Tuesday, August 23, 2005 Blast from the Past By Diana Hsieh @ 11:47 AM Paul and I first met in St. Louis on this day eleven years ago -- August 23rd, 1994. Earlier that spring, he wrote me a fairly long e-mail about my post to alt.philosophy.objectivism on "intellectual activism." At the time, he was finishing up his MRI fellowship in Los Angeles, while I was a freshman at WashU. He moved to St. Louis a few months later for a job as an attending physician at WashU's teaching hospital. When I returned to WashU in the late summer for the start of my sophomore year, we met for dinner. (Back then, he had uber-dorky glasses, but a cool new BMW.) Paul was my only Objectivism-interested friend in all my years in St. Louis. Although he agreed with much of the philosophy, he wasn't an Objectivist. I remember many, many arguments about his representationalism and compatibilism. We had a fairly regular weekly ritual in which I'd cook us dinner on Thursday night, then he'd take me out for a fancy meal over the weekend. After those three years in St. Louis, we both moved to California at about the same time. He took a job in San Diego, while I moved to Los Angeles. (That's when he introduced me to his good friends Cliff and Alexa Brett.) Given the two-hour proximity, we still saw each other fairly regularly. During all these years, we were just buddies. Given the thirteen-year age gap, neither of us even thought about dating. While I was still in college, my mother would sometimes ask me "Why don't you date Paul?" I'd tell her that she was crazy, since he was so old! In November of 1998, after much soul-searching and with much trepidation, I decided to ask Paul if he wanted to date. I did so during what was just supposed to be an ordinary visit between friends, for all he knew. He was quite stunned, even speechless for a time. (Paul is often quiet, but never speechless!) He almost said no -- I swear. (He'd seen too many of my other relationships not go so well!) As you've probably guessed, he did agree to give it a try. Three months later, I moved to San Diego. We became engaged a few days later, then married three months and three days after that. So after more than four years of friendship, it took us just six months to be married! To celebrate this small anniversary, I've posted my original a.p.o post on intellectual activism and Paul's e-mail reply to me below. It was our first contact, so to speak. For reasons that will become obvious as you read, I cannot possibly endorse all that I wrote those many years ago. (My disagreements concern more than the mentions of David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden, but those are the most significant.) Similarly, please don't presume that Paul agrees with all that he wrote back then -- although I am struck by the continuity of his intellectual interests. Here's my a.p.o post: Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism From: dmbricke@artsci.wustl.edu (Diana Mertz Brickell) Date: 23 Apr 1994 19:16:23 GMT Subject: Intellectual Activism (long) This is an article that I wrote up for Vixie's Objectivism list that I figured I would post here as well. A thanks goes to Eric Barnhill for straightening out lots of convoluted sentences. Comments are more than welcome. -------------------------------- In order to 'survive' in the realm of ideas, every philosophy needs proponents, individuals actively advocating its principles and persuading others of its validity. Without any advocates, a school of thought will have no effect whatsoever. Without converts, the philosophy will shortly disappear, probably never to be recovered. In this regard, Objectivism is no different from any other philosophy, but Objectivists have two distinct advantages over the proponents of all other philosophies. First and foremost, Objectivism is true. This advantage is unprecedented; no other philosophy can compete with Objectivism on this level. Second, Objectivism precludes any sacrifice by its supporters for 'the cause'; rather individual self-interest determines the level of intellectual activism. An Objectivist will be philosophically active to the extent of his understanding of the import of philosophy to his life and of his available mental and physical resources. The excitement and passion that inevitably flows from this awareness cannot be matched by anyone who dully advocates an idea out of duty. But advocating unpopular ideas in a hostile culture is hardly easy; the resulting psychological drain stemming can be overwhelming to bear alone. This is one reason why it is crucial that Objectivists have the emotional support of friends, for friendship can easily counteract the oft-encountered rancor. *** Yet the recognition of the value of actively advocating Objectivism does not tell us how to best pursue this value. We must be reasonably sure that our actions will be efficacious before we debate. We can neither lose sight of the fact that most people have given up on our intellectual leaders and even on ideas themselves, nor can we ignore the widespread misconceptions about Ayn Rand's philosophy. In short, we must be sure that our methods are sound and also appropriate to our audience's context of knowledge. First, Objectivists must stress the crucial role that philosophy plays in the life of every individual. The fact that there are answers to be found, answers of life and death importance, must be (at least) implicit in every philosophical discussion. Understanding the power of philosophy in the lives of individuals is necessary *before* an individual can understand the relevance of Objectivism to his life. The question that Eric Barnhill raised about how to convince other admirers of Rand to get "firmly grounded in philosophy" is troublesome, and only means to this end seems to be offering lots of inductive evidence. Much of