Mudita Journal

For the Record: Corrections Regarding Diana Hsieh’s Interview for Axiomatic Mag

April 7, 2006 · Filed under: Objectivism
Share

I just discovered Axiomatic Magazine‘s January 2006 interview with Diana Hsieh.

In the interview, Diana uses an observation I made in one of my Mudita Journal postings as evidence that the people in and around The Objectivist Center “lack a serious commitment to understanding Objectivism.”

Since Diana’s paraphrase of what I said leads to a very different conclusion than anything I had intended — indeed, anything I believe is actually true — I would like to set the record straight.

Here is the quote from Diana, from her interview:

Most of the people in and around TOC lack a serious commitment to understanding Objectivism. They rarely re-read Ayn Rand’s novels or essays. Most have never heard Leonard Peikoff’s amazing lecture courses. Few work to integrate Objectivist principles into their daily lives. The philosophy is like a hobby to most of them, an intellectual exercise on the sidelines and weekends of life. As proof (link): When the participants at a TOC Graduate Seminar were asked “What do you actually do differently, now that you’re an Objectivist?” most had trouble even naming a single difference that Objectivism has made in their lives!

(As an aside, the blog entry to which she is referring, “Objectivism and Living Well,” has moved to a new URL since I re-launched my blog.)

Here is the original paragraph I wrote, to which Diana is referring:

[D]uring the recent TOC graduate seminar, I made a point of asking each participant: “What do you actually do differently, now that you’re an Objectivist?” Sure, Objectivism has changed how we think. But if there’s no theory/practice dichotomy, then our behavior should be changing, too, right?

For a “philosophy for living on earth,” the answers I received were not particularly encouraging. Most people were hard-pressed to think of something that they do differently now.

In answer to Diana’s remarks — and, particularly, to her adducing my blog entry as proof of the argument she was making — I have several points of clarification:

  1. The people I spoke with at the seminar would have had no difficulty whatsoever naming (in Diana’s words) a “difference that Objectivism has made in their lives.” Every single person could have told me about the ways in which Objectivism inspired them, helped clarify their understanding of life, and gave them a true love of philosophy and a deep appreciation for its importance.
  2. Nothing in what I said should be interpreted to mean that the seminar participants lacked (in Diana’s words, again) a “serious commitment to understanding Objectivism.” Whether they were committed to understanding Objectivism was completely orthogonal — unrelated — to the question I was asking them.
  3. In my questions of the seminar participants, I was specifically seeking to identify ways in which the day-to-day activities of their life had changed. (Reading, writing, and attending Objectivist events didn’t count.) I was trying to draw people out on questions like: Are you happier? Do you have more fulfilling relationships? Are you more successful in pursuing your goals? And if so, what are you doing differently that accounts for this?
  4. The conclusion that I reached, based on the answers I received, was that Objectivism does not have an adequate technology of happiness to teach even its most dedicated adherents how to become noticeably more happy, healthy, and successful. I was making a constructive criticism of Objectivism (specifically, what is still missing or incomplete in Objectivism), not about Objectivists. If you read my full posting, I believe it is actually rather clear on this point.
  5. I have attended ARI events as well, and I have friends on both sides of the ARI/TOC divide. I have no reason to believe that the answers I received would have been significantly different among one group or the other.

In short, there is nothing in my post that should be taken as a criticism of (any camp of) Objectivists, least of all my fellow participants at that particular seminar.

In general, I believe there are much more important fights to be waged, in this world, than the ones against our intellectual neighbors.

I believe that the best contribution an Objectivist can make — to the world and to himself — is to become a happy, successful, actualized human being.

I fail to see how the various skirmishes and in-fights contribute one bit, in this regard; on the contrary, they waste a lot of time and intellectual resources that could be spent on more productive endeavors.

And so my overall attitude is that they can and should be ignored as much as possible.

Finally, on a personal note, I must say I was very disappointed to see my words misused in this fashion.

PS. If you leave comments on this post, please keep them factual, polite, and constructive.

Posted by Joshua Zader · Trackback URL · Link
  • Mike Hardy

    As proof (link): When the participants at a TOC Graduate Seminar were asked “What do you actually do differently, now that you’re an Objectivist?” most had trouble even naming a single difference that Objectivism has made in their lives!

    Since she appears to be contrasting TOC with ARI, the obvious question is how the ARI counterparts in its graduate seminars responded to the same question that was given to the respondents at the TOC graduate seminar.

blog comments powered by Disqus