About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 11Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 220

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 6:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris,

Don't worry about your pristine reputation being tarnished from any questions this guy brings up. It won't even be scratched - not by friend or foe. It is obvious to me that this guy was fed those names, questions and observations from elsewhere. He hasn't shown the intellectual capacity in his previous posts to have come up with that by himself. The only thing in his post that is undoubtedly his is a consistent lack of basic skills in English grammar.

Also, as you stated, if the fundamental criterion of being a philosopher is academic acceptance, then Ayn Rand would not be a philosopher at all. That's a big if in this case, though. There's no substance there. You basically argue in a vacuum. What was once a loudmouthed no-nothing brat apparently now is a semi-polite no-nothing puppet.

But I do wonder who the silent puppet-master might be. Hmmmmmm?

Shine on brightly, Chris. You are an inspiration to us all.



Richard Lawrence,

I never had the opportunity to compliment you on your magnificent Objectivism website. While I was in Brazil, the Objectivism Reference Center was one of the few sites on Ayn Rand that I constantly frequented over the years. (Then I found Solo  //;-) I still visit your site quite a bit.

Back then, I was especially gratified to find a serious listing of works against - and criticism of - Objectivism. From the standpoint of know your enemy, that list and the links have been invaluable to me. But even more so, the articles made me think and that is good.

One day I took a look at your home page. I was pleasantly surprised to see that you also value the work of Earl Doherty and his research into the pros and cons of an historical Jesus. I had come across him about a year earlier researching for discussions with a dear friend of mine at the time who was a Jehovah's Witness. Mr. Doherty's work is some of the best I have found on this subject and I recommend it whenever the issue of Christianity comes up for serious debate. He also strongly supported Betty J. Brogaard, who wrote a book called Dare To Think For Yourself: A Journey from Faith to Reason. This is probably one of the best layman's explanations of the Holy Bible, especially the part on how it was written and why it is laid out as it is, that I have come across.

Anyway, I am very pleased to see you posting on Solo. I do hope you continue.

I highly recommend your site Objectivism Reference Center to any and all persons interested in Objectivism. You rock.

Michael



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 221

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 7:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, I wasn't going to say it, for fear of being labeled a conspiracy nut, but my first impression was that someone was putting this guy up to it.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 7/28, 7:11pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 222

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
1. How do you account for Mr. Branden's explicit claim to have heard the bogus name-story from Rand herself? He was already aware of Ms.
Branden's account of having heard this from Fern Brown, and, yet, he insists on having heard it from Rand. What does this imply to you, if
anything?

2. How do you account for the sheer volume of these errors?

3. In your view, did Mr. Branden intentionally mislead us in 1968, and to what extent? And, how do you account for the continued insistence
on the veracity of the 1968 statement by both Brandens?

4. Does Branden dishonesty to Rand get factored into your analysis? There could be many more, but I think you get the drift.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 223

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 7:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My last post should have been directed to Mr. Lawrence.

My apologies.

Casey


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 224

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,

"How do you account for Mr. Branden's explicit claim to have heard the bogus name-story from Rand herself?" That is just the way human memory sometimes works. I recommend The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers by Daniel L. Schacter.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 225

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,

Good questions. Let me hazard a guess. Um... maybe because Nathaniel Branden has the soul of a rapist?

Bingo. That might explain it.

//;-)

Michael


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 226

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 8:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

Come on now. Do you really think that Ms. Branden's sudden memory of having been told this by Rand, which she recently revealed on Solo, is also a memory trick?

I think you're reaching.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 227

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 9:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,

Nearly every suddenly "recovered" memory is likely to be partially or entirely false. I've done some of the experiments related in "Seven Sins." Please read it.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 228

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 10:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,

How do you account for your explicit claim on SOLO that the Brandens' had launched an "ugly book-burning" crusade to "silence" Valliant's book before publication, when it's a fact that neither had made a single public comment on it?

Or did the snake-oil distributor cut you off?

Alec

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 229

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 10:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, you're right, Alex. The attack on the book before it was available was completely reasonable. ;)

Casey

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 7/29, 12:50am)

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 7/29, 12:55am)

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 7/29, 12:57am)

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 7/29, 12:59am)

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 7/29, 1:03am)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 230

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 10:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,

As I mentioned to Kathy, I am working on a longer discussion of the subject, so I hope you will pardon me if I only respond to your questions briefly now.

1) There are several possible explanations here. Obviously an intentional deception on Nathaniel Branden's part is one of them. The memory tricks mentioned by Adam are another. It is also possible that Rand was in fact the source of this story.

2) A large portion of the problems identified by Valliant are most easily explained by bias on the part of the Brandens -- and I do think that their presentations are biased. An important point to keep in mind is that believing or showing that someone has made erroneous or unprovable statements is not the same as believing or showing that they have intentionally lied.

3 & 4) That both Brandens (especially Nathaniel) were dishonest with Rand in the 1960s is not in doubt. Nathaniel Branden's1968 statement was certainly misleading, and I am not inclined to defend his actions or statements from this period. My comments about the weakness in Valliant's case were intended to refer to his views on the Brandens' later books, not anything related to their earlier behavior. In particular, I consider Nathaniel Branden's behavior towards Rand to have been despicable, and I believe the latter half of Valliant's book provides ample evidence in this regard.

