| | James, the basic problem remains this:
If you set off-limits to rational inspection any area of reality, that sets a methodological precedent for arbitrarily descending into irrationality whenever the truth becomes too painful or inconvenient to confront.
That is the Objectivist criticism leveled so often against religious faith, in such faith-based notions as a perfect, infallible God. The criticism, however, loses none of its force when self-described "Objectivists" employ that irrational methodology, and when their perfect, infallible goddess is Ayn Rand.
In this vein, let me tell you a story...and I beg your indulgence at the length of this post as a result.
Back in the mid-1980s, when rumors of Barbara's forthcoming biography began circulating, I vividly recall the "official" Objectivist position -- stridently maintained for years by Peikoff, Schwartz, et al. -- that the Brandens were filthy liars for even daring to absurdly suggest that there ever had been an affair between Rand and Nathaniel Branden. I just as vividly remember the "reasoning" offered to support these denials: that Ayn Rand was madly in love with and faithful to her husband; that Branden was a low-life and that a relationship with him would have been morally and psychologically impossible for "a heroine" and a "spiritual giant" like Ayn Rand; that Leonard Peikoff, as an intimate friend of Rand's and as her "intellectual heir," would have been in a position to know the truth of the matter, and that he had always vigorously denied it; that you'd have to believe Ayn Rand was less than she was, and that her Intellectual Heir was a bald-faced liar, in order to believe the claims of the sleazy Brandens; etc., etc.
That, my friends, was the official Party Line about the affair...before Barbara's book came along.
Around that same time, I was still on speaking terms with ARI people, and in fact had been writing for Peter Schwartz's Intellectual Activist. As a reviewer for other publications as well, I received an advance copy of Barbara's book in galley form, and of course devoured it quickly. It blew me away, to say the least. The details provided by Barbara were utterly compelling, and left no doubt in my mind that the disastrous relationship had, in fact, occurred; that it had been covered up for years; and that Rand's own account of the reasons for her break with the Brandens was -- to put it in Objectivese -- a highly selective re-creation of reality.
Given that I already knew Schwartz's hatred of the Brandens and his pre-publication hostility toward Barbara's book (which he had not even yet read), and given that I knew I'd be giving it an enthusiastic early review, I sent Schwartz an e-mail telling him that I would no longer be able to write for his newsletter. (I didn't bother to explain why at the time, knowing full well that he'd understand the reason within weeks.)
About the same time, still prior to the book's publication, I went to a party in New Jersey at which some people prominently affiliated with ARI were present. The subject of Barbara's forthcoming book came up, and I mentioned that I had read a review copy and would be reviewing it soon. One of those prominent ARI people, an artist, asked with an indignant tone: "Well, does she [Barbara] contend that Miss Rand and Nathaniel Branden had an affair?"
I remember the sick look on all their faces when I replied, "She supplies a great deal of compelling detail that convinces me that there was an affair."
Even after publication of Barbara's book, the "official" position was still heated denial: continuing accusations that the Brandens were liars, that their accounts were "non-objective." But I noticed cracks in the public facade. In his own published screed against Barbara, Peter Schwartz asked in his closing paragraphs: So what if any of the claims in Barbara's book happen to be true? The real importance of Ayn Rand, he said, lay in her philosophy and novels: "It is her books that she should be judged by."
A curious position coming from people who had long argued that Objectivism permits no breach between mind and body, theory and practice -- and who had, since 1968, used that very argument against the Brandens.
Then -- FINALLY -- at a Ford Hall Forum speech which I attended, Peikoff revealed during the Q&A that he had recently "discovered" among Ayn Rand's personal papers some letters that confirmed that, Yes, there had been an affair.
