An Objectivist Divorce

The Autonomist ^ | 2/21/04 | Reginald Firehammer

[Hank Kerchief]

 

An Objectivist Divorce

Yesterday, on her blog, NoodleFood, Diana Mertz Hsieh posted, "A Public Statement," announcing the end of her ten year association with The Objectivist Center (TOC).

In her formal letter to David Kelley, Founder and Executive Director of TOC, she briefly outlines the main reasons for her decision. Some of the points are personal ones to which we cannot speak, but she goes on to criticize TOC's commentaries, articles, and op-eds as "uninteresting" and "superficial," making specific criticisms of four specific TOC staff offerings, concluding with this:

"In order to ferret out any underlying philosophical causes of these systemic problems at TOC, I also re-read the founding document of TOC, David Kelley's Truth and Toleration, for the first time in 10 years. I was surprised to find myself in strong disagreement with critical elements of the arguments on almost every issue: moral judgment, tolerance, sanction, and Objectivism as an open system. ... I regard the last, that Objectivism is an "open system," as the most widely misunderstood, deeply flawed, and practically dangerous of the lot...."

We find this particularly interesting, because it is the essential point we made in your own recent article, "Objectivism Characterized", which was, ironically, a response to a criticism by Diana Mertz Hsieh of my, in her words, "characterization of Objectivism," in my book, The Hijacking of a Philosophy.

We regard this announcement by Diana both courageous and important, and we believe the results will be good. We only wish it had not taken her ten years to discover what the TOC is. My characterization of Objectivism may not the best one, but I saw through the mush of the TOC in three weeks, more than 10 years ago.

(Diana has promised a "a much longer, more thorough examination of the issues," she will be "circulating" in a few weeks.)

—Reginald Firehammer (2/21/04)

[ffusco]

I recommend Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence by Robert Persig as a book that will change your life without alienating 99% of your friends and family.

It is a great narrative about the 2 major philosophical, schools of though: Romantic and Classic- which have been in conflict for centuries, and how integrate them. It is not very factualabout motorcycles or Zen, but fortunately, The reader is spared the nervous breakdown the writer experienced.

[cyborg]

I wonder how a person goes about studying philosophy without becoming an atheist misanthrope. More than that, where to begin because there is so much to read.

[ffusco]

Not communist,but It is a world of elitists and the common man and is definately influenced by the cult of personality. In Ayn rand's world, the leader is aloof, needs no one and exists like a force in nature. The leader has absolute moral authority which is recognized and followed by his sub-ordinates. There is no room for failure, weakness,human error or sentimentality.Sex is so repressed that it resembles rape. Also the virtuous are all tall, blue eyed, elegant and have a cold steel gaze.They speak in absolute terms only. The villians are short, physically unattractive people.

[cyborg]

wow I need to drink a cup of coffee first before comprehending this stuff!

[ffusco]

I prefer Empiricism. It concedes that humans are fallible, and there is a limit to human understanding. IE: an empiricist would argue that faith is neccesary even though it can't be measured or proven since it fills an important human need.

[Larry Lucido]

That's nothing. I got kicked out of my local anarchist group for my nonconformity.

[cyborg]

thanks... I'm sure there are a few websites I can look at about it :)

[Mr.Atos]

Next on my list, after the Tao of Pooh and the Book of Est...

...and Home Improvement 1.2.3, The Foundation Series, and Oh The Places You'll Go. Now there's a children's guide to Neo-Fascism (aka. Objectivism, in some narrow circles).

Thanks!

Atos

[Hank Kerchief]

Also the virtuous are all tall, blue eyed, elegant and have a cold steel gaze.They speak in absolute terms only. The villians are short, physically unattractive people.

How tall are you, by the way?

Hank

[templar]

It's funny how objectivism has interesting ideas, but Objectivists are a group of flakes; libertarianism has interesting ideas, but Libertarians are a bunch of flakes; constitutionists have interesting ideas, but Constitution Party members are a bunch of flakes...somehow there has to be a way to meld the best ideas from these schools of thought into a coherent philosophy and political movement that isn't thickly populated with Junior Varsity Napoleon Bonapartes.

