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.objectivismFrom: dmbricke@artsci.wustl.edu (Diana Mertz Brickell)Date: 23 Apr 1994 19:16:23 GMTSubject: Intellectual Activism (long)

This is an article that I wrote up for Vixie's Objectivism list that Ifigured I would post here as well.  A thanks goes to Eric Barnhill forstraightening out lots of convoluted sentences.  Comments are more thanwelcome.  

--------------------------------In order to 'survive' in the realm of ideas, every philosophy needsproponents, individuals actively advocating its principles and persuadingothers of its validity.  Without any advocates, a school of thought willhave no effect whatsoever.  Without converts, the philosophy will shortlydisappear, probably never to be recovered.

In this regard, Objectivism is no different from any other philosophy, butObjectivists have two distinct advantages over the proponents of all otherphilosophies.  First and foremost, Objectivism is true.  This advantage isunprecedented; no other philosophy can compete with Objectivism on thislevel.  Second, Objectivism precludes any sacrifice by its supporters for'the cause'; rather individual self-interest determines the level ofintellectual activism.  An Objectivist will be philosophically active tothe extent of his understanding of the import of philosophy to his lifeand of his available mental and physical resources.  The excitement andpassion that inevitably flows from this awareness cannot be matched byanyone who dully advocates an idea out of duty.  But advocating unpopularideas in a hostile culture is hardly easy; the resulting psychologicaldrain stemming can be overwhelming to bear alone.  This is one reason whyit is crucial that Objectivists have the emotional support of friends, forfriendship can easily counteract the oft-encountered rancor.

***

Yet the recognition of the value of actively advocating Objectivism doesnot tell us how to best pursue this value.  We must be reasonably surethat our actions will be efficacious before we debate.  We can neitherlose sight of the fact that most people have given up on our intellectualleaders and even on ideas themselves, nor can we ignore the widespreadmisconceptions about Ayn Rand's philosophy.  In short, we must be surethat our methods are sound and also appropriate to our audience's contextof knowledge.

First, Objectivists must stress the crucial role that philosophy plays inthe life of every individual.  The fact that there are answers to befound, answers of life and death importance, must be (at least) implicitin every philosophical discussion.  Understanding the power of philosophyin the lives of individuals is necessary *before* an individual canunderstand the relevance of Objectivism to his life.  The question thatEric Barnhill raised about how to convince other admirers of Rand to get"firmly grounded in philosophy" is troublesome, and only means to this endseems to be offering lots of inductive evidence.  Much of this issue iscovered in Rand's essay "Philosophy: Who Needs It," so I do not think itis necessary to speak of it further.

Considering the advocation Objectivism proper, there are two issues to bestressed: understanding and integrating the principles of Objectivism andarguing effectively.  Without having a good grasp of both Objectivism andconvincing methods of argumentation, it would be nearly impossible toconvince 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 whofundamentally agree provides a non-threatening atmosphere and a commoncontext.  When arguing with an adversary, an error or lack of evidence isa loss; with allies it is an opportunity for growth.  Those who havecommunicated with other Objectivists can speak to its aid in understandingObjectivism and its personal benefits as well.

The gentle art of persuasion is a skill that many Objectivists desperatelyneed to learn.  All too often Objectivists quickly morally condemn thosewho disagree with them or even substitute moral condemnation for rationalargument.  David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, and many others have gonegreat lengths to reverse this disturbing trend by advocating a morebenevolent attitude towards those with whom we disagree.  Care must alwaysbe taken to remain clearly focussed on the issues being discussed ratherthan the personalities involved and to express one's passionate certaintybenevolently.  One must also be prepared to concede error or ignorance indebate.  Clinging onto disproven ideas out of false pride immediatelydestroys the audience's trust in one's rationality and often in one'sideas as well.

Identifying the context of the debate, particularly the environment, isalso crucial.  Different methods are required for different settings, butthe cardinal rule is to avoid provoking hostility or defensiveness.  TimStarr 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 presentedwith a viable alternative.  People also need time to not only re-evaluatetheir old beliefs but also evaluate new ideas.  To demand that anyoneinstantly accept a new set of idea as true is not taking into account thenature of human consciousness.

So how can Objectivists learn how to consistently apply good debatingtechniques?  Debating with other Objectivists (perhaps having one playthe devil's advocate), jumping headfirst into a UseNet group and learningby trial and error, utilizing the emailing lists, or even just watchingwhat techniques are effective in convincing others.  People like JimboWales, John Enright, and Will Wilkinson (to name a few) have had aprofound effect on alt.philosophy.objectivism, the result of which hasbeen a huge increase in the membership of MDOP.

***

One of the primary goals of Objectivism as a loose intellectual movementhas always been promoting the study of Objectivism in colleges anduniversities.  The reasons are quite simple.  Universities areenvironments where ideas are deemed important and intellectualinvestigation is encouraged, at least superficially.  Students are at theage when the make decisive choices about the role that ideas will play intheir 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 mostapparent means of fostering the growth of Objectivism are through campusclubs and the internet.  (I think that there are more ideas to be hadhere, so I welcome alternate suggestions).

