Robert Campbell

Roger, Happy birthday! Robert

I agree with MSK's take on Ms. Hsieh's blog post of November 28, 2005, and her sharp exchange with Rodney Rawlings on the comments thread. I hadn't seen the piece before MSK mentioned it. But it struck me that Ms. Hsieh was spoiling for a fight on the comments thread. A couple of thoughts: (a) Ms. Hsieh questioned the "authoritativeness" of Rand's remarks about humor in the question and answer period of one of Leonard Peikoff's lectures. But they have become a lot more authoritative, at least in ARIan eyes, by being published in Ayn Rand Answers. Which was edited by... Robert Mayhew. (b) Note Ms. Hsieh's assertion that Dr. Mayhew so epitomizes the perfect scholar that she won't brook any criticism of his work. Robert Mayhew's scholarship has been challenged--and not just in reviews of Ayn Rand Answers. Stephen Cox made a few complaints about his book on Ayn Rand and Song of Russia: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_4/19_4_7.pdf Specifically, that Dr. Mayhew misquoted some lines of dialogue from the film. Besides, Ms. Hsieh has a history of extravagant praise followed by equally extravagant condemnation. When she has grown dissatisfied with Dr. Mayhew, what will she say about him? Robert Campbell PS. I'll admit to being a Lenny Bruce fan. I bring out an old LP on Fantasy and play "Religions Incorporated" and "Father Flotsky's Triumph" from time to time.

Ellen, I put in another link to the "Objectivist rage" quote so it would go straight to the quote, instead of the (voluminous) thread that includes the quote. (All of this presumes that SOLOP's site is working properly...) I've heard it argued that Mr. Weiss's behavior should not be taken as indicative of Ayn Rand Institute culture, because he is a "wannabe" rather than a serious player there. But I've never gotten the impression that people on the inside deem him a wannabe. Would any senior figure at ARI dismiss Ms. Weiss as unimportant--or counsel him to cool it with the rhetoric? Is Mr. Weiss one of the lettered professors in the published transcriptions from Rand's epistemology workshops? Robert Campbell

I've read some statements by Penelope Beach that I found ridiculously harsh, as well as some that I found outright absurd. FWIW, I think she is a real person, though maybe not really named "Penelope Beach." But I see no point in joining some chorus of derision aimed at her. Choruses of derision are what SOLOP currently specializes in. I have a good deal less tolerance for someone like Fred Weiss, who is neither young nor naive. I take his statement about Objectivist rage as profoundly true-- http://www.solopassion.com/node/1147#comment-10960 --and a perfect indication of what example not to follow. In the end, though, people who behave in these ways are self-indicting. Robert Campbell

According to the paper that Laura McClelland (my student) wrote on Edwin Locke, he was born in 1938, got his Psychology degree from Harvard in 1960, and earned his Ph.D. in Industrial Psych from Cornell in 1964. He taught at Maryland from 1970 to 2001, when he retired. So Locke had probably finished his Ph.D. when he submitted that article to British Journal of Psychology. It's not necessary, though. I published my first journal article while in grad school, and, these days, having pubs on your vita is almost mandatory before you apply for an Assistant Professor job in psychology. Robert Campbell

No enticement was intended. Ms. Cohen is free to post at OL, or not, as she wishes, but I was not expecting her to reply here. Any further documentation that I am able to provide regarding Andrew Bernstein's short reply in JARS will appear on this thread. Ms. Cohen may be disappointed to learn, however, that e-mail or snail mail correspondence between Dr. Bernstein and Chris Sciabarra will not be appearing here--unless both parties consent to its public release. I might add that Dr. Bernstein's act of penance, back in 2002, patently contradicts Ms. Cohen's charges. Dr. Bernstein confessed the sin of publishing in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. He did not allege that he was inveigled, snookered, hoodwinked, bamboozled, or subjected to editorial irregularities of any sort. And even the harshest of his fellow ARIans would have counted these as mitigating circumstances. So Dr. Bernstein could be relied on to bring up editorial improprieties--if there were any--in his own defense. Yet he made no such claim. Robert Campbell

