OFFICIAL OBJECTIVISM - Nathaniel Branden


Recommended Posts

Works of Nathaniel Branden that are part of official Objectivism

The following works are part of official Objectivism as endorsed by Ayn Rand. Even in parts where Nathaniel later stated to have changed his views (for example, the essay, “Objectivism and Psychology” in Who Is Ayn Rand?), these works were endorsed by Rand and should be considered as integral parts of Objectivism and studied as such. At the very worst, they are historical works. At the best and normally, they are part of official Objectivist ideas.

Here are two statements by Ayn Rand that corroborate her endorsement:

“I must state, for the record, that Mr. and Mrs. Branden's writings and lectures up to this time were valid and consonant with Objectivism.”

– “To Whom It May Concern,” The Objectivist (May 1968/7:5, but written and sent out later)

“I want, therefore, formally to state that the only authentic sources of information on Objectivism are: my own works (books, articles, lectures), the articles appearing in and the pamphlets reprinted by this magazine (The Objectivist, as well as The Objectivist Newsletter), books by other authors which will be endorsed in this magazine as specifically Objectivist literature, and such individual lectures or lecture courses as may be so endorsed. (This list includes also the book Who Is Ayn Rand? by Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, as well as the articles by these two authors which have appeared in this magazine in the past, but does not include their future works.)”

– “A Statement of Policy, Part 1” The Objectivist (Jun 1968/7:6, but written and sent out later)

What is missing from this compilation is a list of recorded lectures before mid-1968 where Nathaniel appeared, including Q&A sessions. If anybody can add to this list, please feel free to do so. I would like to thank The Objectivism Reference Center (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/index.html) of Richard Lawrence for being such a wonderful reference for much of the information that appears here.

I decided to make this list under my own responsibility and that of any other future contributor of OL. I did not consult either of the Brandens before doing so, thus this is not to be construed as an endeavor by them. It is my form of honoring them.

Michael

Book

Who is Ayn Rand? (1962) (with Barbara Branden)

(3 articles)

“The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged

“Objectivism and Psychology”

“The Literary Method of Ayn Rand”

From The Objectivist Newsletter

(In existence from January 1962 to December 1965 – co-published with Ayn Rand)

Two Excerpts from forthcoming Who is Ayn Rand? (Jan 1962/1:1 and Feb 1962/1:2)

Book reviews

(3 reviews)

Planning for Freedom by Ludwig von Mises (Sep 1962/1:9)

Reason and Analysis by Brand Blanshard (Feb 1963/2:2)

Human Action by Ludwig von Mises (Sep 1963/2:9)

From The Intellectual Ammunition Department

(24 articles)

“Reason and Emotion” (Jan 1962/1:1)

“Individual Rights versus Society” (Feb 1962/1:2)

“Property Rights” (Feb 1962/1:2)

“The Psychological Meaning of Man’s ‘Need’ of Approval” (Mar 1962/1:3)

“The ‘First Cause’ Argument” (May 1962/1:5)

“Monopolies and Laissez-faire Capitalism” (Jun 1962/1:6)

“Isn’t Everyone Selfish?” (Sep 1962/1:9)

“Depressions and Laissez-faire Capitalism” (Aug 1962/1:8)

“Does Man Possess Instincts?” (Oct 1962/1:10)

“The Obligations of Parents and Children” (Dec 1962/1:12)

“Are Certain Things Unknowable?” (Jan 1963/2:1)

“Capital Punishment” (Jan 1963/2:1)

“What Is the Purpose of a Definition” (Jan 1963/2:1)

“Agnosticism” (Apr 1963/2:4)

“Inherited Wealth” (Jun 1963/2:6)

“Public Education” (Jun 1963/2:6)

“Demonstration and Irrationality” (Jul 1963/2:7)

“The Psychological Appeal of Altruism” (Oct 1963/2:10)

“Capitalism's Practicality” (Nov 1963/2:11)

“Labor Unions and the Standard of Living” (Nov 1963/2:11)

“The Objectivist Concept of Free Will versus the Traditional Concepts” (Jan 1964/3:1)

“The Moral Meaning of Risking One's Life” (Apr 1964/3:4)

“The Psychological Primacy of the Choice to Think” (Apr 1964/3:4)

“What Is Psychological Maturity?” (Nov 1965/4:11)

Articles

(13 articles)

“Counterfeit Individualism” (Apr 1962/1:4)

“Benevolence versus Altruism” (Jul 1962/1:7)

“Social Metaphysics” (Nov 1962/1:11)

“The Stolen Concept” (Jan 1963/2:1)

“Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice” (Mar 1963/2:3)

