BASIC PRINCIPLES BOOK ANNOUNCED

[Jerry Biggers]

I wish there were footnotes or a glossary to "The Vision of Ayn Rand". I suspect some readers might not know who the people who are quoted or referred to.

Chris,

That was suggested. However, it was felt that that would greatly increase the length of the book, which the publishers did not want to do. Maybe, for a second edition, or as supplementary materials available "online."

[Robert Campbell]

Brian Doherty has now posted a strong, positive review of The Vision of Ayn Rand:

http://reason.com/bl...ens-original-ob

Robert Cambpell

[RightJungle]

Saw these numbers on Amazon.com today:

Leonard Peikoff's book “Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand”:

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #218,719 in Books

Nathaniel Branden's The Vision of Ayn Rand:

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #102,503 in Books

Does this mean that Branden's book has sold more copies in its lifetime than Leonard's in its lifetime? Or What?

[Chris Grieb]

I think those figures are current sales. I am glad to see that Amazon is carrying the Branden book.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Chris Grieb

[Robert Campbell]

Mary Lee,

The amazon rankings are for current sales only (over what period of time, I'm not sure, but it's fairly short). They fluctuate from day to day.

I'm also pleased that amazon is carrying the book. There was some concern that it wouldn't be (and not being available through amazon is a significant marketing liability).

Robert Campbell

[galtgulch]

Mary Lee,

The amazon rankings are for current sales only (over what period of time, I'm not sure, but it's fairly short). They fluctuate from day to day.

I'm also pleased that amazon is carrying the book. There was some concern that it wouldn't be (and not being available through amazon is a significant marketing liability).

Robert Campbell

Thanks for the update. I own the original recordings as well but just ordered the hard cover copy from Amazon as well as the new biographies of Ayn Rand.

gulch

[RightJungle]

I have read The Vision of Ayn Rand and it is all that I knew it would be. These excellent lectures were presented way back when I was still in highschool. My only regret is that I didn't know about Ayn Rand and Objectivism then. Having read every book that Nathaniel Branden ever wrote (except the Romantic Love Question and Answer Book - just couldn't get into it), I know that with this publication his work has been wrapped up beautifully. Not completed, mind you, but what a climax to a great life!

Here comes the touchy feely part - I felt very anxious as I waited for this book. I knew that it would give me the clearly stated principles that I needed to defend Individualism, Egoism and Capitalism. The anxiety is gone and I am using the book in much the same way that some will use a Bible.

No book review here, at least not yet. Others have done a good job of that.

Mary Lee

[Reidy]

Could someone who has this book answer a question? My recollection is that, in his treatment of honesty, Branden said expressly that honesty precludes what Peikoff calls "privacy lying" (lying in answer to a nosy question). Is this accurate?

[Barbara Branden]

Could someone who has this book answer a question? My recollection is that, in his treatment of honesty, Branden said expressly that honesty precludes what Peikoff calls "privacy lying" (lying in answer to a nosy question). Is this accurate?

Yes, it is accurate. Here is a quote from Lecture 10: (italics mine)

"Honesty does not mean that you owe an answer to any idle or impertinent question anyone chooses to ask you. You do not owe information to those

who have no right, purpose, or business to question you about matters which do not affect them. In such cases, honesty consists of refusing to answer,

not of lying. In such cases, you may point out, if you care to, that their question is improper, but you don't lower yourself to the status of a a liar for

the sake of their impropriety. "

Barbara

[Roger Bissell]

I have some good news to share with those interested in Nathaniel's "Vision of Ayn Rand" book. Jim Peron at Laissez-Faire Books reports that it has sold very well. They have already covered all their costs and made some profit, just by marketing to Nathaniel's core audience. They are now ready to market/distribute to outside customers, such as libraries and bookstores, and they already have interested distributors with whom they are working out terms. I don't have exact figures and specific names to cite, but I think that this is very good news, indeed. It speaks well of the ongoing loyalty to, and interest in, Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and Nathaniel's much-deserved reputation for having formulated such a powerful presentation of her philosophy.

