I'm not sure if this goes in the Living Room, or in Rants, or Humor. MSK, feel free to move it.

Last post I made here, I expressed my exasperation with what I see as Rand-bashing. I said I did not appreciate people such as Neil Parille evaluating Rand as fundamentally immoral. Neil later replied that he did not evaluate Rand in this way. I sure thought he did! This made me go back and re-read some of his posts on SOLO, and I have an observation that might be useful. Neil has been engaged in criticizing James Valliant and his book, "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" for some time. When "cultists" like me read his posts, we end up subconsciously computing a sort of emotional median, which results in our conclusion that Neil is bashing Rand.

Some examples:

Neil writes:
"Valliant accuses Nathaniel Branden of alleging that Rand engaged in “grandiose dishonesty” in making her claim in the About the Author postscript to Atlas Shrugged that “no one helped me . . . .”

The emotional bottom-line:
"Rand engaged in “grandiose dishonesty”."

Neil writes:
"The extent to which James Valliant is willing to misrepresent his sources can be seen in his distortion of Barbara Branden’s discussion of Rand’s use of a diet medicine, Dexamyl (which contains an amphetamine). "

Bottom line:
"Rand used amphetamines!"

Neil writes:
"Robert Campbell has pointed out that the source for Valliant's misreport is apparently Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult.
"Barbara Branden relates that toward the end when people came into Rand's apartment, 'the first thing they smelled was alcohol, and Frank had clearly been drinking,' even in the morning. Now 'Frank would fly into rages over nothing.' After he died, his studio was found littered with empty liquor bottles." "

Bottom line:
"Frank was a drunk!"

Neil writes:
"In addition to my general point that negative aspects of Rand’s personality have been confirmed by those who knew Rand, Walker, Cox and Doherty have obviously made their own independent evaluation of the credibility of many of the sources used by Barbara Branden. It is thus unfair for Valliant to claim that they uncritically rely on PAR for their negative assessments of Rand."

Bottom line:
"Rand's personality negative."

Neil writes:
"Valliant claims that Branden alleges that Rand’s statements concerning the changes in the revised We the Living were the product of “self-delusion.” "
Bottom line:
"Rand was deluded."

Neil writes:
"Although Valliant didn’t have space to mention what the Blumenthals told Branden, he does quote what Allan Blumenthal told Walker, viz, that he believes that Objectivism was created by Rand as self-therapy."

Bottom line:
"Objectivism was created by Rand as self-therapy."

Neil, do you get what I'm saying here? Buried in these long chains of "Person A said that Person B quoted Person C as saying that Person D was mistaken about Person E..... there is always a negative statement about Ayn Rand.

Before anyone makes any comments about my reading-comprehension problems, let me say that I think I "get" that Neil is criticizing Valliant. My point is, it sure feels like he's criticizing Rand. Not just criticizing but relentlessly nitpicking.

Not sure if this post will do any good, but I'm wondering if maybe part of "our problem" is insensitivity to each other's emotions -- I bet 99% of us come out to be "T"s (thinkers) not "F"s (feelers) on the Myers-Briggs test, and hey, I like that. But, we do have emotions, and what we write has an emotional effect. As a matter of fact, I think this whole thing with Lindsay Perigo goes back to hurt feelings. Heaven knows, he's hurt people's feelings, and people have reacted in anger. And his feelings have been hurt, too, by the accusation of alcoholism. And he reacted in anger.

Kat has expressed her hurt feelings over TAS's invitation of Lindsay, and I applaud her honesty and I think I understand where she is coming from. Hate to get all touchy-feely, but maybe we can all try to be more honest about how we feel (I mean not just anger!), and try to be more sensitive to others, and less sensitive (thin-skinned) ourselves.

Laure,

This is a fine place to discuss this. There is nothing at all wrong with the issues you raise, since your whole approach is toward clarification and understanding. Who could possibly argue with that desire?

I will get back to you on this. Right now I am a bit angry and that might cloud my "cognitive" mode (the best of which this matter deserves).

