The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

[Free Capitalist 0]

Oakes, just a suggestion here, but you assume that it is always perfectly clear to a person who their "ultimate value" is, or that their hierarchy of values is fixed and stationary (again, a tinge of intrincisism). One's values constantly shift up and down one's hierarchy -- a certain woman may truly be your ultimate value, but if you don't take this drink right now you'll die of dehydration, so which will you prefer over the other? If two people are sufficiently high on your hierarchy of values, it may be nearly impossible to determine which is higher, or to make such a determination permanent because they may alternate.

Regarding that quote about choosing to love and marry one's highest value, I agree with it but I think it's indicates a general principle rather than being literal advice. In terms of literal advice, I would suggest that a woman you love has to be of "high enough" value, than "highest value". And if you accept that, more than one person may be of "high enough" value that you cherish her incredibly high. So, while I'm not necessarily condoning polygamy here, I am trying to show that it is far from an easily discardable option as you make it seem; and in certain contexts, I'd say that making that choice is not absolutely necessary either.

[ChristopherSchlegel 0]

I look forward to reading the James Valliant book mentioned in this thread. I didn't know anything about it until it was mentioned here (& apparently there was an earlier 'net version, too!).

Commenting on a few of the issues raised...

I am really grateful to be able to read the testimony of you guys who have been there, and who were witness to the days of the original NBI.

Amen! I am too young to know any of this stuff first hand also. I thank those that have provided any first-hand recollections.

I would be most grateful if there could be a thread, maybe entitled something like "Remembering the NBI days", where your memories could be collected and preserved for all time...

That is a very good idea. I suppose it has already been started in a way in this thread. But it would be neat to have a topic specific thread for that purpose. What would also be interesting would be all these recollections gathered into a book (electronic or print).

When I first read "Judgment Day"...

...that book (and in some part also because of Barbara's book, which I sheepishly read right after)...

As a sidenote, I strongly urge all newcomers to Objectivism to stay as far away from these two books as possible, to not play dare games and "check them out" out of curiosity.

←

I also read those books years ago. I think the primary motivating factor in reading them was, "Oh, wow, look! A new book with Ayn Rand's name on it!". After devouring everything she wrote, I was hungry for more, anything! So, I read them (along with anything else that mentioned her).

There was clearly self-contradictory content. There were puzzling claims & assertions that seemed (even without first-hand knowledge) to obviously clash with what I already knew about Ayn Rand's character (i.e.: she was a genius writer & first rate philosophical mind). I simply dismissed them as worthless.

I'm not sure saying, "Stay away!" is necessarily the best approach, though. I would hope any rational individuals could read the stuff, be able to think for themselves & arrive at the truth. The "Critics of Ayn Rand" are going to continue their irrational nonsense regardless of truth. Afterall, now there is an "antidote" in the form of the James Valliant book.

Even if one assumed all the claims the Brandens made were true, the whole thing struck me like someone saying, "I have it on good authority that Aristotle picked his nose, therefore syllogistic logic must be invalid". I understand that character assassination & dishonesty are not moral or to be taken lightly, but, the books & "issues" raised by them really just seem so ridiculous.

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!

←

That's good stuff. I think it's quite comic when I hear guys that say they don't want to be "tied down". Most of them I've encountered can't even handle a real one woman relationship.

I know my wife is all I can handle!

[Oakes 0]

Oakes, just a suggestion here, but you assume that it is always perfectly clear to a person who their "ultimate value" is,

No, I think I've covered the times when you aren't sure who your ultimate value is. That's the exception I keep referring to.

One's values constantly shift up and down one's hierarchy -- a certain woman may truly be your ultimate value, but if you don't take this drink right now you'll die of dehydration, so which will you prefer over the other?

Don't take "ultimate value" too literally; I was referring to the person you value most (romantically).

[Paul's Here 0]

If both parties are acting rationally, then there is no immorality on either side and separating may be the rational thing to do.

We weren't talking about separating; we were talking about a a married coupling agreeing allow extra-marital affairs and stay married.

←

I was talking about changing a contract, which seemed like the issue you weren't grasping. If the change is acceptable to both parties, then there is no issue of immorality. If the change is not acceptable to both parties, then separation is better off. In the latter case, staying together to preserve the marriage when both parties disagree about a fundamental element of the relationship would be immoral.

I think you are applying the concept of immorality one level too high (abstract). "Marriage" is a concept of relationship. One is not immoral for not preserving a marriage. Virtues are concepts that apply to individual people and their thoughts and actions. If both parties in a marriage agree to a specific course of action, then you must show that the specific action is immoral, not that the relationship is immoral because of the action or that the person is immoral for not preserving the relationship.

