Link / Noodles / Trackback

My New Palm
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:53 PM

Last week, Elliot knocked my Sony Clie off the high kitchen counter onto the wood floor. It didn't survive the fall; its input sensor was totally off kilter. I wasn't exactly heartbroken, as I had wanted to replace it for a while. It worked well enough, but it was big and clunky with a short battery life.

Today, my Tungsten E arrived. I'm in love already. It's speedy. It's roomy. It's slim. It's light. It is not burdened with all of those useless-to-me bells and whistles of larger, heavier, and costlier moders.

Hooray!

Link / Noodles / Trackback

Monday, August 23, 2004

Tenth Anniversary
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:37 PM

Ten years ago today, Paul and I met for the very first time for dinner in St. Louis. I was a sophmore at WashU, not yet even a philosophy major, not yet even 20 years old. Paul had just returned to the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology as an attending physician after his year of MRI fellowship in Los Angeles. While still in Los Angeles, Paul noticed that I was in St. Louis from my posts on alt.philosophy.objectivism. The rest is history.

If, on that evening ten years ago, someone had told me that I would be insanely happy married to that geeky Asian doctor with the unpronouncable name whom I watched walk up to my apartment building with a spring in his step from my second-story window, I would have died of shock. Yet here I am, Mrs. Paul Hsieh. Go figure.

It's been a good ten years, Mr. Woo.

Link / Noodles / Trackback

Thursday, August 19, 2004

Strange Keywords, Strange Name
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:37 AM

A few days ago, I noticed the following three Google ads on a web page about philosophy.

Philosophy
Inspired by Medical Research. Makeup, Skincare & Fragrance.
www.sephora.com

Buy Philosophy Products
Free 3-Day Shipping - 5% Back Great Selection - Easy Returns
www.drugstore.com

Buy Philosophy Cosmetics
Free 3-day shipping! Huge selection Easy online ordering. Affiliate
www.beauty.com

Philosophy is inspired by years of medical market research that's helped to influence the current skincare treatment, peel and protocols offered by top plastic surgery and dermatology practices. Several Philosophy formulations have been reviewed and administered not by one doctor, but by thousands of doctors worldwide – a coalition of leading physicians and scientists dedicated to the future development of Philosophy products.

Cristina Carlino, the creator and CEO of Philosophy, is also the founder and former CEO of Biomedic, the highly acclaimed, medical skincare company.

Link / Noodles / Trackback

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Who Knew?
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:28 PM

I received an e-mail this morning from an old acquaintance who was disturbed by my recent blog post about the Brandens. I thought it worth quoting, along with my reply. He wrote:

I've just brought myself up to speed on the "trouble" you've been having with the Brandens and NoodleFood. I had no idea that you had developed such a bitterly negative perspective on the two of them. I don't know that it will matter much to you, but I find the anger-filled and adversarial nature of your comments to be quite bewildering, a little disturbing, and not at all like the Diana Brickell that helped to introduce me to the universe of "Objectivism" back in the early 90s.

I really don't understand, and I don't know what else to say.

I can understand that you find my strongly negative moral judgment of the Brandens strange and bewildering. In that blog post, I couldn't do more than hint at the reasons for that judgment, which was unfortunate. Such was certainly not my plan, which was to say nothing publicly on the matter until I could fully detail my reasons. (That's taking some time to write up, but I am currently working on it.) The purpose of that plan was precisely to help prevent bafflement.

Unfortunately, NB's juvenile and deceptive games made that impossible. In my e-mail to him this spring, I told him that he was no longer welcome to post on my blog and that I would not engage him in debate. Yet he posted anyway, engaging me in debate under false pretenses. That put me in a horribly awkward position. In order to expose the deception and explain why I was deleting that debate from the comments, I had to explain why he was banned from my comments in the first place. And that required indicating my basic moral judgment of him, despite my desire to wait until I could offer my full reasons.

And yes, I was furious. He deceived and manipulated me, not to mention wasted my time and violated my property rights, all while feigning friendliness and benevolence. In my book, that's reason enough for anger. The emotion was in response to the facts -- and it is those facts which ought to be the focus of your attention.

Link / Noodles / Trackback

Monday, August 16, 2004

Lost Texts
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:32 PM

Whenever I learn of modern archeological finds of Biblical texts, artifacts, and sites, I wonder whether a simple shepherd might someday unearth the lost works of Aristotle hidden in some dark cave. I had just that thought today as I read the headline about the discovery of a cave seemingly linked to John the Baptist.

