The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

[adriaticfish 0]

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

←

It's no over-reaction. Just read the book. He is slime. And I don't care about Rand's critics or their delusional credibility.

And I rank someone who has been priviledged enough to be near Ayn Rand and then betray her FAR below any Kantian or genocidal maniac.

[Guest Michelle F. Cohen]

I have something to add which is not included in Valliant's book. In 1986, I attended a talk by Barbara Branden given on the occasion of the publication of "The Passion of Ayn Rand." It was organized by Laissez Faire Books in New York City. Ms. Branden said that the affair was so painful to her and Frank O'Connor because they were told about it and had to know when Rand and Branden were together. She added: "It would have been much better if she lied her head off!" It is an indication of Ms. Branden's view of telling the truth vs. lying.

[Oakes 0]

Dan Edge took the words out of my mouth. I'm 18 and new to Objectivism, but in the year of studying it I have never heard an Objectivist try to justify polygamy, which is why this thread has captivated me for almost an hour. I've heard of Miss Rand's case, of course, but for the last year I have mostly tried to avoid it and waited for a rational explanation. I find the idea of multiple partners to be unthinkable, and have always figured that their appearance in Miss Rand's novels as merely artistic and not to imply their morality. Sorry if this seems spontaneous, but my mind is absolutely spinning right now.

[Jay P 0]

On the subject of monogamy: I remember reading a short interview with Ayn Rand, which I believe was in a 1970 or 1971 issue of Look magazine.

I recall that when she was asked about romantic love, she made it quite clear that she thought a monogamous relationship was the proper kind.

I don't have a copy of the interview, and as I read it over 25 years ago, I don't remember exactly what she said.

....

When I found out she had had an affair with Nathaniel Branden, I was quite surprised. I'd like to know what her thinking was on the subject of non-monogamous relationships. Under what circumstances would such a relationship be reasonable to attempt?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Oakes, what in the novels are you referring to?

[Guest Michelle F. Cohen]

I find the idea of multiple partners to be unthinkable, and have always figured that their appearance in Miss Rand's novels as merely artistic and not to imply their morality.

←

Oakes,

There are no cases of multiple partners within the same period of time in Rand's novels. In We the Living Kira has an affair with Andrei when Leo is away convalescing from his tuberculosis and she discontinues the affair when Leo return. In The Fountainhead Dominique is either with Keating, Wynand or Roark, but not concurrently. In Atlas Shurgged Dagny is either with D'Anconia, Rearden or Galt, but not concurrently.

[ADS 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.

←

I just thought I'd say that I certainly never meant to deny any of this. A commited, exclusive, long-term relationship between two people who express each other's top values is the ideal. (And, by the way, I've never actually heard this denied by any Objectivist intellectual, and I have heard it affirmed multiple times.)

But the point I'm making is that this principle, like all principles, is contextual. It is not an out-of-context absolute. As such, there are cases -- rare, unusual, and extraordinary though they are -- where it is possible to be rationally torn, for a period of time, between two lovers, as Miss Rand was. You can agree or disagree, but the agreement or disagreement would be about whether the principle of monogamy qua ideal has any contextual exceptions, not whether it is a principle to begin with.

[Paul's Here 0]

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

←

I have no problem going off topic. I wasn't necessarily talking about being polygamous for an entire lifetime. That wasn't implied in your previous statements. I agree that there are psychological issues that need to be dealt with that may make it very difficult (or maybe impossible for most people), but the issue of it's morality or immorality, per se, has not been demonstrated.

And let's not knock janitors. That's a perfectly moral occupation.

Also, to be clear, monogamy has more than one meaning. I was using it in the sense of having more than one sexual partner at a time within a relatively short period of time (not at the same time, tho). It also means being married to only one person at a time.

[ADS 0]

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.

←

Can you provide one example of this actually happening?

