A Speculation about the Roots of Brandens Demonizing

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm just starting to read a new thread titled "Important!!!" on SOLO Pass, a thread initiated by Lindsay for talking about a document recently posted by Diana (a document I haven't yet read) concerning her history with the Brandens, and (I gather) her argument as to why TOC should discontinue any association with the Brandens.

The second post on the thread is by Jennifer Iannola (sp), who's evidently patched up her break with Linz and is now posting again on his list.

Jennifer says outright about herself something which I've been thinking for the last couple months is at the root of the kind of chorus of "hooray" with which some people are greeting PARC. She says that, over a course of time, and as a result of a difficult process, she had decided to accept Rand's genius despite Rand's "faults" (Jennifer used the quote marks), but she's now thinking that maybe this difficult (for her) process was unnecessary -- in other words, that Rand didn't after all have the "faults."

I've noticed all along in the years of my knowing Objectivists that for some Objectivists the issue of Rand's character is of great importance -- in extreme cases, even seeming like a concern of "life or death" importance -- that for these Objectivists, something crucial is at stake on the issue of Rand's personal character. (I think this issue has been talked about in one of the threads here before, a difference between Objectivists who are focused on AR's person versus those who aren't, for whom nothing's at stake on what she was as a person.)

For these Objectivists, of course the Branden books were a threat. What the Brandens are saying is a very unwelcome message for them. Thus PARC -- which purports to make a lie of the Brandens' accounts -- might be described as "salvation," or as a reprieve from a dread sentence, the sentence of having to view Rand as less than ideal. And Valliant is the knight on the white horse to the rescue, vindicating Rand's honor. It's like they're saying "halleluiah," they don't any longer have to carry the burden of grief they feel at the thought of admiring a flawed heroine.

This would at least make sense of the intensity of the outcry against the Brandens -- and the wish to have TOC get rid of the Brandens. Something I've asked myself is, "Well, suppose for the sake of argument everything Valliant said were true, so what? What's the big deal? At the very worst of the case he presents, the sins just aren't sufficient for all this uproar." But if the issue isn't really the Brandens, but instead a restored unblemished image of Rand, then I can at least understand the intensity.

Ellen

___

[Charles R. Anderson]

Ellen, I think you are right.

It was very hard for me for a long time to believe that the person who wrote Atlas Shrugged and conceived of such great heroes, was not herself of the same character as her heroes. For many years, I could not get myself to read PAR, even though I knew that For Whom It May Concern left a great many questions unanswered. PARC actually makes her differences with her heroes more clear, not less.

[Ellen Stuttle]

It was very hard for me for a long time to believe that the person who wrote Atlas Shrugged and conceived of such great heroes, was not herself of the same character as her heroes.

Allan Blumenthal said something so close to that same sentiment, the first time I saw him again after he'd split with Rand. He said, "It was impossible for me to conceive that the mind that wrote Atlas Shrugged was less than fully healthy."

I thought, listening to him, but I didn't say because I didn't want to interrupt his reflections, that it would have been impossible for me to conceive, when I first read Atlas (or at any time thereafter), that the mind that wrote Atlas wasn't a rather strange mind. My own life experiences -- and my reading history -- had provided a different perspective than I'd suppose you and Allan and a lot of others would have had on first reading the book (for instance, I'd read a lot of novels while in high school). By "strange" in my unspoken thought, I meant in particular ways, the ways I came to categorize under the word "naive," though that isn't an adequate term; it's a subterm of the gestalt -- "amazingly unifocal" is maybe better. I'll have to think about what might be the best term.

