Ayn Rand Smeared Again

Andy,

I agree with you about the relative merits of studying Ayn Rand's life versus her ideas -- but I also believe that Rand's life is worthy of interest and study as a subject unto itself.

Post 361

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 11:32am

Andy and Tom,

I disagree somewhat. If you care about the spread of Objectivism and would like to see it have a greater influence on the culture at large, then it's understandable to at least be concerned about the habits and behaviors of those who publicly claim to be practitioners of the philosophy. If the goal is to win people over to Ayn Rand's ideas, then it's reasonable to be conscious of the Objectivism's "brand" in the marketplace of ideas.

Branding is far more than ads and logos. It represents the overall perception of a product or organization amongst actors in the marketplace, and this perception is formed with repeated encounters with the brand in any context whatsoever ("touch points" as they're often referred to). Every time a non-Objectivist encounters Ayn Rand or her ideas, this is a "touch point" for the brand of Objectivism. Let's say a person new to Ayn Rand and her ideas reads a few of her works and develops some interest in exploring the philosophy. He/she decides to go to a campus Objectivist club meeting, and upon doing so runs into a group of repressed Randroids. What type of impression do you think that will make on the newbie in terms of his perception of Objectivists and of organized Objectivism in general? This is why I agree with Linz that Randroids are an embarassment to Objectivism.

Like it or not, Objectivism has a brand. It's not a brand that can be centrally controlled from on high such as Pepsi or Huggies (although groups like SOLO, TOC and ARI have control over their specific "sub-brand"), but those of us out "selling" the idea need to be mindful of the ways in which people form their opinions on the subject.

Post 362

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 11:35am

Casey, much to my surprise, wrote:

"Taken together [the Brandens] paint a picture of a woman that is designed to justify the Brandens' elaborate deception of Rand over years..."

I do not recall reading in N. Branden's book that he justified his behavior toward Rand. Can you cite the passages, in either B. Branden's or N. Branden's books, where they said their deception was "justified?" I do recall they ~explained~ why they kept the secret, but in the end, I seem to recall Branden writing that what he did was wrong and in interview he said he had regrets. Anyway, some textual evidence would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Walter

Post 363

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 11:49am

James,

Once again I think we're on the same page, because nothing I said should be interpreted to disparage your book. My peculiar lack of enthusiasm for biography means only that - my lack of enthusiasm. ;-)

Andy

Post 364

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 12:01pm

Pete,

I think you're correct as a practical matter. Objectivism may look suspect to newcomers and outsiders if its author acquires a less than desirable reputation, justified or not. Selling Objectivism would be harder, as you say ...

If the goal is to win people over to Ayn Rand's ideas, then it's reasonable to be conscious of the Objectivism's "brand" in the marketplace of ideas.

But that's a big "if", Pete. None of us needs an Objectivist society or culture to practice the principles of Objectivism in our own lives. Rationally we do not need the example of Ayn Rand to know the truth of her philosophy and then apply it. My hunch is that more people will be "sold" on Objectivism by witnessing the example of Objectivist friends, neighbors, and co-workers than any example Miss Rand may have set with her life.

Andy

Post 365

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 12:07pm

As for brining in my personal experience: knowledge is always grounded that way, and I won't pretend otherwise. That said, if I smoked I'd be happy to smoke a peace pipe with you. Really.

Agreed. You got any good shit? :)

Post 366

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 12:21pm

James V wrote:

I do think that conservative critics would have made use of even a noble affair -- but, as I say, I think that would be a great launching-off point for a discussion of Christianity's anti-life views on sex.

Did you mean, say, folks like Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians, or all of them? Certainly not the latter, I would hope.

I know a great many people who base their spirituality on the teachings of Christ who would, I guess you'd say have a very pro-life view on sex. They think of it as a natural joy. And not just for baby-makin', that's for sure.

Post 367

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 1:03pm

Mr. Foddis,

I had just listed a great number of the kind of claims the Brandens made against Rand before that sentence. So the "they" refers to to the claims, not the Brandens. "Taken together, [these false claims] paint a picture..." is the accurate quotation there.

