I read 'The Passion of Ayn Rand' - I am suspicious as hell.

[Nerian]

You must have high standards for anger.

I'd be delighted if that's all most people were like when they were angry. Though, maybe my childhood has set the bar high, I don't know.

[Frediano]

Nerian:

Certainly, if you view the movie based on the book, you are well able to react with 'hatchet job?'

I mean, why not "The Toe Fungus of Ayn Rand?" Her personal intrigues and foibles and fumblings are certainly a path to tearing down her ideas, period.

But it is also perhaps a reality check. No, she wasn't the self image of her own romantic visions and ideas, but that is the nature of romantic thought. (Romantic in the sense of ideals and goals and visions of the ideal, not romantic in the sense of courtship in pursuit of rubbing one out with the willing.) "The Toe Fungus of Ayn Rand" does not, IMO, take away from the romantic ideas she offered. Humans have Toe Fungus. We're all human. It's a given.

Lets not examine the Toe Fungus of Marx, for balance. Not necessary, it's not just his feet that stink.

[Backlighting]

It could also be the culture of Australian informality which I first knew working with some 40 years ago. (I was used to a stiffly Brit reserve). Whatever diffs in age or corporate ranking, being immediately first-named has a classless familarity which at first may be discomfiting but was also refreshing. It's much more common everywhere now.

Ah, the culture of Australian informality. Barbecue prawns & beer with some jolly blokes at The Haymarket.

I had the good fortune to visit there several yrs ago. Fun, fun, fun.

-J

[Jerry Biggers]

I'm aware I'm probably bringing up very old stuff that has been flogged to death amongst Objectivists, but I'm young and new and bright eyed and... I can't know what I don't know.

I don't know that much about the whole controversy and history of Ayn Rand and her followers except what I have gleemed in passing, but I found 'the Passion of Ayn Rand' at my uni library and decided to give it a read The book itself is well written and engaging, and the first page draws you in. I found myself lost in the story. The first part about 'Alice' was very good and very interesting. It seemed well researched and objective.

But towards the latter half of the book, I started to feel an eery sense that something was not quite right. I started to think, 'how could Ayn be this irrational?'. It seems absurd. She was denouncing people morally for choices in music and so on? She was getting 'angry' all the time. I felt like this is not the woman of the first half of the book. Ayn didn't seem to be preaching the Objectivism that I know. And I have learned a lot of it from Peikoff, through lectures I bought, his books, and his podcast - Objectivism straight from the orthodox horses mouth.

I started wondering to myself, could this be blown out of proportion? Could this be bent truth? Then I got to a passage about Ayn Rand's Donnahue interview. I've watched two of her Donnahe interviews many times, loving Ayn throughout. The passage claims that Ayn 'got angry' and the show was a disaster when a woman said 'now that I'm more educated, I don't agree with you.' This is when I suddenly felt that every time Barbara claimed Ayn 'got angry' was blown out of proportion. Ayn got upset, but I would not have called her 'angry'. And she was not being irrational or unreachable. I would say she was calmly offended. If you call that getting angry, then it throws into doubt every other time in the book you claim she was angry.

Then I thought, Ayn was willing to be friends earlier in her life with a conservative woman who believed in mystical nonsense, but towards the latter half she suddenly became unwilling to be friends with anyone who she deemed immoral for being irrational? What?

So I did some searching and sure enough found another book that apparently gives another side to the story. Edit: (The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens.)

I don't know who is telling the truth or not, but the 'Passion of Ayn Rand' towards the latter half seemed mighty suspicious. I found myself really disliking the supposed Ayn Rand in the latter half of the book. I felt that she had totally lost touch with the love of life she was supposed to have, and that she had fallen into pure rationalism, not willing to consider facts, trying to deduce everything about music, psychology and so on purely from first principles in her philosophy. Emotional repression. And the part about Nathaniel not being allowed to have a life apart from her? I find it hard to believe she said it. But at the same time I had a hard time believing that's what became of her. It's possible that it's all true, and that Ayn lost her marbles, but in her late interviews, she didn't seem that way.

When I got to her death, I nearly cried, as if I had forgotten she had died before I was even born.