Chris G, I don't know whether Edwin Locke was ever in private practice as a clinician. He is best known for his work as an academic researcher in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. He taught for years at the University of Maryland, and is now a professor emeritus. Locke was recently honored by the American Psychological Society for his work. See Adam Reed's note at http://www.solopassion.com/node/900 Robert Campbell PS. The last time I taught graduate History of Psychology one of my students did her presentation on Locke and his work on goal-setting theory. I asked her afterwards if any of the articles she had read (either by Locke or by others) mentioned Locke's connection with Ayn Rand. She had been quite thorough but hadn't come across any references to Rand or Objectivism. Another indication that Rand is normally not on the radar screen in psychology...

Ellen, At first I assimilated Boaz Simovici to Mike Mazza. But that was not fair to Mr. Simovici. In the thread that Phil started, Mr. Simovici has made some distinctions that most of the other participants seemed incapable of making. Robert Campbell

Ms. Hsieh has continued to insist on what she did not mean, when she delivered her dictum on homosexuality. She has yet to explain what she did mean. I gather she rejects any role for innate goal structures in human sexuality because she accepts (or has more recently adopted) the doctrine of tabula rasa. According to Peikoff, there are no "innate ideas" in human beings, which he takes to mean that there are no innate values. I think the no-innate-goal-structures view is false, but that's a topic for another thread. She still hasn't said what's unfortunate or less than optimal about being gay. Since Ms. Hsieh is rarely at a loss for words, one of two hypotheses would seem to apply: (a) She has no clear rationale for thinking that being gay is unfortunate or suboptimal. (b) She has one, but won't enunciate it for fear of alienating her ally Lindsay Perigo. Robert Campbell

I don't speak Chinese, but when I was in grad school, a friend who was getting his degree in Linguistics put it this way. What's variously rendered "hs" or "x" in different transliterations of Chinese is a retroflex "s." The tip of the tongue momentarily curls back toward the roof of the mouth while enunciating it. "You know," he said, "like the 's' in "sweetheart'." Granted, the example won't work unless you like Humphrey Bogart movies Ms. Hsieh and her husband pronounce the name with a short "e," so it doesn't really sound like "Shay." Robert Campbell

This thread has once again become relevant, as Ms. Hsieh makes a purported concession on SOLOP: http://www.solopassion.com/node/1162#comment-11336 Note the passages in bold. Will Ms. Hsieh concede that the work of any non-Objectivist Aristotelian is "generally of good quality"? She has yet to mention one such person. Her dismissal of Doug Rasmussen as "incompetant" does not bode well. Nor does her insinuation that non-Objectivist Aristotelians are as distant from Rand's way of thinking as non-Aristotelian Kantians would be from Aristotle's. Meanwhile, the call for non-Objectivist Aristotelians to "withdraw their sanction" from JARS comes from a champion of the Ayn Rand Institute, which would never invite any of these folks to speak at an ARI event or publish in an ARI-sponsored publication. So why on earth should they listen? Robert Campbell

The Andy Bernstein incident of 2002 constitutes such an exposure for the Ayn Rand Institute that the zealots just can't stop bringing it up. On some level, they have to realize how bad it makes ARI culture look, so they keep trying to twist and spin it out of shape. None of their attempts have worked, and none will. They would be far better served, IMHO, by acting as though it had never happened... Fred Weiss has now made a complete fool out of himself by quoting a much tamer version (editorially suggested by Ms. Hsieh back in 2002) instead of Bernstein's actual recantation (widely known, and still available on Ms. Hsieh's blog): http://www.solopassion.com/node/1129#comment-11326 Follow the thread upwards if you want some grim amusement. Robert Campbell

Jenna, I've read a number of things by Eleanor Rosch. What aspects of her work interest you? Robert Campbell

