RoR: Forum

Shayne, when you've met as many rationalizers and liars and intellectual phonies as I have, you get a pretty good idea when someone is playing mind games, jerking you around, rationalizing, kidding themselves, evading relevant facts, dodging vital contexts, etc. Few people I've encountered wear signs saying, "HEY, LOOKEEE HERE -- I'M EVADING NOW." It's thus almost always a matter of using "one's own interpretation and judgment in each situation," as you put it.

But that's not "something very far from 'empirical observation.'" It's exactly what reason is all about. Reasoning is drawing logical and contextually likely inferences and conclusions from empirical observation. It's also called "learning from experience." Wise people do that, Shayne. It's a wonderful survival skill.

No, I don't draw conclusions of evasion because someone may, on a single occasion, do some dumb thing. I draw such conclusions when I see a frequently repeated pattern of stubborn resistance to facts, even when made obvious. If you've seen hundreds of people lie on hundreds of occasions, and you observe how they behave when they do it, then when you see the same pattern repeated over and over by some new person, you can be reasonably sure you're seeing a liar. And if you've ever lied yourself, perhaps as a child -- or can imagine yourself doing so -- you know "from the inside" what that experience is like, and what behaviors and consequences it leads to.

No, you couldn't always prove such things as "evasion" in a court of law, with the same precision as you could the laws of mathematics. But after experiencing enough examples of evasion and rationalization, you know enough not to take certain people at their word, or let them hold your wallet. Given my experiences with them, I certainly would apply such caution against some of Objectivism's Leading Lights.

But that said, I'm curious, Shayne... Why is it such a big deal to you whether or not what I'm saying "is in stark contrast to Objectivism"? And why such a big deal as to whether I've written some formal treatise on the topic? I'd find your questions far more compelling if you seemed as interested in whether my observations were simply true.

But then, I may have a different notion of where my primary interests and moral loyalties lie.

As I indicated earlier, my view of and interest in Objectivism (and philosophy generally) is not to provide me with some platonic Model, against which to conform my actions or to measure My Moral Worth. My view and use of Objectivism is simply as a reliable compass to guide my choices and actions in the direction of successful, happy, fulfilling living. Put another way, I'm not concerned about Being Principled; I'm concerned with finding principles which help me live well and be happy.

From your comments and questions, I sense we may have different priorities on this count. I concede in advance that I may be mistaken, and if so, I apologize in advance; but perhaps you might rephrase your remarks to suggest otherwise.

Let me also address those so eager to condemn Barbara, and who (like Peikoff, Schwartz & Co.) have gleefully psychologized about what they construe to be her motives. They ought to take pause in the fact that she has consistently been unwilling to declare that Rand did anything "immoral."

In my opinion, Barbara is far too generous. Even granting that Rand's interest in pursuing an affair with Nathaniel Branden could have been simple naivete and foolishness, what Rand was willing to do to her husband in pursuit of that goal was outrageously cruel and callous. "Immoral" is as serviceable a term as any to describe it, because it would take an incredible amount of rationalizing and evasion to pretend to herself that her actions weren't hurtful to him -- or that if she knew they were, it was somehow a failure or weakness on HIS part for feeling hurt and betrayed.

That kind of excuse-making was worse than merely naive or stupid. And those who would rationalize such behavior now, on the grounds that he had no right to expect her to "sacrifice her happiness" (as some have claimed elsewhere on this site) -- those who would even CELEBRATE such conduct as a sterling example of rational selfishness in action, and declare that anyone who would find fault in it embody "Christian" altruism -- those people are simply beyond hope. They are certainly immune to the kind of intense commitments and romantic loyalties modeled by the fictional heroes of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

And they are welcome to any consequences that such rationalizations of callous indifference toward an alleged "loved one" will bring upon them.

I only hope that they will give their prospective spouses fair warning of their notions of what a "marriage" entails before their wedding ceremonies.

Post 41

Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 11:03pm

Barbara Branden,

Thank you for your integrity. Writing The Passion of Ayn Rand must have been a massive task and one that needed enormous courage, given the vitriol certain quarters were to direct at you.