Damn, now I have to buy the other book. I got sucked into the drama!

Nerian, It is not surprising that you, or anyone else, would be confused or at least perplexed, upon first reading Rand and the other Objectivists, and then encountering the critical reaction to her philosophy and also to her personality. Like a number of others on this forum, I have been interested in, and peripherally involved with Objectivism since the early 1960s (1961, to be precise, when I first came across references to Rand, in discussions about the "rise of the radical Right in America." One of the first writings by Rand that I came across in high school was the text of her speech, "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," in the periodical, Vital Speeches. That speech made it crystal clear that here was a philosopher whose views did not fit neatly into the then culturally accepted definitions of conservative and liberal. After reading that, I began to devour her novels and everything that subsequently was issued up to 19667-1968. That is not when I stopped reading or lost interest in Rand, but it was the break between Rand and the Brandens that seemed to bring Objectivism as a movement to a dead halt. However, much to the unending irritation and chagrin of her enemies, it was only a temporary slowdown.

I bring up 1967-68, because I had some personal experiences with Ayn Rand when attending some of the lecture series given at Nathaniel Branden Institute (NBI) in New York. Rand often attended these lectures, which were the first attempt at systematizing Objectivism as a philosophy (now in print as The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism.by Nathaniel Branden. Cobden Press, 2009) and participated in lively Q&A sessions after the lecture. In contrast to your impression that Ayn Rand was always the model of decorum when in public, I witnessed one of her legendary outbursts of anger, directed at a young woman who rather innocently asked Rand what her opinion waso the New York mayoral campaign of William F. Buckley, Jr.(Buckley was the most prominent political, religiously- based conservative and an outspoken critic/opponent of Ayn Rand) Rand shouted (actually,shreiked) back, "Do NOT mention the name of that despicable creature in my presence!" The startled audience, some who had no doubt witnessed previous outbursts, hushed - but with audible occasional nervous giggles. After about a minute, Rand recovered her composure and added, in a considerably softer tone, "I know that you did not mean to be insulting, but find out from someone else later, why you were!" In contrast to that angry outburst, she responded to questions from others with warmth and grace, as long as their questions were of clarification or elaboration of her views.

Was this incident that I just related above, out of the ordinary and not characteristic of her public behavior? I am afraid not. And was Barbara Branden exaggerating in her accounts of Rand's occasional bad moments? You may wish to consult Anne C. Heller's biography, Ayn Rand and the World She Made, where there are numerous examples of less than flattering accounts of Rand by many who knew her very well. But there are also many examples given by Heller which show her to be at times very gracious, helpful, and benevolent.

[Selene]

Lets not examine the Toe Fungus of Marx, for balance. Not necessary, it's not just his feet that stink.

Agreed, we could bring up the fact that he was a nasty wifebeater, however, he meant well.

A...

[Nerian]

If she had a bit of a gratting personality, that'd be one thing, but she seemed to have given up on reality and happiness in the end. The Rand in the latter half of the book almost makes you wanna grab her and say 'here, read this book by Ayn Rand and get your act together.' Unless I completely misunderstand Objectivism, but as I said, I learned 70% straight from Peikoff and Rand. (But I never took sides bewteen ARI and AS).

I'm certaintly not that rustled by depictions of a less than flattering personality. Failings of that kind don't bother me. Maybe I'm just thick skinned. Maybe once again, it's because I'm Australian, and some people will call you a c**t as a term of endearement. You are just making me like her more.

This is now an Australian culture thread... lol.

[Brant Gaede]

If she had a bit of a gratting personality, that'd be one thing, but she seemed to have given up on reality and happiness in the end. The Rand in the latter half of the book almost makes you wanna grab her and say 'here, read this book by Ayn Rand and get your act together.' Unless I completely misunderstand Objectivism, but as I said, I learned 70% straight from Peikoff and Rand. (But I never took sides bewteen ARI and AS).

I'm certaintly not that rustled by depictions of a less than flattering personality. Failings of that kind don't bother me. Maybe I'm just thick skinned. Maybe once again, it's because I'm Australian, and some people will call you a c**t as a term of endearement. You are just making me like her more.

