The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

[Guest Michelle F. Cohen]

I am still reading the book, but it already played a part in my decision to withdraw from speaking at the TOC Summer Seminar. I can't stomach any friend of Branden.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

According to Valliant, on page 138, he quotes Branden as stating it was Rand who answered the question "Is it possible to be in love with two people at the same time?" with "It's a project only giants can handle."

←

So he attributes that to Branden (allegedly) quoting Ayn Rand. I wonder what Valliant's source for that was.

←

Several times in the past I have publicly stated my recollection of Ayn Rand being asked that question in a Q & A from the very early 60s. I distinctly remember Miss Rand saying that it is possible to be in romantic love with two people at the same time. However, as I recall, but am not completely sure, she also answered that it is not possible to sustain that situation for long. Branden was at the lectern at the time.

It is entirely possible that such a question was asked and answered more than once, but the above is my recollection. Perhaps when Robert Mayhew's book on Miss Rand's Q & A sessions comes out near the end of this year, this question will be included.

[Bill Bucko 0]

Quite possibly there was more than one question on the same general topic.

I remember a few more details. As reported by Jim Davidson:

NB, earlier in the 60s, in reply to the question, "Can a man be in love with two women at the same time?" "No; such a man is unclear about his values."

NB, later in the 60s, in reply to the same question:

"Yes."

Q: "How?? What should he do?"

NB: "Get a bigger bed."

Q: "But ... how could a person handle such a situation?"

NB: "It would take a giant of introspection to do so."

At which point Dotty Davidson quipped, referring to NB: "Super Studley, Giant of Introspection."

It was this reply, concerning getting a bigger bed, that Miss Rand reportedly had expunged from the tape recording.

[dondigitalia 0]

It was this reply, concerning getting a bigger bed, that Miss Rand reportedly had expunged from the tape recording.

←

Regarding the affair, I'm really not all that interested, but this, to me, seems like an effort to rewrite reality. Why would Miss Rand wish to have NB's words expunged? If he made a statement, which he was aware was beign recorded, shouldn't it be left alone? Or was he supposed to be speaking on behalf of Miss Rand and Objectivism on the tape? If that is the case, then I can understand the removal of that statement.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Or was he supposed to be speaking on behalf of Miss Rand and Objectivism on the tape?

←

At that time NBI distributed taped courses on Objectivism, and presumably Bill was referring to a tape of the Q & A after a lecture. So, yes, Branden was speaking for Objectivism and Miss Rand had the responsibility to oversee that.

[Bill Bucko 0]

At that time NBI distributed taped courses on Objectivism, and presumably Bill was referring to a tape of the Q & A after a lecture. So, yes, Branden was speaking for Objectivism and Miss Rand had the responsibility to oversee that.

←

Yes, that's exactly what the circumstances were.

[dondigitalia 0]

Understood.

[Paul's Here 0]

So he attributes that to Branden (allegedly) quoting Ayn Rand.  I wonder what Valliant's source for that was.

←

Branden's book Judgment Day

[Free Capitalist 0]

I am loving this thread! I can totally see NB now as this guy who put on the air of an unapproachable giant of introspection (and morality, presumably), to play the role of John Galt. It's fascinating and tragic at the same time. More quotes from that era please! I mean this subject is bigger than just the affair. It's invaluable for me to see what NB said, how he said it, how AR treated him, etc. For example, I used to imaging myself in that situation, and whether I would be able to see the looming disaster or not. So I used to think that NB pulled off his role perfectly in front of AR, but now seeing as how she expunged some of his totally ludicrous expressions, I can see that he was far less careful than I thought, or far more confident in himself.

[Bill Bucko 0]

Nathaniel Branden was (once) a man of truly enormous intellect and ability. It was no accident that I referred to him (nowadays) as "an aging Robert Stadler."* Nor is the comparison to Benedict Arnold inapt; both made great contributions to the movement they were associated with, before betraying it.

* (Probably a little over-generous of me; Branden did build on Miss Rand's ideas, whereas Robert Stadler's contributions to physics did not rely on an older mentor.)

