RoR: Forum

Alec,

I always read what people write, not what they say they meant after I call them on it. (The same applies to reading Kant or Hume or Rand) I make every attempt to hold context, including the philosophy I advocate, and I make judgments based on the result.

"Connotation, implications, and metaphors" are three different concepts and usually recognizable from their appropriateness to the context. I am purposely making every effort to disarm the hyperbole surrounding this book. If your NB comment was such, it deserved the deflation it got in this context. To claim otherwise is to diminish the importance of this book visa vis the reputations of Rand and both the Brandens. But perhaps that is your purpose

So far, all I have done, as far as I can remember, is raise questions about the posts given here and the appropriateness of giving the book an objective hearing on the merits. So far, most of the response has been anger, based on the assumed truth of Barbara Branden's biography, Nathaniel Branden's "Judgment Day", NBs "Benefits and Hazards" piece, and assorted other letters, papers and street wisdom. But the assumed truth is exactly what is in question here. And yelling and screaming and waving your arms and pointing to the received word from all of the above begins to look like an evangelist pointing to the "word of God" and asking me to accept it all on faith. (How's that for a metaphor?)

I refuse. I have a long history with this issue. Lots of Branden (including all the books and the bios, all of which I have read) on the shelves. I was a longtime supporter of Academic Associates and even wrote a minor review of a philosophy book that was published in their Book Notes. I was a fan. I have current friends who remain fans. I know the issues.

Clearly, I think that Rand has been maligned by much of what passes as the truth. And I am willing to talk as clearly and rationally as I can about them. Will you do the same?

Tom Rowland

Post 61

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 1:18pm

>This is one of the reasons I find this thread and other

>discussions like it frustrating: We have one of history's

>great minds in front of us.

This thread is about a book that is a prolonged smear job, which one can't take seriously beyond noting what a dishonest hash it is. One can either ignore such a book or slam it. I chose to slam it rather than ignore, so that at least a few of those who would pretend that the screed has something cogent and worthy to say will understand that their own complicity in the smearing will not unnoticed or un-remarked.

Would it be better if discussion of Rand were entirely substantive? Yes, it would. And in fact there are many books that do offer such discussion. It's also a different thread.

This thread was inaugurated in response to Valliant's prolonged smear job of two persons who are not the horned malefactors he makes them out to be: Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden. Yeah, that's right. Valliant started it, guys. His book is a moral atrocity, and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. I don't think he will; and the tactics of those readers who, say, demand a list of Valliant's lies, get a list indicating several of them, and then carefully and repeatedly lurch to side issues to avoid any response to the listing, aren't going to be very successful either.

But I also know that if such a book were written about me, I wouldn't want those allegedly concerned with the relevant matters and, for that matter, justice, to merely stand by silently and pretend the only thing important to do is be fair to somebody else, while the smear job on me gets a free pass from the alleged practitioners of objectivity and justice. Not everybody has to take up every cudgel. But in this thread, that's the issue. The smear job.

(Edited by David M. Brown on 5/28, 2:24pm)

Post 62

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 1:58pm

Philip,

I can't thank you enough for your words of wisdom. We do, indeed, have before us an historical genius. And oh how I wish that we had such a biography of "intellectual development" before us.

On a personal level, how I wish that we could all have skipped the years between 1968 and today.

But A is A, and those years have produced a legend, partly of Ayn Rand's making and partly the result of the material put out by the Brandens (and others). Even the part of the legend that was of Ayn Rand's making has been colored by the Branden's. It has even colored how we think about her philosophical methodology (e.g. claims that she rationalized the break with the articles she wrote afterwords; this is not, I submit, a trivial matter for an intellectual biographer.)

That legend has contributed to the "image" of Ayn Rand that everyone on this site carries with them. It is part of the language of Objectivism. Part of the air we breath.

If we are going to clear the air we must, I think, clear the air, and must, as hard as it may be to go through the thing one more time, think it all through once again. Yes, sides have and probably will be taken. But such is the scientific method and such are the usual results. If objectivity demanded that we acknowledge the affair and Rand's "feet of clay" it certainly demands that we look at both of these in the light of new evidence and new interpretation.

And if we are capable of doing that we will certainly deserve an "intellectual biography" that will emphasis the genius before us.

Tom Rowland

Post 63

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 2:15pm

David,

Not ignoring, sir, taking the time to think and understand and organize what amounts to an article. Thinking usually helps, I'm sure you know. So be as patient as you can be. You will get your list dealt with.

I promise.

One response, a general one, admittedly, has already been given. That a great many of the lies are assumed to be lies because they deny what the Branden's say is the truth. But that is the very point at issue, isn't it?

Or do you consider such a point to be lurching to side issues?

Tom

Post 64

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 5:30pm

Phil,

Thanks for your terrific rejoinder. And yes, the very smallness and pettiness of the topics of many of the discussions is a source of frustration for me as well (And yet try as I might I still get involved in it from time to time ;-).

