Addendum 2 - Response to Early Comments

The first responses to The Hijacking of a Philosophy came from the publisher (Lindsay Perigo) and author (Dr. Chris Sciabarra) of Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation. Considering the fact it is that book which bears the brunt of our criticism, both Mr. Perigo and Dr. Sciabarra have been very gracious and helpful.

This is not surprising, however. They are both Objectivists, both accomplished in their fields, and both possess first-rate minds. Nevertheless, they naturally do not agree with either the premises or conclusions of The Hijacking of a Philosophy and are concerned that it does not fairly represent their position.

The following are some of the issues they have expressed are of concern to them. Since this book already provides our view, we present their criticisms with minimal comment.

Comments by Dr. Chris Sciabarra

“With regard to “dialectics,” I should add that you ought to have done a bit more research, even of my online articles. For example, this 2002 published response to Roderick Long is infinitely better as an explication of dialectical method than the Full Context interview [the one quoted in the book]. And the book, Total Freedom, the conclusion of my “Dialectics and Liberty Trilogy,” is my fullest explication of the method—rooted in Aristotle’s defense—to date.

“Information on that book is here: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/tfstart.htm.”

In one sense, I agree with this criticism. I confessed to Dr. Sciabarra that my use of his emphasis on dialectics was a rhetorical device. I did not intend to present a fair description of what Dr. Sciabarra means by dialectics, and the reader will certainly not get such a view from what we have written. For the reader who is interested, please use the links Dr. Sciabarra provided. We do not agree that dialectics, even as Dr. Sciabarra actually means it, is a correct method of reasoning, however.

Comments by Lindsay Perigo

“I must say I do not recognise SOLO from your depiction of it below. I can assure you there is no desire whatsoever to intimidate or shut up those who disagree with us. We leave *that* sort of attitude to the ARI! If I’m not mistaken, you’ve posted several times on SOLOHQ, where there is free debate, open to all comers, and I don’t recall anyone trying to shut you up.”

This comment was to an original email in which I provided a brief description of The Hijacking of a Philosophy, but it applies to content in our final chapter, “What’s Wrong With Homosexuality?,” as well, under “Vilification”, where we said, “The purpose of vilification is not to eliminate disagreement by convincing argument, but to eliminate disagreement by silencing those who disagree.”

We admit the final chapter addresses the movement to normalize homosexuality in somewhat broader terms than can be applied to either Mr. Perigo or Dr. Sciabarra, although it certainly applies to many Objectivists. Nevertheless, one point we made in our final chapter, under, “Unintended Consequence,” is while the purpose of SOLO and Dr. Sciabarra may not be to promote the, “homosexual agenda,” their use of the same methods and arguments allies them with that movement in spite of their intentions.

Mr. Perigo continues:

“Also, we do not say that passion trumps reason. We say it is not a case of either/or. If you’ve had experience of the Objectivist movement you’ll know the phenomenon of Randroidism which we’re trying to counter.

“and - if you knew how much I detest psychobabble …. !”

No comment.

Mr. Perigo adds:

“No one despises the organised gay movement more than I do. Fascists is what they are. Worse, they are boring. And I have been at pains to point out that now this monograph has been published, that’s it - mission accomplished. Nothing more on homosexuality. Your list of items on our “real” agenda is, forgive me, just laughable.”

No comment.

—Reginald Firehammer