I am very interested.

I do admit that you make a fine cultist...

(Sorry... Seeing you as a cultist makes me laugh.)

Michael

Gosh, thanks!

Hi Laure,

Let me make a few points:

1. I'm not an Objectivist, so I will of course be somewhat more critical of Objectivism than non-Objectivists. Actually, I have kept some of my harsher criticisms of Objectivism to my web site and Dan Barnes and Greg Nyquist's Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog.

2. As far as Rand the person is concerned, I am simply responding to Valliant's book. The only flaw that he is willing to recognize in Rand is her occasional anger (and even then he tries to justify it, saying she was upset at our relativistic world). I do think Rand had flaws in addition to anger. I don't dwell on these because in the grand scheme of things they aren't that bad; on the other hand, I don't know how to address Valliant's book without mentioning the negative things about Rand that he omits.

3. You say that my essays contain a lot of "nitpicking." All the examples I mention are those raised by Valliant himself. His claim is that taken as a whole they demonstrate the dishonesty (if not pure evil) of "the Brandens." Again, I don't know how to respond except by showing point by point his serial misrepresentation of their books. Perhaps you should ask Valliant why he wrote a book collecting all this trivia (the Brandens attending a surprise party for Rand, NB's opinion on whether Rand liked to cook) which doesn't prove much of anything.

Laure,

Since it was my post #28 (see) on another thread ("The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar") which eventuated, in the one-thing-leads-to-another way of listland life, in your starting this thread, I feel that I should say to you, plainly, that, no, I do not think that you are a cultist -- or, of course, that Jim Heaps-Nelson is either.

Nevertheless, I think that the banner of Rand which both of you want to have "flown high without apology or qualification" is a mythologic rather than a factual banner. Jim, if I have his age right, wasn't even born, or was no older than an infant, when the Big Split happened. You're maybe 10 years older than Jim, but, still, you weren't around back then to have been aware of the extent to which any idea that Ayn Rand was less than the greatest philosopher in the history of thought, the greatest novelist who ever wrote, the most perfect being ever to exist, was instantly to provoke conflict if one was speaking to one of those convinced that she was all of the above.

As I see what Linz is trying for, he's trying to resuscitate something of that viewpoint, a viewpoint of which I think the Objectivist world needs to rid itself because it isn't true.

I have no problem with people's holding Rand in high esteem, considering her a heroine. Indeed I was dismayed by your writing:



I wondered, who do you think has even said that, let alone with insistence, on this list? There's only one name I can think of -- Bob Mac -- who might have come close to expressing that opinion, and I among others have argued against some of what he said about Rand.

Your post starting this thread helps with understanding how you're reading what others say. However, I don't think people should feel under any need to be watching every word they write lest they give an impression of far more negativity toward Rand than they feel. I was surprised by your saying that you thought Neil did view Rand as "fundamentally immoral." It's only with difficulty that I can see how you got this interpretation. Maybe it would help with communicating if you'd be aware, as you ask others to be aware in reverse, that speaking of negative characteristics of Rand's psychology is not equivalent to "insistence that Rand was fundamentally immoral."

For myself, I don't think of her in "moral/immoral" terms -- possibly because of my not being an Objectivist and my interest in Rand having sprung originally so much more from her literary genius than from any philosophic reason. I think of her as very complicated, to some extent self-delusional but in ways that were probably necessary to her genius. (Yes, I think, contra Dragonfly and some others, that "genius" is an appropriate description, though not for the same reasons Objectivists mean. I think of her as a genius visionary/literary figure, not so high in marks as a philosopher though she provided an outline provocative enough it will have unanticipated results. She's stimulated a way of approach which I expect will end up having been important, despite my finding the majority of the details flawed.)