(I'm not asking for an example of an Objectivist intellectual saying that it is in principle possible for a rational person to sleep with two people during the same period of time. Rather, I'm asking for an example of an Objectivist intellectual denying wholesale the idea that an exclusive romantic relationship is the ideal, and thus saying that plenty of people in normal situations could and should be polygamous.)

[Paul's Here 0]

On the subject of monogamy: I remember reading a short interview with Ayn Rand, which I believe was in a 1970 or 1971 issue of Look magazine.

I recall that when she was asked about romantic love, she made it quite clear that she thought a monogamous relationship was the proper kind.

I don't have a copy of the interview, and as I read it over 25 years ago, I don't remember exactly what she said.

....

When I found out she had had an affair with Nathaniel Branden, I was quite surprised.  I'd like to know what her thinking was on the subject of non-monogamous relationships.  Under what circumstances would such a relationship be reasonable to attempt?

←

Check out Dagny with Rearden.

Besides Rearden being married, there was one scene when she was making love to Rearden and thinking of Fransico. That's about as close to a threesome as we get.

[Paul's Here 0]

Dan Edge took the words out of my mouth. I'm 18 and new to Objectivism, but in the year of studying it I have never heard an Objectivist try to justify polygamy, which is why this thread has captivated me for almost an hour. I've heard of Miss Rand's case, of course, but for the last year I have mostly tried to avoid it and waited for a rational explanation. I find the idea of multiple partners to be unthinkable, and have always figured that their appearance in Miss Rand's novels as merely artistic and not to imply their morality. Sorry if this seems spontaneous, but my mind is absolutely spinning right now.

←

Besides being new to Objectivism, 18 is pretty young to be thinking about these kind of issues. You most likely lack both experience and a theoretical understanding of many issues within Objectivism. I'd recommend waiting until your head stops spinning and give the issue lots of time to think about.

Remember, I don't think there is any evidence of Miss Rand having multiple partners. One definition of monogamy is having only one sexual partner during a period of time. Where has her actions violated this definition?

The "controversy" is that she had an affair while being married. As Valliant points out, this is "controversial" if you have a religious view of marriage.

[Guest Dan Edge]

I just thought I'd say that I certainly never meant to deny any of this.  A commited, exclusive, long-term relationship between two people who express each other's top values is the ideal.  (And, by the way, I've never actually heard this denied by any Objectivist intellectual, and I have heard it affirmed multiple times.)

But the point I'm making is that this principle, like all principles, is contextual.  It is not an out-of-context absolute.  As such, there are cases -- rare, unusual, and extraordinary though they are -- where it is possible to be rationally torn, for a period of time, between two lovers, as Miss Rand was.  You can agree or disagree, but the agreement or disagreement would be about whether the principle of monogamy qua ideal has any contextual exceptions, not whether it is a principle to begin with.

←

Hey Alex,

I totally agree with everything you said here. It's not that I hear people saying "Monogamy is wrong, it's not ideal." But I don't hear this very often either: "Mongamy is moral, it is the ideal, but there are some emergency cases."

Here are some quotes from earlier in this thread:

---------------

JRoberts: "It is my understanding (though I don't remember where I read it) that he <O'Connor> knew and consented."

Burgess: "Marriage vows do not have intrinsic value, that is, regardless of context. If two people form a contract and later agree to change the terms temporarily, is there a problem?"

Betsy: "Any proper contract is made by mutual consent and the terms of the contract should be open to renegotiation if all the parties to it are willing to change them."

-----------------

I'm not trying to pick on these folks (each of whom I respect very much as far as I know them), but consider these responses, especially how they would be viewed by a newcomer to Objectivism. In each case, the quoted text represents the bulk of the writer's response to the issue (in this thread), and are seemingly blanket statements. One could induce, without much of a stretch that the operative principle with respect to polygamy is: as long as all parties agree, then there's no problem, moral or otherwise. I disagree with this. There are many cases in which a couple's mutual agreement to be polygamous would be profoundly immoral and self-destructive.

