Neil Parille

Chris, He runs this group. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/

Michael, You make a good point that Robbins relies on NB to accurately explain and expand on Objectivist thought. This is quite an improvement over the ARI crowd. Incidentally, speaking of David Gordon, this week he is giving a 10 part seminar on political philosophy at the Mises Institute (available for free): http://www.mises.org/media.aspx

DF, Thanks. I'm a bit late to this party, so perhaps people have mentioned these as well: 1. Only 1 mention of BB or NB in the Journals. 2. In Gotthelf's On Ayn Rand, p. 24, he portrays NB as only promoting Rand's philosophy.

I don't think anyone mentioned that Mayhew admitted in the Q&A that he changed Rand's responses slightly to some questions. Also, I think it's debatable whether Rand would have wanted her Marginalia published.

Too be honest, literary criticism isn't my strong suit and I should probably read Rand's novels again, since it's been years. At the time I read them, I shared the general view of critics of her novels that the characters were wooden, the books to preachy, etc.

There is a good review by David Gordon here: http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.as...sortorder=issue Robbins' book is good on the question of concept formation and some of the parallels between Rand and non-Objectivist thought. In most other respects I would say the book is something of a dud.

MSK, Thanks. And by the way I have improved the post a bit. I point out that Valliant's finds Edith Efron highly credible when she attacks N. Branden, but when it comes to Rand she has an ax to grind. Jim, Valliant is obviously aware that TARC is highly critical of Rand. I think he is a very poor researcher and just mined the few sources he had. He probably believed that his intended audience (ARI types) would not check his footnotes and sources.

Let me give an example from PARC. From pages 66-78, Valliant discusses various people that Rand "broke" with -- the Smiths, the Holzers, the Blumenthals, Murray Rothbard, John Hospers, and Edith Efron. I have discussed all of these except Edith Efron. I've shown that: (1) Valliant misrepresents the Brandens' books with respect to the various breaks; and (2) he also incorrectly claims that Barbra Branden alleges that all these involved some sort of excommunication. Valliant's response has been that I'm ignoring his "point." But why did Valliant include this stuff if it wasn't part of his "point" and why should anyone care about his other points when they all depend on his reading of the Brandens' books, which has shown to be faulty?

Phil, I would echo what MSK said. Peikoff or Barbara Branden might, for the sake of argument, be skewed in what they report given their personal feelings. But Valliant is accusing Barbara Branden of flat out making stuff up. That's a different kettle of fish. And Valliant's claim is not that Branden is wrong because he was there and knows better, but that if you look at Branden's book at page x and compare it to Walker's book at y, you realize that Branden is dishonest. Since that's his "case" he ought to be accurate in what he reports, and he isn't.

Michael, Just for the record, after I started posts on my blog concerning PARC, I notifed Barbara Branden of that fact. We've exhanged a few emails since that time, but she has never suggested any topics, avenues of criticism or whatever concerning PARC, nor have I asked her for any.

Michael, The only Objectivists I know on either side of this issue is via email, so I can't comment on anyone in particular. I will say that when I read PARC, I thought that many claims by Valliant were quite tendentious, but a few were probably correct (he had so many, so how could some of them not be correct?). It was only when I ordered the Brandens books and did some checking that I realized just how bad PARC was.

Rich, If Valliant could show that I have distorted what he said, I assume he would. His silence, as they say, "speaks volumes."

Ellen, I think an author's introduction is as good as place as any to find his "point." Here is Valliant: "However, only an analysis of the biographies themselves makes possible the conclusion that they are largely arbitrary and often demonstrably false. For those of us who never met Rand, to dismiss entirely and without consideration those critics of Rand who knew her would be a mistake . . ." (p. 4.) "We shall see that the rhetorical maneuvering, insinuation, failure to name sources . . . and extensive internal contradictions, render even the positive things the Brandens have to say about Rand . . . of little value as well." (p. 6.) So isn't Valliant's "point" that books by "the Brandens" are false? And does Valliant have a method for us to evaluate his claims other than checking his descriptions of the books, his footnotes, etc.?

