Nerian

I 'need' to choose one in the same way that I 'need' to eat. It's not an imposed burden.

I know there are other threads on this, but I wanted to create my own.

I just listened to Tara Smith's lecture on the value of purpose, and I was convinced that I really need to choose one. I think it's something deep I am missing and a part of the reason for a lot of my discontent.

But I'm having trouble. She didn't give any real practical advice on how to find them. Ayn Rand apparently said to think of the 'most important thing' to you and then it will naturally present itself. This confused me though. I don't have any idea what I think is the most important thing. Even things I do like, I can't justify why I like them.

Does anyone have any practical advice on what to consider and what to relfect on, what to ask myself, and what to look into in order to choose a central purpose.

Can anyone give me examples of 'proper' central purposes. They are suppose to be a doing thing. In other threads, people have misunderstood the meaning. It's central productive purpose that I'm inquiring about, the specifics of what you want to do productively. Not moral purpose. Many things are not 'productive', like learning, reading, watching videos, partying, sex, etc. Even though these are still valuable in life, they are not 'creating' value in the productive sense. At least, this is what Tara Smith explains, and it makes sense to me.

This is from chrisbeatcancer.com.

article here -- pictures and links to articles and studies

My understanding is this claim probably has some truth to it. Maybe 65% or whatever of cells that turn into cancer do so by random mutations. But I don't see that as a big deal.

A normal healthy body has plenty of defenses against a few cells turning into cancer by a random mutation. In order for cancer to become a problem, the number of cancer cells must overwhelm the body's defenses. That is not going to happen purely by bad luck.

The luck theory of cancer has an advantage for the medical industry: it relieves patients of responsibility for their own health. It increases business for the cancer industry. The cancer industry is not in the business of putting itself out of business. In tobacco science or cancer science or medical science, the purpose is not necessarily truth.

The luck theory of cancer is contrary to Objectivism, which has the BUP, the benevolent universe premise. To a fully consistent Objectivist, the luck theory of cancer, taken in the serious version of it, means that the universe is irrational.

Read the article for more information.

I thought everyone knew that you can just get cancer by bad luck, and that you can only minimize your risks, not eliminate them. A number of 65% doesn't surprise me too much. If you study the cell cycle, it's amazing it doesn't happen more often.

Article: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

I probably shouldn't be shocked by this article, but it's hard for me to place myself in the mind's of those who cling to the supernatural. Maybe Peikoff is right. Maybe the rise of religion is the real threat of the 21st century.

I don't really understand why people hate these movies so much. I find them fun. Yeah, they aren't perfect, but I can enjoy them for what they are.

Philosophy is without parallel in historical and practical importance in the world. Philosophy is an extremely practical field of study, and it is the prime mover of society.

It is clear that the nature of a mind is that it can make choices. It is also clear that the universe is deterministic. So I am left being a dumbfounded compatibilist.

Peter,

When I was at the stage where I did a lot of mulling about this, I suddenly asked myself if my approach was wrong. To put it as a graphic metaphor, I was thinking about the universe and causality as a straight line. 'This causes that which causes that which causes that' and so on.

What happens if I think in a circle? I still have 'this causes that which causes that' and so on moving in a line, but I also have another aspect--that any point I choose on the circle will be the start point and end point at the same time.

This means if I establish that clockwise means moving from determinism to free will and counterclockwise means the contrary, I can move in either direction (using this as a metaphor for an approach to thinking) without nullifying anything. When I move around the circle and get to the end point of 100% free will, I am also at the starting point of 100% determinism.

That's a mindfuck when you start going into it, but I see it as how the universe works. It is literally a holistic approach where the universe is one thing, not a movement from one state to another.

You can use this metaphor for form and content, for whole and part, for holon autonomy and for other metaphysical things like that.

Granted, we experience time in only one direction and linearly, but only in the non-mental realm. In the mix of the two, memories of the past and projections of the future all happen as the body and mind are happening in time. When you get to the purely mental realm, anything goes as far as time is concerned.

