Note: This comment system was replaced with Disqus in May 2010.
Comment #1
Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 22:55:53 mdt
Name: N D
Another act of justice. You're an amazing writer.
Comment #2
Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 23:12:49 mdt
Name: Michelle F. Cohen
Thank you for posting this clear and detailed account. I look forward to reading your criticism of Sciabarra's work.
Comment #3
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 0:38:06 mdt
Name: N D
The case against him is so clear that his only recourse is to do a Branden. That is, claim that the accusations against him are so obviously ridiculous and off the wall that no defense is necessary, and that only randriods can take Diana seriously. :)
Comment #4
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 2:32:59 mdt
Name: D Eastbrook
Sciabarra's e-mails are a case study in manipulation. It all fits so perfectly. He has no confidence in his scholarship (and justifiably so as it is a sham) so he has to compensate with oathes of loyalty. I see why he loves the Brandens so much. Water seeks its own level. Diana, you have truly done the Objectivist movement a great service. Many young Objectivists will be spared from the Branden/Kelly/Sciabarra trap and will not have to waste time correcting philosophical errors that they should have never been exposed to. Your honesty has been a joy to watch. Thankyou.
D. Eastbrook
Comment #5
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 3:05:35 mdt
Name: Legend511
Diana,
You've travelled quite a distance, thank you.
I learn so much each time I visit.
I really appreciate your efforts and honesty/integrity.
Comment #6
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 4:44:09 mdt
Name: Ergo
URL: http://ergosum.blogspot.com
Diana,
In the past, I have openly praised Sciabarra's RR, both here on Noodlefood and on my own blog. Ofcourse, I was oblivious to the character of the author except by what I could extrapolate from his work. Given that context, I thought of Sciabarra as a very intelligent scholar who contributed much for the advancement of Objectivist studies in the academia.
Reading your post now gives me some pause and reason to question his personal integrity. But I'll reserve my full judgment concerning his scholarly work (on whether his book "RR" is also similarly tainted by his dishonesty in personal life) until I can read your forthcoming post on an objective analysis of his theses.
The bottomline, however, is that my level of respect for his work has dramatically plummetted given this new knowledge I have gained of his personality. Dishonesty is one trait that cannot be compartmentalized - if one is dishonest in personal relationships, then there is good reason to be cautious of his integrity in professional matters, unlike other personality traits.
Comment #7
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 7:12:27 mdt
Name: oldsalt
Diana, when I read the first bit where he refers to himself as "Mother" (whether you ever called him that or not doesn't matter), my mind automatically editted in a "Poor" before the "Mother", so familiar was the tone of email. It is the old, old, Martyr Mother's formula of: "After all I've done for you...."
This man's character oozes across the page with every cajoling threat he writes.
Comment #8
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 7:13:40 mdt
Name: oldsalt
Diana, when I read the first bit where he refers to himself as "Mother" (whether you ever called him that or not doesn't matter), my mind automatically editted in a "Poor" before the "Mother", so familiar was the tone of email. It is the old, old, Martyr Mother's formula of: "After all I've done for you...."
This man's character oozes across the page with every cajoling threat he writes.
Comment #9
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 8:21:47 mdt
Name: Nicholas Provenzo
URL: http://www.capitalismcenter.org
Good for you. This “Part I” presents a devastating exposé of Sciabarra’s character and his method of operation with a person he sought to influence. Among many points, striking in my mind is Sciabarra’s unwillingness (if not outright inability) to offer you objective reasons to support his scholarship. Instead of pointing to facts, Sciabarra repeatedly relies on unverifiable claims and slimy appeals to your friendship.
For example, there is Sciabarra’s proclamation is that his work is his life. Yet rather than simply state the concrete reasons that his work is valid and criticism against him is unfair, he simply expects you to take his feelings into account, remain “loyal,” and squelch your questions accordingly. When you couldn’t do this, you became the target of his two-faced wrath. Amazing, especially when it is our side that gets repeatedly branded with charges of “loyalty oaths” and smear campaigns.
I expect you will be (again) criticized for taking this public. To those who would attack your decision and your motives, I say this: systemic corruption such as what you have portrayed here deserves the disinfectant only daylight can bring. Your grievances are legitimate. The facts your present are plain. Your presentation is fair.
Sciabarra is free to defend himself (if he can), yet there’s only one response that I think can hold water: an admission of responsibility and guilt.
Comment #10
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 8:27:32 mdt
Name: A.West
Just another bit of damning evidence:
A few years ago while earning my MBA at NYU, Sciabarra played a role in helping to convert the NYU Objectivist club of that time into a Kelleyite club, which then e-mailed to its former members occasional propaganda against ARI (wonder who provided the inspiration for that?). Fortunately a new, vibrant,and real Objectivist club has since been established at NYU.
Comment #11
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 8:45:07 mdt
Name: Eric Barnhill
URL: http://ericbarnhill.wordpress.com
There was a time when I stopped coming around your blog. I did this because I wasn't sure where I stood on certain aspects of your break with TOC and ensuing support of ARI. I was delighted when you broke with them and happy to chime in with my own dissatisfaction. But I wasn't sure whether you had a genuine philosophical dispute with them, or were upset that they were a lousy organization that treated you like crap and you were using the claim of a philosophical break as, to some degree, rationalization. Without getting into details, there are reasons someone like me who had spent basically their entire time with Objectivism within TOC would have found your move surreal. Everything I heard about ARI was awful. The closed system was misrepresented. Nor was I impressed by some of the commenters who came around your site after your break, who seemed looking for any excuse to express vitriol on their enemies. So, it seemed possible that you had jumped from frying pan to fire out of spite.
And so I left, not because I didn't like your blog, but because you were clear what you wanted. You wanted everyone to be above board about how they felt. If they thought you were being dishonest and irrational, you wanted them to say so and leave. I wasn't sure how I felt, but I thought that I couldn't in good conscience stay and be nice to you and post when I harbored all these suspicions. It wasn't honest.
And then over a fair amount of time, which took time in part because I'm just not that involved with Objectivism, I began to realize that your case made sense. In fact the more I thought about it, the more I thought you more or less fingered the root cause of the problem, and that TOC's philosophical cornerstone of tolerationism was probably the very reason for their intellectual stillbirth. Similarly your account of ARI speakers and events greatly rehabilitated their image in my mind, and I saw why you would be interested in and excited them. Reassured as to your honesty, I returned, and have enjoyed myself ever since. Now I am almost done with OPAR and Objectivism is poised to make a re-entry into my life. I don't claim to have worked out to the bone the issues of toleration and open/closed system, because I consider that a massive project which would add less value to my life than other projects I am embarked on right now. Consequently, I read your writings on the topic with interest.
The moral of the story is, be above board in your relations with people and respectful of what they want from you. I don't wish to comment on this particular situation, other than to say that it appears to demonstrate the devastatingly hurtful results that can follow when that simple but difficult truth is not lived up to.
Comment #12
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 9:06:06 mdt
Name: Michelle F. Cohen
Diana,
I was puzzled by Sciabarra's post about you on NotaBlog. First he states your promise not to criticize his work for the sake of old friendship, then he complains that it is clear that you and him have differences. Of course there are differences. So what, since you did not criticize his work in public. After reading your account, I understand. Those differences amount to implicit criticism of his work, no less.
An honest mentor cannot expect that a former student will refrain from criticizing his work for the sake of their old friendship. In fact, Aristotle was mentored by Plato and then developed a philosophy that overthrew Plato's Idealism. Aristotle addressed his relationship with Plato as follows: "I love Plato, but more than him I love the truth." Imagine if Aristotle kept his views to himself just to refrain from hurting Plato's feelings. Thanks for speaking up!
Comment #13
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 9:42:07 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
I read Lennox's review, which was very persuasive. And it confirmed my suspicions as to what I had thought when I first skimmed it. Since I hadn't studied it in depth I was reluctant to conclude anything.
In any case, if the review is accurate, which it certainly appears to be, then Sciabarra's book is no more than a hash of highly speculative -- and dishonest -- bullshit with a scholarly veneer.
Comment #14
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 9:47:13 mdt
Name: James S. Valliant
Diana,
If Chris had ever been a "mother" -- a real mentor -- he would have released you from your "no criticism of Chris" promise BEFORE he started spreading such B.S. about you behind your back.
Comment #15
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 10:52:29 mdt
Name: Eric Barnhill
URL: http://ericbarnhill.wordpress.com
My use of the second person in my post was unacceptably sloppy and confusing. In the final paragraph I should have said "be above board in one's relationships". I was not directing the final paragraph at our esteemed host, on the contrary. That may have been clear from the context but I wanted to clarify. In general I should never publicly apostrophe myself before my morning espresso.
Comment #16
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 11:15:45 mdt
Name: Trey Givens
URL: http://www.treygivens.com
Diana, again, I am saddened that you've been subject to such a betrayal. It's good to see you exacting justice and moving ahead.
Like other commentors, I look forward to your critique of Sciabarra's work, particularly the dialectical approach, which seems incompatible with Objectivism to me, but I admit that my understanding is limited.
Keep up the good work!
Comment #17
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 11:52:58 mdt
Name: Bill
Diana:
Despite what I’m about to say, I am NO “warm fuzzy” but…
Professionally AND personally, you seem to be immersed in a toxic environment regarding you and Sciabarra. My advice is to walk away from it, ASAP. I know that right now that it could be very hard for you to do. The behavior that you are describing is “typical” of personality types that reasonable people need to steer clear of and I don’t think anyone needs to remind you of that. He seems to be getting off on the social politics of your break with him as much as the professional politics and no doubt he may be getting off on *your* aggravation. You can tell by reading your post that this has you tied up in a knot. No doubt he likes that. You’re giving him oxygen. Cut him off!
By no means I am not advising you to let bygones by bygones or any other subversion of Reason or Justice. But justice has you needing to take care of yourself first. Otherwise CS and pals get the last laugh. Also more importantly don’t let this stop you from professionally critiquing his work, TOS or anything else in the professional sphere. But as long as this stays "personal," he has his talons into you. Since we Objectivists are pretty well integrated, he’s banking on you to hold on to both the professional beef and the personal and the latter is where he may be getting his sweet jollies. As a few posters have indicated, this guy is manipulative. Not good.
Walk way (from the personal side of this). Now. For *you.* It ain't easy. Trust me, I know.
Or as one of my colleagues says in a very NON “warm fuzzy” way that more appeals to me. He’s an *ssh*l*. Don’t deal with the *ssh*l*. Pardon my (and his) French.
Comment #18
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 14:19:11 mdt
Name: John Dailey
Diana:
~~ As you may know, I've done some posting on RoR, Passion, etc (not to mention *here*) with rarely a 'staked-out' commitment re substantive side-taking in issues involving specific people (...well, there was one negative, but...that was definitely 'personal', though I've never met him.) I disagree with most re the 'honesty' of another who now has their own site (and then there's Nathan Hawking who I still don't quite know what to make of).
~~ I'm one of the, I do believe, very many who've never met any of you involved with these blogs/columns, and local 'meetings' wherever (wish I did, though the feeling might not be mutual), but attend reading them merely to keep up on developments (and, who knows? maybe an actual 'discovery' or two...someday) within O'ism philosophy. I also am barely aware (reading 'between the lines' of some blog/forum posts) that there is a kind of 'underground'/private-em-gossip set of discussions going around (as you allude to in this article of yours), but, I've certainly not been privy to any (I'm not a 'people'-person, as I've commented elswhere). The specifics that you refer to re Sciabarra in these are a bit...disconcerting. Like Sciabarra, you've become a 'name' in O'ist circles (blogging, obviously, and no doubt otherwise by now, I'd say), as also Linz, etc.
~~ I've read Chris' RR, and find his arguments re the 'dialectic' perspective on logic-handling of issues quite persuasive, especially the misconstruing of such as being ONLY applicable to Marxian/Hegel-oriented analysis. I agree that the term, (like 'morality' re religions), has been, in effect 'hijacked' or monopolized by a group whereas the term has much broader applicability.
~~ Now, I'm not one to debate the 'scholarship' criteria (or even know much about it) that is proper for one article/book or another (though with all written lately, I'm sure catching up). You (as some others) argue that JARS and RR are supposedly sloppy in that regard. Maybe; but for a non-academic-oriented reader (as I believe most of us are), all I can go by is whether or not argument 'X' is logically-persuasive...or not. So, 'scholarship'-criteria are really irrelevent to me...though interesting.
~~ However, your carrying of this argument into the territory (filled out with other references re e-mails/conversations/etc) of personal castigation of Sciabarra...whom I've never met and exchanged only a few e-m's with...really pains this admirer-of-many-(especially him)-from-afar. You're making him out (as you clarified that you intended to do) as a...well...a Branden. I'm aware that they have no enmity 'tween them, don't know their level of friendship, etc, but...I find this set of accusations re Sciabarra hard to...digest. Sorta like re-reading PAR, I guess.
~~ Many have clearly 'taken sides' already. I'm quite leery of this...readiness (the thoroughness of your article nwst)...to do such. I'm too aware of, shall I say, the history of it's occurrence (whether supposedly 'expected' or not), especially in the now-public cyber-circle of O'ists.
~~ Consider this post my 1st thoughts...and, feelings...about your article. I do hope, for your sake and for Sciabarra's, that you know what you're doing here.
Disconcertedly Perplexed,
LLAP
MTFBWY
J:D/'Rowlf'
Comment #19
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 14:31:58 mdt
Name: PMB
John writes, "Many have clearly 'taken sides' already. I'm quite leery of this...readiness (the thoroughness of your article nwst)...to do such."
John, while Diana's post is certainly the most damning argument in favor of Chris Sciabarra's deviousness, manipulativeness, and dishonesty, it is not the only evidence. At the very minimum, his comments on this blog in the spring of 2004 show him to be completely intellectually dishonest. Moreover, his attacks on ARI scholars (while at the same time seeking--and pretending to have--their sanction) are also widely known.
In other words, most of the people who have "taken sides" took them long ago. I certainly did.
Comment #20
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 15:06:51 mdt
Name: Joe Maurone
I stand by my decision to allow Diana to use my email exchange to allow herself a fair hearing. The same goes for Lindsay Perigo. I do so because I believe in the right to know one's accusers, and have seen enough of people taking shots at Ayn Rand and her defenders through unnamed sources. It was not a decision made lightly, and it's not pretty. However, to continue in silence would have been dishonest to the parties involved,
and I could not stand by while people on both sides of the schism were being misrepresented. I could not allow myself to be manipulated anymore at the expense of innocent parties. And I can no longer hide behind the appeal that all disagreements are based on miscommunications.
I, like, Diana, had, out of loyalty to Chris, had drifted apart over issues like PARC, the Brandens. I valued our friendship enought to put it aside and agree to disagree. But as I became closer to Objectivism after several years of apologizing for Rand based on the Branden's testimonies, I felt undue pressure from Chris to reconsider. I find this especially discouraging coming from someone who's made his name around Ayn Rand. It was discouraging to hear a man who prides himself as being friends with communists and anarchists (and earning the nickname "her royal whoreness" worry about my supposed "coziness" with "people like Diana." I was told many stories over the years about how ARI had attempted to hurt Chris, how "sick" they were, in his words. I had heard many smears from Chris regarding Diana. I was discouraged from engaging with her when she publicly attacked my Jungian Objectivism site. This was not uncommon; Chris would share personal stories and letters with me regarding his opponents, presenting me with his version of their views while being bound in the strictest confidentiality. I was expected to take this information on FAITH as proof of the rightness of his work. The claims were never to be verified, and the subjects of his claims never given a fair trial.
I take the responsibility for listening to these stories without challenging him on this. I didn't have to listen, and I will admit to being sympathetic to his stories. After my exposure to the Branden's accounts, I was willing to swallow any horror story about Rand and her character, as well as that of her defenders. I can only apologize to the people I have criticized based on nothing but the heresay of the Brandens and Chris.
So it came to a point where I realized that my friendship with Chris was being jeopardized by my rejection of the Brandens and my acceptance of Objectivism. In a manner descriptive of the supposed Randian excommunications, I was being called on to show loyalty towards Chris and JARS. Again I was told personal information about others without being allowed to verify the information for myself. That is not how a friend treats a friend. Friends do not put others in that position. And a Rand scholar should know better to expect an Objectivist to take matters "on faith."
To make the situation worse, Chris tried to manipulate the situation by playing on my homosexuality with the idea that Diana was a homophobe, presenting her statement out of context. Whatever her actual position, it was a cheap shot to keep me from inquiring on my own the truth of Chris's claims.
To those who defend Chris and attack Diana on the matter of privacy, Chris brought this on himself by betraying confidential information and sharing personal, private information about others. This from a man who likes to repeat the maxim that "Civilization is the advancement towards privacy." For Diana to come forward publicly was a drastic move, however, it was much more honest than whispering behind one's back and binding the audience to secrecy.
Chris Sciabarra is often claimed to be the most important scholar in Rand studies today. A true Rand scholar would not discourage criticism of his work with appeals to his health, his sexuality, his friendship, or any appeals based on faith. If there are any honest defenders of Chris out there, you will have your chance to defend him, as I once did. But the time has now passed for statements such as "Chris is a beautiful man", "courageous,", and "an important writer." State your premises, define your terms, set your criteria. Mere adjectives are not going to cut it.
Comment #21
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 16:42:20 mdt
Name: Noumenalself
For the record, I would like to state that I agree with Diana that my remark about her friendship with
Sciabarra was in fact inappropriate, which was quickly pointed out to me by a number of other ARI-friendly friends. My main point was to encourage Diana to reevaluate Sciabarra's work; any further implications about their friendship were irrelevant and unjustified.
What's less innocent, on my part, was failing to retract or reword the statement. I failed there not because I disagreed with my friends' criticism, but mostly because it slipped my mind and I never got around to it. Then after a while, the web site in general languished, so no updates of any kind were made. I apologize for that.
I wanted to mention this now, because I've only just recently taken down the old content from Noumenalself.com, not because of this issue, but for other reasons.
NS
Comment #22
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 18:57:51 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
Depressing. Regardless of whose version
is the truth. Should I be glad I'm not
in a "humanities" field?
Comment #23
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 19:00:54 mdt
Name: Paul Hsieh
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
Mike: Many of the central issues (including misrepresentation of others' views, false claims of assistance in a book acknowledgments chapter, false claims about others' reasons or lack thereof for publication in journal) are independent of being in the humanities vs. the sciences.
Comment #24
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 21:25:27 mdt
Name: John Dailey
PMB:
~~ "In other words. most of the people who have 'taken sides' took them long ago. I certainly did."
~~ Thank you for your poll-analysis (though I'm unclear as to your source-data methodology...other than guessing).
~~ Clearly I'm not as intelligent as 'most' (or as you); but then...I never innuended that I was. Ntl, I find your post redundant...which is the point of mine here.
~~ Guess I still have more to learn...about the nature of...and reasons for...'side-taking'; not to mention the politics in advertising it.
J-D
Comment #25
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 21:28:56 mdt
Name: PMB
John, no need to get defensive. I wasn't saying you should have reached this conclusion earlier. I was merely saying that others have, and that they had the evidence to do so. How do I know that? Because I know a lot of the commentors who've "taken sides," either personally or from watching them post over the years...OR they've explained what evidence they used to reach their conclusions, evidence available long before Diana's post. As for the rest of your comments, I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.
Comment #26
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 21:52:59 mdt
Name: David Rehm
URL: http://davidrehm.com/
"~~ Guess I still have more to learn...about the nature of...and reasons for...'side-taking'; not to mention the politics in advertising it."
I believe its the virtue called justice, which is about the best word I know of to describe what Diana has done here yet again.
Comment #27
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 22:17:49 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
:: Mike: Many of the central issues (including
:: misrepresentation of others' views, false claims
:: of assistance in a book acknowledgments chapter,
:: false claims about others' reasons or lack thereof
:: for publication in journal) are independent of
:: being in the humanities vs. the sciences.
Well, maybe, but I seem to hear about things happening
more often in humanities fields, despite my relative
lack of contact with those.
Comment #28
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 22:37:28 mdt
Name: John Dailey
David:
~~ A 'virtue' is such only when applied properly and not merely apparently. Diana, I have no doubt is 'justice'-oriented; as with any jury-'judgers', no one is infallible in judging. Spare me condescension that I don't...yet...accept her being infallible in applying it, and that I show such in my post. Also spare me explanations about 'justice'; I'm a bit aware of the subject. Diana may have 'judged' correctly, in her evaluation, and in her publicly posting it...but all I've done is explain my 'peripheral' awareness of all going on...as I see so many other readers being in the same 'not-in-the-loop' position. Accept it or lump it.
~~ In short: not all are privy to 'knowledge' held by those who have a prob with 'questioners'(which I'm chronically seeing most forum-oriented 'ARI-"supporters"' as being); else, why'd the questioners (like me) exist? Merely to be recalcitrant, or, evilly nit-picking? Please: "Think Twice" on that.
PMB:
~~ Clearly, some definitely dislike what I wrote...and I castigated no one. Whoah; are there 'sensitivities' of some kind here, or what? --- "Don't be defensive"? O-k...don't be 'attacking', then. --- (Ok; you're not 'attacking'...you're just seeming to be 'attacking'. Now, you really don't want to draw this subject out in this thread, I hope; I've made clear how these responses 'appear'. Asking-for/demanding 'proof' or 'justifications' will just hijack this thread's original point.)
J-D
Comment #29
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 23:23:21 mdt
Name: L.S.
Mr. Daily:
I'm having a really hard time understanding you in these comments, and I have a sincere question.
Please forgive the crass wording, but I'm unable to express the nature of my question properly any other way, which is:
What is your point?
Comment #30
Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 23:59:34 mdt
Name: D. Eastbrook
Mr. Dailey,
You're rambling. Coherency is a virtue.
D. Eastbrook
Comment #31
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 0:00:15 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
I want to thank all those who have commented in this thread, particularly my old friend Eric Barnhill. (And thank you Joe, for posting your reasons for allowing me to comment about Chris' e-mail about me publicly -- and for asking me about Chris' claims in the first place.)
Some of you might be interested in following the ongoing debates in other forums. I will be chiming in on SoloPassion:
<http://www.solopassion.com/node/893#comment>
As for the rest....
Barbara Branden started this thread on so-called "Objectivist Living":
<http://wheelerdesignworks.netfirms.com/Objectivism/nfphpbb/viewtopic.php?t=467>
She said: "Enough is enough. I'm sick to death of pulling my punches. Diana Hsieh has published, on her web site, Noodlefood -- and, of course, on Solo Passion -- as disgustingly unjust and irrational an attack as I have ever seen, and on the one person I know who least deserves it: Chris Sciabarra. Occasionally, if rarely, when one sees a vicious attack on these two forums -- and the number of them begins to seem infinite -- one can, with conscientious delving and mulling, find a modicum of rationale for a clause, a phrase, sometimes even a sentence of the vitriol. That is not the case with the present screed. It should be taught in every logic class in the country as an example of unqualified illogic. And as an example of what the desire for vengeance for imagined slights can do to a mind."
Not a "modium of rationale" in my post for my condemnation of Chris! Amazing -- but just like her.
At the end, she asked "that you have nothing to with either Noodlefood, Solo Passion, or their principals. It is unconscionable that any friend and/or admirer of Chris Sciabarra should have dealings with such purveyors of unreason and brutishness. Evil can prevail only if the good do nothing."
Also, I wasn't expecting Chris to reply publicly to my post. That's not in his "confidential" style -- and I've presented overwhelming evidence of his dishonesty. And Barbara Branden basically confirms that in a later post: "It is for this reason that I feel strongly that voices must be raised to speak for a fine and honorable man whose dignity will not permit him to speak for himself."
We also have this thread by Roger Bissell:
<http://wheelerdesignworks.netfirms.com/Objectivism/nfphpbb/viewtopic.php?t=469>
And finally, most disgusting of all, MORE LIES about my views of homosexuality:
<http://wheelerdesignworks.netfirms.com/Objectivism/nfphpbb/viewtopic.php?t=464>
I've threatened to find myself a lesbian lover to make my views on homosexuality clear, but I fear that Paul is rather unrealistic about how that might work out in practice. ;-)
Also:
<http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0066.shtml>
Overall, I'm unimpressed but not surprised by the kinds of responses I've seen so far in defense of Chris. My post offered overwhelming evidence of his dishonesty and manipulation -- despite his public facade of good character. Apart from ad hominem attacks upon me, the only response is begging the question with "But it can't be true, he's such a good person!" I've seen no attempt whatsoever to grapple with the evidence to the contrary I presented in my post -- just mere assertions of what I've already disproven.
I expect that the defenses of Chris will become more sophisticated over time, but no more valid. (That's certainly what happened with the now-absurd defenses of the Brandens in the wake of Jim Valliant's _The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics_.)
Comment #32
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 2:10:19 mdt
Name: Kurt Colville
Off-topic: Yaron is going to be on O'Reilly tomorrow (Thurs.) night to defend big oil. That's FOX News at 7 and 10 pm CDT. You might want to keep heavy objects out of reach, because I'll tell you right now, you'll want to deliver a beating to your TV after you see the cavalcade of evasions, context-plummeting, mockery, non-sequiturs, appeals to "looking out for the folks", and complaints about Yaron being "too esoteric", which is O'Reilly's autonomic reflex to any discussion of an actual idea and which argument he can dimly grasp he is about to lose.
Only this could top what I heard on Rush today, in which some leftist media slug was actually praising Tony Snow, saying he would be more reasonable to deal with because he's "principled and pragmatic". Yeah, my radio almost bought it after that one. And this zero makes his living by communicating ideas with words. Meaning, what meaning? Then again, that quote could have just as easily come from Bush.