So, the vitriol continues with this new book. I have no trust anymore that any ARI publication accurately reproduces Ayn Rand's own words, or follows her intentions. Chris Sciabarra has pointed this out in the past and I would urge everyone to take a look at the ARI's sorry history of scholarship.

Barbara Branden, however, wrote a deep, moving, thorough and profoundly humanising biography of Rand (and what, after all, could be better than to show someone's humanity with all its highs and lows?). Passion, indeed.

Post 42

Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 11:05pm

I think Barbara's biography is well-researched, balanced, incisive, and generally outstanding. She seems to have invested a huge amount of time and effort in it -- and it shows. The book massively adds to our knowledge of how Ayn Rand struggled and developed, intellectually and personally. It's also lends a marvelous insider's view on a very unusual and wildly important social and cultural movement. I think the book will be well-appreciated and closely read for centuries. It reminds me a lot of Boswell's Life of Johnson.

Now as for The Affair...One of the things that I find most exasperating and infuriating about the whole 1960s Objectivist Movement is why there had to be that ghastly Break in 1968 at all. As Woody Allen notes, "Love fades." It seems Nathaniel sincerely loved Ayn in the 1950s but then fell out of love in the 1960s. So why did Ayn have to make such a federal case out of it?

Maybe the answer is: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," but a woman scorned hath no fury like Ayn scorned.

I tend to think Nathaniel was hideously pressured and controlled by master-manipulator Ayn in all kinds of illegitimate ways. Thus he was maybe 95% forced to lie that his old romantic/erotic love for her had faded/died. He knew, as did Barbara, that if he broke it off officially, that Ayn would then unfailingly act with overwhelming and stunning personal depravity, and make his life hell on earth. Hence his desperate and highly understandable attempts to finesse and worm his way out of it for half a decade.

In the end, there is no reason that I can think of as to why the '60s Objectivist Movement should have committed suicide thus. I think NBI, the taped lectures, the book service, etc. could and should have continued. Nathaniel should have maintained his personal, intellectual, and business relationship with Ayn -- just not the sexual one. Ayn should have used her big brain, and realized and accepted that love is a matter of hard-to-logically-understand-and-debate chemistry; and that "love fades." That would have been the moral and rational thing for Ayn to do.

Post 43

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 1:22am

Robert, dear boy�settle! Don't allow an unsubtle agent provocateur for the ARI to rattle you so. We get them here from time to time, displaying their trademark gratuitous bellicosity & obnoxiousness.

And don't be such a fierce devotee of conventional morality, condemning The Affair�or Ayn's instigation of it�as immoral. There is nothing intrinsically virtuous in conventional morality, least of all in conventional sexual morality. There cannot be anything intrinsically virtuous in any morality. Not for an Objectivist.

By mutual consent, all four parties to The Affair sanctioned it & played their part (or non-part) in it. The only immorality I can discern was Nathaniel's, which was not part of The Affair but a later, deceitful sidebar to it. Even there the immorality did not consist in Nathaniel's relationship with Patrecia as such but in his protracted lying to Ayn Rand. As he's long since acknowledged, if I'm not mistaken.

Nothing to huff & puff about. This extraordinary quartet tried something extraordinary, & it didn't work out. They entered unchartered waters in good faith, & ended up on rocks, bruised & battered. That's a risk they all knew they were taking. They did not know and could not have known that it would end that way. Nothing inherently immoral about it, that's for sure. 'Nuff said.

Linz

Post 44

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 2:36am

As the unlikeliest person to be tagged an agent provocateur that I know, I actually agree with Linz. In fact, that's all I was trying to say, but he said it much better. Except for me being an agent provocateur, of course. I'm not -- for the record and for what it's worth. Which doesn't seem to be much, here. And while that may be "provocative" it doesn't make me an "agent." I'm just sticking up for myself against a pretty provocative accusation; and I am hopeful that some here will see my perspective if this does get posted.

Anyway, I bear no ill will to anyone here. The book will come out and I have no more to say about it.

(To the moderator, I hope you'll allow me to make this objection to the characterization that was made of me by one of the most reasonable folks here, whom I don't resent but hope will concede that he has made a call that is a bit unwarranted, from an evidentiary level at the least. If his gut tells him otherwise, his gut is equally wrong, but I can't ask for a retraction of that.)