I'm not trying to write something about specifics of my own view of Rand. I'm just trying to say (1) that, no, I don't consider you a cultist; and (2) that, speaking of being surprised, I'm surprised by your having interpreted Neil as believing Rand was "fundamentally immoral"; and (3) some sensitivity to what the other person is saying cuts both ways -- please don't do what Linz and his friends do and think of anyone who's less favorably inclined to Rand than you are as a "Rand diminisher."

Ellen

___

Laure, thanks for putting this up. It helps me to understand things a bit better as I never viewed Neil's criticism of Valliant's book as an attack on Ayn Rand at all. PARC needs to be discredited as it is nothing but a smear campaign against Barbara and Nathaniel Branden. Valliant and his ilk are the cultists and PARC's purpose is to cultivate cultists. Perigo has a personal vendetta against Barbara Branden. He turned violently against her and uses this book as a weapon. He was against the book until his rift with Barbara, then he did a complete turnaround. He hates Barbara because she rejected him.

PARC is fueled by hatred of Barbara, starting with her own cousin Leonard Peikoff who wants revenge on her for writing PAR and exposing the affair that was kept secret from him for a very long time and shattered his impression of Ayn Rand as morally perfect. That is why he gave access to Ayn Rand's journals to Valliant.

Maybe I'm a freak, but reading Passion of Ayn Rand made me love and admire Rand more, not less. Barbara is a wonderful person and someone I adore. It has been wonderful to actually get to know her personally over the years. The way she has been treated in the Objectivist world is appalling and Michael and I provide an online sanctuary for her here at OL. Members of OL don't have to agree with our views, we just don't allow Branden bashing in our house.

btw - I'm sure nobody here really thinks you are a cultist.

Kat
INTP

A cultist would not call themselves out as such.


Joel,

INFP

Laura, your post was very helpful in enbling me to understand why you thought Ayn Rand was being attacked on OL. I'm glad you wrote it.

Let me tell you, in very abbreviated, even oversimplified terms, my own view of Rand.

During my nineteen years with her, I felt a great many emotions toward and about her. I felt the deepest admiration of my life, I felt fear of her rages,I felt an overwhelming gratitude for the things she taught me, I felt an unforgiving anger, I felt happiness when she approved of me and pain when she didn't, I felt loved and I felt hated, I felt an agonizing disappointment, I felt a profound tenderness and a passionate desire to help her and to save her from pain. And through it all, I loved her. Sometimes, I tried not to, but I never succeeded.

I see Ayn Rand as a woman of powerful intellect and of a courage and determination that matched her intellect. I see her as a woman of potentially world-changing achievement. I see a woman who could be kind -- and cruel; exquisitely understanding -- and indifferent to the pain she caused; helpful -- and hurtful; forgiving -- and savagely judgmental -- all of these qualities magnified in their effects on others by the power of her personality. As I wrote in The Passion of Ayn Rand, her virtues were larger than life, and so were her flaws. And perhaps I'd say the same about her philosophy: its virtures and its flaws are larger than life.

And I see Rand as a woman whose life was tragically marred -- partly because of her virtues and partly because of her flaws -- by too much pain and too much loneliness. I see her as a woman desperate for the happiness she wrote so eloquently about and who never understood why it seemed too often out of reach. And, in the end, her years of suffering and of endless struggle vastly increased her tendency to bitterness and anger.

When her blind worshippers paint her as someone who never experienced despair, who never was crushed by adversity, who never lashed out in passionate rage at a world that attacked her so viciously, who never was twisted out of shape by suffering --when whatever they've learned about human psychology vanishes and they paint her as a perfect, saintlike creature because they need a god to worship -- I feel enormous anger at their refusal to recognize that she had a right to their understanding, the understanding that human beings should receive but goddesses do not require. They insult Rand by viewing her as a Pollyanna-like person untouched by life, rather than as the fascinatingly complex and many-faceted mix of strengths and weaknesses that she was.

Barbara

Kat -

I think this is a very reasonable reaction to reading the Passion of Ayn Rand. PAR makes very clear Barbara Branden's admiration for Ayn Rand. And it makes clear the reasons for that admiration.