REB

[Guyau]

Here is a quote from Lecture 10: (italics mine)

"Honesty does not mean that you owe an answer to any idle or impertinent question anyone chooses to ask you. You do not owe information to those who have no right, purpose, or business to question you about matters which do not affect them. In such cases, honesty consists of refusing to answer, not of lying. In such cases, you may point out, if you care to, that their question is improper, but you don't lower yourself to the status of a a liar for the sake of their impropriety. "

Dr. Branden got part of that wrong. Lying to those whose business it is not does not make one a liar in a univocal and immoral sense. Furthermore such lies are also sometimes told by silence.

Years ago gay people would change the gender of the third-person pronoun when speaking to employer or co-worker about who was with them at a concert last weekend, say. In some situations, that was not a moral or psychological failing. Though not the best situation, it was often the best that could be done in the situation, consistent with their own self-interest.

[RightJungle]

Could someone who has this book answer a question? My recollection is that, in his treatment of honesty, Branden said expressly that honesty precludes what Peikoff calls "privacy lying" (lying in answer to a nosy question). Is this accurate?

Yes, it is accurate. Here is a quote from Lecture 10: (italics mine)

"Honesty does not mean that you owe an answer to any idle or impertinent question anyone chooses to ask you. You do not owe information to those

who have no right, purpose, or business to question you about matters which do not affect them. In such cases, honesty consists of refusing to answer,

not of lying. In such cases, you may point out, if you care to, that their question is improper, but you don't lower yourself to the status of a a liar for

the sake of their impropriety. "

Barbara

Dear Barbara,

Not to nag, but, do you think that it might be your turn to publish a transcription?

Mary Lee Harsha

[Chris Grieb]

Could someone who has this book answer a question? My recollection is that, in his treatment of honesty, Branden said expressly that honesty precludes what Peikoff calls "privacy lying" (lying in answer to a nosy question). Is this accurate?

Yes, it is accurate. Here is a quote from Lecture 10: (italics mine)

"Honesty does not mean that you owe an answer to any idle or impertinent question anyone chooses to ask you. You do not owe information to those

who have no right, purpose, or business to question you about matters which do not affect them. In such cases, honesty consists of refusing to answer,

not of lying. In such cases, you may point out, if you care to, that their question is improper, but you don't lower yourself to the status of a a liar for

the sake of their impropriety. "

Barbara

Dear Barbara,

Not to nag, but, do you think that it might be your turn to publish a transcription?

Mary Lee Harsha

I believe that Ms. Branden is working on turning her lectures into a book. I think she want to make the lectures something more than just a transcript of her Principles of Efficient Thinking course.

[AristoSantiago]

Secondly, I apologize as sincerely and deeply as I can for the horrendously error-ridden index of The Vision of Ayn Rand, and I hereby announce that I am in the process of re-doing it -- i.e., DOING IT RIGHT this time. I will post it here, there, anywhere it makes sense to post it, and I will make it available to Jim Peron @ Cobden Press for (what I hope will be) future editions of the book.

Best to all for the holidays,

REB

I wonder if there has been any progress on the index?

[AristoSantiago]

Robert, "The Neurosis of the Intellectual" was "in the rotation" of BPO for at least two years.

I found reading Linda Tannehill's 1967 typed up notes personally clarifying and liberating, even though I had long ago worked my way through related personal problems without their benefit. I can't tell you (mainly from acute embarrassment) how many marital and intellectual situations were impacted by this neurosis, before I got into a support group that finally helped me deal with it.

I think I will at least post an outline of Tannehill's lecture notes, so that it will be clearer what the scope and import of the lecture was. Maybe in a day or two....REB

Did the Tannehill Lecture note outline or contents ever get posted?

[Roger Bissell]

Secondly, I apologize as sincerely and deeply as I can for the horrendously error-ridden index of The Vision of Ayn Rand, and I hereby announce that I am in the process of re-doing it -- i.e., DOING IT RIGHT this time. I will post it here, there, anywhere it makes sense to post it, and I will make it available to Jim Peron @ Cobden Press for (what I hope will be) future editions of the book.

