Seamless Objectivism


caroljane

Recommended Posts

I love alternate history fantasies. A top favourite is Len Deighton's best, SS-GB, set in a postwar England where Germany had succeeded in invading and conquering Britain in 1939. But it isn't as good as Patricia Findley's wonderful trilogy about the bloody but unbowed Elizabeth and Raleigh, when the Armada had not sunk.

This set me to wondering, where would the Objectivist movement be now if nothing had ever happened between the Brandens and Rand beyond continued intellectual partnership, and Nathaniel had remained her intellectual heir?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I love alternate history fantasies. A top favourite is Len Deighton's best, SS-GB, set in a postwar England where Germany had succeeded in invading and conquering Britain in 1939. But it isn't as good as Patricia Findley's wonderful trilogy about the bloody but unbowed Elizabeth and Raleigh, when the Armada had not sunk.

This set me to wondering, where would the Objectivist movement be now if nothing had ever happened between the Brandens and Rand beyond continued intellectual partnership, and Nathaniel had remained her intellectual heir?

Carol:

Now that is an really interesting question.

I would really have to think long and hard on that scenario.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reminds me, where's my T shirt for being the 1000th member? Moreover I joined on New Years Eve! Auspicious--I feel a song coming on-- James Cagney is melding with my mind, at least I hope it's him and not Aristotle again--

"I'm an OL Canuck'stani

Born on the first of July..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of a single Objectivist tailor or fashion designer.

No? Well it might depend on how you define "Objectivist".

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/10/proust-ralph-lauren200910

"I'm an OL Canuck'stani

Born on the first of July..."

Good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reminds me, where's my T shirt for being the 1000th member? Moreover I joined on New Years Eve! Auspicious--I feel a song coming on-- James Cagney is melding with my mind, at least I hope it's him and not Aristotle again--

"I'm an OL Canuck'stani

Born on the first of July..."

Ahh, one of my top 200 movies and this simple scene...

just wish it was a little longer when he gets his hat and coat from the White House Negro...oh my God it's Barack's great grandfather!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something ain't groking...

Yeah, yeah. So he’s an admirer of Ayn Rand, not an Objectivist. That groks well enough with my experience, water brother.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8803&st=0&p=100957&hl=ambiguity&fromsearch=1entry100957

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This set me to wondering, where would the Objectivist movement be now if nothing had ever happened between the Brandens and Rand beyond continued intellectual partnership, and Nathaniel had remained her intellectual heir?

Jeff Walker wrote such a fantasy as you wonder about, and it appears in Chapter 12 of The Ayn Rand Cult -- in the reference holdings at TPL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This set me to wondering, where would the Objectivist movement be now if nothing had ever happened between the Brandens and Rand beyond continued intellectual partnership, and Nathaniel had remained her intellectual heir?

Jeff Walker wrote such a fantasy as you wonder about, and it appears in Chapter 12 of The Ayn Rand Cult -- in the reference holdings at TPL.

Wm,

Your reference to the Toronto Public Library where the book is described as not available to be held suggests the obscure and unattainable nature of this gem. I decided to look it up on my favorite source which is www.bookfinder.com and here is the link:

http://tinyurl.com/49jbfh5

If you go to the second and third pages you will be surprised at how expensive it can be.

On the subject of "what if" thinking, my son as a boy collected comic books and there is a whole series entitled "what if" which explored encounters between different comic book heroes.

My favorite comics were and remain the Classics Illustrated series which are renown for unimpressive art work. They do include several of Victor Hugo's novels.

Which brings to mind the author G.A. Henty who wrote historical novels in which a young person of good character rubs elbows with people in historical events. Considered an excellent tool in homeschooling programs such as http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/

gulch

Edited by gulch8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason Nathanial Branden couldn't have become the de facto intellectual heir anyway. Unfortunately, he seems content to rewrite the same book over and over, and is otherwise unwilling to step up to the plate. I don't even mean this as a knock on him, his life is his own after all, but it is an opportunity lost.

I have stated more than once that a serious Objectivist intellectual, with balls and with charisma, could throw a pass over the heads of the squabblers, and reunite the "Objectivist Movement", but Objectivism unfortunately (again) seems to produce mostly intellectuals afraid of their and Leonard Peikoff's shadows. Witness, for instance, the McCaskey affair from a few months ago, where virtually nobody of stature stepped up to the plate to support him. If, say, the Atlas Shrugged movie were to become a wild ass success, the context might be such that somebody could fill the role I am describing.

