Charles R. Anderson

Kat, Like you, I think limited government is necessary. I would limit the federal government strictly to providing for the national defense, keeping the states from erecting barriers to trade and travel between themselves, and settling disputes between the states, always in the interest of individual rights. On Iraq, I think there is an exit strategy, but it cannot be announced to the enemy, which unfortunately means that it cannot be announced to us. Wars are usually harder than anyone anticipates they will be when they get into them, but this one is not really very bad in historical terms. It may also prove to have some very good long term consequences, or maybe the Middle East will remain the mess it has long been. We shall have to see. ARI likes very much to emphasize showmanship. In doing this, they like to take up very radical stands to show the contrast between themselves and others. They have put out a number of articles on how the American Indians should be grateful that the European Civilization wiped their society out. In these articles, there was no explanation that this was an inevitable tragedy for the Indians of the time, but present-day Indians should be thankful that they live in the America of today. No, that would have taken the edge off. Instead, they opted for the hammer blow that Indians should be happy that they were displaced. There was no hint of apology for throwing those many Cherokee and Creek Indians off their farms, when many of them tried to adopt the European Civilization. They sent their children to schools and they ran for and were elected to state and federal offices. Nonetheless, they were rounded up and forced to go to Oklahoma on the infamous Trail of Tears. No, ARI is ignorant of history and unable to see that there were more reasonable options for at least many of the Indians. There was also no recognition of the thievery of Indian Agents and the failure to provide promised services to the Indian reservations for many decades. Israel suits their purposes in a similar, radicalizing way. Now they are again more militant than anyone else. This makes them the Kick Ass society they want to be. Nevermind, that while Israel may operate as a much better society than the surrounding Middle East muslim countries, it is nonetheless a religious state. Freedom of religion is limited in Israel. And again, there is no willingness to see the human tragedy that has occurred there. Unfortunately, there are also no answers to the problem that will satisfy any but a few people. Like the American Indians, this is probably a tragedy that will never have a rational solution. It will not have one on the Palestinian side and it will not have one from ARI. It probably will not have one from the Israeli side. The only real hope is that one day the Palestinians will have such better opportunities elsewhere that they will pick up and leave. Maybe a healthy Iraq will help to provide such an option.

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.

John -- Well I did not say, but I guess you mean to make me say it. I think that tolerance makes for longer marriages and longer friendships. It also makes your children think better of you. One would think that many Objectivists who have not figured this out would have figured this out. To be ignorant of these observable facts makes it clear they care little about reality. It also makes it clear that their marriages, their friends, and their children are of little value to them. Now that is a strong statement and I know you know that I am right.

When I said that psychology books of my youth were either filled with common sense or nonsense, I was talking about many popular books of the 1960s. Perhaps under the influence of Nathaniel Branden's work they are better now. In addition, I do not mean to say that psychology is an unimportant field. Indeed, much of the more scientific work revealing the influence of biochemistry on the mind and the workings of the mind is now quite interesting. But, I remain less than well-educated in this field. Perhaps the time has come to learn more about psychology!

Rational Objectivists --- Now that should be seen as repetitive. Unfortunately it is not, if you take everyone who claims to be an Objectivist at his word. But at OL, the Objectivists are rational beings, as they should be. Yes, OL is a much more worthwhile forum. Much more will be accomplished here. I hope I have made it clear to everyone here already that they are respected and appreciated. I really, really want to thank you and Kat for your effort in providing this forum. I hope it grows with more and more rational Objectivists and becomes a very positive influence. It should if you hold a steady course.

Michael, I often wonder how my few excursions into humor will play out. I am not a party animal, as surely anyone soon learns from my posts. But every now and then, if you are both observant and benevolently inclined, you might find a little twist that could be interpreted as humor. But, damn, I was mostly serious! Continuous faulty arguments are a severe form of pollution. I do enjoy a home that does not resemble a cess pool. Alright, mine is very cluttered, with too many books and magazines. But clutter is not filth.

Would it not be interesting to compare the average length of the marriages of TOC members to those of ARI members? I think I know whose average would be longer! Anna and I have been married for 32 years for one datum.

