About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 19Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 380

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 6:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Walter,

Yes, the Brandens depended on cliches that most would find, a priori, "believable." That does not constitute evidence, and you really should read the book if you are interested in this rather than rely on evidence such as your general knowledge of brilliant people, which is irrelevant to the person of Ayn Rand. It is the reliance on such stereotypes (such as that all affairs are wrong and Frank must have been a victim, "nobody's perfect," etc.) that has allowed the Brandens to get away with this stuff without any critical analysis for far too long. Thus, anyone who questions whether any of the Brandens' claims have merit is immediately countered with "so you're saying she was perfect?" Such reliance on such cliches, however, should be a red flag that there is, in fact, no basis for their claims to begin with. (e.g. Ayn Rand did not have to be perfect for every one of the Brandens' claims to be false.) As to the specific analysis of each of the Brandens' claims, I refer you to PARC.

Robert,

Yes -- valid criticism of Rand's ideas is one thing, ad hominem is quite another. You're not claiming that ad hominem is a valid form of criticism, are you?


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 381

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 6:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Foddis,

I do urge you to read the book if you rely on the Brandens for your view of Rand. I hope my book demonstrates that I believe that we must account for all of our sources. And very few, if any, are as suspect as the Brandens.

Mr. Campbell,

Oh, yes, certainly. In Rand criticism there are two things that chap ma hide: attacking the straw-man of a warped reconstruction of Rand's ideas (who could not have been more lucid, in fact); and, substituting reasoned argument against her ideas with an attack on Rand's personal life. These two things are much easier to find, however, than "valid" criticisms.

But we can only gain from a vigorous exchange of ideas with sincere opponents.

Post 382

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 8:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James-
Andy beat me to quoting that passage from your post, so I'll just second his 'amen to that' and say that I sanctioned for that passage.


Post 383

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 8:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
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.
...So much for imagery, and spaces between notes, too.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 384

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joseph,

I don't think I said a list. But never mind. I don't think I said "whatever she wrote." But never mind.

So, I agree that the issue is not as simple as "whatever she wrote" vs. "anything goes."

Why? Because "whatever she wrote" includes a great  deal that she was very clear were either matters of taste (and "sense of life") or about which she was not yet certain (musical esthetics, e.g.). There are also many issues about which she might have changed her mind without changing her philosophy. About these we can only speculate. See James' post #376 for a different formulation of this point.

Of course, she never wrote a systematic treatise. And this does lead to the possibility that you describe. But if one is clear about what constitutes a relevant philosophical idea and what constitutes an integrated system, it doesn't take a systematic treatise, it takes a systematic mind -- a certain method of mental functioning -- to understand the philosophy contained in what she wrote and endorsed.  (BTW, that method is made wonderfully visible in POARC).

A systematic treatise can be found in OPAR. But even here, Peikoff is acutely aware that he is writing something which she did not endorse.

I repeat what Rand herself said, which Peikoff repeats in OPAR. "Objectivism" is the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy as presented in the material she herself wrote or endorsed.

Not "whatever she wrote" or a "list," but the integrated system of philosophical ideas contained in the material she herself wrote or endorsed.

Tom

P.S. It is only on the basis of such an understanding of what Objectivism is that one can look for "Objectivist theoreticians, developing and expanding the philosophy."  The hallmark of such a group will be their acceptance of Rand's writing and endorsement as the source, and their own work as grounded on their acceptance of the truth of that philosophical source. Their purpose will not be correction but integration and clarification. ARI is, in my judgment, that group.


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 385

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

I just want to sanction, in the context of my posts on this thread, the idea that we can only gain from a vigorous exchange of ideas with sincere opponents. I have in mind the vigorous debates with socialists that Binswanger and Ridpath have engaged in over the years. Clarification of that which is not self-evident is always the desired  result of such debates.

I can only add this thought. Opponents must be willing to openly acknowledge that they are opponents.

Tom


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 386

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 12:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Casey,

 

My point in asking was that on this thread, you have written as though all criticism of Rand is ad hominem.

 

Yes -- valid criticism of Rand's ideas is one thing, ad hominem is quite another. You're not claiming that ad hominem is a valid form of criticism, are you?

 

And your response is not a confidence builder.  It seems to be saying that anyone who asks the question must believe that criticisms of Rand herself constitute refutations of (some of) her ideas.

 

To take it a little further, what’s the implication of the choice of title: The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

 

From my reading of the book, I take the title to mean that what Nathaniel Branden said in his memoir and what Barbara Branden said in her biography are pretty much the only thing that critics of Rand rely on—at least, the critics who are around today (though PARC doesn’t even make that qualification).  Therefore, since NB and BB have been wrong about everything that pertains to Ayn Rand, all critics of Ayn Rand’s ideas up to the publication of the book must be wrong, and time need not be wasted on further inquiry.

