The majority of this essay reads like a vast exercise in psychological projection and secret psychological confession.

I gather that Diana has been attacked as a "Randroid" for some recent changes she has undergone. Since I don't know Diana or much about these changes (other than what I read in her attack on Chris Sciabarra, which struck me as overwrought), it's difficult for an outsider to say much about this problem. But she is obviously a highly intelligent person who understands Rand, so to call her a "Randroid" would clearly be way off the mark.

As for the claim that some (many?) people who use this label are themselves former Randroids, this hasn't been my experience, but I haven't been active in Objectivist circles for some years, so things may have changed. Moreover, "Randroid" is, in the final analysis, nothing more than a loose and often humorous characterization, so I think it should normally be taken with a grain of salt. If this is the worst that is being said about you, then you are in pretty good shape.

I had a friend in college who was known by the nick of "Randroid Robert"; we called him this because he had memorized long passages from Rand (especially from "The Objectivist Ethics"), which he would frequently recite during discussions. But he was a very nice guy and took everything with good humor, which was the spirit in which it was intended. His only problem was that he was a bit insecure about presenting his own formulations of philosophic arguments -- a problem that eventually dissolved on its own, as he read more philosophy and discovered how truly intelligent he really was.

Decades ago, while in my early twenties, I would occasionally ride my moral hobby horse and rant about some relatively unimportant issue. At such times my first wife would tell me to stop acting like a "Randroid." (She did this once when I got angry about her opening a letter addressed to me without my permission. It turns out she had a good reason for doing so, so I subsequently apologized, but not before launching into a mini-moral lecture about property rights.)

Such things are embarrassing to recall, but what my wife wished to communicate she communicated perfectly well by telling me to stop acting like a "Randroid."

If this label is now being widely applied to Diana, then it obviously has a malicious intent to it, but I'm not sure that the remedy for this is to delve into a psychological analysis of one's detractors. When Diana counsels us to follow "Ellsworth Toohey's advice" and "not examine this folly further, but instead consider what it complishes," we should keep in mind that this tactic is a double-edged weapon that can be used against anyone, including Diana and her article.

Ghs

I didn't know you had two books on line. I thought you had finished one a year or so back.

My use of the term "on line" was ambiguous. I finished one book recently. The second (Happiness in a Godless World) has yet to be written. That's the one I'm now figuring out how to finance so I can get to work on it.

The recently finished book (The Disciplines of Liberty) is a "scholarly" book, with hundreds of footnotes and the like. I plan to write the next book in an informal essay style, something that might have more commercial appeal. The subject of happiness and religion is potentially a topic with broad appeal, given the influence of Christian fundamentalism in America today.

Ghs

Actually Andre, in case I wasn't clear, I wasn't talking about Diana herself, but the subjects of Diana's article.

I don't understand at all your comments. Whether or not you agree with her hypothesis (which actually I'm certain apply in at least SOME cases), I don't see any evidence of projection on her part, but rather an honest attempt to understand a phenomenon that puzzles her. And the part about it being a "secret physchological confession" is bizarre -- it's hardly "secret" if it's written and posted on a website, is it?

The majority of this essay reads like a vast exercise in psychological projection and secret psychological confession.

Diana makes some interesting points. I've observed, mainly outside of Objectivism, that when someone has an unreasonable axe to grind on a particular subject, it often comes from a projection of their own weakness. They assume that because they have a big problem with something in particular, other people do too. Some obvious examples are ex-smokers who believe cigarettes should be banned, or sexual perverts in the church who rally against "the sins of the flesh" -- or someone like Karl Marx, who struggled with money and finances all his life, and so condemned the capitalist system. I wonder if a similar principle it at work here?

Gosh, George, I hope you feel no "tension" from me, sir. I am delighted to see you here! We met once, many years ago, when my friends, Casey Fahy and Bob Mack, the rock journalist, and I visited to your L.A. bookstore. I said it then, and will say it again, your work on atheism is a classic. Air cleared -- now let's clutter it with fireworks!

Time to recover? Never!

I didn't know you had two books on line. I thought you had finished one a year or so back.

I have to do something myself before I lose any more brain cells.

--Brant

I'm not sure that Barbara had you in mind when she wrote that she had lost a friendship of 35 years because of "Objectivist rage." I don't think she is actually mad at you.