Your quotes above about honesty and pride are good and illustrative. Please show where Miss Rand did not live use those virtues. How does monogamy (not having multiple partners) imply not having sex while married?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

This is how my mind sorts it out right now: A man with pride will always seek a virtuous partner, whether the relationship is serious or a week long. Marriage is reserved for the former: the person you consider the ultimate value, and for that reason there is only room for one (if there are multiple whom you value highest, that's an exception, but not sustainable for long). As for the latter (dating virtuous people but not of ultimate value), the morality of multiple partners is dependent on whether you are honest (if your partners agree to it).

←

Nicely stated. That pretty much sums it up for me too, except for one small clarification. Your "ultimate value" is your life, and it is that that sets the standard for all your other values.

[Paul's Here 0]

Nicely stated. That pretty much sums it up for me too, except for one small clarification. Your "ultimate value" is your life, and it is that that sets the standard for all your other values.

←

I agree with Steven about Oakes statement above. However, the issue that Oakes originally brought up is what happens if someone who is already married wants to change an aspect of the relationship? I can't imagine applying a principle (other than rationality and reason) that would tell the person "You must get divorced if you do this!" Apart from the consent of the two people involved, what else needs to be said?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

 

I agree with Steven about Oakes statement above.  However, the issue that Oakes originally brought up is what happens if someone who is already married wants to change an aspect of the relationship?  I can't imagine applying a principle (other than rationality and reason) that would tell the person "You must get divorced if you do this!"  Apart from the consent of the two people involved, what else needs to be said? 

←

I don't want to speak for Oakes, but I think at that time he was thinking that this meant you could implement any immoral action as long as you both renegotiate the contract. And, since then, he sees this in a different light. At least, that is what I suspect.

[Guest Michelle F. Cohen]

Since the thread began as a discussion of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, here is a journal entry where Rand identifies the pitfalls of Branden's wish for of a perfect one-in-a-lifetime monogamous marriage:

"For instance, he had thought that an ideal form of love was a single, monogamous marraige - therefore, he resisted the realization that his marriage had failed, because he regarded this as his failture to lead a 'stylized' life. I asked him whether he regarded Rearden's life as 'unstylized' because of the failure of his marriage. He agreed emphatically that he had always regarded it that way... I told him that this amounted to a 'Kantian stylized universe': a series of intrinsic moral absolutes to which men had to conform, regardless of context, personal choice or circumstances. He agreed very emphatically." (p. 205-206)

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Since the thread began as a discussion of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, here is a journal entry where Rand identifies the pitfalls of Branden's wish for of a perfect one-in-a-lifetime monogamous marriage:

"For instance, he had thought that an ideal form of love was a single, monogamous marraige - therefore, he resisted the realization that his marriage had failed, because he regarded this as his failture to lead a 'stylized' life. I asked him whether he regarded Rearden's life as 'unstylized' because of the failure of his marriage. He agreed emphatically that he had always regarded it that way... I told him that this amounted to a 'Kantian stylized universe': a series of intrinsic moral absolutes to which men had to conform, regardless of context, personal choice or circumstances. He agreed very emphatically." (p. 205-206)

←

That is an extremely interesting observation by Miss Rand. Very revealing, Branden-wise, psychologically. Thanks for posting this. And thanks to James Valliant for his entire effort.

[Oakes 0]

I didn't reply yesterday because I was working all night on a big project I presented today in computer science. High school's over!!

I don't want to drag the current discussion on for much longer since I think we understand each other. My views on romance have evolved and no doubt they will evolve some more, so thank you all for that.

Just a few corrections:

Paul's: Stephen's right that I now see the issue of contract renegotiation in a different light. I don't think it's always immoral to renegotiate with your spouse as I think Ayn Rand did. However, since situations like her's are necessarily temporary, I don't see how one could marry multiple people. Marriage is anything but temporary.

Stephen: I shouldn't have used the term "ultimate value," and in fact I figured it has the wrong meaning right after I posted it. I meant the person you value most in a romantic way.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I didn't reply yesterday because I was working all night on a big project I presented today in computer science.

So ... how did it go?

High school's over!!

Congratulations! I hope your off to some higher education that can handle your inquisitiveness.

[Oakes 0]

So ... how did it go?

It was great and my teacher enjoyed it, even though the computer I was presenting my program on was running it really slowly. There's school computers for you...

Congratulations! I hope your off to some higher education that can handle your inquisitiveness. 

