Albert Ellis - N. Branden debate


Recommended Posts

I'm replying here to Brant because for some reason, he didn't want a reply in his "dup" thread. Whatever.

Anyway, Albert Ellis states , either in the Introduction or in the first chapter, of his book on "Objectivism as a religin" (not the exact title) that he was in favor of the entire debate being available to the public, by tape or in print; but that Branden objected. Ellis decided to "paraphrase" (somewhat inaccurately, according to a later Branden remark) Branden's side of the debate.

The point being, that Ellis's estate should not object to it being available now, since that was his original desire as stated in his book on Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm replying here to Brant because for some reason, he didn't want a reply in his "dup" thread. Whatever.

It's because he created two threads, and the one he wanted to keep has no replies. Carol decided to mess with him, now the whole thing's going to hell.

Hopefully they can agree to split the revenue and release the thing. But here's a problem, Rand stood up and spoke during it, does this mean they need the Estate's permission? Here's an idea, they can overdub Rand's outburst with the same words spoken by an actress! Like the Estate did with the fiction writing course. "At this point an audience member exclaimed: DO I EXIST????..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

Yes, Ellis did say he wanted the entire debate released.

ND,

Since Rand wasn't scheduled as a speaker at the event, I'm not sure her Estate has any claim here. If you shout out of the crowd at a rock concert, which is being recorded, and your individual shout can be heard on the released recording, does that entitle you to make a claim against the record company?

But, hey, the voiceover from an actress is precisely what Leonard Peikoff deserves to get.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

Yes, Ellis did say he wanted the entire debate released.

ND,

Since Rand wasn't scheduled as a speaker at the event, I'm not sure her Estate has any claim here. If you shout out of the crowd at a rock concert, which is being recorded, and your individual shout can be heard on the released recording, does that entitle you to make a claim against the record company?

But, hey, the voiceover from an actress is precisely what Leonard Peikoff deserves to get.

Robert Campbell

Can you reference Ellis for me? That quip about LP is two ways funny! Haw, haw!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm replying here to Brant because for some reason, he didn't want a reply in his "dup" thread. Whatever.

It's because he created two threads, and the one he wanted to keep has no replies. Carol decided to mess with him, now the whole thing's going to hell.

Don't mind me, Your Worships, I'll just retrieve me auld handbasket and be out of yer way in no time,

Humbly,

Carol

PS that debate sounds like a fun brawl. Were any OLers actually present at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I'll have to dig out Ellis's book—might take a day or two. But in his introduction he expressed considerable displeasure about the recording not being made publicly available.

Robert Campbell

I've got the book, too--in storage. Don't worry about digging it out. Thanks.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I'll have to dig out Ellis's book—might take a day or two. But in his introduction he expressed considerable displeasure about the recording not being made publicly available.

Robert Campbell

I've got the book, too--in storage. Don't worry about digging it out. Thanks.

--Brant

It's available to download as a pdf for free, somewhere. I've got it. Here's the relevant bit, from page 422 of 496 in the pdf file:

I would be delighted to offer evidence on this point by making

the tape recording of the debate available to the public.

Unfortunately, Branden includes in his post debate

letter to me this

statement: “As you know, our written agreement states that neither of

us can release tape recordings of the debate for general distribution

without the consent of the other. For the reasons given above, I

cannot give my consent. I cannot give your performance the sanction

that such consent would imply.

“I will be glad to provide you with a copy of the recording for

your own personal use, as agreed on, if you will assure me that the

tape will not be played for anyone else, neither for your patients nor

students nor colleagues. If you decline to give me such a letter, I will

provide you with a tape recording of your part of the debate, but not

mine.”

I had no choice, since I wanted a recording of the complete

debate in order to prepare this chapter, but to agree to Branden’s

terms. So only I (and not even a transcribing secretary) have listened

to the recording. After listening to it, I find that I would be delighted

to release it for public hearings; but I shall of course stick to my

agreement and not do so. As for Branden’s “reasons” for not

releasing it, I would suspectthough

I am naturally not certainthat

he was so ashamed of some of the puerile, intolerant interruptions by

many of his supporters that he decided it would be poor public

relations for the cause of objectivism to release this recording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Brant. I have the book.

The debate was on 26 May 1967 in the ballroom of the New Yorker Hotel. Dr. Ellis records that about eleven hundred people were present. The two had agreed “that neither I nor Nathaniel Branden could release tape rcordings of the debate for general distribution without the consent of the other” (1968, 284). Ellis details the particulars Branden wrote to him in a follow-up letter as to why Branden would not consent to release of the tapes.