Comment #33
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 3:57:42 mdt
Name: Dismuke
URL: http://RadioDismuke.com
So Barbara Branden is taking Dianah to task for a "disgustingly unjust and irrational an attack" on Sciabarra? That is just too bloody hilarious.
How could Barbara Branden, of all people, take ANYBODY to task for THAT? That's like Jane Fonda and John Kerry taking someone to task for treason. It's like O.J. Simpson knocking someone for domestic violence. It's Ted Kennedy smugly lecturing someone for poor elocution! I'll bet we could have fun thinking of all sorts of other examples!
Dianah quotes Barbara Brandon comments: "And I ask something more: that you have nothing to with either Noodlefood, Solo Passion, or their principals. It is unconscionable that any friend and/or admirer of Chris Sciabarra should have dealings with such purveyors of unreason and brutishness."
That, too, is just absolutely amazing - and ironic. When actual Objectivists refused to have anything to do with Barbara or Nathaniel Branden for the exact same reasons or with others who attacked, slimed or misrepresented Objectivists or Objectivism - well, they were denounced as "cloistered" "dogmatic" "cultish" "intolerant" "randroids." But now Barbara Branden is advocating that members of the same crowd who denounced the Objectivists do the exact same thing that they were denouncing. Wow.
Advice to Sciabarra: If you do not wish to actually address Dianah's charges but still want to attempt some form of "spin" and "damage control" - get a spokesperson with at least some modicum of moral credibility or, absent that, a person that nobody has ever heard of and has no known moral track record one way or another. Having that thoroughly discredited wicked woman as your primary spokesperson against an allegedly unjust attack - well, at best it will transform your defense into a circus. More likely, people will simply conclude "birds of a feather......"
Comment #34
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 4:02:52 mdt
Name: Dismuke
URL: http://RadioDismuke.com
Yikes!
My apologies for not spelling "Diana" correctly in my previous posting.
Now I know how Dan Quayle felt! At least I have an excuse: I went to government run schools!
Comment #35
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 9:16:24 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Don't worry about misspelling my name, Dismukeh. :-)
Comment #36
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 12:40:49 mdt
Name: Bill
OK, the warm fuzzies are off. And as an added bonus, I'm already cranky this morning.
Whadyaknow.... Brandon is now joining in.
So what? Should we really care what Barbara Brandon says after everything else she’s said?
One of the “bennies” of the ARI/TOC split is that you're pretty much indemnified against fallout from your post, your departure from the TOC crowd and your decision to back away from Sciabarra both personally and professionally. They can call your statement baseless and irrational. They can misrepresent your views on homosexuality. They can accuse you of not paying your parking tickets. They can accuse of being a Kantian Whimwhorshiper who has a Kitten-Porn Dungeon in your basement where you make dirty but high quality movies for animal fetishists, the proceeds of which you use to buy crack cocaine and veal and foie gras do-it-yourself kits that you sell to children on the Pearl Street Mall out of the back of your black humvee (which, BTW, you can’t park between the lines to save your life). And don't think *that* one isn't coming. You may even be accused of being into Zon-Power or worse, an edu.pip (as I date myself).
So what? Big Deal. Once again, do you REALLY want to spend a lot of emotional, personal and professional capital on this? They are going to say what they will to discredit you and punish you for not just your apostasy but now for your looking in a critical and scholarly matter at one of their sacred and celebrated cows. That it is an “ex-friend” makes it a bigger battle " for THEM. And you need to keep it this way: *their* hangup and not yours.
I m not your boss, your advisor or your friend but even I can tell that it’s not a good idea to go to those sites that are calling you names that better reflect junior high social dynamics or the old days of a.p.o (and that's before the NeoTechers joined in) or listen to what well-meaning people are telling you about what twits in other places say about you. Don’t listen to the childish get-her-backs and the like, and just keep moving forward. I think it’s safe to say you’ve been around the block long enough to know that by now.
Keep your issues with CB critical, keep them scholarly, and keep them professional, and let the rest be their dysfunction and not your problem and you’ll go further than they can ever dream of going " and that will just give them *more* hissyfits and tantrums so just donyt look back.
Good luck, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
Comment #37
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 12:53:32 mdt
Name: Adam Spong
Diana's case is damning, and given the circumstances, I respect her decision to air this on Noodlefood.
I want to point out though that none of this knowledge of Sciabarra should have been necessary to condemn him and his work. His whole dialectic project has always been bizarre, superficial and sophmoric (did Rand see through false dichotomies to get at the underlying principles....Why, that's Hegelian synthesis she's doing!!). His commitment to mashing Objectivism into a shape more attractive to Marxists and postmodernists has always been blatantly corrupt and destructive--and he has done much to spread this tolerationist approach, in his position as a figurehead for the anti-Objectivist Rand/ARI-hating libertarian movement. And his continued defense of the Brandens even in the face of PARC is simply contemptible.
Sciabarra's pose as the honest and civil scholar has led some who perhaps should have known better to go easy on him, to flatter him with praise for his courage and honesty in engaging his opponents, or to regard him as a more respectable sort of pseudo-anarcho-Objectitarian. But even if Sciabarra actually was a really nice and amiable person, this should not have blinded anyone to the fact that his work is largely false and irrational, and that he is a committed enemy of real, principled Objectivism, despite his professed desire to see some undefined, transmogrified aspects of "Randian thought" catch on in academic circles.
Sciabarra should have been dismissed into irrelevance long before this exposure of his malicious character was necessary.
Comment #38
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 13:17:38 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Diana, I took a look at the Objectivist Living thread. I could have overlooked something, but of all the turmoil over your post I saw no one directly challenge any specific evidential issue or point of argument you raised.
Comment #39
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 13:56:36 mdt
Name: D Eastbrook
"Diana, I took a look at the Objectivist Living thread. I could have overlooked something, but of all the turmoil over your post I saw no one directly challenge any specific evidential issue or point of argument you raised."
I noticed that too. Its amazing. These people are supposed to be committed to a philosophy of *objectivity* and yet none of them has even considered weighing the evidence presented. Have they never even read a good mystery novel? For me, it just further underscores that the whole "tolerationist" axis (TOC, the Brandens, Sciabarra, etc) want to be Objectivists without the effort of being objective. They want to somehow be Objectivists without being inconvenienced by Objectivism.
They are truly pathetic.
D. Eastbrook
Comment #40
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 14:39:05 mdt
Name: Bill
Dave and D
Indeed. I looked at a few of the comments and had a bad flashback to the old days of usenet on days where you could hear the bottom of the barrel being scrapped.
If reading and participating in that type of intelligent discussion (more like a mud fest) is your preferred Objectivist “Copper Pot,” then you need a better life-affirming hobby.
I understand the need to protect one's personal and professional reputation from ankle-nipping from the not-so-high-minded, but there's a point when you just have to say to heck with 'em, put on a pair of hiking boots and trudge onward.
Comment #41
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 18:44:36 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Kurt -- PLEASE do not post off-topic comments. It's a HUGE pet peeve of mine. As I say just below the comment textbox: "The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board, so please do not post random questions or comments on any old blog post." Please e-mail me if you have something you think should I should blog. If I choose not to do so, that's just too bad. If you choose to post random comments on random blog posts, I get grumpy.
BTW, the O'Reilly appearance has been cancelled, perhaps to be rescheduled next week.
Comment #42
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 18:45:25 mdt
Name: Kurt Colville
Dr. Brook has been cancelled from O'Reilly tonight.
Comment #43
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 19:02:55 mdt
Name: DW
Regarding the treatment of homosexuals by the people at ARI, allow me to help set the record straight. Not only am I a homosexual, but my long-time partner and I have been open supporters of ARI for quite a long time (my partner since ARI's beginning, and myself since the early 90s). At various ARI functions, we've met quite a few of ARI's top employees, including several philosophers. I have never met warmer, more engaging, intelligent, and all-around pleasant people -- and they knew we were a couple.
Either the fact of our partnership didn't bother them (which I suspect), or they chose to treat us with respect nonetheless. I neither know nor care.
Let me go on to say that Leonard Peikoff deserves special credit for his clear thinking on the subject of sex. His deciding that homosexuality is not a moral issue, and then his discussing that topic in a relaxed and generally positive way during a speech on sex, showed a tremendous commitment to rationality, objectivity, and independence.
Our culture is deeply infused with Protestant attitudes toward sex. Even many Objectivists suffer from these puritanical views (as I believe Diana has discussed here on Noodlefood). I can only imagine that Leonard Peikoff must have nettled more than a few ARI supporters when he took a benevolent position on homosexuality. In any case, I know for a fact that some Objectivists weren't prepared to hear what he had to say. I credit his intellectual leadership, including his integrity, with bringing many Objectivists around on this subject.
Sure, there have been some ugly comments coming from some quarters in the past. Sure, some Objectivist intellectuals might still disagree on certain aspects of homosexuality. But I think it's time to move on. The present is not the same as the past. For my part, I count the people I have met at ARI as being among the finest people in the world, and I'm proud to be a supporter of them.
Comment #44
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 19:47:34 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Bill, I'm really not sure why you're giving me advice about what I should or should not be doing with respect to CMS -- twice now. As an anonymous commenter, you just don't have standing to do that. (You don't know my full context; I don't know you from Adam.) And it's annoying for you to do so in public, particularly when I cannot reply to you privately to ask you to cease. So please, stop. Or at least send me private e-mails, rather than posting publicly.
Comment #45
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 21:33:22 mdt
Name: Brant Gaede
I am retiring from posting on Objectivist forums. While this is only my second comment here since 2004 and I have decided not to call myself an Objectivist any longer (I'm trying to think through some very important issues), I am coming here to disabuse anyone of the notion that I have or will have anthing to do with Objectivist Living where someone like a Jenna W opines that Diana is insane and out of her mind re Chris and gets to cry on the supportive shoulder of Michel S. Kelly and co. This is "toleration" in action.
If I start my own blog I'll tell Diana its address so she might post it here if she wants. It won't be an Objectivist blog, but will acknowledge Objectivism. The content will be all over the map.
--Brant
Comment #46
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 21:36:07 mdt
Name: RT
On SOLOP, Chris Cathcart writes:
"As for Chris, who I'd say I know a little better than Diana, I did have the impression of him over the years as wanting to "play it nice" with everyone.... he might be afflicted with being too nice a guy."
Yes, many people say that he was such a nice guy. Nice to *everybody*. Marxists, feminists, post-modernist nihilists, you name it. So nice. Everybody liked him.
Peter Keating was nice too. Everybody liked Peter Keating. And Peter was nice to *everybody*. He didn't differentiate or judge people. He was just really, really nice. Well, maybe not to Howard Roark. But everybody else he was super-nice to. Except... well... I guess what he did to Lucius N. Heyer was pretty nasty. But that was *totally* in private, and it would be *extremely rude* to bring that up in public. Nobody was really meant to know about that--if it was private, it was private, end of story. Anyway, how could anyone think that someone so *nice* as Peter Keating could be a *villain*? It just doesn't make sense.
Sciabarra even writes that, for him, niceness trumps everything in the intellectual realm: "While I'm willing to debate anyone on substantive issues, I will not sanction personal rudeness." <http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog/archives/000641.html#comments> So we can give our sanction to someone who advocates, say, that the immolation of entire countries for the sake of the proletariat is a *good* thing. That's fine. Let's debate it! I'll take the "not a good thing" side. But personal rudeness? Whoa -- that is really beyond the pale. Unspeakable. That cannot be sanctioned.
(For some reason I'm reminded of a passage from the Fountainhead: "Surely you're seen through that particular stupidity. I mean the one that claims the pig is the symbol of love for humanity"the creature that accepts anything. As a matter of fact, the person who loves everybody and feels at home everywhere is the true hater of mankind. He expects nothing of men, so no form of depravity can outrage him." No depravity, that is, except maybe "personal rudeness". Hmm... by "personal rudeness"... I wonder... did Sciabarra really mean... "moral judgement"?)
Interestingly, in the very next sentence, Sciabarra writes: "I won't crawl into the sewer with people who insist on swimming in its waters or practice the very style I condemn others for exhibiting." I guess he forgot to add: "Except in private emails, where I will *totally* practice the very style I condemn in others! Hehe! But don't tell anyone I said this, this is confidential. You know how those ARI people are, they eat babies for breakfast--and I have documentary proof--though I can't reveal any names right now. Speaking of ARI people, I need to send another letter to Leonard Peikoff about my new book. We've had quite a correspondence, let me tell you, quite a correspondence! I almost feel I should credit dear Leonard as a co-author, his assistance has been so extensive and invaluable. He's still a baby-eater though."
Comment #47
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 21:43:23 mdt
Name: Nicholas Provenzo
URL: http://www.capitalismcenter.org
So Barbara Brandon thinks Diana is mbrutish” and “barbarian” crashing her gate for taking her former mentor to task. Has she actually ever read “The Passion of Ayn Rand?”
Barbara Brandon says it’s Chris Sciabarra who made Objectivism known in academia. Yeah, sure, the same way she made Objectivism known by portraying Rand as a hypocrite to her philosophy and a woman who mercilessly drove her husband to drink.
These folks are defeated, but they have not surrendered and I don’t think they ever will.
Comment #48
Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 23:14:48 mdt
Name: Mark Wickens
URL: http://randex.org
Further to DW's comments: I was 19 in 1984 when I attended the University of Toronto "Capitalism vs. Socialism" debate at which Leonard Peikoff and John Ridpath spoke. I had read Rand but was not yet an Objectivist and had heard somewhere that Objectivism said homosexuality was immoral. After the debate, in an informal scrum at the front, I asked Dr. Peikoff whether this was true. He was very friendly and very clear: Objectivism says that sex is good and does not say that homosexuality is immoral.
That experience, plus my experiences with other ARI Objectivists in the many years since, and knowing (as Diana pointed out) that at least a couple prominent names associated with ARI are gay, are all the evidence I've ever needed to regard the idea of an anti-gay undercurrent existing in ARI circles as ludicrous.
Comment #49
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 0:16:13 mdt
Name: michael
This discussion brings up a critical issue about social interactions (Diana, if this is too tangential, please exercise your property rights as you see fit). Many of the behaviors Diana describes -- exclusive, of course, of outright dishonesty -- might be classed in other contexts as being "gossipy" or "petty" (for example, spreading negative second- or third-hand information regarding a person's behavior or character, particularly when using it to establish intimacy with the listener).
Separate from this much more serious situation, can we expect that anyone who follows a rational mode of living -- again, I stress honestly -- won't otherwise be boorish? Would a "true" Objectivist gossip, tell tales about others or find fault? Dr. Tara Smith once used an intriguing, simple example in one of her classes: "sure he's an Objectivist, but maybe he's a jerk." Are those who do show awful manners or social skills somehow exhibiting irrationality?
Please note that I am not condoning dishonesty in any way or suggesting that "bad manners" is somehow at the root in this case. I do note, though, that concepts of proper interactions and manners are sometimes hard to negotiate in our context. We take ideas seriously and know that errors in thinking emerge sooner or later with negative consequences in our daily lives. Many of the criticisms on the boards Diana linked to above seem to boil down to "and he/she's a jerk," and imply philosophical and/or psychological errors as the reason.
Do all character flaws, at any level, imply a philosophical or moral error? Does having personal integrity and honesty mean telling each person exactly what I personally think of them?
Comment #50
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 1:43:50 mdt
Name: Orson Olson
I met and once worked with CS in his pre-scholarly teen-aged youth. I can't pretend any special insight into him and his character.
However, his subsequent embrace of the church of Murray Rothbard leads me to believe there is some (and perhaps s lot of) truth to the complaints Diana makes about him. Why? There is a circle of Rothbardian's who have been revealed to have similar hidden agendas (eg, Justin Raimondo). Such matters can be a mind-f*****g whirlwind. Thus, Bill's advice (#17) to withdraw from all such personality driven contacts because of they exacerbate conflict is important advice - golden if heeded.
The trouble Diana appears to have is sorting out manipulation from sound fact, as well as honest and valuable insights of a tentative nature offered in genuine joint interest. The hurt and betrayal are palpable in her long piece. Her effort here is surely emotionally driven, as seen by the exhaustive detail going into it. Emotional distancing can help one regain sounder perspective. What is disconcerting in the post are her Randian-like sweeping generalizations (like "nothing he says or writes can be trusted, not even the most innocuous claims"). It is a test of good sense and emotional maturity to resist these declamations - which is tough to do even with the best of intentions.
But Rothbard (who I met a several times and liked very much) was very like Rand in cultivating undeserved devotion (yes-amounting to collective adulation) - and yet sometimes was also alienated from seeing productive intellectual criticism. Sound judgment is thus jeopardized by other failings (whether intellectual or personal affronts). Joseph's post above (#20) is revealing (for those like me, so much in the dark about Notablog's debates and other postings) in this regard, and his earnest effort to confront and re-think strongly held fundamental opinions is brave and meritorious. By contrast, Nicholas comment (#47), like certain others, is entirely besides the point.
Another hazard is that we are pattern-recognition seeking creatures (see Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate"). It's comforting, even when it's not valid. A great many of the splits between TOC and ARI rest on this human frailty. Thus, Branden versus Rand debates become issues of sound judgment, elevated into moral imperatives. Uncertain facts become damning revelations exposing the deepest character flaws. Such horse-hockey drama! Confession may be good for the soul, but obscure if not frustrate other even more important purposes (like career advancement, or even the furthering of a field of scholarship).
How much better is it to endanger the Truth? - subjecting it to searching criticism - especially when it is emotionally and subjectively grasped so strongly. (And Diana's above post may even reflect this confusion of purposes; it is very human to reverse goals and purpose, ends and means) I find this dictum often valuable when otherwise good minds disagree passionately. Something here is profound - and yet something manifest is sadly puerile. Time and emotional distancing, together with earnest criticism, may sort these out. "Patience is a virtue" is a valuable ethical maxim here. (So is "resist hardening one’s heart.) When emotions and the highest held values are a mishmash, this seems too impossible. But CS is not the first person in Diana's life to have private agendas - nor will he be the last.
Again, that's why emotional, and - if need be, intellectual - distancing is good for the soul (see Bill again at #36). So - stay cool and keep your powder dry!
Comment #51
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 1:55:52 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Michael -- I'm interested in general questions you raise, but they are inappropriate on this thread, since Chris' behavior was consistently *dishonest* and *manipulative*, not ever *just* boorish and rude. Another time, okay?
Comment #52
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 2:39:39 mdt
Name: Nicholas Provenzo
URL: http://www.capitalismcenter.org
Barbara Brandon says Diana’s post is “disgustingly unjust and irrational.” She says it should be “taught in every logic class in the country as an example of unqualified illogic” and is an “example of what the desire for vengeance for imagined slights can do to a mind.” Yet Orson Olson says its “besides the point” to note that Barbara Brandon is calling the kettle black in attacking Diana.
Is it? Diana asks her readers to “to consider the evidence [she’s] presented, investigate the facts for [themselves], and then act accordingly.” In contrast, BB says it is simply unfair scrutinize Chris Sciabarra’s character, and that “[we should] have nothing to with either Noodlefood, Solo Passion, or their principals.”
Come again? Why should I take Chris Sciabarra’s character as a self-evident truth, esp. when he holds positions I reject, smears my allies and associates himself with people I consider to be villains (of course, in a neutral, non-judgmental kind of way)? And why should I suddenly discount what Diana has to say, even though after reading her blog for over a year, I have found her to be nothing less than honest, forthright and thoughtful?
At root: BB’s retaliation against Diana has been exactly what she and her sycophants have (falsely) accused Objectivists of doing for years. Pardon me if I note the irony--and cheer on my friend.
Comment #53
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 5:13:18 mdt
Name: Adam Spong
"At root: BB’s retaliation against Diana has been exactly what she and her sycophants have (falsely) accused Objectivists of doing for years. Pardon me if I note the irony"
This has been one of the most revealing themes to emerge from the recent revelations, in the wake of PARC and the efforts of Noodlefood, on the post-Objectitarian crowd. From the behavior of the Brandens going back to the NBI days, to the grossly evasive response to PARC in many tolerationist circles, to Sciabarra's loyalty oaths, we've seen that so many of the sins they baselessly smear Objectivists with are straight projections of their own sordid mentality--the rationalism and repression, the insecure lusting of the leaders after obsequious minions and the dogmatic loyalty of the followers, the ostracism and sleazy character assassination as a substitute for argument and evidence, and above all the extreme and petty lengths taken to evade and obscure the facts when they reveal their own intellectual failings.
As much as I believe these anti-Objectivists should be ignored whenever possible, there is value in seeing the character of the movement displayed so foully. All this smutty behavior, occurring with such consistency, is not incidental to the post-Objectitarian phenomenon, but is a characteristic expression of it. Precisely as with the depraved and infantile behavior of the far left--this is a symptom of an intellectually barren movement, one that has explicitly rejected moral principles, integrity, and the importance of ideas.
So the remarkable resemblance of a tolerationist screaming "homophobe!" in place of an argument to the standard leftist tactic of flinging charges of racism, sexism, etc. at their opponents should not be surprising. Neither should the evidence-free vilification currently being spewed by Branden et al. at those who persist in exposing her and her cohorts' iniquities. These are the only tactics available to those who have set themselves in opposition to objectivity and Objectivism.
Comment #54
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 11:19:24 mdt
Name: Sharpshooter
I suspect the Kelleyite crowd must feel like passengers on the Titanic just about now.
Comment #55
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 12:27:56 mdt
Name: PMB
Orson...that was a very long comment, and yet I don't see a single fact or argument, but rather an exercise in smug condescension. This, however, deserves a response:
"What is disconcerting in the post are her Randian-like sweeping generalizations (like 'nothing he says or writes can be trusted, not even the most innocuous claims'). It is a test of good sense and emotional maturity to resist these declamations - which is tough to do even with the best of intentions."
To begin with, this is a very ugly insult against Diana. Because she makes a "sweeping" generalization, she lacks "good sense" and "emotional maturity." And yet you do not argue that her generalization is false, but rather you imply than all generalizations of this sort are a priori wrong (or at least questionable).
Well, *why* did Diana make that generalization? Because it follows directly from the evidence she presented. Diana did not say that everything Chris Sciabarra writes is false, but that it cannot be trusted. And it can't be. When a "scholar" has demonstrated that he is willing to misrepresent facts--as Sciabarra obviously is--then you cannot take him at his word on *any* fact. (Jim Valliant made this point about the Brandens in his book, by the way, and it applies just as fully here.)
Let me address one more point, too. You say, "How much better is it to endanger the Truth? - subjecting it to searching criticism - especially when it is emotionally and subjectively grasped so strongly. (And Diana's above post may even reflect this confusion of purposes; it is very human to reverse goals and purpose, ends and means) I find this dictum often valuable when otherwise good minds disagree passionately. Something here is profound - and yet something manifest is sadly puerile. Time and emotional distancing, together with earnest criticism, may sort these out. 'Patience is a virtue' is a valuable ethical maxim here. (So is "resist hardening one’s heart.) When emotions and the highest held values are a mishmash, this seems too impossible. But CS is not the first person in Diana's life to have private agendas - nor will he be the last."
This is a very popular attitude among TOC / Branden / Sciabarra sympathizes (whether you are one, I have no clue). The idea is that there is a dichotomy because a passionate, emotion-laden argument and a rational, thoughtful one; that any writing which is not dry and detached is anti-intellectual. This charge has been directed at Rand, for sure, but at other Objectivists as well.
But there are absolutely no grounds for concluding that an emotional argument is an emotionalist argument. Emotions are not, as such, barriers to objectivity. The question you have to ask is: does the person argue on the *basis* of emotions? The idea that Diana did this is beyond the pale.
To tell you the truth, I've seen much more viciousness come from practiced detachment than honest passion. As just one example, I enter into evidence your comment.
Comment #56
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 13:49:07 mdt
Name: Shakingmyhead
Comrade Sonia,
Why be so scurrilous and backstabbing? You shame yourself.
Comment #57
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 14:17:17 mdt
Name: eyeless
URL: http://www.eyeless.org
Hi Diana,
I am happy to see that you managed to untangle yourself from this bunch of people connected with the TOC. This makes me happy and confident that Kelley, Sciabarra & co will no longer be so easy to be trapped by as earlier. (I predicted any organization led by Kelley would not survive beyond 1991 and it is hard to believe the charlatans are still around.)
Thanks,
Jerry
Comment #58
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 14:23:55 mdt
Name: Truthsayer
Interesting observation from Tom McMahon that seems to apply perfectly to DH's screed:
"I'm beginning to think there are two classes of blogs with political or social commentary: Persuaders, and Venters. I used to think they were all Persuaders, trying to bring other folks around to their way of thinking. But in reality, there are an awful lot of Venters out there, just venting their opinions and persuading nobody, and that's just fine with them."
Only a True Believer type thinks that if somebody doesn't "refute" a bucket of vomit chunk by chunk, therefore it was appropriate to fling it.
Comment #59
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 14:38:38 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
"Truthsayer,"
Of course, ascribing the smear "bucket of vomit" to Diana's post automatically relieves you of the responsibility of intellectually challenging it. Essentially, you've just awarded yourself a sanction to evade her argument. What we'll miss, though, is seeing you high-five yourself.
Comment #60
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 16:25:36 mdt
Name: L.S.
Why in hell can I not find one single *substantive* response to Diana's post from those who oppose it? I've been looking all over the usual places and have been able to find *nothing*.