I don't know enough about the history of ancient Greek texts to even suggest that such an idle fantasy might come to pass. How many copies of Aristotle's works were produced? How durable were the texts? How were they stored? How widely were they distributed? I suspect that modern scholars can't answer such questions in sufficient detail to suppose that copies of Aristotle's lost texts might still exist somewhere. (Richard Rubenstein recounts the known history in his dramatic book on the rediscovery and influence of Aristotle's works in the Middle Ages, Aristotle's Children.)

Of course, we could not determine whether some presently lost texts of Aristotle's might be stashed away in unknown places until and unless we actually find them. But oh how glorious such a find would be!

Link / Noodles / Trackback

Anarchist Voting
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:45 AM

Well, John Kerry is sure to win the election now! It looks like he might have captured the anarchist vote. Or at least the segments of it that are willing to set aside their political convictions to vote against George Bush. Heh.

Link / Noodles / Trackback

Enough Already!
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:32 AM

Okay folks, I've had enough of the comments for the moment. Last week started with Nathaniel Branden's juevenile and deceptive games at the beginning of the week and ended with Bill Brown's loaded questions. I just can't afford the demands on my time, particularly not now that my fall semester is gearing up.

Everyone can argue away as they see fit, within the usual limits, of course. But don't expect any replies from me.

Link / Noodles / Trackback

Sunday, August 15, 2004

More Libertarian Delights
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:26 PM

Paul just pointed me to this gem of a libertarian interview of John Perry Barlow (the founder of EFF) by Reason. Let me just quote a few choice bits, with emphasis added:

But by virtue of our abdication, a very authoritarian, assertive form of government has taken over. And oddly enough, it is doing so in the guise of libertarianism to a certain extent. Most of the people in the think tanks behind the Bush administration's current policies are libertarians, or certainly free marketeers. We've got two distinct strains of libertarianism, and the hippie-mystic strain is not engaging in politics, and the Ayn Rand strain is basically dismantling government in a way that is giving complete open field running to multinational corporatism.

An unwillingness to engage in any kind of mitigation of the free market. The one thing that I know government is good for is countervailing against monopoly. It's not great at that either, but it's the only force I know that is fairly reliable. But if you've got a truly free market you only have a free market for a while before it becomes completely regulated by those aspects of it that have employed power laws to gain a complete monopoly.

We need them. We have a deeply symbiotic relationship with large corporations. I wouldn't want to eliminate them, because they are the engines of our economic well being at the moment. But we need something -- and I think it's governmental -- to reregulate the market and make it free, because the multinationals have taken it away.

Yet we might still ask: Precisely what meaning does the concept "libertarianism" have? Is there some set of core political doctrines held in common by those commonly considered libertarians, such as Milton Friedman, John Locke, Jan Narveson, Ayn Rand, David Friedman, George H. Smith, Rod Long, Adam Smith, Friedich Hayek, Julian Simon, Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Jefferson, and so on? I think not. Such libertarian thinkers differ widely in the foundations of their political views: moral versus economic, egoistic versus altruistic, utilitarian versus deontological versus teleological, and so on. They differ in their substantive views of the proper political order. Some libertarians are anarchists; they seek to abolish the state in favor of private defense agencies. Others advocate a minimal state limited to police, the courts, and national defense. Others are willing to use government to solve so-called market failures, educate children, and provide for the poor. Such libertarians also often diverge in their implementation of rights, including on abortion, self-defense, animal rights, intellectual property, and more. Given these substantial and wide-ranging differences, the term "libertarianism" seems to be based upon family resemblance more than any feature (or features) common to all. Such a mixed-bag concept seems epistemologically indefensible to me... and virtually useless.

Many people do opt for a different approach, namely that of reducing libertarianism to a single principle: the rejection of the initiation of force. As an example of this view, the oath required to join the Libertarian Party is merely: "I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." This approach is untenable, even dangerous, because it strips libertarianism of the content which gives it meaning, such that it can become just about anything to anybody.

The basic problem is that what does or does not constitute coercion is radically dependent upon prior notions of the range of actions to which an individual is entitled. If I am not entitled to the money I earn, then the government is not coercing me by redistributing it to the needy. If I am not entitled to self-defense, then I am initiating force in warding off a rapist. If I am not entitled to my car, then anyone may use and abuse it.

