False Premises and Methods

Since Lindsay Perigo considers the publication of Dr. Sciabarra’s Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation tantamount to accomplishing the Sense Of Life Objectivists’ anti-homophobia mission, we must examine that work, at least in its original online published form.

Not to be Confused with Logic

To fully appreciate these essays, we must understand something of the method used. Dr. Sciabarra is a great advocate of “dialectics.” What Dr. Sciabarra means by dialectics is not always clear, since it sometimes seem to mean nothing more than an insistence that context must never be dropped, which is exactly what Ayn Rand’s Objectivism insists. But if that is all it means, we really do not need a new term for that.

At other times, Dr. Sciabarra seems to mean what dialectics usually means, which is essentially a kind of “vagueness”resulting from the inclusion of any irrelevancy that has any kind of loose association with a subject, especially if it seem to support one’s view.

Dr. Sciabarra would not describe dialectics that way, obviously. His description would be more on this order, from Karen Reedstrom’s interview with Dr. Sciabarra:¹

“I’d like to say that dialectics is a method of analysis, a mode of inquiry, but in a sense, it is a kind of meta-methodology or methodological orientation that has several basic characteristics. I say “meta-methodological”because it is not to be confused with such things as logic, induction, deduction, statistical inference, [emphasis added] all of which, in various contexts, dialectical thinkers have used … The way I use the word, dialectics is a fundamental methodological orientation or set of assumptions about how I approach the object of our study. Dialectics in essence, demands that one adopt a critical, integrated stance. It has 5 basic characteristics:

“The first is Holism….
The second is … Dialectics demands that one grasp the whole through its abstracted parts, but it also demands that I not reify these parts as separate from the whole….
The third basic characteristic is an emphasis on Internal Relations within a systemic context….
Fourth, there is an emphasis on Internal Relations within an historical context….
And finally, fifth, as a consequence of all of this, dialectics rejects formal dualism.”

Which all essentially means, one includes anything in ones reasoning to make the conclusion come out the way one wishes. It is dialectics in this sense Dr. Sciabarra seems to use in these essays.

The Method at Work

As an example of Mr. Sciabarra’s method is the following from, “Objectivism and Homosexuality - Again,” the first of his five articles:

“Of course, I have always believed that by describing homosexuality as ‘disgusting,’ Rand was probably not focusing on ethical concerns, so much as very specific sexual imagery that turned her stomach. After her death, Rand’s attitudes were subsequently challenged - to varying degrees - by her successors, including Leonard Peikoff, Edith Packer, and Nathaniel Branden. As I state in Russian Radical, ‘these thinkers continue to regard homosexuality as a psychological detour from the norm, [but] they are less inclined to moralize about it.‘”²

The fact that Ayn Rand called homosexuality “immoral” in the same famous sentence in which she characterized it as “disgusting” would lead most people to conclude that the pronouncement was both an ethical as well as personal evaluation. Most people would, but not a dialectician like Dr. Sciabarra.

Since the issue is whether or not the promotion of homosexuality is consistent with Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, the fact that anyone else, including her, “successors,” “challenged - to varying degrees,” Ayn Rand’s attitudes is irrelevant. Objectivism is not someone else’s philosophy.

There follows a long and critical description of Dr. Peikoff’s opinion on the nature of homosexuality and its moral status, as though Peikoff spoke for Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Both Drs. Sciabarra and Peikoff might believe this—it is, nevertheless, not true. Dr. Sciabarra’s main criticism of Peikoff, by the way, is on the very points where Peikoff’s opinion is consistent with Objectivist principles, for example: “He views gays as ‘abnormal….’ They are ‘abnormal’because homosexuality per se ‘presupposes a problem or error of a major kind.’”

Further irrelevant opinions of Nathaniel Branden, Allan Blumenthal, and Edith Packer are included to reinforce the obfuscation of the fact none of their opinions are Objectivism, except where they agree with Objectivism as Ayn Rand explicated it.

One comment on Mr. Branden, however is instructive.

“Still, there is an apparent bias at work even in Branden’s more enlightened statements on the subject. He observes, for instance, that if someone comes to him in therapy ‘and insists that he or she genuinely wants to change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation, sometimes I am able to help, without judging the client’s choice, one way or the other.’ I wonder, however, if Branden would have the same attitude if someone came to him and insisted on changing from a heterosexual to a homosexual orientation.”

I wonder if Dr. Sciabarra really believes there is a possibility of that happening. It is absurd, of course, for reasons obvious to everyone, apparently, except Dr. Sciabarra.

The piece ends by decrying the fact, even among Objectivists there is apparent bigotry, that homosexuals who would embrace Objectivism are alienated rather than welcomed by Objectivists, and that, even worse, many Objectivist are abusive toward homosexuals.

First, no abuse of anyone, physical or verbal, for any reason is acceptable to any Objectivist or any other moral and decent person.

Second, much is called abuse that is not abuse. If some people do things that disgust other people, and those disgusted believe their disgust is the appropriate rational response to that behavior, it is not abusive for them to express their opinion. My wife is disgusted by my eating raw oysters and plainly expresses the fact to me. I am mildly amused but hardly abused.

There is a prevalent mistake, which Objectivist are not immune to, and that is the idea that we can change people. I have no illusions along those lines. I have no desire to change anyone. If some choose to practice homosexuality, if they further choose to promote their, “lifestyle,” as both moral and benevolent, they are and ought to be completely free to do so, without fear of abuse or oppression of any kind.

Homosexuality is abnormal and, in practice, both physiologically and psychologically self-destructive. I believe most homosexuals are not fully aware of the nature of their choices or of the consequences of those choices, just as most people who engage in self-destructive behavior are not aware of them. If they were, and were truly rational and objective, they would not engage in them. All are convinced that somehow they are not going to be the victims of their actions, even when they see that others are.

This cannot be changed with, “education,” or, “propaganda,” any more than drug addition, self-mutilation, or alcoholism can be changed in these ways.

[](#survey) The piece concludes with this invitation to homosexuals:

“And so I’m issuing this invitation: I would like to hear from people, especially gay men and women, who have some history in the Objectivist movement. I want to explore and represent your experiences with Objectivism in these pages, with emphasis on how your sexuality was accepted - or not - by the Objectivists in your midst.”

I shall begin our comment on the results of this survey when I discuss Dr. Sciabarra’s third essay in this series. The next essay is his second and represents a different perspective on this issue.