I've never seen such childish behavior as is exhibited by those who feel threatened by Diana's statements.
"Truthsayer" and "Shaking My Head" upthread provide all the evidence a newbie to Objectivism needs that those of the "tolerationist" or "TOC"--or whatever you want to call it--camp are not only intellectual lightweights who seem not even remotely Objectivist, but that they have the attitudes of pre-adolescents suffering from low self-esteem. Don't they know how they come across and that the lack of substantive, reasoned response coupled with these insipid outbursts speaks volumes? I'm simply astounded.
This is almost surreal to witness and can only be a good thing for Objectivism going forward.
Whoever these two in particular are--how about posting something substantive in response which can be discussed rationally? We're all waiting . . .
Comment #61
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 17:22:43 mdt
Name: L.S.
One of the things I find especially weird and funny about Sciabarra and his supporters' attitudes is this notion that ARI-affiliated intellectuals would somehow secretly find merit in Sciabarra's work, but keep it to themselves out of fear.
That whole notion demontrates to me that in addition to whatever other flaws Sciabarra and his supporters may have, let's add genuine detachment from reality and hyper-inflated, delusional opinions of Chris' "work" connected with Ayn Rand.
I'm sorry to say this so bluntly, but it is no great intellectual feat to see that RR and other writings on Objectivism by Sciabarra are deeply flawed. It is simply incredible to me that anyone who keeps up with the writings of the ARI-affiliated intellectuals over time would possibly even entertain the idea that they would find merit in Sciabarra's work--privately to themselves or otherwise.
Am I being unnecessarily harsh here? Is my situation really unique in that even with limited knowledge of Objectivism I could read RR and see that it was contrary to the philosophy and that the arguments made were illogical? I promise I don't consider myself to be any more competent at grasping philosophy
If CS really does think this is true, then I'm sorry but he must be suffering delusions about either his work and it's value to an Objectivist, or about the ARI-affiliated Objectivist intellectuals.
Newsflash, folks: CS's work isn't "possibly maybe rationally in accordance with Objectivism and one has to really have an in-depth knowledge of philosophy to decide that". Give me a break! It's not even *close*, and the idea that the roster of (at least current) ARI-affiliated intellectuals would be unsure or conflicted on this point is utterly hilarious.
Speaking personally: even as a relative newbie to Objectivism years ago, and knowing nothing about the names and personalities involved in the movement, I bought and read RR. I *quickly* came to see that it was nonsense and seemed "wrong" in its non-accordance with Ayn Rand's ideas, although at that point I couldn't have discussed why adequately. In fact, it was the my first exposure to non-Objectivist Objectivism, and it was from then investigating further into who this Chris Sciabarra person was, and how in hell did he manage to get such crap published, (the two questions in my mind after reading it) that I was lead to finally learn about the existence of a "tolerationist", anti-Objectivist-yet-weirdly-connected-to-Ayn Rand-somehow group.
I'm sorry to have to be this negative about CS's "work", but that was my precise experience. It was from reading RR that I first learned all about the "splits" in Objectivism and from that point on I made sure I knew how a given writer fitted in to the movement before reading their books on Ayn Rand, so I could have some context or in some cases pass on the ones that looked like there wasn't even curiosity value to be gained from reading them.
So fast-forward to the present: sitting here now with a much more complete understanding of Objectivism and actually seeing it asserted that ARI intellectuals may secretly "respect" RR or Sciabarra is about the most hilarious notion I can imagine. How does that get taken seriously even for a moment by anybody anywhere?
Now I do not consider myself to have any special or above-average ability to understand philosophy. I'm just an ordinary long-time Objectivist and not even a professional intellectual. Given that, is my experience somehow unique re: Sciabarra and RR?
Comment #62
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 17:40:16 mdt
Name: Dan Edge
URL: groups.msn.com/objectivistsingles
The (sometimes implicit) excuse offered by Diana's dissenters is that any response would constitute a sanction of her article, implying that it has some merit. Many ARI folks take this position regarding articles by "tolerationists" or arbitrary assertions. The implication is that Diana's piece is completely arbitrary and completely lacking in logical integrity. This is nuts. I sincerely believe that most who are criticizing Diana's article have not even read all of it, and those who have read it are guilty of evasion on a massive scale. Whether or not one finds 'Dialectical Dishonesty' to be conclusively convincing, it is most certainly *not* a blatant work of arbitrary irrationalism. I don't know Chris, but if I did and believed that he was being unjustly maligned, I would sure as hell write a comprehensive defense of his moral character, dissecting Diana's article point by point. Her article is not a "drunken screed" of ad hominems, but a well put-together and convincing argument. The fact that no one *at all* has come forward to discount her claims leads me to believe that a defense is not possible.
--Dan Edge
Comment #63
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 17:59:43 mdt
Name: L.S.
Sorry, the incomplete last sentence of the fourth paragraph of my comment above (#61) was supposed to read: "I promise I don't consider myself to be any more competent at grasping philosophy than any other person of reasonable intelligence with a deep interest in Objectivism".
I repeated that point near the end of my post, and only partially removed the prior instance of it.
Comment #64
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 19:08:28 mdt
Name: Spoudaios
Dan said,
"I don't know Chris, but if I did and believed that he was being unjustly maligned, I would sure as hell write a comprehensive defense of his moral character, dissecting Diana's article point by point. Her article is not a "drunken screed" of ad hominems, but a well put-together and convincing argument."
Exactly. If Diana is dishonest, someone should step forward and prove it. From that point on, everyone could discount what Diana says as the product of a dishonest, manipulative mind. Yet her opponents are discounting her without evidence of her dishonesty. Rather, the fact that she would criticize someone publicly is taken as proof enough. Ridiculous.
Comment #65
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 19:15:31 mdt
Name: WM
Dan: "The fact that no one *at all* has come forward to discount her claims leads me to believe that a defense is not possible."
I don't think so, there is a far more obvious explanation. Dissecting Diana's huge article "point by point" and writing a refutation would be an enormous task, and few people will think it worth all that effort and time, especially if they've also *real* work to do. They wouldn't convince the true believers anyway, so why bother?
Comment #66
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 19:31:26 mdt
Name: PMB
WM writes, "Dissecting Diana's huge article 'point by point' and writing a refutation would be an enormous task, and few people will think it worth all that effort and time, especially if they've also *real* work to do. They wouldn't convince the true believers anyway, so why bother?"
This is highly unlikely. The people defending Sciabarra are (largely) the same ones who defend Branden, and have spent considerable time responding to Jim Valliant's book-length argument.
Moreover, there is no need to write a "point by point" refutation. The problem is, no one defending Sciabarra has engaged a *single* factual or philosophic point.
What's so funny is that Sciabarra himself is notorious for attacking Objectivists for not answering *his* "arguments" (re: his "Russian Radical" book) in significant depth. I mean, if length is the issue, this is the guy who can't make a simple point in less than 2,000 words.
It's not that Chris's defenders have been silent on the issue. They have written *a lot* in response to Diana. They simply haven't written anything of substance.
Finally, the idea that they should respond in order to convince the so-called "true believers" is nonsense. Just as Diana does not write to convince the "true tolerationists" or the "true Branden supporters" or the "true Sciabarra supporters," but rather the honest minds who may be confused on this issue; so Sciabarra's supporters, one would think, would be similarly motivated. After all, if Sciabarra is such a great man, does he not *deserve* a rational defense?
So stop making self-serving excuses for your silence. As Dave so eloquently put it, "Essentially, you've just awarded yourself a sanction to evade her argument."
Comment #67
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 20:02:23 mdt
Name: RT
Barbara Branden: "Through his tireless efforts and through his books " such as the landmark: AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL ," he has been responsible for causing the academic world at last to take seriously the philosophy of Ayn Rand and the battle for human liberation she fought for... [I]t was Chris Sciabarra who opened up the scholarly market... We are all in Chris Sciabarra's debt."
<http://wheelerdesignworks.netfirms.com/Objectivism/nfphpbb/viewtopic.php?t=466>
Actually, that reminds me: Another great thing about Peter Keating (besides being a super-nice guy) was that he always "engaged" with the world. Not like Howard Roark, who would keep himself all "cloistered", with his 'I won't deal with this, I won't deal with that' attitude. Not Peter Keating. He was putting up buildings right and left, while Roark was essentially accomplishing nothing (just doing drawings for himself, basically). In fact, Keating would often take a core idea from Roark, dress it up with all kinds of mainstream design features to disguise it and get it accepted by the public -- and get it built! In point of fact, you could pretty much say that *Keating* did a lot more to get Roark's architecture out into the world than *Roark* did! Roark was always so dogmatic. It was always 'the building will have to be just like this, or I'm sorry, but I refuse to do business with you'. What a dogmatist. A few sconces here, a cherub there, maybe even a game of badminton or two -- and Roark would've been *way* more effective at getting his architecture into the culture. When are people finally going to stand up against the vicious and unfair way in which Peter Keating has been portrayed by 'orthodox' Objectivists?
Comment #68
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 20:17:33 mdt
Name: RT
*This* from Barbara Branden is *hilarious*: "You suggest that I am using my 'social status to influence others.' You're damn tootin' I am. Whatever status I have has been earned. To the extent that my voice is respected, I can think of no finer use for it." <http://wheelerdesignworks.netfirms.com/Objectivism/nfphpbb/viewtopic.php?t=467>
Whatever status you have has been earned? Boy, you can say *that* again. Fortunately Jim Valliant has clarified exactly what that status is. You earned it, BB, that's for sure.
And you're absolutely right, I can think of no finer use for your voice than to defend Chris Sciabarra -- no finer use at all. In fact, I couldn't even *conceive* of you defending anything more noble than Chris Sciabarra.
Comment #69
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 20:22:00 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
Comment like that one from RT above look as if they're
written by someone who's glad all this happened.
"Hilarious"? An occasion for mirth?
Comment #70
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 20:26:31 mdt
Name: L.S.
If academia's exposure to Ayn Rand's ideas do come from reading "Russian Radical", then this actually goes a long way to explaining why it's taken all of this enormous *rational* effort by ARI and Anthem Foundation to promote *genuine* Objectivism in Academia and make the very real and quantifiable advances in that area we've seen of late.
Perhaps if there was no straw-man non-Objectivist Objectivism out there for academics to read, ARI would have had an easier time of accomplishing all they have of late.
It's alarming to think that "Russian Radical" could actually do what BB claims--a kind of "first in-depth exposure" to Ayn Rand's ideas. If that's true, then many academics, IMO, could be forgiven for not looking into Ayn Rand any further and being as casually dismissive as they are.
Let's hope this is just more of the inflated and delusional thinking I mentioned upthread.
Comment #71
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 20:31:48 mdt
Name: L.S.
Mike,
It's sad that Diana's been hurt, but as you can tell from my comments I share RT's myrth at the wider goings-on among Objectivists since PARC, of which this is the latest episode.
I don't think anyone who finds BB and others' understandably panicky, hysterical reactions to these wider events and revelations "hilarious" mean any disrespect to those like Diana who have been harmed and betrayed by these people--and I would hope she doesn't think that reaction makes light of what she's experienced. What's hilarious isn't the immorality of the characters involved or the effects on their victims, it's the pathetic reactions.
It really is quite funny to witness.
Comment #72
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 21:19:12 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
Dan Edge,
Regarding your comments (#62), I think you will find that there *has* been some reasonable calling-into-question on at least a couple points so far, what little there has been of it, over on SOLO, in the same-titled "Dialectical Dishonesty" thread. In fact, I may well be the only person to have been doing so, and to be doing so on the merits of the substantive arguments. Fact is, Diana has has presented a long argument with a list of interlocking and mutually-reinforcing points that paint Chris in a certain way. (I.e., if he did things here, it could be explained by reference to his having lied there, so it's reasonable to believe he lied here, too. I'm raising objections to whether it's warranted to begin with to accept that he lied over there, when there are other reasonable explanations and attributions of motives available.) To take the thing in whole and do a comprehensive critical response to it -- it's doubtful that this could be done at all well after just a couple days. Diana's post takes some time to integrate and assess, and one *should* take that time considering the seriousness and comprehensiveness of the charges involved. The rushes to judgment I've seen from both sides is, shall we say, amazing.
What we have here is a dispute between what I think are two decent and reasonable people both of whom deserve the benefit of the doubt until the the quality of the evidence Diana presented is integrated. I can see the matter from Diana's perspective: she feels hurt, betrayed, deceived and manipulated. From her point of view, the things Chris has said and done with respect to her have the distinct character of manipulativeness. And the evidence she presents at least gives us a good basis for understanding why she'd think so. But at this point, I fall short of being convinced, because I see other explanations unaccounted for. For instance, at this point, I remain perplexed at how, despite her *feeling* unduly pressured by Chris due to their then-friendship, that the things he is shown to be saying constitute an application of undue pressure or a demand for blind loyalty. Whatever it shows Chris being (fussy? too-sensitive?), I didn't get out of it that such would explain the nature of his emails re: the "Mysterious Stranger." (BTW, I *have* given Diana's article a reasonably careful once-over, but I'd have to spend the additional time going back over it to betty solidify my understanding and retain it all. But you can't say that all those questioning her on various points haven't taken the time to read it.) To call his emails manipulative or a demand/pressure for blind loyalty is to read into it something that I don't see there. Taking Chris's own words at their face value -- and absent a reason to think otherwise, that's precisely what I'm doing -- I thought Chris's intentions and concerns were pretty clearly spelled-out. And they don't amount to an implicit demand for loyalty. They may point to Chris perhaps not handling these matters in the best of ways; they and other "outed" emails may point to his handling things without the best of tact, but I just don't find the one attribution of ill motives the necessary conclusion to draw.
In all of this, I'm perplexed on another point: why Diana and Chris would even enter into an agreement to begin with that she wouldn't criticize his work out of respect for their (past) friendship. I've seen one-sided assessments of this that says that if Chris were a true friend he wouldn't accept or hold someone to such a promise. (The charge is that he's apparently being manipulative by "holding her to that promise" in his blog but commenting anyway. Again, there's a more simple explanation: he's mentioning the promise but saying that the differences are pretty obvious anyway.) But it's a two-way street. Chris not merely accepted it, Diana made it. Chris didn't make Diana do it; as far as anyone can tell, he didn't manipulate her into doing it. She of her own free will made a promise that is, plainly, a weird promise to make. I think Diana would recognize that she made a mistake in making that promise. By the same token, Chris made a mistake in accepting it. It's a mistake for friends to enter into that kind of agreement. Do I conclude that either Chris or Diana were not being a "true friend" by doing it? No. But I'm perplexed at why they, of mutual good-will, would do it. In any event, the "he was being manipulative" angle is that he was unilaterally holding her to this weird promise when it was something that they could just as easily have agreed to call off. Diana's complaint seems to be that she's being held to a promise that she made. I see the basis for the complaint being that it's a weird promise, not that she was being held to it. And being that it was mutual rather than unilateral, Diana was not only "being held" to it; she was holding herself to it when, from all I could tell, she had ample opportunity to go to Chris to be released from it. This whole thing just strikes me as people behaving weirdly and then getting upset at the result. Why attributions of bad motives to one or more of the freely-consenting parties would seem to be necessary, though, I don't know. As far as I know, both were well-meaning despite the weird nature of the agreement. But it would seem to be an unwarranted part of the comprehensive nature of the case against Chris that he was being a manipulative bad-guy while Diana is a victim cornered by a promise he's holding against her. It's just not that simple, nor that one-sided.
Wouldn't you say that this is a reasonable response of disagreement with Diana's assessment of these matters on at least one point?
Comment #73
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 21:29:31 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
In comment #65, Spoudaios wrote:
"Exactly. If Diana is dishonest, someone should step forward and prove it. From that point on, everyone could discount what Diana says as the product of a dishonest, manipulative mind. Yet her opponents are discounting her without evidence of her dishonesty. Rather, the fact that she would criticize someone publicly is taken as proof enough. Ridiculous."
I've raised a point of disagreement with Diana's assessment of things without having to make the assumption that she's being dishonest and manipulative. Just because I'm discounting her assessment of Chris as dishonest and manipulative doesn't mean anything more than that I think Diana is mistaken in her assessment.
Diana made a weird promise to Chris and both parties honored that weird promise. (Chris "held her to it" just as much as Diana of her own free will was holding herself to it.) That's a mistake for both sides involved. I don't see why we need conclude that either of them were being dishonest or manipulative about it. As I see it, Diana's real basis for complaint is that it's a weird promise to be held to or to hold oneself to. But an egoist takes responsibility for his/her own actions: her complaint should be just as much directed towards her own decision-making as it is towards Chris. It could just as easily been cleared up for both to recognize and agree that it was a dumb promise, drop the promise, and move on. Why that didn't happen, I don't know....
Comment #74
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 21:38:30 mdt
Name: PMB
Chris Cathcart writes, "Wouldn't you say that this is a reasonable response of disagreement with Diana's assessment of these matters on at least one point?"
Certainly it's better than what's been offered, but it's still not clear to me how this erases the overwhelming evidence of Sciabarra's dishonesty. To take just two of the clearest examples:
-His claim not to engage in personal insults and attacks...and meanwhile engaging in personal insults and attacks.
-His complete misrepresentation of Peikoff's response to his inquiry, implying that there was some sort of sanction of his book by the Rand Estate (and his similar actions toward Fred Weiss).
(This is not to mention *provable* lies he's spread regarding people associated with ARI.)
And then there is evidence Diana presents of his manipulativeness. To name just the most salient and damning example: making serious moral and intellectual charges against Objectivists, and either not naming them, and/or demanding confedentiality, making it impossible for the person he is emailing to verify his claims.
(Personally, I think the very tone and style of his email to Diana proves that he is *at the core of his soul* a manipulator. He writes like the villians in Rand's novels talk...dancing around the point, exerting subtle pressure...all with a smile...all the while, making sure his real meaning is clear.)
Now, you cannot wipe all that aside (let alone Diana's whole post...which is only a portion of the evidence she has) and simply say, maybe it's just an honest misunderstanding. Even if the agreement he and Diana struck was a mistake, for example, that doesn't justify *breaking* it without letting her know the agreement is no longer binding.
Sorry Chris...there are such things as innocent misunderstandings. This isn't one of them.
Comment #75
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 21:57:52 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Chris Cathcart: I will reply to your substantive points later, when I have a bit of time. However, I'm worried about your implication that I'm somehow dominated by my feelings: "I can see the matter from Diana's perspective: she feels hurt, betrayed, deceived and manipulated."
To be clear, my "perspective" on this issue is not about my feelings at all. It's about the FACT that Chris routinely lied to me about critical matters, attempted to pressure me into defending his work on faith, and now lies about me.
You might not have had the required time to weigh and integrate all the data I present in my post, but I've been considering these matters off and on for TWO YEARS, plus nearly constantly for THE PAST MONTH. In that time, I've been guided by my conscious and deliberate assessment of the facts, not by my feelings. (I am a passionate person, but I'm not driven by those passions.)
I might have read too much into your comments, but I've seen the general hint from others too.
Comment #76
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 22:10:26 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
I don't know if I can make this at all short, but I'll try. I'm in the mode of taking people at their word, and when Chris writes -Russian Radical- with the aim of showing intellectuals -- academics or non -- that Rand is at once a profound and radical thinker in ways that haven't yet been fully recognized, I take him at his word that this is his only aim. And the credibility of the claim that this is his aim is judged by the nature of the work and the arguments he puts forth. And no doubt the nature of the work is highly controversial and that Chris probably knew going in that it was going to be assaulted from all sides in ways both welcome and unwelcome; and you need only look at his responses to critics published all over the place to see that he's been weathering that storm. I have issues more than anything with the style of his presentation (what Linz Perigo terms "Polish") and I think that the emphasis on the Aristotelian influence on her "dialectical" method needs to be considerably greater. Part of Chris's point, in any case -- well, maybe it is *the* point -- is that Rand stands radically outside the present analytical-philosophical tradition. Her entire approach is subversive to that tradition. And Chris has, I think, identified and delved into the genuinely profound character of the basis of her subversive approach. It shows that the various grounds on which she is typically dismissed by those in the analytic mainstream, fail to grasp that she is at root rejecting the rationale for those grounds, and that this rejection is deeply rooted in methodology.
What I think he'd do best to play up much more prominently is her Aristotelian roots, as I said. (At least up until Tara Smith's new book [at $80 I admit to not having yet purchased it], this basic idea is spelled out best in Rasmussen and Den Uyl's -Liberty and Nature- more than anywhere.) Actually, as it happens, modern analytic philosophy is a mixture of Aristotelian and non-Aristotelian elements; Hegelian and Marxian dialectics attacks this tradition in its own way -- most obviously, in Marx's case at least, for ill. Rand stands outside the modern analytic tradition because of its failure to properly integrate Aristotelianism into its worldview. The aforementioned mixture is untenable, a square peg with a round hole, characterized by bad method and manifesting most prominently in insoluble, square-round treatment of all kinds of issues, like analytic-synthetic, mind-body, fact-value, egoism-virtue, etc. They're insoluble given the accepted method, given the untenable mixture, and needs to be thrown out as such to begin anew on proper grounds. That's a radical sensibility; whether you want to call it "dialectic" or not is up to you. Chris's whole point, though, is that analytic philosophers who dismiss Rand as simplistic miss the point of where her profundity lies. In fact, I find it a bit strange that Chris is accused of wanting to engage the academy on its own grounds, when his whole idea is a call to the academy (and intellectuals generally) to check its own premises.
I guess people's view of this sort of assessment of Chris's project and the good faith of its aims, is going to have some affect on (or, reflect) their assessment of Chris as person and scholar, and as it relates to this present discussion.
Comment #77
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 22:18:41 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
PMB said: "Even if the agreement he and Diana struck was a mistake, for example, that doesn't justify *breaking* it without letting her know the agreement is no longer binding."
To be clear, Chris didn't break our agreement. (I never asked him not to privately attack or lie about me, merely not to post to the NoodleFood comments.) However, I would say that Chris acted in bad faith -- by relying upon the protection I offered him in public while unjustly and dishonestly attacking me in private.
Obviously, I was fully responsible for making my promise to Chris not to publicly criticize him or his work. It was an error on my part, albeit not a completely idiotic one. The point -- as I made reasonably clear in my post -- is that Chris is responsible for relying upon that promise while accusing me of dishonesty, dogmatism, and homophobia behind my back. He certainly knew that I would have withdrawn my consideration if I had known about that, yet he didn't even see fit to release me from the promise in his public blog post, when it would have been so very easy for him to do.
Even if my promise to Chris was idiotic, that idiocy only hurt me, not him. And it certainly doesn't IN ANY WAY excuse his malicious lies about me.
Comment #78
Friday, April 28, 2006 at 22:25:53 mdt
Name: Objectivist_PhilGrad
Just as an aside, I feel obligated - for the benefit of those who haven't read it - to include some choice quotes from "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand" which Sciabarra co-edited. I should note that an essay by Diana is included in this volume, but she has done more than enough to distance herself from that work and that anthology.
In addition to being choc-full of poor scholarship (i.e. superficial analysis by the uncredentialed), the book includes some downright ugly, vapid, stupid, and unsubstantiated comments... such as the following:
From Harrison's Entry -
"Rand's knowledge of the real world approximates that of one who has been hermetically sealed in the Chrysler Building since birth ... [she] does not, to put it kindly, live anywhere but in her own head."
"[The Fountainhead], on the other hand, is fun-bad, though no less pretentious" than the film adaptation.
"Rand says that she appeals to 'rational egoists.' I think, on the contrary, that she appeals to both narcissism and to self-hatred, traits which are apparently mutually exclusive but which in fact often coexist in one fragmented personality: scratch a narcissist, and you often find, beneath the veneer of braggadocio, a frightened self-loather."
Speaking of gender roles in Rand's books, "I hate to think that women hold themselves in such low esteem that they'll buy this horseshit; I'm bound to conclude, however, that for many women, traditional wife/mother roles are so unreqarding that they'll lap up fantasies of a pure, clean, competent, radiant life that most definately does not include damp babies and runny noses."
From Brownmiller's entry:
"When superman rapes superwoman, superwoman has got to enjoy it - that is the bind Rand has gotten herself into. Rand becomes ... a traitor to her own sex." (This is comes from one of the most worthless examininations of Dominique's rape that I've ever encountered [and it's published!])
From Wilt's Romance entry:
"The reader of Randn's novels, noting their narrow class and race reference, their delight in scenes of destruction, theis scarcely concealed contempt for the bewildered and the doubting, and their scarcely concealed horror at the impingement of the "unchosen" and the "undeserving' of family and community lives upon the single self, may well feel that the novels simply amount to the dictum that a few choice spirits deserve to run the Reich for the next thousand years." (Presumably a reader of well-below average reading comprehension).
There are other sickening bits in this volume, including a lengthy essay written by an anthropologist psychologizing AR's views about a woman president. Apparently, Rand's views on gender were irrational, emotion-driven rationalizations to protect her own feminine self-image in spite of being intellectual (a supposedly masculine quality).
Of course, not all of the essays in this volume have serious flaws, but the ones that don't are largely statements of obvious; there is absolutely nothing in the book that compensates for the damages done by the inclusion of, say, Harrison's malicious piece. That Sciabarra, a so-called "neo-Objectivist," would sanction, by submitting for publication, some of the material in this book casts further doubt on his character. Sciabarra is either dishonest about his commitment to ideas of Ayn Rand or he is a moral coward, afraid to put his career on the line to protect the philosophy he supposedly values. Or he was simply being a pragmatist. In any case, the fact that he helped to produce Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand is evidence that he is not an Objectivist in any real sense.