Best to all for the holidays,

REB

I wonder if there has been any progress on the index?

Yes. The corrected 26-page index is available. I do not know when, if ever, the publisher intends to provide it to book purchasers, either now or in a revised edition of the book. But anyone who wants an electronic copy can receive it upon request. Just email me at rebissellATaolDOTcom.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Robert, "The Neurosis of the Intellectual" was "in the rotation" of BPO for at least two years.

I found reading Linda Tannehill's 1967 typed up notes personally clarifying and liberating, even though I had long ago worked my way through related personal problems without their benefit. I can't tell you (mainly from acute embarrassment) how many marital and intellectual situations were impacted by this neurosis, before I got into a support group that finally helped me deal with it.

I think I will at least post an outline of Tannehill's lecture notes, so that it will be clearer what the scope and import of the lecture was. Maybe in a day or two....REB

Did the Tannehill Lecture note outline or contents ever get posted?

No, they did not, and thank you for reminding me. They slid way down my list of priorities, and it will be some time before I turn to them again. BTW, I made a number of inquiries, trying to locate an extant tape of the lecture from the 60s, and had absolutely no success. REB

[Dennis Hardin]

Robert, "The Neurosis of the Intellectual" was "in the rotation" of BPO for at least two years.

I found reading Linda Tannehill's 1967 typed up notes personally clarifying and liberating, even though I had long ago worked my way through related personal problems without their benefit. I can't tell you (mainly from acute embarrassment) how many marital and intellectual situations were impacted by this neurosis, before I got into a support group that finally helped me deal with it.

I think I will at least post an outline of Tannehill's lecture notes, so that it will be clearer what the scope and import of the lecture was. Maybe in a day or two....REB

Did the Tannehill Lecture note outline or contents ever get posted?

No, they did not, and thank you for reminding me. They slid way down my list of priorities, and it will be some time before I turn to them again. BTW, I made a number of inquiries, trying to locate an extant tape of the lecture from the 60s, and had absolutely no success. REB

It’s not exactly a scandal on the level of Smith-McElroy, but I will never ever understand why Roger won’t give credit to his actual source for those detailed lecture notes.

I somehow doubt that there is even a faint resemblance between me and Linda Tannehill. At least, for her sake, I sure as hell hope not.

[Roger Bissell]

Robert, "The Neurosis of the Intellectual" was "in the rotation" of BPO for at least two years.

I found reading Linda Tannehill's 1967 typed up notes personally clarifying and liberating, even though I had long ago worked my way through related personal problems without their benefit. I can't tell you (mainly from acute embarrassment) how many marital and intellectual situations were impacted by this neurosis, before I got into a support group that finally helped me deal with it.

I think I will at least post an outline of Tannehill's lecture notes, so that it will be clearer what the scope and import of the lecture was. Maybe in a day or two....REB

Did the Tannehill Lecture note outline or contents ever get posted?

No, they did not, and thank you for reminding me. They slid way down my list of priorities, and it will be some time before I turn to them again. BTW, I made a number of inquiries, trying to locate an extant tape of the lecture from the 60s, and had absolutely no success. REB

It’s not exactly a scandal on the level of Smith-McElroy, but I will never ever understand why Roger won’t give credit to his actual source for those detailed lecture notes.

I somehow doubt that there is even a faint resemblance between me and Linda Tannehill. At least, for her sake, I sure as hell hope not.

Dennis, who "accosted" me at Free Minds 2011 this morning, said that I had not corrected the above-quoted post about the source of the lecture notes for NB's "The Neurosis of the Intellectual." Oh, Kant rare! Please refer to Post 92, made 18 months ago. (I added Dennis's name just today, since he obviously doesn't wish to remain anonymous any more.)

Now it remains for Dennis to give permission for me to post his lecture notes. Failing that, I will probably write up a brief summary of the lecture (not as brief as the blurb from the pamphlet!) once my travels are done in August.

REB

[Dennis Hardin]

Did the Tannehill Lecture note outline or contents ever get posted?

