N. BRANDEN'S COMMENTARY ON RAND'S CRITICS


Recommended Posts

Dennis,

People are the prime drivers of their lives, not ideas. People grow up with some ideas and they choose others. They can be greatly influenced by them, but ultimately they choose.

An idea is not a tool for a puppet-master to control humanity. I see many Objectivists treat it like that because broad patterns can be discerned within specific cultures. It's a fascinating study, especially the subliminal stuff, but ultimately people have the power to choose.

An idea is a tool for an individual to use in doing whatever it is he wants to do in his life. And, as a secondary use—a long second at that, a form of deception (the control others thing). Even at her most passionate, this is the main "idea" message I get from Rand.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. Objectivism is not a way to save the world and I can't think of a single Objectivist (including Rand) who fits the role of savior. It is merely a body of ideas. Good ideas, but nothing more.

2. In my life, the world is a beautiful place and is not going to hell in a handbasket. (As a corollary, I believe the world was a beautiful place before Rand was born, and would be a beautiful place if she had never existed.)

3. The fundamentals of Objectivism are absolutely easy to learn, so easy learning them can get boring.

4. People who criticize others should not constantly exibit the same defects they bash.

5. The evil of bullying trumps the evil of altruism. (As a corollary, standing up to a bully is not the equivalent of being a bully or being naughty.)

6. Rand's personal shortcomings have no impact on the acceptance of her ideas—people are going to buy Rand's works and be influenced by her ideas even if she were found to have been an axe-murderer in life.

7. People who play the Love-Rand/Hate-Rand game are profoundly insecure. (See my 2006 essay The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth for a vastly different reality-based view regarding her impact on the world than the Love/Hate players present.)

I basically agree with Michael on these.

If Homo sapiens survived a climate catastrophe caused by a huge volcanic eruption (current research suggests that all 6 billion of us are descended from 2 thousand survivors of such an event, which took place around 65,000 years ago), then our species could have made it through the last century without Ayn Rand. Still, it was good to have her around, wasn't it?

I would qualify #3 with the comment that the Objectivist epistemology is somewhat harder to learn than the rest of the system. But that is partly the fault of the Objectivist epistemology, in its incomplete and Peikovianized state of development.

And I take the point of #6 in less extreme form. I don't think anyone ought to worry about the quality of Ayn Rand's ideas because she was a first-class nag and a tyrant in real life, or because she showed questionable judgment in starting her affair with Nathaniel Branden in 1954 and really poor judgment trying to keep it going after 1958. Had she been an axe-murderer, well... Howlin' Wolf's credibility as a musician doesn't hang on whether he really took off the back of another man's head with a well-aimed agricultural implement (as some believe he did in rural Arkansas, c. 1935). But the Wolf wasn't offering moral philosophy lessons on the bandstand.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It kind of looks like the USMC bulldog.

Or you could just think of me as Winston Churchill. Phil will fight in the fields...he will never surrender

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6. Rand's personal shortcomings have no impact on the acceptance of her ideas—people are going to buy Rand's works and be influenced by her ideas even if she were found to have been an axe-murderer in life.

Well, up to a point. Rand's personal life is not very relevant with regard to her ideas on epistemology for example. But in other areas her behavior does have importance with regard to her theories. She used to point to herself (and to the Brandens), claiming that people she wrote about did exist in reality, implying that her philosophy was realistic and that she was herself a good example of it. Now take for example her infamous affair, that was no doubt inspired by her ideas about love and sex (with the other-worldly notion that sexual attraction is only determined by the choice of your values, so that Branden had to be attracted to her only, even if she was 80 and in a wheelchair!), so the disaster in which that affair ended and her attitude in it are certainly relevant to her theory of love and sex. That her theory failed so dramatically in her own case is a not unimportant fact.

And let's face it, suppose if it would be some other philosopher who didn't practice what he preached, would we then be surprised if people pointed out that fact? Would we say that such people are only "diminishers" of that philosopher? To take another example: Rand wrote an article against the practice of "psychologizing" your opponent. But she was herself an inveterate and often far from subtle psychologizer. Is pointing out such a fact an example of "diminishing" her, as so often is claimed by some worshippers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

I stand by my statement, but I will explain.

