How to Kill a Philosophy-A Review of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

No matter how much effort Objectivism’s official spokesmen invest in philosophical clarity and precision, their blind worship of the philosophy’s progenitor will prompt outsiders to confuse evaluations of her with evaluations of her ideas.  Their attempts to whitewash any and all blemishes have the opposite effect of what the spokesmen intend: outsiders see it as a lack of intellectual honesty on the part of the philosophy’s advocates—and begin to wonder if this does not cast doubt on the truth of the ideas.

Some very thoughtful comments—all very much appreciated.

Rick—Thanks.  I will.

Glenn---You might want to re-read my essay and reconsider whether anything I said implied that pragmatists and egalitarians are rational.  However, a great many of them may well be honest.  With all the mistaken philosophical viewpoints we encounter every day, it is just silly to suggest that all or most of the confused people who support them are dishonest.  And such accusations throw up a communication barrier that forbids further discussion or rational persuasion.

Brant---This book will not change ARI.  The author of PARC, like Peikoff and his bootlicking cohorts, believes that anything he does in the name of defending Ayn Rand makes him ipso facto “moral”.   It is a form of pseudo-self-esteem, almost a neurosis, and it insulates true believers from reason and reality.  Few of them will do more than give this elaborate, encyclopedic diatribe more than a cursory review, at best.  But they will point to PARC as “proof” of their righteousness and use it as a substitute for thought.

      But the real damage is the impression newcomers will take away from this book.  It is so vicious, so vile, so patently anti-objective, that readers will take one look at it and want nothing further to do with Ayn Rand or her philosophy.  And who could blame them? 

Michael,

Thanks for the feedback, but PARC does not have to be a big seller to do serious damage.  Such moronic drivel could never undermine the enduring popularity of Ayn Rand, but, because it has the tacit sanction of ARI, it will negatively impact the spread of Objectivism in two ways:

(1)   Cementing the acrimonious and wasteful ‘war of words’ among supporters of the philosophy;

(2)   Reinforcing and justifying the understandable disrespect shared by many prominent observers toward Objectivism as a legitimate and serious intellectual viewpoint.

And PARC’s well-deserved pratfall will, in itself, serve as cannon fodder for Objectivism’s enemies and detractors, because they can use it to make the case for the movement’s decline in popularity.      

It is absurd to suggest that this book ‘sets the record straight.’  No one outside the triangle of Rand, her husband and Nathaniel Branden can possibly know the full truth about that notorious and tragically destructive affair. 

On that account, this book adds nothing but obfuscation and peculiarly vicious ad hominem.

(At one point, PARC’s author asks us to believe that Ayn Rand’s husband may not have been the least bit disturbed by his wife’s love affair.  Is it necessary to elaborate further on the author’s “objectivity”?)

 PARC insists that Rand was a saint and that Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were ‘immoral’.  Now there’s a shock.  Only a novice would not be aware that, from the perspective of orthodox Objectivism, this is scarcely a distinction.

PARC not only reopens it but injects that wound with a vile and repugnant venom, spewing muck and mucous in everyone’s face, insuring that Objectivism’s internal squabbles will continue to fester and infect the movement for years to come.

Thank you, Michael.  I could not have hoped for a response that did a better job of proving the accuracy of my review.

How can my response -- which attacks the accuracy of your review --  prove the accuracy of your review?  How can a request for more substantiation constitute substantiation?

Please do not take this personally, but I consider the answers to most of your questions to be too obvious to merit further explanation.  I started to write a longer response, but realized that each point was either self-evident or had already been addressed.

 Self-evident?  You dismiss 400-pages of text and 492 footnotes as nothing more than ad hominem and obfuscation – and expect me to consider that assertion self-evident?

  You might want to try re-reading the full context of your quotes.  If I am wrong and others have similar confusions about what I meant, I am confident this will be drawn to my attention.

 Oh, I don’t think there is any confusion about what you meant.  You meant to hurl a bucket of invective at Valliant’s book.  Fine.  That is your privilege.  But your refusal to back it up leaves it unsubstantiated.

And since the truth is not determined by how many people believe a certain thing, it proves nothing that no one else has called you on this.

I think I gave enough specific examples to support my conclusions. 

 Trouble is, the examples you gave do not support your conclusions. For instance, the fact that Miss Rand wrote a response to Branden’s letter that criticized his relationship with another woman does not prove that she was jealous.  That is just a non sequitur.

Perhaps you could cite a single, well-substantiated "lie" or "misrepresentation" that could not be reasonably ascribed to personal perspective, the imperfections of memory or the influences of emotional involvement. 

 Valliant has given you 400+ pages of examples.  Did you not read the book? 

I’ll give you one misrepresentation that really bothers me: The Brandens have consistently represented Rand as being universally and completely intolerant of any disagreement, of having no patience with or sympathy for those who do not immediately agree with her.   

For instance, Branden claims that what “Rand made overpoweringly clear to us was that the ultimate test and proof of one’s idealism were one’s loyalty to (Rand’s) work and to her personally.” (PARC, pg 55)

Of course, as Valliant points out, in other places in their books they give contradictory portrayals.  However, it is this picture of total intolerance and dogmatic insistence on agreement that has become a focal point of attack by her critics.

In fact, for many years I accepted this notion as fact.  I did not really care, because it in no way alters the validity of her philosophy. 

Then I happened to read “Letters of Ayn Rand”.   I was amazed at the incredible amount of time and effort she put into attempting to understand the ideas of others with whom she disagreed, and to explain and re-explain her own positions.  See, for instance, the exchanges with John Hospers and Isabel Patterson.  This -- I found myself thinking repeatedly as I read her letters – is intolerance?  If anything, I would fault Miss Rand for taking too much time with people who were clearly determined to disagree no matter what. The Branden's characterization of Rand as intolerant cannot be reconciled with these letters.

If the author cared about getting to the truth of the matter, he could easily have addressed specific unresolved questions to the Brandens, who would have been more than willing to explain.  It is typically the public accuser who reports that his subjects have refused to answer his questions.  What does it say about this attorney-author that he did not have the decency or courage to confront the defendants?   (After all, as you say, there is “no principle in Objectivist morality that forbids one to ask a question of an immoral person.”)

 Did the Brandens consult with Rand (or any of her surviving defenders) prior to publishing their books?  What does that say about them?

As I said, I was fascinated (if a bit queasy) to read Ayn Rand’s own perspective and feelings about the affair. If ARI had taken steps to publish Ayn Rand’s personal journal, without the layer upon layer of interpretative obfuscation and invective, it would have added an important and valuable chapter to the historical record. 

Please show me some “interpretive obfuscation and invective” regarding the journals.

And I can assure you it would have done incomparably more to evoke sympathy for her point of view, without helping to make the story of Objectivism look more like a secularized inquisition and witch-hunt than a serious philosophy.

 
Why are the Branden’s attacks on Rand acceptable, even “healing” – but a defense of Rand against those attacks a “secularized inquisition and witch-hunt”?  Why the double standard?