Diana, in her article (which I've meanwhile read) makes a similar statement to Jennifer's:

-- quoting Diana --

"So in time, I came to accept the broad strokes of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden's portraits of Ayn Rand's character. Despite my admiration for the philosophy she created, I concluded that Ayn Rand was often deeply irrational in her dealings with other people. It was a harsh disappointment at first, but one which I felt bound to accept in light of the seemingly well-established facts. (I can vividly remember a moment of grappling with that bitter conflict in my freshman dorm room.) I concluded that I would not have liked to have ever met Ayn Rand, since we surely would have been at odds. (Augh!) Obviously, I failed to examine the portraits of Ayn Rand created by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden critically enough, in substantial part because I was too quick to accept the standard view of Ayn Rand found in IOS/TOC circles."

-- end Diana quote --

Something she now discounts is a statement of David Kelley's from "Truth and Toleration:

-- quoting David Kelley --

"It is clear to me that Ayn Rand was a woman of remarkable integrity, who largely embodied the virtues she espoused. But it is also clear that she had certain other traits often found in great minds who have waged a lonely battle for their ideas: a tendency to surround herself with acolytes from whom she demanded declarations of agreement and loyalty; a growing sense of bitter isolation from the world; a quickness to anger at criticism; a tendency to judge people harshly and in haste. These faults did not outweigh her virtues; I consider them of minor significance in themselves. But they were real, and I thought [barbara] Branden's book, whatever its other shortcomings, gave a reasonably fair and perceptive account of them."

-- end David Kelley quote --

Diana doesn't say in her article but I wonder if she's paused to think that after all David knew AR; he was saying that he believed Barbara "gave a reasonably fair and perceptive account of [Rand's shortcomings]" on the basis of his having known Rand himself and comparing his experiences to Barbara's account. (This is also the basis on which I assess the accuracy of the account, though I didn't have the first-hand experiences with Rand that David had, but near enough second-hand to form an assessment.) Of course Diana could counter: What of those who personally knew Rand who tell a different tale? (I leave that question without addressing it now. Another time.)

PARC actually makes her differences with her heroes more clear, not less.

I'm interested that you see that. My belief, as I've said earlier on this list, is that ironically, in the long range, it will have been the material in PARC which confirms the fundamental outlines of the Brandens' portrait.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

The hardest thing in the world for certain types of people to do is to think and judge with their own minds. I'm not talking about intelligence - this goes all the way down into Rand's constant clamor to check your premises.

The way people approach hero worship is a good indication of how much independent thinking they do - how they check their premises. A person must never hold a hero above the judgment of his own mind. On the contrary, he must arrive at the conclusion that the hero is a hero because he arrived at that conclusion independently.

The existence of people with the urge to follow a leader and suspend their minds on the premise level goes back to the beginning of recorded history. They have a herd mentality and they clamor for a king. (Notice among the Objectivists with this mentality how some who wish to be king are among them.)

I have been vilified by some of these people for examining a few principles of Christianity favorably (or at least differently than wholesale condemnation) through the lens of Objectivism. They proclaim that Rand's greatest contribution was to debunk the Judeo-Christian tradition of centuries. Their kind of mentality is not to check any premise, but to condemn anything with the Christian moniker because someone else has done their thinking for them.

Then I pick up a copy of Britting's Ayn Rand and see that her favorite painting was a modern surrealistic Dali depiction of the crucifixion of Christ. Not only was it her favorite, it is written clearly in the ARI-sanctioned biography that she spent long hours contemplating it.

Can you imagine the howling that would have ensued if that information had come from the Brandens? So how does the Christianity-hating Rand-worshipers see this fact? They don't think about it.

Blank-out.

The whole Rand whitewash that is being proclaimed using PARC as a basis reminds me of a lesson about humanity I learned in the Bible from childhood Sunday school classes. The people of Israel (I just looked it up on the Internet). From Samuel 8:

6. Samuel was displeased when they asked for a king to judge them. He prayed to the LORD, however,

7. who said in answer: "Grant the people's every request. It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king.

8. As they have treated me constantly from the day I brought them up from Egypt to this day, deserting me and worshiping strange gods, so do they treat you too.

