DPW

Actually, since she was a philosopher and is no longer alive, anyone who did not know her personally may properly refer to her simply as "Rand." Since she was a novelist, one may also refer to her by her full name, "Ayn Rand." Peikoff, and others who knew her personally, often refer to her as "Miss Rand," which is appropriate given their relationship, although I see no reason why Objectivists who did not know her should do the same. One does not refer to "Mr. Aristotle," or "Mr. Locke," or even, "Mr. Washington."

First, let me thank y_feldblum for referencing my article. Now, as to Old Geezer's questions: Let me say at the start that I do not speak for Objectivism - merely as an Objectivist whose thinking is based on his own experiences, not an sort of specialized knowledge. That said, we have to be clear about what addiction means. It does not and cannot mean that we have no choice but to engage in a certain act or consume a certain substance, thus I do not think addiction exists as commonly understood: The American Heritage Dictionary defined addiction as: "Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance." Compulsive it defines as: "Having the capacity to compel." Compel it defines as: (1) "To force, drive, or constrain." (2) "To necessitate or pressure by force; exact." (3) "To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway." All that, in my view, is illegitimate. An addiction, in my view, is roughly "A mental and/or physical craving for a chemical substance not necessary for human survival, caused by the depletion of that substance from the body of the addicted." Let's not confuse addiction with physical dependency. I think the "mental/physical" distinction regarding addiction is non-essential. People do become addicted to drugs that are not physically dependent (methampetamine is a perfect example). Physical dependency is a related but seperate issue. The problem of addiction is, in my view, primarily epistemological and psycho-epistemological. The blog post of mine that was cited gives some indication why I think so. I'll have more to say on this topic, but for now I'll say that I think the pleasure induced by drugs and alcohol, and the pain induced by detoxification can create powerful associations that form the basis for what we refer to as "addiction." The cause, therefore, is physical, but the culprit is psychological.

Vern, Wonderful to hear from you! I live in northern Virginia, although I visit Virginia Beach as much as possible in the summer. In any case, if you're just beginning your study of Objectivism, you're in for one of the greatest intellectual experiences of your life. I've been studying the philosophy for close to seven years and I'm still learning something new every day. I look forward to your questions, thoughts, and comments. Take care, Don Watkins III

I am very happy to end the discussion. But my point was not to engage is purposeless intellectual attacks (those here who know me know that's not my style). My purpose was to defend Diana, someone I have long admired, because she was being treated unjustly on these boards. I think I succeeded, so I'll leave it at that. Don Watkins III