The main ideas the that vast majority of people get from Rand's books have nothing to do with that silly moral perfection thing. If it did, then I would say her behavior matters. But most folks don't care one way or the other. Hell, they don't even really care about Rand. They are... er... selfish... in that respect... :)

Normal people want to know what's in it for them. And there is plenty in Rand's books—including some great ideas they can take and use in their own lives. The statements you will most hear from them regarding what they like about Rand are things like the following (please note, I am not talking about the partisans in this silly Love-Hate contest):

1. I learned why I shouldn't feel guilty for my achievements,

2. My life belongs to me and if I do good with it, I deserve the applause and if I do bad with it, it is my responsibility, and it's good to love myself,

3. Capitalism is a good thing even on a moral level, and it has produced an enormous amount of wealth unknown in mankind's past,

4. Big government is bad and parasitical,

5. I am rethinking some of my religious ideas and am getting a new appreciation of rational thinking,

6. Individualism is much more important than I thought,

7. That radio speech was way too long, so I skipped it... :)

The fact is that Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are great stories that convey important ideas. Another fact is that after a certain point, people just don't care if author XXX was an alcoholic or drug addict, YYY cheated on his wife, ZZZ was a thief, AAA killed a person, BBB committed suicide, etc. Hell, plagiarism doesn't even count if an author's work has enough merit input from him (see here for an example).

What most formal Objectivists (and Objectivism haters) don't get is that Rand's influence is and will continue to be strong on the culture, but in terms of the kinds of ideas above. The aspects the subculture partisans constantly bicker over are not on the mainstream radar and never will be.

People don't turn to Ayn Rand to learn their solemn duties as moral puritans. They turn to Rand because she gave great reasons they can tell busybodies and bullies to buzz off and leave them alone so they can live lives like they want to. They don't even look at Rand's heroes as moral molds to clone with their own souls (talk about Comprachico stuff!), but instead as symbols of different kinds of greatness that is open to them to pursue in their own lives if and when they want it.

Those ideas are driving Rand's sales, not some moral straightjacket or attempts to smear/defend Rand. Those individualistic freedom-based ideas are even the reason Barbara's book, The Passion of Ayn Rand, became a best-seller. If she had simply written about Rand's life and left out the ideas, I doubt it would have gone to the top. Those ideas are also driving the sales of Anne Heller's book, Ayn Rand and the World She Made, and Jennifer Burns's book, Goddess of the Market.

(Incidentally, the PARC author's betrayal of those ideas is one of the main reasons his book will remain in a well-deserved limbo of obscurity.)

So long as those ideas provide people with what they want through Rand's topnotch stories, I maintain it doesn't matter if she is later found to have been an axe murderer or ate puppies and kittens for breakfast. In such extreme cases people might cluck-cluck and tut-tut, but they will still buy her books and read them and use those ideas.

Especially now with the government clearly leaning to the left and creating a hell of a mess to clean up.

Those ideas are even the reason the statists constantly misrepresent them and try to smear Rand. But those ideas scare the bejeezus out of them because the smearing and misrepresenting isn't working. Only better ideas will work, but they don't have any.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Stuart Kelly' date='02 November 2009 - 09:43 PM' MSK: Those ideas are driving Rand's sales, not some moral straightjacket or attempts to smear/defend Rand. Those individualistic freedom-based ideas are even the reason Barbara's book, The Passion of Ayn Rand, became a best-seller. If she had simply written about Rand's life and left out the ideas, I doubt it would have gone to the top. Those ideas are also driving the sales of Anne Heller's book, Ayn Rand and the World She Made, and Jennifer Burns's book, Goddess of the Market.

If Barbara had simply written about the ideas and left out Rand's life, the book would not have gone to the top either. Especially since one can't understand most of Rand's ideas if one has not studied her life.

Her obsession with "them" (the "looters", who she believes have in mind the "immolation of men" as "sacrificial animals") can be explained if one knows about her background: being regarded an "unwelcome member" of society in Russia.

Also important to note is that Rand actively tried to transfer the hero worship fantasies of her philosophy (her fiction was merely an illustration of those fantasies) into her personal life. BB's book describes the disaster in which it ended.

It looks like Rand tried to model N. Branden into John Galt.

Dragonfly Now take for example her infamous affair, that was no doubt inspired by her ideas about love and sex (with the other-worldly notion that sexual attraction is only determined by the choice of your values, so that Branden had to be attracted to her only, even if she was 80 and in a wheelchair!), so the disaster in which that affair ended and her attitude in it are certainly relevant to her theory of love and sex. That her theory failed so dramatically in her own case is a not unimportant fact.

Rand, when confronting Barbara and Frank with the facts, claimed that hers and Nathaniel's decision to begin a sexual affair was based on reason (!): (Just like in AS, Rearden "reasonably" gave up Dagny to John Galt ...)

Rand: "Whatever the two of you (Barbara and Frank] may be feeling, I know your intelligence, I know you recognize the rationality of what we feel for each other, and that you hold no value higher than reason ..."