Even in exceptional cases when polygamy could be morally acceptable, it's a pickle that no one wants to be in. It's a "damned if ya do, damned if ya don't" situation. No matter how mature and introspecitive a man is, he's got to feel like crap when his wife tells him she wants to seek romantic gratification outside the relationship. Same with a woman and her husband. It's gotta be the toughest thing one can go through; a real tragedy.

I get all worked up about this issue because I view monogamous romantic love as the pinnacle of human existence. It's the brass ring of life; the ultimate reward for a life well-lived.

--Dan Edge

[Oakes 0]

If Dagny and Dominique didn't have multiple partners (I would dispute that but not now), I was wrong. That wasn't my main point anyway. Paul's Here is right that my experience and understanding of Objectivism is limited, but after a year of learning what I can I have grown quite comfortable with debating basic political and ethical issues, and yet I still haven't even figured out the Objectivist view on key social issues.

I have yet to learn the Objectivist view of pornography, for example. On OO.net, I was shocked to find that the majority of the people in one thread were arguing in favor of it. I've seen many Objectivists link to "Body In Mind," a pornography site that tries to pretend it's something more by championing the beauty of women.

Then I come into this thread hearing people talk about renegotiating marriage contracts so that partners may have sex with other people. If finding something wrong with that constitutes a religious view of marriage, I'll have hit a roadblock I never thought I would hit.

[Guest Dan Edge]

If Dagny and Dominique didn't have multiple partners (I would dispute that but not now), I was wrong. That wasn't my main point anyway. Paul's Here is right that my experience and understanding of Objectivism is limited, but after a year of learning what I can I have grown quite comfortable with debating basic political and ethical issues, and yet I still haven't even figured out the Objectivist view on key social issues.

I have yet to learn the Objectivist view of pornography, for example. On OO.net, I was shocked to find that the majority of the people in one thread were arguing in favor of it. I've seen many Objectivists link to "Body In Mind," a pornography site that tries to pretend it's something more by championing the beauty of women.

Then I come into this thread hearing people talk about renegotiating marriage contracts so that partners may have sex with other people. If finding something wrong with that constitutes a religious view of marriage, I'll have hit a roadblock I never thought I would hit.

←

See what I mean?

--Dan Edge

[ADS 0]

I totally agree with everything you said here.  It's not that I hear people saying "Monogamy is wrong, it's not ideal."  But I don't hear this very often either: "Mongamy is moral, it is the ideal, but there are some emergency cases."

Dan, while I admire your passion in speaking up about a subject that is (justifiably) very important to you, you are trying to slay a demon that does not exist. It is quite explicit among Objectivists that promiscuity is wrong, and that an exclusive romantic relationship is the ideal. For those Objectivists that deny this (if such exist), they are very misguided and have nothing to do with what a proper Objectivist should (and does) say on this subject.

Here are some quotes from earlier in this thread:

---------------

JRoberts: "It is my understanding (though I don't remember where I read it) that he <O'Connor> knew and consented."

Burgess: "Marriage vows do not have intrinsic value, that is, regardless of context. If two people form a contract and later agree to change the terms temporarily, is there a problem?"

Betsy: "Any proper contract is made by mutual consent and the terms of the contract should be open to renegotiation if all the parties to it are willing to change them."

-----------------

I'm not trying to pick on these folks (each of whom I respect very much as far as I know them), but consider these responses, especially how they would be viewed by a newcomer to Objectivism.  In each case, the quoted text represents the bulk of the writer's response to the issue (in this thread), and are seemingly blanket statements.  One could induce, without much of a stretch that the operative principle with respect to polygamy is: as long as all parties agree, then there's no problem, moral or otherwise.

The only way you (or anyone) could do this is if they drop the context. The context of this discussion involves a quite extraordinary situation (Miss Rand's affair with Branden), and how such a situation could have been rational. To take statements made to this end and take them as "blanket" is complete context-dropping. To make an analogy, you have essentially come upon a discussion concerned with how lying to one's kidnapper could be justified, and then started scolding everyone for saying that lying is a-ok and for confusing Objectivist newcomers. Whoever's fault such confusion may be, it most certainly is not the people you quoted.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I have yet to learn the Objectivist view of pornography, for example.