Best regards to everyone,

Casey Fahy

Post 45

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 3:54am

Linz writes...

And don't be such a fierce devotee of conventional morality, condemning The Affair--or Ayn's instigation of it--as immoral. There is nothing intrinsically virtuous in conventional morality, least of all in conventional sexual morality...

You miss my point, Linz. It has nothing to do with "conventional" morality, or the idea of one kind of relationship (e. g., monogamy) being more "intrinsically virtuous" than another.

I thought the aspect of this Arrangement obvious from Barbara's account was that it was the result of emotional and intellectual extortion. It was clear from the outset that Barbara and Frank hated the idea; it was also clear that Rand and Nathaniel -- the two icons of Objectivism, wielding their full intellectual firepower to rationalize it, and employing the emotional blackmail of proclaiming that Barbara and Frank could accept it because of their superior moral and psychological stature -- transparently manipulated and intimidated them into acquiescence. It is finally clear that Rand and Branden ultimately didn't give a damn about the impact of the Arrangement on two people they professed to love.

You continue...

By mutual consent, all four parties to The Affair sanctioned it & played their part (or non-part) in it. The only immorality I can discern was Nathaniel's...

Consent? Nope. Don't buy it. That was "winning through intimidation." Sanction of the victims? Yep, certainly. But was that morality? Frank and Barbara sacrificed their true feelings and desires in order to acquiesce, I suppose for fear of losing whatever was left (perhaps including public face). But it was hardly an exhibition of rational self-interest. Nathaniel? His immorality goes beyond the overt lies, my friend, and are the same as Ayn's. As I put it elsewhere here, both wanted to have their marriages but eat them, too. They wanted the social benefits of maintaining a public image (and image within the Objectivist movement) of living the Ideal -- of having devoted romantic marriages with their spouses -- while living a lie, and manipulating their grieving spouses into going along.

And in this, they also put the feelings and well-being of their alleged "loved ones" way down on the priority list. They wanted an arrangement which depended for its success on their spouses committing emotional martyrdom. Bad as this was for Frank and Barbara in private, imagine what they had to endure at Objectivist events, when they had to pose in their phony roles as romantic icons, as consorts to the Two Heroes. That Nathaniel and Ayn would blithely ask them to go through that masquerade was as unconscionable as was their acceptance of it.

Nor did Nathaniel and Ayn act with full courage and integrity even concerning their own true romantic choices for each other. Ask yourself the question: If they truly felt that strongly about each other, and if their marriages had lost the key sexual attraction that they had publicly defined as the basis of "romantic love," then why did they not simply separate from or divorce their spouses and move in together?

The answer to that question is transparent -- and a measure of how much role the Objectivist ethics actually played in that whole farce. It was four-way self-deception from the outset.

Which brings me to the main point I must make clear.

What am I really disturbed about here? It isn't the Arrangement, my friend. Nope, I could give a damn what foolish things other people do, or what consequences that foolishness brings onto themselves.

But there's a larger issue here. That issue is the endorsement of blatantly self-deceptive and manipulative behavior as being consonant with Objectivism. If my interpretation of what was going on in The Affair is basically accurate -- and I drew it directly from the Brandens' books -- then it sure as hell wasn't Objectivism as I understand it. I couldn't imagine for a split second, for example, a single one of the hero-models of Rand's fiction accepting a subordinate, supporting-player role in an arrangement of that sort. (Kira's romantic triangle was not a voluntary choice, but the only option for her in the coercive political context in which she lived.)

The sad thing is that ordinary people, so quickly dismissed as "conventional" in their morality, don't have a hard time seeing any of this. Because ultimately, that Arrangement wasn't immoral on the grounds of conventional ethics; it was immoral on the grounds of simple common sense.

If Objectivism is come to be seen as incorporating or endorsing such self-indulgent foolishness instead of rational self-interest, it will be laughed out of the court of public opinion -- and deservedly so. That's the ultimate danger of the new ARI revisionist account of The Affair, and of much of what I've read in these threads.

And that's my warning to you, for whatever it may be worth.

Post 46

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 5:48am

Let me be the first to say that *I* have never lied about sex, or acted against my better moral judgement.