If "Reason" is put into the place of "LORD," we have a very interesting parallel. "They are rejecting me as their king..." and "... deserting me and worshiping strange gods." Some people will always want Rand (or some other king) instead of reason to rule their thinking. It is my strongest conviction that they do Rand dishonor by not using their own minds and twisting logic to suit their desire for such a mental king.

Mankind's whole history has been marked by by people giving their minds over to some cause. They don't have to think about it anymore once they accept it, just act on it. And it's funny how such causes always boil down to a person. Can anyone imagine Nazism without Hitler worship? (For the record, let's say that I - and others - can imagine Objectivism without Rand-worship.)

For a Rand-worship person, PARC is like discovering a map to Eldorado (a few centuries ago) or new "proof" that there is an afterlife for a Christian. One of the benefits for mankind, though, is that it will set a divide in Objectivism. As Objectivism is a philosophy for using your own mind, many take this part seriously and do so. Thus PARC will highlight people who favor turning off their minds on the premise level (and they can be duly brushed to the side and not taken seriously).

To be clear, if I had to choose one general quality about the style of PARC (not the part by Rand), it would be that the book is made to be read out of focus. If a person focuses, he comes to the conclusion that there is an overdose of pettiness and lopsided reasoning in it. This opinion has been vioced by many prominent independent Objectivist thinkers and is documented in reviews and comments at different places on the web (see the second post).

However, if you let yourself go into Rand-worship mode and put your mind in a drift, you get the feeling that a grave injustice is being redressed by an uncompromising moral avenger who has done all the thinking for you. You are free to focus only on statements that support your emotional "worship" predisposition. You don't have to think at the premise level. Rand can be perfect after all. This dude proved it.

When a person asks about such "proof" to these people, all he gets are opinions and speculations pronounced in PARC, and hardly any facts at all. Look at all those long irritating discussion threads that have cropped up. Who has the patience to read through all that? The overdose of boneheaded speculations is the reason.

I strongly agree with you that after Rand's journal entries are analyzed by different serious thinkers, the ultimate effect will be the exact opposite of what PARC was intended to do.

As for the irrational worshippers (Charles coined a term in an email that I absolutely loved: the Anti-Objectivists), there will always be some around to make noise, but I predict that they will never have much influence with the culture. Reason may have had a hard go of it in mankind's history, but it tends to prevail over time.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael and Ellen,

I made a similar point when I was last active on bulletin boards (http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Campbe...d_Jealous.shtml).

Those who look to Ayn Rand as the ultimate exemplar of Objectivist virtue will take any indication that she was jealous of another woman as significantly detracting from her status as a moral paragon.

Those who have not succeeded in separating Rand’s ideas from Rand the person will interpret such indications as threats to the Objectivist ethics, if not to the entire system.

From a genuinely objective standpoint, Rand’s philosophy can be appreciated or criticized without any need to drag in the details of her personal life. Indeed, those who insist that Rand had to be morally perfect, or she couldn’t have written Atlas Shrugged, are obstructing the objective assessment of her ideas. They are standing just as squarely in the way as those who maintain that Rand had an affair with a younger man that ended badly, so she had to be nutty and immoral and couldn’t have had any ideas worth assessing.

The problem, for all of us who would much prefer to be discussing Rand’s ideas, is that many of Rand’s professed admirers are continuing to make an issue of her personal life.

James Valliant has claimed, I believe sincerely, that his goal is to clear the way for an objective appreciation of Rand’s ideas. But it hasn’t worked out that way. While his efforts have yet to make a dent among convinced anti-Randians, they have pumped up new fervor among Rand-worshippers.

In the present context, then, there is no way around addressing certain specifics of Ayn Rand’s life and character. If the job is not done, fairly and objectively, the Rand-worshippers will declare victory (as some are already doing) and will press on all the more vigorously with their false alternative: uncritical pro-Randianism or uncritical anti-Randianism.

Now that I can type with two hands again, I'll try to contribute to these discussions occasionally...but not at anything approaching the pace of my posts to the old SOLOHQ.