No, they did not, and thank you for reminding me. They slid way down my list of priorities, and it will be some time before I turn to them again. BTW, I made a number of inquiries, trying to locate an extant tape of the lecture from the 60s, and had absolutely no success. REB

It’s not exactly a scandal on the level of Smith-McElroy, but I will never ever understand why Roger won’t give credit to his actual source for those detailed lecture notes.

I somehow doubt that there is even a faint resemblance between me and Linda Tannehill. At least, for her sake, I sure as hell hope not.

Dennis, who "accosted" me at Free Minds 2011 this morning, said that I had not corrected the above-quoted post about the source of the lecture notes for NB's "The Neurosis of the Intellectual." Oh, Kant rare! Please refer to Post 92, made 18 months ago. (I added Dennis's name just today, since he obviously doesn't wish to remain anonymous any more.)

Now it remains for Dennis to give permission for me to post his lecture notes. Failing that, I will probably write up a brief summary of the lecture (not as brief as the blurb from the pamphlet!) once my travels are done in August.

REB

Roger,

If I “accosted” you, quotation marks or not, I humbly apologize. That surely was not my intent. I thought I was merely making light-hearted conversation. In any case, thanks for the correction. I hope to one day earn my rightful place in Objectivist stenographic history.

On a serious note, however, permission to post the almost word-for-word transcription of Nathaniel’s original (and quite brilliant) lecture should obviously come from him. I am merely the human Dictaphone. The intellectual property is his and his alone.

See you tomorrow at the conference. Looking forward to your presentation later in the week.

Dennis

[Guyau]

.

I am considering buying this book The Vision of Ayn Rand, transcribing Nathaniel Branden's lectures "Basic Principles of Objectivism." Because Rand agreed with these lectures and because Rand also agreed with Peikoff’s 1976 lectures “The Philosophy of Objectivism,” a comparison of differences in content could show some evolution in Rand’s thinking. To make that sort of study based on this book, I would need to know that it does not contain later revisions to Branden’s lectures, later meaning beyond the split between him and Rand.

Reading this thread, the only red flag that went up for my use of the book began with Roger’s #67

Bill also distinctly remembered Nathaniel giving lecture #19, "The Neurosis of the Intellectual," which was dropped from the series when the LP recordings were made in the late 1980s. (That lecture was still being presented by tape transcription as late as 1967.) (Just for reference and information, that lecture was described as being about: "Why many male intellectuals feel impractical, inefficacious, unmasculine qua intellectuals--The effect on their work and their lives--The wider social consequences.")

Peter remarked in #79

Branden has memory-holed his "neurosis of the intellectual" talk and substituted something he wrote in the 80s.

In The Objectivist Newsletter for February, 1963, I see the notice

Nathaniel Branden will deliver a new lecture (#19) in his current course on “Basic Principles of Objectivism.” The lecture is entitled “The Neurosis of the Intellectual”; it will replace the previously scheduled “Objectivism and the History of Western Philosophy.” Mr. Branden will give the lecture in Philadelphia on Monday, March 4, . . . and in New York City on Tuesday, March 5 . . . .

That the lecture “The Neurosis of the Intellectual” is missing from the book would not be a problem for my use, but the substitution of “something he wrote in the 80’s” would be. Does this book call out all things changed or added, if any, in the lectures after the end of Branden’s association with Rand?

[Brant Gaede]

.

I am considering buying this book The Vision of Ayn Rand, transcribing Nathaniel Branden's lectures "Basic Principles of Objectivism." Because Rand agreed with these lectures and because Rand also agreed with Peikoff's 1976 lectures "The Philosophy of Objectivism," a comparison of differences in content could show some evolution in Rand's thinking. To make that sort of study based on this book, I would need to know that it does not contain later revisions to Branden's lectures, later meaning beyond the split between him and Rand.

Reading this thread, the only red flag that went up for my use of the book began with Roger's #67

Bill also distinctly remembered Nathaniel giving lecture #19, "The Neurosis of the Intellectual," which was dropped from the series when the LP recordings were made in the late 1980s. (That lecture was still being presented by tape transcription as late as 1967.) (Just for reference and information, that lecture was described as being about: "Why many male intellectuals feel impractical, inefficacious, unmasculine qua intellectuals--The effect on their work and their lives--The wider social consequences.")