This is now an Australian culture thread... lol.

You need to take a step back and concentrate on the ideas. Rand wasn't so bad as you now seem to be gloaming onto nor was she so good as to be a goddess on a hill as some would like her to be. In the 1960s she was living in an indeterminate hell of not knowing what was going on in her relationship with Nathaniel Branden who was lying to her out of the lie of their relationship she was primarily responsible for. No wonder she tended to snap at people sometimes. The 1968 break took a lot of that pressure off her but it was fairly soon followed by major health issues. The entire situation has now become so fossilized it no longer makes sense to choose sides as the conflict represented by an ARI-TAS divide can no longer even get its head off the ground. It's so dead even TAS's current efforts to bridge the situation is a bridge to nowhere.

You should go back and re-consider some of what Deanna said about you and using "Ayn." She may be onto something. Not about appropriateness of use but why you are personally getting so deeply involved in very old stuff. If it's because of PARC, that's so crappy it should be tossed into the crapper. Nothing could be so disorienting to someone new to Objectivism than to plow through that monument to stupid lawyering adversarial briefs.

--Brant

[Neil Parille]

I wrote a critique of Valliant's book

For some reason I can;t cut and past the URL.

Just search: "Parille Valliant Passion Criticism" and you should find it.

NP

[anthony]

Nerian:

Certainly, if you view the movie based on the book, you are well able to react with 'hatchet job?'

I mean, why not "The Toe Fungus of Ayn Rand?" Her personal intrigues and foibles and fumblings are certainly a path to tearing down her ideas, period.

But it is also perhaps a reality check. No, she wasn't the self image of her own romantic visions and ideas, but that is the nature of romantic thought. (Romantic in the sense of ideals and goals and visions of the ideal, not romantic in the sense of courtship in pursuit of rubbing one out with the willing.) "The Toe Fungus of Ayn Rand" does not, IMO, take away from the romantic ideas she offered. Humans have Toe Fungus. We're all human. It's a given.

Lets not examine the Toe Fungus of Marx, for balance. Not necessary, it's not just his feet that stink.

A much healthier and real, although quite gross ;) approach, compared to the unjust - and subjective - 'sanctifying' of Rand (followed, sure as hell, by disillusionment).

The sometime oddities between her ideals and her doings I think get dissipated, when one realises the "given", implicit and insufficiently dwelled-upon fact - which is she produced almost superhuman feats 'beyond the call of duty', while remaining fully human ... and egoistical. The definition of a hero, maybe, but I don't think she sought to be heroine-worshipped (apart from her obvious pleasure basking in the attention she received). Rather, she pointed us to finding the hero in ourselves.

To back up what you say, basically.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wrote a critique of Valliant's book

For some reason I can;t cut and past the URL.

Just search: "Parille Valliant Passion Criticism" and you should find it.

NP

Damn, Neil.

You wrote it and published it right here on OL before you put it elsewhere.

So you are rewriting history (just like the orthos) and sending stuff down the memory hole, too?

Hmmmmmm?

Here, let me help you.

First we have a section on OL called PARC (in the larger section called "Outer Limits") where lots of articles and comments about Valliant's book can be found. In fact, you were very active there when everything was flaring up, but to be honest, this just might be stuff of yours that got transferred over. Back then, PARC discussions were cropping up like weeds all over OL and I made that section to consolidate them, thus keep them from disrupting discussions of other things.

All anyone has to do is scroll down the page when they land on OL and they can see it.

PARC - James Valliant's boneheaded critique of the Brandens - The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

Granted, you published your critique on OL in 5 parts but it's all there.

You can't find those links?

Here, let me help you again:

The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism

The Passion of James Valliant’s Criticism, Part II

The Passion of James Valliant’s Criticism, Part III

The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part IV

The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V

We can think about consolidating those parts if you like. Back when you put the consolidation on Scribd, I thought having it in one more venue rather than having it twice on OL was a good idea. (In fact, you put it on SLOP, too, which I thought was a good idea, especially since you were able to interact with Valliant himself there.)