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

The March 22 entry on Diana Hsieh's blog (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/03/my-...nd-barbara.html) expresses the Rand-worshipping mentality with considerable clarity. Of those who were active in IOS/TOC when she was there, Ms. Hsieh says:

Many people attempted to erect an untenable wall between the person of Ayn Rand and her fiction and philosophy, disclaiming any interest in the person, even though disdain for [the] person clearly bled over into disdain for the fiction and philosophy.

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

James Valliant has claimed, I believe sincerely, that his goal is to clear the way for an objective appreciation of Rand’s ideas.

After much interaction with him and his crew and much reading, this is the only point where we disagree. I do not believe in his sincerity and I do not believe in his stated goal.

I could psychologize I guess, but the motive no longer interests me. The irrational viciousness and distortion of Objectivism that those people practice certainly is a curiosity.

Hsieh apparently has turned omniscient and has become a mind reader. Frankly, I was surprised today at how little her biography interested me. I had to force myself to read that thing to keep up (some good links were the saving grace).

I am heartened that the impact of so much effort is restricted to such a small group of people. I even get the impression that some responses on her site and on the other one are forced a bit via email. (I know this happens because many times - via email - I was solicited to post on the old SoloHQ.)

I am continuing my research on all this, and I am putting things up as I go along, but it is an unpleasant, albeit necessary, duty.

Those people are control freaks and the one thing I did that most earned their hatred was to make this site a haven for the Brandens. I stated publicly that they want to control people's minds, but they can't have it here. (That - and the fact that this site is growing - really gets them riled up. //;-)) )

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

An aspect of pinning one's world view on the character of a hero/heroine figure is that it places a terrible, terrible demand on the object of the admiration. It's as much as to say to the worshipped one, "Don't disappoint me," and I think it probably always leads to not being able to see that worshipped one in his or her full reality.

Ellen

___

[Paul Mawdsley]

I just came across this thread before signing off and wanted to mention an association I experienced in reaction to it.

Ellen wrote:

Allan Blumenthal said something so close to that same sentiment, the first time I saw him again after he'd split with Rand. He said, "It was impossible for me to conceive that the mind that wrote Atlas Shrugged was less than fully healthy."

I had the same reaction to Nathaniel Branden. His behaviour on his message board has sometimes struck me as very contradictory to the image I had of him strictly from his books. There was one time he really sideswiped me with little provocation, at least in my mind. It changed my understanding of his character from that point forward. It made him more completely human. I integrated the new information into my understanding. My respect for his work has always remained unchanged.

I wonder if a naive understanding of human nature does not allow some people to integrate contradictory behaviour.

Paul Mawdsley

[Charles R. Anderson]

To clarify, I knew that Ayn Rand had problems maintaining personal relationships and that she did not always have the patience to allow others to formulate, try out, and evaluate their ideas as independent thinkers. I did not want to read PAR for the same reason that I do not enjoy a movie in which the best people all die. Or for the same reason that I did not go to the Vietnam War Memorial so nearby for many years after it was erected. These things are truly painful and I do not feel an obligation to inflict pain upon myself. So, I already understood that Ayn Rand was not a Randian hero, I just did not relish being present for all the awkward moments.

PARC quotes Ayn Rand's journals where she notes that she should have ended her affair with Branden eight years earlier, or maybe never begun it, or that she was right to have begun it. So, for 8 years, she and Branden have had a relationship which they appear to have both pretended was of a much more heroic nature than it was. Perhaps, as she maintains, Branden was half a year slower in understanding this, or maybe he simply did not know how to end it, or he still thought too much of her to feel good about ending it, or who really knows what else. As Ayn Rand paints a picture of Branden waffling about, uncertain, and having deceived her, it is clear that she has deceived herself (apparently for 8 years at least) and that she is uncertain and has waffled greatly. She is responsible for pretending that Branden was more nearly one of her classical Randian heroes than he was, just as it is clear that she had pretended that Frank O'Connor was more of a hero than it seems he was. Ayn Rand is here seen playing fast and loose with reality. Her lack of understanding for human relationships is clear.