←

The only explicit statement from Ayn Rand on this that I recall was when she said that she regards pornography as "unspeakably disgusting." ("Censorship: Local And Express," The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 23, August 13, 1973.) In the same article she also made clear that she holds this view, not because she regards sex as evil, but because she regards sex as good, as something that is "too important to be made the subject of public anatomical display."

[Thoyd Loki 0]

I have yet to learn the Objectivist view of pornography, for example. On OO.net, I was shocked to find that the majority of the people in one thread were arguing in favor of it. I've seen many Objectivists link to "Body In Mind," a pornography site that tries to pretend it's something more by championing the beauty of women.

Then I come into this thread hearing people talk about renegotiating marriage contracts so that partners may have sex with other people. If finding something wrong with that constitutes a religious view of marriage, I'll have hit a roadblock I never thought I would hit.

←

Ayn Rand had an opinion of what was then called "hard-core" pornography, in which she stated she found it (quoting from memory) "disgusting". I believe it was in the article 'Censorship: Local and Express'.

But what do you define pornography as? Is it the performance of sex acts distrubuted through entertainment media? If so, then what is the nature of sex? And does this violate the nature of sex?

Does it include even (as the religionists would say) the showing of the naked body? If it does, then I am certainly in favor of pornography, and no argument would ever get me to not engage in that material.

Lastly nobody said anything in this thread that would be like the following dialogue.

"Hey, baby, I met this hot chick at the bowling alley. We wanna sack it, ya see?"

"Sure darlin'. I'll just call up the lawyer, and renegotiate for-what's her name?"

"Uh...donno...I'll get it before we're done."

"Ok, don't forget now ya hear? Um... honey...you remember the guy that cleans our pool...?"

A marriage contract is not renegotiated simply so the partners can go around getting their freak on. These are highly interpersonal, complex, and extraordinary situations that are being discussed.

Just because it is said that monogamy is contextual, don't run to the other side of the boat, and scream "free for all!"

That said. It is my opinion that 95% of people shouldn't be in any relationship in the first place let alone taking on more than one!

[Oakes 0]

A marriage contract is not renegotiated simply so the partners can go around getting their freak on. These are highly interpersonal, complex, and extraordinary situations that are being discussed.

Nobody has yet defined an "extraordinary situation." This is the reason for my frustration: Objectivism seems to have very definite answers everywhere else, but it seems to get murky on the social issues. It may just be the nature of the issues - dealing with human psychology - but it's frustrating nonetheless.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Nobody has yet defined an "extraordinary situation."

Alex gave his paraphrase of an example from Peikoff in this post ←.

This is the reason for my frustration: Objectivism seems to have very definite answers everywhere else, but it seems to get murky on the social issues. It may just be the nature of the issues - dealing with human psychology - but it's frustrating nonetheless.

←

If you thought the Objectivist ethics was defined by the commentary surrounding "lifeboat" situations, then I could imagine you being frustrated too. Perhaps something similar for a "social" issue is what is going on here for you, where some "extraordinary situation" is being taken for the usual.

[Oakes 0]

If you thought the Objectivist ethics was defined by the commentary surrounding "lifeboat" situations, then I could imagine you being frustrated too. Perhaps something similar for a "social" issue is what is going on here for you, where some "extraordinary situation" is being taken for the usual.

Thank you, I think equating it to a lifeboat situation helps. If that's the case, I don't see what's wrong with saying that romance with more than one person is immoral. Just as when you say "Lying is wrong" (to use ADS's example), you are assuming a proper context and are not implying that it is true across the board.

[Rose Lake 0]

I have yet to learn the Objectivist view of pornography, for example.