Comment #79
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 1:55:43 mdt
Name: Jeff Montgomery
Yep, that was a long post. And Chris seems pretty well busted.
I also skimmed through the posts on "Objectivist Living" (what a misnomer!):
<http://wheelerdesignworks.netfirms.com/Objectivism/nfphpbb/viewtopic.php?t=467>
Wow, what an alternate universe that is, where everything good is bad and the bad is good. To quote Jacobim Mugatu: "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!". If that's conscious living, how exactly does she define "conscious"? A couple of quotes:
>I ask that all of you read Hsieh's attack and form your own conclusions
yet:
>I ask something more: that you have nothing to with either Noodlefood, Solo Passion, or their principals
How convenient that would be, if nobody did any independent investigation on their own by actually TALKING to someone! I did not see any evidence or rational argument presented to counteract anything said here, either. I'm guessing that's because one doesn't need to reason with "purveyors of unreason and brutishness"?
- An uncritical "sycophant"
Comment #80
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 6:11:51 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
To Chris Cathcart:
James Lennox's review of Russian Radical seems significantly damning. Can you address the review?
Comment #81
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 12:53:41 mdt
Name: RT
O_PhilGrad,
Thanks for the quotes -- those are simply *astonishing*. No wonder Barbara Branden praises Sciabarra for "opening up the scholarly market" to AR's name and ideas. Obviously BB would be very happy to have AR viciously smeared in the academic world (to parallel BB's own efforts in the non-academic world). As BB writes, "we are all in Chris Sciabarra's debt" for that.
"In any case, the fact that he helped to produce Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand is evidence that he is not an Objectivist in any real sense."
That's a huge understatement. If this is the kind of material he is sanctioning and producing, he is an even bigger villain and active enemy of Objectivism than I (already had) imagined. How in the *hell* could he be "bewildered" that those of us who actually value Ayn Rand and her ideas would attack and shun him?? I wonder what might happen if I submitted an essay to JARS that included a sentence like: "Sciabarra's knowledge of the real world approximates that of one who has been hermetically sealed in the Chrysler Building since birth ... [he] does not, to put it kindly, live anywhere but in his own head." You know, just a friendly, polite discussion of Sciabarra's ideas! Helps to expand the literature about his writings, helps him to get a bigger 'name' in academia. I somehow suspect that JARS might be "too dogmatic" to publish it though. And Sciabarra might be prone to calling me a 'son of a bitch' in a private email if I wrote something like that. But it's OK to say it about Ayn Rand, after all, Sciabarra is a big fan of Ayn Rand, a *big* fan!
Mike Hardy, am I "glad" that things have transpired the way they have?
Am I glad that Sciabarra is rotten? No. Am I glad that he has been exposed as fully rotten? Absolutely. Justice being served always gladdens my heart. It's highly unfortunate that Diana had to go through this painful episode, and of *course* I am not glad about that at all. I salute her in all the tremendous work she has done in exposing the false "friends" of Objectivism, especially given the undoubtedly painful re-evaluations that were necessitated.
Am I "glad" that Barbara Branden is rotten? No. Am I glad that she has been fully exposed as rotten? Absolutely. And given that Barbara Branden is rotten, do I find her pathetic attempts to justify herself (and her peers) amusing? You bet I do. With her it's just evasion piled on evasion to justify earlier evasions. I feel like I'm watching the villains after Galt's speech: "It wasn't real was it?... We seem to have heard it... Let me out of here!...Who permitted it to hap-... We don't have to believe it, do we?...Why is he so sure he's right?...Muzzle the commentators! Don't allow them to comment!... It's horrible! It's immoral! It's selfish, heartless, ruthless! It's the most vicious speech ever made!..." That pretty much sums up the reaction both to PARC, and to this latest episode, from the Branden camp.
Things are really shaking up. With Jim Valliant's work in PARC exposing the Brandens, and Diana's tireless efforts exposing Kelleyites and others, the "middle ground" is quickly caving in. The Brandens have been relegated (once and for all) to the cockroach status they deserve, and under the bright light of PARC they've now scurried for safety into their own little internet "nest" with their fellow-travellers in spirit. TOC will probably implode within the next few years, given the intellectual vacuum at its center. Justice is being served.
Comment #82
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 14:54:01 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Figures. They have nothing of any substance to say, so they spam.
Comment #83
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 14:54:39 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
To the obsessed person who keeps posting the inane message from Jenna: You are deliberately tresspassing on my property. Stop it.
Comment #84
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 15:05:39 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
RT: I haven't yet read PARC. I expect I'll get to it by
the end of 2006. What I'm expecting is: (1) It will prove
that Barbara Branden's book contained some factual errors;
(2) It will prove that some things that Ayn Rand did that
would make her look good are not in the book. (I looked at
it for a couple of minutes in a book store. A read the part
where a member of some audience she was addressing asked her
where she got her ideas for sex scenes in her fiction. She
said "Wishful thinking".) (3) It may prove that Barbara
Branden disagrees with some of Ayn Rand's philosophical
statements.
You state your agreement with Barbara Branden's statement
that she's earned her status that she will now use defend
Chris Sciabarra. What is that status? It is that she is
Ayn Rand's biographer, whom journalists contact when they
want biographical information, whose advice the post office
sought when it designed a stamp with Ayn Rand's image, etc.
I am not very familiar with the workings of either TOC or ARI.
Diana says she was frustrated that TOC did not provide courses
for graduate students. She says a fellow TOC member told her
such courses are not needed. I agree with her that that would
be a deficiency in the organization and that her fellow TOC
member's comment was stupid (I'm not sure she used the word
"stupid", but that's how I would view such a comment; she
clearly said his idea was WAY wrong, and I entirely agree).
I've seen several ARI-affiated speakers. All were good
speakers; Andrew Bernstein was excellent. But one thing I
see from time to time in forums like this, where ARI people
sometimes cheer each other on, is very distasteful, to say
the least. That is that some of the posters act like Gus Webb
when he wrote about gloating over the explosion that destroyed
Cortlandt Homes, "I wish he'd blasted it when it was full of
people---a few children blown to pieces ... then I'd love it.
The movement could use it." Few of the postings above are
gleeful the way Gus Webb said he would have been if he'd
gotten his wish, but the short one from RT seems heading in
that direction, and I think I've seen several instances in
some other threads here.
Comment #85
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 15:15:07 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Mike, if that is really all you expect from PARC, prepare to be blown away. The book proves far more than that.
You say: "Diana says she was frustrated that TOC did not provide courses for graduate students. She says a fellow TOC member told her such courses are not needed. I agree with her that that would be a deficiency in the organization and that her fellow TOC member's comment was stupid (I'm not sure she used the word 'stupid', but that's how I would view such a comment; she clearly said his idea was WAY wrong, and I entirely agree)."
Is this supposed to be some kind of summary of my objections to TOC? Yes, some years ago, I was upset that TOC didn't provide any noteworthy education or support for its future scholars. (I don't recall anything about the comment from the "fellow TOC member," but I suspect that's due to inaccurate summary on your part. Perhaps you mean what David Kelley told me would never happen, namely anything like the mentoring of graduate students that routinely happens in graduate school.)
More importantly, such complaints were merely practical frustrations felt long before I left the organization for *philosophic* and *moral* reasons. I don't regard those original complaints as particularly significant today, except as examples of the open system in practice. As for my actual views of TOC, look here:
<http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/toc.html>
Comment #86
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 15:20:08 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Comment from "samwise" deleted, since he/she is the vandal who has now attempted to post the same message from Jenna six times.
Comment #87
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 15:41:50 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
Dave Harrison,
(Reply to comment #80). I did give the Lennox review a fairly brisk part-skim, part-read, and he uncovers a significant problem that I have with it that I already mentioned -- the manner in which CMS draws parallels to Marxian and Hegelian notions, with the strange "aufbehung" talk and such other "Polish" (again, Perigo's colorful word). I'd have to read the review indepth to get more out of it, give it a little time to sink in, and comment further. In the meantime, you might look at CMS's own response to it:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/rad/PubRadReviews/lennor.html
Comment #88
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 16:36:20 mdt
Name: RT
Um, Mike Hardy, do you care to provide the **slightest** sliver of evidence that anything I or anyone else has said here, bears even the faintest resemblance to, or in any way is "heading in the direction" of, Gus Webb wishing children had been killed?!?
I indicated in my original post that Barbara Branden's status is the one assigned to her in PARC. You state that you haven't *read* PARC, and then you try to tell me what BB's status is. First, read PARC. Then you will (or rather might) have something substantive to say about her status. You say you don't really know anything about TOC either. And yet, somehow you presume to know that my reaction to TOC and to Barbara Branden is inappropriate. Don't you think you should know *something* about the entitites involved, before you try to judge whether my reaction to them is appropriate or not? And saying that it is "heading in the direction of" wishing that children had been killed is *really* beyond the pale.
Comment #89
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 22:04:29 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
:: Um, Mike Hardy, do you care to provide the **slightest**
:: sliver of evidence that anything I or anyone else has said
:: here, bears even the faintest resemblance to, or in any way
:: is "heading in the direction" of, Gus Webb wishing children
:: had been killed?!?
Your expression of amusement. (Not anyone else here, though,
as far as I've noticed.) If this is an occasion for amusement,
then if Barbara Branden killed some children, thereby finally
completely discrediting her in everyone's eyes, that would be
an occasion for even greater amusement. (This is not to suggest
that you would actually be amused in so extreme a case---maybe
such an incident could be what would convince you that such
things are not amusing.)
Comment #90
Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 23:38:43 mdt
Name: Dismuke
URL: http://RadioDismuke.com
One very common indicator of a faction or group that has descended into moral/intellectual bankruptcy and does not have a single leg to stand on is when it begins to churn out conspiracy theories. Very interesting to note that is exactly what is happening with those who are Diana's critics and Sciabarra's defenders. I have been browsing the so-called "Objectivist Living" board this evening while waiting for some files to process and noticed a couple of rather bizarre examples:
Michael Stuart Kelly offers this gem at: <http://snipurl.com/pu9o>
"But two things are obvious as all get out to me. Hsieh wants to (1) sell the false idea to the public that Sciabarra had hardly any contact with ARI scholars at all and was lying to her about it, and she bases this conclusion on no evidence whatsoever, and (2) she is on the hunt for finding out who these people are.
Hsieh made calls more than once in her article for people to send her copies of e-mails from Sciabarra " apparently to uncover more examples of his dishonesty.” I would bet good money that she is VASTLY MORE INTERESTED in finding out who is corresponding with Sciabarra so she can turn this information over to her higher-ups. "
Ellen Stuttle offers her own oddity at:<http://snipurl.com/pu9p>
"And now there's a controversy developing over Chris Sciabarra, whom I consider a very dear friend. (Dragon-slayers need dragons to slay: the anti-"Brandens" campaign not having gone as expected, a new dragon is needed. I wonder how much back-stage email and/or phone consultation was involved in selecting Diana as the one to break elist etiquette by divulging comments from personal emails and in deciding on the tactics of thus breaching elist decorum.)"
I'll bet that one could find some additional examples without too much digging around.
Do you know who the posters on that discussion board remind me of? The Angry Left / MoveOn.org crowd. Go to democraticunderground.com sometime, browse through the forums and see what I mean. The ONLY thing that the hard core Left has these days is conspiracy theories and venting their frustrations and rants to a sympathetic audience. Facts, logic and evidence mean absolutely nothing to these people - everything revolves around warm and fuzzy sentiments and anything that casts any doubt or shadow of any kind on those sentiments, regardless of the facts and merit, is met with anger, venom and, above all else, denial. Very little one reads on Democratic Underground - or even when the same people argue in more public, less partisan venues - seems intended to convince anyone of an opposing viewpoint of the validity of their cause . What they utter is mostly a fest of mutual reassurance and reaffirmation of their views - they are desperately trying to convince themselves and each other. And when things do not go their way or they are confronted with facts and evidence they cannot rebut or successfully integrate into their existing mental framework - they blame George Bush and Karl Rove and accuse them of staging 911 and dynamiting the WTC and refusing to respond to a hurricane in order to wipe out Democratic voters in Louisiana. That the Left has sunk to such a level is more than obvious - even the lower tier, not-so-talented "also ran" conservative talk show hosts are able to make plenty of hay out of it.
Reading that forum makes it pretty apparent that the tolerationist/pseudo-Objectivist crowd is headed down exactly the same path - and for the exact same reasons.
Perhaps there is some hope for the survival of TOC after all. Perhaps David Kelley and Robert Bidinotto can build new bridges of understanding and find grounds for common cause and a strategic alliance with MoveOn.org and arrange for a George Soros backed financial bailout! And to find that common ground, all TOC has to do is follow the link on their own website to that bizarre forum.
Comment #91
Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 1:10:37 mdt
Name: Betsy Speicher
URL: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com
Dismuke wrote:
"Do you know who the posters on [the so-called "Objectivist Living" board] remind me of? The Angry Left / MoveOn.org crowd."
Another striking similarity is that they have nothing but awful, negative, and factually unsupported things to say about AYN RAND!
At least the Angry Left isn't as corrupt as those who attack and try to exploit Ayn Rand at the same time.
Comment #92
Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 2:28:05 mdt
Name: Dismuke
URL: http://RadioDismuke.com
Betsy Speicher wrote:
"Another striking similarity is that they have nothing but awful, negative, and factually unsupported things to say about AYN RAND!
At least the Angry Left isn't as corrupt as those who attack and try to exploit Ayn Rand at the same time."
Very true. The Angry Left actually admires its heroes - Stalin, Castro, Che, etc. They just hide it and deny doing so in public, especially around election time.
By contrast, the odd people on that discussion board and their ilk regard Ayn Rand as being, at best, profoundly flawed if not downright flaky and neurotic. They even have to go so far as to have a special topic called "Remembering Good Things About Ayn Rand" - on a discussion board allegedly for alleged admirers of her philosophy!!! (See: <http://snipurl.com/pue6>). Yet if one makes the suggestion that such people hold Ayn Rand and her philosophy in disregard and contempt - well, they go absolutely ballistic on you. They behave in exactly the same way that a Leftist does when one suggests that John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Jane Fonda hold the United States and everything it stands for in contempt - and probably for the same exact reasons.
Here is an example of the sort of denial that they are in with regard to how they view Ayn Rand - and my mouth dropped wide open when I read this. This is the 13th posting from the top on that "Good Things About Ayn Rand" thread at: <http://snipurl.com/pue6>
Barbara Branden quotes Charles R. Anderson as saying:
"[...] Barbara Branden's Passion of Ayn Rand [...] constantly gives me the impression that it was a work of love for Ayn Rand, not one of hate, as it is too often misrepresented."
Barbara Branden then replies by saying:
"Thank you, Charles, and also Ellen, for understanding this."
Absolutely UN-BLOODY-BELIEVABLE!!
Barbara Branden authored that disgusting and thoroughly discredited pack of lies, smears and distortions about Ayn Rand and she has the GALL to claim that she did it out of LOVE for Ayn Rand!
I wonder if the wicked woman actually wore a straight face when she wrote that.
Suggestion for Diana: Next time Barbara Branden whines about the posting you put up about Chris Matthew Sciabarra and asserts that it is unjust, you ought to just smile and reply that you posted it out of LOVE for Sciabarra!!
Comment #93
Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 3:28:55 mdt
Name: Freddy Ben-Zeev
Dismuke,
Maybe BB did write PAR as a work of love - it depends what love means to her. This reminded me of the following quote from Atlas Shrugged:
"If to choose a person as a constant center of one's concerne, as the focus of one's view of life, was to love - he thought - then it was true that she loved him; but if, to him, love was the celebration of one's self and of existence - then, to the self-haters and life-haters, the pursuit of destruction was the only form and equivalent of love."
Doesn't it fit?
Comment #94
Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 4:12:20 mdt
Name: BillKendleJr
Comrade Sonia, I salute you! It's clear that it's a betrayal of Objectivism ever to befriend, and you have smote such scoundrels accordingly. Bravo! Bravo! You are an amazing writer. I love how you go on and on and on.
Comment #95
Monday, May 1, 2006 at 3:58:26 mdt
Name: Hal Sorsel
An admirer of Diana Hsieh's posted the following memorandum at SoloPassion, Ms. Hsieh's sister site. It's about a similar case with many revealing parallels.
* * *
What Deena Shsiehster Told Me
Under terms of strictest confidence, a friend of mine gave me the following explanation about why she is publicly denouncing a former friend and colleague. I thought that sharing it with you might help clarify the issues being batted about in the discussion of Diana Hsieh's coincidentally similar denunciation of a former friend and colleague. I haven't had time to digest all the complex issues myself, so I don't necessarily endorse what follows. I am carefully agnostic about the claims being made in this assault and apologia. I merely post it as a sort of "deep background" and FYI. --Cubius
DOUBLE DIALECTICAL DASTARDLINESS
by Deena Shsiehster
This is to submit facts to a candid world as to why I renounce Chris Scabrous as the Satan Incarnate. I renounce him and all his works. For it is crucial that I repay all he has done for me in the past by stabbing him in the back now, and in the most trivially fulminous manner I can muster. Bear with me, for at this point such a course is the only according-to-me rational one left to me (which tells you an awful lot about me, but bear with me vis-a-vis that perturbing revelation as well, I prithee; I prithee verily).
Insofar as it is meet that I say these things, let me say them, let me say them now, and let me say them for all time. So let it be written, so let it be done.
1. A is A.
2. Existence exists.
3. People exist.
4. Ultimately, people are people....
[More words go here.]
...90. Also ultimately, some people are duplicitous enough to not say everything in public that they might less guardedly say in private to friends and associates whom they trust.
91. It is wrong to trust friends and associates to abstain from acting like wackadoo banshees from hell. Very wrong! Sob. It is hard to believe that we live in the sort of malevolent universe in which people would trust others in this kind of malicious fashion. It is completely inconsistent with the benevolent-universe premise and the objective-measurement-omission premise. People who act in that way deserve what they get.
92. Further ultimately, if a person speaks things in private discourse which he speaketh not also in public discourse, but which he could so publicly speaketh, for example via press releases that incorporate either collations of emails or transcriptions of phone conversations, or mayhap other reproducible discourse--as he had ought--then that person is a liar and I repudiate him forever and ever, and ever. It is not merely that I will no longer acknowledge him at parties but that I must and will make the sign of the non-A at him with my fingers!
93. For my part, you can trust me truly, every day in every way, should you tell me something in private conversation, or should I receive verifiable intelligence of instances of your private conversation with another person that have not yet been vouchsafed to the general public, to definitely keep all of it properly logged, indexed, and boxed until such time as it shall be objectively appropriate to publish them without your consent, and in accordance with the most objectively pitiful rationales available to my capacious intellect.
I do hereby affirm, now and forever, that you will never find me refraining from spewing anything about anybody in public, never find me refraining from exposing the lie of the discrepancy between the private saying and the public saying, never!...the only exception being with respect to persons from whom I am trying to collect a sanction or speaking invitation. Because I have too much integrity for that (i.e., to violate the trust of prospective associates [but don't you worry, O ye prospective associates...I don't mean you!]; and too much integrity not to violate the trust of past associates on grounds both base and trivial; let me know if you need flash cards, prithee)!
94. My name is not Comrade Sonia and there is no reason for anyone to think I am a Soviet-like enforcer of orthodoxy trying to woo a speaking invitation from any Soviet-like orthodoxy-enforcing ideological organization. Also, one of the billions of web sites out there has typos.
95. If I backstab former friends and associates on a regular basis, and in the most malignantly gleeful and fatuous way possible, well, I do so, albeit saddened by their deviation from the one true objective path, with a pure and open heart and full of nothing but objectivity and dedication to truth and right and good, full of it up to here. QED, the objective qua objective, the A that is A, amen.
P.S. Ultimately, all I ask is that you minutely peruse the full bill of particulars of my billion-word indictment, pretend that this kind of vorpish display is not transparently beyond the pale, salute my courage and integrity for hopping up and down on the ankles of my betters, and act accordingly.
[Reprinted with the permission of the author from noodlefoodlegeshaft.con, the official smear site of Deena Shsiehster.]
Comment #96
Monday, May 1, 2006 at 20:28:51 mdt
Name: Hal is the Man
Diana is nothing more than an elitist cunt. Whose followers are the same.
Comment #97
Monday, May 1, 2006 at 20:32:53 mdt
Name: Oshkowi
Diana,
It appears to me you might need a new delete key. (The old one must be worn out by now)
Comment #98
Monday, May 1, 2006 at 20:44:52 mdt
Name: I call the big one Bitey
Wow,
Now...Everybody say this chant 50 times and your transformation wil be complete.
Diana is good!!! Diana is GREAT!!! We surrender our will as of this date!!!
Comment #99
Monday, May 1, 2006 at 20:49:16 mdt
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
Well, with comments like those the opposition must simply be bankrupt. They have nothing substantive to say.
Diana, I'd archive these comments, both puerile and semi-serious, not delete them--just to document what a pack of losers they are.
Comment #100
Monday, May 1, 2006 at 21:56:17 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
:: Well, with comments like those the opposition must
:: simply be bankrupt. They have nothing substantive
:: to say.
Huh? Opposition to what? Do you mean that some
organization or some community of opponents of this
blog exists?
Some of the posters expressing agreement with Diana's
denunciation of Chris Sciabarra are PLEASED or AMUSED
by the whole thing. If I deplore that (and I did, above,
as you see) does that make me part of "the opposition",
so that characterization of "the opposition" would apply
to me? Those who are pleased or amused by all this act
as if they view Diana's posting as her latest move in
some struggle in which two sides are opposing each other.
Does that make any sense at all?
Comment #101
Monday, May 1, 2006 at 23:25:05 mdt
Name: Ian Hamet
URL: http://blog.ianhamet.com/
"Hal is the Man" wrote:
"Diana is nothing more than an elitist cunt. Whose followers are the same."
I resemble that remark!
(With many, many apologies to the memory of Groucho.)
If this is "toleration", I'll take vanilla.
Comment #102
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 5:01:04 mdt
Name: Orson Olson
If nothing else, this episode has been exceedingly good for pot stirring by both factions claiming to be followers and proponents of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
Now, to catch up with my little contribution (#50) to the responses here, I believe Diana's moral "outing" of Chris Sciabarra (if that's what it is) is unwise. Good people will let you down and bad people will surprise you. That's beyond dispute. But how is judgment well-exercised here? That's the substantive issue in play, and the quality of debate subsequently unleashed exposes it.
Advocates who gain status and influential platforms, who end up with divergent interests and loyalties, and whose intellectual judgments on finer points wind up inflated in importance, leading to public exposure and harsh judgment also happen. Could this be what has happened here? I believe it could be - yet I do not know.
PBM (#55) writes of this: "Well, *why* did Diana make that [allegedly sweeping] generalization [about Chris Sciabarra]? Because it follows directly from the evidence she presented." Well, does it? With some 15 (?) phone calls and - if I recall correctly - hundreds of emails involved, Diana presents only a portion of it. Fair enough. But is it representative? Could I construct a similar bill of personal and moral indictment out the hundreds of emails and dozens of phone calls exchanged with my chief intellectual mentor? Certainly.
In any relationship, trust must be given, and in any relationship of meaningful length that trust is certain to be tested. And unfortunately, surely some will violate it. The issue surrounding good judgement is whether or not "good judgment" has been exercised or not. Objectivists are fond of quoting Rand's quotation of a Spanish proverb (which I'm sure I can only paraphrase): Take what you want and pay for it. This is a commendably adult attitude. It is wise. It means that with our own choices come the good and the bad, ultimately.
Diana writes (#75) in her defense: "my 'perspectiv[e]' on this issue is...about the FACT that Chris routinely [!] lied to me about critical matters, attempted to pressure me into defending his work on faith, and now lies about me." She argues inductively and indeed vehemently for the truth of this proposition that I've called above a "sweeping generalization." (Remember: Diana alleges "Chris...lied...routinely.") I do so because I cannot independently know whether or not her generalization is a selective result of memory and motive sifted over time or bears an accurate correspondence to the truth. Airing private differences always risks this, and therefore I call the matter unwise. Not all battles can be won in the court of public opinion, and thus not all are worth waging, no matter how much we want the truth as we see it to be known and accepted. Some go where angels fear to tread while others call it "brave" and others "foolish." However, if Diana is not entitled to her own critical opinions about friends, then no one is! (And therefore I indicate a sympathetic if vague plausibility to her deep disappointments.)
What bothers me isn't the above - rather it is how history appears to be repeating itself brfore our eyes.. Historians say that history doesn't repeat - at least never exactly. It is simply that human nature changes so little over time that it appears to. In between The Break in 1968 (?) and the Branden's memoir and posthumous biography of Rand in the 1980s, philosopher Robert Nozick coined the term "coercive logic." I think this term covers the social uses of information with compelling qualities, having the forceful character of a logical deduction yet are not necessarily logical. Coercive logic is socially seductive; in some circles it is required.
Consider for example the common social pattern among the communist movement in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. It was for people to organize, strategize, and act. Later, when one strategy or organization or agenda fails to achieve their goals, they privately dissociate. Still later when they reorganize - or, more properly, factionalize - they renounce their fomer beliefs and actions. They denounce former associates, expose their deviations in creed, and attack others moral imperfections. Thus, public loyalty tests become the standard of "Truth" in such circles. So, again, I must uncomfortably wonder if history and human nature is repeating itself somehow.