Alfonso

Barbara,

My breath caught reading that. It gets so close to my own feeling about her. The odd thing is that it's those who don't see how "complex and many-faceted [a] mix of strengths and weaknesses" she was whom I consider the true "Rand-diminishers." Goddesses are so much less than human beings. ;-)

Ellen

___

Ignoring reality in order to convince others to do the same is cultish behavior. This is precisely what Jim and Laure proposed.

I'm not going to call someone a cultist, I'll just say that if the shoe fits they can wear it.


Shayne

I'd like to announce the founding of The Brant Gaede Cult. The object is to send me all your money and valuable worldly goods. It's okay to sell the later and just send me money, but I would like a Bentley and a fishing rod. Oh, yes, a throne as befits my new status.

--Brant

Brant,

Need a chief disciple and discipline master of the acolytes?

I'm available...

Michael

You mean the Peikoff role? Perigo? HSIEH!!!! Yes! Hsieh!

--Brant

A cult is just a minority religion. Once the cult gets popular using the word "cult" to describe it is usually dropped. E.g., Mormonism. Or early Christianity.

Objectivism as some practice it certainly qualifies as a cult.


Shayne

Shayne,

If you suck up right, we can let you be second in command.

See if you can find us a good location for Gaede's Gultch.



Michael

I am old enough to have gone through the split as an adult. I have told people when the year 1968 is brought up that the biggest thing that happened after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and riots in Washington DC was the Rand-Branden split. It was a great shock that took a great deal of time to get over.

As I have stated on OL I still believe that some of the actions of Nathaniel Branden were wrong. Even at the time of TWIMC I could not think the same of Barbara Branden's actions.

I consider Ayn Rand one of the greatest thinkers of this or any other age. I consider her works to be some of the greatest novels ever written.

I don't consider myself a cultist. I may have been one when I younger.

I don't consider OL to be a Rand bashing forum.

I don't think LaRue and Jim Heaps-Nelson are cultists either.

I enjoy coming here everyday and I have nothing but praise for Michael and Kat.

If there is anything I left out tell me.

Got your location right here.
Brant, you know this building in town, don't you?

Ellen, I enjoy reading your perspective, but I just don't agree with your assessment of her literature.

So what I'm left with is coming to terms with the many errors I see. Unacceptable errors in my opinion.

Let's look at these traits:

A) Intelligence
B ) Intellectual Honesty (or just honesty period)

With errors of this severity you cannot possess both A and B. Not possible. I can only go by what I have read, this is the only evidence I have, but I cannot rationally come to any other conclusion other than she was of questionable moral character. I do most certainly believe that she was indeed 'fundamentally immoral'.

Bob

Looks somewhat familiar. I was thinking of that new 2200 seater they are building on West Ruthrauff Rd.

--Brant

I am skeptical of the Myers-Briggs instrument, but I take a tonic from Laure's post. Heck, I like her, so I would take a tonic from her anyhow -- her point rings true with cognitive research. This is the problem with any charge/countercharge, and a puzzle for any politician who has at one time or another been accused of crime or misdemeanor. It doesn't matter what the eventual outcome by trial or refutation of the charge when someone is innocent -- what is remembered over time is the stripped-down notion at the heart of an accusation: the crime.

In this case, we have to be vigilant to understand the arguments. Nit-picking, after all, is one of the joys of our primate kin. Gossiping, grooming, eyeing our clanmembers for signs of untoward behaviour . . .

I take Laure's general point about empathy. I sympathize with an urging for a rally, a team moment, a celebration and avowal of support.

I do kind of cringe at the 'banners high' imagery that my mind conjures up: an aw shucks State Fair parade with majorettes and giant tableaux of Our Founder doing Good Works.

Seriously, Randian thought needs its rah-rah and banners and bunting and corn-fed optimism, sure. But that isn't inquiry, that isn't discussion, that is more of a community ritual that has to be made to happen: such bursts of glorious flag-waving don't come to fruition without a lot of human energy.