“The Contradiction of Determinism” (May 1963/2:5)

“The Divine Right of Stagnation” (Aug 1963/2:8)

“The Psychology of Pleasure” (Feb 1964/3:2)

“Pseudo Self-Esteem” (May 1964/3:5)

“Social Metaphysical Fear” (Jul 1964/3:7)

“Psycho-Epistemology” (Oct 1964/3:10)

“Rogues' Gallery” (Feb 1965/4:2)

“Alienation” (Jul 1965/4:7)

Other

(5 entries)

“A Report to Our Readers” (Dec 1963/2:12)

“A ‘Thank You’ Note” (Feb 1964/3:2)

“A Report to Our Readers – 1964” (Dec 1964/3:12)

“A Message to Our Readers” (Apr 1965/4:4)

“A Report to Our Readers – 1965” (Dec 1965/4:12)

From The Objectivist

(In existence from January 1966 to September 1971 – co-published with Ayn Rand until mid-1968).

Articles

(10 articles)

“The Objectivist Theory of Volition” (Jan 1966/5:1)

“Volition and the Law of Causality” (Mar 1966/5:3)

“Emotions and Values” (May 1966/5:5)

“Emotions and Actions” (Jun 1966/5:6)

“Emotions and Repression” (Aug 1966/5:8)

“The Nature of Anxiety” (Nov 1966/5:11)

“The Concept of Mental Health” (Feb 1967/6:2)

“Self-Esteem” (Mar 1967/6:3)

“The Roots of Social Metaphysics” (Oct 1967/6:10)

“Self-Esteem and Romantic Love” (Dec 1967/6:12)

Other

(2 entries)

“An Invitation” (Jun 1966/5:6)

“Letter from Nathaniel Branden” (Dec 1967/6:12)

From The Virtue of Selfishness

(5 articles all originally printed in The Objectivist Newsletter)

“Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice” (March 1963)

“Isn’t Everyone Selfish?” (September 1962)

“The Psychology of Pleasure” (February 1964)

“The Divine Right of Stagnation” (August 1963)

“Counterfeit Individualism” (April 1962)

From Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

(1 series of 5 small articles and 1 major article, all originally printed in The Objectivist Newsletter)

“Common Fallacies About Capitalism” (1962-1963)

(Footnote: “These articles appeared originally in the ‘Intellectual Ammunition Department’ of The Objectivist Newsletter. They are brief answers to the economic questions most frequently asked by readers – questions that reflect the most widely spread misconceptions about capitalism.”)

– “Monopolies” (June 1962)

– “Depressions” (August 1962)

– “The Role of Labor Unions” (November 1963)

– “Public Education” (June 1963)

– “Capitalism’s Practicality” (November 1963)

“Alienation” (July, August and September 1965)

Terms and definitions

Nathaniel was the one who originated the terms Witch Doctor and Attila for mystic and thug.

In the first footnote of the Ayn Rand’s essay, “For the New Intellectual,” in For the New Intellectual (New York: Random House, 1961), p. 14 in the 37th printing of the Signet paperback edition, there is the following entry:

* I am indebted to Nathaniel Branden for many valuable observations on this subject and for his eloquent designation of the two archetypes, which I shall use hereafter: Attila and the Witch Doctor.

The first printed Objectivist definition of psycho-epistemology.

As endorsed by Ayn Rand in “The Psycho-Epistemology of Art,” in The Objectivist Newsletter (Apr 1965/4:4)

(See Nathaniel Branden's article on "Psycho-Epistemology" in the October and November 1964 issues of this NEWSLETTER, where he defines psycho-epistemology as "the study of the mental operations that are possible to and that characterize man's cognitive behavior.")

Interestingly, when she published this same essay in The Romantic Manifesto, she removed Branden’s definition and supplied her own: “(Psycho-epistemology is the study of man’s cognitive processes from the aspect of the interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious.)”

The Objectivist definition of soul.

As endorsed by Ayn Rand in “Philosophy and Sense of Life,” in The Objectivist (Feb 1966/5:2)

Nathaniel Branden defines "soul" as "a mind and its basic values."

In like manner, when she published this same essay in The Romantic Manifesto, she removed Branden’s definition and supplied her own: “(By ‘soul’ I mean ‘consciousness.’)”

So she replaced these two definitions (“psycho-epistemology” and “soul”) in the same essays when they were reprinted in The Romantic Manifesto, but she did not make any statement that I know of stating that they are no longer official Objectivism. Also, these definition replacements seem more like synonyms than essential differences.

The Objectivist concept of psychological visibility (also called the (Muttnik principle and the mirror principle), .