Regarding PARC, Diana says (#85) "prepare to be blown away." It is a bombshell revelation about the Branden's and The Break - or so I'm told. At least some in this thread regard this as the final, ultimate Truth of that matter. No need to think further or revise or weigh alternative interpretations and come to a considered judgment. Along with my old friend Mike Hardy, I have not yet read PARC - but in my case it is because I know the investment of time will also require me to re-read at least one of the Branden's tomes. (The fading of memory through time requires my confession of ignorance about many details surely in violent dispute.) My expectation beyond Hardy's is that people are forgetting the patterned quality of human nature, and the difference it makes when ego boundaries are crossed, violated, and betrayed - and later exposed. Beyond morality, or in the service of it, group affiliation almost requires eventual moral judgment. For radical individualists to overlook common group patterns of human behavior and yet find new ways to exemplify them seems another disquieting truism. Yet it is the reality of human nature to reward friends and punish enemies - whether they are real or not, "critical" matters or something else.
The conflicts and hurts flowing from The Break are not original sins - rather, they are the commonplaces of human nature (even if raised to the dramatic by its wide exposure). In our quest for moral perfectibility, we seem to have forgotten this - just as people in other times have. Beyond the issues of logic (plausible counter-example) and evidence (limited) pertaining to Diana's dispute with Chris above, this is why I cannot join the herd in a rush to take sides.
My postulation of reasonable doubt is dubbed "an exercise in smug condescension" by PMB. So, perhaps such "wisdom" is naive now. Or can someone fill me in on its novel necessity ('coercive logic')? Is witholding judgment the sign of perfidy? Am I become Soren Kierkegaard before the Catholic elect? What plausible rationale compels my belief about such personal and private matters? Or is being a bystander suddenly *never innocent?*
Comment #103
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 7:46:09 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
[Note: this post may be "straying" onto other topics by the end -- though they're all ultimately interrelated, of course. ;-) ]
Orson O., I gather that you take some big issue (and you're not alone) with Diana dragging her personal beef with Chris S. out into the public the way she has. Her more harsh critics characterize it as drama-queen blabbing everything to the world. I take a more moderate view that I think her issues with Chris S. might have been handled better before it was taken public. However, there's also quite evident in Diana's arguments the view that there is something much more public at stake than hurtful behind-the-scenes whispering campaigns, that make them more than personal spats. It does have quite a bit to do with whether Chris's position with respect to Rand and Objectivism scholarship, in (real or supposed) contrast to the ARI's, is the right way to go. Chris has been quite public not only in his expressed differences with things like the editing and close guarding of Rand's materials, but in his characterization of the way things are run at the ARI -- that, in effect, it subjects its scholars in on form or other to the equivalent of a loyalty oath that keeps them from interacting with outside scholars such as . . . well, himself.
For those who charge Diana with wanting to be the center of attention, well, we might well turn the same critical eye to Chris S., and ask whether his variously-expresssed opinions indicate some kind of persecution complex. It's not really a simple matter, though; if he takes the Ridpath review, or Bernstein's seeming 180' (you might have a look at Chris's review of the year-long history of his relationship with Bernstein in a posting to the 'Journal of Ayn Rand Sludge' thread on HPO from Oct. 2002, I believe in response to Betsy Speicher) as representative of widely-held opinion in ARI circles, the "persecution complex" becomes more understandable. Take away the issues having to do with his private whisperings and all that, and look at their treatment of his publicly-available work, and there's cause for disappointment. His dialectical thesis is no-doubt controversial, but the round-house, sneering dismissal amongst those who've publicly commented about his work feeds into the perception of the ARI as not being supportive of outside scholarship. How that amounts to said folks "trying to ruin his career" and such, you'd have to ask Chris S. (We know that Gotthelf was at least receptive enough to read the thesis are provide helpful-enough non-published commentary.)
But as far as this being of public importance -- else I don't see the reason that Diana would make this so public -- it revolves around whether Chris's approach to scholarship is a positive or negative, and whether his characterization of the ARI approach fairly represents reality. There are legitimate issues there worth discussing; on the one hand, there is excellent work being turned out at the academic level, by Tara Smith in particular. On the other hand, critical mention, praise or discussion of much-similar and important work by outside scholars like Rasmussen and Den Uyl (to name a prominent example), beyond Ms. Smith's own footnoted references to such, are few and far between. Sure, they may not advance a fully "orthodox" line, but any notion that this precludes them from offering something of great value would be silly. And this happens to be a case of scholars who *aren't* advancing so controversial a thesis as "dialectics," or in such disorienting "Polish." What I'm basically getting at is whether or not Chris S. has gone to far in his portrayal of ARI-supported scholarship, it isn't without some basis.
I suspect some animus towards Rasmussen and Den Uyl stemming from their publication of -The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand-. Their status as editors there is not entirely different than that of Chris S. at the helm of JARS. They include good essays (such as their own and Mack's) along with some not-so-great ones, and ones quite critical of Randian arguments. But it goes beyond that as well; the way I've heard things (quite first-hand, though my recollection is admittedly not entirely clear based on things I heard several years back), the Estate wasn't all too pleased about seeing that book published, and apparently sent "harrassing" legal letters from the Estate much like what Chris S. has referred to on a number of occasions. (I'm guessing they'd have to do with the appropriation of the name "Ayn Rand" for publication; I can't really imagine much of a great reason for the Estate to send out such letters.) Anyway, the basic idea is that the Estate and ARI don't exactly seem friendly towards or willing to recognize those doing Rand scholarship outside of its support. You can re-phrase that however you might think suitable, but the basic idea is there, and borne out by plenty of instances.
(You might have noticed what happened to the status of Reisman's work? It wasn't just his book not being sold by the Bookstore, a move that would on its own be understandable; the very mention [sometimes even crediting, apparently] of his work, previously praised as works of genius, seems to have gone pretty much by the wayside -- something I had once taken Betsy Speicher most directly to task for on HPO when the subject came up of what works BY OBJECTIVISTS that she would recommend. [Kelley's -Evidence of the Senses- Diana has acknowledged as worthy, and I applaud her for that, but otherwise having gone the same route as Reisman's work in the ARI-endorsed canon, even moreso inasmuch as he isn't even considered an Objectivist as Reisman {presumably?} is.] Chris S. has often used a word, beginning with the letter P, to describe that sort of phenomenon.)
Comment #104
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 9:37:48 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
I should say that I may be characterizing the Reisman thing inaccurately above. It's indeed quite hard, for instance, to point to an official "ARI-endorsed canon." Perhaps I took the behavior of Betsy Speicher (whom I rightly took to task on HPO on the matter) to be indicative of a wider phenomenon within the ARI group.
Comment #105
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 9:50:19 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Chris, your recent post misrepresents the facts on a number of points.
For example, what evidence do you have of animus against Den Uyl and Rasmussen for _The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand_? That book might not have been worth publishing, but it's not a systematic distortion of Ayn Rand's thought like _The Russian Radical_. Moreover, Dr. Rasmussen was invited to give the primary paper on universals at a recent Ayn Rand Society meeting. Contrary to expectations, it was an *incompetant* paper. For example, he admitted during the discussion that he had no idea how measurement omission worked in concepts above the first-level. (!) (In contrast, I heard nothing but praise for the response by the excellent Bob Pasnau -- an Aquinas scholar, chairman of my department.)
Moreover, my reasons for my post were exactly those I stated, namely that Chris is whispering LIES about people (including me) in private -- and that the only way to counter those lies is to discredit his honesty in general. Do you think I was obliged to remain silent while Chris whispered god-know-what vicious lies about me? If I was concerned only with his work, I would have simply given that the beating it so richly deserves. I'm not a fan of ad hominems.
Also, I am sick to death of hearing you harp upon what you think ARI scholars should be doing with their time. Am I obliged to sacrifice my own research interests to pursue the topics you find so interesting? What about Tara Smith? Or Amy Peikoff? Or Bob Garmong? Even if those topics are of great importance -- and nothing you've said convinces me that they are -- that does not oblige anyone to write a single word on them, so long as those people are pursuing other worthy topics. If anything, you're harping on it in the way that you do basically ensures that I'll never bother to even look at it, since I *greatly resent* that kind of duty-driven commandment in my work.
And Orson, if you wish to remain a mostly uninformed bystander, unfamiliar with the critical facts on these topics, then you should not be publicly commenting upon them. And if you do, you should expect (1) that what you say will be grossly inaccurate at points, (2) that people won't pay what you say any mind, and (3) that people will resent your attempts to give them advice.
Comment #106
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 9:52:56 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Yes Chris, you did mischaracterize "the Reisman thing." (Go look at Andy Bernstein's new book for extensive citations of Reisman.) You say, "It's indeed quite hard, for instance, to point to an official 'ARI-endorsed canon.'" Yes, and that's because NO SUCH CANON EXISTS!
Comment #107
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 11:02:15 mdt
Name: Betsy Speicher
URL: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com
Chris Cathcard wrote:
"(You might have noticed what happened to the status of Reisman's work? It wasn't just his book not being sold by the Bookstore, a move that would on its own be understandable; the very mention [sometimes even crediting, apparently] of his work, previously praised as works of genius, seems to have gone pretty much by the wayside -- something I had once taken Betsy Speicher most directly to task for on HPO when the subject came up of what works BY OBJECTIVISTS that she would recommend."
Why bring up MY name here? If you claim that you "took me to task" for something, then have the grace to specify exactly what it was so that I can state my actual views. Then people can decide who is, in fact, right.
Comment #108
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 11:58:57 mdt
Name: PMB
Orson takes me to task for defending Diana's conclusion that none of Chris Sciabarra's claims can be trusted, and writes: "With some 15 (?) phone calls and - if I recall correctly - hundreds of emails involved, Diana presents only a portion of it. Fair enough. But is it representative? Could I construct a similar bill of personal and moral indictment out the hundreds of emails and dozens of phone calls exchanged with my chief intellectual mentor? Certainly."
Well, then that doesn't say much about your chief intellectual mentor...or you. As Dr. Peikoff points out in OPAR, a liar is not someone who "always, conscientiously, tells falsehoods; there is no such creature; for the term to apply to a person, a few whoppers on his part is enough." Now, I don't even think this issue arises with Sciabarra. I think his dishonesty is routine, and I think he is at his core a *manipulator.*
But that is irrelevant to Diana's conclusion that nothing he says can be trusted. Even *one* lie relevant to his work invalidates him as a trustworthy source. (I say "his work" because I don't think you can jump from the fact that a person lies about, say, his personal life, to the fact that he is dishonest across the board. People can and often do compartmentalize, even though that policy cannot ultimately be sustained. This does not apply to Sciabarra, however, as Diana's post makes clear.)
As for the rest of your comments, I defer to Diana's latest response to you.
Comment #109
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 12:34:48 mdt
Name: PMB
Chris, while Diana has correctly pointed out that you have not properly identified her reasons for "going public," there is one idea contained in your recent comment (and many, many of your past comments, both here, on SOLO, and HPO) I'd like to address.
You write, "Sure, they may not advance a fully 'orthodox' line, but any notion that this precludes them from offering something of great value would be silly."
What, Chris, is the "orthodox line"? I mean this question seriously and literally, because I have no idea. If anyone ARI supports is by that fact "orthodox," then sure they don't support anyone outside the orthodoxy...by definition.
Certainly "orthodox" doesn't refer to intellectuals who agree on everything, since no two intellectuals agree on everything. If you've spent any time in ARI circles, you know that disagreements and debates about *important* points are commonplace.
So I guess that leaves us with, "The orthodox Objectivists are those who agree with all the philosophic principles laid down by Rand, and who view Objectivism as her philosophy." Is that about right? Well, okay, then that means that anyone "outside the orthodoxy" is someone who *disagrees* with one or more basic principles of Objectivism. Now, that's not necessarily a sin, and such people can do valuable work, but if you were running an organization like ARI, with limited funds, would you spend those funds on people who *disagreed* with your point of view? Moreover, since your funds are really your *donors'* funds, wouldn't you have a moral *obligation* to refrain from funding people who disagreed with your point of view?
As Diana has pointed out, intellectuals associated with ARI commonly associate with non-Objectivists. They publish in non-Objectivist publications (more on that in a moment). They cite non-Objectivist sources. They are *independent.* The idea that there is some orthodoxy closed off from the rest of the world is a *myth* -- spread by people such as Sciabarra, and passively swallowed by many, many others.
Now, if you want to talk about engagement in academia, I say that ARI intellectuals have done this to an astounding degree--and at the same time have maintained their philosophical integrity. Tara Smith's latest book was published by the top academic publisher, and many of her articles have appeared in highly respected academic journals. The same goes for Gotthelf, whose article on Rand's theory of concepts is soon to be published by one of the leading philosophy journals. Programs in Objectivism exist at a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburg, which has one of the top ranked philosophy departments. These are just a *few* (very few) of the examples of what ARI scholars have accomplished--why the hell should they be concerned with a sewer like JARS, or a book like Russian Radical, which they believe badly misrepresents Rand's philosophy and her method?
So what does that leave you with? It leaves you exactly where Diana said it leaves you: complaining that ARI intellectuals do not write the articles *you* want them to write about the scholars *you* think they should write about. Pardon me if I don't get up in arms.
Comment #110
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 13:00:52 mdt
Name: PMB
In my last post to Chris Cathcart, I noted what ARI intellectuals have accomplished in academia, but I want to add to that, because I think it's important to show what the supposedly insular "orthodoxy" has accomplished.
-ARI has put more than 500,000 copies of Ayn Rand's books into the hands of high school students through their Free Books to Teachers program. In two or three years, expect that number to reach 1,000,000.
-The Objectivist Academic Center is training nearly 100 students in the content, methodology, and communication of Objectivism. And OAC students can now take one of its classes *for* college credit.
-ARI op-eds and letters to the editor appear in newspapers worldwide every single day.
-Yaron Brook and other ARI intellectuals appear on television many times each month.
-The VanDamme Academy, which applies Rand's philosophy to education, is becoming known as one of the best schools in the country.
-Craig Biddle's political and cultural journal, The Objective Standard, is competing with journals like Commentary.
-The Anthem Founation is placing Objectivist intellectuals at quality universities around the country, while BB&T is sponsoring programs for the study of the moral foundations of capitalism up and down the east coast.
-ARI hosted a series of nation-wide panel discussions defending the Danish cartoons, appearing with journalists, radio talk show hosts, Daniel Pipes, members of FIRE, and others.
-A number of Objectivists are working on books, including Dr. Peikoff's original "DIM Hypothesis" and his and David Harriman's book presenting Dr. Peikoff's theory of induction. Meanwhile, Robert Mayhew has already published two scholarly works on Ayn Rand's fiction, with "Essay's on Ayn Rand's *The Fountaihead*," coming in the next year or two.
Is that insular? Is that not engagement? Do those not represent *real* achievements? I say that *this* is what it means to engage the culture and engage academia...not debating pseudo-Objectivists and neo-Objectivists and "Objectivist sympathizers" about the finer points of rights theory. Or trying to make Rand more acceptable to Marxists by putting her ideas through an intellectual meat grinder. If Objectivism is going to triumph, this is how it will happen.
Comment #111
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 13:46:44 mdt
Name: I call the big one Bitey
Di writes: "And Orson, if you wish to remain a mostly uninformed bystander, unfamiliar with the critical facts on these topics, then you should not be publicly commenting upon them. And if you do, you should expect (1) that what you say will be grossly inaccurate at points, (2) that people won't pay what you say any mind, and (3) that people will resent your attempts to give them advice."
In other words Orson, people won't follow what you say unconditionally like they do with Di Di...You hear that? Basically what she says is (1) You are stupid and wrong, (2) (Imagine this next one in a hysterical crying voice) "People....wooon't.....lis....ten...to...YOOOOOUUUUUUU!!!!" AND (3) People will not only disagree with you but will despise you.
Sounds like an "objective" crowd to me...
When Di Di makes a statement it is so!!!!!
Ok, now in conjuction with my theory that the letter 'B' is actually in reality the letter 'S', I would like to make a statement. Remember 'B' == 'S' and 'S' == 'B'
I think this forum would be alot better off without PMB. I mean PMB does nothing but cause trouble. Also PMS doesn't seem to comprehend the idea of individual judgement. PMS has to stop manipulating people into the Church of Diana. I declare now , a war on PMS. Stop defering to Di Di and be all the PMS you can be.
Could somebody please pass the Kool-Aid?
Comment #112
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 13:47:10 mdt
Name: I call the big one Bitey
Di writes: "And Orson, if you wish to remain a mostly uninformed bystander, unfamiliar with the critical facts on these topics, then you should not be publicly commenting upon them. And if you do, you should expect (1) that what you say will be grossly inaccurate at points, (2) that people won't pay what you say any mind, and (3) that people will resent your attempts to give them advice."
In other words Orson, people won't follow what you say unconditionally like they do with Di Di...You hear that? Basically what she says is (1) You are stupid and wrong, (2) (Imagine this next one in a hysterical crying voice) "People....wooon't.....lis....ten...to...YOOOOOUUUUUUU!!!!" AND (3) People will not only disagree with you but will despise you.
Sounds like an "objective" crowd to me...
When Di Di makes a statement it is so!!!!!
Ok, now in conjuction with my theory that the letter 'B' is actually in reality the letter 'S', I would like to make a statement. Remember 'B' == 'S' and 'S' == 'B'
I think this forum would be alot better off without PMB. I mean PMB does nothing but cause trouble. Also PMS doesn't seem to comprehend the idea of individual judgement. PMS has to stop manipulating people into the Church of Diana. I declare now , a war on PMS. Stop defering to Di Di and be all the PMS you can be.
Could somebody please pass the Kool-Aid?
Comment #113
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 14:06:00 mdt
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
"I call the big one Bitey"--yet another mental giant who doesn't realize (or care?) that he is doing more harm than good for his cause by his "Democratic Underground"-type style of slinging ad-hominem silliness and pretending it's an argument. Intellectually bankrupt!
Diana, I hope you are saving some of the more interesting examples of this stuff!
Comment #114
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 14:09:09 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
There are a number of good points I'll get to soon; the one I'll mention now has to do with my bringing up Betsy Speicher's name, and maybe I wasn't clear enough. There is a history of postings on HPO (where she hasn't posted in some time) in which she would talk about Objectivist authors with mentions by name -- what books were being published, who was getting tenured, etc. -- but would usually leave out mentions of someone like Reisman, even though the implied discussion was about Objectivists and Objectivist works, not (works by) Objectivists whom she liked personally. What my mistake was, was to suggest that this kind of thing was common. If Bernstein's book (the sort of work that Betsy would pump up in her mentions while not mentioning Reisman's, BTW) contains references and suggestions about his book, that goes against the kind of behavior I was talking about.
More later....
Comment #115
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 14:26:09 mdt
Name: I call the big one Bitey
steve,
"You are all individuals"......the whole crowd replies "Yes, we are all individuals".......then one guy replies "I'm not"
Comment #116
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 14:28:26 mdt
Name: Mike
URL: http://passingthoughts.blogsome.com
Steve, you might be interested in this gem from the man himself. I found it on the Journal of Ayn Rand Sludge thread Chris C. mentioned.
"For years, those associated with the orthodoxy simply ignored the
things they despised. Now, they have to "repudiate" and otherwise
"condemn" these "despicable" works at every turn---just "repudiate"
mind you, not actually "analyze"; they do so with more and more
ferocity with each passing year. AND THIS IS QUITE TYPICAL IN THE
HISTORICAL SCHEME OF THINGS; THE MORE AND MORE IRRELEVANT A GROUP
BECOMES, THE MORE AND MORE FEROCIOUS ITS ATTACKS BECOME."
It’s funny how the things CS claims about ARI are false descriptions of the institute, but totally apt descriptions of him and his defenders.
Comment #117
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 14:32:43 mdt
Name: Ergo
URL: http://ergosum.blogspot.com
Chris,
I don't see any reason why Betsy should have been obligated to, or even expected to, mention anyone's name. Whatever her reasons for not mentioning Reisman's works, it is entirely her prerogative to do so. If you felt Reisman's works desperately needed some mentioning, you should raise that up yourself - not bring someone else "to task" for not doing what you want them to do.
Ofcourse, if I'm referring to a topic and fail to mention the *authority* on that topic, that can be seen as a significant oversight. For eg. someone talking about Objectivism without even once mentioning Rand (I've noticed that among some "Objectivist" writers) is certainly committing atleast a major oversight, if not a wilfully dishonest evasion.
Comment #118
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 14:49:36 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Ergo said:
"Of course, if I'm referring to a topic and fail to mention the *authority* on that topic, that can be seen as a significant oversight. For eg. someone talking about Objectivism without even once mentioning Rand (I've noticed that among some "Objectivist" writers) is certainly committing atleast a major oversight, if not a wilfully dishonest evasion."
What about Tara Smith, who discusses self-esteem at length in her new book without once mentioning any of Nathaniel Branden's works?
Comment #119
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 15:02:10 mdt
Name: Adrian Hester
"I call the big one Bitey." Yeah, I saw that Simpsons episode too. Quoting Homer like that over what it is you posted brings other Homeric quotes to mind. "Thersites still went on wagging his unbridled tongue--a man of many words, and those unseemly; a monger of sedition, a railer against all who were in authority, who cared not what he said, so that he might set the Achaeans in a laugh. He was the ugliest man of all those that came before Troy- bandy-legged, lame of one foot, with his two shoulders rounded and hunched over his chest. His head ran up to a point, but there was little hair on the top of it...now, however, with a shrill squeaky voice he began heaping his abuse on Agamemnon. The Achaeans were angry and disgusted, yet none the less he kept on brawling and bawling at the son of Atreus."
Comment #120
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 15:12:53 mdt
Name: Ergo
URL: http://ergosum.blogspot.com
Dave said: "What about Tara Smith, who discusses self-esteem at length in her new book without once mentioning any of Nathaniel Branden's works?"
And Tara Smith is definitely not the first one to do so. Frankly, after studying Psychology for 4 yrs, I never once came across Nathaniel Branden's name in any journal article or discussion of self-esteem. The first I heard of Branden was when I started taking an interest in Objectivism. I'm not saying that Branden has or may have achieved some success in his work in Psychology... though I doubt that anyone, other psychologists included, views Branden as an "authority" on self-esteem.
Comment #121
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 15:14:21 mdt
Name: Ergo
URL: http://ergosum.blogspot.com
Pardon me: the last sentence was meant to say "I'm not saying that Branden has NOT or may have NOT achieved some successes in his work in Psychology..."
Comment #122
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 15:22:36 mdt
Name: Fred Weiss
URL: http://www.papertig.com
Wouldn't citing Nathaniel Branden as an "authority" on self-esteem be a bit like citing Ken Lay of Enron as an authority on business?
(Fortune magazine named Enron "America's Most Innovative Company" for six consecutive years.)
Comment #123
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 16:03:57 mdt
Name: PMB
Mike from Passing Thoughts notes more Sciabarra dishonesty:
http://passingthoughts.blogsome.com/2006/05/02/now-im-pissed/
(How long do you think it will be until a Sciabarra defender tries to argue that to say Peikoff and Harriman "airbrushed certain facts out of existence" is not to claim they were dishonest?)
Comment #124
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 16:25:08 mdt
Name: I call the big one Bitey
Adrian,
"Hey, this bean looks just like Diana...I'll put it with the others" Then places it on a shelf with a sign above it that reads "Diana beans"
I just saw Diana's picture...
"That picture is Diana?" "But she looks nothing like the beans!!!"
Diana will take us to our home planet of Blisstonia, known for its high levels of bliss.
Comment #125
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 16:50:40 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
Lots and lots of points to address here (and the points seem to proliferate exponentially), but a few for now:
1. Diana, I don't mean to make anyone sick or tired; I'm assuming you're referring to my rather enthusiastic mentionings of ideas, works, authors, etc., who I've found to be worth serious study by Rand and Objectivism scholars. I'm not urging them on anyone as a matter of "duty," though if you're going to do serious and extensive study in some field, there are simply works out there that should not be ignored as part of that study. If a course of reading and study includes Tara Smith's new book (which I would rush out and buy in an instant if it weren't for the cost) as an exposition of ideas centrally related to Rand and Objectivism, it should also include study of works that are very closely related in focus.
2. Whether or not Rasmussen produced an incompetent work at an ARS conference, it seems, well, it doesn't seem fair to single out this work as representative of the quality of his scholarly work. Rasmussen's reputation hasn't been made on the strength of papers about universals presented at conferences. It has been made precisely on things like the main published book-length work that I keep "harping on" people to investigate as part of a serious study of Rand-influenced ideas.
3. PMB's question about what an "orthodox line" is, is a good one. I have in mind something (perhaps not exactly; I'd need to think it through some more) like this: a line that is in keeping with a well-established tradition of examining, propounding upon, etc. a doctrine of thought. And there's nothing in this, as applies to Rand scholarship, that implies that the ARI and only the ARI is advancing an orthodox line (or promoting an orthodox approach to Rand scholarship) on Objectivism. One work that comes to mind that is certainly not from someone close to ARI, that advances, in Objectivist terms, a quite-orthodox line of argument on a certain subject, is George Smith's -Atheism: The Case Against God- (which sets out in systematic and book-length form the lines of argument that appear in Peikoff's '76 course and OPAR and Branden's -Objectivist Newsletter- article). Then, there is work that is not presenting, or at least is not claiming to present, an orthodox Rand/Objectivism position, such as -Liberty and Nature-. They'd call themselves Aristotelians (in a specific sense of the term) or neo-Aristotelians, but I've never heard any suggestion that they'd call themselves Objectivists. But they still have much of great importance to offer to the tradition of scholarship inspired by Rand. And then Sciabarra's work -- I think people both TOC and ARI would say that it advances a pretty controversial, non-orthodox idea, that Rand's philosophy, particularly her methodology, could be characterized as "dialectical." That certainly falls outside an established mainstream of Rand interpretation; to say that something falls outside that mainstream, though, doesn't mean that it could, in time, be integrated into that mainstream.