But now Scribd is mostly a subscription service. (A great one, incidentally. Lots of high-priced books--in ebook form--and audios for the cheap subscription fee of about 10 bucks a month.)

I'll try to help out with this out later if you are interested.

But puhleeze...

Barbara even posted on all 5 threads of your article here on OL. Have you forgotten or is that not valuable enough to remember?

So don't forget what really happened. Especially when you go to the place it happened (here) and "forget" to everybody. That doesn't do anything for your credibility when you point the finger at someone else regarding a different topic and blast him for forgetting what really happened.

Michael

NOTE TO READER: I screwed up something way back when. Neil published these parts in the Articles section of OL and I transferred only 4 of them over to the PARC section when I made it. I noticed this because of Brant's post below. But all 5 parts are and were here on OL from the beginning and a Google search isn't affected by the section they are in. I just moved the fifth over, so now they are all in the PARC section.

And for those interested in the non-segmented version on Scribd, here is the link: The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism (on Scribd). I just tested and you don't need a subscription to read it. I don't know why Neil couldn't paste the link here now, especially, as Brant said, he posted it way back when and it still works.

[Brant Gaede]

If you Google search like Neil suggests click on the first result (The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V) and go down to post 5 and there is a Scrib link from Neil that will take you inside Scrib without a subscription. It doesn't work as a new link on OL.

-Brant

[Jerry Biggers]

Norian,

You appear to think that Barbara Branden's bio on Rand was too harsh at certain points. In particular you doubt her accounts of Rand's less than hospitable treatment of certain people, her condemning those around her who did not agree with her tastes in music, art, etc.

If you doubt Barbara's account, and think that she exaggerated Rand's social failings, then you really do need to read the other two bios on Rand by Anne C. Heller and Jennifer Burns. Because If their accounts are accurate, then Barbara's portrait of Rand was if anything, too sympathetic and laudatory; not the other way around.

In particular, I was struck by your comment, "The Rand in the latter half of the book almost makes you wanna grab her and say 'here, read this book by Ayn Rand and get your act together.' Indeed, and that is, in effect, what those around her tried to do when she felt crushed by the hostile reviews of Atlas Shrugged and went into a deep depression for quite a while. Nathaniel Branden pointed-out to her that her own reaction to published criticism of Atlas, was not what one would have expected from the author of The Fountainhead, who created a key passage summing up her view of how a person representing her own values, should respond to hostile opposition, Howard Roark, his architectural career left in ruins, has a chance encounter with Ellsworth Toohey, the architectural critic chiefly responsible for (seemingly) ending Roark's career. Toohey, recognizing Roark, approaches him and says, "Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us." Roark's answer: "But I don't think of you." Unfortunately, Rand was unable or unwilling to follow her own advice.

But, by the way,...so what? Ayn Rand was not a deity. Only a deity is capable of perfect, unerring, behavior. Some fans of Rand seem to think that if any human failing by Rand is acknowledged, that negates her whole philosophical construction. No, it does not., It merely shows that she was human. It is ironic that certain self-appointed defenders of Rand's legacy will not admit that she was anything less than perfection - which is dangerously close to buying into the same argument (a logical fallacy) that her leftist enemies invariably utilise, the ad hominem.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It doesn't work as a new link on OL.

Brant,

It does work. I put it in my post above.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It doesn't work as a new link on OL.

Brant,

It does work. I put it in my post above.

Michael

Which one of the six links takes you to Scrib?

--Brant

Mr. pain in the ass, that's me

edit: I see you editied in "V"--you still need to scroll down to post 5 for the link to Scrib that works

still the pain in the ass--this time on stilts

Edited November 13, 2014 by Brant Gaede

[Nerian]

Norian,

You appear to think that Barbara Branden's bio on Rand was too harsh at certain points. In particular you doubt her accounts of Rand's less than hospitable treatment of certain people, her condemning those around her who did not agree with her tastes in music, art, etc.

If you doubt Barbara's account, and think that she exaggerated Rand's social failings, then you really do need to read the other two bios on Rand by Anne C. Heller and Jennifer Burns. Because If their accounts are accurate, then Barbara's portrait of Rand was if anything, too sympathetic and laudatory; not the other way around.