...[Further elaboration in the form of a quote from Jimmy Wales]...

So by stripping a rich political theory down to a single principle which is not even comprehensible in isolation, the focus on the non-initiation of force principle lends credence to the claims of socialists, communitarians, and other statists that they are the true libertarians. After all, they too are opposed to the use of force. They just simply understand what does and does not constitute force quite differently from you and me.

Link / Noodles / Trackback

Saturday, August 14, 2004

Rumor and Supposition
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:27 PM

I received an e-mail from a friend of mine recently, someone I know from my long-gone days at The Objectivist Center. His letter disturbed me, as it suggested that some false reports about me have been circulating amongst TOC supporters. (I'm very glad that he e-mailed me to inquire as to the facts. I fear that too many people -- even those I've known for years -- are content with rumor and supposition.) So let me set the public record straight, at least with respect to the two concerns raised by my friend.

First, this friend was confused by my reversal in judgment on David Kelley's views, since he thought that I was already an "advanced" Objectivist when I initially sided with then-IOS over ARI. In fact, I was very, very new to Objectivism at the time of my decision. I read Ayn Rand's fiction as a senior in high school. In the fall of my freshman year of college, I read her major anthologies (The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) for the first time. At that time, I also diligently searched the internet for information on Objectivism, joined both the MDOP and OSG mailing lists, and thus very quickly exposed myself to the acrimonious debates between the "Kelleyites" and the "Peikovians." Not long thereafter, in February of 1994, I publicly sided with Kelley in my "Yet Another Heretic is Created" post.

Looking back upon my reasons for that choice, it's clear to me that I didn't possess an adequate understanding of the relevant philosophic issues. To compensate for that deficiency, I tended to focus on the actions of the people associated with each side, tried to connect that behavior to the ideas espoused by Peikoff and Kelley as best I could, and then judged according to my understanding of Objectivism. As the events of the past year demonstrate, that method didn't work out so well for me. The reasons are fairly simple:

First, I didn't realize that my samples were biased. Through Jimmy Wales, I quickly met lots of smart, serious, and committed supporters of David Kelley. I encountered a far more random assortment of Peikoff supporters, far too many of whom were loud, rude, and ignorant, as tends to happen in unmoderated discussion groups. Unfortunately, it took quite a few years to revise those basic judgments. Thinking back, the catalyst was likely my interactions with the fine folks of FROG, our local Objectivist discussion group. All were reasonable and kind people, many were longtime supporters of ARI, and some even knew far more about Objectivism than I did. It was all something of a shock. Around the same time, as my scholarly interest in Objectivism deepened, I became increasingly unhappy with the intellectual climate at TOC, particularly with the unserious approach to the philosophy exhibited by so many students. Finally, attending OCON in 2003 largely obliterated my generally negative view of ARI supporters.

Second, I did not adequately understand the positions defended by David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff. Although Kelley's views seemed clear enough to me at the time, I misinterpreted them to be more reasonable and consistent with Objectivism than they actually are. For example, I largely thought of his "open system" as a call to develop and extend Ayn Rand's ideas into new philosophic territory, perhaps with a few minor tweaks here and there. I did not see it then as I see it now, namely as a means of reducing her philosophy to some of its distinctive elements, then opening up the rest to contradictory and moronic revisions. And I didn't realize the full meaning of Kelley's positive comments about Barbara Branden's abysmal biography until I read parts of it last summer. I was also generally baffled by Peikoff's arguments in "Fact and Value." His notion of inherently dishonest ideas, for example, never made much sense to me until I heard him explain it last fall in listening to his Understanding Objectivism course.

Third, I didn't understand Objectivism well enough at the time to judge whether Kelley's ideas were consistent with it or not. Although I quickly absorbed Ayn Rand's ideas, I lacked the necessary time to integrate them, consider their implications, and develop my skills of philosophic detection. To many knowledgeable Objectivists, Kelley's subjectivism, pragmatism, and skepticism seem glaringly obvious. But such judgments presuppose a vast context of knowledge not available to a newcomer. So in retrospect, I'm not surprised that I didn't understand, for example, why Kelley's views on moral principles amount to pragmatism. Given my context of knowledge, I simply had no rational means of coming to such a conclusion.

