An Objectivist Divorce - Diana Mertz Hsieh Leaves TOC

An Objectivist Divorce

\image_notuploaded{1,http://usabig.com/autonomist/articles/dianah_small.jpg} 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).

\image_notuploaded{2,http://usabig.com/autonomist/articles/kelley_small.jpg} In her formal letter to David Kelley, Founder and Executive Director of TOC, she breifly 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)

Post 1

Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 6:22pm

Interesting how lil' ol' Regi (The "Randroid) Firehammer decides to use the royal "We" --- "WE" find that pretentious as all hell.

Additionally, "WE" find it somewhat telling that the "Objectivist Movement" has now deteriorated into squabbling factions whose only purpose seems to be squabbling among themselves, and invoking "sanction" on whoever isn't "Objectivist" enough for the "leader's" taste.

ALL areas of knowledge must be "Open" systems (in that they must NEVER be stagnant, or approached from a 'traditional' mindset. "Tradition" and "orthodoxy" are the hallmarks of a DEPENDENT mind.

"We" find the issue of Hseih's "severing of contact" with TOC to be completely ludicrous.

Post 2

Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 8:15pm

Former,

Interesting how lil' ol' Regi (The "Randroid) Firehammer decides to use the royal "We" --- "WE" find that pretentious as all hell.

Oh, I'm much worse than that. I appreciate your attempt to complement me, but I'm really a total fake.

But, I am not an Objectivist. I do know, however, that those who attempt to "cash in" on the "Objectivist" name, and use the reputation of Ayn Rand to promote their own philosophical views are not only fakes, but second-hand frauds.

It is philosophy that is, "open-ended," (the concept of, "Open systems," itself is absurd), and Ayn Rand's Objectivism is only one stage in that open-ended field. To call future advances in the field of philosophy by the same name as one particular stage is just stupid.

But, since stupidity is very common, and usually very stubborn as well, I suspect many things that have nothing to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy will be called Objectivism, just as the ignorant call anything you blow your nose on a "Kleenex" and anything that makes copies a "Xerox."

Regi

Post 3

Monday, February 23, 2004 - 3:49pm

Regi: you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? How you could turn a discussion of "the use of the word 'we' into a polemic about your 'autonomist' approach, is beyond my limited ability to comprehend.

You complain about people trying to "cash in" on Objectivism, and yet you spend your time and effort writing snide 'criticism' books aimed at combating the "hijacking" of a philosophy you don't even believe exists anymore.

I guess Regi, you would advocate that each and every one of us who now attempt to 'cash in' on Objecivism do as YOU have, and devise cheap, one-person knockoffs, to post on websites.

Robin King in Australia has taken the same dreary, ill-thought-out path, refusing to call himself (or any of his work) "Objectivism". The thing that is doubly pathetic about that is that it ignores the fact that Rand had VERY LITTLE to do with what became "Objectivism". Observe that most of her writings are held together by much more well-reasoned articles done by Nathaniel Branden. (Even her 'seminal work" -- "for the new intellectual" -- was primarily based on terms COINED by Branden.

Objectivism cannot -- and never could --- be considered "the philosophy of Ayn Rand", for the simple reason that it -- unlike the work of her "spiritual mentor" Aristotle, was not DONE ONLY BY HER. Objectivism was, is, and CONTINUES TO BE an 'emergent philosophy' -- based squarely within the "classical liberal" tradition of Western civilization. When people like yourself fail to have a coherent view of WHERE their own philosophical premises are derived from, it only serves to make you look stupid and ill-informed.

Cut the pretentiousness of the term "We", already -- and learn to stay on topic.

Post 4

Monday, February 23, 2004 - 5:54pm

Objectivism cannot -- and never could --- be considered "the philosophy of Ayn Rand"

I suspect Ayn Rand would have been quite surprised to learn that. It is certainly too bad you never had an opportunity to explain it to her.

Cut the pretentiousness of the term "We", already

I suffer form multiple personality disorder and regard that remarks as extremely insensitive. We all do.... excuse me, Fred doesn't.

How you could turn a discussion of "the use of the word 'we' into a polemic about your 'autonomist' approach, is beyond my limited ability to comprehend.

Yes, well, no need to apologize. We all have our limitations. Oh, by "we" I mean, "I and my intelligent readers," which company I will glad to excuse you from.

Thank you for your kind comments!

Regi

Post 5

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 5:52pm

Regi, you are a pseudo-intellectual worm. You didn't address any of my points, except to say basically that AYN RAND thought that it was "her" philosophy, so who am I to judge?

Fact 1: The Brandens were instrumental in creating the philsophy.

Fact 2: Rand continued (dishonorably, I might add), to use Nathaniel Branden's articles AFTER he was "expunged" from "her" organization.

Fact 3: Most of what Rand DID was extremely derivative of other people's work. Much as it's difficult for you to understand, Regi old buddy, there IS a wider historical context to consider, and Rand is (at best) one link in a chain with antecedent steps. Read up on Mortimer J. Adler, for example. go to www.radicalacademy.com, to see how a REAL organized philosophical system works. (Interestingly, it has everything Objectivism does, with NONE of the pretentious pseudo-intellectual bullshit.)

Get over yourself, Regi. You couldn't forumlate an intelligent response to my comments if you tried, so don't waste the effort.

You're a pretentious little worm.

Post 6

Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:07pm