Do my or your thoughts not exist? They do exist. They may not represent other existents accurately at times, but even the most outlandish thought itself exists when it happens. Thoughts are things. And if a particular thought is so caught up in the past in its substance that it cannot be disconnected from the past without going out of existence as a thought, does it make any sense to call that a delusion? How about calling that its nature?

So keep on thinking.

It's good to realize there is more to learn.

Michael

I don't really understand what you mean by your circle thinking analogy. I don't see how that solves anything.

Thoughts exist in the same way motions exists. They aren't things any more than the motion of my hand is a thing. I don't really understand how or why people get caught up in that idea. Thoughts are not something special in a class of their own. There's nothing mystical here.

I assure you, I will never stop thinking. And I assure you, I will always be aware that there's more to learn. That doesn't necessarily mean I'll change my view. You seem to imply it will. More thinking or learning more might just strengthen my views. And if they accurate right now, that's what will happen.

I like him. I've watched many of his videos and found many of them very interesting. He's like Peikoff in that he's actually an Objectivist. lol

I always felt some kind of vague annoyance as a kid whenever adults would say, 'these people died so you could be free, you know.' They directed at me as if I should feel guilty or should feel some emotion they could see I wasn't feeling. I thought, 'I didn't ask them to. Didn't they do it for themselves? For their family? They didn't know me.' So to this day, I don't like it. But abstractly, I'm glad people fought for freedom, and it takes heroic courage, and I respect that.

Out of curiosity, do you have any family, friends, etc. who are Veterans?

A...

No.

I don't think I'm depressed, but unmotivated with little interest in exerting effort. I can't find much worth doing or achieving. I'd say I'm numb.

What exactly do you think depression is, Peter, if not this?

I assumed you had to be sad. It may be the beginnings of depresison. I've had brain fog issues for a year, and some have suggested it's actually a kind of depression without the sadness.

I don't understand "brain fog." You might need to be evaluated by a neurologist.

--Brant

I can't speak for Peter, but that's what I would call a general feeling of disconnectedness, inability to focus and concentrate, forgetfulness, difficulty with finding words for common objects. You're right that it could have a neurological source which is why Peter should consider seeing a medical doctor first.

That pretty much sums it up. It's a cloudy consciousness. I can 'feel' it in a sense. It's a bit like being sleep deprived, like mental fatigue, but all day every day. I used to be somewhat clever, but now I'm fairly dumb. Some days I describe myself as a zombie.

I don't think I'm depressed, but unmotivated with little interest in exerting effort. I can't find much worth doing or achieving. I'd say I'm numb.

What exactly do you think depression is, Peter, if not this?

I assumed you had to be sad. It may be the beginnings of depresison. I've had brain fog issues for a year, and some have suggested it's actually a kind of depression without the sadness.

I guess I'm a physicialist of sorts. There's no evidence for anything other than physical reality. Anything non-physical is actually reducible to a configuration or motion of the physical. They are relationships, arrangments, motions, system, movements, dynamicsm, states and so on of the physical universe. When people speak of the mind, I think of the state and operations of the brain. It strikes me as overtly mystical to posit some non-physical existing entity called the mind. In my view, the mind is not a thing, but a process.

I would have to disagree in a sense to the message of the video. But firstly I want to state that I think language breaks down a bit when talking about this.

I can agree partially that you are not your brain per se. In a sense you are your brain's state, rather than your brain itself. There's nothing in sense data to suggest that the brain is just a receptor for the mind which is - unlike everything else in the universe - a process without a substrate in which to process, and it also goes against all other known philosophical and scientific knowledge. Rather than the mind being something completely disconnected and seperate from the physical universe, it makes more sense to assume it's a process just like any other process in the physical universe. No need to invent a new category of existence.