this issue is covered in Rand's essay "Philosophy: Who Needs It," so I do not think it is necessary to speak of it further. Considering the advocation Objectivism proper, there are two issues to be stressed: understanding and integrating the principles of Objectivism and arguing effectively. Without having a good grasp of both Objectivism and convincing methods of argumentation, it would be nearly impossible to convince anyone of Objectivism's veracity. Rand's writings are the primary source of information about Objectivism, but secondary sources (like _Objectivity_) also provide enormous benefit, as does interaction with other Objectivists. Discussion between those who fundamentally agree provides a non-threatening atmosphere and a common context. When arguing with an adversary, an error or lack of evidence is a loss; with allies it is an opportunity for growth. Those who have communicated with other Objectivists can speak to its aid in understanding Objectivism and its personal benefits as well. The gentle art of persuasion is a skill that many Objectivists desperately need to learn. All too often Objectivists quickly morally condemn those who disagree with them or even substitute moral condemnation for rational argument. David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, and many others have gone great lengths to reverse this disturbing trend by advocating a more benevolent attitude towards those with whom we disagree. Care must always be taken to remain clearly focussed on the issues being discussed rather than the personalities involved and to express one's passionate certainty benevolently. One must also be prepared to concede error or ignorance in debate. Clinging onto disproven ideas out of false pride immediately destroys the audience's trust in one's rationality and often in one's ideas as well. Identifying the context of the debate, particularly the environment, is also crucial. Different methods are required for different settings, but the cardinal rule is to avoid provoking hostility or defensiveness. Tim Starr wrote recently: "Another question to consider is what one's goal is with dissenters: to refute them, or to persuade them. In my experience, refutation of those who disagree with me has never done me much immediate good... Refutation comes more easily to me, but whenever I can stick to persuasion it pays off in spades." I heartily agree. But because no one can live in a ideological vacuum, simply revealing someone's errors is not enough; they must be presented with a viable alternative. People also need time to not only re-evaluate their old beliefs but also evaluate new ideas. To demand that anyone instantly accept a new set of idea as true is not taking into account the nature of human consciousness. So how can Objectivists learn how to consistently apply good debating techniques? Debating with other Objectivists (perhaps having one play the devil's advocate), jumping headfirst into a UseNet group and learning by trial and error, utilizing the emailing lists, or even just watching what techniques are effective in convincing others. People like Jimbo Wales, John Enright, and Will Wilkinson (to name a few) have had a profound effect on alt.philosophy.objectivism, the result of which has been a huge increase in the membership of MDOP. *** One of the primary goals of Objectivism as a loose intellectual movement has always been promoting the study of Objectivism in colleges and universities. The reasons are quite simple. Universities are environments where ideas are deemed important and intellectual investigation is encouraged, at least superficially. Students are at the age when the make decisive choices about the role that ideas will play in their life, and about the specific ideas that will guide their actions. Moreover, most people read and are inspired by _The Fountainhead_ and _Atlas Shrugged_ in high school or college, before having lost the "idealism of youth." In promoting an intellectual movement on college campuses, two of the most apparent means of fostering the growth of Objectivism are through campus clubs and the internet. (I think that there are more ideas to be had here, so I welcome alternate suggestions). Campus clubs can be great resources for college students. A good club would be loosely organized, promote conceptual understanding of Objectivism, encourage friendly debate, and help form friendships. But the fact that campus clubs have not been very successful, even declining in membership in recent years, is a signal that these important elements are either non-existent or underemphasized. Especially in college, where the pressure to conform is great and the desire for like-minded friends is extremely important, a loose, friendly gathering of Objectivists and admirers of Rand (even if they disagree on some issues) seems to be the best way to conduct an Objectivist group. With such mutual benevolence established, dealing with others on campus hostile to Rand's ideas would not be so difficult. But there is another resource available to college students: the internet. It is available to virtually every college student and provides great opportunities for Objectivists to communicate regardless of location (which can be crucial for people who do not have other Objectivists in their vicinity). But because finding other Objectivists on the net who share one's intellectual and personal interests can be difficult, Will Wilkinson, Eric Barnhill, Jimbo Wales, and I have been working on a project to facilitate the establishment of more personal ties between Objectivists, particularly those in college. We are establishing a means by which Objectivists with shared intellectual or personal interests can find each other easily, thus encouraging the three keys to making Objectivism a real intellectual movement again: integration, debate, and friendship. This project has the capacity to grow in accordance with the demand, but for the moment, it will start as an index of Objectivists in school (high school, undergraduate, graduate). You will be hearing more about this project from Will soon. *** Finally I want to convey a few of my personal sentiments about the meaning of making Objectivism a true intellectual movement again. I was in the library Saturday, looking through all the old issues of _The Objectivist Newsletter_, _The Objectivist_, and _The Ayn Rand Letter_. In the early issues a sense of excitement and efficacy pervaded the writings; implicit in every article was the idea that the philosophy would conquer the world. But, when the conflict exploded with the Brandens, the whole tone changed. Articles were often reactive instead of pro-active; the sense of efficacy disappeared. For example, the "intellectual ammunition" department, a section dedicated to giving people the means to fight for the philosophy, was replaced around this time by the "horror file" department, a pathetic tribute to the fact that the culture was *not* changing. Rand's articles concerning the closing of the _Ayn Rand Letter_ were the most disheartening of all. It was, in essence, a proclamation of her ineffectiveness, of her inability to change the culture that was destroying all that she valued. I want to see the type of optimism and efficacy that I saw in the pages of _TON_ again. For above all else, it is a belief in the potency of ideas and the capability of Objectivists to change the world that needs to be recaptured. We cannot lose ourselves to condemnations of the "swamp of irrationalism" into which our culture is sinking (according to ARI). We have to remain firm in the belief that ideas matter, that Objectivism matters, and that Objectivists, properly armed with knowledge, debating skills, and the emotional support of friends, *will* change the world. diana mertz brickell. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Capitalism demands the very best diana mertz brickell of every man - his rationality - dmbri...@artsci.wustl.edu and rewards him accordingly." Washington University -Ayn Rand St-Louis, Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And here's Paul's reply: From: Paul Hsieh x3940 Imaging (HSIEH@CSMC.EDU) To: dmbricke@artsci.wustl.edu Date: Apr 25 1994 - 12:59pm Dear Ms. Diana Brickell, I read with great interest your recent post on alt.philosophy.objectivism on the topic of intellectual activism. I've been an admirer of Ayn Rand's works for many years, but I have had a difficult time finding other people with whom to discuss her ideas. The friends of mine who have read her works have either not taken much interest in the philosophical implications, or have (IMHO) incompletely understood some of her ideas, making discussion difficult. The limited exposure I had several years ago in college to people from Objectivist groups was not particularly pleasant. I found many of the other Ayn Rand fans to be rigid and dogmatic. Often when I asked what I thought were good-faith questions exploring some of the edges of Objectivism, many of them would become defensive and hostile, substituting insults for reasoned discourse. Also I noticed that a significant minority did not seem *happy* -- i.e, they didn't exude a sense of life indicating that they enjoyed their mental and physical capabilities and were eager to apply them in their daily life. The contrast between them and the various protagonists of Rand's novels was quite striking. For this reason, I found your vision of an electronic Objectivist community appealing. I only recently discovered the alt.philosophy.objectivism newsgroup, so I don't have any familiarity with participants, recent threads, FAQ's, subjects- to-avoid-lest-they-start-a-flame-war, etc. However, I hope that this (as well as whatever index project you mentioned) can provide a good forum for a collegial interchange of ideas. I, for one, know that there are many issues and implications within Objectivism that I would like to clarify within my own mind, and I would be greatly interested in hearing what others think. I also agree with you that persuasion is a more effective tactic than refutation. I recall the Robert Nozick in his book _Philosophical Explanations_ also deliberately avoided using what he called "coercive philosophy", centered around argumentation, forceful refutations, etc, in favor of an "explanatory approach", where logic and reasoning were used to construct hypotheses as to how things could be (e.g., how was free will possible?). His approach was geared towards gaining *understanding*, and I think that this approach can bear fruit of a different sort than the more tradition coercive approch. (Don't get me wrong -- I love a good, heated philosophical argument as much as the next person, trying to attack weak spots in the other personUs positions, as well as bolstering one's own views with supporting evidence and deductions. But I've found that unless all the participants agree on the ground rules ahead of time, and make a strong conscious effort to stick to logical arguments only, these discussions can quickly degenerate into ad hominem attacks and/or can stray wildly off topic.) More importantly, I also think that the explanatory approach has greater potential to persuade people who have erroneous understandings of Objectivist ideas. Basically, I would like to find and contribute to a forum where Objectivist ideas could be discussed in a non- threatening environment, to the mutual betterment of all concerned. There are a number of topics that I would find particularly interesting: 1) How can and should Objectivism be applied to various public policy questions (e.g., health care reform, abortion, gun control, etc)? In addition to final goals, what are optimal intermediate tactics? 