RoR: Forum

Tom R.:

In the case of the Brandens I am not, if they are culpable, willing to just forgive and forget for the sake of a philosophy that warns against forgiveness and that looses its entire meaning if divorced from action.

I doubt the Brandens would be interested in the assumptive gift of forgiveness. And anyway, we wouldn't want any of that going on. The next thing you know, well... :)

Post 141

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:44pm

James Heaps-Nelson:

Forgiveness is not required. When I go to TOC seminars, I simply don't go to a Nathaniel Branden talk if the topic is Ayn Rand

Wouldn't want to water the wine by going direct-to-source, eh? Plus, not only do you run the risk of hearing things, but you might be seen in there...it would be like walking out of the porn shop and bumping into the neighborhood priest.

Post 142

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:57pm

Rich,

I have no problem talking to Nathaniel or hearing lectures from him about other topics and I've heard enough to know what he will say about it. Also, why should his opinion of Ayn Rand matter to me?

Jim

Post 143

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 1:25pm

James-

I don't think he's entirely static in how he talks about much of anything- he modifies and expands frequently, based on events and experience.

I'd go see him talk about any topic he happens to be presenting. There's always a lot of content going on, and it isn't always confined to the topic at hand.

Although, I'm with you for the most part in that there's a lot of other things I prefer hearing him talk about. I prefer hearing him talk about what he prefers talking about, if you get my drift...

Post 144

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 3:17pm

Rich,

When I was working at Intel one of the best things about their corporate culture was a technique called "Disagree and Commit". They recognized that everyone had their opinions about how something needed to get done. The problem was: How do you get everyone to work as a team and not do violence to their individual concerns and issues? If you recognize that there is something that is important to you, but not a make or break issue you have the option to disagree and commit. That is, you state clearly and for the record that you think something is a bad idea but you go along with it anyway. That way you've registered your opinion, but you haven't sabotaged the team endeavor. This is something Objectivists need to do more of when they're organized in groups. When they recognize the overarching value their fellow Objectivists represent, they are less likely to go ballistic and sabotage group endeavors they might be involved in.

The value of Ayn Rand's reputation as a person is important, but not a make or break issue for me with regard to Objectivism. I'm likely to disagree with, but not go ballistic over many statements Nathaniel Branden might make about Ayn Rand. I also recognize the immense value many of Nathaniel's writings on psychology have for me and I like him as a person. That said, I would choose to listen to something else than hear him talk about Ayn Rand if the option is available.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 6/11, 4:12am)

Post 145

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 3:18pm

> I contend that Rand's reputation as a person is important as well [Tom]

I don't think her reputation in the light of history will rest on the messy (and disputed) romantic relationships she had. Especially since most people are inclined to cut people some slack for messy, angry, emotional, out of context, silly things they did in romantic and personal relationships. Wise and fair-minded people are aware that they themselves have probably done foolish(and sometimes unjust)things in those areas.

Her reputation in the long-run will rest on the brilliant new philosophy she developed which solved age-old problems. And on the powerful, and inspiring novels she wrote. And on the uplifted, and desperately needed, vision of man she offered.

> these "personal relationships"...are of secondary importance to the philosophical ideas ...But if those ideas are important, they deserve to be put into action.

There are many ways to put them into action. But there is limited time in life. Is a movement-wide, decades-long focus on a scandal, every time a new book or article comes out on this particular [disputed] episode, the best way to do that?

What does it say to outsiders in a world desperate for a rational philosophy that so many of its brightest people would rather spend their time attacking or defending the character of people in their subculture, than spreading the actual philosophy and answering the questions and objections about the ideas themselves?

This long-lasting "food fight" is already a big joke in intellectual circles and in many mass media articles which have been published. (Some enterprising journalist will at some point research this thread in Solo and use it for still another article about the cultlike concerns of Objectivists.)

Certainly this is a free forum, and people should spend enormous amounts of time on it if they enjoy the give and take, or like to engage in lengthy debates (or "fights"). And they should spend their time on the topics that most interest them. But do Objectivists zealously wrapped up in this thread truly have no other intellectual interests in their life, nothing high level and original they can contribute in the realm of ideas, nothing they can publish outside of Ayn Rand's sex life and whether she made good or bad choices in her closest associates?