Of course, the Brandens paint this picture of Rand with a laundry list of various baseless claims, they never actually come out and say "we were justified in acting the way we did because Rand was a powderkeg of irrational neuroses..." They claim to be wrong, but go on to paint a picture of the person they "wronged" that is all about justifying their own behavior.

Casey

Post 368

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 2:25pm

Mr. Foddis,

Alas, our sources do not come out and forthrightly identify their own biases, motives, perspectives... or hidden agendas. That's up to us to figure out.

Mr. Engle,

Many Christians do have more liberal views, indeed. Now, who is right about the message of the New Testament in regard to sex? Christ spoke of "eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake." St. Paul urges us -- at least those who are able -- to adopt a celibate lifestyle, like he did, and, in any event, teaches that sex should be confined to marriage. St. Paul also appears to have endorsed the Mosaic Law's view on fornication and homosexuality. This is consistent with the "don't store your treasures in perishable, earthly things" message of Christ and the overall message of anti-materialistic dualism found throughout the New Testament.

Or, don't you think so?

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/19, 2:32pm)

Post 369

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 8:55am

Tom: Re: your claim that Randroids are an embarrassment to Objectivism, I disagree. They are an embarrassment to themselves.

Dear Tom, there is an Italian proverb that goes like this: It doesn't matter how hard you shake the sack, if you have only one nut in it, you won't hear any noise.
You need members with the same political ideas in order to create a political movement.
You need individual with different individual ideas if you want to accomplish nothing.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/19, 4:53pm)

Post 370

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 3:38pm

Mr. Valliant, please allow me to ask you if you could ever change your mind about the Brandens. You did it once, could it happen again? if not why?

Thank you.

Ciro

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/19, 8:33pm)

Post 371

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 5:18pm

I wrote a book because I had reached the point of certainty.

Post 372

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 8:26am

James V. : Many Christians do have more liberal views, indeed. Now, who is right about the message of the New Testament in regard to sex? Christ spoke of "eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake." St. Paul urges us -- at least those who are able -- to adopt a celibate lifestyle, like he did, and, in any event, teaches that sex should be confined to marriage. St. Paul also appears to have endorsed the Mosaic Law's view on fornication and homosexuality. This is consistent with the "don't store your treasures in perishable, earthly things" message of Christ and the overall message of anti-materialistic dualism found throughout the New Testament.

Thanks... I was just wondering if you were making a blanket statement about Christianity (which I doubted you were), and you clarified for me.

I do not think it is a matter of "who is right" when looking at the Bible. As much as the fundamentalists would like to portray the Bible as a literal rule book/manual, anyone who knows what the Bible actually is (or, should I say knows what it is and will talk honestly and intelligently about it) knows otherwise.It is amazing to me how many artful, time-consuming gesticulations Fundamentalists go through to try and rectify all the conflicts in the Bible. It would be better, much better, if they just admitted they were a bunch of homophobic, authoritarian, hateful, narrow people- but that doesn't fill the coffers. It is, among other things, a wide,loose, incomplete collection of heavily translated (and not necessarily properly or objectively translated) writings over a wide historical span. It is also stories, many of which were derived from older stories before them from other places. Some of these stories I would not be wanting to use as parables to teach my kids- they are filled with greed, vengeance, and many other choice moral deformities. That is the only objective way to look at the Bible, and it doesn't mean that beauty cannot still be found within it. Studying the Gnostic texts is helpful in one respect- it becomes more clear that much (maybe most) of what Christ was teaching was about transformation- inward looking, and it is much like the teaching found in other religions. And, a lot of it was just good old secular humanism, which was at his time a rather foreign notion.

Personally, I do not see anti-materialistic dualism in Christ's teaching, but it could surely be taken and used as such.

It would be easy pickings to take a uniform approach to critiquing the Bible in that manner, particularly for an Objectivist. But, would that not then mean that such a person was taking the same approach to the Bible as a run-of-the-mill fundamentalist, only for a different purpose? Literalism just doesn't make any sense for this kind of job, regardless of which side of the fence we sit.

