C. Jordan

I could not judge, from first-hand experience, the truth of Barbara Branden's book. I was born in 69, a full year after the Break. I never met Ayn Rand. I can only go by my understanding of Rand's novels. I can say that I find Mrs. Branden's account very believable, in the context of having read THE FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED. To begin: now the one glaringly off-tune character in THE FOUNTAINHEAD comes into focus. I refer to Dominique, and the contradictions in her ideas and behaviour. I found it hard to understand why, given that she knew better than anyone how evil Toohey was, that she would co-operate with Toohey. In particular, why co-operate with Toohey to destroy the man she loves? The answer was provided, in the discussion of Ayn Rand's virtues and short-comings. There we have another point in Mrs. Branden's favour. In her discussion of Rand's work, she showed that she understood them very well. One short-coming of ATLAS SHRUGGED which Barbara Branden did not raise, was in the portrayal of Galt's Gulch. All the heroes there spoke seemingly in the same voice, as though they were all echoes of John Galt. This was not true in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. I could see Howard Roark's friends — Steven Mallory and Austen Heller, Roger Enright and Kent Lansing — as distinct individuals. Had I seen them together in real life, they would have seemed an unlikely group. What did they have in common, but for their friendship with Howard Roark, and the reason for that friendship? This was precisely what ATLAS SHRUGGED lacked. However, Mrs. Branden's portrayal did explain the reason for that particular flaw. By comparing Rand's real-life admirers, the Collective, to the fictional characters in the novel, the answer was immediately clear to me. Critics of P.A.R. have often denounced the book, without explanation. This reminds me of how Bertram Scudder wrote about Hank Rearden: providing no facts, only an endless stream of denunciations. Or how a certain film critic from THE FOUNTAINHEAD assured people that if they didn't like a particular play, they were "worthless human beings." Two concrete criticisms have been raised: that Rand did not get her American name from a typewriter, and that Rand's father was named Zinoviy rather than Fronz. The second part is simple: Barbara Branden Anglicised the names. Ayn was Alice, rather than Alissa. A Russian Empress was Catherine, rather than Yekaterina, the Great. This is of no importance, even to me — and in my own writing, I prefer to use Russian formulation of names when I am writing about Russian characters. I will venture an opinion: given that Ayn Rand was proud to be an American, given that she hated Russia, given that these are facts with which Dr. Peikoff agrees — then surely Ayn Rand would have approved of her father's name being Anglicised. As for the first point: from what I have read here, the jury is still out on whether the "Remington-Rand" story is right or wrong. Assuming that Barbara Branden was wrong about that, does not mean she was wrong about other things. It has been said, that surely the author of ATLAS SHRUGGED could not behave as Mrs. Branden described her as behaving. I don't find it difficult to imagine. In the context of having read Ayn Rand's novels, I found the portrait to be very believable. There lies a deeper text to THE PASSION OF AYN RAND. I was considered "gifted" as a child, and had a similar lack of social skills. The portrayal of Anna Rosenbaum reminded me of my mother. In addition to believing that I share some of Ayn Rand's virtues, I know that I share many of her short-comings. I would be willing to underscore the relevant passages, where I recognised myself. Often, these were not flattering recognitions. Nonetheless, they are true. To draw an analogy: Sir Isaac Newton believed that outer space was filled with "luminiferous æther." He was wrong about that; and his being wrong does not mean his theory of gravity is also wrong. In the same way, I look at Ayn Rand. The short-comings in Rand's writing, do not cancel out the virtues in her writing. The mistakes Rand made, do not invalidate the many ways she was right. And finally: Ayn Rand's personal short-comings illuminate her philosophy. In ATLAS SHRUGGED, readers were informed that people who had contradictions in their thinking and behaviour would pay a price. THE PASSION OF AYN RAND makes clear: Ayn Rand's errors came from not consistently putting her philosophy into practice. Paradoxically, Rand's errors proved how right Rand's ideas are.

I have the impression that the author of this piece has never actually read THE FOUNTAINHEAD or ATLAS SHRUGGED. Instead, Mr. Edney must have read the reviews of ATLAS SHRUGGED. The ones quoted in PASSION OF AYN RAND gave the impression that Rand was all for such things as "Social Darwinism." If something like this had happened in a Rand novel, Dagny and Hank Rearden would have been struggling to solve the problem, in spite of whatever new directive the bastards in government had just passed.