Objectivism seems to attract intellectuals because of the likes of Howard Roark and Hank Reardon, and then turns them into the likes of Eddie Willers. I have really never understood this phenomena.

Edited by PDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love alternate history fantasies. A top favourite is Len Deighton's best, SS-GB, set in a postwar England where Germany had succeeded in invading and conquering Britain in 1939. But it isn't as good as Patricia Findley's wonderful trilogy about the bloody but unbowed Elizabeth and Raleigh, when the Armada had not sunk.

This set me to wondering, where would the Objectivist movement be now if nothing had ever happened between the Brandens and Rand beyond continued intellectual partnership, and Nathaniel had remained her intellectual heir?

You might want to read "Ruled Britainia" by Harry Turtledove. This is an alternate history where the Spanish invade and rule England for some time. It has a happy ending though.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason Nathanial Branden couldn't have become the de facto intellectual heir anyway. Unfortunately, he seems content to rewrite the same book over and over, and is otherwise unwilling to step up to the plate. I don't even mean this as a knock on him, his life is his own after all, but it is an opportunity lost.

I have stated more than once that a serious Objectivist intellectual, with balls and with charisma, could throw a pass over the heads of the squabblers, and reunite the "Objectivist Movement", but Objectivism unfortunately (again) seems to produce mostly intellectuals afraid of their and Leonard Peikoff's shadows. Witness, for instance, the McCaskey affair from a few months ago, where virtually nobody of stature stepped up to the plate to support him. If, say, the Atlas Shrugged movie were to become a wild ass success, the context might be such that somebody could fill the role I am describing.

Objectivism seems to attract intellectuals because of the likes of Howard Roark and Hank Reardon, and then turns them into the likes of Eddie Willers. I have really never understood this phenomena.

Interesting speculations. But, unfortunately, despite the fantasies of the numerous "alternate history" writers, history cannot be (in reality, of course!) rewritten. However, not a bad pasttime for brief periods, especially as a diversion from real world catastrophes such as the situation right now in Egypt.

So,... back to some comments made:

1) An alternate history with either of the Brandens leading the Objectivist movement only makes sense if the supposition used is that the break with Rand had not occured at all. Once that happened, it was too late. You can't really expect those that have been publicly expelled - and excoriated - to be eager to try to assume the leadership of a movement whose founder/creator was still alive. If either of the Brandens had done that, they undoubtedly would have been hit with a torrent of abuse (i.e., SHITSTORM) from you-know-who. Sort of like pouring gasoline onto a fire, to use a less graphic metaphor. Anyway, Nathaniel quite sensibly wanted to re-establish his own career based on his specialty, psychology and psychotherapy.

2) However,... if the scenario is that the break had never occured, that's another story. Contrary to the speculations of her recent biographer, Jennifer Burns, I think that the movement would have continued to grow at an exponential rate if NBI had continued. That was definitely the trend of growth prior to the break.

3) "Objectivism seems to attract intellectuals because of the likes of Howard Roark and Hank Reardon, and then turns them into the likes of Eddie Willers. I have really never understood this phenomena."

Now that observation is definitely a showstopper. My guess is that they were already "pre-formed Eddie Willers." By that, I mean that many aspects of Objectivism struck them as intellectually sound, but had considerably more problems when it came to applying them in action in the actual practice of their lives.

Some people might bridle at that observation. Some may have easily "changed their lives" by putting in practice the principles in Rand's writings. And if that is true, more power to them! Go for it!

But, I think most or many people have had difficulty along these lines. Despite certain implications in Objectivism (e.g., "the moral is the practical"), I don't see where O'ism has created a lot of highly successful innovators in their chosen fields. In fact, most of the people who have been fabulously successful (techno-geeks, businessmen, scientists, etc. are not only not Objectivists, they give all indications that they are, instead, fanatical altruists (e.g., Gates, the Facebook creator - I forget his name, Steve Jobs, and others that have signed Warren Buffett's public pledge to give away most of their earned wealth). If Objectivism had been a major, no,... essential factor, in their rise to success and prominence in their fields, where are the testimonials? Wouldn't a substantial number of "real world" Roarks/Reardens/d'Anconias and proto-Galts be instead funding foundations to spread Objectivism, instead of signing the Buffett pledge? (In this context, someone might point to ARI or even TAS....please!!,...the efforts are insignificant compared to the billions that have been given by the wealthy to philantrhropic foundations, many of which have directly funded the Left.