I am certain that cause and effect exists, and that all entities, including a brain, operate in this manner. Entities act in accordance with their nature. This leaves me seemingly with no choice but to concede that free will does not exist, but in actual fact I think this is the fallacy. It is clear that the nature of a mind is that it can make choices. It is also clear that the universe is deterministic. So I am left being a dumbfounded compatibilist. And I form no hypothesis to try to explain it. I think it's more of a question for neuroscientists than for philosophers. It strikes me as odd that one would try to 'figure it out' from one's armchair. It strikes me as like Aristotle's physics, completely unfounded. We may not even have the requisite knowledge about the brain and mind yet to begin to explain it. I think a proper definition of 'free' will and 'choice' is required to make sense of it too.

"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction." Isaac Newton

Hypotheses non fingo

Peter: "I don't like karate."

Maybe why you don't like it is important because you think you don't like the way you are too. You see, each is a constant. There is a comfort in staying the same. It's difficult to change. Karate would be a change, therefore a threat to your comfort. It's so easy to think "I don't like karate"--just a quick thought to dispose of the matter--sort of like saying I don't like water (so I won't learn to swim). The Six Pillars will teach you how to use sentence completion to explore why you don't like karate plus self explore a lot of other things. Then you might be posting on OL that you "don't like sentence completion."

--Brant

No, I don't accept that at all.. I said I'd consider another martial art, so what's the difference? In my view, Karate is rather useless and rigid. That's why I don't like karate. The idea that I don't like karate due to some psychological issues is way off. Karate is a very specific Japanese martial art. I don't like golf or soccer, but that's not a psychological issue. I'm not affraid of doing something different, but it'd have to be something I think warrants effort. I see no point in exerting effort for the sake of effort. My problem is that I don't even feel much like exerting much effort on things that I think are rationally worth doing. And telling someone, 'well if you don't get much pleasure from doing things, then just do things,' isn't much help.

If I said, I don't like sport and I don't like karate, and I won't do anything physical or take up any hobby or take up any practice to help me, then you'd have reason to think I'm trying to get away with not having to do anything.

I've been thinking about tennis, dancing or basketball. I'm very open to the idea I don't get enough physical activity.

It is however true that I don't much like the way I am, and I'm aware now that I really do have quite low self esteem in some ways, and I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I will have a go at the sentence completion method.

That said, I do have a question. Do you really believe the false dichotomy that the orthodox Objectivists use for their frame when talking about Rand's personal life? Here's what I mean: are the only two choices that (1) Rand must have become perfectly happy by following her philosophy or (2) perfectly miserable? Those were the only two alternatives? Do you really believe that human nature is that simple? And that philosophy is an on-off switch for happiness?

Absolutely not.

To the orthos, the Brandens are the equivalent of the Christian Satan. There is no context for their "evil." It just is. You might want to ask yourself if that even makes sense to a rational mind.

Absolutely not, and I hope I didn't sound that way. I hope everyone is clear I'm not out to prove the Brandens evil. I don't however consider it impossible that Barbara Branden felt some desire - perhaps unconcious - to get back at Rand. I wouldn't brand her immoral for that. I'm out to find if there's any other evidence, so that I can determine a modicum of truth about Ayn Rand. This is not about Barbara Branden.

But I notice that you use a bit of the jargon and framing the orthos do when talking about this issue. I discussed this to death within that frame. I'm not willing to do that any longer. It never goes anywhere.

So if you prefer to continue thinking about this (or expressing it) through that lens, we will probably not agree on much. But if you want to go open, so to speak, in other words, suspend judgment to discuss correct identification, then judge, that's me--even should we disagree on the judgment at the end.

When a sincere attempt at cognitive before normative thinking has occurred, I'm good either way. I trust minds that engage in honest attempts to get it right. I have yet to be wrong about this or disappointed with anyone who has gone this route. I especially admire such minds, even should I disagree, when their honest thinking goes against the core stories they have adopted. I know what that takes.

I call it integrity and this is the kind that doesn't come cheap. It hurts--and hurts a lot--before it feels good.

Michael

I realize now that given the history and context I was unaware of, that by bursting onto the scene and asserting roughly "I'm suspicious as hell" I was interpreted to have said "Barbara Branden was pure evil and I'm on a witch hunt" which is not what I meant at all.