He certainly paid a price.

Compare his first book, "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" (which I hope you will buy, as I did, on the used book market, so Branden will not profit monetarily by it) with any of his later works. The steep decline in intellectuality and depth should be readily apparent. He even sank so low as to appear on talk shows along with pop-psychologist/shyster Werner Erhart, hawker of "est."

And I can personally testify to the price paid by Barbara Branden.

The best Objectivist course I've ever taken, was the mid-60s course, "The Principles of Efficient Thinking." The lectures were delivered by Barbara Branden, in a clear, crisp, wide-awake voice. But judging by the diametrically opposite philosophical and psychological views Ms Branden would soon be espousing, those lectures were not--could not have been--her own work. Granted, she dressed them up and presented them. But Miss Rand--who was usually over-generous with her time and ideas--was, I am sure, the actual fountainhead of the ideas. This is borne out by the publication in "The Intellectual Activist," January 1994, of some notes of Miss Rand's, "Memory-Storing Epistemology," the ideas of which were embodied in one of the "Efficient Thinking" lectures.

Shortly after the "split" in 1968, Barbara Branden, eager to profit from ideas she no longer (if ever) accepted, started selling lectures purporting to be "The Principles of Efficient Thinking." I did not buy them (nor would I voluntarily see a single penny of mine go to her). But an acquaintance of mine did, so I had an opportunity to make at least a quick comparison of the two versions. The new, re-recorded version BB was hawking was delivered in a dead-sounding, zombie-like voice, startlingly different than her earlier delivery.

"My god," I thought, "she's lobotomized herself!"

Her voice was actually physically painful to listen to.

It is no accident that I referred to her (nowadays) as "an aging Lillian Rearden."

[The original version of "The Principles of Efficient Thinking" is one of the treasures preserved in Jim Davidson's tape archive, donated to ARI by Jim's heir, Ken MacKenzie. I hope Miss Rand's estate will publish any remaining notes of hers, on psycho-epistemology; I recall reading that more notes on the subject do exist.]

[RayK 0]

As Bill Bucko has stated and I agree, NB's books have declined. In one book he even claims that Ayn Rand had almost nothing to do with developing the idea of psycho-epistemology.

I am amazed at the deception that one person can pull-over on themselves. But, he has done it and now he has a whole new group of people to do it to.

[Paul's Here 0]

..........

More quotes from that era please! I mean this subject is bigger than just the affair. It's invaluable for me to see what NB said, how he said it, how AR treated him, etc. 

←

This event happened well after the breakup and it has stuck in my mind for over 20 years. When Dr. Peikoff was giving his lecture courses in New York City, I had taken several of the live series. I don't remember the date, but it must have been sometime around '78 or '79 or '80. Dr. Peikoff decided to give some in-depth courses in his apartment in Manhattan. I believe it was the Grammar course. I was able to attend the course in his apartment. Much to everyone's surprise and, of course, exhilaration, Miss Rand showed up during one of the meetings. After the meeting we all stood around and talked. Miss Rand was sitting on a couch and Dr. Peikoff was standing nearby. Miss Rand stated to Dr. Peikoff, "These students appear to be much better than the students Nathaniel had." (That may not be an exact quote, but as near to it as I can remember.) I think she was paying a complement to Dr. Peikoff.

My first reaction was one of shock that she had so casually mentioned "his" name in public. My next reaction was a good feeling of being a member of "these students." Hearing the simple and straightforward tone of her voice made me realize that she probably didn't have any fear of mentioning Nathaniel's name. Branden would have us believe that she was repressed and afraid to even talk about him.

[Vegard Martinsen 0]

Free Capitalist wants "More quotes from that era please! ". I do not know the time of this incident, which one of the philosophers who knew Ayn Rand told me about, but it is interesting:

Ayn Rand and Frank had invited some guests to their home, and the Brandens were also there. Ayn Rand described the Brandens as "my children". Then Frank said to one of the guests "They are not my childeren".