I think the development of many Objectivist organizations is actually a good thing. Objectivists are individualists, often intelligent, and they have many interests. Let's have more Internet forums, more educational institutions, more publications, and more businesses to cater to these individual interests. When I was an undergraduate at Brown University, I wrote a letter to the Brown Bruin in opposition to an editorial in favor of ending the fraternaties at Brown. My main argument was that the fraternaties performed the very desirable function of removing those who wanted to spend their weekends drunk, partying, and having mindless sex from the regular dorm areas. So also with ARI. Most any movement that offers a very different worldview than is prevalent in its society will draw fanatics into it. They need a home and it is best if it is not my home.

Michael, I think the disinterest in sex with nest mates seems right to me as Ellen suggests. I believe the revulsion is learned from society. While most societies do have incest taboos, I do not think that all societies historically have had them. Clearly they did not with respect to royal familiies in any case.

Roger, First, thanks for your comment. I would like to clarify my comments on the hero aspects of my earlier comment. I do agree with you that a man can be a hero and yet not be morally perfect. The kind of hero that Ayn Rand projected and presumably desired to have as a romantic love in her stylized life, was probably more morally perfect than anyone we know. To expect a young Nathaniel, who came under her influence before he had a chance to learn who he was and wanted to be based on his own judgment, may have been too much for him or anyone else. Nathaniel appears to have wanted too much to please Ayn Rand and then may have found himself trapped into a life of trying to do so. With enough courage, independence, and a great self-esteem, maybe he could have overcome these problems. However, it pretty understandable that few people would have enough of these qualities to stand up to Ayn Rand. My praise of Nathaniel Branden has been at best sparse and miserly. I am trying to belatedly come to an understanding of his contributions. After the 1968 breakup, I was initially sure that Ayn Rand had to be right. But as more and more information became available, it was clear that things were not adding up. Still, I thought that Nathaniel Branden was worse than it was likely that he was. Now, I see that Mike Lee's comments make a lot of sense. Both of the Branden's do seem to have been reasonable in those of their evaluations of Ayn Rand in her personal behaviors and with respect to her management of relationships. The ARI side has clearly been unreasonable. In terms of Nathaniel's contributions to Objectivism, it is clear that he wrote a number of good articles and that his and Barbara's work at NBI was very important. With regard to his books, I am in no way able to comment. Too early, I read a number of bad books on psychology and I concluded that what they said fell into two categories: common sense and nonsense. I have ever since found it hard to read psychology books. My interest in history always seems to draw me away before I can finish a book. I did once read one of Nathaniel's books, The Psychology of Self-Esteem, which I thought was free of the usual nonsense. I own The Disowned Self, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem, and Taking Responsibility, and have only read a part of the first two before some history book I was reading caused me to forget reading the rest. So, I am not familiar with Nathaniel's later contributions and I do not know enough about the state of psychology in general to compare his work with that of others even if I do read them. I am coming to understand that I have not likely done justice to Nathaniel Branden even with my present understanding. I certainly did him an injustice in the past. I will make some effort to see better how far I have fallen short of doing so.

Michael, The Objectivism as developed to Ayn Rand's death left much work to be done. This is true for every branch of philosophy and for a broad understanding of man, life, and the rest of the universe. Issues relating to human relationships were little developed. Many issues relating to how an individual should choose his own values and develop them are little covered. There is much to do with respect to understanding human emotions. But all of these things can become known to us through the use of reason. It is reason's task to understand them better. Objectivism was not and is not now a closed and complete system of understanding. As long as man exists he will need to use reason to expand his understanding and that will be the task of any true Objectivist. We cannot say that Objectivism took care of reason and now we have to tackle the rest. Taking care of reason will always be an on-going process and it will be the means of making sense of those things we do not yet understand. I think you know this, but your last comment can readily be taken out of its complete context and a Diana Hsieh will have a field day with it after the fashion of her 17 Mar 06 attack on Truth and Toleration as advocating both that Kelley believes in a mind/body dichotomy and that reason only adds goodies to life and is not essential.