Of course, at the time of my decision in favor of Kelley, I was quite unaware of these three defects in my capacity to properly judge the issue. Had I known, I certainly would have revisited the issue sooner than ten years later. In fact, I wouldn't have made more than a preliminary judgment while I gathered more gathered more information, developed my understanding of Objectivism, and honed my philosophic skills. As it was, seeing the necessity of revisiting the philosophic issues required me to experience a great deal of personal unhappiness at TOC over a wide variety of practical issues. And at that point, my context was sufficient to quickly grasp a number of David Kelley's significant errors and departures from Objectivism, as I did once I re-read Truth and Toleration.

To be clear, I'm not attempting to plead perfect, sweet, angelic innocence. I've made my fair share of mistakes along the way, usually in a very public fashion. Nor do I think that only newcomers to Objectivism can be honestly mistaken about Kelley's views, as so much depends upon a person's context of knowledge. But I think that history indicates the reasons why I mistakenly chosen Kelley's side ten years ago.

Second, my friend was concerned that I am "under pressure to denounce" various people, presumably by folks in and around ARI. That's a common view, I think, but it's totally and completely false.

Here's the truth: My rejection of David Kelley's views and subsequent disassociation from The Objectivist Center was not an isolated event; it was naturally connected to questions about the moral status of people like Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. After all, both were openly embraced by David Kelley as knowledgeable of and friendly to Objectivism. The issue was also more personal to me, in that I had served as Nathaniel Branden's webmaster for many years.

Unsurprisingly then, questions about the Brandens were raised in the course of my lengthy and detailed discussions with an ARI supporter about TOC, Kelley, and all the rest last spring. Rest assured, this person did not simply assert Nathaniel Branden's dishonesty as obvious fact, then demand agreement. (Such claims are not merely unpersuasive, they are also offensive.) Rather, he presented detailed and compelling reasons for his conclusions about Nathaniel Branden's dishonesty based upon Branden's own published writings on Ayn Rand and Objectivism. His arguments convinced me that I needed to investigate the issue for myself as soon as I could afford the time. Recognizing that I was overloaded, this person did not demand immediate consideration or decision. He was content to know that the issue was in my queue. This spring, I was finally able to read Nathaniel Branden's "Benefits and Hazards" article for the first time in ten years. I was immediately and totally appalled by it. At that point, it was easy for me to agree with this person's moral assessment of Nathaniel Branden -- not due to any pressure or demands -- but because I saw for myself that his reasons were correct. Even then, he did not demand a grand public denouncement, but merely suggested that I publicly state my change in judgment since I had been Nathaniel Branden's webmaster for years. Working on a longer commentary on the Brandens was entirely my choice and my idea. In sum, the only "pressure" in that whole exchange was the pressure of evidence and logic.

With all such issues, my decision procedure has been the same. My philosophic conclusions and moral judgments are based upon the evidence available to me -- and nothing else. Of course, discussion, debate, and conversation with ARI supporters has been enormously helpful to me. It has clarified my understanding of key issues enormously, as well as overturned my negative presumptions about such people from years past. It has not been -- and will never be -- a means of ingratiating myself. (Ugh. The mere thought is revolting!) I do not bend under threat, intimidation, authority, pressure, or inducements -- as anyone who knows me even a little should realize. And when I encounter people who attempt to use such methods on me to sway my judgment, I get downright cantankerous.

Notably, for friends or acquaintances to suggest otherwise -- merely due to my change in views -- is a serious moral insult. Whether intended or not, such a suggestion calls into question my honesty, integrity, independence, rationality, and justice -- all without a shred of relevant evidence. That's happened a few times -- and believe me, it's quite distressing.

In some ways, I hate to end on such an unpleasant note, but perhaps it's best to let that last bit sink in all the way.

Link / Noodles / Trackback

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

Porn Star or My Little Pony?
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:41 PM

Yet another important quiz via GeekPress:

She has flowing hair, smooth skin, languid eyes, and she's completely naked. Are we discussing here a star of one of the approximately four hundred thousand single-, double-, and triple-X-rated films out there, or one of the approximately four hundred thousand different "My Little Ponies" they flooded toy stores with in the Eighties?

That's what we're here to find out. Below is a list of names. Each name belongs to either a porn star, or a My Little Pony. Your job is to try and tell the fornicator from the latter. Supine or equine? New Wave Hookers or new-agey hoofers? You make the call.