[adriaticfish 0]

I want to thank YOU--and everyone else at this forum--for your kind words about the book.

It means a lot.

←

Thanks to you.

PS - Is there anything you can tell us about your upcoming book about the origins of the New Testament? Or at least when we can expect it?

[Guest Dan Edge]

This event happened well after the breakup and it has stuck in my mind for over 20 years.  When Dr. Peikoff was giving his lecture courses in New York City, I had taken several of the live series.  I don't remember the date, but it must have been sometime around '78 or '79 or '80.  Dr. Peikoff decided to give some in-depth courses in his apartment in Manhattan.  I believe it was the Grammar course.  I was able to attend the course in his apartment.  Much to everyone's surprise and, of course, exhilaration, Miss Rand showed up during one of the meetings.  After the meeting we all stood around and talked.  Miss Rand was sitting on a couch and Dr. Peikoff was standing nearby.  Miss Rand stated to Dr. Peikoff, "These students appear to be much better than the students Nathaniel had."  (That may not be an exact quote, but as near to it as I can remember.)  I think she was paying a complement to Dr. Peikoff.

←

That's interesting, Andy Bernstein must have been there, too. I met him several weeks ago and he told a group of us the same story. It's crazy, there's only 2 or 3 degrees of separation between any two Objectivists, I love it!

--Dan Edge

[CICEROSC 0]

Shortly after the "split" in 1968, Barbara Branden, eager to profit from ideas she no longer (if ever) accepted, started selling lectures purporting to be "The Principles of Efficient Thinking."  I did not buy them (nor would I voluntarily see a single penny of mine go to her).  But an acquaintance of mine did, so I had an opportunity to make at least a quick comparison of the two versions.  The new, re-recorded version BB was hawking was delivered in a dead-sounding, zombie-like voice, startlingly different than her earlier delivery.

"My god," I thought, "she's lobotomized herself!"

Her voice was actually physically painful to listen to.

←

This reminds me of my reaction to listening to NB's recorded set "Basic Principles of Objectivism." I was interested in them for historical reasons, as I was not around to attend them in the 60's, and I presume that the content must be the same as Miss Rand approved. I was very disappointed, however that (for me) NB's voice dramatically detracts from them, as his delivery is lifeless and dull. I am presuming that these recordings (as I think I have read somewhere) were those that were made after the split and therefore his tone of voice reflects the stress of what he had done.

I find it hard to believe that his voice could have been as lifeless back when he was delivering them with Miss Rand's approval. Presuming that the content was in fact as Miss Rand approved, I hope one day the copyright expires and someone can re-record them with a proper delivery.

[Guest Dan Edge]

I'm still unclear why you have this desire, so I do encourage you to think further about whether this desire is justified. For myself, I neither have the desire to know more about her personal situation, nor am I worried about what that situation actually might have consisted in.

←

[/quoe]

Alex and Others,

My only concern here is that too many Objectivists are withholding judgement on the morality of monogamy. Monogamy is clearly the ideal form of romantic love. Having sex with someone else outside of your marriage is generally immoral and destructive. If Ayn Rand's relationship is an exception (maybe it is, but probably it isn't), then it is just that: an exception to the rule, an emergency case.

I've never met anyone who engaged in a polygamous romantic realtionship for any period of time that did not result in severe pain for all parties involved. There's a reason for that. I'd like to see the leaders in the Objectivist community loudly and clearly endorse monogamy. It seems like whenever you hear someone ask a question about it at a lecture, the response is "well, there nothing inherently immoral about it, it's ok for some people, but I would never do it myself (I don't want to get in trouble with my spouse)", or something like that. Sounds so wishy-washy to me.

If one of my close freinds told me he was going to have sex with someone else outside of his marriage, and that his wife said she was ok with it, and he asked me what I thought, I would look at him like he just grew 17 extra eyes on his nose. I would think he was on the path to destruction. In my view, the burden of proof would lie with him if he wanted to convince me that what he was doing was not complete madness. One would be inclined to think that this couple already has serious problems if they're looking outside the marriage for sexual gratification.