Comment #126
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 16:58:42 mdt
Name: L.S.
Both Orson and Mike Hardy have both explicitly stated that **they don't have the slightest adequate context** to speak about this issue and make even tentative judgements.
I would appreciate both of them getting up-to-speed on the post-PARC goings-on in the Objectivist movement, and more about the history of CS and Diana Hsieh before offering any more ignorant "opinions" of the situation.
Wouldn't that make sense??
Comment #127
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 16:58:59 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
Ergo wrote in comment #117:
"I don't see any reason why Betsy should have been obligated to, or even expected to, mention anyone's name. Whatever her reasons for not mentioning Reisman's works, it is entirely her prerogative to do so. If you felt Reisman's works desperately needed some mentioning, you should raise that up yourself - not bring someone else "to task" for not doing what you want them to do."
That doesn't quite characterize the situation. If someone is bringing up examples of "Why Objectivism is Winning," but doesn't contain a disclaimer that she's only going to mention examples of Objectivism winning when it involves people she personally values and likes, then it's reasonable to take that person to task for it. Otherwise, it would not be an issue and I could care less whom she pumps. My point is in identifying an attitude worth taking to task, an attitude that should be avoided if we're actually seriously interested in examples of scholarship that shows how Objectivism is and/or should be winning.
Comment #128
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 17:05:18 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
Fred (#122) wrote:
"Wouldn't citing Nathaniel Branden as an "authority" on self-esteem be a bit like citing Ken Lay of Enron as an authority on business?"
You might explain this one for me. I can't say that I've read anything of Branden's beyond his contributions to Rand's periodicals pre-'68, his memoir, and his "Benefits and Hazard" essay -- which is to say, due to personal research interests (to use Diana's phrase), I haven't read his books on self-esteem. My impression is that things he's producing now may not be the kinds of things that he was saying with his earlier work back in the '70s, work that presumably was in much closer sync with the essays in -Psychology of Self-Esteem-.
Comment #129
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 17:12:38 mdt
Name: L.S.
Diana writes:
"Moreover, Dr. Rasmussen was invited to give the primary paper on universals at a recent Ayn Rand Society meeting. Contrary to expectations, it was an *incompetant* paper. For example, he admitted during the discussion that he had no idea how measurement omission worked in concepts above the first-level."
And that is why the articles in "Philosophic Thought", which someone referred to above as "critical of Ayn Rand" are *incompetently* critical. The objections are easily shot down by even a relative newbie to Objectivism, so it's impossible for me to think anyone involved in editing that book understands (or understood at the time) Objectivism enough to write about it.
This is a huge problem for me. I honestly would like to know what other philosophy or philosopher's work is routinely written about in academia by people who clearly don't have even a "sophomore-level" familiarity or understanding of it!
And if someone were to do a paper about, say, Plato, only to later admit that some vital (and easy to grasp) aspect of Plato's ideas is something they don't actually know about (oops! guess I missed that whole part of it, oh well--can't be bothered!) aren't they summarily laughed out of the arena? And if so, why not the same for many of the so-called commentators on Ayn Rand writing out of unforgivable ignorance about what they're even talking about and presuming to criticize in print for a book?
Comment #130
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 17:28:57 mdt
Name: Adam Spong
Having just listened again to Peter Schwartz's excellent lecture "Multiculturalism and the Anti-Conceptual Mentality," I was struck by the similarities between multiculturalism and the tolerationist movement (or libertarianism more generally). The tolerationists' embittered obssession with the fact that Objectivists reject their views and the work of their "scholars" is akin to the multiculturalist line that rejection of the value-less constitutes unjust "discrimination." As movements that similarly reject fundamentally the need for conceptual and moral discrimination, they both are led to nihilistic hatred of real values, and of those who insist on real, principled standards.
The tolerationists want ARI to practice ~affirmative action~ for those who write in any way on Objectivism, regardless of whether their views are true or false, competent or inane. Hence the self-righteous, hysterical defense of those whose ideas are ludicrous and whose characters are reprehensible, like Branden or Sciabarra.
Comment #131
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 17:42:12 mdt
Name: PMB
Responding to Chris Catchard, who writes: "I'm not urging them on anyone as a matter of 'duty,' though if you're going to do serious and extensive study in some field, there are simply works out there that should not be ignored as part of that study."
Fine, Chris. Which Objectivist scholars are doing work in the field of rights theory relevant to the authors you cite?
"If a course of reading and study includes Tara Smith's new book (which I would rush out and buy in an instant if it weren't for the cost) as an exposition of ideas centrally related to Rand and Objectivism, it should also include study of works that are very closely related in focus."
That's pretty dogmatic. What a course should or should not include is highly dependent on its purpose, its specific aim, and its audience. That said, I don't know anyone who has claimed that such a course shouldn't include the kind of works you've been very vocal in supporting when they are relevant--but you are clearly implying that there are some people who hold this view. Who?
"Whether or not Rasmussen produced an incompetent work at an ARS conference, it seems, well, it doesn't seem fair to single out this work as representative of the quality of his scholarly work. Rasmussen's reputation hasn't been made on the strength of papers about universals presented at conferences. It has been made precisely on things like the main published book-length work that I keep "harping on" people to investigate as part of a serious study of Rand-influenced ideas."
Diana never claimed it was representative of his work (which would be silly since she said she wasn't familiar with his work). That said, my own view is that you cannot really understand the Objectivist politics (not at a scholarly level, anyway) if you don't have a firm grasp of the Objectivist theory of concepts. So unless I had a very specific reason to pick up Rasmussen's work, I would not spend my limited time and money on him.
Now, on to your answer to my previous comment regarding who is the "Objectivist orthodoxy." I have to say, I have no idea how what you wrote is a response to my comments.
You seem to be saying that there are people and works outside of the ARI sphere who represent an "orthodox" approach to Objectivism. But the people you name are precisely the ones you previously acknowledged did "not advance a fully 'orthodox' line." So are you changing your tune? Are you now saying that a proper understanding of "orthodoxy" includes ARI intellectuals AND people like George H. Smith, Rasumuseen, and Sciabarra?
Well, I think that's twisting words beyond all meaning, but it's inevitable given that *there is no such thing as an Objectivist orthodoxy* unless it refers to those who accept Ayn Rand's entire philosophic system (which does not include any of the people you mention). But those aren't "orthodox" Objectivists...they're simply Objectivists.
The point of my comment was to shatter the myth of an "insular orthodoxy." It's *that* which you did not address.
Rather, you seem to be saying that the problem with this "orthodoxy" isn't that they don't engage people from other viewpoints (as I showed, they DO)--it's that they don't rub elbows with certain people you think they should. People like Chris Sciabarra, who publicly and privately attack them in very vicious (and personal) terms, and who publish a "Journal of Ayn Rand Studies" that contains the worst sorts of dishonest misrepresentations of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and attacks on her and on Objectivism. But that's not a matter of being "insular" -- that's a matter of justice and integrity.
I'm going to follow up this comment with another one which will address why it is so important for Objectivists to distance themselves from people like Sciabarra and his work--even if Sciabarra were completely honest. But for now, I'll leave it at that.
Comment #132
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 17:45:44 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
PMB wrote in #110:
[citing examples of ARI accomplishments]
"Is that insular? Is that not engagement? Do those not represent *real* achievements? I say that *this* is what it means to engage the culture and engage academia...not debating pseudo-Objectivists and neo-Objectivists and "Objectivist sympathizers" about the finer points of rights theory. Or trying to make Rand more acceptable to Marxists by putting her ideas through an intellectual meat grinder. If Objectivism is going to triumph, this is how it will happen."
I don't know to put this lightly, but you ask a question about insularity and non-engagement, and then turn right around an express things in such a way that sound insular. For instance, "trying to make Rand more acceptable to Marxists" is a silly characterization of the aims of Sciabarra's project. Not only does it assume the worst, it does so without adequate evidence. It's precisely this kind of characterization of his work that got Sciabarra so pissed off about the Ridpath review. It simply doesn't address his work on its merits. It's more effective you keep your condemnations of him or his work limited to what's justified by the evidence.
(I've already said in the above comments and elsewhere what I see to be the basic aim of the appeal to "dialectics" in CMS's work. He's been criticized, sometimes more viciously than others, for trying to draw deep parallels between Rand and Marx based on superficial similarities. I think that's it it bass-ackwards. It's because the similarities are superficial enough that CMS has *rejected* drawing deep parallels between Rand and Marx. There can't be much in the way of deep parallels when Marx's project is non-Aristotelian, anti-egoistic, and anti-capitalistic. The fact that both Rand and Marx stand outside the modern anal-ytical mainstream and propose a revolutionary turn in methodology, needs pointing out only so that the more fundamental differences can be enunciated. CMS's thesis is a challenge to the mainstream to reconsider its anal-ytical methodological orientation, and at the same time, in the manner of a cautionary note, a challenge to Marxists and other dialecticians to abandon their crummy hijacking of "dialectic" methdology. Further note: it's reasonable to take issue, as I do, with CMS's mode of presentation. I think CMS has learned the hard way on this: it has invited plenty of confusion, resistance or downright dismissal. It's this last that I think is an unfortunate response, as I don't think it's *especially* difficult to figure out what the basic gist of his thesis is, and it's one that shouldn't be dismissed.)
Comment #133
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 17:51:57 mdt
Name: PMB
Chris Cathcart writes, "For instance, 'trying to make Rand more acceptable to Marxists' is a silly characterization of the aims of Sciabarra's project. Not only does it assume the worst, it does so without adequate evidence."
Um, Chris, I based that conclusion on Sciabarra's own statements, made on this very blog during his Spring 2004 debate with Don Watkins. (I'm relying on my memory here, but will dig up the quotes tonight if you doubt it.)
Comment #134
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 18:12:04 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
L.S. wrote in #129:
"And that is why the articles in "Philosophic Thought", which someone referred to above as "critical of Ayn Rand" are *incompetently* critical."
Put that way, it's not an accurate claim about the book. *Some* of the articles are critical of (i.e. in opposition to) Rand's ideas, and others (like those of the editors themselves) are positive.
"The objections are easily shot down by even a relative newbie to Objectivism, so it's impossible for me to think anyone involved in editing that book understands (or understood at the time) Objectivism enough to write about it."
That, or -- and I think I can tell that you take issue with it -- they understand Objectivism plenty well enough, but had other reasons for publishing essays that are critical and/or don't understand Objectivism especially well. That's what CMS is getting a good deal of shit for at JARS -- for publishing articles by people who may not understand Objectivism too well. I guess they have a different idea than you do, of what critical engagement with the non-Objectivist world involves.
Of course, understanding Objectivism pretty well won't mean that they understand Objectivism in such detail as higher-level measurement-omission. Then again, they don't claim to be Objectivists; they are neo-Aristotelian Rand scholars.
"This is a huge problem for me. I honestly would like to know what other philosophy or philosopher's work is routinely written about in academia by people who clearly don't have even a "sophomore-level" familiarity or understanding of it!"
It's probably pretty widespread, if we apply the standard you're invoking. That tends to be the nature of give-and-take; not everyone is going to demonstrate adequate indepth understanding of ideas they critique -- not at the same level, anyway, that adherents to an idea would demand. I am under the impression that it's quite common-place for adherents of all kinds of ideas to believe that, if only everyone understood their position as well as they do, that there'd be agreement. But unfortunately, it's usually not that simple a matter and not that easy. I think the attitude of the editors of publications like TPTOAR or JARS is that there isn't something to be *lost* by providing a forum to people who criticize and/or may not understand the ideas especially well; if they can be rebutted and corrected, then the essays won't pose any real threat or harm.
I have a piece forthcoming in the JARS, where I rebut an argument in that same issue where I take the position that the argument misunderstands Rand. It misunderstands it in such a way, in fact, that some could very well take issue with the article even having been accepted for publication in a place with a title like JARS to begin with. Thing is, the article provided an opportunity for what I found to be a useful and instructive and productive exercise in laying out in clear terms where Rand might well be apt, in standard anal-ytical mode, to be misunderstood, and then presenting a case for how to properly understand Rand's position. If anything, it's a learning experience for writer and reader alike, and one that goes along with the territory of civil give-and-take. Even more, I find it more effective than simply dismissing the argument as unworthy for so significantly misunderstanding Rand, without explaining why.
Comment #135
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 18:24:00 mdt
Name: Fred Weiss
URL: http://www.papertig.com
Chris asked me to explain why I said "Wouldn't citing Nathaniel Branden as an "authority" on self-esteem be a bit like citing Ken Lay of Enron as an authority on business?"
You may not know, Chris, that much of Enron's business success in the late 90's, with Ken Lay at the helm, was discovered to be based on accounting fraud.
I assume you do know that NB is a fraud.
So, while some of Enron's business success under Ken Lay was genuine and legitimate, just as was some of Branden's intellectual accomplishments, because of that simultaneous and underlying fraud it's understandable why someone might not cite either of them as paragons in either of their fields.
Analogies can get pretty stretched but it's also worth noting that just as Enron's fortunes plummeted after its fraud was discovered, so the quality of Branden's work progressively deteriorated after his break with AR.
Also keep in mind that I was only responding to someone earlier complaining that Tara Smith didn't cite Nathaniel Branden in her discussions of self-esteem.
Comment #136
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 18:25:03 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
PMB, my comments regarding Smith's -Atheism: The Case Against God- in particular were pretty clear enough, I thought. The book advances a straight orthodox line of argument by Objectivist standards, on a particular subject. Yes, in that regard, this book is part of the orthdox canon of Objectivist thought. Whether the author has disagreements with the orthodox line on other issues (like the subject of government) doesn't affect that point. I don't know whether Smith himself adopts the label "Objectivist," but -A:TCAG- is standard application of orthodox Objectivist line of reasoning, and on that basis merits inclusion of mention in that "canon."
As to your recollections about CMS's statements on the blog in '04 as it relates to supposed catering to Marxists, I'd be interested in seeing references. I just don't think, though, that this is a fair characterization of his position and don't think it could be shown to be such without a good deal of stretching what he said.
I'm sure more to come later.....
Comment #137
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 19:03:55 mdt
Name: Fred Weiss
URL: http://www.papertig.com
Chris, you offer a rationale for a publication like JARS (or "The Philosophical Thought of Ayn Rand") on the grounds that it presents criticisms of Objectivism and by so doing provides an opportunity for Objectivists to respond to them.
I wasn't aware that there was such a shortage of criticisms of Objectivism that purported defenders of it need provide yet another forum for presenting them.
Some years ago, I used to read the Wall St. Journal almost every day. It used to annoy me no end that they made their op-ed pages available to liberals and other assorted leftists. I didn't need the WSJ for that, nor I suspect did most of their other readers. We are all literally drowned in the liberal/leftwing viewpoint. Why should the one purported spokesman for capitalism make us endure even more of it? What I wanted to see was more intelligent defenses of capitalism, not more criticisms of it.
In contrast, I think Fox News is doing it right from the "conservative" perspective (and I think they are demonstrating that they know what their viewers want). Of course the liberal/left whines at Fox for its "bias" - as if they can talk.
Comment #138
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 19:51:01 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Fred:
Fred: "Chris asked me to explain why I said 'Wouldn't citing Nathaniel Branden as an "authority" on self-esteem be a bit like citing Ken Lay of Enron as an authority on business?'
"You may not know, Chris, that much of Enron's business success in the late 90's, with Ken Lay at the helm, was discovered to be based on accounting fraud.
"I assume you do know that NB is a fraud.
"So, while some of Enron's business success under Ken Lay was genuine and legitimate, just as was some of Branden's intellectual accomplishments, because of that simultaneous and underlying fraud it's understandable why someone might not cite either of them as paragons in either of their fields.
"Analogies can get pretty stretched but it's also worth noting that just as Enron's fortunes plummeted after its fraud was discovered, so the quality of Branden's work progressively deteriorated after his break with AR.
"Also keep in mind that I was only responding to someone earlier complaining that Tara Smith didn't cite Nathaniel Branden in her discussions of self-esteem."
That someone was me. And I wasn't yet at the "complaining" stage...just curious.
The Psychology of Self-Esteem was a masterwork that incorporated direct and consistent tie-ins to aspects of Objectivism, especially with respect to man's nature. And I'm sure Tara Smith has to be very familiar with this work. Further, much of it was taken from prior work of Branden's and published in The Objectivist in the mid-'60s before the breakup. Therefore, the material had the sanction of Rand herself.
Yes. Curious.
Comment #139
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 20:06:48 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Ergo said (in reply to a post where I noted the absence of any reference to Branden's work in Tara Smith's new book, where she discusses self-esteem at length):
"And Tara Smith is definitely not the first one to do so. Frankly, after studying Psychology for 4 yrs, I never once came across Nathaniel Branden's name in any journal article or discussion of self-esteem. The first I heard of Branden was when I started taking an interest in Objectivism. I'm not saying that Branden has or may have achieved some success in his work in Psychology... though I doubt that anyone, other psychologists included, views Branden as an "authority" on self-esteem."
Education at university does not in any sense imply you're getting a good or complete education. How often is Rand taught in philosophy courses? Mises or Reisman in economics courses? Etc., etc.
Michigan State University offers as a text for a sociology class, "I, Rigoberta Menchu" -- written as non-fiction, it was discovered to be a complete fraud years ago, but it's still taught today.
Or just listen to Peikoff on the state of education today rom any of a number of lectures. You'll get more than an earful.
I hope this, as well as my reply below, sufficiently answers your post.
Comment #140
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 20:37:07 mdt
Name: RT
Mike Hardy: you've repeated your outrageous claim, but you still haven't provided any substantiation of it. Please explain why laughing at Barbara Branden is just a measurement-omission away from hoping/wishing she kills some children. So far you've just repeatedly asserted a connection. More broadly you might explain why you think laughing at evil's impotence implies wanting more evil.
Comment #141
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 21:36:02 mdt
Name: Miguel Sancheztios
I just want to know when Diana is going to release all of her own private email for us to scour and selectively recreate. Until she does, we'll never know whether there's a discrepancy between the public whiny logghorheic hatchet-woman and the private whiny logghorheic hatchet-woman.
Comment #142
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 22:25:47 mdt
Name: Jason Head
I find it rather humorous that Diana's attackers refuse to spend any time taking her to task for any of the specific evidence she offered in her post on CMS. Instead, these people seem to have just enough time to come up with childish insults and clever pseudonyms. I do not know much about CMS or his work, so if any of his defenders can offer any evidence to disprove the claims made by Diana, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, if CMS's only defense is of the nature so gratuitously offered by Miguel and "I Call the Big One Bitey" and other such mudslingers, then Diana's case must be pretty airtight.
Comment #143
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at 22:29:11 mdt
Name: Fred Weiss
URL: http://www.papertig.com
Look, Dave, you've now essentially ignored or rejected two legitimate explanations in response to your supposed "curiosity" and you have yet to provide any evidence that Tara Smith was under any professional obligation to cite Nathaniel Branden. You've merely said that she didn't as if it's relevant to anything, and as if it's an axiomatic given that any Objectivist who writes on the subject of self-esteem must cite Branden.
Personally, unless I *had to* make some point in some thesis I was defending and that point *had to be* attributed to Branden out of professional necessity because it was totally and conclusively original and unique to him, I would not cite him. Beyond that I would certainly never go out of my way to cite him because I would never assume that citing him added any strength or authority to my argument. Quite the opposite.
So regardless of what a "masterwork" you think "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" may be, Branden has so thoroughly destroyed his reputation that very few people any longer care what his opinion is on any subject, including self-esteem. I certainly don't and I would guess neither does Tara Smith.
Nonetheless I don't want to speak for Prof. Smith and she may well have other reasons. I'm just giving you mine.
Comment #144
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 5:21:07 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Fred said:
"Look, Dave, you've now essentially ignored or rejected two legitimate explanations in response to your supposed 'curiosity'"
I gave my reasons for not accepting certain explanations. Please point out what I've ignored and I'll be happy to respond.
"...and you have yet to provide any evidence that Tara Smith was under any professional obligation to cite Nathaniel Branden."
I never said or implied she was under a "proessional obligation" to cite anything. There was a widely read and respected (at least by many Objectivists and I'm sure by others in the field of psychology) work right under her nose by an expert in self-esteem, which was her subject. I thought it curious why this might have gone unmentioned.
"You've merely said that she didn't (act) as if it's relevant to anything, and as if it's an axiomatic given that any Objectivist who writes on the subject of self-esteem must cite Branden."
I didn't say any of this. Who the hell's posts have you been reading?
Comment #145
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 6:10:22 mdt
Name: Fred Weiss
URL: http://www.papertig.com
Dave, you've now ignored 3 responses. Three strikes and your out with me.
You'll have to satisfy your supposed "curiosity" on your own.
Comment #146
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 6:59:50 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Fred:
Heh. We'll let the readers decide who's really been ignoring who.
Comment #147
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 7:14:49 mdt
Name: Ergo
URL: http://ergosum.blogspot.com
In response to Dave Harrison:
I had very well kept in mind the fact that Rand was/is not discussed in academia too much (or at all) when I commented that:
"If I'm referring to a topic and fail to mention the *authority* on that topic, that can be seen as a significant oversight. For eg. someone talking about Objectivism without even once mentioning Rand (I've noticed that among some "Objectivist" writers) is certainly committing atleast a major oversight, if not a wilfully dishonest evasion."
Please read my comment carefully. I said that it is certainly a significant oversight or wilful dishonesty if someone were to omit the discussion of an authority on the *topic at hand*. Therefore, yes, it would be the case if a professor were discussing OBJECTIVISM to omit the mention of AYN RAND! Similarly, yes it would be a significant oversight if one were discussing Austrian Econimics and omits the mention of Mises! But would not apply if someone were simply dicussing Philosophy or Economics in general. There are/would be many many reasons for not bringing up your pet celebrities in such broad discussions.
That's why I had said earlier that in ALL my discussions of *Self-Esteem* in college, never once was there a mention of Nathaniel Branden, either in class or in Journal articles, given that many people in Randian circles claim that Branden is the "father" of Self-Esteem psychology. I believe this is not because they are evading or ignoring Branden's contributions to the field, but because I doubt that anyone else outside of these "circles" believe that Branden is even significant in the study of self-esteem or general Psychology, let alone an "AUTHORITY".
I understand that in philosophy Rand is rarely (if ever) brought up in academia. But that is different from that what I had demarcated as a specific context. Rand is not brought up in Philosophy just as say... Bhagwan Osho is not brought up in Eastern philosophy. But if you bring up Objectivism and omit Rand, or bring up the cult movement of OSHO from Eastern philosophy and omit Bhagwan, that's a major oversight (or evasion).
Comment #148
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 7:51:42 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Ergo:
As far I know, Branden is the best authority on the topic at hand: self-esteem. If Smith's book was on psychology in general it would be far more understandable for her to pass on citing Branden. Smith's book, however, is on Objectivism and Ayn Rand, and she talks at length about self-esteem. Given the context, Smith has to be well aware of Branden's book, that it is derived from Objectivism itself, and that it consisted significantly of material on self-esteem and the nature (metaphysics) of man that was sanctioned by Ayn Rand herself.
What is your experience with other experts on self-esteem who are recognized in academia? Who are they? Is there a better one? Had you read Branden's work when or before you were in school? If so, and you liked his work, and if the subject came up, did you question why the work or Branden were not used?
Comment #149
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 8:46:20 mdt
Name: Ergo
URL: http://ergosum.blogspot.com
This discussion has already gone beyond the scope of this post. I wish you would have emailed me privately. Yet, since you raised some questions here publicly, I don't want it to be mis-understood that I'm shying away from your questions.
So, very briefly, my psych texts give Coopersmith's definition of self-esteem ("an affective component of the self, consisting of a person's positive and negative self-evaluations") formulated in 1967 as the earliest analysis of the concept. Other notable person's involved in the early development of self-esteem analysis are: Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Fleming & Courtney, 1984; Pelham & Swann, 1989).
I mentioned in my earlier comment that the first time I heard of Branden was only after I had begun investigating into Objectivism. He was never once mentioned in Psychology or self-esteem discussions. Hence, I said, I doubt that he can be legitimately considered an *authority* on the topic, or the "father" of self-esteem.
If you wish to continue this further, email me.
Comment #150
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 8:48:37 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Ergo, thanks for the info.
Comment #151
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 8:56:48 mdt
Name: Adam Spong
Discrimination!! Smith is oppressing Branden by ignoring him. Her book therefore constitutes hate speech--proof that individualists are racists after all.
See post #130 please...
Comment #152
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 9:04:31 mdt
Name: Tony Donadio
David Harrison wrote: "There was a widely read and respected (at least by many Objectivists and I'm sure by others in the field of psychology) work right under her nose by an expert in self-esteem, which was her subject. I thought it curious why this might have gone unmentioned."
It might have gone ummentioned precisely because Nathaniel Branden is *not* a widely regarded expert in self-esteem -- not by anyone outside from himself and a relatively small cadre of followers. Publishing some books on a subject does not automatically make you an expert on a subject.
David: "Heh. We'll let the readers decide who's really been ignoring who."