This is a great question, Ellen. One can go on and observe that the excessive moralizing is worse than ever. This is especially true at ARI, which is largely governed by Peikoff. Since he was Ayn Rand's chosen heir, is it not reasonable to suppose that the excessive moralizing is the result of a bad choice on Ayn Rand's part. Furthermore, if Ayn Rand was such a bad judge of character with respect to Peikoff, why should we assume that she should be presumed free of responsibility for any poor character judgments she might have made prior to choosing an heir? For instance, if she expected too much of Nathaniel Branden, then we should consider that his failure to live up to all of her expectations has consequences for our judgment of Ayn Rand herself. Perhaps her desire to worship a hero led her to deceive herself about the reality of Nathaniel. Perhaps the pressure of her expectations was too much for a young man who came under her influence before he was sufficiently developed as a man with independently chosen values. For example, if you expect a boy to be both a man and a hero you may put the boy under too much pressure and decrease the probability of his succeeding in developing into both a man and a hero. Judging people is tough work. People are complex and it is difficult to understand other people. Much of what we think we know about others is the result of our introspective understanding of ourselves. Since other people are not really ourselves, they are always substantially unknown to us. Nonetheless, we do have a moral responsibility to do our best in judging the character of others when they are a part of our life. If Ayn Rand was so disasterously wrong about Nathaniel Branden for so many years, why would this not be an important moral shortcoming on her part? The ARI group assume that the failed relationship was all Nathaniel's fault and the more scorn they heap on him, the more pristinely innocent Ayn Rand is. Yet, most of us know that most failed relationships occur due to faults and mistakes by all or most of the parties in the relationship. Due to the complexity of personal relationships, many are not sustainable for very long periods, especially if one or more parties are given to excessive moralizing. I find it remarkable that no one will discuss these issues. I believe it is because of the high regard that we have for Ayn Rand. This being the case, however, we cannot in justice proceed to judge Nathaniel Branden less benevolently than we do Ayn Rand. In fairness, we should chalk their relationship up as a tragedy for both of them and move on. I expect that this is why TOC has not been discussing PARC. If they do so fairly, then Ayn Rand's reputation is hurt further and there is little liklihood that the parties who exclusively blame Nathaniel Branden will change their minds.

Michael, I would like to read the books you have been reading about men killing dinosaurs, while the women farmed. If we were doing that, why aren't we bigger than we are? Shouldn't we be about 10 feet tall?

It is fun watching you enjoy each other so much. How much better life would be if more people enjoyed other people in general more than they do. The universe would be more benevolent then.

The idea of matching them up sounds good to me! Too bad neither of them had a future.

Wasn't George Walsh also sent packing, at least after he joined David Kelley in starting the Institute of Objectivist Studies? What was George Reisman's status? I should probably know these things, but for many years I was so disgusted with all the falling outs that I thought of it all as being a very bad soap opera. To pay attention to it was certainly no more fun than listening to Cuffy Meigs in a meeting. Now I understand that the problem is never going to go away until Objectivists start to understand the concepts of friendship, benevolence, tolerance, and to be willing to really compete in the marketplace of ideas. For whatever it is worth, I need to try to help them understand these things and see to it that I am not part of the problem. Normally healthy people do not condemn anywhere near such a large fraction of their friends. I don't recall anyone being run out of Galt's Gulch, which is not a definitive statement of how things should be, but it should give Objectivists pause to examine what their purpose is. Too often it seems to be that I am more holy than thou. It sure would be more useful for acquiring knowledge, more fun, and more effective in persuading others to take Objectivism seriously, if more benevolence, tolerance, respect for the intelligence of others, loyalty to friends, and the kind of self-assurance that can stand up to a challenge were widely found among Objectivists. It has been a horrible tragedy that so many are so wanting in such basic human skills. I am finally reading The Passion of Ayn Rand. It is fascinating, perceptive, and very well-written. I have read some of PARC and very many of its arguments are very poor. Given that, it is not surprising that the writing is also poor. This makes the impact it seems to be having on many other Objectivists a very strange thing to observe.

Is it the case that everyone in this long list of missing people has been "officially" riden out of town? Or is it that there is simply great fear that some of them are no longer under ARI control and therefore might at some time in the future say something ARI would not like? It must be terrifying to have so much to worry about. I think I had better get all my copies of The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist under lock and key. A controlled heat and humidity environment would be a good investment in preserving our history.