Try pragmatism (the shortened version: "what works is real"). We're the only ones that aren't flakes, and we can use any of the worthwhile parts of all the others as (and if) they prove themselves to be of real merit (or true), while finding no need to accept (or apply) the remainder.

[Hank Kerchief]

Actual thinking is damned hard work, and accepting uncertainty and developing a moral or philosophical perspective in the face of the uncertainty that has existed since the Enlightenment is probably beyond most people's abilities.

Yes, everything of value, life itself is, "damned hard work," and reality is ruthlessly demanding and unforgiving. Since freedom means facing the facts of reality without evasion and taking complete responsibility for one's own choices and actions, most people despise it. Seeking the truth is not only too hard, it is terrifying to most. I do not believe they cannot do it; I believe they will not.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

That's nothing. I got kicked out of my local anarchist group for my nonconformity.

You sound like a trouble-maker to me. How do you think we are going to put the revolution over if everyone rebels in their own way?

(Thanks for laugh!)

Hank

[dyed_in_the_wool]

where to begin because there is so much to read.

Thales. He was the first.
Then Anaximenes.
Then Anaximander. They flow from there.

[cyborg]

thanks I'm getting my list together :)

[CatoRenasci]

I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence some 20 years or so ago. I thought it was interesting, but hardly life-changing.

[CatoRenasci]

You, then, are an optomist. Although for many years I would have agreed with you that most simply lack the will to think seriously, as I have gotten older I have become convinced that fear of both the uncertainty and the work are only a small part of the problem. Most people are simply do not have the required horsepower to study philosophy. In this, I fear I part company with the Enlightenment's celebration of reason and the underlying idea that human nature may be improved. [Note that the idea of progress, much maligned, is most often fundamentally misinterpreted as suggesting the inevitabilty of progress and perfectability of human nature, rather than mere holding (contrary to many cyclical or eschatalogical views) that progess is not possible and that human nature is fixed].

BTW, I looked at Ms. Hesieh's website and the link to a book list that ostensibly was a good overview of what one needs to know. If a graduate student of mine had suggested a list with so many unscholarly works and so much second and third rate stuff, I'd have seriously reconsidered their status. But, then I was an intellectual historian in my callow youth and expected people to read 2-3 serious secondary works and a fair chunk (say 2-3 hours) of some meaty philosophy every day. We did not think this at all excessive, unless the works were not available in English translation (e.g. Ernst Cassierer's Kant's Leben und Lehre, now available in a very nice translation as Kant's Life and Thought).

Cheers!

[Hank Kerchief]

Most people are simply do not have the required horsepower to study philosophy.

I agree completely. I do not believe everyone must be a philosopher, however, to seek as much truth as they are capable of learning and to live according the truth they can understand. I find evasion of the truth is the dominant psychological state of most individuals, regardless of their intellectual ability.

human nature is fixed

Absolutely. But, that nature is unlimited in terms of what it can achieve by choice, which is the fundamental nature of every human being.

Just curious, where did you find, "a book list that ostensibly was a good overview of what one needs to know," on Diana's site? You may be selling her a little short; the only "book list" I know of are some books she reviews which she reads mostly for pleasure. If there is a serious list, I would be interested in seeing it.

Hank

[numberonepal]

... somehow there has to be a way to meld the best ideas from these schools of thought into a coherent philosophy and political movement ...

I hearby announce The Common Effin Sense Party.

[CatoRenasci]

If you look on her blog, the day or so before the "statement", you'll find the reference:

here's the URL: http://strongbrains.com/default.htm

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Really? Should I bother reading Atlas Shrugged?

Sure. It's a great disection of the inevitable fall of socialism and communism. Based on "Atlas Shrugged", you could have predicted the fall of the U.S.S.R.

Ironically, I read it around 1992-94, after President Clinton was elected. I enjoyed matching his statements to the arguments used in the book.

Objectivism has some good logic in it, but it starts off with a false premise--God does not exist. There is its chief failing.