Ok well, once...

It is not the actions of the parties involved that disturb me greatly, it is the fact that for many on the outside, that is the lens through which Rand, Branden, and Objectivism are viewed.

John

Post 47

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 6:21am

Robert says: ... ; it was also clear that Rand and Nathaniel -- the two icons of Objectivism, wielding their full intellectual firepower to rationalize it, and employing the emotional blackmail of proclaiming that Barbara and Frank could accept it because of their superior moral and psychological stature -- transparently manipulated and intimidated them into acquiescence.

Bravo Robert!

In no way are the issues 'conventional morality' or 'Christian morality' this misses the point entirely. The issue here was the misuse of the power dynamics that existed within these relationships.

George

Post 48

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 6:38am

Well, now, thank you, George! I'm glad SOMEBODY here grasps that the Objectivist ethics consists of a bit more than a blanket sanction of any interpersonal actions taken on the basis of "voluntary consent."

You know, after my previous post I suddenly thought of Galt's Oath, and how it applies to this excruciating episode:

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man..."

...which appears to be exactly what Frank and Barbara were doing...

"...nor ask another man to live for mine."

...which appears to be exactly what Rand and Branden were asking them to do.

Okay, Linz, you get your wish. I've said my piece, and am done on this topic.

Post 49

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 7:15am

Thank you, Robert, for these insightful comments. Your above statements reflect the source of my disgust upon discovering the circumstances of the affair, and capture eloquently my thoughts on the subject.

If they were not faking reality, and believed what they were doing was morally right, it should not have needed to be such a secret. I question their true interpretation of the situation at its core.

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo on 2/14, 7:18am)

Post 50

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 10:05am

Robert,

But that said, I'm curious, Shayne... Why is it such a big deal to you whether or not what I'm saying "is in stark contrast to Objectivism"? And why such a big deal as to whether I've written some formal treatise on the topic? I'd find your questions far more compelling if you seemed as interested in whether my observations were simply true.

By "big deal", I assume that you mean that you understand that I think this is important, but don't agree that it is. Well that just flabbergasts me. I would expect you to realize that there will be at least a few people at Solo who agree with Ayn Rand's ethics, and that your challenge to the root of her system, if defensible, would have some import. Or did you not expect to find people at Solo who agree with Ayn Rand?

Your last two statements are just as flabbergasting. What on earth could the purpose of a treatise be, other than to provide compelling arguments for why a position is true? Your cynicism (and I don't think it is wrong for me to call your "everyone evades sometimes" position cynicism) is biasing your interpretations of my questions. But I guess when "everyone evades sometimes" then everyone is a suspect?

I hope I am not taking liberty with your position to call it "everyone evades sometimes" but that's how I put it previously and you didn't object so I presume you agree with that formulation.

And I'm interested in much more than your argument for the raw premise "everyone evades sometimes." Your premise has implications that would revise Ayn Rand's entire ethical system in a sweeping way. For instance, as it is, when I conclude that someone is evading, I get indignant with them, I think and feel "how dare they evade." Well, if all of us are determined to do the same thing, then how dare I get indignant? How dare I "cast the first stone"? It's just being who we are to evade. Maybe I should pat them on the back for being "human"?

Post 51

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 9:06am

Rather than echo everyone else's positive comments, I will simply say that I finished "The Passion of Ayn Rand" in one sitting. (not something I normally do!)

Thank you for humanizing Ayn Rand.

Post 52

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:52am

Robert and George,

Your analysis of of the Rand-Branden polyamorous arrangement as an abuse of "power dynamics" is anachronistic - the application of "power dynamics" to sexual relationships first emerged in feminist discourse of the 1970s, so there is no way that Rand or NB could have been "evading" that analysis in the 50s and 60s. Equally anachronistic - and false - is your ascription of popular "common sense" condemnation of polyamory to some recognition of "asymmetrical power dynamics" rather than conventional/Christian morality. Certainly Beruriah's affair (with her husband's consent, with one of their students) was accepted in pre-Christian Jewish-Hellenistic culture as perfectly normal (there is no record of it being in any way condemned until Rashi, who lived in a generally Christian culture nearly 1000 years later.) I already posted a link to Eyal Mozes' debunking of NB's supposed "evidence" that Frank "suffered" through Ayn's relationship with Nathaniel.