Peikoff has stumped me a number of times. I'll add this to the list. He seems to have a very great hatred for religious people. I think he actually thinks that most religious people understand the tenets of religion. In my experience they do not. It seems hard to believe, but it seems to be true. Almost none of them try to apply religious tenets consistently in their lives. This seems to be true of George Bush also. Most Christians are more practical than they should be according to their religious beliefs. Many of them are embarassed by the more radical Christians that Peikoff seems to think are at the helm. Many talk the talk and have their fingers crossed behind their backs that things will not change much. After all, are there not hordes of Christians, as well as secularists, who visit those ever-popular erotic sites on the Internet? Who does Peikoff think goes to the R-rated movies and buys the X-rated videos? How many Christians were actually relieved that their young daughters had abortions rather than bore a child without benefit of marriage? There is a reason why Christians so readily embrace being sinners!

Ellen, I also found that I strongly felt Hank Rearden's agony due to Dagny's disappearance. I thought that Galt should should have let Francisco tell him to, but that also leads a bit into a dilemna then about what does Hank do in response to the knowledge that she is OK, but he cannot know where she is and who she is with. That one would have created a real problem with the plot. Still, this is another dramatic case of how our real life values and emotions cannot necessarily be fully embodied in a novel developed to clarify the philosophical issues relating to the heroic in man. I am very much enjoying reading your comments. You seem to have a free and easy way of saying what is on your mind. This could make you a loose cannon by itself, but you also seem to have a good grasp on reality. It is fun being around you. Aaron, I suppose we could say that Cheryl should have understood how bad James Taggart was before marrying him or at least earlier than she did. The failure to understand can have terrible consequences. Or, maybe we should say that OK she made a mistake and now she should put it behind her and taken advantage of what she had learned to live a better life by leaving him. Then we should be angry at her for killing herself instead. I was angry when she died. I was angry at Taggart and his destructive nature, I was angry at Cheryl for killing herself and not fighting on, and I cried. This is probably just the way I was supposed to feel.

It is a pleasure to have the company of nice and intelligent people, especially when they are also Objectivists who can understand my values and share so many of my interests. Thank you all for the ideas discussed here and also for the comfort you give me simply by existing. Barbara, I was pretty sure that you would not and could not leave Eddie behind. Thanks for your personal confirmation that we share values and live our own lives in a more complete way than the characters we love and enjoy so much in Atlas Shrugged. Our real lives are more complicated than those of characters whose role is to clarify a few, albeit important, issues. This complexity helps to make us richly individual. I think you understand this well and I am looking forward, with fascination, to learning more about your thoughts. Thanks for the interest in and encouragement for writing more on friendships. I cannot claim to be especially expert on the subject, but I think about it and wish others would think more about it. Like you, I think that a good friendship is of comparable value to romantic love. Specifically, Objectivists should value friendships more than many do. In forming and maintaining a friendship, many, hugely many, of our values become involved. A good friendship is the result of many shared values, the investment of our most limited resource, time, and a great way to make the best in ourselves more visible. As we have a loyality to our values, we should certainly have a loyalty for our friends. If we do not, then our grasp on our values, so entangled in a friendship, is very fragile.

Many of the people close to me, loved by me, and important to me are no more intellectual and achieving giants than Eddie Willers. Of course, it would be wonderful to be surrounded by such giants, but that is not the pattern of our real lives. Eddie Willers is important to me. Yes, I agree with your observations on the distinction between the characters of the novel and our friends in real life. It is very important for Objectivists to be careful to make these distinctions themselves. They should be careful not to expect that their wife will be Dagny Taggert. Though I must say that I find her very appealing, I would add a few characteristics before taking her as a lover. Whoa, there goes that rampant ego again! On your comment that I came across as upset, was that in regard to my long dawn rant or was that with respect to my reply to Barbara Branden? For the reasons in my first paragraph above, I have always had concerns that might register as upset in the first case. If you speak of my reply, any upset I may have had was with myself for forgetting the context of the novel and I hope that that did not spill over into my reply as being upset with Barbara. I was not upset with her, though I may have put her on the spot to reply about how she would act in real life and maybe I should not have done that. But, that is really the question here, isn't it? I did take her comment as an attempt to answer my dilemna and it was useful in reminding me of the role of symbols. I never thought that she meant in any way to be other than constructive. I really do appreciate her comment and in the context of what I can expect she knows about me, there is no reason for me to think that she should have known that I would simply benefit from a reminder of the context of the novel versus real life. As big as my ego is, I nonetheless have no business re-writing Atlas Shrugged. My comments on that were just my effort to keep my perspective real and to point out that Barbara's constructive response was in contrast to the unconstructive response I might easily have had elsewhere! I love Atlas Shrugged still, even though it is less than a complete blueprint for living one's life! Unfortunately, some people do not remember that and they think they are the authenitic Objectivists. Other people observe that it is not and they say that therefore Objectivism is not a philosophy for living life. They are wrong, but this is because living the Objectivist life is not fully contained in the novel. We all have to apply the principles to our own lives with continuous rational, independent thought. This then tends to make us really individualistic and unruly people!