I wouldn't say "well, I guess there's nothing inherently immoral about that." I'd say something more like, "what the hell is the matter with you? Have you lost your mind? Has your wife lost HER mind?" I bet most of you would feel the same way.

--Dan Edge

[Guest Dan Edge]

Hello All,

I'm interested in reading Valient's book, so thanks to you all for the reviews and information. I read The Passion so long ago, I think I was 17, I don't even remember it very well. I do remember that Mrs Branden portrayed Mrs Rand as rude and overbearing. The people I know who've met Rand tell a different story. But I've still considered it possible that Rand had poor social skills, was quick to anger, etc. You hear conflicting stories about this, so maybe this new book can clear up some of that for me.

As far as Judgement Day: I never finished it, I just couldn't get into it. It seemed almost like a Jerry Springer episode to me. I lost interest as soon as Branden started talking about his sordid love affair, and how he was a helpless youngster ensnared by a charismatic older woman. I mean, come on! This is the guy who wrote the best book on Psychology of all time, I don't buy the "I was helpless and manipuliated" routine. It smelled like he was trying to cover up for his mistakes.

That said, I've never though NB was a horrible person. His books after Psych of Self-Esteem aren't as good, but thery're certainly not evil. I'm not a fan, but I would still recommend Psych of Self Esteem, Psych of Romantic Love, and Six Pillars to anyone. His sentence stem completion method is very effective, and I'll bet he does good by his patients.

Interseting discussion, folks, I look forward to reading the book. Thanks.

--Dan Edge

[adriaticfish 0]

Nathaniel Branden is as "horrible" as a person can get. No exaggeration. It should have been clear before Valliant's book, but it will definitely be clear now.

He owes every bit of his success to Ayn Rand, and for that he decided to cash in when she died and could not contest his nonsensical book. He had 13 years to explain himself while she was alive, but instead was actually making money telling people the benefits of self-esteem. Not exactly earth-shattering stuff.

Rand, from her grave, with the help of Valliant, put both of the Brandens back in their places - they are a couple of ingrate, mimicking, pragmatist parasites.

They stand for nothing, and perhaps never did. (At least Nathaniel has his doubts as to whether he ever EVEN WAS an Objectivist.)

[Paul's Here 0]

That's interesting, Andy Bernstein must have been there, too.  I met him several weeks ago and he told a group of us the same story.  It's crazy, there's only 2 or 3 degrees of separation between any two Objectivists, I love it!

--Dan Edge

←

Andy and I go way back to his Brooklyn days. Unfortunately since I moved to Maryland, I haven't seen him in a long time. We used to have lots of interesting philosophic discussions at his house about Objectivism.

[Bold Standard 0]

I'm happy to hear about this book. I have been into Ayn Rand and Objectivism for several years now, and I've been curious about the details of the split with the Brandens. But glancing through the Branden's books was enough to reveal their motives, and I decided I had better things to do than read hundreds of pages of half-truths and lies to get at the bottom of it.

Still, the drama of the conflict has always been in the back of my mind. In fact, not too long ago I had a nightmare in which Nathanial Branden was trying to chop up my brain with a rotary saw. Later in the dream, I was Branden as portrayed by the actor who played him in the horrible Passion of Ayn Rand movie. I was in a bar, and some tough guys were mad because their girlfriends were attracted to me. Then they started attacking me, yelling, "Hit him in the head! Make him dumb, like us! Make him ugly!"

Maybe reading this book will help to quell some of my anxiety about the Brandens.

[Guest Dan Edge]

Nathaniel Branden is as "horrible" as a person can get.  No exaggeration.

←

Hello,

That's a bit of an over-reatction. Comments like that give credence to Rand's critics. I don't know Branden personally, but I've read about him and read his books. Even if he is guilty of everthing he's been accused of, he still would not be "as horrible as a person can get." He may be a disappoinment (he certainly was to me), but he's no stampeding irrationalist, or genocidal maniac, or Kantian relativist, or <insert someone else more horrible than NB here>.

