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

I like how Ayn Rand never sugar coats a response. But also learns from everyday actions.

AYNRAND:"What do I feel toward him? In his present state (weather the cause of it is social metaphysics or some other evil premise), I feel the strongest contempt I have ever felt-- and I regard him as the worst traitor and the most immoral person I have ever met."

"It was not until Saturday (7/6) that I focused specifically on the content of [Branden's] "paper" as it applied to me. Then what I felt was such a revulsion that I felt I would not be able to shake hands with [Branden] without wanting to wash my hand afterward. I mean this literally, and the feeling persists, whenever I think of it, and I think it will remain with me always. I feel as if I had brushed against something so filthy--or, rather, so filthy a soul-- that I cannot fully believe it and it takes an effort of will to make it real to myself, because it is outside anything I had ever conceived of as human."

"I suppose I am still naive if I thought that evil would be expressed by some grand act of treason, like Stadler's. And I suppose that this is the ultimate proof of my own theory that evil is not big, but mean, shoddy, smutty and small. But to have to learn it this way-- and from what had been [Nathaniel Branden]!"

Post 101

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 11:37pm

Glenn, I did not intend to comment on the Valliant book, and I shall not do so. But I cannot avoid asking if you are aware of what the "paper" that Rand discusses in the journal entry you quote refers to?

The paper was Nathaniel's embarrassed attempt to explain to her that the age difference of twenty-five years between them made a difference and affected his sexual desire. THIS is what she considered "outside anything I had ever conceived of a human."

Barbara

Post 102

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:39am

Michael-

I very much see your point. I think a lot of us wish that there had been more healing in all this. In the end, it comes down to Leonard's personality, not Nathaniel's. As crotchety as some people might find NB, I have never gotten a glint from him that he sees any good in the current division, and all that goes with it.

Apparently, Leonard does not see the value that would give to the movement as many of us do. The sheer significance of that kind of healing would create incredible energy within the group. Beyond healing, it would present a more unified front for people first exploring this community. I find the energy of ARI to be lackluster, and I think it has to do with how they view acceptance. How things turned out hinge largely on a moral issue that should have never been debated by anyone other than the principals. Too late for that- on to the Bible.

But, I also know how hard it is for these things to happen. I doubt it ever will, but occasionally I discuss the possibility with folks.

I frequently lampoon and write various types of irritating tracts about the ARI, and I probably shouldn't. I seem to be getting that under a bit more control. I come from the Hunter Thompson tradition of writing, and toning down is a major chore. For instance, I recently resisted releasing a false news item having to do with invitations for a naked swinger pool party at LP's house. That would have been bad. Such is my struggle.

Post 103

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 8:53am

Barbara,

Don't pay too much attention to Glenn. He's a Valliant groupie.

When that kind of quote is read out of context, if someone is stupid enough to take it as the whole story (out of context), the next stage logically is obvious:

Ayn Rand was a silly putz.

She simply didn't have the capacity to see something that "obvious" for years. She fell in love - and stayed in love for years - with someone "mean, shoddy, smutty and small" and with "so filthy a soul" because she was an extremely poor judge of character. She had no discernment whatsoever in choosing bed partners.

LOLOLOL...

I can't buy that and I don't think anybody but hopelessly hardened Randroids can either. (Well... they can take recourse to the ever popular and efficacious "blank-out.")

Here are a couple of other interesting quotes from Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged):

"Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."

"But the man who is convinced of his own worthlessness will be drawn to a woman he despises - because she will reflect his own secret self, she will release him from that objective reality in which he is a fraud, she will give him a momentary illusion of his own value and a momentary escape from the moral code that damns him. Observe the ugly mess which most men make of their sex lives..."

I presume she means that all this applies to women also. Hmmmm... So because the affair lasted for years, if Nathaniel was evil, evil, evil - even from the outset - either Ayn Rand was the one of the greatest frauds in history or one of the biggest putzes. There's no other option.

LOLOLOLOL...

Getting back to reality, to me the reaction to Nathaniel's note looks like even Ayn Rand didn't like getting older. Not at all. I know I don't. But whatcha gonna do? Metaphysical facts like time and the growth cycle of life are not within our power to change.

Michael

Post 104

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 9:31am

I agree with Michael. Either Rand was a hopelessly naive putz -- or she was engaged in a massive (self?)deception of her own in regard to NB. (Not to excuse any of NB's behavior, however.)

I have a pretty good sense of "smell" about people's personal revelations, and it "smells" to me like not only did Rand suspect that NB was in love with Patrecia, but also that Rand was jealous of Patrecia. If Patrecia was really so inconsequential -- as a person and as a romantic threat -- as Rand painted her to be, why spend so much (or even any) ink lambasting her? If Rand was really in an emotionally healthier, focused period of her life (than immediately following the publication of Atlas), then why the malevolent wasting of her precious intellectual and moral ammunition on anyone so mundane as a "pretentious" showgirl?

I agree with those who say "it takes two to tango." And I'm not talking about the public ballroom dancing event at NBI!