When I said that certain postings "basically" belonged elsewhere, I didn't mean to imply that they therefore didn't belong here at all. I apologise for that. I was merely trying to explain why they seemed, to me, to be somewhat out of place.

I am actually quite happy to see these items appear here, especially Reisman's as I don't visit his blog very often and because he is so good.

--Brant

GHS wrote: "However, judging by my review of many of the posts on SOLO, I get the feeling that folks around here can more than hold their own. This doesn't strike me as a community of overly-sensitive souls."

Actually, I've already fainted three times while reading this thread.

And George, might I suggest an excellent book entitled The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics?

Whoops. Just fainted again at the thought of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. My ARI puppetmasters tell me that I must purge myself of all such unclean thoughts.

(Yes, I'm a bit punchy this morning; too many good lectures, too much good conversation, and not enough sleep here at OCON.)

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Jason,

Thank you for the kind remarks.

I'm afraid my sharp tongue has gotten me in trouble from time to time. This is my natural way of writing, especially in first drafts, so it can be a problem when I am writing post after post at breakneck speed, as I have been over the past couple of days.

However, judging by my review of many of the posts on SOLO, I get the feeling that folks around here can more than hold their own. This doesn't strike me as a community of overly-sensitive souls.

Ghs

Brant -- You are welcome to skip any writings that originate somewhere else but are also posted on SOLO.

George Smith, I want to welcome you to SOLO. "Atheism" was an important book for me. It helped me to solidify my understanding of many of Rand's ideas and your manner of presenting an argument is very instructive. Your reputation as a lightning quick intellect precedes you, and I for one am happy that you have joined SOLO. I hope that you stick around for a while, and I look forward to debating various issues with you here on the forums.

- Jason

Brant,

I was speaking in general terms, not necessarily about the immediate present.

I wasn't aware that Barbara was still upset about our disagreement. Like most people on elists, I have spats with friends from time to time, but they typically don't last very long. (You may be aware of some of my ferocious exchanges with Jeff Riggenbach a few years ago. What many people don't know is that Jeff and I were exchanging cordial private emails during that flamewar.)

As I have gotten older, I have learned (the hard way, in some cases) to appreciate the value of friendships, so I will get in touch with Barbara. Thank you for the tip.

I just finished a new book two months ago (The Disciplines of Liberty , which will probably be retitled). I also have another one waiting in the wings (Happiness in a Godless World,). Please give me a little time to recover, and to figure out how to support myself during the writing process.

Ghs

Reisman's blog.

--Brant

Brant,

I didn't so much as glance at my earlier posts on A2 before writing the one I posted here, though there are obvious similarities. Moreover, I reread Diana's article and concluded that I didn't really disagree with it as much as I originally thought (though I still have some problems with it, obviously.)I believe I directly addressed some of the points she raised. I certainly wrote it with that intention, and not as a warmed-over revision of something I posted elsewhere.

You wrote: "They basically belong somewhere else--namely his blog." By "his blog," do you mean my blog? (It sounds as if you were referring to Reisman and his blog.)I'm afraid you've got me a bit confused.

Ghs

Barbara thinks her friendship with you was severed because of the contretemps on Atl 2 two years ago. If you still think of her as a friend I strongly suggest you contact her and work out your differences, if any. At least to acknowledge them.

You are the biggest Objectivist/libertarian brain since Ayn Rand. Please write another book.

--Brant

George's initial post on this thread was essentially if not exactly a reproduction of his earlier post on Atlantis 11, Yahoo Groups, which was meant for a different audience. Conversely, Diana's post here is a reproduction of her earlier Noodle Food post. Without citing anything in particular in evidence, I posit that there is therefore something of a disconnect here, a sense of seondhandedness or leftoverism. Diana didn't initially write this for us nor did George. I also posit that that is why there haven't been many comments on Diana's post on this thread. Same problem with George Reisman's posts. They basically belong somewhere else--namely his blog.

--Brant

The following remarks may be unnecessary (I hope they are), but I think I should clear the air a bit.

I know that many people on SOLO are aware of my background, such as my published criticisms of Rand, my friendship with Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, and so forth. You may therefore suspect that I am here to cause trouble. I am not.