Nathaniel Branden has noted this correctly. PAR correctly documents this. Still Ayn Rand had great ideas, which both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden have always strongly proclaimed. It is clear, however, that the Objectivism left to us by Ayn Rand does not even begin to adequately address very important topics relating to many human relationships. Romantic love, while often discussed, was inadequately developed and understood. Friendships were not understood and developed. Many social and organizational interactions of people were not understood. Questions of how an Objectivist society would operate were not addressed.

Ayn Rand's basic philosophical principles are a very good starting point, but it is clear that she could not use them herself to live a happy life. It is clear that those who try to live life the way she did are not able to function well among others and tend to have similar relationship problems. Since Objectivism is supposed to be a philosophy for living life, it is clear that it is an incomplete philosophy. If it is a closed philosophy, then it is not a philosophy for living a happy life!

So, PARC is a very important book. Not only does it prove that Ayn Rand had problems with personal relationships, but it also proves that:

1) she had a great capacity for deceiving herself about reality in her personal life,

2) she was dishonest in presenting her personal life to others,

3) her total understanding of her philosophy was inadequate for her to understand personal relationships,

4) her philosophy was not sufficiently developed with respect to personal relationships,

5) her philosophy could only be a principled start toward an Objectivist philosophy for living life, meaning for living happy lives.

As a start it is a great one. I am not unappreciative of the wonderful value of her work. It was the work of a genius. But, the world did not become a Garden of Eden because of the work of Aristotle and neither did the great intellectual contributions of The Enlightenment bring on an immediate end to human suffering. It is absurd to believe that the life work of any genius is adequate to start and complete a substantially innovative philosophy of life. It is hardly surprising that many other people with different approaches to thinking, with different experiences, with different interests, and with much more thinking time to contribute, are critical to the more complete development of a philosophy for living life. Actually, philosophy for living will never be complete, if only because each person has to adapt it to his own life.

So, the irony is that PARC is fundamentally anti-ARI! It is fundamentally pro-TOC and Objectivist Living. Talk about unintended consequences!

[Ellen Stuttle]

PS in advance: I signed on to post this, which "came to me" as I was going about attending to various household chores and thinking of other issues entirely. Please don't interpret it as making light of the searching reflections Paul and Charles have meanwhile posted.

---

A "poem" (of sorts):

Some want the Brandenian

portrait of Rand

Out of their worldview;

But it won't go away,

Since largely it's true.

Ellen

PS: I, like Delany (see the Limmericks thread), am not much of a poet, though every now and then I've written a few verses which I thought had enduring merit (the above not being one of them).

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

[NB's] behaviour on his message board has sometimes struck me as very contradictory to the image I had of him strictly from his books. There was one time he really sideswiped me with little provocation, at least in my mind. It changed my understanding of his character from that point forward. It made him more completely human. I integrated the new information into my understanding. My respect for his work has always remained unchanged.

Nathaniel is generally spacy when it comes to cyberspace exchanges -- whether on elists, including his own, or privately. This is among those "little ways" in persons one cares about which one needs to tolerate. See Charles' posts on the Romance thread in regard to issues of tolerance and relationships. The description "little ways" comes from an author of novels for young readers published by our Young Readers division at J. B. Lippincott when I was editing there. She would say of irritating behaviors in persons she knew and liked: "That's one of ___'s little ways." Her books were extremely perceptive psychologically, I thought.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I suppose it IS Spring. I haven't paid attention, but given the date, the vernal equinox has probably passed.

The next couple weeks, I'll need to take a break from keeping up on a (fairly) regular basis with listland developments: Next week Larry and I will be going to a physics conference. And there is the tax day looming (for which I have to gather records in order to itemize -- we get a welcome refund, but the paperwork is a chore).