Campus clubs can be great resources for college students.  A good clubwould be loosely organized, promote conceptual understanding ofObjectivism, encourage friendly debate, and help form friendships.  Butthe fact that campus clubs have not been very successful, even decliningin membership in recent years, is a signal that these important elementsare either non-existent or underemphasized.  Especially in college, wherethe pressure to conform is great and the desire for like-minded friends isextremely important, a loose, friendly gathering of Objectivists andadmirers of Rand (even if they disagree on some issues) seems to be thebest way to conduct an Objectivist group.  With such mutual benevolenceestablished, dealing with others on campus hostile to Rand's ideas wouldnot be so difficult.

But there is another resource available to college students: the internet.It is available to virtually every college student and provides greatopportunities for Objectivists to communicate regardless of location(which can be crucial for people who do not have other Objectivists intheir vicinity).  But because finding other Objectivists on the net whoshare one's intellectual and personal interests can be difficult, WillWilkinson, Eric Barnhill, Jimbo Wales, and I have been working on aproject to facilitate the establishment of more personal ties betweenObjectivists, particularly those in college.  We are establishing a meansby which Objectivists with shared intellectual or personal interests canfind each other easily, thus encouraging the three keys to makingObjectivism a real intellectual movement again:  integration, debate, andfriendship.  This project has the capacity to grow in accordance with thedemand, but for the moment, it will start as an index of Objectivists inschool (high school, undergraduate, graduate).  You will be hearing moreabout this project from Will soon.

***

Finally I want to convey a few of my personal sentiments about the meaningof making Objectivism a true intellectual movement again.  I was in thelibrary Saturday, looking through all the old issues of _The ObjectivistNewsletter_, _The Objectivist_, and _The Ayn Rand Letter_.  In the earlyissues a sense of excitement and efficacy pervaded the writings; implicitin 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 efficacydisappeared.  For example, the "intellectual ammunition" department, asection dedicated to giving people the means to fight for the philosophy,was replaced around this time by the "horror file" department, a pathetictribute to the fact that the culture was *not* changing.  Rand's articlesconcerning the closing of the _Ayn Rand Letter_ were the mostdisheartening of all.  It was, in essence, a proclamation of herineffectiveness, of her inability to change the culture that wasdestroying 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 ideasand the capability of Objectivists to change the world that needs to berecaptured.  We cannot lose ourselves to condemnations of the "swamp ofirrationalism" into which our culture is sinking (according to ARI).  Wehave to remain firm in the belief that ideas matter, that Objectivismmatters, and that Objectivists, properly armed with knowledge, debatingskills, 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.eduDate: Apr 25 1994 - 12:59pm

Dear Ms. Diana Brickell,

I read with great interest your recent post onalt.philosophy.objectivism on the topic of intellectualactivism. I've been an admirer of Ayn Rand's works for manyyears, but I have had a difficult time finding other peoplewith whom to discuss her ideas. The friends of mine who haveread her works have either not taken much interest in thephilosophical implications, or have (IMHO) incompletelyunderstood some of her ideas, making discussion difficult. Thelimited exposure I had several years ago in college to peoplefrom Objectivist groups was not particularly pleasant. I foundmany of the other Ayn Rand fans to be rigid and dogmatic.Often when I asked what I thought were good-faith questionsexploring some of the edges of Objectivism, many of themwould become defensive and hostile, substituting insults forreasoned discourse. Also I noticed that a significant minoritydid not seem *happy* -- i.e, they didn't exude a sense of lifeindicating that they enjoyed their mental and physicalcapabilities and were eager to apply them in their daily life.The contrast between them and the various protagonists ofRand's novels was quite striking.

For this reason, I found your vision of an electronicObjectivist community appealing. I only recently discoveredthe alt.philosophy.objectivism newsgroup, so I don't have anyfamiliarity with participants, recent threads, FAQ's, subjects-to-avoid-lest-they-start-a-flame-war, etc. However, I hopethat 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 implicationswithin Objectivism that I would like to clarify within my ownmind, and I would be greatly interested in hearing whatothers think. I also agree with you that persuasion is a moreeffective tactic than refutation. I recall the Robert Nozick inhis book _Philosophical Explanations_ also deliberatelyavoided using what he called "coercive philosophy", centeredaround argumentation, forceful refutations, etc, in favor ofan "explanatory approach", where logic and reasoning wereused to construct hypotheses as to how things could be (e.g.,how was free will possible?). His approach was gearedtowards gaining *understanding*, and I think that thisapproach can bear fruit of a different sort than the moretradition coercive approch. (Don't get me wrong -- I love agood, heated philosophical argument as much as the nextperson, trying to attack weak spots in the other personUspositions, as well as bolstering one's own views withsupporting evidence and deductions. But I've found thatunless all the participants agree on the ground rules ahead oftime, and make a strong conscious effort to stick to logicalarguments only, these discussions can quickly degenerateinto ad hominem attacks and/or can stray wildly off topic.)More importantly, I also think that the explanatory approachhas greater potential to persuade people who have erroneousunderstandings of Objectivist ideas.