The Objectivist concept of social metaphysics.

The Objectivist concept of the psychology of pleasure.

The Objectivist concept of the stolen concept.

Course

Basic Principles of Objectivism

20 Lectures.

The copyright is for 1960.

Roger Bissell gives the contents here on OL.

Note that Barbara Branden is the guest lecturer in Lecture No. 6.

This course was given at NBI and throughout the country on tape up to 1968.

The Art of Fiction

Active participant in the informal fiction-writing course given by Ayn Rand in 1958 in her living room. (Now sold as a 23 hour audio set, but with Nathaniel's voiced dubbed over.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychological visibility

On Psychological visibility (Muttnik principle), I found the following references by Ayn Rand:

From Atlas Shrugged (Hank Rearden to Dagny Taggart), p. 789 of the CD version (my emphasis):

"I love you. As the same value, as the same expression, with the same pride and the same meaning as I love my work, my mills, my Metal, my hours at a desk, at a furnace, in a laboratory, in an ore mine, as I love my ability to work, as I love the act of sight and knowledge, as I love the action of my mind when it solves a chemical equation or grasps a sunrise, as I love the things I've made and the things I've felt, as my product, as my choice, as a shape of my world, as my best mirror, as the wife I've never had, as that which makes all the rest of it possible: as my power to live."

From Atlas Shrugged (Dagny Taggart's reaction to John Galt), p. 880 of the CD version (my emphasis):

Then she was conscious of nothing but the sensations of her body, because her body acquired the sudden power to let her know her most complex values by direct perception. Just as her eyes had the power to translate wave lengths of energy into sight, just as her ears had the power to translate vibrations into sound, so her body now had the power to translate the energy that had moved all the choices of her life, into immediate sensory perception it was not the pressure of a hand that made her tremble; but the instantaneous sum of its meaning, the knowledge that it was his hand, that it moved as if her flesh were his possession, that its movement was his signature of acceptance under the whole of that achievement which was herself—it was only a sensation of physical pleasure, but it contained her worship of him, of everything that was his person and his life—from the night of the mass meeting in a factory in Wisconsin, to the Atlantis of a valley hidden in the Rocky Mountains, to the triumphant mockery of the green eyes of the superlative intelligence above a worker's figure at the foot of the tower—it contained her pride in herself and that it should be she whom he had chosen as his mirror, that it should be her body which was now giving him the sum of his existence, as his body was giving her the sum of hers. These were the things it contained—but what she knew was only the sensation of the movement of his hand on her breasts.

Starting on page 238 of PARC, Rand's journal entries (if you can wade through all the unnecessary superfluous comments by the other author) have so many references to psychological visibility (in the different phrases denoting such) that it would be tedious to list them all. They show clearly that she considered this as an official principle of Objectivism.

Social Metaphysics

On Social Metaphysics, I found the following reference by Ayn Rand from "The Argument from Intimidation," The Virtue of Selfishness:

The psychological source of that Argument is social metaphysics.*

(*) See: Nathaniel Branden, "Social Metaphysics," The Objectivist Newsletter, November 1962.

The Rand-sanctioned article, "Social Metaphysics," The Objectivist Newsletter, November 1962, by Nathaniel Branden, of course, is the proper source of validation.

As a warm-up, stating the concept without the phrase, there also is the following quote by Rand from The Objectivist Newsletter: Vol. 1 No. 8. August, 1962, "Check Your Premises: The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests":

Whoever allows a "somehow" into his view of the means by which his desires are to be achieved, is guilty of that "metaphysical humility" which, psychologically, is the premise of a parasite. As Nathaniel Branden pointed out in a lecture, "somehow" always means "somebody."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychology of Pleasure

On psychology of pleasure, I found the following reference by Ayn Rand in "Our Cultural Value-Deprivation," The Objectivist, April 1966:

The form in which man experiences the reality of his values is pleasure. In his essay on "The Psychology of Pleasure," Nathaniel Branden writes: "Pleasure, for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need. Pleasure (in the widest sense of the term) is a metaphysical concomitant of life, the reward and consequence of successful action—just as pain is the insignia of failure, destruction, death .... The state of enjoyment gives [man] a direct experience of his own efficacy, of his competence to deal with the facts of reality, to achieve his values, to live .... As pleasure emotionally entails a sense of efficacy, so pain emotionally entails a sense of impotence. In letting man experience, in his own person, the sense that life is a value and that he is a value, pleasure serves as the emotional fuel of man's existence." (THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER, February 1964. )

When this article appeared in The Voice of Reason, edited by Leonard Peikoff, Rand's original text was altered to read as follows:

The form in which man experiences the reality of his values is pleasure.