I have not engaged in regular communication with mainstream Objectivists for some time, and that was my purpose in joining SOLO. I am very curious about the "state of the movement," so to speak, and I have come here to engage in honest communication about the ideas of Ayn Rand -- a person to whom I owe an incalculable debt for my intellectual development.

My disagreement with some of you should not be misconstrued as lack of respect, much less as a display of condescension. I don't feel that way at all, despite my natural proclivity for polemicism.

However much you may disagree with what I have to say, please keep in mind that I was perhaps the first person to write a book-length treatment on a specialized subject that was heavily based on the ideas of Ayn Rand (for which I gave her full credit). Moreover, Atheism: The Case Against God (1974), having been widely read in the freethought and humanist communities, has prompted many people to read Rand who might otherwise have not. Over the years, more atheists than I can recall have told me that they were first motivated to read Rand because of my book.

I am writing this post because I sense some tension in the air, based on what I have written thus far. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but I thought I should try to remedy this problem now, should one exist.

Ghs

It's not a question of disagreement, or even "trouble," yet -- I guess I don't understand your initial response to Diana.

If one's sole answer to Objectivism is to discuss the phenomenon of "Randroids," this is NOT "critical thought." If the only discussion of Objectivism at that site (and, as I say, I don't know) is such an attack, then this is not "critical thought."

It's hardly fair to the truth, either.

I was wondering about your comment prior to Dan's.

I'm sorry, James, but I made a number of comments in my initial post. You will have to tell me which one in particular troubles you.

Ghs

Objectivist = cultist, therefore, uncritical zombie. That's the tired old smear in question. I'm not familiar with the website, but I am only too familiar with this smear.

I'm the last person in the world to engage in this smear tactic. On the contrary, I've spent countless hours over the past 40 years arguing with people who use it.

Ghs

George,

I was wondering about your comment prior to Dan's.

But if as you say some means "not all", than 5 could qualify as easily as 200 whereas that would clearly not be many.

Yes -- so you may safely conclude that I was talking about more than five people.

Also, I have to wonder what you *couldn't* say about *some* people who "call themselves 'Objectivists'" - especially when you qualify it as "call themselves" and even kindly put "Objectivists" in quotes, so as to allow for the possibility that they are not in fact Objectivists whatever they may call themselves.

It's never been very clear to me exactly what criteria one must meet in order to qualify as an "Objectivist." I don't call myself an "Objectivist," even though I agree with Rand on most fundamental philosophical issues. I don't use this label partially because my disagreements are substantial enough that I think Rand would have objected to my use of this label -- and my esteem for her is such that I think I should respect her wishes in this regard.

I do, however, refer to my position on some issues as "Randian," just as I would refer to my position on some issues as "Lockean" or "Aristotelian."

As for what I "couldn't say about some people who call themselves Obejctivists" -- I don't know what this means.

The question I guess is what does this have to do with Diana's comments?

I was responding to Dan Edge. If you have some other comment in mind, then you will have to let me know which one.

Ghs

George,

I've known those (more than a couple) who claim to admire Rand and who are also not very critical thinkers. But I have also known many others (I would have to say it's not even a fair comparison to other "belief systems") who are very thoughtful and abnormally rigorous and self-critical about what they think.

So, I'm with Fred, how does this relate to Diana's point?

Objectivist = cultist, therefore, uncritical zombie. That's the tired old smear in question. I'm not familiar with the website, but I am only too familiar with this smear.

But if as you say some means "not all", than 5 could qualify as easily as 200 whereas that would clearly not be many.

Also, I have to wonder what you *couldn't* say about *some* people who "call themselves 'Objectivists'" - especially when you qualify it as "call themselves" and even kindly put "Objectivists" in quotes, so as to allow for the possibility that they are not in fact Objectivists whatever they may call themselves.

Some "Objectivists" for example believe in God. I have actually heard people call themselves "Christian Objectivists". Even more strangely there are some who advocate anarchism. And, yes, I'm sure that some are dogmatists.

The question I guess is what does this have to do with Diana's comments?

What do you think the liklihood is that if we pressed you further on this point that "many" which became "some" will end up being "a few"?

Suppose there is a movement with 1000 people. If 200 of these people are dogmatic, it would be correct to say that some within this movement are dogmatists. It would also be correct to say that many within this movement are dogmatists. "Some," in this context, means "not all," whereas "many" means "more than a few."

If I can assist you further in your quest to understand the English language, please don't hesitate to ask.

