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

It would have been wonderful, given how much many of us respected and admired Ayn Rand, if she had encouraged us to develop a more open-minded attitude and to be less attached to a model of reality that might be in need of revision. But that was not her way. Quite the contrary. Other people’s model of reality might be in need of revision. Never hers. Not in any fundamental sense. Reason, she was convinced, had established that for all time. In encouraging among her followers the belief that she enjoyed a monopoly on reason and the rational, she created for herself a very special kind of power, the power to fling anyone who disagreed with her about anything into the abyss of “the irrational”—and that was a place we were all naturally eager to avoid.

So, "this has nothing to do with the toleration of specific disagreements"?  

What concerns me even more, however, is that Valliant is utterly unwilling to give any credit at all to the Brandens for the contributions they made to the Objectivist canon. All Valliant (2005) sees is that Nathaniel Branden developed an archetypal theory of “social metaphysics,” and that Branden himself embodied the “'Power-seeking' social metaphysician” (349), who used nonviolent "manipulation, trickery, and deceit” (350) in an attempt to gain “power and position.” He asserts that Branden’s “psychology shows a striking similarity to the psychology of a rapist,” one who used “sex as his chosen instrument of coercion and terror” (382). Branden, who “had written on the relationship between force and fraud as means of manipulation,” committed a moral crime against Rand, Valliant argues, and what “his crime lacked in violence, it made up for in prolonged psychological torment and deception” (383). Through deception, Branden “enjoyed and prolonged this kind of domination for years. ... Branden was not only able to exploit Rand—intellectually, psychologically, emotionally, professionally and financially—he could do so with an erection. ... While his behavior was not, technically, rape, Branden’s was nothing less than the soul of a rapist” and his memoir constitutes “the concealment of an act of spiritual rape” (383-84).

 

Chris,

You said:

You seem to be saying that my lack of condemnation is as "evil" as the very book you believe I should have condemned "in the clearest possible terms."

 

Not at all.  If my post implied that, I am guilty of a genuine lack of clarity, for which I apologize. 

On the other hand, I was disappointed, and I felt the need to say so.  I believe that Ayn Rand was correct when she said:

“Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.”

 

[From “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”]

I understand that many Objectivists ( I realize you do not refer to yourself in this way) want to distance themselves from the incessant, unwarranted moral rantings of the Peikoff brigade, and I made mention of that in my review.   But I do not understand those who extend this to a policy of generalized moral neutrality toward just about anything and everything.

I honestly do not know if this is true of you, but it is certainly true of many. And the comment on your blog seemed to imply that you felt impartiality was some sort of virtue.  In my opinion, your review granted this piece of garbage a level of respect it does not deserve.  What it deserves is explicit moral contempt in no uncertain terms, and it disturbed me that I did not see that in your otherwise brilliant essay.

It is because you are, unquestionably, an intellectual giant, that I expected more.  But this does not change the fact that you are, in fact, a giant—and, no doubt, a person of high moral integrity as well.  The pygmy who wrote this book (I honestly cannot bring myself to mention his name) could not reach high enough to tie your shoelaces.