I found Diana Hsieh's treatment interesting but not condeming. So N. Branden believes in a few weird borderline mystical things, I don't think that's evil. And she failed to cite evidence for a different series of events.

Michael

Thank you, Michael, for sharing all this with me.

In my previous storyline, I was one of the good guys in the Objectivist march to save the world. Rand had an extremely powerful influence on me. I had other fundamental values too, including music.

I see many Objectivists and libertarians are interested in saving the world. I look at them stupified. I've never had any interest in it whatsoever. Before I found Objectivism, I was already for freemarket capitalism, but I still had no interest in going out and saving the world. I was just interested in understanding how the world worked. And I never thought it practical to convince everyone. I look at it very much from a third person view. I can't change the system and don't want to.

That happens when you believe in a fundamental story and can't let it go--you don't want to let it go because you believe body and soul that it is right--but you keep seeing evidence that life ain't that way. That is extremely painful on a spiritual level. So rather than face the issue square on, your subconscious shuts down emotions. And without emotions, you have no drive, no desire other than to just get by.

I'll have to think about your post. I wonder often what I am doing with my life, where I want to go, who I want to be. I've never really held tightly onto any belief though. Maybe I have been without realizing it. Thanks for this insight

I will keep you posted. Thank you for the care

Can anyone help point me in the right direction to gain back my desire to do, well, anything. The thought of exerting effort often brings me down; it's weird. My motive power, so to speak, is gone. I seem to act only to alleviate discomfort and do so begrudgingly. WIth the sole exception of lifting weights twice a week which I do without feeling any resistance mentally because I want to do it.

How old are you?

I'm 24 years old.

Off so little data I can only suggest reading and using Nathaniel Branden's The Six Pillars of Self Esteem and taking up karate. In karate pretend you are angry and you are punching what makes you angry. Why? You likely are terribly angry, but it's so repressed it's been transmogrified into depression so you are completely oblivious to it. Also--people who are depressed see themselves as victims and as victims they are helpless to do anything about it except to be pissed off and depressed from the oppression. (I'm throwing a lot of stuff at the wall. I don't know what will stick.)

--Brant

you sound young and too much Objectivism all at once

you may be most comfortable in your discomfort hence your "begrudingly"

What a coincedence. I have been listening to a three-hour audio version and so far I find it very insightful! I plan to borrow the book. I don't think I'm depressed, but unmotivated with little interest in exerting effort. I can't find much worth doing or achieving. I'd say I'm numb.

I have what will seem like an odd piece of advice: read Tom Wolfe's A Man in Full.

This marginally well writtin book--with it's annoying diversions--will introduce you to the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, and learning about this wonderful man will give your life more meaning. You may even find yourself motivated to get off the couch and start kicking some ass--both literally and figuratively.

And, I agree with Brant: take up karate. I have done karate for 6 years now and it does make a difference, for the reasons Brant aptly explains. If karate seems to have too much woo-woo and you don't like wearing a uniform, take up Krav Maga instead. It's the same thing without the bells and whistles.

I'll have a look! I used to do a martial art called Zendokai. I don't like Karate, but I would consider doing a martial art again. I'd probably go with Wing Chun because I know of a place in the city. I've also looked into Krav Maga which is not a martial art but Israeli military combat training.

Can anyone help point me in the right direction to gain back my desire to do, well, anything. The thought of exerting effort often brings me down; it's weird. My motive power, so to speak, is gone. I seem to act only to alleviate discomfort and do so begrudgingly. WIth the sole exception of lifting weights twice a week which I do without feeling any resistance mentally because I want to do it.

Do something physical and challenging.

Complete a ten mile hike, or do some rock climbing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If I can get the motivation... but yes I do think I need more exercise. I think it needs to be somtehing funner than runnign though. Every time I start running I get terribly bored with it. I have been brainstorming sports to try. I'm also thinking of things I always wanted to do as a child but was never able to do.