There are many metaphors in the Bible. On the whole, where I find the trouble begins is when people (and you know which ones in particular come to mind) become so tightly wrapped in the metaphor that they lose the music it is trying to make.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/20, 8:29am)

Post 373

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 10:00am

Pete,

I'm not completely clear what constitutes Randroidism, but maybe it was me when I was in High School and had just read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. It was 1958 and I had a chip on my shoulder, of the "nobody understands me and the world is f..n' messed up and I'm going to change it" variety. Even worse, I thought being like Howard Roark meant you had to wear a shirt with a button missing and sandals.

If I represented Objectivism to anyone, heaven help us. And maybe that's your point.

But what I did right, even then, was to say that if anyone wanted to know about Objectivism, they should read Ayn Rand from beginning to end. In those days, I also included N. and B. Branden. Now I exclude their current work from Objectivism, but include them in the world of ideas, if someone asks (If you find something valuable there, that's up to you. As for me, I don't and I do not consider them friends of Objectivism, much less knowledgeable friends.Past performance does not, as Rand said, guarantee future performance.) On my own judgment, I now include ARI and exclude TOC. I do so because the first of these organizations (ARI) takes the same position that Ayn Rand took -- Objectivism is contained in the works she wrote and endorsed while she was alive. TOC openly flaunts the opposite view -- that Objectivism is virtually anything that anyone wants to say it is as long as one "agrees with the basic principles." So, for TOC, Objectivism, per se, becomes compartmentalized into those things one agrees with and those one doesn't, WHILE STILL CLAIMING THAT IT'S OBJECTIVISM.

The issue, I hope it's clear, is not agreement or disagreement. It is context. When an organization claims to represent Objectivism it is important on just the grounds you identify, Pete, that they identify Ayn Rand's works and those she endorsed with Objectivism, and nothing else. What they write on their own is then a source of pride or shame, but is not a threat to Objectivism.

This ARI does, and TOC does not. The claim that ones disagreement is done "in the spirit of Objectivism" is not grounds for it's being Objectivism. Objectivism is a specific philosophy with specific conclusions in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics. It is not "a spirit of inquiry" or a "sense of life."

A philosophical movement is not a "scientific study group" or a forum for debate. It cannot have as it's core focus the "selling" of ideas but the presentation of ideas. It is not out to "win friends and influence people" using a glad hand and a ready smile; rather it is out to persuade and convince, based on the power and truth of its position. It is a partisan undertaking. It is polemical. It claims to know the truth, not be exploring to find it.

Does that mean that we shouldn't explore to find the truth? Of course not. It is only to point out the difference. ("The Ayn Rand Society" of the Eastern Division of the APA and "The Ford Hall Forum" are good examples of non-partisan organizations for debate.)

As an Objectivist one makes it clear what one stands for by differentiating oneself from Ayn Rand, i.e. by standing for Objectivism as she defined it. In that context, anything one does reflects only on oneself.

Wouldn't it be nice if Christians were just as careful? "I advocate Christianity, but I am neither a spokesman for nor an authority on Christianity. I speak and act only for myself. If you are interested in learning more about the teachings of Christ, I point you to His words in the Gospels, and to the work of the experts at your local church."

Tom

edited to add content

(Edited by Tom Rowland on 9/20, 10:15am)

Post 374

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 3:30pm

Tom,

I could nitpick some details of your post, such as whether Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" really avoids being confused with Objectivism. But I found one part of what you said particularly interesting.

"Objectivism, per se, becomes compartmentalized into those things one agrees with and those one doesn't". I take this to mean that they don't consider Objectivism to be a single unified and integrated entity, and instead grab elements piecemeal from Rand's writings and other ideas they like and call it Objectivism. Thus, the ideas are cut off from one another (compartmentalized).

Interestingly enough, I've used this same argument against people who claim Objectivism is whatever Rand wrote. For them, it's a hodgepodge of statements that they accept (with reason or not), and they say the sum of all of these distinct ideas is Objectivism, as if it were a list of ideas. The ideas are equally compartmentalized.