I have not seen all the evidence either way, but I know of some indications that Ayn Rand had had an earlier polyamorous relationship, with another younger man, in the 1940s - and that this earlier relationship (1) took place long before the "power relationship" between Ayn and Frank became "asymmetrical," and (2) did not afffect Frank's relationship with Ayn Rand in any negative way. I take allegations of Frank's "suffering" etc with a big lump of salt.

Post 53

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:56am

Hey Steve, you sound like a fellow agent provocateur. You better cool it or you'll be called a moralizer pretty soon. ;)

Happy Valentines Day, everyone.

Post 54

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 12:08pm

Casey,

I thought Linz was talking about Shayne Wissler, not you.

Jon

Post 55

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 12:11pm

Casey, it wasn't you I was referring to with "agent provocateur for the ARI." It was Shayne. It was *he* who was riling Robert up so much; it is *he* whose demeanour reeks of ARI. But maybe it's all his own work. Point is, it wasn't *you* I was getting at! :-)

I'm flabbergasted by some of the subsequent posts, but no time to explain now - day job calls. As the young folk say, "Later."

Linz

Post 56

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 1:32pm

"I couldn't imagine for a split second, for example, a single one of the hero-models of Rand's fiction accepting a subordinate, supporting-player role in an arrangement of that sort. (Kira's romantic triangle was not a voluntary choice, but the only option for her in the coercive political context in which she lived.)"

I disagree here. In all Rand's fiction she fantasizes about the scenario of a strong independent minded woman, such as herself, loving two men simultaneously - often with their direct or indirect consent.

There is Kira with Andrei and Leo. Dominique with Wynard and Roark. Dagney with Fransisco and Rearden. If you look at many of her short stories and plays - you will find time and again the idea of one woman with two men.

I personally think that the two men always represented to Rand a choice between two different types. An ideological romantic type of relationship and a sensual passionate type of relationship.

However, the scenario was probably also a turn on for Rand. Don't know if I would call it immoral, but it was definitely her fantasy.

Post 57

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 1:44pm

Lindsay,

First let me say that I regard this site as your property, and myself as a guest. If you don't want me to post here just say so, I'll leave.

If you want to take issue with my general demeanour, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. I think I am only rude to those who've asked for it, but I can understand when people interpret these things differently. But I don't think Robert deserved it (on the contrary, I found him to be thoughtful in his responses), nor do I think I was rude to him. And I for one didn't discern that he was riled up, he seemed just to be expanding on his position.

I do take issue with both your calling for an end to this discussion and with how you have ended it. I think it's evident that the premise in question is important. And I of course take issue with your character attack on me, both because it is an irrelevant reason for ending this discussion, and because it is false and unjust accusation.

Post 58

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 1:55pm

Robert, I believe you are correct. What is involved here are issues of duty, honor, and contracts of reciprocal obligations. All assumed freely, and each of which is, in my opinion, binding until and unless a breached by the benefiting party or dissolved by mutual, voluntary, informed recision. Such voluntary recision does not mean the duress of an "either/or" choice, suddenly pulled out of the hat, in which the alternatives for the innocent party are either "bad" or "worse," or where unfair advantage is pressed. You have a right in such a relationship to trust that such a dilemma will not be imposed on you. If such a betrayal of trust were sanctioned by Objectivism, it would be impossible to ever enter into a relationship of trust with an Objectivist. Accepting someone's trust imposes a duty on the beneficiary not to betray it. If you're not up to the duty, don't accept the trust; if you do, it is simply an act of bad faith. Objectivism is an ethical standard, not a license to steal.

Barbara, thank you for an integrity that transcended the literal aspects of your promise. We are all better off for your book, including Ayn Rand. Without your book, the inexplicable paradox that would continue to exist for those who make a thorough study of her work and life would detract from her message. With your complimentary explanation, I believe her work is strengthened; the best minds are more likely to stay with something that makes sense. One does not him or herself have to be perfect to define or strive for perfection.

Post 59

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 2:05pm