Bob, put a hold on that rock climbing. He might solve his problem by falling off and landing on his head. That doesn't mean it's wise to go there. I suggested karate, for instance, not that Peter go out and start fighting bullies.

--Brant

keeping the lid on the pot

(Peter: do you have a dog? A dog is programmed to enjoy life and will drag you along kicking and screaming)

No, I don't have a dog. Dogs do excude fun! That's a cool idea, but I don't think it'd fix my lack of motivation. And I made up my mind that I'll never own a pet. I don't want the work. I'll keep that as a last resort.

Objectivism is a philosophy of happiness on earth? Ayn Rand died miserable and irrational? Peter, you've reduced some complicated topics to cliches. You need to dig a little deeper.

That's the way the ending of the book portrayed Ayn Rand. People have brought up the book's portrayal of an insensitive personality and unwaranted outbursts, but those are not the portrayals that made me suspicious or think she was irrational. I will have to make an explicit list of specific hyper-irrational things Ayn Rand was portrayed to do and say.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand.

I didn't say that's all the philosophy was.

I am digging.

Norian,

You appear to think that Barbara Branden's bio on Rand was too harsh at certain points. In particular you doubt her accounts of Rand's less than hospitable treatment of certain people, her condemning those around her who did not agree with her tastes in music, art, etc.

If you doubt Barbara's account, and think that she exaggerated Rand's social failings, then you really do need to read the other two bios on Rand by Anne C. Heller and Jennifer Burns. Because If their accounts are accurate, then Barbara's portrait of Rand was if anything, too sympathetic and laudatory; not the other way around.

In particular, I was struck by your comment, "The Rand in the latter half of the book almost makes you wanna grab her and say 'here, read this book by Ayn Rand and get your act together.' Indeed, and that is, in effect, what those around her tried to do when she felt crushed by the hostile reviews of Atlas Shrugged and went into a deep depression for quite a while. Nathaniel Branden pointed-out to her that her own reaction to published criticism of Atlas, was not what one would have expected from the author of The Fountainhead, who created a key passage summing up her view of how a person representing her own values, should respond to hostile opposition, Howard Roark, his architectural career left in ruins, has a chance encounter with Ellsworth Toohey, the architectural critic chiefly responsible for (seemingly) ending Roark's career. Toohey, recognizing Roark, approaches him and says, "Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us." Roark's answer: "But I don't think of you." Unfortunately, Rand was unable or unwilling to follow her own advice.

But, by the way,...so what? Ayn Rand was not a deity. Only a deity is capable of perfect, unerring, behavior. Some fans of Rand seem to think that if any human failing by Rand is acknowledged, that negates her whole philosophical construction. No, it does not., It merely shows that she was human. It is ironic that certain self-appointed defenders of Rand's legacy will not admit that she was anything less than perfection - which is dangerously close to buying into the same argument (a logical fallacy) that her leftist enemies invariably utilise, the ad hominem.

The book doesn't merely portray an offensive personality though. Several quotes and several reactions were so irrational, it is eery and strange. People keep telling me she was human, I know that. I never expected infalibility.

And of course, whatever her personality and application of the philosophy, I know it takes nothing away from the philosophy itself. It is however demotivating if the creator of a philosophy of happiness on earth died miserable and irrational.

If she had a bit of a gratting personality, that'd be one thing, but she seemed to have given up on reality and happiness in the end. The Rand in the latter half of the book almost makes you wanna grab her and say 'here, read this book by Ayn Rand and get your act together.' Unless I completely misunderstand Objectivism, but as I said, I learned 70% straight from Peikoff and Rand. (But I never took sides bewteen ARI and AS).

I'm certaintly not that rustled by depictions of a less than flattering personality. Failings of that kind don't bother me. Maybe I'm just thick skinned. Maybe once again, it's because I'm Australian, and some people will call you a c**t as a term of endearement. You are just making me like her more.

This is now an Australian culture thread... lol.

You must have high standards for anger.

I'd be delighted if that's all most people were like when they were angry. Though, maybe my childhood has set the bar high, I don't know.