I want to post just a couple thoughts, though, one here and one on the "To Whom It May Concern" thread.

First, Bob Campbell referenced his "Jealousy" thread from RoR. I doubt I'll argue the point if it's disputed, since the difference is in the "6 of one, half a dozen of the other" category. However, as I said on that thread, my view is that "jealousy" is a less accurate description than "insult." "The very idea of his choosing such a lightweight [as she viewed Patrecia] instead of me!" is how I think AR reacted.

Ellen

___

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen,

I wrote that piece on Rand and jealousy in November 2005, which already seems a long time ago.

I'm inclined to agree that jealousy vs. insult is 6 of one vs. half-dozen of the other. Whatever you prefer to call her emotional reaction to Patrecia, I do think that it involved insecurity and a major ego threat.

Michael,

In November, I made that comment about Jim Valliant's motives out of charity. I already had serious doubts about what he was up to--and no illusions whatsoever about what his claque (Holly Valliant and Casey Fahy) was up to. But I didn't want to airbrush my essay...

Since then, I've become as convinced as you are that Valliant wants people to worship Rand, not to understand and appreciate her philosophy.

Robert

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

In November [2005], I made that comment about Jim Valliant's motives out of charity. [....] I didn't want to airbrush my essay...

Since then, I've become as convinced as you are that Valliant wants people to worship Rand, not to understand and appreciate her philosophy.

I suspect another motive as well: I think he fancies an image of himself as the white knight in the showdown with the Devil (NB). And I wouldn't be surprised if he's very disappointed by Nathaniel's continuing silence (a silence which I think is exactly the right way to handle things on Nathaniel's part). Valliant isn't getting the public swordplay directly with Nathaniel which he might have anticipated he'd get. Trying to have the Brandens driven from TOC I suppose is the next best thing. (It's so silly the way they keep harping on that crusade.)

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

At the start of this thread, you cited a discussion on another forum and a poster there. To be clear, I have extracted the part of your post that refers to that person, and the entire paragraph following it.

The second post on the thread is by Jennifer Iannola (sp), who's evidently patched up her break with Linz and is now posting again on his list.

Jennifer says outright about herself something which I've been thinking for the last couple months is at the root of the kind of chorus of "hooray" with which some people are greeting PARC. She says that, over a course of time, and as a result of a difficult process, she had decided to accept Rand's genius despite Rand's "faults" (Jennifer used the quote marks), but she's now thinking that maybe this difficult (for her) process was unnecessary -- in other words, that Rand didn't after all have the "faults."

I've noticed all along in the years of my knowing Objectivists that for some Objectivists the issue of Rand's character is of great importance -- in extreme cases, even seeming like a concern of "life or death" importance -- that for these Objectivists, something crucial is at stake on the issue of Rand's personal character.

What I am looking for in this quote is some kind of insult or slight. I simply can't find it. You accurately paraphrased her post and then commented that "the issue of Rand's character is of great importance" to some Objectivists (implying that she was one of these people - based on the tenor of her own post) and that for them, "something crucial is at stake on the issue of Rand's personal character."

I still can't find the insult.

You received some attention, though, Ellen. Jennifer has called you "some random woman" in a rather cocky "put-down" type answer (apparently aimed at insulting your intelligence) and later stated that she was "challenging such a ridiculous accusation" because she had her "name sullied."

I just looked again at your post and I simply can't find an accusation, much less a ridiculous one - and no insult.

Once again, you accurately paraphrased her post. Then you used that thought as a starting point for an analysis of Branden hating. The only thing you implied in essence was that she took her own words seriously.

Dayaamm!

What makes me sad is that Jennifer is a good person and a productive one. But she is now starting to buy into the idea that insulting people for some imagined slight (or for differences of opinion) is "rational passion," among other wrong ideas propagated on that site (especially the Virtue of Bickering).

Well... actually, I exaggerated. I too have my rhetorical moments. The truth is I'm not really all that sad. It's just not that important. I merely mention it because you are my friend and I don't like to see you gratuitously insulted. (Call it a gentleman thing.)