[ . . . ]

Well, you could say it all has to do with fences. In recent memory there was a SoloHQ, a big ranch, and now there are smaller ranches. Some fences got built up, some higher than others. Some folk were shown the door, others hopped out windows and ran.

Laure is nice, which means she doesn't hold her own cognitions and emotional reaction against Neil. She is nice in that she wants to go to the State Fair and have fun. So do I. I like Objectivists when they aren't all denunciatory.




My skin is thick enough, I think, and I can't trade up my sensitivity to people for less sensitivity to stupidity. I am self-interested enough to calculate the amount of sensitivity I show. Thanks for the corrective, Laure. It's more appealing than Emperor Bidinotto's.

Oooooo! I want to be the first member! Pick me! Pick me!

Laure,

The notion that either Ayn Rand was perfect, or she was "fundamentally immoral," is precisely the false alternative that Jim Valliant and others who share his point of view try so hard to propagate.

More widely, it's an instance of the Ayn Rand love/hate myth, as MSK has called it.

The examples of immoral behavior--by Rand's own standards--that I've presented as counters to Mr. Valliant's claims hardly sink to the level of fundamental immorality.

A big chunk of the problem these days is that Mr. Valliant keeps obdurately insisting that Ayn Rand was without any flaw, except losing her temper a bit too often--and anyone who suggests otherwise must be in the thrall of the evil Brandens. So those who don't buy his line of course keep presenting arguments against it.

Now that Mr. Valliant's book is three years old, and it's been patiently dismantled by Neil Parille, Jordan Zimmmerman, Michael
Stuart Kelly, and others, we can hope that issues about the Founder's character and actions will begin to lose their urgency hereabouts.

Robert Campbell

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts on this. Robert, I don't think James Valliant thinks Ayn Rand was perfect. I am on his side in challenging the idea that "moral perfection" is even a valid concept or way of looking at things. Part of Rand's job description was "moral philosopher", so judging her own morality is relevant. But this "perfection" emphasis is just wrong. Tyra Banks' job description is "supermodel". If someone is a fan of Tyra Banks, do you challenge him and say, come on, admit she's not physically perfect, admit it, she's not, she's not, she's not!!

Another thing I wish people would remember is that whatever Rand's flaws, she certainly can't do anything about them now, so why focus on them? She is not here to either defend herself, to tell us we are mistaken about our facts, or to admit she was wrong about anything.

If I could have had input into Valliant's book, I would have told him to focus on refuting Rand's most unfair critics, and to point out that they sometimes pull some negative bits from the Brandens' books and magnify and distort them in an attempt to discredit Rand. I don't think Barbara Branden is a villain for giving her view of Rand. I thought her book was good, well-written, and interesting, but understandably colored by her own personal context. (For the record - I know nobody's asking my opinion - but I did not like the movie.)

But if Valliant's book had had the focus I would have recommended, it may have come off as him saying, "see, she wasn't THAT bad", which isn't really a ringing endorsement! It's better to focus on the topic, rather than on other people's views of the topic. I am looking forward to the publication of more biographical information on Rand. I want her to be remembered fairly and not slandered when she's not able to defend herself.

I was playing on Yahoo Answers the other night (mostly answering math questions 'cuz it's fun) and did a search on "Ayn" to see what's being said out there. Found one answer which got voted "best answer" that gave some biographical info on Rand, and also mentioned that it was just a shame that she became addicted to crack cocaine in her later years. Gaaahhh!!!! The "asker" replied with something along the lines of, "thanks for the answer, yeah too bad about the crack addiction, so sad about that..." Did a big long game of "telephone", starting with Rand's diet pills, end up this way? Stuff like that makes me wonder about how we treat other historical figures. Did Beethoven really have syphillis, or is that just something that someone made up?!?

Part of Rand's job description was "moral philosopher", so judging her own morality is relevant.