Okay, if we are to bring any order to this discussion, we need to take a step back and identify what it is that’s at issue. This dispute did not concern, fundamentally, whether or not Diana endorsed the principle that Objectivism is a closed system. This dispute concerns serious charges Joe levels against Diana without and in the face of evidence. Such charges, I claimed, were epistemologically invalid and ethically lazy. Since my claims have been challenged, allow me offer into evidence the following… Joe began with this post on April 7: Note a couple of things. First of all, notice that Joe is attacking a position Diana holds without giving any evidence that she holds in. In fact, Joe admits that what he is describing is not Diana’s position, but his “interpretation of what she said.” The point here isn’t whether or not Diana holds it. The point is – any claim she does demands evidence, evidence Joe doesn’t provide. “But she didn’t make the comments publicly,” one might say. Well, that’s a very good point, but it only serves my case – that attacking Diana for holding a position she has not publicly endorsed is illegitimate because we the audience have no means of validating it. “Just ask her,” one might say. True, this is an option, but Joe is making a positive assertion. It is his job to provide evidence for it. He did not do that. Instead, he made an assertion, a particularly heinous charge: that Diana, a proclaimed Objectivist, thinks she can “put words in [Ayn Rand’s] mouth.” If I claimed, “Peikoff wraps puppies in duct tape for his amusement,” you would no doubt challenge me to provide evidence, and you would not accept as valid a response that amounted to, “Well, if you don’t believe me, ask him.” You would say that’s absurd – it would be an insult to Peikoff to ask him whether or not he duct tapes puppies unless I gave you evidence that might be true. The same holds true when charging someone such as Diana with thinking she can put words in Rand’s mouth and that she holds that A can be not A (and, later on, that she is a liar). If she did believe that, she would be totally at odds with Objectivism – one cannot make such a charge without providing evidence. Not if one claims to be rational and just. Incidentally, you all are aware that George Reisman broke with ARI. The dispute was largely personal, but Harry Binswanger has, as I understand it, pointed to private communications released without permission by Reisman as reason for outsiders to refuse to deal with Reisman. Binswanger’s point is well taken – and I hold Joe to that same standard. Let’s move on, however, because there’s much more to be said. In an April 12 post, Joe posts Diana’s response to his original email and his subsequent comments about her posted on this forum. In Diana’s response we learn (a) that Joe and she had nothing more than a brief conversation (further evidence I was right to conclude Joe did not wait for clarification of Diana’s view before “going public” with his charges), ( that this conversation occurred only because Joe was not honest enough to inform Diana that the intellectual content of her email(s) to him would find its way to a public forum, and (c ) that Diana hasn’t fully made up her mind regarding the closed/open system question. Most important is this last point. Diana writes: Notice what we learn in these two short paragraphs. We learn, first of all, that Diana has explicitly NOT endorsed the open system view of Objectivism. (Joe might claim she did so in private, but this just goes to show why private discussions should not be made public without permission – people often do not write as carefully in private correspondence as they do for “publication”.) On the contrary, she is skeptical of the claim that Objectivism is a closed system, but is interested in how those of us who believe it is closed defend that claim. In fact, Diana says that her basic question is: What is the identity of Objectivism? NOT, does Objectivism have an identity? Now how would a rational person answer such a question? He would say, “Diana, by a closed system, we mean only that the identity of Objectivism is determined by the philosophical principles defined by Rand, and that any other interpretation of what Objectivism is is necessarily non-objective.” But how does Joe respond? Look at what Joe is doing. He accuses Diana of trying to put words in Rand’s mouth, but that is exactly what he is doing to Diana. She asks a very clear question – what is the identity of Objectivism? And instead of answering that question, Joe tells us she actually knows the answer and really must be asking a different question. He is implicitly charging Diana with dishonesty – with pretending not to know what Objectivism is, presumably so she can make it “ more than it is.” Even the claim that “Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand,” still leaves a couple question unanswered. First, what qualifies as a philosophic principle? That’s answerable, but it’s not obvious. Second, what about philosophic principles that Rand did not address one way or the other? Do they or don’t they qualify as Objectivist ideas? That’s an honest question, even though I would say quite emphatically, “No they do not!” But then we have this. From a post on April 19: Here Joe admits that Diana has NOT reached a firm conclusion, but you wouldn’t have gotten that idea from any of his previous posts, where Diana “knows Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand,” and where she must be trying to put words in Rand’s mouth, and where she must be trying to make Objectivism more than it is, and where she believes that A can be not A. “You cannot disagree with both open and closed system views. As long as she does not agree that Objectivism is a closed philosophy, she believes at least in part that it is open.” As Matt points out, that depends on how you understand the terms “closed system” and “open system.” That aside, by the very fact that Diana is still attempting to “figure this whole situation out,” what sort of logic could lead Joe to assert that therefore she must believe ANYTHING? Being undecided is just that – being undecided. It is not an endorsement of any particular viewpoint. Now we can turn to Joe’s next to last post on this issue, from April 19: Once again, Joe attempts to magically deduce what Diana MUST believe, even though his own words disprove his point. “She may disagree with Kelly, but she still thinks it is open. This is very apparent.” How is it apparent? “She gave me specific examples of what she thinks could be added.” The key words there are “thinks could be.” She is mulling over the issue. She is saying, “Rand didn’t address these issues, but they do fall under the umbrella of philosophic principles, so wouldn’t an answer to such questions reached from more fundamental Objectivist principles rightfully be called ‘Objectivist’?” The correct answer, of course, is NO! It is that we must prove. But Diana has not yet said, “YES!” On the contrary, as Joe himself said in the previous post, “she is still attempting to figure this whole situation out.” We have now laid the groundwork necessary to evaluate Joe’s latest post (April 20), in which he attempts to sum up the issue. I don’t mean to be petty, but this is so badly written I can only guess at its meaning, but guess I will because – after all – if Joe can tell us what Diana must really mean even when she says this is not in fact what she means, then why can’t I give myself the right to guess at what Joe probably means? As far as I can tell, he is admitting that Diana has not, in fact, reached a conclusion on the closed/open system issue, and that she somehow had a moral obligation to tell him so in their private correspondence. In fact, he claims that Diana was LYING to him since she evidently did not tell him (a complete stranger who had just gone public with their private conversation without her permission!) about the status of her conclusions prior to her public statement, as if she had ANY such obligation simply because he asked. (Parenthetically, I must note that to accuse Diana, of all people, of lying is not even vicious – it is laughable.) Lying, evading, trying to put words in Rand’s mouth – these are SERIOUS moral charges Joe is making while at the same time admitting that he knows almost nothing of Diana (“I do not read her blog”), and providing NO evidence to support his claims. Once again, I will say for the record that that is intellectually irresponsible and epistemologically invalid.

