Russell Hasan has published the following open letter to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, UPenn, Cornell, Brown, and Dartmouth philosophy departments: Philosophy departments should achieve diversity and inclusion in philosophy, with more women and minorities in philosophy, so that the list of famous philosophers is not merely a list of old white men. Please let me put forward a suggestion for how to help: begin to teach the philosophy of Objectivism in the classroom. Assign “Atlas Shrugged” in your introductory philosophy classes, and offer seminars devoted to Objectivism. Ayn Rand was a woman, and an immigrant from Russia to the United States. I myself, Russell Hasan, am a contemporary Objectivist philosopher. I am openly LGBTQ and of mixed race. What prevents you from doing this? Mischaracterizations of Objectivism: (1) Objectivism is an ideology, not a philosophy. When you consider this statement, it does not make any sense, and is intended to insult Objectivism, not to convey tr...

(1) The Logical Positivists held that everything which cannot be verified by science has no meaning. My position is precisely the reverse: that everything which has a meaning can be verified by science. (2) Nietzsche once said: "Every philosopher must be forgiven for his first followers." I have a similar motto: every writer must be forgiven for their first book. (3) Nietzsche said, or meant, in gist, something similar to this: "We hold the greatness of geniuses a safe distance above ourselves for the purpose of considering ourselves unable to reach it." Similarly, people who choose to be stupid look up to smart people in order to relieve themselves from the burden of having to think. (4) What is a Libertarian? A Libertarian is someone who doesn't obey the rules. But then how do they know what to do, if they don't follow rules? You would have to think for yourself. Precisely. (5) The history of philosophy, summarized in one paragraph: Pre-Kant, there were th...

Let us see if we can combine Aristotle's theory of the Golden Mean, which holds that the good is a ratio, virtue lies in the middle ground between two extremes, and that the ethical behavior is in between one extreme of excess and one extreme of deficiency, with the Christian doctrine of the Seven Deadly Sins, defining each sin as an extreme of excess: My statements will always take the following form: First, the sin of excess, then, a naming of the virtuous middle virtue, then the sin of deficiency. I will then state the topic to which the degrees of too much or too little pertain. Take this example: Too Much, Just Right, Too Little. Virtue. (1) Lust, Healthy Sexuality, Involuntary Celibacy. Sex. (2) Gluttony, Healthy Eating, Anorexia. Eating. (3) Envy, Inspiration from Others' Achievements, Apathy towards Goals. Comparison and Competitiveness. (4) Pride, Self-Esteem (but also being Humble and Grateful), Low Self-Esteem or Self-Criticism. Self-opinion. (5) Wrath,...

I took it upon myself to read the Critique of Pure Reason. That lasted a few days, before I couldn't pick it up anymore. But I will say this: say what you want about Immanuel Kant, he was a great enemy of Objectivism, but he was also a great writer. He takes the fact that his theory is so absurdly crazy that there literally are no real-world examples of his ideas, and turns that to his advantage: "I sacrificed examples in the interests of clarity," is basically what he says, but he says it so much more elegantly. He says "this is the last work there needs to be in philosophy, ever, this answers every question, and you have no choice but to agree with me, you must agree with everything I say," then, in the next sentence, obviates any anger the reader might feel at being talked to with such arrogance, by saying that any previous philosopher, who put forward any theory of the soul or reason, was actually being far more arrogant than Kant--which is obviously not tru...

1. "Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?" (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, which is an almost verbatim statement of one of the ideas of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, although Rand spent her entire life denying that Nietzsche influenced her.) 2. "...for these truths hold good for everything that is, and not for some special genus apart from others. And all men use them, because they are true of being qua being. ... For a principle which every one must have who understand anything that is, is not a hypothesis. ... Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say. It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong ...

 I have not seen a simple list of the virtues enumerated in Atlas Shrugged, so I made this list: 1. Reason 2. Purpose 3. Self-Esteem 4. Rationality 5. Independence 6. Integrity 7. Honesty 8. Justice 9. Productiveness 10. Pride For Ayn Rand's explication of these virtues, see pages 932-33, Atlas Shrugged, Signet Paperback Edition. One can further subdivide this list: Reason, Purpose and Self-Esteem are "the Big Three Virtues," Rationality, Independence and Integrity are "The Intellectual Virtues," and Honesty, Justice, Productiveness and Pride are "The Social Virtues." These three sets of values comprise the bedrock foundation of Objectivist morality.

I have to share links to my two new books on Amazon--just to make it easier for you to find them! A Law and Economics Approach to Litigation Costs: The Proportionality Test for E-Discovery Law And On Forgiveness Love them or hate them, this nobody can deny: my nonfiction books are unique!

What is the philosophy of Objectivism? Let's learn about it together! I bet you'll learn something new! Objectivism is the name of a philosophy--a set of ideas--developed by novelist Ayn Rand in the 20th Century. Objectivists are people who practice Objectivism. What do Objectivists believe? They think that a person should be happy, and that your happiness is the moral and ethical purpose of your life. They claim that rationality and reasoning are your main tools to succeed in the world, and that success causes happiness. They promote capitalism and individualism, feeling that the individual is more important than society. Did you know? The 1980s were called The Decade of Greed because many people were influenced by Objectivism at that time, including high-ranking officials of the Reagan Administration. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was also a known Objectivist. Who was Ayn Rand? She was born in 1905 in Russia to Jewish parents. She lived through the 1918 Communist...

Master legal reasoning. Improve your writing and hone how to draft a brief. Understand the intersection of political philosophy and the law, and how that should shape your legal arguments to judged and juries whether you are a seasoned lawyer or pro se. Impress your friends with your grasp of logic. This paper provides a new system of logic, including philosophical principles and logical notation, based on the work in logic done by Aristotle and later by Ayn Rand but also with a nod to modern Analytical philosophy, which is extremely useful to lawyers for analyzing facts to determine whether they satisfy the elements of a claim, as well as organizing arguments to a jury and presenting evidence. A libertarian politics emerges from the system of logic as a byproduct of the logical analysis of the intersection of law, politics, and philosophy. Required reading for lawyers and citizens who want to understand the law and how and why it impacts them. Learn more at  https://www.amazon....

A Must-Read Book for Fans of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand and the Objectivist Philosophy Everyone has heard dark whispers about the philosophy of Objectivism. People read Ayn Rand’s novels and fall in love with her ideas, only to collapse into one of two inevitable fates: (1) eventually give up on the ideas as childish and selfish, often complaining that the philosophy is a cult, or (2) develop a religious, zealous fanaticism, obeying the tenets of the philosophy in an obsessive, robotic, mindless manner. But what is the truth about Objectivism? What is it in Rand’s novels that makes a light turn on in the minds of her readers, and why does that light always flare and then burn out, leaving behind either anger or mindless obedience? This book argues that Objectivism has been turned into a shallow, two-dimensional cartoon caricature of what the philosophy really is, by both Objectivism’s foes and its followers. The philosophy’s enemies fight against, and its followers...