In particular, I was struck by your comment, "The Rand in the latter half of the book almost makes you wanna grab her and say 'here, read this book by Ayn Rand and get your act together.' Indeed, and that is, in effect, what those around her tried to do when she felt crushed by the hostile reviews of Atlas Shrugged and went into a deep depression for quite a while. Nathaniel Branden pointed-out to her that her own reaction to published criticism of Atlas, was not what one would have expected from the author of The Fountainhead, who created a key passage summing up her view of how a person representing her own values, should respond to hostile opposition, Howard Roark, his architectural career left in ruins, has a chance encounter with Ellsworth Toohey, the architectural critic chiefly responsible for (seemingly) ending Roark's career. Toohey, recognizing Roark, approaches him and says, "Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us." Roark's answer: "But I don't think of you." Unfortunately, Rand was unable or unwilling to follow her own advice.

But, by the way,...so what? Ayn Rand was not a deity. Only a deity is capable of perfect, unerring, behavior. Some fans of Rand seem to think that if any human failing by Rand is acknowledged, that negates her whole philosophical construction. No, it does not., It merely shows that she was human. It is ironic that certain self-appointed defenders of Rand's legacy will not admit that she was anything less than perfection - which is dangerously close to buying into the same argument (a logical fallacy) that her leftist enemies invariably utilise, the ad hominem.

The book doesn't merely portray an offensive personality though. Several quotes and several reactions were so irrational, it is eery and strange. People keep telling me she was human, I know that. I never expected infalibility.

And of course, whatever her personality and application of the philosophy, I know it takes nothing away from the philosophy itself. It is however demotivating if the creator of a philosophy of happiness on earth died miserable and irrational.

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

All I meant was that when I hit right-click on my mouse in an OL comment box, instead of the usual "cut, copy, paste . . ." stuff, I get a "save page as, view background image, select all, this frame" box.

[Brant Gaede]

And of course, whatever her personality and application of the philosophy, I know it takes nothing away from the philosophy itself. It is however demotivating if the creator of a philosophy of happiness on earth died miserable and irrational.

I don't think she "died miserable and irrational." Since her husband died over two years before she must have been lonely. Her health problems cumulatively did her in--congestive heart failure. It seems her smoking shortened her life by about a decade and that decade could have also been productive. When my grandfather died at 91 he was working on two books. He predeceased his wife. Rand's trip to that New Orleans investment conference the December before she died pushed her over the self-sustaining life edge, but if you look at the video of her speaking, there isn't any irrationality. She enjoyed being there and her audience enjoyed her. Not everybody dies easy with a smile. Dying is usually a god-damned bitch and your philosophy is blown out of the loop.

You've still got a lot to sort out and learn--and a lot to discard--in your quest to understand Ayn Rand. She chose a hard life, but that doesn't mean the wrong philosophy. Happy, happy, happy was not her, never was her and never could have been her. She did try to fold into her life the pursuit of happiness. It was lumpy. She lived in a somewhat modest apartment by NYC standards for instance, and not because she couldn't have afforded something better. Nathaniel Branden once said if you could see how she lived you'd appreciate better how she lived the life of a mind.

--Brant

[dldelancey]

Objectivism is a philosophy of happiness on earth? Ayn Rand died miserable and irrational? Peter, you've reduced some complicated topics to cliches. You need to dig a little deeper.

[Nerian]

Objectivism is a philosophy of happiness on earth? Ayn Rand died miserable and irrational? Peter, you've reduced some complicated topics to cliches. You need to dig a little deeper.

That's the way the ending of the book portrayed Ayn Rand. People have brought up the book's portrayal of an insensitive personality and unwaranted outbursts, but those are not the portrayals that made me suspicious or think she was irrational. I will have to make an explicit list of specific hyper-irrational things Ayn Rand was portrayed to do and say.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand.

I didn't say that's all the philosophy was.

I am digging.

[Selene]

I am digging.

I would suggest a very small and sturdy spoon...