I am currently working on a refutation of Michael's attempted refutation. Keep an eye out on my blog. Don Watkins III

Richard Halley responds to my last post, claiming that several of my objections to Joe's post were based on assumptions rather than facts, and furthermore that the facts support Joe's initial claims about Diana Hsieh. In regards to my claim that Joe jumped to conclusions about the Diana's position regarding Objectivism as a closed or open system, Richard writes: How do YOU know this? From Joe's posts, it seems Diana stopped discussing the issue with him once he made their private conversation public. Furthermore, while I would not attempt to speak for Diana, I have discussed this issue with her at length and have yet to encounter a single claim of hers that in fact contradicts Objectivism. Sure, she says she disagrees with the claim that Objectivism is a closed system, but the question is: what does she mean by that? You cannot take her claim out of context, as Joe did, and leap to conclusions as to what it must have meant. It amuses me that you would ask me to "drop the personal attacks" when the very post you are defending is nothing except a malicious personal attack. That aside, here's what I wrote about Joe: That was not an arbitrary personal attack - it was a conclusion I spent a significant number of words defending. And I stand by it. As you are probably aware, Diana broke with ARI after being attacked by people like Joe, who evidently feel compelled to accuse honest individuals of irrationality without sufficient evidence. I do not want to see good minds such as Diana leave the Objectivist movement because no one stands up for them when they are unjustly attacked. I will therefore NOT shy away from passing judgments when they are warranted. And in this case, mine was. At issue here is whether it is appropriate to take one sentence from a private email, written by someone who has stated explicitly she is still in the process of thinking through the relevant issue, and drawing outrageous conclusions, such as, "She rejects the law of identity!" If you think that is rational, that is your right. But you are wrong. Don Watkins III

Joerj11's charges against Diana are irresponsible and unfair, and say infinitely more about him than Diana. Let us consider the facts. Diana has made no public claims as to her position on the question of whether or not Objectivism is an open or closed system. On the contrary, she has stated very clearly that she is re-considering that issue along with many others and will make her conclusions public when she decides it is appropriate to do so. In the meantime, she has chosen to discuss these issues with several people in private. Why in private? Because she has nothing definitive to say. Diana, in a private email to Joerj11, attempted to explain her tentative position on the open/closed system question. Joe, without asking Diana for further clarification, without asking for permission to publicize her private comments (which is, at minimum, a matter of courtesy), without waiting for her public statement regarding the issue, and without giving her anything close to the benefit of the doubt, accuses her - not simply of failing to grasp the correct conclusion - but for rejecting the law of identity! This is gross intellectual negligence. Consider the nature of his action. Diana has had the integrity to admit to a fundamental error in her approach to Objectivism, and rather than congratulate her and perhaps argue for the ARI position, Joerj11 attacks her without paying head to context, justice, or even common decency. It is people such as him who give those of us who support ARI a bad name. I want to end on a positive note and thank people like Betsy Speicher and MinorityOfOne for making it clear that Joerj11's actions are NOT representative of the ideas we support. Moral judgment is a virtue, but the rush to condemn people as honest and intelligent as I know Diana to be is NOT an instance of moral judgment, but of non-objective moralizing. That sort of thing has no place in our movement. Don Watkins III