This goes right to the heart of the fallacy: Ayn Rand was a unable to identify her personal preferences as subjective choices - instead she presented them as 'rational' decisions.

While at the beginning, Rand announced that, due to the age difference between her and Nathaniel Branden, "an affair between us can only be temporary" (BB, p. 260), she forgot everything she had stated before when it turned out that NB, as the years went by, did in fact engage in in a sexual relationship with a younger woman.

Going against her own premises, Rand now, nineteen(!) years later, suddenly demanded of NB that he should have valued her "romantically above any woman on earth even if I were eighty years and in a wheel chair! You'd be blind to all other women! But you've never been what I thought you were! It was an act from the beginning, a sick, ugly act" (BB, TPOAR, p. 346)

Rand threatened to destroy Nathaneld B: "I'll tear down your facade as I built it up! I'll denounce you publicly, I'll destroy you as I created you!"

Interesting that Rand says she built up NB's facade.

"You dared to reject me?" - another key sentence.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

You are amazing!

You proved that Ayn Rand was a human woman, who, when spurned and possibly, in her perception, scorned, erupted in fury.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, everyone on the damn planet Earth knows that.

So what is your point, Ms. Ad Hominem-Xray?

Adam

seriously bored with banality

Post script: I just realized that there is a great homily in your brilliant discovery...

Hell hath no fury, like a woman scorned. See Ayn led by example! 77.gif

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I was criticizing those who either love Rand to excess or hate her idem.

I was neither criticizing Rand nor defending her.

The post that followed mine is a perfect example of how those who play the love/hate game try to distort a clear message to get people to play with them.

Michael

Michael:

Exactly. It takes real effort to continue to pin the cancerous semantic that Ms. Xray uses. Problem is it is so boringly transparent. It is like a cat playing with a roach. We all know what the outcome is going to be.

Oops. Sorry about the roach reference. That was a real fine story though.

Adam

enjoying the forum you created

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I was criticizing those who either love Rand to excess or hate her idem.

I was neither criticizing Rand nor defending her.

The post that followed mine is a perfect example of how those who play the love/hate game try to distort a clear message to get people to play with them.

Michael

I don't hate Ayn Rand. There were enough moments during my reading of BB's book where I felt very sorry for the lonely little girl Alissa she had once been, whose mother told her in anger that she wished she never had had any children. There are few things a parent can say to a child which are more devastating than that.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't hate Ayn Rand.

No, and I don't see any evidence of that either. I read only a thoughtful but critical appraisal. Nothing to warrant the description "hate" however. However, it seems that you may in Rand-land not be critical of her, because then you're immediately branded a "Rand-hater", according to a well-known demonizing tactic, that is also used by those people who're fond of accusing their opponents of "hate-speech". No arguments are needed, only the fact that you're critical make you a "hater" and therefore evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

You hold many of the same opinions as Xray, but there is a pattern you do not do yourself. In your posts, you usually address the issue at hand. Xray does not, but instead takes whatever is mentioned as a hook to make a disparaging comment about Rand (or push her agenda of metaphysical subjectivism as proof that Rand was wrong).

The harping on the word "hate" is part of that getting off on a technicality mentality I dislike intensely. Both of you know what I mean.

When you constantly say things like "I don't hate Rand, I just think she's pathetic" or "She was a victim of her own wrongheaded thinking" or that kind of thing, you don't have to use the word "hate" to get the idea of contempt across.

And even that is not what galls me. I will say it again. The problem isn't holding these opinions. It is using every remark from others you can get as an excuse to repeat them, whether they pertain to the discussion or not.

When I judge a person, I look at what the person says and what the person does. When there is a conflict, I go with what the person does.

So here is the difference between you and Xray:

What you both say: Basically the same view on many points.

What you both do: As different as night and day. You discuss. She preaches and uses a butt-load of persuasion techniques. (This last has thankfully fallen off a bit since I started pointing them out and her ineptness in using a couple.)

You have good character. She does not.

So the issue for me is not whether someone agrees or disagrees with Rand. It's how the person treats the other posters. If you use another person's words as nothing but an excuse to advance an agenda, you are not treating that person with intellectual respect. You are not discussing. You are using him.

And don't say that she is polite, so you see no problem. Politeness is a virtue, but it can also be very good camoflage. Unannounced Saturday morning visitors from the Jehovah's Witness denomination, for example, are some of the most polite people on earth.

You aren't polite at times (within the limits of civility, of course, meaning you don't come anywhere near the garbage they do on SOLOP), yet I always get the sense you are honest. I'll take honesty any day over politeness as a manipulation technique...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't hate Ayn Rand.