It's all the Brandens' fault, anyway.

//;-))

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

You received some attention, though, Ellen.

So they're reading this list, are they?

I don't like to see you gratuitously insulted. (Call it a gentleman thing.)

I appreciate that, Michael.

But don't worry about it. I haven't yet read what was said. Whatever it was, I doubt it's near as bad as some of the anathema I received from a few people in the '70s. (A subset of those later came to share the opinions I'd stated.)

Ellen

___

[Philip Coates]

> It is clear, however, that the Objectivism left to us by Ayn Rand does not even begin to adequately address very important topics relating to many human relationships. Romantic love...was inadequately developed and understood. Friendships were not understood and developed. Many social and organizational interactions of people were not understood. Questions of how an Objectivist society would operate were not addressed...those who try to live life the way she did are not able to function well among others and tend to have similar relationship problems. Since Objectivism is supposed to be a philosophy for living life, it is clear that it is an incomplete philosophy. If it is a closed philosophy, then it is not a philosophy for living a happy life! [Charles Anderson]

Charles, I have to disagree with the parts where you blame this on philosophy or Objectivism. I think that's a "category mistake" with significant consequences. The things you cite fall heavily under the category of psychology, not philosophy (or in one case, the philosophy of law). It's certainly true that psychology i) as a science needs further development, ii) is little understood by PSO's (Philosophy-Solipsistic Objectivists). But that is not the fault of the philosophy of Objectivism. It just means you need to know much more, possess much wider and deeper knowledge, and integrate it with philosophy to make it a "working" philosophy.

Jus to take one example: All philosophy can do with regard to Romantic Love is to tell you you should have it. And list very broadly some of its criteria. A page or two of knowledge. Getting it and practicing it are book length, a lifetime of work and struggle.

[Ellen Stuttle]

A question: How many here, off the top, without looking it up, can recall Rand's definition of "psychologizing," from her article "The Psychology of 'Psychologizing'"? I ask because "psychologizing" and variants have been used time and again by various persons in regard to the Branden/Rand issues, but almost always as meaning something different from Rand's stated definition. (I feared when I first read her article that what's happened would happen, that people would soon forget the quite specific definition she gave and begin to apply variants of the term "psychologizing" indiscriminately to any form of psychological analysis.)

Ellen

___

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen,

I would definitely have to look up her definition of psychologizing.

So I just did:

"condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence." (The Objectivist, March 1971, p. 2)

Ever since I first read it, I've thought that Rand's article on psychologzing was one of the worst things she ever wrote--a terrible muddle. Not least because she fails to lay down any criteria of evidence for psychological diagnoses.

And the strictures that she lays down at the end of the article, about confining your judgments of other people to their conscious minds and conscious convictions only, cannot be consistently adhered to by human beings.

Her real complaint seems targeted on the use of psychological diagnoses to excuse a person's behavior. She appears to have had far less trouble with imputations of non-obvious motives made in order to condemn a person's behavior--except when they emanated from persons hostile to herself or to her point of view.

And now that Valliant's book has revealed the full extent of Rand's own "counseling" activities (not to mention her propensity to see major flaws in someone she admits not understanding), I can't read her paragraphs that light into "amateur psychologizers"--or her advice about not asking a friend to become a therapist--without groaning.

Because I regard the article as so far below Rand's usual standard, I've always avoided using the word "psychologize," and am prone to object when I hear others using it. I'd go so far as to say that, by Rand's own standards, "psychologize" is an anti-concept.

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I have to laugh when I read your posts because it is so striking to me how much we think alike.

Psychologize? That is one hell of a term. You know, I have a strong aversion to using the Objectivist jargon because it is "loaded" to sound learned and sophisticated, but many of the people who have used words like that with me over the last year have thought very shallowly about the concept behind them, but have posed as experts.