Phil

PS, A prediction:

Absolutely nothing I have said here, even if every word I said were accurate and rational, is likely to dissuade anyone from continuing this dispute (or even focusing too much on what I've said): They are already emotionally invested in it, have spent too much time already, and are adamantly resistant to letting a triumphant opponent (who they are already feeling angry at) have the last word.

I have met very few Objectivists who have integrated the philosophy to the extent that their reason (sense of proportion, good sense) trumps their emotions on a matter of this nature. They can't just "let it go" - it's like a dog chewing a bone and growling long after the meat has vanished. It doesn't mean they're bad people. They just tend to be obsessive, type A personalities.

Post 146

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:30pm

What does it say to outsiders in a world desperate for a rational philosophy that so many of its brightest people would rather spend their time attacking or defending the character of people in their subculture, than spreading the actual philosophy and answering the questions and objections about the ideas themselves?

Well said Phil.

The concept of putting people on trial in the context here churns my stomach. Elevating the concept of moral judgement to the levels people seem to want to in this book and in this thread strikes me as appallingly rationalistic, farcical, and ultimately vicious and destructive (what do they want to achieve out of it?)

Post 147

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:53pm

Philip,

PS, A prediction:

Absolutely nothing I have said here, even if every word I said were accurate and rational, is likely to dissuade anyone from continuing this dispute (or even focusing too much on what I've said):

LOLOLOLOL...

(scratching head)

Now where on earth would you get a notion like that from?

Michael

Post 148

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 10:27pm

I just returned from vacation, so I haven't followed this thread until today. Needless to say, much has transpired since Scott Schiff's orginal article post.

The substance of Valliant's book is the least fascinating issue here. (I am only part way through his legal brief of a book...) What I find most fascinating is the "schismism"* of Objectivism that has pervaded Randian circles since the late 1960s.

I am very disappointed with Valliant's book. I concur both with David Brown's review--(which is linked to from Scott's article)--and with Scott's tag line, "For shame."

I cannot believe that the Estate of Ayn Rand actually sanctioned this book by allowing the use of Ayn Rand's journal entries to rehash this issue and make "The Case Against the Brandens." (For those who haven't read the book yet, this is the actual subtitle.) I should mention that Valliant states he continued with his in-depth analysis despite Peikoff's "sincere and prescient advice." (I can only assume Peikoff was opposed to the analysis, but then why did he offer the use of Rand's journal entries?)

Someone mentioned that Soloists (?) should have better things to do with their time than to rehash and argue factoids of Miss Rand's personal life--which I don't even think we are doing in this thread. But, the bigger issue is what does the publication of this book say about the intellectuals who are formally charged with promulgating this philosophy?

There are very real "critics" of Ayn Rand in the world today--people in high places in the U.S. government, like Senators Durbin, Edwards, Kennedy, et al. (A compilation of the most vocal anti-capitalists would be very interesting at this point in history.)

I don't think Ayn Rand's true enemies were created because they read the legendary Branden biographies. And, these enemies don't hate Miss Rand for her love of "tiddly wink" music or her chastisement of Beethoven. They hate her for her intellectual honesty, her unflappable defense of capitalism and its requisite principles of freedom and reason. They hate her for everything she and her philosophy represent--they hate her for exposing the evil motives of the statists and the philosophical bankruptcy of our time.

But, I'm willing to bet her enemies love Valliant's book--along with all the other psychological quagmire's that keep the Objectivists disbanded. I am grateful she was a novelist as well as philosopher--for, if not, I fear her sphere of influence would not be nearly as great as it is.

~Allison Taylor

*Schismism was a facetious term coined a decade ago by someone I knew, who, incidentally, is no longer an Objectivist. He was using it to describe the fall out between ARI, Reisman and Packer.

Post 149

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 10:51pm

I apologize--corrections to my previous post...I meant "quagmires" plural, not possessive. And, I listed Sen. Edwards, but meant Sen. John Kerry, not his former running mate...Thanks.

Post 150

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 11:13pm

Allison,

Wonderful post (148).

The best way to counter the undue bias and knuckleheaded premises presented in Valliant's book is for more and more voices of respectable people to state their honest appraisal - no holds barred either way - and see whether or not this book needs to be laughed off the market. (My God, how it hurts to say that about a book that presents unpublished material of my beloved Ayn Rand!)