I'm sure I'll enjoy it, although my sister, who also went to Penn State, once told me that in her four years there she only had one teacher who wasn't a "humanist"

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I'm sure I'll enjoy it, although my sister, who also went to Penn State, once told me that in her four years there she only had one teacher who wasn't a "humanist"

←

What's so bad about a "humanist" professor? Certainly better than one who is a Humeanist.

[piz 0]

It was great and my teacher enjoyed it, even though the computer I was presenting my program on was running it really slowly. There's school computers for you...

I'm sure I'll enjoy it, although my sister, who also went to Penn State, once told me that in her four years there she only had one teacher who wasn't a "humanist"

←

Oo! Oo! Are you going to Penn State? I'm a Nittany Lion - Class of '83, we won our first national championship in football my senior year. Didn't know enough about philosophy back then to tell what my professors were about, but I really only cared about the computer- and engineering-type classes. I parroted enough back at the professors in the other classes to get good grades, but that was about all. Learned more in the humanities reading on my own, really.

Go Lions!

[Jim Valliant 0]

I am deeply gratified that the book has generated such a civilized and productive discussion. Thank you all for giving this issue the serious and thoughtful consideration that I had hoped the book would produce.

HIGH SCHOOL, Oakes?! The photo makes sense, but not the serious comments.

[PhilO 0]

What's so bad about a "humanist" professor? Certainly better than one who is a Humeanist. 

←

Somehow that reminds me of a joke...

If a vegetarian eats only vegetables, what does that make a humanitarian?

[Tom Minchin 0]

These are the thoughts that occurred to me after reading

James Valliant's book:

If America is the builder of the world's freedom, its greatest

architect is Ayn Rand.

Why doesn't she receive more recognition?

The obvious answer is: her philosophy is still too radical a

design for most people to grasp. But there is another reason.

If you receive Google alerts for "Ayn Rand", you will have

noticed nearly all the negative reviews for her centenary,

both left and conservative, drew on the Brandens for their

arguments. Why?

The Branden smear is ideally suited to the intellectually

bankrupt. The opponents of Objectivism use the Branden myth

as an ad hominem argument to bypass debate on substance.

All that remains to embittered leftists is the hope there is no

such thing as a heroic individual like Ayn Rand; for Religious

Rightists the sustaining hope is: no one can be moral without

God. The Branden myth is tailor-made. If Miss Rand had a flawed

character, they dream, her ideas can be kept at bay.

They've backed a loser. Miss Rand's moral nature was stainless

steel.

For the sake of innocent newcomers, it thus becomes a vital

question: can the fake rust of the Brandens be lifted after all

these years?

Yes, by virtue of James S. Valliant's new book, The Passion of

Ayn Rand's Critics.

There are minor criticisms. To name two: it is somewhat

repetitive and the comparisons with Bertrand Russell and Ernest

Hemingway are inappropriate: her peers are Aristotle and Victor

Hugo. But the dramatic build-up of the evidence culminates in an

explosive conclusion, supported by sections from Miss Rand's own

private journals, made available for the first time by the Estate

of Ayn Rand.

If you want to know her inner soul better than you already do

from the novels, read this book. You can then predict what will

happen to the Brandens and those who avidly quote them, if this

book gains the notice it deserves.

It's Judgment Day for real.

[Paul's Here 0]

I didn't reply yesterday because I was working all night on a big project I presented today in computer science. High school's over!!

I don't want to drag the current discussion on for much longer since I think we understand each other. My views on romance have evolved and no doubt they will evolve some more, so thank you all for that.

Just a few corrections:

Paul's: Stephen's right that I now see the issue of contract renegotiation in a different light. I don't think it's always immoral to renegotiate with your spouse as I think Ayn Rand did. However, since situations like her's are necessarily temporary, I don't see how one could marry multiple people. Marriage is anything but temporary.

Stephen: I shouldn't have used the term "ultimate value," and in fact I figured it has the wrong meaning right after I posted it. I meant the person you value most in a romantic way.

←

Congratulations on graduating high school!! My son's got one year left.

I think we can agree. I don't think marrying more than one person is right either.

[Paul's Here 0]

Somehow that reminds me of a joke...

If a vegetarian eats only vegetables, what does that make a humanitarian?

←

Pick one:

An altruist???

A Devidian???

Pope???

Janet Reno???

Someone who eats only humans???

[Paul's Here 0]

These are the thoughts that occurred to me after reading 

James Valliant's book:

If America is the builder of the world's freedom, its greatest

architect is Ayn Rand.

Why doesn't she receive more recognition?