First answer: I would call the first path "supernaturalist." That seems a description of divine revelation, which I consider should not be accepted blindly. The fourth path must be "intuitionist." I am not sure which path Plato used, though I would venture to say the second path is closest to Ayn Rand's thinking. The third path is closest to the thinking of Robert Pirsig, author of ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE. I consider the second path to be the most reliable way to acquire knowledge. More thoughts to follow.

I would take Howard Roark as a model for tolerance, and its limits. When faced with architecture he didn't like, Roark did not attack the architects. Nor did he raise objections if someone had an atrocious structure built on his [the other person's] own property. Neither did he pretend to agree with opinions he didn't share. It would have been another thing if (for example) Gordon Prescott had demanded the "right" to build something Roark didn't like, on Roark's property. That would have been the proverbial race horse of different colour. Tolerance means respecting the line between mine and yours. Tolerance of my actions should end, the moment my actions cross that line and violate someone else's legitimate rights. I underscore the word "legitimate" because I do not believe people have the "legitimate" right to tell me not to wear a T-shirt whose political message offends them. I don't tell them what they may or may not wear. There is more that I could say. I will end the discussion here.

To Nick: Our first issue seems to be the word "phenomenon." I was searching for a word that would cover falling trees, nation-states, radiation, and many more besides. What word would you propose in its place? I will, until you make such a proposal, continue to use "phenomenon" in my original sense. I only hope that it won't be considered a contradiction. You said that: By my definitions, you are saying that "the conditions of sound" are objective, whereas the perception of sound is subjective. This would explain why music to my ears may be noise to yours. Gravity again is objective, because it would presumably take effect whether or not we were there to observe the effects. This again addresses the objective/subjective divide. The problem is, pragmatically speaking, all we have are appearances [empirical observation] and reason. The question: how do I know that what I see as red, is the same as what you see as red? The answer: I have no way to know that. We do know that some animals can see invisible colours: reptiles, for instance, can see infrared. But what are they seeing? one might ask. The answer: I have no way to know. There are no words in the language to describe something which has not been experienced by anyone. It can be argued that I don't actually see things: I see light photons reflected off of things, which my eyes interpret into visual images. In this way, I address your point that "all we have are appearances." Given these facts, that empirical observation does not give us full knowledge of the "phenomena" we observe. Nonetheless, observation (backed by reason) remain the best way to determine reality. Pragmatically, I consider the issue of what these "forms" behind the "appearances" to be an unanswerable question, akin to asking myself what are the infrared colours? At present time, I see no sufficient evidence to make a judgment in either case. The floor is once again open.

It's much easier, no, to critique someone else's art than to do a piece yourself? Having said that, I will still offer a critique. (1) All these pictures do look much better full sized than the smaller versions that appear atop this thread. (2) On seeing "First Heat" in more detail, I have more appreciation for it than I did from the smaller version. The tension running through Rearden's body is fitting, as is the way his face is turned to the side. That element invites the viewer to question, for him/herself, what emotions are on Rearden's face. (3) That image of Dagny still has me thinking it through. Her pose is one ambiguous element: why is she kneeling? Strangely enough, I have given precisely that posture to my own heroes (the Qhatuujil twins) with the understanding that they are both 7' tall, and have the confidence to lower themselves, physically, without lowering themselves, mentally. For one of those twins to kneel, implies that he's relaxed. It takes confidence to do that. (4) Which leads back to Dagny, kneeling before a train. Does that suggest she has confidence before the force of technology? If so, that is a good description of her character all along. (5) For that matter, is the train moving or at rest? If this picture is taken literally, and the train is moving, then Dagny is suicidal. This is a quality which Dagny lacked. I am interpreting the train as not moving; Dagny has dismounted after a long and triumphant journey across the rails. And there's another detail: the rails are blue-green. How appropriate. (6) The painting of John Galt is, in my opinion, not a literal portrayal of Galt. It is a portrayal of the legendary Atlas, who was himself a Titan. That helps explain why he is dressed in Græco-Roman style. I am interpreting the muscular strength implied in this painting as a metaphor of Galt's intellectual strength. (7) On closer inspection, I see less of raw muscle, as one might see in a Soviet Realism [sic] painting of a worker, than endurance. This figure looks less like a body-builder, and more like a man whose strength is based on will-power which leads to endurance. (8) The only technical shortcoming I have found in these, and the "Heroes" painting, is to be found in Dagny's legs. Up close, they seem too much like sculpture. (9) Back to work on the Qhatuujil twins. :-$