Ellis reports in the final chapter of Is Objectivism a Religion? (1968) some of the exchanges between him and Branden at the debate as well as some of the audience reactions, which Ellis used to cap his book-length analysis and evidence that Objectivism is a religion. (Ellis did not capitalize that name in the book, but I always do when I mean the proper noun.) Naturally and by his own account, he was able to make his case more fully in the book than in the debate.

I had the same memory expressed by Prof. Campbell, and I see now Ellis’ remark is on page 298.

The moderator of the debate, Lee M. Shulman, introduced Mr. Branden and me by stating: “I trust that during this discussion you will show the same respect to the speaker with whom you disagree as you will show toward the speaker with whom you agree.” Although I am reasonably sure that any objective observer hearing the debate would agree that my associates, friends, and followers who were in the audience strictly adhered to the moderator’s request, such an observer will almost certainly agree that a large percentage of Mr. Branden’s cohorts reacted in the opposite way.

I would be delighted to offer evidence on this point by making the tape recording of the debate available to the public. Unfortunately, Mr. Branden includes in his post-debate letter to me this statement: “As you know, our written agreement states that neither of us can release tape recordings of the debate for general distribution without the consent of the other. For the reasons given above, I cannot give my consent. I cannot give your performance the sanction that such consent would imply.

“I will be glad to provide you with a copy of the recording for your own personal use, as agreed on, if you will assure me that the tape will not be played for anyone else, neither for your patients nor students nor colleagues. If you decline to give me such a letter, I will provide you with a tape recording of your part of the debate, but not mine.”

I had no choice, since I wanted a recording of the complete debate in order to prepare this chapter, but to agree to Mr. Branden’s terms. So only I (and not even a transcribing secretary) have listened to the recording. After listening to it, I find that I would be delighted to release it for public hearings; but I shall of course stick to my agreement and not do so. (297­-98)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always felt that this was a seed that grew and came back to bite NB on the butt real hard.

Within the Randian subculture--at the time and up to it--this is the first time I have heard of anyone coming up with the idea of airbrushing a participant in an event out of an audio recording.

Later people put a spin on it, but look what they did. They airbrushed the Brandens out of recordings of events they participated in that have been sold by ARI. And the good folks over there have not limited themselves to recordings.

This was a terrible idea when NB suggested it way back when, it was a terrible idea when the ARI editors did it, and it is still a terrible idea.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate between Ellis and NB was before NB's break with Rand; but in his "Benefits and Hazards" article several years later (1984), NB himself used the term "dogmatic religion":

http://mol.redbarn.o...AndHazards.html

Encouraging dogmatism

Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing." Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don't try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand's philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.

The true believers might respond by saying, "How can you call it dogmatic religion when we can prove every one of Ayn Rand's propositions?!" My answer to that is, "The hell you can!" Prior to our break, Ayn Rand credited me with understanding her philosophy better than any other person alive -- and not merely better, but far better. I know what we were in a position to prove, I know where the gaps are. And so can anyone else -- by careful, critical reading. It's not all that difficult or complicated.

So maybe today, looking back, NB would agree more with Ellis on this issue as he did back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

Thank you for the link. I have a Xerox copy of Ellis's first edition and a copy of his 2006 2nd edition (which is largely unchanged from the first, despite a longer title).

Xray,

I would imagine Nathaniel Branden does think rather differently about Ellis's take on Objectivism nowadays. But the one time I brought up the Ellis book, in an email exchange more than 10 years ago, he still thought Ellis had gotten clobbered in the debate—and deserved to be.

The portions of Ellis's book that criticize the cultish features of Rand-land, NBI edition, make up 1/4 of the total pages. Ellis's ventures into philosophy are often embarrassing, his ventures into political economy even more so.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always felt that this was a seed that grew and came back to bite NB on the butt real hard.

Within the Randian subculture--at the time and up to it--this is the first time I have heard of anyone coming up with the idea of airbrushing a participant in an event out of an audio recording.

Michael,

In this case, it was prohibiting the circulation of a recording so outbursts by Ayn Rand (and possibly by others) wouldn't be heard.

But it was the seed that grew into the weed.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, somewhere or other, there's a talk by Harry Binswanger where he talks about the debate, having been there. I mainly remember him using the opportunity to take shots at Branden. It was something freely available to stream over the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now