Jenna, Adults are supposed to know the difference between a critique and an attack. Most (though not all) scientists do. Those scientists who persist in treating critiques as attacks are widely understood to have some kind of character flaw or ego problem. In the orbit of the Ayn Rand Institute, however, a critique of Ayn Rand's ideas and an attack on Ayn Rand the person are one and the same thing. Both Mr. Mazza (on his old blog) and Mr. Weiss (on SOLOP) have equated critiques of Ayn Rand/Objecivism/ARI with attacks on all three lumped together. The rest of us try to distinguish critiques from attacks (or so I would hope). Joe Maurone's "Trickster Icon" article (which I've read) is not an attack on Ayn Rand the novelist, or on her philosophical system, let alone on her character. Some might interpret it as a critique because the trickster persona isn't fully congruent with Rand's self-presentation, but the point is debatable. I thought he made some good points in the essay. The essay on "the American hero" that used to be on his website I read part of... not the whole thing... after I heard that Ms. Hsieh had denounced it. It was definitely meant as a critique, and it used the word fascist--without doing much to back that characterization up, in my opinion. Frankly, I thought "Trickster icon" was better written and better argued. I guess Mr. Maurone lumps the two essays together now because he now accepts the equation of critiques with attacks, at least when they pertain to "Ayn Rand/Objectivism/ARI." The thought has also crossed my mind that by conflating the two essays, he can give the zealots (who are unlikely to actually read the journal) further assurance that the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is essentiallly in the business of "attacking" Ayn Rand. My idea of an attack on Rand is an ill-informed, purposely unscholarly hatchet-job--I took Mary Midgley to task in print for writing about Rand that way in one of her books. Jeff Walker's book, if the reviews I've read are accurate, qualifies as an attack rather than a critique. But to the zealots, the mere fact that JARS is run by unapproved scholars, publishes the work of still other unapproved scholars, and sometimes publishes critiques of one or another aspect of Rand's work is sufficient to "prove" that, from beginning to end, the entire journal is nothing but an attack on Rand. (Remember that to an ARIan, no one on the outside really understands Objectivism, and no one on the inside ever critiques it--so any critique must be the product of misunderstanding or malice.) Robert Campbell

Ellen, Part of the shared background, for Chris Sciabarra and Mr. Maurone, is Reginald Firehammer's view of homosexuality. Mr. Firehammer, a fierce defender of Rand's sexual psychology, apparently never actually says that homosexuality is immoral. But the drift of his remarks is clear enough. Mr. Firehammer is not only persona non grata with Mr. Perigo on account of his views--he was run off Ms. Hsieh's blog in record time. (At least he holds the record among those who actually posted a comment.) Somehow Ms. Hsieh's remarks are OK with Mr. Perigo, but Mr. Firehammer's are not. While Roger's explication of Ms. Hsieh's remarks on homosexuality seems reasonable, the fact remains that she has provided none herself. It can't be for lack of verbal facility... Robert Campbell

Another false statement about the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies has cropped up on SOLOPassion. In this comment http://www.solopassion.com/node/1129#comment-11091 Mr. Maurone says of one of his essays (note especially the passage I've put in bold): Mr. Maurone is confusing an article of his that was published in JARS: The trickster icon and Objectivism, Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 3(2), 229-258 (Spring 2002) (yes, in the same issue with Slavoj Zizek) with an item that appeared only on his now-defunct Jungian Objectivism website, and was never submitted to JARS. It's the latter item that made the charge of Fascism, and that was singled out by Ms. Hsieh as the work of a "false friend of Objectivism." Ms. Hsieh has never referred to "Trickster Icon" on her blog. How an author can mix up two different essays of his, neither of which is more than 5 years old, is best left to Mr. Maurone to explain. Maybe after a born-again experience, all of one's past sins seem drearily alike... But Mr. Maurone's statement is obviously false, and needs to be corrected. Robert Campbell

I read The True Believer many years ago, when a friend of mine named Robert Bidinotto recommended it. It will definitely shed light on certain mentalities that have been a frequent source of discussion here. Robert Campbell