On other forums, some people wanting to point out what Barbara Branden pointed out above would have started something like, "You are a presumptuous dimwit to think you have any business re-writing Atlas Shrugged." Of course, this is true. To add to this, I have made the point before that the world created for the purpose of the novel Atlas Shrugged is not the same as the real world. But in this context and at this time I was not thinking of that, though I should have been. The point in the last paragraph of my last note should have been central to the longer note on Eddie Willers above. Thanks for your more constructive note Barbara. It reminded me of the context I was forgetting in this case. It is a context a lot of Objectivists forget even when they are too worshipful to suggest re-writing the novel.

Barbara, I understand that this is what Ayn Rand must have had in mind. It is certainly true that Eddie Willers would prosper only in a world with men of greater intellect and ability than he had. However, the collapse and the end were far along and chaos had taken over. Real people care about the good people they know. Besides, Eddie was much better than average. He was not very philosophical and he was not a giant, but he had earned everyone's respect and friendship. While one can symbolically treat Eddie as he was in the novel, people with rational values would not do that to the real person who had been a part of their lives. It was only necessary to give him a hideaway, maybe not even in Galt's Gulch, for a few weeks or months. Eddie was of value, but the message really is that he was not of much value. People who enjoy life form real attachments to the good people who have long been close to them. Eddie had always been close to Dagny and had done his best to serve her well. How could she leave him behind without remorse? Hadn't he ever become woven into her life? Barbara, if you had run Taggart Railways, could you have left Eddie Willers behind without feeling pain specifically for the loss of Eddie Willers? I could not have and I feel no remorse that I could not have. I do not think this is an irrational thought. The bonds that we form with good people who are not intellectual giants are rationally important to us. In this world, let alone the more deteriorated world of Atlas Shrugged, good people are not to be taken for granted. Of course the world of Atlas Shrugged is the stylized and symbollic world of a novel and it lives for a purpose. It is not real life. But most Objectivists forget this. Perhaps rather than objecting to Eddie being left behind in the novel, I should just remind everyone that in real life we should not leave him behind. We need to at least make the distinction between these worlds.

The first thing I should have done here was tell Inky that I really think she did a great job starting this thread. Inky, you must be a remarkable young lady. Few people your age are interested enough in ideas to spend much time thinking about them. It is great that you are doing this. It is especially good that you want to develop your own ways of thinking about things and that you want to explore ideas beyond cookbook recipes of Objectivism. I think that Objectivism offers us a very useful framework for addressing many issues, but how can one know that without thinking about other ideas and evaluating Objectivism carefully and independently. It is your mind and your life. You are the manager of them. I am glad that you understand this and take your responsibility to yourself so seriously. Have a great time on your intellectual journey.

My last note was a first draft on some ideas I have had in the back of my mind for a very long time. It was near dawn when I started it and after dawn when I finished and realized I was in great need of the dinner I had never had. Somehow, I failed to really close the loop on the importance of better developing the concept and practice of friendship among Objectivists. It needs more work and will get more work. Phil, Thanks for the comment and the humor. I got a good laugh out of it. I thought Hank was counseling John to withhold the invitation until I had developed Anderson Super Material. Did they give up on that and just say, "Well, he would at least be useful doing our lab analyses for us."? I really wish I could afford to go to the TOC Summer Seminar, but I am paying loans for sending 2 daughters to college and my laboratory has required a great deal of investment lately. If that were not enough, my Dad has been in increasingly bad health, so what little time I can get away from the lab, I want to spend with him and my mother in Oklahoma. Maybe the summer of 2007 will be different. When I have gone, before Kirsten went to college, I loved it. It was wonderful being among so many good and interesting people.