I have spent some time thinking about how, precisely, one defines the two terms in contrast to each other. What follows is as succint a definition as possible: an OBJECTIVE phenomenon would presumably* exist, irrespective of the judgments and opinions of an observer. a SUBJECTIVE phenomenon exists because of the judgments and opinions of an observer. * The word "presumably" is in the definition based on the old riddle of: If a tree falls in the forest, with nobody there to hear, does it make a sound?" My answer would be: define "sound." Which gets us to the root of the objective versus subjective. "Sound," for my purpose, is the result of kinetic energy which is interpreted by the ear. The kinetic energy is an objective fact, because presumably, the same waves would result from a falling tree irrespective of whether anyone was there to hear it or not. Interruption from the audience: "Why presumably?" Because, if no-one was there to hear, that rules out any first-hand empirical observation. It stands to reason that the same sound waves would result. This cannot be tested empirically, however. One can never know what would happen if one was not around to observe. One can only use reason. Therefore, and back to the hypothetical falling tree, the sound waves are an objective phenomenon, and if that is sufficient to be called "sound," then yes, the tree does make a sound. How an observer interprets the sound, is a subjective phenomenon. Only if we include that interpretation in our definition of sound — if we say that it can't be a sound unless someone hears it — would the answer to the question be, "No." I will stop here, for now, and invite discussion of the concept. Is this definition fundamentally valid, or fundamentally flawed? What modifications might be proposed? I will only add this: objective phenomena give no problems. But in thinking about subjective phenomena – there I find complications. The floor is open.

The rules of disinformation remind me of many people I've met. But in particular, I keep thinking of the rhetoric North Korea uses, particularly regarding the Korean War. On a side note: the official name of that country is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I cannot say that the name is a complete lie. The word "Korea" at the end is true. I'm reminded of the way commentators Ann Coulter and Al Franken each complain about how the other one calls her/his opponents names. Each one is right. They both call each other names. They both behave as though people who don't agree with them are traitors/Fascists. They both use sarcasm as a rhetorical device. And again, that reminds me of somebody else, fictionally, with the initials EMT.

Michael: You aren't dense. I was not completely clear. I meant to say, that the controversy surrounding PARC led me to find this web-site, through a short series of links. I was happy to find that this web-site preserved everything of value that I originally found in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. I hope to give you good news with publication soon. Yours, Chrys.

I can only ask, given that the Peter Schwartz changed the book title and snuck in his essays — was anything else changed?

Hi there. Let's get started. I'm 38 years old, and like many, I discovered Ayn Rand by way of THE FOUNTAINHEAD. I then discovered ATLAS SHRUGGED. I found, in reading both, that I agreed with far more of Rand's ideas than disagreed. On further reading, I found that some of my disagreements were based on a misunderstanding on what Rand had meant; or, in some cases, on my own mistakes. Then of course came THE PASSION OF AYN RAND. I hesitate only slightly to say this. I was born in 1969; and could not have witnessed The Break or any events leading up to it. How could I judge Barbara Branden's account? Because this account made sense, in light of having read THE FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED, not once, but many times. It's the question: is the glass half-full or half-empty? An objective answer is that it is both. But how do we judge Objectivism: by its virtues, or by its flaws? I prefer to follow the example of Dagny Taggart, in going first by my own observations and understandings. Where I agree with Rand, I give her full credit. Where I disagree, I take full responsibility. I began here by way of the controversy about Rand, the Brandens, and of course the Valiant Sir James :-({|= and was happy to see that people can agree to disagree, without being disagreeable. I am writing what I thought was a book, only to discover it is much larger than I thought; it will be 4 books or more. I promise NOT to overwhelm this Forum with any tidbits of plot therefrom, unless there's interest. With this one exception: there are a number of elements which I think Ayn Rand would NOT have liked. With that, the floor is yours.