Laure,

You and I are strangers, so I won't ask too much. Miss Rand was a speculative philosopher, big achievements in metaphysics and epistemology IMO, a breakthrough concept in psychology ("second-handers") and a moral principle ("Evil requires the sanction of the victim"). Beyond that, I'm not certain that her body of work added or subtracted anything to the wider questions of moral philosophy. She was a novelist and dramatist, an artist above all.

W.

I don't agree. Her moral philosophy is revolutionary. I believe her when she said she was both a novelist and a philosopher.

On the other hand, I for the life of me don't know why a fan of her philosophy would say that in order for her philosophy to be regarded as true, then she must have had to practice it consistently. This is *again* the cultist attitude, and Valliant himself has specifically promoted it. (I recognize that Valliant and Laure didn't put it exactly that way, but that is in effect how they put it).


Shayne

Wolf, I think one of her most important philosophical insights was the idea that altruism as a moral imperative leads to horrors when applied to political systems. I did say "part of Rand's job description" - I, too, think of her as "a novelist and dramatist, an artist above all".

Shayne, I think I can meet you halfway on this. I don't think that the idea that Rand made mistakes invalidates her philosophy. On the other hand, one of her ideas was that a rational morality shouldn't be too hard for ordinary people to follow. I seem to think in analogies a lot, so here's another one. What would you think of an obese diet doctor? It could be that the diet he's promoting is healthy, but he just doesn't follow it, but if one of his points is that his diet is easy for ordinary people to follow, wouldn't his obesity lead one to doubt his diet theory? (I don't think Rand was "morally obese" , but maybe she was spotted going off her diet occasionally!)

Thanks. You gave me something to think about, whether altruism actuated Wynand or Stadler.

W.

Judging Ayn Rand requires only that one read her works. Atlas Shrugged is a testament to her rationality, productivity, pride, integrity, honesty--she was a giant. Any mistakes she made in her relationships are so small in comparison as to be irrelevant when judging her overall. Yet Valliant thinks they are relevant.

Edit: And that explains why Valliant is in such a huff about the Brandens. He is under the false assumption that their story somehow diminishes Rand. Nothing can diminish her in the face of all she accomplished. That he doesn't grasp that reveals--I'll be "civil"--a lot.


Shayne

I agree!


Not sure.


Interesting.

Shayne, I think our positions are really not all that different.

"Gaaahhh!!!" indeed. Re the long game of "telephone": yes, apparently a game which started amongst West Coast O'ists, possibly started by Roy Childs, though he didn't say "crack cocaine" but that she was a speed freak (in his last interview, conducted by Jeff Walker; he'd been telling the story long before that, but I don't know if he originated it).

I think the idea that Beethoven had syphillis has been disconfirmed. Where it came from is a guy whose name I forget who proposed a "syphillis theory of history" -- i.e., that just about every great figure had syphillis. I read his book on Beethoven when I was researching Beethoven biographies for a paper I wrote (circa 1967). It's one of those things with elaborate reasoning supporting a presupposition, kind of fascinating in a horrific way but where was the evidence? (Now you have me curious as to what became of the theory.)

Btw, I, too, disliked the movie of Passion -- especially the turning of Patricia into someone not at all like her, but because of numerous other reasons as well (though I was impressed by Helen Mirren's performance, but then I always am impressed by Helen Mirren's acting).

Ellen

___

Laure,

Franz Schubert was the famous classical composer who had syphilis. Laypeople always mix up the classics on trivia questions.

I'm the loud-mouthed Objectivist who was a crack addict. I'm not saying that this was how it got attributed to Rand at that distance, but it makes sense according to how the gossip grapevine works. Nasty Rand-basher reads my stuff because he reads Rand-related stuff, then comments elsewhere in a cryptic manner, another runs with it, etc., until it balloons up into the ridiculous. Crack wasn't even invented when Rand was alive. Anyway, Rand thought drug addicts were morally depraved and wrote that way.

Michael

Yes, but the theory was proposed -- and in a whole book -- that so did Beethoven. I read the book, though I don't remember the author's name off hand. And the subject has been debated amongst musicologists, and I think actually researched...