You have excellent suggestions for study. What made Rand unique? She was a superb synthesist, analyst, and realist all at the same time. And you are right, genius is as much in what you don't do and don't study as what you do. A large part of Rand's logical method was to insist on tackling a problem at its root. She also had a relational logic tools such the idea of a stolen concept, context, and coherence which cut off large swaths of needless argument.

Also, if you look at the main line arguments in Galt's Speech and the Objectivist Ethics she ruthlessly economizes on the need to induce as well as making brilliant inductions. So yes, there is a whole logical toolkit we can use to help us spend more time on the hard creative stuff than on the hard useless stuff.

Another fruitful line of inquiry is to study the requirements of creativity and what particular gifts we have to develop. None of us are going to be creative in the same manner that Rand was so we need to find our own muse. I really like Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's book on Creativity. One way to enhance creativity is to study a bunch of creative people see what they do day in and day out and try to see patterns and try to identify our own particular modes of creativity.

Jim

Post 65

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 5:37pm

1. "Not everybody has to take up every cudgel." [David] That's true. But my point is I don't see *enough* people devoting their considerable intelligence to taking up what I judge a more important, far reaching, enormously historically resonant topic (for the reasons I gave). They all get onto -this- topic ... and stay there as long as there is one more attack, one more rebuttal, one more post. ( I suspect virtually all this 'personality' stuff on both sides will be forgotten a hundred years from now. )

2. Addendum to my last post [#58]:

I'm sure there are clues and insights to the topic I mention scattered in these biographies and other writings about Ayn Rand. But I agree with Jim H-N that what, for lack of a better word, I'm calling "intellectual biography" should be a *central and exclusive topic* that people could devote mental effort to, essentially putting aside for purposes of this the more sexy topics of personal relationships, romances, difficult life, splits and schisms and bitternesses, etc.

It is that important, that weighty, and that difficult.

I have not read Chris Sciabarra's book cover to cover (I found the academic style and lack of brevity unpalatable so I simply set it aside..sorry Chris).

But just as reducing Ayn Rand to a thinker in the Aristotelian tradition is too glib, not a full and thorough exploration of her uniqueness and doesn't begin to address all the questions I list, reducing Ayn Rand to a dialectical thinker in the Russian tradition [if that is what CS does] would have analogous shortcomings.

...I also do have to admit I haven't ready any of the numerous biographies or partial biographies (by BB, NB#1, NB#2, CS, and now JV) cover to cover, for which sin I should be horsewhipped and then drummed out of the Objectivist movement...

Phil

Post 66

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 6:24pm

Phil,

You haven't read any of them? Dayamm!

That's no reason to be drummed out of the Objectivist movement, but that sure is one hell of a preparation for coming into a thread discussing a misuse of Ayn Rand's unpublished material and basically saying that everybody who's complaining about it is talking bullshit. Gotta admire you. If you ain't a salesman, you sure would make a good one.

So, with your leave, I want to keep the pressure on just a little.

If this book flops (which I have very little doubt it will), and if there is enough noise made about why it flopped while it is flopping, then maybe someone a little more responsible will be able to redo the damn thing. And maybe some damage to the value of Barbara and Nathaniel (who are also seminal forces in the founding of Objectivism) will be stayed a little, and their contribution put into a more rational unbiased light.

And the next time unpublished material by Ayn Rand is released by the copyright holder, maybe it will be done with a little more respect to her standing as a best-selling authoress. Maybe it might even address some of the questions you asked instead of being misused for a personal attack.

And, who knows? Maybe you might even read it.

Michael

Post 67

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 8:08pm

There are a couple of things I want to note now about Valliant's book. The first is its complete lack of grace. It has reduced the lives of highly intelligent and complicated people to a highly adversarial legal brief. The "Orthodox" Objectivism the author thinks he revels in was more created by the Brandens than even Ayn Rand. All of Leonard Peikoff's professional success as the "heir" of Ayn Rand was made possible by the entrepreneural work of Nathaniel Branden with the great administrative assistance of Barbara Branden. (Special kudos to her course on "Principles of Efficient Thinking"). Without these folk there would have been no Ayn Rand Institute, no "Ayn Rand Letter," no "Objectivist," no "Objectivist Newsletter," etc.--no Objectivist movement. To complain about the financial improprieties of the Brandens by anybody including Ayn Rand herself was and is a gargantuan howler. For Ayn Rand to toss Barbara Branden's efforts to keep NBI alive and the Objectivist movement alive in the trash can without any consideration to speak of was almost worse than what she did to her husband Frank O'Connor. Then Barbara wrote a largely sympathethic and great biography of Ayn Rand.

Second, the Objectivist movement centered on Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden in New York City was a cultural force to behold. Whatever legitimate criticisms it was susceptible to then and now to be in and part of that was to be swept along in what one imagined to be a powerful river of rationality. Both Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand created that and it would not have existed without both of them. I was there; I experienced all that.

Leonard Peikoff should write something titled "Thank You, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden." What a twit. (Name calling is an exception for me, but it isn't love.)

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 5/29, 12:15am)

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 5/29, 3:54pm)

Post 68

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 8:50pm

Yeah, Michael, reminds me of the cartoon with the guy staring at the tube, remote control in hand, "How can people watch this stuff...this is bad...why?...oh no...here's some more...oh, how I hate this!"