I believe in the decency of most people. The Randroids and Branden-haters are actually few, some are just prolific writers. More evaluations like yours by decent people will pull the teeth of their malicious spite.

Michael

Post 151

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 11:20pm

James Valliant is interviewed by Prodos. I found this site through the Free Radical web site. Prodos had interviewed Lindsay Perigo a couple of years ago.

http://www.prodos.com/archive073jamesvalliant01.html

Post 152

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 3:52am

Wendy McElroy provides a mixed review of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, a review more favorable than most.

Post 153

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 7:59am

Ahhh PRODOS

the I'm sorry I it ever sounded like I disrespected the ARI during my Perigo interview I would never never never do that please don't excommunicate me I'm so sorry radio guy

Haha

Ethan

Post 154

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 10:47am

Here is a quote from the Wendy McElroy review, which is not completely favorable (albeit more pro than con):

Valliant's book is not a scholarly work that aims to provide a balanced view; nor does it pretend to be. Valliant's book is not written in a "popular" manner that seeks to entertain; nor does it pretend to be. The Passion is best viewed as a legal brief, with all the strengths and weaknesses inherent in that sort of document.

This is said about the first presentation of a collection of Ayn Rand's unpublished written work as if "a scholarly work" and "balanced view" are of no importance in that context.
She gave lip service to objectivity in the following quote:

My point is not that Rand's personal life or character should be whitewashed for the greater good; truth is the greatest good.

But then she went on to say why Valliant's whitewashing is beneficial in her view at this point in time, even saying that she wanted it.

At least she did mention that Valliant presented Ayn Rand's work with a singular and total bias against the Brandens, giving no benefit of the doubt to the Brandens and constantly ascribing ill motives to their actions, even the most minute (which weakens his argument, as she correctly mentions). And she drew attention to Valliant's boneheaded (my term) attempt to psychoanalyze the Brandens, calling it a "major flaw."

She also defends (properly in my view) that Rand's private papers were bequeathed to an heir knowing that they probably would be published - thus they should be. She just doesn't seem to mind the lopsided way they were.

Well I do. "Truth is the greatest good."

Michael

Post 155

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 6:42am

While I would not be surprised to hear that most Solo contributors only read what other Solo contributors write, I would like to know where any other "negative" reviews are--other than here at Solo and David Brown's review. The reality is that the reviews have been mostly positive, such as the quite independent (and unsolicited) review in Kirkus...

Post 156

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 12:14pm

Post #155:

While I would not be surprised to hear that most Solo contributors only read what other Solo contributors write ...

Why should anyone answer a question that starts out with an insult like this?

Post 157

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 12:26pm

Magenta!

Good to see you buzzing around here.

About your question as to where other negative reviews of Valliant's opus is, I'm working on it. But I'm having one hell of a time trying to find any review at all, except on websites (and then, not even mainstream ones at that - well, there was Prodos - if you want to call that mainstream - and the McElroy review on LewRockwell.com) and low-traffic discussions forums. Actually, to be truthful, there is quite a favorable review on The Autonomist site.

But I'm working on it. Could you provide a reference for the Kirkus review? I couldn't find it anywhere, but you know how the Internet is.

You know, Ayn Rand was a best selling authoress, even with her nonfiction, and even with her posthumous works.

So with newly disclosed unpublished material, I would presume that sales would be quite good - I know I have my copy.

So, after the initial earth-shattering splash, is Valliant's treatment of her unpublished material going through the charts?

Michael
Solo B&W Bug Spray Custodian

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/22, 12:27pm)