As opposed to this "list" model of Objectivism, there's an integrated system of thought model. In that model, Objectivism is not merely the sum of Rand's words, but in fact a system of thought that her words are attempting to describe. This would imply there's more to Objectivism then just what Rand wrote. In support of this, Rand once talked about how in the future there might be Objectivist theoreticians, developing and expanding the philosophy.

I'm not sure what position you take, but the debate is not as simple as "Whatever Rand wrote" vs. "Anything goes".

Post 375

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 3:49pm

I'm approaching p 300 of PARC, meaning about 100 pages to go. I was hoping to complete it today & post comments shortly theerafter, but I'm heading out for a few days. I imagine I'll complete it while away & have something ready to post this Sunday, probably as an article. It will not be Sciabbarrian in length & will not bog down in endless "he said/she said." There are some very clear general observations I'm ready to make right now, but journalistic thoroughness requires me to finish the book just in case the remaining pages throw up something that might cause me to modify these observations.

Linz

Post 376

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 4:13pm

Both Objectivism and Christianity can be defined and each possesses a specific identity.

On the one hand, Objectivism is not everything Rand ever said. At the very least, we must be dealing with a philosophical idea or principle integrated into the larger system of thought that Rand constructed in order to qualify. On the other hand, Objectivism is more than anyone's mere list -- even Rand's -- of certain important ideas. It is, above all, an integrated system of thought. I would say that OPAR captures its essence. It's an easier single source than the scattered essays and speeches from novels that would otherwise be necessary to locate all of its fundamentals.

In this same sense, one must look to the New Testament, at least the assertions of Christ and Paul, to find the essence of Christianity. These too say something most emphatically and consistently, whether any contemporary Christian sees this or not. Through the ages, different Christian scholars have developed various interpretations of this material, often taking advantage of the actual ambiguities that exist in that material. But, once the Christian has stepped away from some kind of integrated Biblical interpretation, then, in my view, we need to add a modifier -- at the very least. For example, "Jane is a 'Christian' who also, however, thinks that we don't need to 'love' all of our 'enemies,' or to always 'render that which is Caesar's to Caesar.'"

Mr. Engle, whether it's the text of the United States' Constitution, the Sermon on the Mount, or Galt's Speech, words have specific meanings. This may become inconvenient for various reasons, but it is dishonesty to play games with their meaning.

Post 377

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:26pm

Casey,

A comment you made in your post #343 leads me to wonder about something:

the whole point of this thread is that the baseless smears against Ayn Rand promulgated by the Brandens have given her critics the dynamite to derail any attention to her ideas.

In your view, is there such a thing as legitimate, responsible criticism of any of Ayn Rand's ideas--or of her system of thought as a whole?

Robert Campbell

Post 378

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:35pm

James & Casey,

In short, it seems you are both saying that one can infer this "justification" motive on the parts of the Brandens. In my reading of their books, I inferred no such justification motive.

As to whether all the claims they cite about Rand are "baseless," I suppose requires, in part, that I actually read James' book.. Perhaps some day I'll be interested enough (and have time enough) to read it. (Actually, I'm more interested in hearing all the interviews from The Objectivism History project. The ones I have seen have been quite fascinating. Plus, it doesn't require I do a whole lot of reading. :-)

Nonetheless, it seems to me that at least some of the Brandens' claims have a basis. As I mentioned before, reading Rand's ~own~ material gives evidence she had narcissistic features. Some characteristics of narcissists include the inability to take criticism well (e.g., by being defensive or hostile) and being dominant or controlling in interpersonal situations. So accounts of Rand that reflect narcissism are believable because they are consistent with what one would expect from someone who is narcissistic. Plus, there is evidence of Rand's narcissistic features outside of the Brandens' accounts; the incident with John Hospers, for instance (as told in the Objectivism History Project).

The way I see it, Rand was a multi-faceted person. Like everyone else in this world, she wasn't perfect. From my perspective, the Brandens painted a picture of a person whose personality was "prickly" (i.e., narcissistic). I personally know people who are like that. I work around it. They are good people, but just difficult to deal with sometimes. I suspect Rand was like that.

-Walter

Post 379

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 6:04pm