Michael, I had stopped posting on Solo some months ago, but decided to put some of my new posts there. Given that I might turn these posts into a second article, I'm curious what any PARCsters might say. Perhaps someone might find a mistake or two, although that hasn't happened yet. I don't plan on responding, so the PARCsters can take their best shot. It certainly is incredible that all the issues and events I discuss are used by Valliant to make his "case", yet when I show that he misrepresents and distorts them, he (and his followers) claim I'm ignoring the "point" of his book. Why did he put all the stuff in there then?

Here are some books by Objectivists that seek to extend Rand's thought (rather than simply elaborate on it, such as books by Tara Smith) -- 1. Kelley, Evidence of the Senses; 2. Binswanger, Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts; 3. Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels. Can anyone think of any more?

For those who haven't had enough of the PARC wars, I will be starting a new series on my blog tomorrow discussing some of the larger methodological problems of PARC -- http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/

In the preface to (I think) Rand's letters, there is a statement that an authorized biography of Rand will be forthcoming. I seem to recall Milgram's book being referred to as a biography of Rand until recently. Now it is a study of Rand's life up to 1957. Anne Heller, an editor for a big publishing company, is apparenly working on a book called "Ayn Rand: An American Life" but I can't find anything recent about it on the web. I gather she hasn't been given access to Rand's archives. In Gotthelf's book he mentions the Brandens. but downpplays their role in Objectivism ("a long period of study and friendship with her"), so I'm curious how Milgram will deal with the Brandens.

Ellen, I agree. I would mention, however, that some of the examples Valliant provides should tip off even not so alert readers. Take for example the discussion on pages 16-19 of PARC concerning whether Rand was humerous or enjoyed life. The quotes Valliant uses aren't literally contradictory and it's clear that the Brandens are discussing different contexts and time periods.

Michael, I've resisted the temptation to call anyone dishonest. However, is beyond dispute that Valliant is just plain sloppy. He quite often misquotes the Brandens, even if in minor ways. I think there are two misquotes in the name section alone (not to mention the devious ellipses). And his sticking by his book on various points where he has been shown to be in error (such as the Blumenthals) is bad enough, but then to accuse others of being selective in their use of sources is ridiculous. I think the best thing written thus far about the book is Dan Barnes' comment: "Valliant's `case against the Brandens' amounts to nothing more than one vast, nutty, vexatious litigation, with page after page of innocent trivia tortured until it confesses its sinister intent. "

Actually, I skimmed the posts again and it appeared that MSK's copy of the book hadn't arrived. Incidentally, there is a post of mine somewhere from 2005 or early 2006 where I say something to the effect that I think Valliant has showed major problems in the Branden books. So at the least people who have said negative things about PARC had an open mind.

This was a very enjoyable read, and not just for David Brown's comments. I recall that a PARCster wrote an article "The Silence of the Brandens' Defenders" or something like that claiming that PARC's suppoedly strong points were ignored. Obviously people were on to PARC from the beginning. But did MSK really write this: "I sincerely hope he does better with the New Testament project. He seems to be a very solid researcher and it's a shame to see that kind of rock solid effort that is so badly needed go to waste." Given that Valliant can't even summarize accurately 2 sources, I can only imagine what he will do to 300 years of NT scholarship.

Ellen, In my debates with Valliant he takes the following approach: (1) the Brandens say x; (2) he has proved that the Brandens say x; and (3) he can't be guilty of misrepresenting the Brandens with respect to incidents x1-x5 (supposed examples of x), because he has proved the Brandens say x. Example: (1) Branden allege that every break was an excommunication caused by Rand; (2) he has demonstrated that Branden alleges that every break was an excommunication caused by Rand; and (3) even if Branden doesn't say that Rand excommunicated the Holzers or the Blumenthals, he has shown that Branden misrepresents every break so how dare you say he's failed to accurately summarize Branden's book. As you say, if you examine his book from the bottom up, it collapses like a house of cards.

Mr. Brown, I'm glad you liked the review. If you decide to read PARC, I recommend reading it before you refresh your recollection with the Brandens' books. While you are reading PARC, ask if yourself if, even of Valliant's representations, he makes good points. If he does appear to make a good point, then check his sources.

Today, I received my OCON 2007 brochure from the ARI. Leonard Peikoff will be giving 6 lectures on the DIM hypothesis. Here is what the brochure says: "Leonard Peikoff's appearance at this conference does not imply that he agrees with the ideas and formulations of any other speakers."

I recall Binswanger writing in his book The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts that ainimals feel pain.