[An essay from The Virtue of Selfishness on "The Psychology of Pleasure," states:] "Pleasure, for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need. Pleasure (in the widest sense of the term) is a metaphysical concomitant of life, the reward and consequence of successful action—just as pain is the insignia of failure, destruction, death .... The state of enjoyment gives [man] a direct experience of his own efficacy, of his competence to deal with the facts of reality, to achieve his values, to live .... As pleasure emotionally entails a sense of efficacy, so pain emotionally entails a sense of impotence. In letting man experience, in his own person, the sense that life is a value and that he is a value, pleasure serves as the emotional fuel of man's existence." (THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER, February 1964. )

Stolen Concept

On stolen concept, I found the following reference by Ayn Rand in the "Forward" of "Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology," The Objectivist (July 1966):

These are the reasons why I chose to introduce you to Objectivist epistemology by presenting my theory of concepts. I entitle this series an "Introduction," because the theory is presented outside of its full context. For instance, I do not include here a discussion of the validity of man's senses—since the arguments of those who attack the senses are merely variants of the fallacy of the "stolen concept."' (That fallacy consists of "the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends." See "The Stolen Concept" by Nathaniel Branden, THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER, January 1963.)

In the Meridian 1990 Expanded Second Edition, edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff, the same paragraph reads as follows:

These are the reasons why I chose to introduce you to Objectivist epistemology by presenting my theory of concepts. I entitle this work an "Introduction," because the theory is presented outside of its full context. For instance, I do not include here a discussion of the validity of man's senses—since the arguments of those who attack the senses are merely variants of the fallacy of the "stolen concept."

Note from Michael: This 1990 version of ITOE is the only one I have at present, but I will go on the presumption that this paragraph was given the same way in the 1979 First Mentor Printing. Also, in the early 70's, before I went to Brazil, I used to own a paperback printing of ITOE that was thin, but wider and taller than a typical paperback, with a cover that had a green stripe running down it. I don't know the date and lost that book in Brazil, but I seem to remember that it did not include the Peikoff essay, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy." The reason I remember this so vividly is because I remember the excitement of seeing the new essay in the Mentor printing on a vacation trip back to the USA years ago, which is the reason I bought it.

Does anybody else remember this original printing? I would be interested to see if it came out before the break and if the paragraph mentioning Nathaniel Branden was altered there also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Active participant in the informal fiction-writing course given by Ayn Rand in 1958 in her living room.

The Art of Fiction (Audio CD; 23-CD set; 23 hrs., 3 min. of an informal fiction-writing course given in 1958 in the living room of Ayn Rand.)

- The voices of Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden are erased, replaced by a voice-over of a person who did not attend the course, stating: "At this point in the lecture, a student asked Miss Rand the following question..." Also, the original 48 hours of tapes were edited down to 23 hours and 3 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 years later...

Active participant in the informal fiction-writing course given by Ayn Rand in 1958 in her living room.

The Art of Fiction (Audio CD; 23-CD set; 23 hrs., 3 min. of an informal fiction-writing course given in 1958 in the living room of Ayn Rand.)

- The voices of Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden are erased, replaced by a voice-over of a person who did not attend the course, stating: "At this point in the lecture, a student asked Miss Rand the following question..." Also, the original 48 hours of tapes were edited down to 23 hours and 3 minutes.

Does anybody have a copy of this CD set?

I am looking for one and they have completely scrubbed it from the Internet.

Thanks in advance.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, that's a staggering amount of information. Nicely done. Now go have a cold brew or two..

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some historical notes:

The passages from Atlas Shrugged on psychological visibility that you quote in #3 came several years before Branden invoked the notion, so they can't be acknowledgements of his work. The idea actually comes from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, as Branden himself noted.

The stolen concept likewise appeared in Atlas Shrugged before Branden wrote or lectured about it, and he points this out in his 1963 article.

Barbara Branden seems to be the coiner of "psycho-epistemology". She said this either here or on RoR several years ago, and she treated the topic at length in her Efficient Thinking lectures at NBI in 1960, the year before Rand used it in For the New Intellectual and three years before NB's article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I'm not even going to get involved again in this Rand said it first game. Not right now at least. Back when I started this thread, there was a strong movement surrounding the publication of PARC to totally rewrite the Brandens out of any and all intellectual contribution to Objectivism. So I said let me look and I started putting things up.

But when you think about it, the whole premise is silly. Who (except Branden haters or ortho mockers) gives a crap what Ayn or Nathaniel said first?

For all we know, Nathaniel--or even Frank--said something to Ayn while they were banging her and she riffed off of it.