Post 69

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 9:11pm

Deleted

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 5/29, 3:57pm)

Post 70

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 9:36pm

> "Phil, You haven't read any of them?...sure is one hell of a preparation for coming into a thread..."

Michael, please read what I actually said: " I haven't read any of [them] *cover to cover*." [Emphasis added]

> "..and then basically saying that everybody who's complaining about it is talking bullshit."

That is an inaccurate, hostile, emotionalistic paraphrase of what I said. Please don't volunteer to do -my- intellectual biography.

--Francisco d'Anconia: You Ought to Learn that Words Have an Exact Meaning.

--Philip Coates: Please Read. Don't "Skim."
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/28, 9:39pm)

Post 71

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 10:04pm

Uhmmm... OK, Phil.

You don't like my short "talking bullshit" paraphrase. So let's use your own words:

Instead of nuclear war between pro- and anti- the person sides, gossip, enormously secondary issues, vituperation and character assassination, or the foibles of each particular biographer. [ just the movement from: the passion of a.r. to: the passion of a.r.'s critics to this threads farcical title: the passion of: the passion of ayn rand's critics should tell you something of level of topic.]

There was no hostility on my part - not even too much emotion. And it seemed accurate enough to me. I do, however, interpret the above quote to be an "inaccurate, hostile, emotionalistic" statement - especially since you are talking about my own posts and those of several others on this thread. Ya dish it out, ya gotta take it, dude.

And I will rephrase the other observation:

You haven't read any of them cover to cover? Dayamm!

That's no reason to be drummed out of the Objectivist movement, but that sure is one hell of a preparation...

Happy now?

Michael

Post 72

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 11:06am

Michael, I'll abandon discussing this with you and let my arguments stand.

Post 73

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 12:01pm

Phil

You state

I have not read Chris Sciabarra's book cover to cover (I found the academic style and lack of brevity unpalatable so I simply set it aside..sorry Chris).

But just as reducing Ayn Rand to a thinker in the Aristotelian tradition is too glib, not a full and thorough exploration of her uniqueness and doesn't begin to address all the questions I list, reducing Ayn Rand to a dialectical thinker in the Russian tradition [if that is what CS does] would have analogous shortcomings.

I found Chris's book (Ayn Rand The Russian Radical) a page turner, rich in exposition, and in explication of Rand's thought to many areas.

I think he does a masterful job of putting her thinking in a historical context without detracting in any way from its brilliant originality. And he fills in many of the intermediate links between her intellectual leaps -- which were so obvious to her -- but not to the rest of us mortals.

Post 74

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 2:24pm

"I found [The Russian Radical] ... rich in explication of Rand's thought to many areas...he does a masterful job of putting her thinking in a historical context ..he fills in many of the intermediate links between her intellectual leaps." [Steven]

Those are all important things. I would like to know the stages of development which led her to be able to do the things you mention, to reach the levels she did, and which the biographers mention.

I've just created a new thread for this discussion:

"Intellectual Development - How Did Ayn Rand *Become* Ayn Rand?"

Phil

Post 75

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:58am

Brant,

I finally get it!!

Here's how I read your post -- correct me if I'm wrong.

Ayn Rand was not infallible, and besides, nobody's perfect either in knowledge or morality.

NBI (and keeping it alive), and the Brandens and everything they created, are more important than Ayn Rand's judgment of the matter (no matter how difficult that decision was for her or how painful).

Right?

I got it!!

Tom

Post 76

Monday, May 30, 2005 - 8:16am

No, Tom. The whole thing was a tragedy. I only touched on a few things. Ayn Rand was a great American hero. I wouldn't even say she had feet of clay--that seems too much to me. From the human perspective of all involved Ayn Rand's friends should have been more her own age, generally, than they were after she left California. NBI itself was probably a mistake. The power imbalances kept people from growing up and finding their own ways.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 5/30, 8:53am)

Post 77

Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 8:15pm

Thanks for discussing this book, Scott. I haven't read Mr. Valliant's book, but I may peruse it the next time I'm at the bookstore...mainly because I want to read Rand's writings.

I have read both Barbara Branden's and Nathaniel Branden's books on Rand and didn't think either painted her as a megalomaniac. Nor was my respect for Rand's ideas in any way diminished after reading their books. I remember being shocked at an Objectivist conference when some of the speakers pretty much requested that no one read the Branden books. That seemed so contrary to what Rand stood for--using your own mind to form your own conclusions.

Allison Taylor

Post 78

Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 11:57pm

Allison,

Welcome to Solo. Thank you for using your own mind and writing about it. This issue has caused some heated debate here, but your approach is what I so dearly hope will be the one used by the majority of new readers:

... mainly because I want to read Rand's writings.

That should ALWAYS be the overriding idea when Ayn Rand's unpublished word is unveiled for the first time. If the author of this book chose not to do so, it is refreshing to see that there are new readers who will focus mainly on her writing anyway. And I sincerely hope that those like you are in the majority.

Michael

Post 79

Sunday, June 5, 2005 - 1:56pm