[Jerry Biggers]

Nerian, I have a suggestion, read Neil Parille's set of articles, entitled The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism (as suggested by Neil in post #33, with direct links to the articles in Michael's post #35). And, for that matter, the other articles, reviews and commentaries in the PARC thread.

Then, give us your conclusions in a new thread,

an appropriate title might be, "I read James Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics - and I am suspicious as hell!"

(I'm just sayin'.....)

Anyway, don't get too wrapped-up in this "Grand Inquisitor" scenario

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter (Nerian),

I have discussed this stuff to death, but I do want to make a few quick comments.

The first is I think you should definitely come to your own conclusions on this. Not mine. Not those of the orthos. Not those of Rand's critics. Your own.

That said, I do have a question. Do you really believe the false dichotomy that the orthodox Objectivists use for their frame when talking about Rand's personal life? Here's what I mean: are the only two choices that (1) Rand must have become perfectly happy by following her philosophy or (2) perfectly miserable? Those were the only two alternatives? Do you really believe that human nature is that simple? And that philosophy is an on-off switch for happiness?

I don't.

Here are just two considerations for you to mull over that nobody else talks about. You can agree with them or disagree, that is your business. I merely mention them to provide you with food for thought.

The first is Barbara's perspective. Don't forget that this was a woman who shared her husband with Rand. I have discussed this issue with a lot of orthos and every one of them--every single one--has proclaimed that Ayn Rand was perfectly honest in her dealings with the Brandens, however, had they been in the position to share their mate with her, it just would not have worked with them. In other words, in their veneration for Rand, what she did was perfectly okay, perfectly moral, perfectly yada yada yada--for her and for everyone else--but not for them.

This wasn't one or the other. This was ALL of the ones I discussed this with--including and especially Valliant. What does that say to you?

Another way of putting this is that they were not people who would ever agree to such a thing.

However, Barbara was.

So ask yourself, what does the world look like to a woman who believed so deeply in her philosophy that she was willing to share her husband with the originator just because the originator wanted it? Who loved the originator so much she would go to that length? What kind of person is that?

Then ask yourself, is it possible that such a woman would be merely interested in payback or a meal ticket regarding her mentor, even after being excommunicated? Or would she continue to judge her ex-mentor just as severely as her ex-mentor judged her?

In other words, instead of seeing the end part of The Passion of Ayn Rand as some kind of attempt to claim Rand was a hypocrite or could not live up to her philosophy or something like that, try to reread the passages that bother you through the eyes of a disciple who had learned her main thinking habits from Rand and who was wondering what on earth had gone wrong. Why? How? But you have to get away from the ortho frame on this issue to even imagine that.

To the orthos, the Brandens are the equivalent of the Christian Satan. There is no context for their "evil." It just is. You might want to ask yourself if that even makes sense to a rational mind.

The second issue is something from neuroscience. It has been proven that people who cultivate negative emotions as a constant practice develop health problems, depression and so on. This is not opinion. This is science. I think Ayn Rand merely made a miscalculation (like she did with smoking cigarettes) and decided that frequent intense expressions of hatred and contempt were morally good. They were her duty--a way to fight for changing the culture. I think they ended up poisoning her as an unintended consequence. Note that this is not an issue of hypocrisy, but the physical result of a miscalculation that was consciously chosen.

There is a whole lot more I could write about Rand, Barbara's book, Valliant, and so on, including other things that are normally not considered in these discussions. Especially regarding core stories and how they influence the different attitudes and reactions. But see if you resonate with these few thoughts. If you find them interesting, I'm willing to share a few more. Even about that TV performance. I have different ideas on that, too. For the record, I don't think it's all as Barbara said, nor as innocent as the orthos say and I have my reasons. (Besides, I'm right. )

But I notice that you use a bit of the jargon and framing the orthos do when talking about this issue. I discussed this to death within that frame. I'm not willing to do that any longer. It never goes anywhere.

So if you prefer to continue thinking about this (or expressing it) through that lens, we will probably not agree on much. But if you want to go open, so to speak, in other words, suspend judgment to discuss correct identification, then judge, that's me--even should we disagree on the judgment at the end.