--Dan Edge

[Paul's Here 0]

Alex and Others,

My only concern here is that too many Objectivists are withholding judgement on the morality of monogamy.  Monogamy is clearly the ideal form of romantic love.  Having sex with someone else outside of your marriage is generally immoral and destructive.  If Ayn Rand's relationship is an exception (maybe it is, but probably it isn't), then it is just that: an exception to the rule, an emergency case.

I've never met anyone who engaged in a polygamous romantic realtionship for any period of time that did not result in severe pain for all parties involved.

That is not an argument. Were the people truthful or lying about the relationships?

There's a reason for that.  I'd like to see the leaders in the Objectivist community loudly and clearly endorse monogamy.  It seems like whenever you hear someone ask a question about it at a lecture, the response is "well, there nothing inherently immoral about it, it's ok for some people, but I would never do it myself (I don't want to get in trouble with my spouse)", or something like that.  Sounds so wishy-washy to me.

If one of my close freinds told me he was going to have sex with someone else outside of his marriage, and that his wife said she was ok with it, and he asked me what I thought, I would look at him like he just grew 17 extra eyes on his nose.  I would think he was on the path to destruction.  In my view, the burden of proof would lie with him if he wanted to convince me that what he was doing was not complete madness.  One would be inclined to think that this couple already has serious problems if they're looking outside the marriage for sexual gratification.

I wouldn't say "well, I guess there's nothing inherently immoral about that."  I'd say something more like, "what the hell is the matter with you?  Have you lost your mind?  Has your wife lost HER mind?"  I bet most of you would feel the same way.

--Dan Edge

←

I think you're viewing the situation in a rather intrinsicist point of view. You state that it is immoral at all times. Then you state that the couple must be having problems already to look outside the marriage. Well, if true and given the psychology of the people, going outside the marriage may be a way of saving the marriage. I don't think you can prejudge it without knowing the specific context. In your examples above, you are entirely lacking in REASONS why a couple might do it, legitimately or not.

You state "monogamy is clearly the ideal form of romantic love." Clear to whom? Is your criticism only in regard to marriage? What about non-married partners? The issue is psychological not philosophical, in my opinion. I don't think you need to demand that Objectivists proclaim a specific form of human relationship as immoral. The virtues in Objectivism are clearly listed in Galt's speech and in The Virtue of Selfishness. If you can show how non-monogamy violates these virtues, then you can show it to be immoral.

PS. I may be wrong, but I don't think there was any mention in Valiant's book (or for that matter, the Brandens' books) that Rand was not monogamous, i.e., that she was having sex with more than one person during a period of time. I don't recall any detailed discussion of Miss Rand's sex life with Frank. Can someone correct me on this?

[Paul's Here 0]

I'm happy to hear about this book.  I have been into Ayn Rand and Objectivism for several years now, and I've been curious about the details of the split with the Brandens. But glancing through the Branden's books was enough to reveal their motives, and I decided I had better things to do than read hundreds of pages of half-truths and lies to get at the bottom of it.

Still, the drama of the conflict has always been in the back of my mind.  In fact, not too long ago I had a nightmare in which Nathanial Branden was trying to chop up my brain with a rotary saw.  Later in the dream, I was Branden as portrayed by the actor who played him in the horrible Passion of Ayn Rand movie.  I was in a bar, and some tough guys were mad because their girlfriends were attracted to me.  Then they started attacking me, yelling, "Hit him in the head!  Make him dumb, like us! Make him ugly!"

Maybe reading this book will help to quell some of my anxiety about the Brandens. 

←

LOL, very loud.

How about posting your picture so we can see how handsome a man has to be to attract all the biker girls?

[Guest Dan Edge]

Paul,

Yeah, I kinda got off the subject a bit, responding to something ADS said. I do think monogamy is the moral choice, I do think it's a moral issue. Choosing to be polygamous for a lifetime is like choosing to be a janitor as a career. You give up too much by making that choice.

I wrote a short essay about The Morality of Monogamy several years back. I'll post it as a new thread so I'm not dragging this one off topic again.

--Dan Edge