The only statement that I am aware of by a self-created billionire, that a philosopher's writings were a major factor in creating success is George Soros, the super-rich funder of many "liberal" activities in the United States. He has directly credited Karl Popper for his success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I don't think there would have been an Objectivist movement without the Brandens, and that means without the sexual dynamic between Rand and NB. (I would be most interested in Barbara's comments on this supposition.)

Second, I see no way the affair could have continued with NB in his prime and Rand looking ever more grandmotherly.

What the question comes down to is, what might have happened had Rand been more realistic and magnanimous and had the sense to apologize to Branden and tell him that as she got older she found his youth and immaturity an ever more insurmountable barrier to a continued romantic relationship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only statement that I am aware of by a self-created billionire, that a philosopher's writings were a major factor in creating success is George Soros, the super-rich funder of many "liberal" activities in the United States. He has directly credited Karl Popper for his success.

I read somewhere that Ted Turner was influenced by Rand when he was building his fortune, and used to put "Who is John Galt" up on unrented billboards. There are a few other names among the self-made rich that have acknowledged her influence, I don't have time to look now. Mark Cuban? Doubleclick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think much would have changed. Rand's most important work was behind her by 1968. Alternative, unsanctioned, rogue versions of Objectivism would have gotten abroad, with Branden instead of Peikoff being the defender of orthodoxy. If she and Branden had had an affair, it wouldn't have become public knowledge until after her death. Branden's career would have been the biggest difference.

(Noel Coward's 1947 play Peace in Our Time is another imagination of a Nazi-occupied England.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Objectivism seems to attract intellectuals because of the likes of Howard Roark and Hank Reardon, and then turns them into the likes of Eddie Willers. I have really never understood this phenomena.

PDS, I think it's the difference between paying lip service to a systematic, complex, difficult and contraty to one's instincts and upbringing philosophy and fully integrating and living it. The first can happen fairly quickly. The second is the end of a long process and of great effort. Plus it's not always easy to see how to do it. Not so much having the virtues but applying them to the level of a genius producer.

Few people have the imagination and resourcefulness and intellect, no matter how much they want to be the greatest of creators.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with Eddie Willers morally and in terms of living a happy and fulfilling life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Objectivism seems to attract intellectuals because of the likes of Howard Roark and Hank Reardon, and then turns them into the likes of Eddie Willers. I have really never understood this phenomena.

PDS, I think it's the difference between paying lip service to a systematic, complex, difficult and contraty to one's instincts and upbringing philosophy and fully integrating and living it. The first can happen fairly quickly. The second is the end of a long process and of great effort. Plus it's not always easy to see how to do it. Not so much having the virtues but applying them to the level of a genius producer.

Few people have the imagination and resourcefulness and intellect, no matter how much they want to be the greatest of creators.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with Eddie Willers morally and in terms of living a happy and fulfilling life.

So you think Ayn left Eddie with the skills to have a happy and fulfilling life by weeping and banging on a dead locomotive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think Ayn left Eddie with the skills to have a happy and fulfilling life by weeping and banging on a dead locomotive?

By Rand's reckoning without the Dagnys and the Hanks, Eddy is nothing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Objectivism seems to attract intellectuals because of the likes of Howard Roark and Hank Reardon, and then turns them into the likes of Eddie Willers. I have really never understood this phenomena.

PDS, I think it's the difference between paying lip service to a systematic, complex, difficult and contraty to one's instincts and upbringing philosophy and fully integrating and living it. The first can happen fairly quickly. The second is the end of a long process and of great effort. Plus it's not always easy to see how to do it. Not so much having the virtues but applying them to the level of a genius producer.

Few people have the imagination and resourcefulness and intellect, no matter how much they want to be the greatest of creators.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with Eddie Willers morally and in terms of living a happy and fulfilling life.

The idea of taking Objectivism as explicated by Rand and having it and living it as your own through comprehension, acceptance and integration is a horrendous mistake. Most of that is cultural, the rest is the actual philosophy, the base of which it shares with science. Rand made this philosophy for herself and her imagined heroes and there she dwelt. Objectivism has two huge holes: the lack of true critical thinking and the over-emphasis on the philosophy overall--appropriate as that may have once been--resulting in a gross under-emphasis on individual rights.

--Brant

Eddie wasn't very happy

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