When a sincere attempt at cognitive before normative thinking has occurred, I'm good either way. I trust minds that engage in honest attempts to get it right. I have yet to be wrong about this or disappointed with anyone who has gone this route. I especially admire such minds, even should I disagree, when their honest thinking goes against the core stories they have adopted. I know what that takes.

I call it integrity and this is the kind that doesn't come cheap. It hurts--and hurts a lot--before it feels good.

Michael

[Nerian]

That said, I do have a question. Do you really believe the false dichotomy that the orthodox Objectivists use for their frame when talking about Rand's personal life? Here's what I mean: are the only two choices that (1) Rand must have become perfectly happy by following her philosophy or (2) perfectly miserable? Those were the only two alternatives? Do you really believe that human nature is that simple? And that philosophy is an on-off switch for happiness?

Absolutely not.

To the orthos, the Brandens are the equivalent of the Christian Satan. There is no context for their "evil." It just is. You might want to ask yourself if that even makes sense to a rational mind.

Absolutely not, and I hope I didn't sound that way. I hope everyone is clear I'm not out to prove the Brandens evil. I don't however consider it impossible that Barbara Branden felt some desire - perhaps unconcious - to get back at Rand. I wouldn't brand her immoral for that. I'm out to find if there's any other evidence, so that I can determine a modicum of truth about Ayn Rand. This is not about Barbara Branden.

But I notice that you use a bit of the jargon and framing the orthos do when talking about this issue. I discussed this to death within that frame. I'm not willing to do that any longer. It never goes anywhere.

So if you prefer to continue thinking about this (or expressing it) through that lens, we will probably not agree on much. But if you want to go open, so to speak, in other words, suspend judgment to discuss correct identification, then judge, that's me--even should we disagree on the judgment at the end.

When a sincere attempt at cognitive before normative thinking has occurred, I'm good either way. I trust minds that engage in honest attempts to get it right. I have yet to be wrong about this or disappointed with anyone who has gone this route. I especially admire such minds, even should I disagree, when their honest thinking goes against the core stories they have adopted. I know what that takes.

I call it integrity and this is the kind that doesn't come cheap. It hurts--and hurts a lot--before it feels good.

Michael

I realize now that given the history and context I was unaware of, that by bursting onto the scene and asserting roughly "I'm suspicious as hell" I was interpreted to have said "Barbara Branden was pure evil and I'm on a witch hunt" which is not what I meant at all.

I found Diana Hsieh's treatment interesting but not condeming. So N. Branden believes in a few weird borderline mystical things, I don't think that's evil. And she failed to cite evidence for a different series of events.

[Selene]

Peter:

These are real people.

They are not cookie cut characters in her novel.

One of the real problems with Objectivism's paradigm of romantic love is that it represents one type of love, not the only "official" endorsed by Ayn type of love.

Here is how Aristotle approached that concept, I believe you will see many similarities to Rand's concepts in terms of love being rational. However, her rigid application in real life was fraught with humans walking in emotional minefields.

CLASSICS
An Aristotelian Apology for Romantic Love
Andrew Karl

Dante’s Vita Nuova, Shakespeare’s Othello, and Goethe’s Sorrows of Young Werther
portray romantic love as a mental juggernaut: it ravages the mind and disrupts channels of reasoning. Love appears as something akin to an illness.1

This contradicts Aristotle’s writings in Books 8and 9 of the Nicomachean Ethics, where he defines and outlines the realm of human friendship –including romantic love. He claims that friendship follows rational and reasonable thought. Aristotle’s remarks seem at odds with the stories depicted by Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe;thus, either love acts as counter-reason (as depicted in the poem, the play, and the story) or the characters’ irrational behavior results from some personal quality other than love. After close examination of the four works, it becomes apparent that the irrational behavior develops from character weaknesses and not from the mere presence of love. Aristotle classifies love as the greatest external good; consequently, it has the greatest propensity to spark unbridled desire.2

Dante, Othello, and Werther behave irrationally because they cannot restrain their desire for their beloved and because they cannot cope with the loss of their love. Thus, their intemperate pursuit of and desire for love motivates them to behave unreasonably. Werther – believing love to benecessary for a happy life – errs in making love his sole purpose in life (and provides the most explicit example of this error out of the three examples).3
Contrary to Werther’s convictions, Aristotle shows that while virtuous friendship is necessary for a happy life, love is not; love is a luxury.