Best to all,
REB

Post 105

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 10:12am

I agree with Roger and Michael.

The other person always knows, on some level. And they start asking questions, trying to make sense of it.

Hadn't thought of that Atlas quote in some time- the one about showing her the woman. If that's true, I'm in better shape than I thought.... :)

Post 106

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 10:52am

Barbara, like a lot of things you remember, your context is off. It was "physical alienation." You don't have to rely on an unnamed source--Ayn Rand took notes!

AYNRAND:"The words "metaphysical alienation" were used by him so often that it may be a clue to his notion of "Physical alienation." (Both mean "alienation from reality"--if that last has any meaning at all.)"

She even records your comments on his paper.

AYNRAND:"Two important hypotheses:[Barbara Branden] said that he may have felt alienated from me (sense of life wise) by the fact of my stressed objectivity versus his subjectivity. I said that his autism(i.e. sense of inefficacy in reality) may have been the cause of his over stressed drive for "achievement"--if he felt that "he did not belong on earth." [Barbara Branden] said that this last formulation would be as shocking to him as social metaphysics, since it contradicts all of his conscious values and convictions, and might be the repressed secret which he cannot admit to himself."

This last quote is interesting because in your book you have NB making things up to deceive Ayn. You simply watch as Ayn painfully gropes for the theories to explain NB's actions and say nothing to "spare her feelings."
Branden said in his book Barbara agreed that Ayn must never know "because that would be the end of everything." And here you are feeding Ayn false "hypotheses." Dayaamm!

AYNRAND:"From about the end of January on, his [psycho epistemological] progression was one rationalization after another, all aimed at getting rid of me--in an atmosphere of growing intellectual panic.
Day before yesterday, I pointed out to [Barbara Branden] that his "paper" on "physical alienation" was a symptom of why I feared that he would betray Objectivism: what if he tried to include such a theory in his course on "Romantic Love"? [Barbara Branden] said instantly: "Oh, he wouldn't! He would think it out very carefully before he included it in a lecture." And that's the whole point."

You sure don't sound like your talking about a paper just on age differences and sexual desires.

Post 107

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 8:35am

I assume the Ayn Rand quotation is from her journals. I've written many things for my own use and reflection that are objectively completely unbalanced and irrational, but I had to vent. If I were to annotate them for publication, I would not stand by them as such.

--Brant

Post 108

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:50pm

Just to make my own point absolutely clear, I do not think Ayn Rand was a putz nor was she a fraud. The only way to get to those conclusions is to accept the premise that Nathaniel was all bad, for ever and ever amen, with no redeeming value whatsoever, pure bastard through and through and a despicable dirty rotten scoundrel to the core ever since he was born.

IF THAT WERE TRUE and Ayn Rand loved him for years, hmmmmm... well - she's gotta be a world-class putz or fraud then.

But here is what I really believe. I believe that she fell in love with a very great young man named Nathaniel Branden. His later achievements prove this to be true. I also believe that he reacted piss-poorly to the situation - made some terrible choices. But who hasn't with possessive people? He was young and inexperienced with this side of human nature. She appeared to be naive about these things too. Talking and writing about it is one thing. Living it is another. They both screwed up big time. That's what I believe.

Anyone now want to say that Ayn Rand was never possessive, never jealous, never petty, never unduly mean and sarcastic, never grumpy, never anything demeaning at all - ever - not once - not even for one second in her entire life? Gimme a break!

She was greater than that. She rose above her social environment and her own mood changes and human condition enough to create the magnificent works she did. And she did the business end well enough to let her works have a shot at becoming bestsellers - which they did, thus help transform the world. That is her greatness. Not the "perfect" 24/7 robot thing.

I find that "perfect" 24/7 robot view of her - propounded by Valliant and others, to be disgusting and such a serious breach of reality as to make me 100% sure that their motives are anything but understanding truth. They are spiritual midgets to me. Cattle. Fanatics. Losers cashing in on a great author and philosopher.

That is what particularly galls me about Valliant's book. He uses Rand's previously unpublished work and turned it into a fiasco in every sense possible. Her work is used to make Nazi-type propaganda against the Brandens, propound that Ayn Rand was a type of robotic human being who had no human nature, thus demean her actual achievement in life, insinuate that Rand was a putz or a fraud (if his premise is taken to its logical conclusion), made a publishing strategy based on ignoring the essence of Rand's previous policies (now resulting in pathetic sales), ergggggghhh...

I could go on. But the worst thing of all is that he has involved Ayn Rand's name in a blatant case of breaking the law. In my view he has committed libel and this should be corrected as soon as possible. Objectivism and Ayn Rand have always been honorable - now they are being turned into grist for a propaganda mill and breaking the law. (And laying an egg in public publishing-wise.) A terrible precedent has been established here.

Note to Barbara - See what happens when you can't resist bait? The issue you mention gets completely sidestepped and then you are attacked. Don't bother. There are those who love you, who admire your integrity and know you have a magnificent soul out here. We most definitely can take care of the small fry.