--
Richard Lawrence
Webmaster, Objectivism Reference Center


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 231

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 11:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris said,
I just don't want this thread to be hijacked by a discussion of the merits of Russian Radical.
Not only are you one hell of a class act, but--like Midas--you have a way of raising the intellectual quality of any discussion you touch.  Since I started this thread, you have my unqualified permission to hijack it anywhere you would like. 
 
 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 232

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 11:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I want to thank you, Mr. Lawrence, for all of the considerable concessions that you have made here with regard to the book, which incidentally has pointed out all of the problems (for the first time) which you and others have suddenly noticed: a) that there are so many "erroneous and unprovable statements" in the Brandens' books that are at least the result of bias that they can be spoken of in terms of "large portions;" but I am curious as to the smaller portion which you believe goes beyond mere bias; b) that the Brandens' 1968 statement to the world was "misleading;" however, my question did refer to "his views on the Brandens' later books, not anything related to their earilier behavior" -- it is the Brandens' continued insistence on the veracity of those statements that "you are not inclined to defend" that I inquired about; c) I am also gratified that you concede Branden's behavior to have been "despicable." Perhaps because of this book Rand's "break" with the Brandens in 1968, which has so frequently been wielded against her, will now be better understood as having been rational.

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 7/28, 11:56pm)

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 7/28, 11:58pm)


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 233

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 12:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[YAWN]

Post 234

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 12:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Malcom, of all the many concessions, yours is perhaps the most significant in two ways: 1) it is a total concession of the substance of the matter; 2) it concedes your total indifference to the unfair distortion of the life of an artist and philosopher you claim to admire.

Oh, and BTW, has anyone else noticed how Branden's 1968 statement, which for so many years graced his website, has vanished just within the last few weeks?

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 7/29, 12:37am)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 235

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 12:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey: you and Valliant win. I have seen the light. The Brandens are despicable trash. (Sorry Nathaniel. I guess you didn't all but save my life two or three times. I guess you really didn't help all those clients in your NYC therapy group 1975-1977. Sorry Barbara [but you're still beautiful].)

Ayn Rand, therefore was--a giant?

I used to think they were all giants. But I've seen the light. Something to do with a typewriter.

--Brant


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 236

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 4:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brant,

The typewriter was only the prelude. A dastardly premeditated prelude to rape.

Michael


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 237

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 8:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,

For further responses on the substance of the book, I ask that you read my review once I have it finished. I will post a link to it here. I do want to say, however, that I do not see how what I have said in this thread represents a "concession" (which implies some previous position of opposition) or what makes you believe that I "suddenly" recognized problems with the Brandens' accounts. Perhaps you are confusing me with some of the other participants in the thread? I suppose it is my own fault to an extent for making partial statements in reply to particular questions, rather than staying away from the subject until I have the complete review ready. So I'll shut up until then.

--
Richard Lawrence
Webmaster, Objectivism Reference Center


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 238

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 11:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Lawrence,

Fair enough. I will look forward to your review, and shut up about it until it arrives. Thanks.

Casey


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 239

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brant (in response to your #178),

I think that Ayn Rand was deficient in a liberal arts education and that huge brain of hers rushed in to fill the void. She ended up with universal prescriptions that betrayed ignorance in psychology, sociology, history and human interactions generally.


We know a fair amount about Rand's education now, because of the work of Chris Sciabarra and others.  She actually studied a lot of history, and some social science.  Of course, all of this was going on in the Soviet Union, between 1921 and 1924.  (For instance, she was almost certainly exposed to some of John Dewey's writings in her courses, so her antipathy to "progressive education" went way back.)  To take one field I am close to, just think of the shape that psychology was in, between 1921 and 1924...

I speculate that English as a second language interfered with her ability to read fairly rapidly. If so this was made worse by her penchant of tearing the last ounce of meaning from what she did read. Her incredible work ethic that was writing didn't help in this respect.


Is there any evidence that Rand read English slowly?  I read French much more slowly than I read English, and I'm sure I'm not using the same brain centers when I do it.  But I write scarcely anything in French, whereas Rand made a career out of writing in English.  I also spend very little time speaking French, whereas despite her apparent lack of interest in losing her Russian accent, Rand rarely spoke anything but English, for 55 years of her adult life.

I can see how the commitment she made to her writing interfered with in-depth study of material that she didn't see as immediately necessary for one of her projects or another.  This still leaves questions open about her "learning style"...

Both Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged need to be constantly deconstructed to find the surplus hidden value and for others to avoid the important mistakes she made. And to properly understand those mistakes she didn't make!

Ayn Rand is made for thinking: a reference point for an important off-key consistency. There is reality and there is Ayn Rand. They don't always mesh well, but she thought they did.



I am very much in agreement with you here.  Rand's fiction has multiple levels of meaning, most of which were put there intentionally.  The mythic dimensions in her novels help to make them great literature.  But they do not provide reliable guidance in dealing with real people in everyday situations.  Asking "What would John Galt do?" is frequently not the most productive approach to resolving a moral question.

One of the things Valliant's book allows us to see is Ayn Rand saying things like this:

Originally, [Nathaniel] had said that [Patrecia] was his "Eddie Willers," i.e., an average person who had good premises although she was not at all philosophical or intellectual.  Then, he said this estimate of her had changed: that she was an unusual person... (p. 326)


... which looks to me like myth and reality on a collision course.

Robert Campbell

(Edited by Robert Campbell on 7/30, 11:49am)

(Edited by Robert Campbell on 7/30, 1:49pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 11Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.