Later in this analysis, the author points out that:

Aristotle’s disaggregation of the class of friendship reveals that the concept of romanticl ove must fall within the set of friendship he classified as “complete friendship.” Romantic lovei s not transient, but rather a lasting affection for another individual and is focused on the qualitiesof their character.

And here, it sounds like pure Rand:

Aristotle shows the rationality of motivation for complete friendship by noting themutual, virtuous gains it produces. “Mutual friendship involves rational choice.”14

At times, it ispossible that love would be distracting, but the decision to love remains rational.

This is a quality analysis of Aristotle, here is the link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17202860/An-Aristotelian-Apology-for-Romantic-Love

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I hope everyone is clear I'm not out to prove the Brandens evil.

Peter,

Believe me, if I thought you were on such a crusade, your posts would not be up. I believe what I said I believe, not what you seem to think I believe. And I believe your perspective has been highly influenced by hanging around people who only see this issue with biased hostility.

Sort of like hanging around Muslim fanatics for a while...

I don't however consider it impossible that Barbara Branden felt some desire - perhaps unconcious - to get back at Rand.

That is exactly part of the core storyline the orthos preach and it has nothing to do with the Barbara I knew. I have reams of emails and hours and hours of conversations in my memory as basis for that statement.

Why do the orthos preach this? Because, in my experience and judgement, that is what they would have done had they been excommunicated. That is what is in their souls.

That was my point--that they were not people who would have gone along with Rand when push came to shove. They condemn others for things they find repugnant for themselves (like sharing their mate), but say is good because Rand did it.

I see that as pure hypocrisy. They preach a story they don't live. They are not the moral giants they imagine themselves to be.

Barbara was.

I think she made her mistakes and had some human inconsistencies, but she believed body, mind and soul in what she did on the important stuff, all the way to the end.

I gave you a couple of ideas to explain these matters from a different view than what you were taught. Apparently you are not interested in even looking at them. You went for the ortho storyline and that's where you are right now. I don't believe this is in your soul because I do see you questioning, but I do believe the story you are attached to with such certainty did not come from you. It came from others.

Before I discuss this further with you, I need to wait until you think things through a little more. So do the reading. Read all perspectives. Think. Question. Suffer the doubts and enjoy the epiphanies. And learn a little about life. I would love to talk to Peter. I'm not interested in talking to learned dogma.

I realize now that given the history and context I was unaware of, that by bursting onto the scene and asserting roughly "I'm suspicious as hell" I was interpreted to have said "Barbara Branden was pure evil and I'm on a witch hunt" which is not what I meant at all.

Bullshit.

You don't need to think for anyone here. We can think for ourselves, thank you. And come to our own conclusions.

You will find that people on OL say what they mean. There's none of this us-against-them peer pressure subtext when someone speaks out.

I said what I thought. Others did too. We agree and disagree with each other. It has nothing to do with what you are saying here. Reread my words--without that boneheaded martyr storyline that permeates the ortho mindset as your filter for interpretation--and you will see my meaning clearly.

You are not a martyr for the truth. Not on OL.

It's true, you have been misled and taught a certain storyline about the Brandens, but I believe you are a good person, even if you did get obnoxious with "I'm suspicious as hell." That's not a vague statement and the emotional load is not vague, either.

You were evaluated on what you said and only that. Just look at what people wrote. They talked to you. They expressed their opinions about others, but they talked to you. Not to the face of a storyline. And certainly not to a martyr begging to be baited.

You were not evaluated as if you were Valliant or Peikoff or Hsieh or Perigo or any of those people. You were evaluated on the words you wrote and only those.

You speak for yourself here without the comfort of a precanned story and a peer group to high-five when you "trounce the enemy." I do hope the idea of speaking for yourself is attractive to you, but ultimately, that's your choice.

I found Diana Hsieh's treatment interesting but not condeming.

Now that's a premise for you.

Michael