Peter remarked in #79

Branden has memory-holed his "neurosis of the intellectual" talk and substituted something he wrote in the 80s.

In The Objectivist Newsletter for February, 1963, I see the notice

Nathaniel Branden will deliver a new lecture (#19) in his current course on "Basic Principles of Objectivism." The lecture is entitled "The Neurosis of the Intellectual"; it will replace the previously scheduled "Objectivism and the History of Western Philosophy." Mr. Branden will give the lecture in Philadelphia on Monday, March 4, . . . and in New York City on Tuesday, March 5 . . . .

That the lecture "The Neurosis of the Intellectual" is missing from the book would not be a problem for my use, but the substitution of "something he wrote in the 80's" would be. Does this book call out all things changed or added, if any, in the lectures after the end of Branden's association with Rand?

He meant the late 60s, not 80s, but after the break with Rand. The lectures were first sold as LPs, then tapes and I guess lastly as CDs. He turned out a lot of new material on tapes in the 1980s, but not for the BPO.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

That the lecture “The Neurosis of the Intellectual” is missing from the book would not be a problem for my use, but the substitution of “something he wrote in the 80’s” would be. Does this book call out all things changed or added, if any, in the lectures after the end of Branden’s association with Rand?

Stephen,

As far as I know, most of the original BPO lectures were transcribed word-for-word as originally delivered while Branden was at NBI. However, aside from ‘The Neurosis of the Intellectual,’ two additional lectures are missing: a guest lecture by Ayn Rand on esthetics & literature and a lecture on ‘The Esthetics of the Visual Arts' by Mary Ann (Rukavina) Sures.

The three missing lectures were replaced by material on the “literary method of Ayn Rand” (originally published in Who Is Ayn Rand?) and Branden’s article on “Common Fallacies About Capitalism” (from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal).

As I recall, the lecture on "The Concept of God" was also a guest lecture by Leonard Peikoff. Branden must have written it, however, because it is included, as is Barbara's lecture on 'Efficient Thinking' (with explicit credit to her as the author).

I believe that edited versions of the lectures by Rand and Sures were published in The Objectivist after the schism.

[9thdoctor]

That the lecture “The Neurosis of the Intellectual” is missing from the book would not be a problem for my use, but the substitution of “something he wrote in the 80’s” would be. Does this book call out all things changed or added, if any, in the lectures after the end of Branden’s association with Rand?

They were put out on LP's in the early 70's, I know someone who has a set. So there couldn't be anything from the 80's.

I'd be interested to see a real conceptual concordance between Branden's course and Peikoff's.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Ninth Doctor

[jriggenbach]

That the lecture "The Neurosis of the Intellectual" is missing from the book would not be a problem for my use, but the substitution of "something he wrote in the 80's" would be. Does this book call out all things changed or added, if any, in the lectures after the end of Branden's association with Rand?

They were put out on LP's in the early 70's, I know someone who has a set. So there couldn't be anything from the 80's.

I'd be interested to see a real conceptual concordance between Branden's course and Peikoff's.

Interestingly (to me at any rate), the lecture on "The Literary Method of Ayn Rand" was included in the vinyl set marketed by Academic Associates (AA) in the early '70s, despite the fact that it had been published, as Dennis notes, in Who Is Ayn Rand? a decade earlier. At that point (the early '70s), Nathaniel had deliberately killed Who Is Ayn Rand? - he owned the copyright and he refused permission to reprint it. So including it in the version of the lecture course marketed by AA might have seemed to him a way to save that particular piece of work from oblivion (which I agree it was good to do; it's probably the most insightful bit of literary criticism I've ever seen on Rand's fiction).

Since I never heard any of the NBI lectures before the break, except for the introductory lecture (I was a starving student in those years and it was all I could afford to buy the books and subscribe to The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist), I've always wondered what the exact line up of lectures had been in the course before 1968. It sounds as though the answer is that it varied.

JR