No, and I don't see any evidence of that either. I read only a thoughtful but critical appraisal. Nothing to warrant the description "hate" however. However, it seems that you may in Rand-land not be critical of her, because then you're immediately branded a "Rand-hater", according to a well-known demonizing tactic, that is also used by those people who're fond of accusing their opponents of "hate-speech". No arguments are needed, only the fact that you're critical make you a "hater" and therefore evil.

I will pass on Xray's declaration of not hating Rand, given MSK's post. However, do you see no "below the belt" jabs? (reference, if needed)

Many of Xray's criticisms consist mostly of what I call word games. She has a different meaning for a given word than Rand did (e.g. subjective, objective, sacrifice, altruism) with a not-so-subtle 'I am right, so Rand erred or committed a fallacy.' Also, like MSK says, she relentlessly repeats. How thoughtful is that?

Do you believe that all her arguments against Rand are "fair and balanced"?

I have disagreed with Rand on several topics on this and other forums, but have not been called a Rand hater or evil. Why do you think that is? I agree that what you say occurs occasionally, but the way I have been treated is contrary to what you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I was criticizing those who either love Rand to excess or hate her idem.

I was neither criticizing Rand nor defending her.

The post that followed mine is a perfect example of how those who play the love/hate game try to distort a clear message to get people to play with them.

Michael

I don't hate Ayn Rand. There were enough moments during my reading of BB's book where I felt very sorry for the lonely little girl Alissa she had once been, whose mother told her in anger that she wished she never had had any children. There are few things a parent can say to a child which are more devastating than that.

Ms. Xray:

Another slick slimy statement, Probably the one "emotion" that Ayn hated and was crystal clear about was "pity".

Yet that is the one emotion that you chose in your response to visit upon her. Of course, it will not work with me.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

Another slick slimy statement, Probably the one "emotion" that Ayn hated and was crystal clear about was "pity".

Yet that is the one emotion that you chose in your response to visit upon her. Of course, it will not work with me.

Adam

Wouldn't you feel sorry about a child whose mother rejected her? The poorest children are not necessariy those whose parents are financially deprived. It's the rejected ones, at least this is the experinece I have made as teacher.

I would have gone out of my way to help a little Alissa, had she been a pupil of mine.

Probably the one "emotion" that Ayn hated and was crystal clear about was "pity".

This does no mean others have to "hate" pity too.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... (or push her agenda of metaphysical subjectivism as proof that Rand was wrong).

What 'metaphysical subjectivsm'? I'm neither a solipsist nor do I share the view of some of Rand's characters like Pritchett who propagated the claim that "reality is only an illusion". :rolleyes:

It was Ayn Rand who constructed a false opposition imo (objective = positive vs. subjective = negative),

But with objective /subjective, there exists no opposition in terms of positive/negative or vice versa.

It is important to differentiate the two though.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have to pity Ayn Rand. She did what she wanted and got what she wanted--to a point. And she paid for it all. Maybe in studying her life we can figure out how to live our own lives better and the virtue of perseverance and true rationality as opposed to rationalizations. The tremendous will power that enabled her to survive and get out of Russia and write The Fountainhead was not something that could be turned on and off like a light switch and did not serve her too well in her personal relationships. In the totality of her life she earned at least the courtesy of quiet respect that does not include any thing like pity, something that would have completely disgusted her in life. That woman had pride.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrs. Xray:

I have stopped beating my wife with a rod no thicker than my thumb. I no longer pull wings off butterflies [sp?].

Therefore, your question is moot.

"Wouldn't you feel sorry about a child whose mother rejected her? The poorest children are not necessariy those whose parents are financially deprived. It's the rejected ones, at least this is the experinece I have made as teacher."

Additionally, this next busybody intrusive statement of yours is the perfect statement for homeschooling.

"I would have gone out of my way to help a little Alissa, had she been a pupil of mine."

You would never be allowed to teach my child in my school district. I think you are unfit to teach my children. I cannot speak for others.

Adam

being clear and direct not angry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't hate Ayn Rand. There were enough moments during my reading of BB's book where I felt very sorry for the lonely little girl Alissa she had once been, whose mother told her in anger that she wished she never had had any children. There are few things a parent can say to a child which are more devastating than that.

Actually, there a number of things a parent can say that wound far more deeply than that; much of the time they are said without anger, meant as a calm judgment, and sometimes the parent has no idea that anything hurtful has been said.

In fact, when something is said in anger, it can be easily disregarded as an expression of transient feeling which does not reflect the parent's real opinion.

Jeffrey S.

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