Link / Noodles / Trackback

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

Unnecessary Evidence
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:53 PM

A few months ago, I reconsidered an issue that has often troubled Objectivists, namely that of the proper moral judgment of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. The catalyst was my discussions with a friend about issues surrounding my departure from The Objectivist Center. He presented me with some tough questions and compelling arguments about the dishonesty and viciousness of their portrayals of Ayn Rand, criticisms of Objectivism, and so on. So I resolved to revisit the issue as soon as I could afford the necessary time.

At the time, my opinion of Barbara Branden was already exceedingly negative. Just a few months earlier, I had read a few early chapters of The Passion of Ayn Rand for the very first time. I was immediately appalled by her constant psychologizing of Ayn Rand. My judgment was sealed upon watching her argue in the debates in my comments this spring, such as in this thread. Perhaps the worst was a post from May 4th in which she quoted this passage from Passion with a prefatory comment about how it showed that she "was not attempting to denigrate Rand":

And yet, when one looks at the life of Ayn Rand, one must wonder if the dogmatic absolutism of her certainty, the blinding conviction of her own rectitude and her special place in the world, the callousness of her intolerance for opinions that were not hers, the unwavering assurance that she was alone to know the truth and that others must seek it from her -- the eyes that looked neither to the left nor to the right, but only at the path ahead -- the savage innocence of her personality -- was not the fuel required for the height of achievement she attained. Just as when one looks at history's great achievers one so often encounters the desperate loneliness and alienation which is perhaps the emotional price paid by men and women who see farther than their brothers, so one encounters these qualities in Ayn Rand. And one must wonder if they are not precisely the qualities that make possible the courage and uncompromising dedication of those who forge new paths through the unknown, enduring and persevering,shouting defiance at tne enormity of the opposition which follows them at each step of their lonely journey,and adding new glories to our world.

Thanks for the totally apt comments about the trip to the Grand Canyon, Richard. (Yes, that was sarcasm. Sheesh.)

Please folks, let's not return to the insane discussions of last month. If that happens, I will simply have to close down the comments entirely, particularly if people are posting on totally irrelevant entries. I have no desire for my blog to become the place for people to spout nasty accusations back and forth. Thoughtful, relevant, and civil philosophical debate and argument is welcome. If that is not possible to you, do not post.

This is not some "Can't we just all get along?" plea. It's a demand: Say something worthwhile on something relevant to the blog post, or say nothing at all. If some people are unable to abide by that demand, I will remove my property as a forum for them. If that does not work, I will shut down the comments entirely.

You are in my house when you post comments on this blog. Act accordingly, or you shall be ejected.

Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 08:25:25 -0600
To: bbranden1@aol.com, n6666b@cs.com
From: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
Subject: my comments

Nathaniel and Barbara,

Since you two seem to be tag-teaming in your complaints about my blog yet again, I may as well write a single letter in reply. I regret the necessity of all that is below, but consider it your fair warning.

Barbara wrote:

"Are Richard Drover's comments that Chris Sciabarra and I are either liars or stupid among the comments that are allowed?"

I highlighted Richard Dover's totally inappropriate and irrelevant comments as an example of that which I do not wish to see on my blog. To have deleted them would have destroyed the necessary context.

And speaking of that which I do not wish to see on my blog, let me say that you, Barbara, are no longer welcome to post comments. Any and all comments from you will be deleted, regardless of content. Your comments on my blog this spring confirmed the suspicions and deepened the objections raised by reading some early chapters of _The Passion of Ayn Rand_ for the first time last summer. As far as I am concerned, you have revealed yourself as vicious and dishonest through your own words. So I am withdrawing my comments as a forum for you. Go grind your ax somewhere else.

To answer your question, Nathaniel, such were the reasons why Barbara's comment was deleted while Richard Dover's remained: he was an example, she was unwelcome. Given our prior friendly relations, I regret to say that I must give you the same warning: If you post any further comments on my blog, they will be deleted. I recently twice re-read your "Benefits and Hazards" article, which is an embarrassing, unjustifiable, and inexcusable attack on Objectivism. Such transparently fallacious arguments against the philosophy are to be expected from the mouths of ignorant critics, but you certainly know better. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Together, you two have done more damage to the cause of Objectivism than I ever imagined possible. I regret that it took me so long to see that. But now that I do, I will certainly not help you do any more damage. I want nothing to do with either of you.