 

James,

 

I appreciate your more measured response:

 

In Rand criticism there are two things that chap ma hide: attacking the straw-man of a warped reconstruction of Rand's ideas (who could not have been more lucid, in fact); and, substituting reasoned argument against her ideas with an attack on Rand's personal life. These two things are much easier to find, however, than "valid" criticisms.

But we can only gain from a vigorous exchange of ideas with sincere opponents.

 

Having dealt with warped, unscholarly reconstructions of Rand’s ideas (and warped, unscholarly reconstructions of other people’s ideas—Rand isn’t the only significant thinker to get that kind of treatment), I agree that there are way too many of these.

 

However, Rand’s mastery of style and her crispness of language don’t always suffice to make her arguments explicit.  Think, for instance, about the handful of statements she makes about the connection between rational egoism and respect for individual rights.

 

Or the cases in which some of the things she says support one interpretation (that the different virtues are means to the overall goal of survival) and others (such as her talk of “man’s life qua man”) suggest that rationality, et al., are constituents of the good life for human beings.

 

Or her notion of implicit knowledge, which she considered to be important but never got adequately clear about.

 

I also appreciate your ratification of vigorous exchanges of ideas with sincere opponents.

 

But there are plenty, in the Randian world, who most definitely do not relish vigorous exchanges of ideas with sincere opponents.  In particular, people who are affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute do not.  At least they are not supposed to, and they run the risk of excommunication for appearing in the wrong forum, or referring to the wrong book or article in print.

 

You’ve explained on this thread that you are not affiliated with ARI.  Yet there would have been no Part II of your book had Leonard Peikoff not given his personal blessing to your project.  The ARI bookstore that is currently selling your book refuses to sell The Evidence of the Senses by David Kelley (even though no one at ARI has refuted Kelley’s arguments about perception; no one has bothered to demonstrate the mildest deviation therein, from Objectivism as interpreted by Peikoff).  Indeed, no one affiliated with ARI can afford to make a favorable public reference to Kelley’s book.

 

ARI has shown considerable interest in your work, and gone to some trouble to promote it.  Since you are not affiliated with ARI, and are in a position to take an outsider’s perspective on it, I assume you won’t mind commenting on the organization’s way of handling both favorable interpretations of Rand’s ideas that have not been given the Peikovian seal of approval, and sincere criticisms of Rand’s ideas by those who have put in the necessary scholarly effort.

 

Perhaps, too, you may have some thoughts on something that the principals of ARI appear to have in common with irresponsible critics of Rand: an apparent failure to distinguish, in many cases, between judgments about the behavior of individuals and appreciation or criticism of their ideas.

 

Robert Campbell

(Edited by Robert Campbell on 9/21, 1:03pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 387

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 3:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Campbell,

You write: "From my reading of the book, I take the title to mean that what Nathaniel Branden said in his memoir and what Barbara Branden said in her biography are pretty much the only thing that critics of Rand rely on—at least, the critics who are around today (though PARC doesn’t even make that qualification)."

Have you read the book? This assertion suggests to me that you have not. PARC explicitly makes "that qualification" and in more than one place (like pages 1 and 2.)

And, of course other writers have been criticized unfairly, but Ayn Rand has been grossly mischaracterized like no other 20th Century thinker. Can you suggest another so mistreated by her critics?

Perhaps you should direct your questions about ARI to someone who is in a position to speak for them...

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/21, 3:24pm)


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 388

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 3:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Campbell,

I never said that all criticism of Rand is ad hominem, nor that all of it is invalid, regardless of what it "seems" like I said to you. If you read my words carefully you will find that I never even implied such things, even in the quote you cite as evidence for such.


Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Post 389

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 4:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Rand has never been treated better than today. Her worst treatment was in the sixties. The notion that cheap critics who laugh at her sex life would be forced to deal seriously with her ideas if the Brandens hadn’t provided tease material is just plain silly.

I admire and respect Rand much more after reading both Branden books than before. Those books are turning no one off who would otherwise have been turned on. As Walter pointed out, most of her unflattering personality traits can be gleaned from her own works, anyway. Nothing in those books surprised me after simply reading all her work.

Jim, you and I went back and forth a few years ago about her statement ‘About The Author’ at the back of Atlas Shrugged, “I had a difficult struggle…No one helped me…” Clearly, people did help her. Like her relatives in Chicago, the girl’s studio where she lived with subsidy in Hollywood, etc. So, that’s a bit big-headed of her. I still love her, though. I sense that you would still love her even if it were proved beyond any doubt that she had too big a head at times—so why do you struggle-on disproving such small, utterly unimportant issues? I know that you can define “help” down to something like another person writing sections of AS for her in order to save the perfect truth and accuracy of her statement, but don’t you end up looking like you are in denial? And over such a small thing as her having a big head and stretching something relatively unimportant, is it worth it?

That’s my objection to the whole book. No credibility because the author will contort his and his reader’s head as much as is required to absolve Rand of any human flaws. Not necessary. Not a service to her legacy.