Folks, you would have had to have been there to appreciate the thundering silence that greeted this stunning revelation. Imagine the sounds of hundreds of trains of thought suddenly screeching to a halt before hitting some unexpected obstacle on the track...then trying frantically to somehow reverse direction prior to impact. I mean, you could see it in the eyes around you: the smugness of moral superiority suddenly replaced by darting sideways glances, each person wondering how he should take this cataclysmic news, what others were thinking about it, how to reconcile it with all the previous self-righteous denunciations of the Brandens being liars...
The best historic analogy I could come up with was how U. S. Communist Party members responded early in the World War II period to sudden news from Moscow of the "Hitler-Stalin Pact." Overnight, the hated Nazis, denounced for years, were to be considered allies. Many of the more honest Party members quit in disgust. What remained was an unthinking contingent of dogmatists whose first loyalty was not to reality, but to their venerated icons: Stalin and the Party.
But just as new rationalizations flowed forth to encourage the Party faithful to navigate this startling ideological about-face, so too did Peikoff & Co. soon offer what have now become the familiar rationalizations for Rand's private behavior. No longer was their argument the one Schwartz had advanced in print -- i. e., that Ayn Rand should be judged only by her books. No, now they offered a new defense: that Ayn Rand had done absolutely nothing wrong. And more: that there was nothing wrong with extramarital affairs generally; that Rand had entered this one with everyone's full "rational" knowledge and complete "moral" consent; that the only thing wrong with it was that Nathaniel Branden had deceived her about his moral character, before, during and after the relationship began. In short, Ayn Rand was a totally innocent victim of the devious Branden. This was the new Objectivist Party Line.
I tell you this story to provide a broader context for the discussion underway here. James was absolutely correct in saying: "The problem with ARI is that being 95% right isn't good enough, when the 5% wrong that you are is viciously intolerant and blind."
Let me put it a nicer way, however.
There's a passage in Atlas Shrugged when Francisco tells Rearden that he's committing a grave mistake. Irrationalists, says Francisco, want to blind themselves to perceiving the good. Rearden, by contrast, wants to blind himself to looking at evil. But even though Rearden's motives are noble, Francisco points out, the error is the same: it's the refusal to face facts. And faking reality always results in destruction.
In this case, those who idolize Ayn Rand may have only the purest of motives. I certainly sympathize with their desire to find and venerate real-life heroes, the desperate quest to discover some living example of human perfection.
But if one has to torture facts in order to uphold such an icon, the consequences of that manipulation will boomarang back, ultimately undercutting one's entire philosophy.
How can one defend rationality and integrity against irrationalism and blind faith, if, like a religious dogmatist, he is willing to blind himself to unpleasant or uncomfortable facts? How can one defend independence if he is willing to blindly follow some false Party Line and "not make waves" in order to avoid being expelled? How can one feel self-esteem and pride if one undercuts his own independent rational judgment, and knows that his silent acquiescence is rooted in cowardice? How can one uphold the principle of justice, if he is so committed to falsely maintaining the "perfect" reputation of his hero (Rand) that he is willing to brand as liars anyone who reveals unpleasant truths (the Brandens) -- or to unjustly vilify some of the finest, most honorable Objectivists (e. g., David Kelley, George Walsh, etc.) whenever they write something that clashes with the Party Line?
To repeat what I said at the opening:
If you set off-limits to rational inspection any area of reality, that sets a methodological precedent for arbitrarily descending into irrationality whenever the truth becomes too painful or inconvenient to confront.
Let me then apply this, then, to the speech by Yaron Brook. While I'm always pleased whenever someone from ARI says something in a reasonable way, I can't get past a simple, sad fact: The context in which such statements are made does not allow for expressions of independent thought, if the thoughts expressed are in any way critical of Ayn Rand, her self-proclaimed "intellectual heir" or anything they've ever said or written, about anything.
Anyone affiliated with ARI who doubts this contention is cheerfully invited to test it.
I might leave with those lacking such courage with this question: Why not?
Another question to ponder: Do you honestly believe that a character such as Howard Roark would be comfortable inside a group such as ARI?
(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 3/21, 9:04am)
|
|