Ghs

George, I found something curious comparing your two comments. In your first you declare, "Now, some Objectivists who profess 100 percent agreement with Objectivism may have invested this kind of intellectual labor, but MANY have not.". However in your second you say, "The problems that we find with SOME people who call themselves "Objectivists" are not unique to this movement."(emphasis mine)

What do you think the liklihood is that if we pressed you further on this point that "many" which became "some" will end up being "a few"?

I would say that I agree with Objectivism to the extent that I understand it. I don't have to be an Objecto-prodigy to make that statement, right?

No, course not. But the same could be said of anyone who agrees with any philosophical system, such as Marxism, to the extent they understand it.

What makes something truly a philosophical system, as opposed to a mere belief system, is the critical thinking that has been invested in it by the person who holds it. Believers are a dime a dozen; critical thinkers are rare.

Please understand that I am speaking in general terms. My remarks are not intended personally. The problems that we find with some people who call themselves "Objectivists" are not unique to this movement. Such people are found in every ideological movement, both rational and irrational. They come with the territory.

One mark of a truly rational movement is the extent to which it discourages dogmatism by encouraging critical thinking, including critical reflection about one's own beliefs.

Ghs

George,

I would say that I agree with Objectivism to the extent that I understand it.  I don't have to be an Objecto-prodigy to make that statement, right?

--Dan Edge

In essence, the "Randroid" smear of long-time Objectivists offers a false alternative of either (1) dogmatic agreement with every word that Ayn Rand ever wrote or (2) thoughtful criticism of various aspects thereof. Notice the major missing alternative: considered, thoughtful agreement with the philosophic principles that constitute Objectivism.

"Thoughtful agreement" with a philosophic system is not possible unless one has considered thoughtful criticisms of that system (or similar ideas). Now, some Objectivists who profess 100 percent agreement with Objectivism may have invested this kind of intellectual labor, but many have not.

As for the label "Randroid," I heard this term (and used it occasionally) in the late sixties, while running a "Students of Objectivism" club at the University of Arizona. Based on "android," the term then had a specific meaning, i.e., the robotic and dogmatic recitation of Rand's ideas with virtually no independent thought or appreciation for the complexity of the philosophical issues involved.

If "Randroid" is now used to describe any person who professes complete agreement with Rand's philosophy, for whatever reason, then it is clearly misapplied. But I must say that I have not encountered this usage myself.

As for complete agreement with Rand, it's possible (if rather unlikely) that Rand was the first person in the 2500-year history of Western philosophy to be absolutely right about every philosophical issue. The only way to determine this, in the final analysis, is to encourage critical reflections on Objectivism and see how well her ideas hold up.

It's not necessarily unreasonable, when one has not engaged in this kind of systematic critical reflection (not everyone can devote this kind of time and effort to philosophy), to profess complete agreement with Objectivism, but I become extremely suspicious whenever a person does so with 100 percent certainty on every point. A reasonable person will normally hold beliefs with varying degrees of probability and certainty, and he or she will concede doubts about certain issues. But when all doubt is absent, a red flag should go up. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean that one is dealing with a Randroid, but it probably does indicate that one is dealing with a person who has not invested much time in an honest assessment of his or her own beliefs.

Ghs

It kind of helped reiterate to me some of the ideas I've been grappling with lately. Specificly relating to some of your critics (independant necissarily of the fact that they were your critics) and my reaction to their views.

A lot of people get tempted to just swallow the philosophy whole and once they come to a part of it years later that they would've had a problem with all along they simply decide on a "moderated" view of the philosophy instead of confronting their problem head on.

The longer a person stays in this moderated phase the more it eats away at whatever is good or strong within them and the further it pushes them headlong into whatever negativity they feared for themselves. Decisions like that can be put off but not avoided, and the offputting is often the most damaging thing they do.

What scares me is how often this approach is treated as the normal and healthy way to approach philosophy.

Everything you just said needed to be said.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

I found that very interesting,I'm not an expert on the subject but can understand some of what you have written.The way I store knowledge is a lot like the old system of catchy little ditties that are easy to remember so I'm trying to put what you said into a small digestable package?one can be a fundementalist philosopher?knowledge is understanding the information that you hold?hidden agenda's can pervert the course of knowledge?am I getting close at all here?