←

    ...I want to state, for the record, my own view of what is called "hard-core" pornography. I regard it as unspeakably disgusting. I have not read any of the books or seen any of the current movies belonging to that category, and I do not intend ever to read or see them. The descriptions provided in legal cases, as well as the "modern" touches in "soft-core" productions, are sufficient grounds on which to form an opinion. The reason of my opinion is the opposite of the usual one: I do not regard sex as evil--I regard it as good, as one of the most important aspects of human life, too important to be made the subject of public anatomical display. But the issue here is not one's view of sex. The issue is freedom of speech and the press--i.e., the right to hold any view and to express it.

    It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right's least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one's loyalty to a principle.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I don't see what's wrong with saying that romance with more than one person is immoral.

It's not a question of "what's wrong with saying that" as much as it is a question of why you say that. If you think it is immoral, then you must justify that.

[Ed from OC 0]

 

Thank you, I think equating it to a lifeboat situation helps. If that's the case, I don't see what's wrong with saying that romance with more than one person is immoral. Just as when you say "Lying is wrong" (to use ADS's example), you are assuming a proper context and are not implying that it is true across the board. 

←

 

I agree with this. The important thing is that monogamy is the ideal in the proper context. That context is the existential situation (the people involved, their characters, their values, their personalities, the situations of their lives, etc.), but also the context of one's own values. It must be integrated, too, with one's virtues. It would be irrational and intrinsicist to hold "Monogamy" as a virtue in itself, apart from instances of it that are consistent with the other virtues -- honesty, pride, justice, etc.

On a personal level, if I were in love with someone to the highest degree possible, the thought of doing something that would hurt her would turn me off entirely to the idea of cheating on her. If I was in an exclusive relationship with someone and my feelings for another person grew stronger than those for my partner, I would end the relationship and pursue this other woman. I just can't project a case where having a partner for whom I cared that much would allow me to be involved with another. And conversely, I can't imagine willingly allowing my partner to sleep with someone else. It would be me exclusively or not at all.

But that's the case where I am desperately in love with someone. What if the relationship is not and won't be of that kind? Suppose there is mutual attraction, admiration, and affection, but not extreme love, between two good people who see no immediate prospects of a romantic relationship in the full sense. I think it would be intrinsicist to say they would be immoral to fool around with each other. In such a case, maybe there is a way to have a non-exclusive sexual relationship. But even then, it would be hard to do, and would most likely end up with at least one person's feelings being hurt.

Incidentally, Oakes, may I say that, if you understand the importance of context at the age of 18, you are way ahead of the game. I don't think I really understood the whole issue until my late 20's.

[Ed from OC 0]

I have yet to learn the Objectivist view of pornography, for example.

←

There's no such thing as the Objectivist view of pornography, as it is not a topic of philosophy per se. Objectivism, as a philosophy, has a view toward sex: that it is good. What would be immoral, then, is to degrade sexuality as such.

What Miss Rand objected to (if I may be so bold as to paraphrase) is treating sex in a way that degrades it. It's the difference between sex as an act of joy and celebration vs. sex as an act of pig at a trough, or of a sneering teenager spray painting graffiti over the Sistine Chapel.

[Guest Michelle F. Cohen]

If Dagny and Dominique didn't have multiple partners (I would dispute that but not now), I was wrong. That wasn't my main point anyway.

←

I think it is an important point, because Rand was cautious to show that Dominique and Dagny move from one romantic relationship to another without an overlapping period. They may love two or three men during the same period of time, but will not have two or three romantic relationships during the same period of time. And there is always a "hierarchy" in the love they feel: Dagny loves Galt more than she loves Rearden or D'Anconia. Dominique loves Roark more than she loves Wynand.

What is clear from the two novels is that Rand did not regard the marriage contract as inherently sacred. Rearden is justified in breaking it by having an affair with Dagny, but he stops being intimate with Lillian until he divorces her. When Dominique resumes her romantic relationship with Roark, she is legally married to Wynand but no longer lives with him. It is Wynand, by the way, who insists that Dominique should be divorced from Keating and married to him before they can be intimate.