Basically, I would like to find and contribute to a forumwhere Objectivist ideas could be discussed in a non-threatening environment, to the mutual betterment of allconcerned. There are a number of topics that I would findparticularly interesting:

1) How can and should Objectivism be applied to variouspublic policy questions (e.g., health care reform, abortion,gun control, etc)? In addition to final goals, what are optimalintermediate tactics?

2) Broader, more theoretical questions about reversingsocialistic trends in a mixed economy -- are there times whenit is necessary to impose (presumably temporary) greatergovernment controls to correct distortions caused by priorgovernment controls? An analogy that occurs to me is withthe field of medicine: Normally it is considered immoral andillegal to plunge a knife into someone's body. However,during extraordinary circumstances (say, an otherwisehealthy person has been in a motor vehicle accident and hasdamaged internal organs), then the appropriate course ofaction might be *surgery*, i.e, deliberate and skillfulviolation of the integrity of the patient's physical body inorder to correct an abnormal condition. Surgery is not alwaysappropriate. For certain conditions, the most appropriatetherapy is conservative therapy -- leave the patient alone andlet his or her healing responses deal with the problem. Inthat case, any surgery would rightfully be considered medicalmalpractice. However, in other situations, the injury is toogreat for the body's normal self-correcting mechanisms tocope with alone, and external assistance is necessary. Inthose cases, if a physician did *not* perform surgery, it wouldbe malpractice. Even so, not all surgeries are appropriate --some can do more harm than good. And sometimes, even afterappropriate surgery, external medical assistance might benecessary on a permanent basis (i.e, a patient who hasdamaged both kidneys may need lifelong dialysis, if notransplant becomes available).

Are there any legitimate applications of this analogy to thesocio-economic circumstances of this country? Is it simplyenough to deregulate the economy and let the various self-correcting mechanisms bring about the desired change? Orare there situations where an ideal Objectivist governmentmight need to legitimately maintain temporary (or evenpermanent) controls on certain portions the economy inresponse to prior government-caused economic trauma? Andif so, how does one decide when and what sort of controls arebest for each situation? Even if additional governmentinterventions are *never* theoretically necessary, are thereany important universal principles to follow whenderegulating an economy -- are some strategies moreeffective than others?

(I recently posed some of these questions to thealt.philosophy.objectivism newsgroup in the context of a newSouth African government. However, these questions canclearly also be applied to deregulation in the countries of theformer Soviet Union, or even applied to issues in the USA,such as affirmative action).

3) What are some of the Objectivist positions on variousclassical philosophy problems like the free-will problem, themind-body problem, and the physical basis of consciousness(including the old chesnut as to whether it is possible to haveconscious robots/artificial minds)? What would be the moralimplications of creating artificial minds? (I realize that thisis a frequently discussed topic in many science-fiction stories,including the TV series StarTrek:The Next Generation, wheresome scientists wanted to dismantle Data, the sentient artificiallife form. What are the Objectivist opinions?)

4) What are some of the Objectivist positions on thetheoretical metaphysical questions raised by modern physics(i.e, quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, Bell'sinequality, etc.)

5) Similarly, are there any implications of Godel'stheorems that have relevance to Objectivism, which is basedon pure application of logic? Are certain statements going tobe true, yet unprovable within the Objectivist system? It ismy understanding that within mathematics, each Godelstatement (true yet unprovable statement) can be used as abranch point for generating alternative schemes of logic. Ifa proposition P is one of those Godel statements, then one cantake the old system of logic and add P as a new axiom togenerate an extended system of logic. Or one could insteadtake [not-P] and add it to the old system to generate a new butdifferent extended system. In either case, both systems willcontain no internal contradictions! (Of course, you cannotinclude both P and [not-P] in the same system!) Inmathematical set theory, there are some interestingpropositions such as the Continuum Hypothesis which havethe property that either it or its negation can be included asaxioms, and either way the set theory will still remain self-consistent. (Another example is the Axiom of Choice). Isthere any counterpart within Objectivism? If so, what are theimplications?

When I've read Leonard Peikoff's writings, he only brieflydiscussed some of these issues in (4) and (5), and his discussion did notreflect a very good understanding of them. (I assume that heis not a mathematician or a physicist by training.) Are thereObjectivists out there with stronger mathematics/sciencebackgrounds that have said anything about this?

Finally, I noticed that you had an e-mail address at theWashington University of St. Louis. I will be moving to St.Louis in July 1994 to join the faculty at the Wash U MedicalSchool (in diagnostic radiology). What is the Objectivistcommunity like at Wash U? Is there a campus organization (ora St. Louis organization)?

Thank you very much for your time. Any observations orcomments you have would be greatly appreciated. Until June20, 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 becomeactive.)

Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Paul S. Hsieh, MD

In retrospect, I find the formality of the letter quite charming!