Post 158

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 8:57pm

   First, an explanatory personal prelude: I heard of AR in '63/'64 from apparent admirers (in the military, then, no less). I 'discovered' her in '68/'69 (writings-wise). Upon getting all back periodicals (originals) of Objectivist Newsletter, Objectivist, Ayn Rand Letter (still got 'em all) in '70-'73, I discovered that there was a 'break' (re her "To Whom It May Concern.") --- 2 yrs later, in an English college class I hear the aside-rumor from the teacher about an 'affair' between AR and NB and found it difficult to believe...or even consider as likely (though not impossible to accept; I had a couple of attractive, in more ways than one, teachers; though not that one.) --- I continued 'studying' Rand's writings, esp. the non-fiction. Later, I managed to catch a couple of her last actual lectures in the FHF, plus one by Piekoff. I later acquired the 1st 'vinyl' lecture-series by NB and BB (unfortunately, both gone now, though I think they did a GREAT job in their series) but, I've still most of the early taped lectures by AR and LP that include their Q&A sessions. I've read Nathaniel Branden's The Psychology of Self Esteem as well as most of his others, all VERY worthwhile. (I'm also aware of how short a shrift he's been given re the self-esteem concept's popularity in our culture.) I've read Kelley's Evidence of the Senses, and Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (and am presently working on his Total Freedom.)

   I was at the AR lecture at FHF where a questioner asked her about homosexuality (the whole subject totally new to me at the time.)

   I'd say that I'm FAIRLY really familiar (metaphysics through aesthetics, including arguments of connections) with all of Rand's writings and views (though I've memorized nothing beyond Galt's Oath) as well as Objectivism per se, though I'd not call myself an 'expert' on such. I'm fairly well familiar with most...obvious...detractors, from Ellis on.

   I've read BB's semi-biography and NB's memoirs/semi-biography when each came out and, at the times of reading each, could only cock-an-eyebrow and think "Fascinating."

Via Gate's Windows I discovered The InterNET (mIRC) and The WEB, chat-rooms, forums, blogs, and their varied cross-referencing-linkages. I've been following the ongoings of OBJECTIVISM schisms, personal-conflicts, and varied views (rancorous and respectful...mostly the former) on it and them, ever since; hence I'm familiar with Noodle Food, NOT A blog, Autonomist, SOLO, ATLII, and am checking out others. However, I'm neither a 'member' nor supporter of either ARI or TOC; I have differing problems with each. I humbly here say: I've not heard or read, nor in more ways than one, bought Everything.

   NTL..."Fascinating."

    At this point, some may ask, "Well, that's fine, but, doesn't this belong in a 'profile' rather than here?" --- Not for my point re this thread.

    I think I've made it clear that I'm an 'outside party' re all the rancor going on in the now varied 'O-ist' circles. I've made my 'judgements' (both re 'morality' AND 'faulty-thinking'); but I have no need to...evangelize...about any of them. I think that I represent a tip of an iceberg of readership that many consider 'passive' because of other life-committments that preclude time for much 'activism.'

   I say all this because someone (on SOLO I think) pointed to checking out the website PRODOS.COM. I checked it, and there found mucho interviews. Lindsay, yours was (though relatively old, meguesses) great. From all I've read here, it still holds up meaningfully. Then there was the one by Lewis Little (talk about "Fascinating," to the degree I could follow it ["reverse-waves"?] explanatorily trying to revolutionize the way we think of 'wavicles' via a totally different perspective in explaining QM theory.)

   Then, there was Valliant's interview.

   Here, let me say that I've not read the book. Indeed, I've read more about it here and elsewhere, pro and con, than I think there are contents in it. At this point my reading of it may be redundant.

   However, I have nothing here to say about the interview's contents, per se; it merely made me think of this particular thread.--- Valliant quoted Rand left-and-right (and I gather, from here and elsewhere, that his book is filled with such), yet, in this thread, her quotes are hard to find. This thread is ostensibly about the book, yet it seems to have become predominantly about the author, his motivations, his profitability (or hoped for lack thereof), his suability, his evilness, his...u-name-it.

   But there seems to be NOTHING 'analyzed' (or barely commented on) re Ayn Rand's QUOTES....and, they ARE 'part' of the book, no? It's as if what she had to say is (dare I say?)...'blanked out,'...in this thread.

   All I can think is...

   (raised-eyebrow) "Fascinating."

    May the Force Be 'LiveLongAndProsper' for you ALL (if it seems not to be, "Make It So!")

John Dailey --- a 'RANDITE'

P.S: sorry I still (if you read my 'profile') can't get away from all those parentheticals. I'm cursed with them.

(Edited by John Dailey on 7/27, 4:47am)

(Edited by John Dailey on 7/27, 6:16am)

Post 159

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:14am