You can complain about this ban all you like to whomever you like, but you are not permitted to do so on my property, nor will I engage in debate with you elsewhere. My judgment will not be swayed by the intervention of mutual friends, as my mind has been solidly made up for some weeks now. I will be announcing the ban and the detailed reasons for my negative judgment on the blog soon enough.

I'm certain that I will be branded a crazy moralizer by you and others for making such strong moral judgments, but so be it. In my view, a stark choice must be made: either the Brandens or Objectivism, but not both. My choice is clear.

diana.

Monday, August 9, 2004 at 14:36:12 mdt
Name: Hellen Rearden
E-mail: Helen Rearden(at)cs.com

Forgive me, but I am new to Objectivism and to many of the issues you are discussing. I have read all of Miss Rand's books, almost all of Dr. Branden's books, and Barbara Branden's biography of Miss Rand. For reasons I don't yet know, I gather both Brandens are sort of anathema here.

Barbara Branden in her biography, and Nathaniel Branden in his memoir, are accused of spreading lies and distortion about Miss Rand. But how is this known to be a fact? On what grounds are the charges made? How can any of us be certain what the truth is since I assume we don't have first-hand knowledge?

Judging from some of the comments here, that seems to be self-evident, but to a newcomer it's not self-evident at all.

Could someone on this list kindly offer some help?

Monday, August 9, 2004 at 15:05:22 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/

Helen --

Those are excellent and important questions for a newcomer to Objectivism to ask. I am presently working on a long article which does answer them, so I'm not going to say too much here. But let me offer a few bits of advice based upon my own personal experience.

(1) Listen to interviews with Ayn Rand and Q&A; sessions in which she participated. See for yourself whether she engages in the sort of authoritarian, irrational behavior of which the Brandens charge her. When possible, directly compare the summaries offered by the Brandens to the actual event. (This is possible, for example, with AR's first interview with Phil Donahue, which BB discusses on pages 391-2 of her biography.)

(2) Talk to people who attended NBI lectures. Ask them to tell you about the behavior of NB, BB, and AR during Q&As;, etc.

(3) Re-read the early chapters of BB's _The Passion of Ayn Rand_, paying particular attention to her claims about AR's psychology. Notice whether those psychological conclusions are supported by the evidence she provides.

(4) Consider whether someone who was as irrational and psychologically twisted as BB and NB claim that AR was would be able to develop and advocate a consistent philosophy of reason over the course of a lifetime.

(5) In reading NB's "Benefits and Hazards" article, try to determine whether his portrayal of the Objectivist positions that he then goes on to criticize are accurate -- and whether his criticisms have any merit.

Personally, I don't think that these issues are self-evident in the slightest. They are epistemologically complicated and morally charged. That's not an easy combination to handle, particular not for someone new to Objectivism.

Good thinking! diana.

Monday, August 9, 2004 at 16:45:35 mdt
Name: Hellen Rearden
E-mail: Helen Rearden(at)cs.com

Diana,

Well, I appreciate your speedy response, but I can already see there are going to be troublesome complications.

I have met a number of people, now in their fifties or sixties, who were at NBI in the old days and who support Dr. Branden's descriptions of some of Miss Rand's behavior at those events.

Second, saying that at times Miss Rand could be autocratic is not saying she always was that way, and she most likely would be most careful to be balanced if she was being interviewed on the radio--don't you think?

Third, I'll re-read the "Benefits and Hazards" piece, as you suggest.

Most important, you ask me to consider if someone as troubled as the Brandens claim Miss Rand could be at times could produce work of literary and philosophical greatnes. I have two responses. Yes, I think it's possible; great thinkers, scientists, artists are not revered for their mental or emotional stability. Next, I don't think the man who wrote the books Dr. Branden has written could be the vicious, irrational character some people make him out to be. That's one of the reaons I find this whole situation so confusing and bewildering.

I appreciate your kindness in trying to bring some daylight into all this.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 at 6:29:15 mdt
Name: Don Watkins
E-mail: egoist(at)gmail.com
URL: http://angermanagement.mu.nu

Hellen,

You write: "Most important, you ask me to consider if someone as troubled as the Brandens claim Miss Rand could be at times could produce work of literary and philosophical greatnes. I have two responses. Yes, I think it's possible; great thinkers, scientists, artists are not revered for their mental or emotional stability."

To whatever extent that's true, we are not talking about just any thinker. We're talking about someone who discovered fundamental truths on a massive scale, including - for the first time in history - an objective code of morality. We're talking about the author of *Atlas Shrugged*.