I agree that anti-concept is a useful designation for "psychologize" - and I extend it to much of the way the Objectivist jargon is used (but not to the original concepts behind the words).

I think that Rand's 1968 journal entries are going to have far more weight for Rand-haters as evidence against her person than anything in print so far. The Objectivist right-wing shot itself in the eye with that one.

(Not foot. That's too cliche. Remember a cartoon character who pulled the trigger of his shotgun, it did not go off, then he turned it around to look down the barrel? He shot himself in the eye. I find that to be a perfect metaphor for releasing those journal entries with the Branden-bashing analysis.)

I want to add to your own comments about the author of PARC. He not only "wants people to worship Rand, not to understand and appreciate her philosophy," he also scapegoats (er... psychologizes a lot about) the Brandens in order to prove Rand's perfection. And finally, this is my own speculation, but I think he wants to be a guru in his own right as some kind of "moral avenger."

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ever since I first read it, I've thought that Rand's article on psychologzing was one of the worst things she ever wrote--a terrible muddle. Not least because she fails to lay down any criteria of evidence for psychological diagnoses.

Hear, hear. And for the rest of your comments, too. I deeply wish that she had not written that article. It's had the effect I feared it would -- resulting in "psychologize," etc., being used as O'ist terms of opprobrium, and confusing O'ists about what proper psychological understanding and speculation is and isn't.

Ellen

___

[Charles R. Anderson]

Philip Coates wrote:

Charles, I have to disagree with the parts where you blame this on philosophy or Objectivism. I think that's a "category mistake" with significant consequences. The things you cite fall heavily under the category of psychology, not philosophy (or in one case, the philosophy of law). It's certainly true that psychology i) as a science needs further development, ii) is little understood by PSO's (Philosophy-Solipsistic Objectivists). But that is not the fault of the philosophy of Objectivism. It just means you need to know much more, possess much wider and deeper knowledge, and integrate it with philosophy to make it a "working" philosophy.

I grant that I have lumped in Ayn Rand's ideas on pyschology her with her strictly philosophical ideas. But I also do not think that you can entirely separate out the missing components of philosophy that apply to these issues. Furthermore, she did not adequately discuss such ideas as benevolence and tolerance on a philosophical level.

When I say these things, I do not think that I am being critical of Ayn Rand. She did enough. She did far more than anyone can expect of anyone. But, I fundamentally disagree that Objectivism can be both a philosophy for living life and a closed system. That idea is absurd.

[jenright]

Outside of Objectivist terminology, "psychologize", "moralize", and "rationalize" can all be used neutrally. So "psychologize" can just mean:

1. To explain behavior in psychological terms.

2. To investigate, reason, or speculate in psychological terms.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionar...om/psychologize

Robert brings up the fact that she engaged in amateur psychological counseling of friends, but then advised against doing so. The "psychologizing" article came after the counseling efforts, so I wonder if the advice was the bitter fruit of a lesson learned.

John

[Ellen Stuttle]

Robert brings up the fact that she engaged in amateur psychological counseling of friends, but then advised against doing so. The "psychologizing" article came after the counseling efforts, so I wonder if the advice was the bitter fruit of a lesson learned.

My understanding of the origins of that article is that it was a boomerang effect from Allan B.'s attempting to dissuade her from making the sorts of inappropriate attributions and analyses of motivation she was prone to making (and proceeded to make in the article itself). Then Allan was left trying patiently to explain to his classes the difference between "psychologizing," as Rand defined it, and psychology. (The article appeared in the March 1971 Objectivist. At that time I was enrolled in overlapping classes of Allan's -- the regular class hadn't quite finished, but meanwhile his class for professionals and prospective professionals was underway. His life wasn't made easier by having to attempt to do some disentangling of the, as R.C. described it, "muddle" she'd written.)

At one point I started a series of posts on Atlantis_II analyzing the details. When I get a chance, I'll dredge up the part I'd gotten written and add to it.

Ellen