So there.

:)

No siree. No more PARC wars for me.

Later I will write all this up with links, quotes, historical context and all the rest. And see if I can put more meat on it than XXXX said it first. I'll leave that to those who get off on such things.

That said, if you happen to have actual passages instead of the party line I heard ad nauseum back during the PARC wars, I will be quite grateful. Facts, after all, are facts.

Frankly, I want to reread a lot of Rand's stuff before I do that piece. Also, I am currently working on a project about Rand's fiction writing techniques, so this is far more interesting to me at the moment.

In that vein, do you have the CD's I requested above?

I can't find them for purchase anywhere and here on OL is one of the very few places left on the Internet where you can see them referenced.

Somebody has been a busy little beaver rewriting more history.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who...[cares] what Ayn or Nathaniel said first?

You do. You set out to catalog Rand's acknowledgements of Branden, which is a worthwhile task. I proposed some improvements. You don't have to adopt them.

Some of the actual passages you request are:

- For psychological mirroring you already quoted them. For Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 8:4 1166a30; books 8 and 9 generally.

- For the stolen concept, Branden quotes the relevant passage in his article. I don't have a page number.

- For Barbara Branden's statement, a list of her posts to RoR is available at rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Branden. The particular quote would take some searching.

Actually anyone interested in getting Objectivism's history straight cares about these questions and welcomes efforts such as yours.

I don't have the CDs. I hope you find them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .

Also, in the early 70's, before I went to Brazil, I used to own a paperback printing of ITOE that was thin, but wider and taller than a typical paperback, with a cover that had a green stripe running down it. I don't know the date and lost that book in Brazil, but I seem to remember that it did not include the Peikoff essay, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy." The reason I remember this so vividly is because I remember the excitement of seeing the new essay in the Mentor printing on a vacation trip back to the USA years ago, which is the reason I bought it.

Does anybody else remember this original printing? I would be interested to see if it came out before the break and if the paragraph mentioning Nathaniel Branden was altered there also.

I have the fourth printing of that booklet, which was in 1973. It does not say when was the first printing, but assuredly it was after the split between Rand and Branden. It reads as in your quote from the 1990 expanded edition. Your memory is correct that it does not include Peikoff's "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy," which had followed immediately her issuance of ITOE in The Objectivist in 1966-67.

Here is more on psychological mirroring in Fountainhead and Atlas: A, B

I think it needs stress that what Branden said about visibilities vis-a-vis animals and plants in his mirroring essay is an important element in Rand's philosophy concerning the relation of human awareness of life in oneself to life and awareness in other persons and other life. It is not some dispensable appendage to the philosophy. It was published as a major serious essay with Rand's concurrence and for good reason.

There are at least two cases in which Rand wrote essays after the split that covered again parts of Branden's earlier essays, though Rand is setting these points in some new development of hers. Her "Metaphysical v. Manmade" has that relation to Branden's "The 'First Cause' Argument." Rand's "Selfishness without a Self" has that relation to Branden's "Counterfeit Individualism."

Among the erasures by Rand of references to N. Branden from reissues of her essays from Newsletter and Objectivist, I have noticed one of a quite personal nature. In the 1965 original of "Art and Moral Treason," Rand had written:

In conclusion, let me give you a different kind of case history. It is the story of a man who withstood the tortures of childhood and made his own way to the discovery of moral abstractions. At the age of seven, his ideal was The Lone Ranger. At the age of nine, it was Superman. At the age of twelve, it was The Scarlet Pimpernel. Then he asked himself a crucial question; he realized that he had no desire to save French aristocrats from the guillotine and that there were no guillotines around, and he asked himself: how does one apply the things he admired in The Scarlet Pimpernel to own's own life and how does one practice them in the modern world? He found the answer two years later. At the age of fourteen, he read The Fountainhead.

His name is Nathaniel Branden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 1/26/2006 at 6:58 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Active participant in the informal fiction-writing course given by Ayn Rand in 1958 in her living room.

The Art of Fiction (Audio CD; 23-CD set; 23 hrs., 3 min. of an informal fiction-writing course given in 1958 in the living room of Ayn Rand.)

- The voices of Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden are erased, replaced by a voice-over of a person who did not attend the course, stating: "At this point in the lecture, a student asked Miss Rand the following question..." Also, the original 48 hours of tapes were edited down to 23 hours and 3 minutes.

MSK,

We spoke about this offline and I found this thread and wanted to update it.  This course can be found at ARI now, in MP3 format and is the 23hr edited version: https://estore.aynrand.org/p/44/the-art-of-fiction-mp3-download

 

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