Nick, Leonard Peikoff says precious little about existentialism in OPAR. He declares in one of his dismissive footnotes that "Existentialism, as an orgy of voluntarism, necessarily implies man's utter helplessness..." (p. 469, n. 21). He gave it more coverage in his lectures on Modern Philosophy: Kant to the Present (which I heard on tape in the early 1970s). It's been a while now... but I remember somewhat more of an emphasis on Heidegger than on Sartre. What Peikoff had to say about Heidegger seemed to derive mostly from the second half of Being and Time: Angst, das Nichts, and such (the very parts that, say, Hubert Dreyfus doesn't like). "What is Dasein's fate? Angst!" I also recall his attributing to Heidegger a view that he dubbed "the cognitive efficacy of boredom." He of course let his audience know that Heidegger embraced Nazism. Kierkegaard, he said, would have been "an obscure 19th century irrationalist" had 20th century existentialists not rediscovered him and identified him as a forebear. He emphasized Kierkegaard's conception of faith, linking him to Tertullian. Peikoff went after Sartre's notion of free will, which he wanted to make sure would not be confused with Rand's. I would have to dig out my notebooks to find whether he went substantially beyond the position on Sartre that he took in The Ominous Parallels. I recall a very quick reference to Zen Buddhism, emphasizing absurdism and the deliberate embrace of contradictions. I certainly wouldn't take Peikoff to be an expert on any form of Buddhism. My impression at the time was that he'd read some things by Sartre--but I have no idea how much. I'm limited here by my own reading of Sartre, which has consisted mostly of his fiction, and all of that a long time ago. Since you know Being and Nothingness, and I don't, you're in a better position to judge whether Peikoff has read it. Peikoff definitely knows his Aristotle--and his Kant (whether you buy his interpretation or not). On the other hand, I seriously doubt that he has read more than a few excerpts from Herbert Spencer. Peikoff's treatment of Spencer in the Modern Philosophy course was once-over-lightly, and by the time he finished OPAR Peikoff apparently had forgotten the little that he'd learned. Claiming that Spencer borrowed from Darwin (as he does in OPAR) was downright boneheaded. Robert Campbell

Roger, When and where did Leonard Peikoff repudiate his dissertation? Is this repudiation part of the oral tradition within ARI circles, or did he address it in print or commercially available lecture recordings? Even more importantly, what does Peikoff now think he got wrong in his dissertation? Robert Campbell

Phil, Your analysis of the essentials in Ms. Hsieh's argument was right on target. I'm just sorry that you had to endure so much verbal abuse from Mr. Perigo's claque and Ms. Hsieh's claque, though the very abusiveness of it all helped to make your point. A couple of things that Ms. Hsieh and her defenders have yet to address, among the many thousands of words flung and expended: (a) Why would anyone who depends on the Ayn Rand Institute for sponsorship and support reveal fear of the top ARI leadership to someone like Ms. Hsieh, who is new to ARI, has been drawing attention to herself by zealously denouncing everyone that ARI might deem an "enemy of Objectivism," and is obviously after a position of power within that organization? (b) What did Ms. Hsieh actually mean by her comment (on her blog in December 2005) that homosexuality is "unfortunate and sub-optimal"? Why did she say it in the first place, if she didn't intend to condemn gays and lesbians? All she has subsequently said on the matter, in sources that I have seen, is that she didn't mean that homosexuality is immoral. She has never said what she did mean. Robert Campbell

Roger, Ms. Hsieh's comment at http://www.dianahsieh.com/cgi-bin/blog/com...17276802712#105 denies any "animus" against Doug Den Uyl and Doug Rasmussen in the portion that you quoted--then goes on in the very next sentence to opine that The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand "might not have been worth publishing." Since the core of The Philosophic Thought is the chapters by Den Uyl and Rasmussen themselves, anyone who thinks their book wasn't worth publishing shouldn't have had high expectations for any talk by either of the Dougs on any aspect of Rand's thought. I wonder whether Ms. Hsieh's verdict on the editors' contributions to The Philosophic Thought was informed by actually reading them. She once quoted Wallace Matson's chapter (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2002_04_14_weekly.html), but I could find no reference on NoodleFood to any of Den Uyl and Rasmussen's chapters. Robert Campbell