According to Objectivism, morality, in the most basic sense, means: to think. Ayn Rand didn't stumble onto Objectivism, she had to devise it by looking at reality. You can't do that and at the same time be a neurotic evader. It is simply not possible. The best evidence of Rand's moral character, then, is her unequivocal rationality.

What troubles me about your post, however, is your next comment: "Next, I don't think the man who wrote the books Dr. Branden has written could be the vicious, irrational character some people make him out to be."

You can say this about Branden but not about Rand? Have you actually READ Judgment Day? If so, and if you're honest, I can only say to Diana that we impatiently await your paper. It is badly needed.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 at 8:36:39 mdt
Name: Richard Dover

Don: "Have you actually READ Judgment Day? If so, and if you're honest, I can only say to Diana that we impatiently await your paper. It is badly needed."

Anyone who reads both "Judgement Day" and the rewrite of it, "My Years with Ayn Rand", will see that Branden is a liar.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 at 9:42:15 mdt
Name: Nathaniel Branden
E-mail: n6666b(at)cs.com

Richard

Your declaring that anyone who reads "Judgment Day" and "My Years with Ayn Rand" will see that Branden is a liar is not an argument, it's an assertion. I've read both books and was impressed by the author's honesty and ruthless self-examination. And I am not alone in this impression. To me, Dr. Branden's love for Miss Rand comes through loud and clear, and that is one of the reasons I cannot understand the reaction of people such as yourself. What am I missing?

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 at 9:54:52 mdt
Name: Nathaniel Branden
E-mail: n6666b(at)cs.com

Don,

I was really sorry to see in your answer to me the words "if you're honest," the implication being that if a person does not see things your way the only explanation is dishonesty. Was it your intention to intimidate me? Please think twice if that's the message you want to send out.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 at 10:52:35 mdt
Name: Hellen Rearden
E-mail: Helen Rearden(at)cs.com

Don,

You write "if you're honest." I hope that was not meant to intimidate me.

Not long ago I acquired a girlfriend, new to Objectivism, utterly bewildered by the warfare between you-know-who and rage against the Brandens. She found it difficult to believe my explanations of how "the other side" operated. So I offered a challenge. Let her write to your list, as benevolently and openly as possible, and ask for insight re the war against the Brandens. My position was that no matter how benevolent and balanced her inquiry, someone on the Noodles list would--within the space of 3 exchanges--raise of the question of her honesty if she did not see things their way.

I won the bet.

After that, we were laughing so hard that I decided it was time to announce the farce over. So I wrote a message in my name.

Go ahead, my dear old friend, attack away!

I still say what I have said to you before: one day Leonard P. and his associates will be too much, even for you, and your natural intelligence will reassert itself, and you will leave the ARI world (if you are not excommunicated first)...and then all these exchanges will be understood in a different light.

With all good wishes,

Nathaniel

Link / Noodles / Trackback

Zoocentric Egalitarianism Chart
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:18 PM

I'm presently working desperately on my paper for last semester's Environmental Philosophy class. Broadly speaking, my topic is the gross defects of zoocentric egalitalianism, i.e. of Peter Singer's case for animal liberation and Tom Regan's case for animal rights. A central theme of my paper is that, although Singer and Regan differ in moral foundations (utilitarianism versus deontology) and in practical implications (betterment versus abolition), their arguments do share certain interesting and signficant structural features. This morning, I developed this little chart, which I thought worth posting. Of course, if you're not familiar with Singer and/or Regan, I doubt that it will make much sense.

	Biological Claim	Moral Claim	Moral Obligation	Application to Discrimination	Extension to Animals
Peter Singer	Entities which feel pleasure and pain have interests.	All interests are morally equal.	All interests should be granted equal consideration in the moral calculus.	Explaining the evils of racism and sexism requires equal consideration of interests.	Equal consideration of interests cannot be justly limited to humans, particularly not given marginal humans.
Tom Regan	Entities which possess sufficient consciousness are subjects-of-a-life.	All subjects-of-a-life possess equal inherent value.	Entities with inherent value possess an equal right to be treated with respect.	Respect for equal inherent value in principle denies the moral tolerability of discrimination.	Equal respect for inherent value cannot be justly limited to humans, particularly not given marginal humans.

(Make your browser window maximally wide to enhance readability.)

Link / Noodles / Trackback