Jon


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 390

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathaniel Branden's mother never liked the way  the relationship was created  between Nathaniel and   Rand.
She felt  that  Nathaniel was living his life for Rand's sake.
She predicted that  her son's future with Rand, was not what  she wished for him . She was right about that. Rand should have known better not to abuse  young people's  lives  as she did with the Brandens.
Ayn Rand in her personal life contradicted two major pillars of her philosophy, which are
Romantic love, and Integrity.
Nathaniel and Barbara beside all the good things they learned from Rand, they paid an high price for it.  I feel for them.
Today Barbara and Nathaniel are famous people because of Rand, but
personally, I think that their life, with out Rand, would have been  much better.

NB. With out Rand, not with out Rand's philosophy.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/21, 8:03pm)

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/21, 8:05pm)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 391

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 6:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

It is curious that you think that I would disagree with the idea that Rand is being treated -- by some --better than before. Or that there are many more defenders of Ayn Rand now than ever. Or, most interestingly, that I would even endorse the "notion that cheap critics who laugh at her sex life would be forced to deal seriously with her ideas if the Brandens hadn't provided" the material to do so.

As should be clear to all readers of my book and this thread, this is another straw-man. I have never suggested this. Indeed, in my book, I wrote about the "veritable Renaissance of scholarly interest" in Rand's work, just to cite one example -- again, from page 1.

Before accusing me of "contortion," I suggest you recapitulate my actual position on Rand's various statements about the significant and well-advertized help she got in the course of her life. Otherwise, I think the accusation of "contortion" may be misplaced.

And, once more, you fail to address my point. My focus is not the credibility of Rand's statements -- which many critics are already eager to assess -- but -- to the seeming distress of so many -- the Brandens'. Is this not also something that must be evaluated?

Please do not impute to me what you think I may have said, what I you suspect I might have said, or what you think an ARI supporter would have said. Please consider what I did say.

Now and then.

And, of course, the Brandens have attacked Rand on grounds other than her "sex life."

You may have improved your opinion of Ayn Rand as a person from the Brandens' books (although I'm not sure who or what had informed your originally dismal view of her biography in the first place, other than her style, which appears to offend you), but this cannot change the distortions and deceptions those books contain.

Ciro,

You asked if I could ever change my mind about the Brandens. May I ask if you would ever consider reading my book or pondering its case?

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/21, 7:12pm)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 392

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 7:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr Valliant , I read your book.
If Nathaniel Branden, as you write in your book, was able to fool a mind like Ayn Rand's
don't you think we are witnessing a mind greater than Rand's.
Best Ciro
ps.
Please understand I have nothing against you!



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 393

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 9:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A mind greater than Rand's? Are you serious? A man she loves and trusts lies to her. How much of a genius does it take to lie to someone who loves you? And she figured it out anyway, even though Barbara Branden was backing up Nathaniel Branden's lies, and so was Patrecia, unless Branden was lying to her about his affair with Rand, too.

Ciro, that you read the book makes this even worse. I guess you better not believe anything a friend, lover or business associate tells you because if they're lying that will prove they are smarter than you are. Eh?


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 394

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 10:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,

I really am curious in that case. Could you indicate precisely how you think Rand "contradicted" "romantic love" and "integrity"?

And, of course, at the risk of repeating myself, I have never held Rand to be without flaw. My question is in good faith.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/21, 10:34pm)


Post 395

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 10:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gentlemen,

I have been busy for a few days. I will be back soon with my disagreements and hopefully the high level of debate will continue.

How's that for a nothing post?  //;-)

Just stopping by to say that I have not forgotten you guys and that my absence does not mean that I have changed my mind from before.

More later.

Michael


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 396

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 9:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You know, it's not just the title! One can learn so much from the whole jacket. There's a nifty description of the book and really cute photo of author!

Ciro,

Distrust is so hard on the soul, don't you think? Rand was so trusting, right? She wanted him to be benevolent very much. But she could not ignore the evidence, could she? With little help from the Brandens, Rand unmasked the lying coward on her own. Sorry, I just can't agree, Ciro.

This unmasking did take some doing. Branden lied to Rand about so very much: his philosophical opinions, his lusts, his simple tastes, well, about everything. In my view his conduct in those bogus "therapy" sessions with Rand is as repulsive as anything else, but we must remember, of all people, he could milk the "sessions" dry.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 397

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 10:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I said I wasn't going to post on this thread anymore, but all that is being essentially discussed is Ayn Rand's factual biography. For this we have three main sources: Barbara and Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand herself. What will really be left after the first two are discarded?

--Brant


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 398

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There are many testimonies, Brant, and there are still a few things to say on the subject of Rand's biography that, maybe, just maybe, the principals were hardly in a position to appreciate.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 399

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

ahem... Speaking of other principals, given the nature of your book, I can see why you did not interview Barbara or Nathaniel in your research for it. That would be a bit sticky.

Did you interview any of the members still living of the Collective?

Michael

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 19Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.