2) Broader, more theoretical questions about reversing socialistic trends in a mixed economy -- are there times when it is necessary to impose (presumably temporary) greater government controls to correct distortions caused by prior government controls? An analogy that occurs to me is with the field of medicine: Normally it is considered immoral and illegal to plunge a knife into someone's body. However, during extraordinary circumstances (say, an otherwise healthy person has been in a motor vehicle accident and has damaged internal organs), then the appropriate course of action might be *surgery*, i.e, deliberate and skillful violation of the integrity of the patient's physical body in order to correct an abnormal condition. Surgery is not always appropriate. For certain conditions, the most appropriate therapy is conservative therapy -- leave the patient alone and let his or her healing responses deal with the problem. In that case, any surgery would rightfully be considered medical malpractice. However, in other situations, the injury is too great for the body's normal self-correcting mechanisms to cope with alone, and external assistance is necessary. In those cases, if a physician did *not* perform surgery, it would be malpractice. Even so, not all surgeries are appropriate -- some can do more harm than good. And sometimes, even after appropriate surgery, external medical assistance might be necessary on a permanent basis (i.e, a patient who has damaged both kidneys may need lifelong dialysis, if no transplant becomes available). Are there any legitimate applications of this analogy to the socio-economic circumstances of this country? Is it simply enough to deregulate the economy and let the various self- correcting mechanisms bring about the desired change? Or are there situations where an ideal Objectivist government might need to legitimately maintain temporary (or even permanent) controls on certain portions the economy in response to prior government-caused economic trauma? And if so, how does one decide when and what sort of controls are best for each situation? Even if additional government interventions are *never* theoretically necessary, are there any important universal principles to follow when deregulating an economy -- are some strategies more effective than others? (I recently posed some of these questions to the alt.philosophy.objectivism newsgroup in the context of a new South African government. However, these questions can clearly also be applied to deregulation in the countries of the former Soviet Union, or even applied to issues in the USA, such as affirmative action). 3) What are some of the Objectivist positions on various classical philosophy problems like the free-will problem, the mind-body problem, and the physical basis of consciousness (including the old chesnut as to whether it is possible to have conscious robots/artificial minds)? What would be the moral implications of creating artificial minds? (I realize that this is a frequently discussed topic in many science-fiction stories, including the TV series StarTrek:The Next Generation, where some scientists wanted to dismantle Data, the sentient artificial life form. What are the Objectivist opinions?) 4) What are some of the Objectivist positions on the theoretical metaphysical questions raised by modern physics (i.e, quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, Bell's inequality, etc.) 5) Similarly, are there any implications of Godel's theorems that have relevance to Objectivism, which is based on pure application of logic? Are certain statements going to be true, yet unprovable within the Objectivist system? It is my understanding that within mathematics, each Godel statement (true yet unprovable statement) can be used as a branch point for generating alternative schemes of logic. If a proposition P is one of those Godel statements, then one can take the old system of logic and add P as a new axiom to generate an extended system of logic. Or one could instead take [not-P] and add it to the old system to generate a new but different extended system. In either case, both systems will contain no internal contradictions! (Of course, you cannot include both P and [not-P] in the same system!) In mathematical set theory, there are some interesting propositions such as the Continuum Hypothesis which have the property that either it or its negation can be included as axioms, and either way the set theory will still remain self- consistent. (Another example is the Axiom of Choice). Is there any counterpart within Objectivism? If so, what are the implications? When I've read Leonard Peikoff's writings, he only briefly discussed some of these issues in (4) and (5), and his discussion did not reflect a very good understanding of them. (I assume that he is not a mathematician or a physicist by training.) Are there Objectivists out there with stronger mathematics/science backgrounds that have said anything about this? Finally, I noticed that you had an e-mail address at the Washington University of St. Louis. I will be moving to St. Louis in July 1994 to join the faculty at the Wash U Medical School (in diagnostic radiology). What is the Objectivist community like at Wash U? Is there a campus organization (or a St. Louis organization)? Thank you very much for your time. Any observations or comments you have would be greatly appreciated. Until June 20, 1994, I will have an e-mail address at: hsieh@csmc.edu Starting sometime in July 1994, my address will change to: hsieh@mirlink.wustl.edu (But I don't know exactly when my new address will become active.) Thank you again. Sincerely, Paul S. Hsieh, MD In retrospect, I find the formality of the letter quite charming!   E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink ()    Comments []