Michael

Post 109

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:48pm

PARC displays a very low regard for the ability of his projected readers to think independently�indeed to think at all. He knows he is primarily addressing people who believe the blinders covering their eyes are badges of honor�and who want to be led by the nose.

But it is one thing for me to describe this phenomenon. It is much more instructive for one of them to give us such a vivid demonstration.

Post 110

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:05pm

Do you know what PARC spelled backwards is?

CRAP

LOLOLOLOL...

I wish I could claim to be the originator of this gem, but alas, I am not. It was sent to me by Rodney Rawlings in a hilarious Solo-mail and I post this with his blessing.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 7/14, 6:59am)

Post 111

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 2:44pm

I want the Bible book to succeed. Not only that, but I want someone to option it for film. Then, they trot out Charlton Heston for the lead, and, and...

Where is Valliant, anyway? All I see is faded rubber traces from when he peeled out of here.

Post 112

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:06am

His new book will be entitled The Passion of the Da Vinci Critics. I understand that the Vatican summoned our attorney-author to Rome because the Pope is distressed about all the negative press Jesus has been getting from The Da Vinci Code. The Pope gave him privileged access to the original documents found in the Holy Grail, which the author will use to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Branden is really Satan�and therefore immortal�and that he seduced Mary Magdelene (Jesus� wife) into a deceitful love affair which begat a love child and the scandalous sacred bloodline. (Oh yeah, and, by the way, Jesus was cool with it.)

It�s already on back-order at The Ayn Rand Bookstore.

Post 113

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 11:38am

Mr. Coates writes: I have had a couple similar encounters to that of Dennis and others with Mr. Branden. They were at TOC summer seminars. Once I happened to be standing near him in a hallway prior to some event or lecture and I made some kind of small talk remark which involved asking him some sort of question, which he ignored. Another time, he was talking with someone in the bus to the closing banquet and as best I can reconstruct it went like this: "Can I take your picture?" He looked sternly at me. So I said, "I don't mean to interrupt your conversation." His response, "Well, you did." So I just moved away in disgust. I think there was one other occasion like the first occasion when I spoke to him and he ignored me. After these three incidents, I was standing next to him and rode in the seat in front of him and walked in behind him (last summer - Vancouver) and never spoke to him again.

Mr. Coates, I think something very emotional is involved when we are asked to pose for a picture.
We all love to take picture, but we hate to pose for a stranger-especially if we are having a conversation with someone.
What if at the same time you asked to take a picture, he was being informed that Valliant was writing a book about him?

dc

Post 114

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 1:23pm

ROFL at Dennis' post...

I'm thinking he's going to reveal some kind of breakthrough. Perhaps a convincing, exhaustive proof that it is not in fact God's Word: whether or not He even exists, He did not write this. Take that, Jerry Falwell. Following an exhaustive re-translation and analysis of gnostic texts, he will for sure verify that Branden is Satan's spawn, providing a detailed lineage, and a paper trail climaxing with credit card receipts circa 1966 proving Branden was lurking on Times Square, and did in fact buy a rather odd assortment of Doc Johnson products, limited though the selection was at that time.

Post 115

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 1:36pm

Although Ciro�s post only referenced me indirectly, I feel the need to �clear the air� in regard to the issue of Nathaniel Branden�s response to me following a lecture a few years ago, which was discussed at length earlier on this thread.

Nathaniel Branden has contacted me to say that, while he does not recall the specific incident, any appearance of indifference was most definitely not intentional and that he wished to apologize. As is so often the case, all the projection about his motives or intent could not have been further off the mark. For the record, please also note that he definitely does not advocate the views of Fritz Perls.

I think we would all do well to appreciate the tremendous demands on his time and energy with which Nathaniel must cope on a daily basis.. He is understandably going to feel pressured and preoccupied much of the time. For myself, I genuinely regret the reservations I expressed previously. Both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden deserve the highest possible esteem. I frankly wish I could retract anything I said that might have ever suggested otherwise.

Dennis Hardin

Post 116

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 1:45pm

Dennis writes:Both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden deserve the highest possible esteem
Very good Dennis, I agree with that!
dc

Post 117

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:03pm

Dennis Hardin wrote: "Both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden deserve the highest possible esteem."

Ciro d'Agostino added: "Very good Dennis, I agree with that!"

I share their opinion. I would propose that Nathaniel and Barbara be awarded (by whom?) the title of "Objectivist emeritus," except I would not want to suggest in any way that they are retired and/or have nothing further of intellectual or therapeutic value to offer the Objectivist movement. (Also, I believe that at least one of them uses the term neo-Objectivist, perhaps to sidestep the endless squabbles over who is or is not a "real" Objectivist.)

There are very few people who have done as much, and fewer still who have done more, than these two people to educate and enlighten Objectivists, as well as to help identify and heal wrongs that were (and are still being) done by various Objectivist principals (including themselves back in the pre-Split days). They deserve our appreciation and admiration, not our disdain.

Best to all,
REB

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 7/17, 7:04pm)

Post 118

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:59pm

Bravo to these last three posts. Let me add that I fully agree.

Michael

Post 119

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:15pm