Well, to THIS reader it's obvious that you have ignored Fred's *definitive* response to your question:
Fred Weiss wrote: "You've merely said that she didn't as if it's relevant to anything, and as if it's an axiomatic given that any Objectivist who writes on the subject of self-esteem must cite Branden."
I don't know if you've ever written a scholarly book or paper, David, but in writing one you do not simply go around promiscuously citing anyone who's ever commented on the subject you're writing about. You cite someone because *the specific point you are making relates or is originally due to that person's work*. You don't cite Branden just because you're writing about self-esteem and he's written about self-esteem too. You do cite Branden, for example, if you're writing about something like the "Muttnik Principle" -- which as far as I know is an idea original to him. It is completely *inappropriate* (and frankly outrageous) to criticize Tara for writing on "self-esteem" (a HUGE topic) without citing Branden, while taking *no specific cognizance whatever* of the question of whether or not the *specific* points she made related to any of the (relatively few) original ideas that came out of Branden's work.
Fred Weiss wrote: "Personally, unless I *had to* make some point in some thesis I was defending and that point *had to be* attributed to Branden out of professional necessity because it was totally and conclusively original and unique to him, I would not cite him. Beyond that I would certainly never go out of my way to cite him because I would never assume that citing him added any strength or authority to my argument. Quite the opposite... So regardless of what a "masterwork" you think "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" may be, Branden has so thoroughly destroyed his reputation that very few people any longer care what his opinion is on any subject, including self-esteem. I certainly don't and I would guess neither does Tara Smith."
This, David, is the central point of Fred's that you have ignored.
Comment #153
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 9:17:05 mdt
Name: Ergo
URL: http://ergosum.blogspot.com
Tony,
You make a good point, something which I have been wanting to point out also about Sciabarra's RR.
You said: "in writing [a book] you do not simply go around promiscuously citing anyone who's ever commented on the subject you're writing about. You cite someone because *the specific point you are making relates or is originally due to that person's work*."
When I first read RR, I was truly impressed by his seemingly limitless citations of practically ALL philosophers, scholars, economists, etc. that ever lived! Truly, I remember thinking very impressively that the 'Russian Radical' reads like an Encyclopedia on philosophy and related topics. I would find practically any thinker's name in the Index.
Later on, however, as I kept researching more and more of his citations (mostly for my own studies on Sartre, Derrida, and Levinas), I began to notice a pattern in his book. Sciabarra does something very similar to what you point out. He sprinkles and scatters names and citations just so that he can bulk up his index and give an impression of having conducted a voracious literature review. For example, if you look up Sartre, in his index and read the paragraphs where he is mentioned, it becomes clear that there is no substantive point being made about Sartre or his ideas (same with Derrida). Their names are just mentioned - for what purpose and motive, one can only speculate.
Comment #154
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 9:19:22 mdt
Name: Tony Donadio
Ergo,
Precisely. Name-dropping is not scholarship.
Comment #155
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 9:35:33 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Tony:
It might have gone ummentioned precisely because Nathaniel Branden is *not* a widely regarded expert in self-esteem -- not by anyone outside from himself and a relatively small cadre of followers.
Who cares how many people regard his work highly? You should read his work objectively and judge for yourself. And where do you get "small cadre" from?
As for the rest of your post, point well taken. I do not want to imply that she HAD to cite Branden at all, unless or until I can prove she should have by analyzing each instance of the use of self-esteem in her materials and showing that his work would have been the best source to answer that point(s). I have not yet done such a detailed in-depth study.
You are right, and I apologize for my pre-emptive criticism.
Comment #156
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 9:43:50 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Re my last post: strike "pre-emptive;" replace with "unjustified."
Comment #157
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 9:52:33 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Fred raised the issue (paraphrasing) that one should not cite someone who has proven to be a bad or evil person, even if the work is good.
This is a good point, although it has to be contextual -- highly dependent on circumstances. In Branden's case, maybe Smith is justified in ignoring him, no matter how appropriate it would have been to cite his work. I have not yet read enough on the Branden/Rand issue or the Smith book to answer this.
Sorry, Fred, I overlooked this.
Comment #158
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 10:12:20 mdt
Name: Tony Donadio
David wrote: "Who cares how many people regard his work highly? You should read his work objectively and judge for yourself. And where do you get "small cadre" from?"
What makes you think that I haven't read his work -- especially after making reference in my post to something as obscure as the "Muttnik Principle?" I discovered Objectivism and Ayn Rand primarily *through* the references to her in Branden's books on psychology. For the record, I've read *all* his earlier books, from "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" up to and including "Honoring the Self." (His later stuff started getting a little too weird for me, and I couldn't stomach reading anything else by him after browsing through "Judgement Day"). My assessment of his work is that while he did have and make a few original points, that most of the valuable ones were not original to him. For example, his concept of "Social Metaphysician" is really just a renaming and dressing up of Ayn Rand's concept of the "Second-Hander," as developed in The Fountainhead.
David: "As for the rest of your post, point well taken."
Thank you.
Comment #159
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 11:11:53 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Tony,
I didn't mean it in the sense of "you" personally. I meant, and should have worded it as, "One should read the work objectively..."
To respond to part of your post, I couldn't care less how much of his work was original. The way he put it all together (just speaking of his first book now) was certainly original and superbly done.
Comment #160
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 12:58:40 mdt
Name: PMB
Dave Harrison writes, "To respond to part of your post, I couldn't care less how much of his work was original. The way he put it all together (just speaking of his first book now) was certainly original and superbly done."
I don't think there's any doubt about that, but the question is, does that alone imply that Tara Smith should have discussed or referenced the work in her book, as you suggested she should have?
To begin with, I think it is a very dubious practice to discuss what a writer should or should not have included in his or her book. That is a very contextual issue, and unless you know clearly the author's context, including his or her purpose in writing the book, you have absolutely no business trying to play editor. (Obviously, I'm leaving aside issues such as, "The author's argument leaves out a logically necessary point.")
To point out just one very obvious fact, it's entirely possible Tara Smith *disagrees* with what you think she should have included. Branden's theories on self-esteem are *not* part of Objectivism (even if they are true, and even if Rand agreed with them). Smith may very well regard what's distinctive in Branden's work as questionable or wrong.
Finally, I want to stress that I think it is *completely* legitimate *not* to reference Branden in a book promoting Ayn Rand's ideas (except insofar as *not* referencing him would be dishonest, which doesn't apply here) even when his books have something relevant to say on the issue being discussed. Nathaniel Branden is an enemy of Objectivism, the person primarily responsible for polluting Ayn Rand's image, and a person linked to TOC, an organization that is harmful to the Objectivist movement...both of whom viciously attack anyone (like Tara Smith) associated with ARI. So even if Smith did find something of value in Branden's works, which she would have otherwise included, that alone is reason enough to discard the point.
The point here is that all of this mess is *Branden's* fault. If he had not *chosen* to abandon morality, if he had not *chosen* to wage war on Ayn Rand and Objectivism, if he had not *chosen* to betray the mind that wrote *The Psychology of Self-Esteem*, then--speaking for myself at least--I would go out of my way to promote him and his work. But that's not the path he chose, and so, out of self-preservation, anyone who values morality, Ayn Rand, and Objectivism has to be careful not to promote and sanction him and his work.
Comment #161
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 13:16:48 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
Real quick here--
From a matter of self-interest, I don't see the point of not wanting to promote good ideas, whatever their source. People can be compartmentalized enough in their doings that they can do bad in one aspect of their lives while managing to produce things of value in other areas. If Branden is the source for good ideas that are worth studying and promoting, it's only a matter of honesty that the sources be credited, mentioned, etc. A dislike for Branden wouldn't lead me to act out of spite. (I don't know if Branden's ideas are particularly great or not. But I believe that it was Diana who mentioned ad-hominem in connection with Sciabarra. If Sciabarra does scumbag things, that by itself doesn't invalidate the quality of his work.)
Comment #162
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 13:24:28 mdt
Name: PMB
Chris, you write, "From a matter of self-interest, I don't see the point of not wanting to promote good ideas, whatever their source. People can be compartmentalized enough in their doings that they can do bad in one aspect of their lives while managing to produce things of value in other areas. If Branden is the source for good ideas that are worth studying and promoting, it's only a matter of honesty that the sources be credited, mentioned, etc. A dislike for Branden wouldn't lead me to act out of spite."
Please read what I actually wrote. I said it is completely legitimate not to reference Branden in a book *promoting Ayn Rand's ideas,* and even there I stressed that this is true only insofar as it would be dishonest *not* to credit him.
Finally, it is completely inappropriate for you to characterize what I said as acting "out of spite" due to a "dislike" of Branden. I was clear on this point: this isn't about harming Branden because we don't like him, it's about not promoting someone who has made it his mission to destroy Ayn Rand and distort Objectivism.
Comment #163
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 13:26:06 mdt
Name: PMB
I wrote: "Please read what I actually wrote. I said it is completely legitimate not to reference Branden in a book *promoting Ayn Rand's ideas,* and even there I stressed that this is true only insofar as it would be dishonest *not* to credit him."
Just to clarify, my point is that, to the extent that discussing Branden is optional, given one's purpose, subject, and audience, it is relevant not to do so for the reason's I've mentioned.
Comment #164
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 13:38:02 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
PMB said:
"I don't think there's any doubt about that, but the question is, does that alone imply that Tara Smith should have discussed or referenced the work in her book, as you suggested she should have...? Etc."
Read my last few posts. I don't suggest she should have. Are you addressing someone else here?
"Branden's theories on self-esteem are *not* part of Objectivism (even if they are true, and even if Rand agreed with them)."
He certainly incorporates Objectivism: the nature of man, volition, the role of emotion, reason, psycho-epistemology, values, and on and on.
I take no position on your last two paragraphs with respect to Smith as I don't yet know enough of the context.
All of this you can get from reading my prior posts, especially the recent ones.
Comment #165
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 14:27:46 mdt
Name: Adam Spong
Dave,
A Google search for ("Dave Harrison" Noodlefood Branden) shows readily that you have been declaring since at least October of last year on this very blog that you are on the fence and undecided on the character of Nathaniel Branden because you "don't know all the details." And yet you nonetheless feel justified in defending him at length and in impugning the honesty and scholarship of an actual (and brilliant) Objectivist scholar for not sinking so low as to cite a con-man as an authority on self esteem. The objection that you are only concerned here with his writings (and only those on self esteem) and not his character is invalid in this context--the fact that he is a vicious and active enemy of Objectivism is highly relevant here.
(It is not surprising that you insist on being similarly on the fence regarding "Fact and Value" vs. "Truth and Toleration," because--
"Whether or to what extent I feel the case has been made in the existing material is really too much for me to discuss on this board. The short answer is that it's been many years since I went through this material and I didn't feel thoroughly convinced then either way, although I did not do an in-depth study of all the material. And I have actually given it very little thought in recent years. Maybe it indeed is all there on the materials on the net. Maybe I'm missing something obvious.
In any case, I do NOT want to put myself in the center of this discussion. That's beyond the scope of my posts.")
If you are going to spend your time enaging in lengthy online debates on the issues of Branden and the tolerationists, perhaps you should first know what you're talking about (read Valliant's book). In the absence of that, and given all the time you've spent on your fence, your approach to these issues constitutes willful evasion.
Comment #166
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 14:36:58 mdt
Name: PMB
Adam, I think you are being unfair to Dave. While I do think it is improper to engage in a discussion about an issue when you are, by your own admission, not properly informed of all the relevant evidence, I don't think that necessarily implies evasion.
Comment #167
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 14:51:28 mdt
Name: Adam Spong
That is why I specified that ~given the amount of time he has been declaring himself on the fence~, and ~given the fact that during that time he's continued to engage in debate on these issues~ and to ~accuse Objectivist scholars like Peikoff and Smith of shortcomings~ for not addressing the issues as he'd like them to...
Given all that, I believe it does constitute evasion. To be unconcerned with knowing the truth or falsehood of your arguments over that length of time is not an honest error.
Comment #168
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 15:04:36 mdt
Name: Dagve Harrison
Adam said:
"You nonetheless feel justified in defending him at length and in impugning the honesty and scholarship of an actual (and brilliant) Objectivist scholar for not sinking so low as to cite a con-man as an authority on self esteem."
I don't defend his overall character; only one book of his. And I'm not attacking Smith. I don't know where you get that from. Please re-read my posts.
"The objection that you are only concerned here with his writings (and only those on self esteem) and not his character is invalid in this context--the fact that he is a vicious and active enemy of Objectivism is highly relevant here."
Maybe you're right on this. Guess I'll have to read the Valliant book before I return to Branden.
Re your next note: My Peikoff/Kelley on-the-fence days are over. Re-reading The Ominous Parallels and Explaining Postmodernism (Hicks) recently nailed it for me for good. Evading the immense evil of Kant, Marx, Hegel, etc. etc. etc. or the toleration/avoidance of judgment of profs who teach them is now impossible to imagine.
On your last note: Am I willfully evading? Gee, I hope not.
Comment #169
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 15:06:48 mdt
Name: Dave Harrison
Hey, I misspelled my own name (last post). A Freudian slip? Do I unconsciously wish to be Dagny Taggart?
Comment #170
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 15:40:09 mdt
Name: Adam Spong
PMB,
Furthermore, the errors Dave accuses Peikoff and Smith of committing both relate to the primary issue here of not sanctioning libertarian enemies of Objectivism (he accused Peikoff, in another thread, of "failing" to engage David Kelley in a public debate *now*, even after "Fact and Value" and the writings of Schwartz, Tracinski, etc. on this issue are available--and he accused Smith of "failing" to cite such an esteemed authority as Nathaniel Branden despite her knowledge of his work, which implies dishonesty and poor scholarship on Smith's part, whatever Dave's claims that he's merely curious about her oversight).
To make these charges, over a span of at least half a year, is to push the standard tolerationist line that Objectivists don't "engage" their every petty detractor, while at the same time declaring that one doesn't have any opinion at all on Objectivists' reasons for not sanctioning libertarians, because one can't be bothered to dismount one's fence and read their arguments (or reread "Fact and Value," etc. given that he reached no conculsion the first time)--this is not a rational approach to the issue.
I have no opinion on the scale of evasion involved here or on Dave's motivations, but this *is* evasion, of a kind that is endemic to the continued defenders of Branden, Kelley, et al. (refusing to read PARC, etc.). We have seen that there are some individuals amongst the tolerationist camp that are fully capable of understanding the Objectivist position and rejecting tolerationism--if only they would choose to stop and actually confront the evidence honestly and read the Objectivist arguments.
It is for this reason that one should identify and condemn evasion of the sort I've described here, and why it is not "unfair" to do so.
Comment #171
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 15:44:51 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
RT: I did not say you were hoping Barbara Branden would
kill some children. I said that if _amusement_ is your
response when bad things happen, then if she killed some
children, thereby discrediting her fully in everyone's
eyes, then that should be even more an occasion for your
amusement. That doesn't mean you would actually be
amused in such an extreme case; but it's a reductio ad
absurdum of the idea that amusement is an appropriate
response to something like this.
L.S. wrote:
:: Both Orson and Mike Hardy have both explicitly stated
:: that **they don't have the slightest adequate context**
:: to speak about this issue and make even tentative judgements.
::
:: I would appreciate both of them getting up-to-speed on the
:: post-PARC goings-on in the Objectivist movement, and more
:: about the history of CS and Diana Hsieh before offering any
:: more ignorant "opinions" of the situation.
::
:: Wouldn't that make sense??
The thing I expressed a judgment about is this: I deplored the
delight that some of the posters seem to feel about this whole
thing, and that one of them actually said it's hilarious. Do I
lack sufficient context to say that?
Comment #172
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 15:46:57 mdt
Name: Adam Spong
Dave, I did not have a chance to read your last post before mine, so I apologize for stating that you are on the fence regarding tolerationism.
I was going by your comments from December.
Comment #173
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 16:06:06 mdt
Name: PMB
Adam...if you see Dave's recent comment, you'll see why I said that it was unfair to accuse him of evasion. He did reach a conclusion regarding the proper evaluation of TOC. Moreover, as regards his comments on Tara Smith, I just re-read them and he didn't "accuse" her of anything. He said:
"What about Tara Smith, who discusses self-esteem at length in her new book without once mentioning any of Nathaniel Branden's works?"
That's a valid question, and whether or not he agreed with our answers, Dave conceded that they were legitimate answers. Look, I'm not here as Dave's defender, but as someone who very vocally endorses and defends the Objectivist approach to moral judgment (as against Kelley's approach), I think it is important to *practice* it. Contrary to the TOC crowd, the Objectivist approach to moral judgment *does* require a significant amount of evidence to determine that someone is dishonest, it *demands* that we take into account the context of the person we're judging, and it does *not* allow us to jump from the fact that someone does something wrong, to the fact that he is dishonest.
I think the biggest black mark against Dave is that he participates in discussions without considering all the relevant evidence, but even over a prolonged period, that could be a completely innocent mistake. Rather than raising his questions on an internet forum, he should first read PARC and the other relevant documents, and *then* raise any confusions he still has. But the fact he hasn't done that is not, by itself, evidence of dishonesty.
Now, it's true that there are eternal fence-sitters, and that does represent evasion. But the standard for when you are being a fence sitter vs. when you are genuinly undecided is not an aribtrary time limit. The relevant questions are: have you considered the relevant evidence and had the time to digest it? And if not, why not? Unless you can answer those, I don't think you have enough evidence to reach a sound moral evaluation of a person, all else being equal.
Comment #174
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 16:56:39 mdt
Name: Rick Hough
From Eric Hoffer's True Believer. Wear if the shoe fits:
"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. This minding of other people's business expresses itself in gossip, snooping and meddling... In running away from ourselves we either fall on our neighbor's shoulder or fly at his throat."
Comment #175
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 17:02:43 mdt
Name: Dismuke
URL: http://RadioDismuke.com
Mike Hardy wrote:
I said that if _amusement_ is your
response when bad things happen, then if she killed some
children, thereby discrediting her fully in everyone's
eyes, then that should be even more an occasion for your
amusement. That doesn't mean you would actually be
amused in such an extreme case; but it's a reductio ad
absurdum of the idea that amusement is an appropriate
response to something like this..."
"The thing I expressed a judgment about is this: I deplored the
delight that some of the posters seem to feel about this whole
thing, and that one of them actually said it's hilarious. Do I
lack sufficient context to say that?"
- - - - -
Mr. Hardy:
I am one of the people who said it's hilarious - and it is.
It was not funny and decent people did not laugh when Barbara Brandon wrote her Kitty Kelley style biography and slimed Ayn Rand and Objectivism on many occasions over the years. But to see the wicked woman get all bent out of shape on grounds that somebody else is guilty (at least according to her) of engaging in the exact same sort of behavior that she has made a decades-long career out of - well, that IS funny. VERY funny.
It was not funny and decent people did not laugh when the tolerationists and other anti-Objectivists falsely accused Objectivism of being - and decent people of participating in - an exclusionary "cloistered cult" where blind emotional loyalty and allegiance is more important than truth and justice. But to see the clowns from that same crowd on the OL message board engaging in EXACTLY THE SAME BEHAVIOR that they falsely accused others of doing - well, that IS funny and I am laughing like I haven't laughed in a long time.
It isn't funny and no decent people would laugh at a child being murdered. But if the person convicted of that murder goes around demanding to be "understood" and forgiven for it on grounds that someone "ruined his childhood" - well, that would ironic and perhaps, in a very dark sort of way, even a bit humorous.
Bad things happening to innocent people is never funny. Bad things which deservingly happen to evil people in such a way that justice is served is very definitely something to cheer about and the reactions of the guilty are frequently VERY funny indeed. And currently, there is far more laughter and true comedy to be found on that OL message board than I could ever hope to find by flipping channels on a television set.
I hope this clarifies the matter for you.
Comment #176
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 17:31:49 mdt
Name: L.S.
Mike Hardy asked me:
"The thing I expressed a judgment about is this: I deplored the delight that some of the posters seem to feel about this whole thing, and that one of them actually said it's hilarious. Do I lack sufficient context to say that?"
Yes, of course you do.
In order to understand why someone may react emotionally in a certain way to a situation or statement (with either laughter or solemnity, for example) one does need to have a sufficient amount of the context of the person reacting.
There are multiple, overlapping reasons why the hysterical responses to evens in the Objectivist movement since PARC (and since Diana's gradual rejection of TOC and its cadre of people) are . . . well, hysterical. To communicate what's so damned funny requires a lot of context.
The anti-Objectivist Objectivists' actions going all the way back to "the break" are replete with obvious evasions, surreal amounts of psychological projection, about 10 really hilarious "positions" on this-or-that aspect of Ayn Rand's character or Objectivism's nature, hypocrisy that's on the level of high-comedy, outrageous examples of outright paranoia, wild conspiracy theories, and a host of other really truly funny and ironic behaviours.
What gets increasingly revealed and concretized in fits-and-starts with all this, is the ultimate impotency of evil. That is a perfectly proper area for humor according to Objectivism, and your comments to the contrary appear to be due to a lack of context. And seeing over-due justice done and truth "outing" all over the place, is a cause for celebration all around, and for me at least evokes positive emotions.
Comment #177
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 17:53:00 mdt
Name: Adam Spong
PMB,
You wrote: "I just re-read [Dave's comments] and he didn't "accuse" her of anything."
I believe Dave's original comments did in fact implicitly accuse Smith of dishonesty, or at the very least poor scholarship. To say that Smith was "very aware" of an allegedly vitally important work in her field, highly relevant to Objectivism and the topic of her book, yet failed to cite it, *is* an accusation. I have no idea what specific motivation, if any, Dave may have suspected Smith of. However, given the incessant charges from the defenders of Branden, Sciabarra, et al. that their wonderfully brilliant writings are unjustly blacklisted by some Objectivist orthodoxy, any charge of this nature is highly suspect. Moreover, Dave's past comments as to being on the fence on tolerationism (which I only now know he has since repudiated), and his ebullient praise of Nathaniel Branden (even if only of his work), further cast doubt on the innocence of his question. That he made a related charge against Peikoff, in regards to Kelly, several months ago constituted evidence of a pattern.
As you say, Dave conceded that your answers to him were legitimate and that he should read PARC to understand fully why Branden should not be dealt with. And he now condemns tolerationism. I certainly respect and applaud this, without reservation.
This does not change the nature of his initial approach to these issues.
That someone can and does stop evading does not mean that calling him on the evasion in the first place was "unfair."
"Now, it's true that there are eternal fence-sitters, and that does represent evasion. But the standard for when you are being a fence sitter vs. when you are genuinly undecided is not an aribtrary time limit. The relevant questions are: have you considered the relevant evidence and had the time to digest it? And if not, why not? Unless you can answer those, I don't think you have enough evidence to reach a sound moral evaluation of a person, all else being equal."
Given that only a few years ago, I knew almost nothing at all about this whole sordid phenomenon of the tolerationist libertarians, Branden, Kelley, etc., I am very sympathetic to those who simply lack the context of knowledge to come to a conclusion on this. For those who lack a full understanding of Objectivism, this can be a perplexing and distressing issue. I certainly do not simply condemn anyone "on the fence" as such.
But I repeat that to engage in lengthy debates while essentially taking the side of the tolerationists, and to roundly criticize Objectivist scholars for not "engaging" them, while admitting that one doesn't really know the reasons Objectivists have for dismissing them, is evasive, over any period of time, but certainly over half a year. It is evasive at the very least of the fact that one doesn't have enough knowledge to properly validate one's own arguments.
At any rate, there is a large difference between saying that a person committed some degree of evasion on a particular issue and writing a person off completely as a habitual evader. Based on what I have read of his comments, Dave is clearly nothing like, for instance, the infantile punks we've seen here lately as representatives of the "pro-Sciabarra" gang. I am certainly not comparing him to these professional evaders.
Nevertheless, I stand by my charge of evasion.
Comment #178
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 18:10:05 mdt
Name: PMB
Adam, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. But I do want to comment on one point. You say, "...and his ebullient praise of Nathaniel Branden (even if only of his work), further cast doubt on the innocence of his question."
As far as I know, Dave only praised Branden's book, *The Psychology of Self-Esteem.* But that book deserves praise--a lot of it. (There is some question as to how much of its greatness can actually be ascribed to Branden rather than Ayn Rand, but there is only one person alive in a position to know that, and God knows I wouldn't solicit or trust his answer!)
I *do* think it's important to judge a work on its own merits, regardless of its author. Where I differ with our tolerationist/Branden-loving friends is that I believe there are other considerations that should be taken into account when assessing when/whether it is appropriate to refer to or cite a particular work, as I have made clear in my other posts on this thread.
But for the record, none of this, in my view, applies to Sciabarra. There is nothing in his work worthy of praise--it is corrupt in intent, in method, and in (what little there is of) substance.
Comment #179
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 18:23:00 mdt
Name: Adam Spong
I agree with you there.
I did not intend to imply that any praise of any aspect of Branden's work is wrong automatically.
I was listing one element of Dave's views that potentially fit the pattern.
Incidentally, I read one of Branden's self esteem books years ago--the "Six Pillars" or something--before I knew anything of the split.
I recall being distinctly unimpressed.
Comment #180
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 20:26:11 mdt
Name: RT
Mike Hardy wrote: "I said that if _amusement_ is your
response when bad things happen, then if she killed some
children, thereby discrediting her fully in everyone's
eyes, then that should be even more an occasion for your
amusement."