Peter,

There are two other, more recent biographies of Ayn Rand. One is by Jennifer Burns, and one is by Anne C. Heller. In your university library, you may have The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies or your may have access to it through JSTOR. In the V13N1 issue (July 2013), there is a double review of these two biographies by Robert Campbell that is really helpful for deciding which, if either, you might like to read.

Ah, my library has both Thanks for the recommendations. 'Goddess of the Market'. I like the sound of that.

Walt Disney was anti-Semitic. I still enjoy Disney World.

Don't let Ayn Rand's personal drama overshadow the value you have found in philosophy. She was human.

On another note, MEM may be picking up on the same thing I did. You seem very passionate and emotional about this topic. There's nothing wrong with that, but your referring to "Ayn" by her first name indicates that maybe your personal connection with her on this topic is bordering on unhealthy. You talk of her as if you knew her personally, and you seem to be taking personal offense on her behalf. You did not know her, and there's no rational reason for you to be taking this personally. Perhaps I'm reading more into it than is there, however.

I read that bewildered. What a misunderstanding.

I'd like to know if it's true. That's all. I googled and found out there's this huge rift, and now I want to know the other accounts.

I don't feel by calling someone by their first name that I am indicating I knew them personally. Maybe that's a strong convention that I'm unaware of. I haven't been given any good reason to not call someone I didn't know by their first name, but I suppose I will use the last name to avoid people getting the wrong impression. I just didn't want to type the full name and chose Ayn over Rand. Maybe that's because I think it's a pretty name. (Finnish is so pretty. Aina. Ayn.) However, I do tend to like reasons for not doing things.

I'm confused. I think there was a misunderstanding. Please indicate where I took offense for Rand, and I'll retract it. I never felt offense, and how could I? Please indicate where I took anything personally. I don't see it. I ask meaning it sincerely. I must have miscommunicated.

I'm a curious investigator. I see this goes way back, and now I really see the can of worms I'm unleashing on myself. If I seem passionate about it, I take it as a compliment. It wouldn't change my estimation of the philosophy. I don't feel threatened in the slightest either way. I just realize that I have no idea if what is in Passion of Ayn Rand is accurate or not so I want to see if there's any evidence for the contrary.

I don't mean to step on any toes. I'm just interested.

Call her "Ayn" if you want to. No big deal. If she were alive and you were to meet her, naturally you'd address her as "Miss Rand." In more formal writing than, say, here, "Rand" is the way to go. I use "Ayn" occasionally (I just did it!), "Ayn Rand" most often but now "Rand" more and more.

--Brant

I once called Nathaniel Branden "Nathan" to his face. It made me uncomfortable so it's been "Nathaniel" ever since. "Nathan" is for people who knew him when that was his name, generally speaking, with Jack Wheeler as the one exception I know of--I'm sure there are a few others; not me

Maybe I'm an uncultured, backwards Australian, but I think I would have called her Ayn, since that's her name. 'G'day Ayn, please sign my bicep.' I think she might have gone for it. Maybe I'm a bit rough around the edges. How awkward, I may have been offending people my whole life.

Now that I know it's going to stand out and rub people the wrong way, I'm going to probably just use 'Rand'. Caving to peer pressure

It could also be the culture of Australian informality which I first knew working with some 40 years ago. (I was used to a stiffly Brit reserve). Whatever diffs in age or corporate ranking, being immediately first-named has a classless familarity which at first may be discomfiting but was also refreshing. It's much more common everywhere now.

Ha. You picked up on that. I suggested I was an uncultured Australian before I even read this. Even in some schools, we are told to call teachers by their first name.

And yeah, I won't go slamming Barbara Branden or Nathaniel Branden. Anyway, I have really been enjoying Nathaniel's book.... (I wrote that and thought, oh man I did it again)... Nathaniel Branden's book 'Psychology of Self Esteem'.

Thank you all for giving your views and directing me to reading material.