The obvious answer is: her philosophy is still too radical a

design for most people to grasp. But there is another reason.

If you receive Google alerts for "Ayn Rand", you will have

noticed nearly all the negative reviews for her centenary,

both left and conservative, drew on the Brandens for their

arguments. Why?

The Branden smear is ideally suited to the intellectually

bankrupt. The opponents of Objectivism use the Branden myth

as an ad hominem argument to bypass debate on substance.

From Kipling, 

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools...

All that remains to embittered leftists is the hope there is no

such thing as a heroic individual like Ayn Rand; for Religious

Rightists the sustaining hope is: no one can be moral without

God. The Branden myth is tailor-made. If Miss Rand had a flawed

character, they dream, her ideas can be kept at bay.

They've backed a loser. Miss Rand's moral nature was stainless

steel.

For the  sake of innocent newcomers, it thus becomes a vital 

question: can the  fake rust of the Brandens be lifted after all 

these years?

Yes, by virtue of James S. Valliant's new book, The Passion of

Ayn Rand's Critics.

There are minor criticisms. To name two: it is somewhat

repetitive and the comparisons with Bertrand Russell and Ernest

Hemingway are inappropriate: her peers are Aristotle and Victor

Hugo. But the dramatic build-up of the evidence culminates in an

explosive conclusion, supported by sections from Miss Rand's own

private journals, made available for the first time by the Estate

of Ayn Rand.

She wasn't being compared to Russell and Hemingway, she was being contrasted to them. Both men had affairs and were pretty bad when it came to how they treated women. Neither man is excoriated for their bad actions by society. Yet somehow Miss Rand is to be thought of in a negative way because of her affair. This is an example of the double standard: if a man has an affair, well it's forgiven, but a woman... well, that's just not tolerated. I think the Brandens were relying on this attitude to prejudice people against Rand.

If you want to know her inner soul better than you already do

from the novels, read this book. You can then predict what will

happen to the Brandens and those who avidly quote them, if this

book gains the notice it deserves.

It's Judgment Day for real.

←

[Tom Minchin 0]

She wasn't being compared to Russell and Hemingway, she was being contrasted to them. Both men had affairs and were pretty bad when it came to how they treated women. Neither man is excoriated for their bad actions by society. Yet somehow Miss Rand is to be thought of in a negative way because of her affair.

Tom Minchin: Of course I agree with you about the double standard being wrong. My point is: you don't compare or even contrast the sun with a dime store torch.

It would have been more instructive to contrast the treatment Victor Hugo received. He at least had a great soul--also had an unconventional love life-- and was also judged far less harshly than Miss Rand. In fact he was respected by many for his virility. The injustice of the Brandens is even more clearly demonstrated when you remember that.

Let me re-emphasize: Valliant's is a great book.

[Paul's Here 0]

She wasn't being compared to Russell and Hemingway, she was being contrasted to them. Both men had affairs and were pretty bad when it came to how they treated women. Neither man is excoriated for their bad actions by society. Yet somehow Miss Rand is to be thought of in a negative way because of her affair.

Tom Minchin: Of course I agree with you about the double standard being wrong. My point is: you don't compare or even contrast the sun with a dime store torch.

It would have been more instructive to contrast the treatment Victor Hugo received. He at least had a great soul--also had an unconventional love life-- and was also judged far less harshly than Miss Rand. In fact he was respected by many for his virility. The injustice of the Brandens is even more clearly demonstrated when you remember that.

Let me re-emphasize: Valliant's is a great book.

←

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

I agree, but I think it's difficult to compare similar actions by people from different societies, cultures and mores. There are many factors that contribute to their actions.

[Bold Standard 0]

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?

←

Well, unfortunately I recently crashed my parents' computer trying to install a scanner. But I'm working on it. The weird thing about the dream, though, is that my physical appearance was that of the actor who played Branden in "Passion of Ayn Rand." Which was strange, because the Branden who attacked me earlier in the dream was the aged Branden of recent real life photographs.

I'm fascinated about how the subconscious mind approaches the same concepts from different angles and perspectives in dreams. Sometimes I wake up impressed with the insights of my dreams. I almost want to say, "ah, I wish I'd thought of that." But I did, kind of.

[KarinK 0]

I mean, come on!  This is the guy who wrote the best book on Psychology of all time.

--Dan Edge

←

Which was? "Honoring the Self" perhaps? I am sorry I am not acquainted with his work-although I have heard of the title.

Thank you

K

[Free Capitalist 0]

I think he might have been referring to "Psychology of Self-Esteem", which I myself really liked.