Mike, I made very clear and very explicit in my first reply to you that the laughter is *not* directed at "bad things happening". As I stated then, I am *not* pleased that Barbara Branden (or anyone else for that matter) has acted immorally. But, given that she is immoral, I *am* pleased to see her exposed for being immoral, and I do laugh at her contradictory, impotent hysterics in reaction. When immoral people are exposed and punished, that is a cause for celebration, and, depending on their reactions, amusement. That is justice. For some reason, you interpret (or twist) this reaction into one of being happy about their *immorality*.
Being happy that a bad person is exposed and punished does NOT mean that you wish the bad person would do some more bad things, so you can be even *more* happy when they subsequently get caught and punished. Which seems to be the bizarre interpretation you are giving it. When a serial killer is caught, convicted, and executed, I feel glad. That does NOT mean (as you would imply) that I think: "Gee, that felt good to know they caught and fried that guy; I wish there were more serial killers out there, so I could experience more of that good kind of feeling."
Comment #181
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 22:02:05 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
RT wrote:
:: That does NOT mean (as you would imply) that I think:
:: "Gee, that felt good to know they caught and fried that
:: guy; I wish there were more serial killers out there,
:: so I could experience more of that good kind of feeling."
But when they fry the guy, you would not regard it as
"hilarious", would you? And when they present proof in
court that he's the one who committed the killings you
would not regard that as "hilarious", would you? To be
pleased by justice is not the same as considering it
"hilarious". And I'm not suggesting that you do or should
wish that such crimes would happen. What I'm saying is
that if you regard this situation as "hilarious", then
it would be logically consistent to consider it "hilarious"
if Barbara Branden killed some children. To say that it
would logically follow, is not the same as saying it's
what you actually think or what you actually would do.
Rather, I'm suggesting that you DO understand very well
that it should not be considered hilarious if a wrongdoer
is brought to justice, and so you should consider what
that implies about the propriety of considering this
present situation "hilarious".
Comment #182
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 22:14:49 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
I still haven't finished all of Diana's long posting
denouncing her former friend. I've reached the point
where Chris objects to her allowing someone to post
rude and disrespectful comments about him and his
writings. He then accused _her_ of attacking him in
these pages. One point on which I agree with Diana
that these pages should not be limited to comments
that agree with her. You cannot discuss philosophy
(or much of anything else, but perhaps especially
philosophy) while excluding disagreement. However,
if someone reads rude and disrespectful comments about
him and his writings posted here, I can imagine him
mistakenly thinking that Diana endorsed them without
his being dishonest about it. Not very astute, to say
the least --- people aren't at their brightest when
they're upset, but not dishonest.
Comment #183
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 0:53:18 mdt
Name: Adam Spong
To PMB and Dave,
I just want to stress this in case it wasn't sufficiently clear:
I regard Dave's later responses on this issue as correcting his previous error, and I take him at his word.
My criticism applies only to his initial approach to the matters of Branden and Kelly.
Comment #184
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 1:27:30 mdt
Name: Dismuke
URL: http://RadioDismuke.com
Mike Hardy wrote:
"What I'm saying is
that if you regard this situation as "hilarious", then
it would be logically consistent to consider it "hilarious"
if Barbara Branden killed some children. To say that it
would logically follow, is not the same as saying it's
what you actually think or what you actually would do."
- - - - -
But it is NOT logically consistent.
The only way it would be logically consistent would be if one accepted the premise that the dislike and disgust that people feel towards Barbara Branden were somehow causeless and arbitrary and that mocking her and subjecting her to ridicule is, somehow, an end in itself and anything which might result in that should be secretly wished for.
That's just simply bizarre.
Barbara Branden is despised by decent people because of very specific unjust, dishonest and immoral actions she undertook with fully conscious volitional awareness over a long period of time that ended up hurting very decent people, smeared the good name and very hard-earned reputations of extremely decent people (starting with Ayn Rand) and caused untold damage to the spread of Objectivism by emboldening its enemies and confusing countless newbies just discovering the philosophy. Ms. Branden was not some clueless, mindless, emotionalistic dolt who did not know any better. She did know better - and she acted the way she did in spite of that knowledge.
It is around those *specific acts* of dishonesty and injustice that any justice for and/or ridicule of Barbara Branden is properly centered and fair game. Aspects of the woman's life outside of those areas are not.
If I were to learn that Barbara Branden was mugged or scalded herself while fixing tea - I would not think it funny nor would such news make me happy. If I were to learn that a waiter slipped a drug in Barbara Branden's drink and, under the influence of that drug, she jumped on the table and began singing and dancing while attempting a striptease - well, that wouldn't be the least bit amusing despite the fact that she would be making a total fool of herself. Barbara Branden does not deserved to be mugged, scalded or drugged - and such things aren't funny.
Things such as justice, punishment and ridicule must fit the crime.
Now, when I see the way Barbara Branden react to Chris Sciabarra's situation - I quite frankly laugh my head off. Since I know very little about Chris and have never read any of his works, I don't necessarily think his situation is especially humorous (though others who know more about it might) and I don't think the pain that Diana, Vallient, Perigo and Maurone felt when they were betrayed is at all funny. But for Barbara Branden, of all people, to whine and get her knickers in a twist about betrayal and somebody making untrue and unjust accusations and making confidential information public - that IS hilarious. Even if I was among those who believed that Diana's behavior was unjust, I would still think Barbara Branden's behavior was funny (though I would, of course, also have a very different view of Diana than I currently do and certainly not consider such injustice to be funny in and of itself).
Barbara Branden is the very LAST person in this world who has any right whatsoever to complain about any such injustice - and to see her getting all upset by what she claims is an example of it is her well deserved just deserts and I hope it continues to eat away at her.
I also think her behavior, her evasions and rationalizations since PARC came out are extremely funny. I think it is hilarious that about the only place she can show her face on the Internet these days without being confronted with and held accountable for her past actions is an obscure, pathetic and intellectually bankrupt and cloistered message board run by a sad, bootlicking sycophant - someone she would have probably brushed off and not given a moment's worth of attention to back in her NBI days or even in her more recent past. It is a punishment that perfectly fits the crime - and any ridicule that people chose to make out of it is also fully deserved.
Mr. Hardy, the basic premise that you ascribe to myself and others here is that ridicule and contempt is an end it itself. It is not. It is a proper and perfectly moral REACTION to specific behavior on the part of someone who deserves it - and in this case, Barbara Branden and the various other anti-Objectivists who have commented DO deserve it.
Comment #185
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 2:30:17 mdt
Name: Casey
Dismuke,
EXACTLY.
Casey Fahy
Comment #186
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 15:14:16 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
RT and Dismuke are not making sense, and I will explain
why. They say their expressions of delight at this long
posting are instances, NOT from delight at being informed
of bad news, but of seeing justice done.
I agree that it can make sense to express delight, if not
usually amusement, at seeing justice done.
But it is not credible that that's what's happening here.
Suppose we accept (although I am not convinced) Diana's
conclusion that Chris Sciabarra is dishonest. For RT and
Dismuke to react, not with horror at the news, but with
delight at the exposure, presupposes that to them it was
NOT news! And for them to tell me what they have about
their reactions seems to presuppose that I knew that.
Somehow I am supposed to have known
(1) that RT and Dismuke ALREADY believed Chris Sciabarra
is dishonest, BEFORE they read Diana's posting, and
(2) that they were unable to prove that to the satisfaction
of other reasonable people whose judgment they cared about
until they acquired the information that Diana's posting
gave them (e.g., maybe they were eyewitnesses to crimes
that he committed but nobody believed them?), so that for
that reason they are grateful to Diana for providing this
new information, and
(3) that this was all too obvious for them to have to tell
me about it (since they did not).
The only way (3) could make sense under the circumstances
is if points (1) and (2) were widely known, to everyone
EXCEPT Diana Hsieh, who didn't find out until she acquired
the information in her posting.
How is it that I am presumed to have known points (1) and
(2) above, by people who haven't bothered to ask who I am,
but Diana is not presumed to have known?
Comment #187
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 17:04:43 mdt
Name: L.S.
From Dismuke:
(Abbreviated)
"I think it is hilarious that about the only place she can show her face on the Internet these days . . . is an obscure . . . message board run by a sad, bootlicking sycophant - someone she would have probably brushed off and not given a moment's worth of attention to back in her NBI days or even in her more recent past."
Yeah, that's my favorite bit right there--truly hilarious!
Mike Hardy: I, for one, *did* know of CS's dishonesty based on his "work", reading Internet debates, and various positions he's taken over time re: how best to promote Ayn Rand's ideas. Just one easy example: Publishing "Feminist Interpretations" while simultaneously acting as if such a thing is a sincere attempt to "engage" this-or-that academic looney-toon and claiming that he actually thinks this would help raise the profile of AR in academia, is on the face of it evidence of dishonesty, or alarming stupidity and/or insanity. Take your pick. I'll give CS the benefit of the doubt that he's not that stupid nor insane and go with dishonest. Perhaps dishonest first-and-foremost inside his own skull.
So while I'm pleased you didn't mention me--and although I of course can't speak for Dismuke or anyone else here--I for one laughed at the CS "outing" by Diana as dishonest on a personal level out of the kind of "relief" of seeing justice finally done. Why is this so hard to accept?
Your attempts to draw analogies above are clearly seen to alter essentials and not hold up as analogies.
I think, with respect, that if your concerns over what is improper to find funny are related in any way to a respect for Objectivism as your framework for judging such things, I strongly recommend reviewing what's in the Objectivist literature regarding humor.
Comment #188
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 17:41:38 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
:: Publishing "Feminist Interpretations" while
:: simultaneously acting as if such a thing is
:: a sincere attempt to "engage" this-or-that
:: academic looney-toon and claiming that he
:: actually thinks this would help raise the
:: profile of AR in academia, is on the face
:: of it evidence of dishonesty, or alarming
:: stupidity and/or insanity.
Well, I guess Diana Hsieh and I are pretty dumb,
then. Especially her, since she both wrote part
of it and read it (I've done neither). Is that
your point?
Comment #189
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 18:26:50 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Yes Mike, I was "dumb" for writing an essay in the _Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand_ anthology. I should have ignored Chris' flattering encouragement. I should have realized that I wasn't then capable of writing a good enough essay for publication, despite my best efforts. I don't mind saying that now -- because I've corrected my error. Should I instead defend my essay -- and the anthology as a whole -- rather than admit that I was wrong? Gee, I think I'll pass on that option, since it seems more than a little IDIOTIC to me. (And no, I never read the whole volume, just some selected essays from the better folks some years ago.)
If you wish to defend the volume, that's on your head alone. (However, you shouldn't presume that such sorry works do Ayn Rand's reputation any good among academics. They don't. I'll explain why later, if anyone is interested.)
Comment #190
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 18:43:32 mdt
Name: Mike
URL: http://theprimacyofawesome.blogsome.com
I'm interested!
Comment #191
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 19:02:08 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
:: If you wish to defend the volume,
No, since I've never even glanced at it.
My purpose in mentioning that was something else.
See my posting above. To assume those three things
(numbered (1) through (3)) SIMULTANEOUSLY is weird.
Diana, can you tell me that SIMULTANEOUSLY believing
those three premises is not weird?
Comment #192
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 19:14:22 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Mike, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You didn't cite any such text in your comment. If you were replying to something wholly different than the text you actually quoted, well that's just freaky. And you should provide some kind of better reference now, not just some vague reference to three points. (That's what the comment numbers are for!) In any case, I'm too freakin' busy to care. My primary point was simply to note that you implied false things about me and my attitude toward my Feminist Interpretations essay. Apparently, since you haven't read the volume, you implied false things about yourself too. So really, you have me completely baffled. Explain yourself however you please. I've got work to do.
Comment #193
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 20:54:09 mdt
Name: RT
Mike Hardy: "But when they fry the guy, you would not regard it as
"hilarious", would you? And when they present proof in
court that he's the one who committed the killings you
would not regard that as "hilarious", would you?"
No -- Mike, you are still completely misapprehending the source and object of the humour. What would be hilarious is if, after being sentenced to death, the serial killer started to whimper that he didn't want to die please have mercy, and/or self-righteously claiming that it is immoral for the state to kill him because he has the right to life. What is hilarious is seeing the immoral engage in hypocritical undignified behaviour in the face of their exposure/punishment. Do you mean to tell me, Mike, that you found no occasions whatsoever in Atlas Shrugged for amusement at the behaviour of the 'bad guys' (perhaps, e.g., as they scurry about like panicked rats at Taggart's wedding when Francisco reveals that his company is bankrupt?).
As to your knowledge of Barbara Branden's character (or Sciabarra's), you've been around this blog long enough Mike to know what a lot of people's opinions here are on that subject -- you may disagree with those opinions, but I find it hard to believe that you didn't know about them. Thus, knowing our evaluation, even if you disagreed with it, you should know better than to think that we were laughing at (or happy about) Barbara Branden's immorality per se.
Comment #194
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 22:06:09 mdt
Name: Mike Hardy
:: Do you mean to tell me, Mike, that you
:: found no occasions whatsoever in Atlas
:: Shrugged for amusement at the behaviour
:: of the 'bad guys' (perhaps, e.g., as they
:: scurry about like panicked rats at Taggart's
:: wedding when Francisco reveals that his
:: company is bankrupt?).
Sigh.
I found some things in _Atlas_ quite amusing.
For example, when Francisco was asked by a
journalist "Do you deny that..." etc. He could
have honestly and convincingly denied the point,
but, unbeknownst to the journalist, he wanted to
give the journalist the wrong impression.
So he said "I never deny anything."
_The_Fountainhead_ had huge amounts of amusing
material; _Atlas_ is more sober but not without
things like that. (Roark to Keating, as an
afterthought after Roark reorganizes Keating's
design of a house: "... oh, and take those ducks
off the door; it's too much.")
But no, I did not and do not find the passage
you cite amusing.
Yes, I did know that many people who post here
think Barbara Branden is dishonest. And I am
not surprised that a number of them have long
held a similar view of Chris Sciabarra.
But look at what's happened here: Diana said
she thought Chris was honest, then she found out
certain things that convinced her otherwise, and
posted an account of those things here. She's
saying she did not know _until_ she found out the
things she posted here. Yet you people act as if
everybody knew all along that Chris Sciabarra was
dishonest---as if that were _already_ universally
agreed. Neither condolences to Diana nor shock at
the things she posted about Chris Sciabarra were
offered by those who are now saying we should just
be amused.
It really seems to me that something is wrong with
people who are amused by the sorts of things you
suggest I should find amusing.
That's actually one of my reasons for not crediting
the sorts of accusations they make against both Barbara
Branden and Chris Sciabarra. Another is that I suspect
there may be some truth in the theories that the animus
against those two writers comes in part from Barbara
Branden's saying Ayn Rand had various flaws, and that
interferes with some people's worship, and Chris Sciabarra's
saying she built on work of predecessors including a
professor at the University of Leningrad. Even Isaac
Newton, the greatest of all scientists, said "If I have
seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on
the shoulders of giants." (E.g. Johannes Kepler seems
conspicuous among those).
Comment #195
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 22:29:58 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Mike, once again you comment upon matters in which you do not know the relevant facts:
You said, "I suspect there may be some truth in the theories that the animus against those two writers comes in part from Barbara Branden's saying Ayn Rand had various flaws, and that interferes with some people's worship, and Chris Sciabarra's saying she built on work of predecessors including a professor at the University of Leningrad."
I don't care if you think such thoughts all day long in the privacy of your own mind. However, until you read the relevant source material -- most notably PARC -- I don't wish to see such speculations posted to the NoodleFood comments. People have already called you on this point, yet you seem wholly insensitive to it. And worse, you're vaguely implying untoward things about unnamed people, perhaps even me. That's unacceptable. So please stop.
Comment #196
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 22:39:59 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Also, I should mention that this summary from Mike Hardy is not accurate:
"But look at what's happened here: Diana said
she thought Chris was honest, then she found out
certain things that convinced her otherwise, and
posted an account of those things here. She's
saying she did not know _until_ she found out the
things she posted here. Yet you people act as if
everybody knew all along that Chris Sciabarra was
dishonest---as if that were _already_ universally
agreed. Neither condolences to Diana nor shock at
the things she posted about Chris Sciabarra were
offered by those who are now saying we should just
be amused."
By the summer of 2004, I knew that at least some of Chris' positions could not be intellectually honest. That evidence was obviously available to anyone -- long ago. At that time, I also strongly suspected that Chris was not honest with me personally. It was that personal dishonesty that I just recently confirmed. And the details of it were worse than I expected.
Comment #197
Friday, May 5, 2006 at 0:50:34 mdt
Name: Dismuke
URL: http://RadioDismuke.com
Mike Hardy wrote"
"Somehow I am supposed to have known
(1) that RT and Dismuke ALREADY believed Chris Sciabarra
is dishonest, BEFORE they read Diana's posting, and"
- - - -
Mr. Hardy -
Please go back to my posting (#184) and take a look at what I ACTUALLY WROTE. For the benefit of everyone else reading this, here is the exact quote of what I said:
"Since I know very little about Chris and have never read any of his works, I don't necessarily think his situation is especially humorous (though others who know more about it might) and I don't think the pain that Diana, Vallient, Perigo and Maurone felt when they were betrayed is at all funny."
Your assertion that I believed Sciabarra to be dishonest before reading Diana's posting is false and I defy you to produce one shred of evidence ANYWHERE that such was my position. You certainly will not find it in anything I have written in these blog comments.
Mike Hardy also wrote:
"RT and Dismuke are not making sense, and I will explain
why. They say their expressions of delight at this long
posting are instances, NOT from delight at being informed
of bad news, but of seeing justice done."
Once again, this is a total misrepresentation of what I actually said.
I never said that my reaction towards Diana's posting was one of "delight" nor have I specifically commented about the justice Diana dealt out to Sciabarra. I don't currently know enough about Sciabarra beyond what was mentioned in Diana's posting and in recent blog comments and message board postings to make any sort of intelligent comment on that matter.
What I very clearly stated I found humorous was **the behavior of Ms Branden and the various members of the anti-Objectivist crowd that has come to Sciabarra's defense.** The justice that I expressed delight in was the justice that was being dished out to **Ms Branden and the anti-Objectivists** as a result of the way that recent events have caused them to publicly expose and demonstrate their intellectual bankruptcy and shameless hypocrisy.
Mike Hardy also wrote:
"Suppose we accept (although I am not convinced) Diana's
conclusion that Chris Sciabarra is dishonest. For RT and
Dismuke to react, not with horror at the news, but with
delight at the exposure,"
Mr. Hardy - it is pretty clear that not a great deal of effort and/or focus was taken on your part to give careful reading to the comments that I posted and which you are responding to. On top of that, my guess is you know very little about me. Furthermore, you were not present when I read Diana's posting. So on what basis can you claim that my reaction to Diana's revelations about Sciabarra was "not of horror but [of] delight at the exposure"?
You have no way of knowing what my reaction was.
For your information and for the record, my initial reaction when I read Diana's posting was one of disgust - at Diana. I did not bring up Noodle Food with the expectation of reading such a lengthy posting - so I only read it the first time around rather quickly and superficially and had several interruptions while doing so.
At that time, the extent of my knowledge about Sciabarra was that he wrote a book called *Russian Radical* that made some very controversial charges about Ayn Rand's philosophical development and that, based on comments I had seen on Usenet and elsewhere, he was well regarded in various Tolerationist/anti-Objectivist circles. I have not read any of his works other than once thumbing through *Russian Radical* in a bookstore for perhaps a total of three or so minutes. I had seen various negative comments about him over the years by Objectivists - but I never followed them very closely and, prior to Diana's posting, I would have been hard pressed to actually articulate what those negative comments were.
Therefore, my reaction to the Diana's specific information about Sciabarra's behavior was neither of delight nor horror. The revelation that a total stranger whose name I was only vaguely familiar with and who hangs around Tolerationist circles is dishonest and manipulative - well, ok, so he is dishonest. Lots of Tolerationists are dishonest - why should this particular one be any different? Of course, as has become quite clear in recent months, there have also been many well-meaning and honest people who actually DO value Ayn Rand's philosophy and seek to understand it who were taken in by the various smears and distortions propagated by the Brandens, David Kelley and TOS. But an organization that indiscriminately welcomes into its umbrella people who have contempt towards certain aspects of Objectivism but still wish to represent themselves as Objectivists is bound to attract and become increasingly dominated by all sorts of low-lifes.
What initially disturbed me about Diana's posting was the fact that she disclosed information that was confided to her as a result of what apparently was once a close friendship. Even if a relationship falls out or breaks up, I think both parties have a moral obligation to remain loyal the the values and good aspects of the relationship that once DID exist. I have nothing but contempt for divorced people who go around blabbing secrets and deeply personal information about their ex-spouses in a vicious attempt to "get even." I was taken aback that Diana - someone I have grown to respect since I began to regularly follow her website a few months ago - would do something like that and realized that I needed to read the posting again more carefully.
Contrary to the bizarre assertions of the Tolerationist crowd, Objectivists are not moral dogmatists. There is no intrinsic Commandment of "thou shalt not disclose information in private emails." Context is everything - and upon rereading Diana's posting more carefully I came to the conclusion that she satisfactorily established the context necessary to justify her actions. And I would be more than willing to reconsider my conclusion if Chris Sciabarra were to come forth and provide evidence that what Diana wrote was not true or provide additional context which was not included in the posting. So far, the silence is very noticeable and very loud - and the only rebuttal offered by his defenders has been emotionalistic rants and ad-hominems which have only made him appear to be even more pathetic as a result.
So, Mr. Hardy, you DIDN'T know what my reaction to Diana's posting was. The fact that you misrepresented what I very clearly wrote and made such an assertion about what my alleged reaction was suggests to me that you are operating on the same stale broad-brush premises, stereotypes and myths from the same outdated, worn out and thoroughly exposed and debunked playbook that is the only thing that Ellen and the others at that surreal OL message board blindly follow for lack of anything better to throw at their opponents.
Mike Hardy writes:
"RT and Dismuke are not making sense....."
Suggestion: people tend to make a lot more sense if one makes the effort to focus on what they actually SAY rather than on one's ASSUMPTIONS of what they are saying.
Comment #198
Friday, May 5, 2006 at 1:04:56 mdt
Name: Chris Cathcart
URL: http://geocities.com/cathcacr
Dismuke, after all this time, you may still be my favorite Objectivist mononominal, at least certainly amongst those whose name starts with the letter 'D'. :-)
As far as Chris's "silence," I'm under the impression that he's very busy to begin with, and it would be rather unlike him not to have a, um, er, uh, a . . . rejoinder sometime in the reasonably near future. The posting containing charges against him is long and probably requires a good deal of time to formulate a response (of whatever kind it would be).
Comment #199
Friday, May 5, 2006 at 1:14:39 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
ChrisC -- In fact, CMS seems to have indicated to Barbara Branden that he will not reply at all. As I quoted earlier in this thread, she said: "It is for this reason that I feel strongly that voices must be raised to speak for a fine and honorable man whose dignity will not permit him to speak for himself." As far as I understand, CMS also promised Jim Valliant some kind of public explanation for the lies in which Jim caught him over the phone many weeks ago, but that never happened either. So I don't expect to see anything better than the vicious yet vacuous attacks already offered by Chris' come-what-may loyalists.
So don't hold your breath.
Comment #200
Saturday, May 6, 2006 at 0:25:05 mdt
Name: DannyAnderson
Here's a good wrap-up, summary, or what you will of this whole proud vomitous mess. Cuts straight to the essence, and I'm sure DH will endorse it shortly.
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0066_5.shtml#107
Comment #201
Sunday, May 7, 2006 at 5:33:22 mdt
Name: John
Fragile people are funny. And they sure are long-winded.
Comment #202
Monday, May 8, 2006 at 3:10:02 mdt
Name: michael
Hmmm. Methinks most of these critics are flying false flags:
"[email protected]
SMTP error from remote mailer after end of data:
host mx3.mail.yahoo.com [67.28.113.10]: 554 delivery error:
dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account ([email protected]) [-5] - mta132.mail.re2.yahoo.com"
Comment #203
Monday, May 8, 2006 at 5:31:52 mdt
Name: Ian Hamet
URL: http://blog.ianhamet.com/
Shocking.
And curious, isn't it, how all these different people have such an obsession with bodily functions... flatulence, vomitous...
Hey, has anybody called Diana a "doody-head" yet? :)
Comment #204
Monday, May 8, 2006 at 15:20:18 mdt
Name: Mike
URL: http://theprimacyofawesome.blogsome.com
Roger Bissell has started calling NoodleFood "PoodlePoop." How inspiring to see a middle aged man use the word "poop."
Comment #205
Saturday, May 27, 2006 at 20:08:10 mdt
Name: Dan Felton
This screed is just embarrassing. What possessed the author to babble at such length like this? Sciabarra over-acknowledged somebody in the acknowledgements section of a book? He doesn't make every private gripe glaringly public? The man is too discreet? Huh? This is thin gruel.... Jesus, toots, get a life.
Comment #206
Sunday, June 4, 2006 at 4:01:54 mdt
Name: James Close
Diana wrote: "Dr. Rasmussen was invited to give the primary paper on universals at a recent Ayn Rand Society meeting. Contrary to expectations, it was an *incompetant* paper."
There is no such word as "incompetant." Shouldn't insults at least be spelled correctly, in order for them not to be vulnerable to self-referential implications?
JC
Comment #207
Sunday, June 4, 2006 at 9:41:25 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
James Close: Buzz off -- and while you're doing that, you might wish to ponder the difference between a misspelling a word in a blog comment and presenting an academic paper on Ayn Rand's theory of concepts then openly admitting that you don't know how measurement omission works above first-level concepts in the ensuing discussion.