Not sure why you're so suspicious, people change with age and can grow more cynical. There's a Barbara Branden video on Youtube where she talks about how dissappointed she was that Atlas Shrugged got negative reviews and/or was ignored. The Romantic Manifesto (as well as a hit piece by Murray Rothbard) document Rand's taste in art/music.

As for the Donahue interview and Ayn 'getting angry', I'm not sure what standards you are using but I'm pretty sure there aren't many guests on Donahue that have gotten more upset than Ayn Rand. Given the audience that watches Donahue it would have been more rational to address the woman who questioned Ayn in a more calm manner.

I've come to question some of the things in Passion of Ayn Rand, but I think it's mainly true. Ayn worked very hard to try to create an intellectual framework for capitalism and did a pretty good job of it. But she had too much confidence that people would have a positive reaction to it (just like Dagny had too much confidence). I think she became more cynical after the Branden breakup.

I honestly don't know how she could have been any calmer. The only time she showed a tinge of anger is when she said "I didn't come here to be judged."

Walt Disney was anti-Semitic. I still enjoy Disney World.

Don't let Ayn Rand's personal drama overshadow the value you have found in philosophy. She was human.

On another note, MEM may be picking up on the same thing I did. You seem very passionate and emotional about this topic. There's nothing wrong with that, but your referring to "Ayn" by her first name indicates that maybe your personal connection with her on this topic is bordering on unhealthy. You talk of her as if you knew her personally, and you seem to be taking personal offense on her behalf. You did not know her, and there's no rational reason for you to be taking this personally. Perhaps I'm reading more into it than is there, however.

I read that bewildered. What a misunderstanding.

I'd like to know if it's true. That's all. I googled and found out there's this huge rift, and now I want to know the other accounts.

I don't feel by calling someone by their first name that I am indicating I knew them personally. Maybe that's a strong convention that I'm unaware of. I haven't been given any good reason to not call someone I didn't know by their first name, but I suppose I will use the last name to avoid people getting the wrong impression. I just didn't want to type the full name and chose Ayn over Rand. Maybe that's because I think it's a pretty name. (Finnish is so pretty. Aina. Ayn.) However, I do tend to like reasons for not doing things.

I'm confused. I think there was a misunderstanding. Please indicate where I took offense for Rand, and I'll retract it. I never felt offense, and how could I? Please indicate where I took anything personally. I don't see it. I ask meaning it sincerely. I must have miscommunicated.

I'm a curious investigator. I see this goes way back, and now I really see the can of worms I'm unleashing on myself. If I seem passionate about it, I take it as a compliment. It wouldn't change my estimation of the philosophy. I don't feel threatened in the slightest either way. I just realize that I have no idea if what is in Passion of Ayn Rand is accurate or not so I want to see if there's any evidence for the contrary.

I don't mean to step on any toes. I'm just interested.

Of course, whether she lost her mind towards the end of her life or not, her main ideas and novels stand untouched. I was aware Newton wasted the latter half of his life on chasing the mysticism of alchemy.

Do not call Ayn Rand "Ayn" unless you really did know her personally. I add that if we were discussing Bertrand Russell, you would not refer to him as "Bertrand."

No. I see nothing wrong with it. If you give me a rational reason why I shouldn't, then I won't. But I won't accept convention or a command. By convention, many people would refer to Albert Einstein as Einstein but not Albert, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

Peter, when you refer to another book, please come with the title.

I go back over 59 years with then Ayn Rand Objectivism stuff. I was there when they put her in the ground.

I saw her of the Late Night with Johnny Carson in 1967, on TV in Tucson. Her public demeanor was positive, just as you experienced her. In the more private, smaller social contexts she could be less beneficent. The reasons are complex and variable and no one can understand all that went on and why back then in the life of this woman. I can speculate with the best of them, but such is not acceptable testimony.

MM: We do not know what Rand was addicted to or how badly except the cigarettes.

--Brant

Interesting. I guess I'll have to find more on the other side.

I guess I will never know because I don't have access to any original documents, and I don't know who can be trusted.