I'll check later; gotta scoot now.

Ellen

___

Ellen,

Dayaamm! I have conducted and performed many works by Beethoven and, of course, read a couple of biographies. (I even used to own a complete set of Groves.) I must have been in never-never land because I do not recall reading about that theory.

I just checked on Google and there it is in all its glory, although the lack of mercury (the medicine of the times for syphilis) in a lock of his hair is the main point used to discredit that notion.

Michael

1/3 of the untreated cases of syphilis end up as fatal tertiary syphilis many years after the first infection. The other two-thirds are naturally "cured."

--Brant

Laure,

I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Jim Valliant's book.



First, Ayn Rand advanced her own conception of moral perfection (e.g., in "The Objectivist Ethics") and claimed elsewhere to exemplify it (e.g., "And I mean it!" in "About the author" at the end of Atlas Shrugged). During the Q&A at the end of her 1971 Ford Hall Forum speech, she ripped some campus Objectivists for telling a questioner that Objectivism doesn't require anyone to be a saint. On the contrary, she said, Objectivism calls for moral perfection from everyone. During a Q&A at the end of one of Leonard Peikoff's 1976 lectures, she rejected the idea of perfect knowledge while upholding the notion of moral perfection.

Second, Mr. Valliant knows about all of this. He has even, on one occasion, claimed Randian moral perfection for Casey Fahy.

Third, Mr. Valliant refuses to accept any evidence of a "moral breach" committed by Ayn Rand. In his book, he rejects all claims about flaws in Rand's moral character as stemming from the the malevolently distorted minds of "the Brandens." In internet discussions of his book, he has consistently rejected all proffered evidence from other sources, including her published works. For instance, he denies that Ayn Rand told any half-truths in "To Whom It May Concern," or that she lied about the significance of her editorial changes to We the Living.

It's true that Mr. Valliant denies once in his book that he regards Ayn Rand as morally perfect. But I could equally well proclaim, "Mr. Valliant is an eminent scholar and a gentleman, and none of the criticisms that I am about to present should in any way be taken to detract from the high regard in which I continue to hold him." If I followed that statement with 300+ pages of ripping Mr. Valliant's scholarship, refuting his arguments, impugning his debating tactics, and challenging his sincerity, you would not take my disclaimer seriously. You would conclude that it was either heavily ironic, or smarmily insincere.

Mr. Valliant also claims that his critics are applying Christian or other alien standards of moral perfection. On the contrary, I and others have consistently applied Ayn Rand's own stated criteria--some of which are quite harsh--and shown how she sometimes fell short of them. For instance, by Rand's standards, her notion of "psychologizing" is an "anti-concept" and putting it forward in print makes her morally culpable (because "anti-concepts" are always deliberately hatched and circulated). A more charitable interpretation would have it that Ms. Rand was confused about the issues involved, not that she was trying to put anything over on anyone. But you will not find Mr. Valliant suggesting that her notion of "psychologizing" was a product of confusion... Instead, he insists that there was nothing wrong with it (and, from his perspective, there apparently couldn't have been anything wrong with it, because it was part of Objectivism, and it was put forward by Ayn Rand).

Robert Campbell

I agree entirely.

When reading PAR, I felt so much utter sympathy for Ayn. My heart bled for her. I can understand her bitterness towards a world that loathed and scorned her. I share many similar feelings myself. When reading PAR, I honestly have not felt more sympathy, sadness and "a desire to save this person from pain and sufferring" towards anyone in a book since Louis de Pointe du Lac from the Vampire Chronicles. The fact Rand was not fictional only made these emotions worse... Its not pity I feel towards Rand's sufferring... pity is what you feel towards those that are pathetic and valueless... its precisely because Rand was not pathetic and valueless that I feel an immense wish to end her sufferring.

PAR made me feel significant emotional kinship with Rand. It gave me someone I admire more than any allegedly perfect saint or goddess type.

-Andrew

xNTP