I'm going to have to issue the same request that Jenna W made a little over a month ago: If you are posting anonymously or pseudonymously on any forum or message board, please do not quote me. I am not posting anonymously or pseudonymously anywhere. I don't want anyone else posting under no name or a false name anywhere while posing as my supporter or representative. You are not doing me a favor and I do not approve of your actions. See http://www.dianahsieh.com/cgi-bin/blog/com...963335905828#25 and http://www.dianahsieh.com/cgi-bin/blog/com...963335905828#26 Robert Campbell PS. I quit commenting on NoodleFood in May 2004, and have no intention of ever leaving a comment there again.

Michael and Rodney, A critical take on Rand's notion of measurement omission can be found here: Merlin Jetton, Omissions and measurement. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 7(2), 383-405 (Spring 2006). A basically favorable view (though one that suggests a broader generalization about what is omitted) was presented by: Stephen Boydstun, Universals and measurement. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 5(2), 271-304 (Spring 2004). Robert Campbell

Michael, Um, yes. It explains why "Dialectical Dishonesty" was necessary. But one has to wonder whether the senior leadership of the Ayn Rand Institute will ever accept Ms. Hsieh, in spite of all the hard work she has put into denouncing. Robert

Barbara, Here are some of my thoughts. No, because the moral condemnation expressed is disproportionate to the degree of wrongdoing--when there has been wrongdoing. (Or it's done in public when a private rebuke would be more appropriate.) Often, the denunciations are aimed at people whose only "offense" has been to criticize the denouncer's beliefs or cherished institutions; the alleged moral derelictions seem completely pretextual. Yes, insofar as Ayn Rand preached a doctrine of moral perfection, and ascribed such perfection to herself. (The personal claim is not, strictly speaking, a principle of Objectivism, but it's in Rand's writings and is often treated as part of the philosophy.) A couple of other principles of Objectivism can also be cited--the notions of the arbitrary, and of moral sanction--though each needs to be exaggerated, if not pulled entirely out of shape, to justify the plagueful pattern of activity. In my opinion, no. See 2. An exposition of the doctrine of moral perfection like Harry Binswanger's, in his 1981 Objectivist Forum article, makes it clear that there is a problem with Objectivism per se on this issue: In other words, one is either morally perfect, or perfectly immoral (though it might take a little while for the total degradation or utter depravity to manifest themselves). Rand denied any affinities with Stoicism--but this passage in Binswanger is completely Stoic: nothing is morally good except complete Virtue; everything else falls so far short of it as not to admit of degrees. Some of what enabled her to persevere in a hostile environment turned out to be less adaptive in a friendly environment. Inability to distinguish criticism of (any of) her ideas from a personal "attack." Definitely. I have my reservations about the Myers-Briggs, but I think Objectivism does tend to appeal to people who live in their heads most of the time, like to argue, and are deficient in social skills. What's more, if you don't have some appetite for moral denunciation, you're unlikely to persevere with Rand's writings and other material in the Objectivist canon, given their frequent Savonarola-ish tone. The culture of the Ayn Rand Institute promotes it. The culture of, say, TOC does not. However, there is plenty of freelance denunciation going on, without any organizational backing or encouragement; there is sufficient inspiration for such behavior in canonical Objectivist writitings, without institutional support. Some of the people who are given to chronic denunciation have serious personality problems and are rather widely understood to be nut cases. Others, whatever the condition of their personality, are highly placed in Objectivist circles, and cannot be brushed off as inconsequential. Some denunciatory behavior even looks opportunistic--the denouncer at least imagines that it will bring advancement in Rand-land, if not a leadership position. Robert Campbell