RoR: Forum

In fact somebody did send in a link to a conservative site that used the book to take an ad hominem swipe at Objectivism. It's the only evidence I've seen that anyone outside Objectivist circles has even read it. Your claim that such people are "cheering it on, and would love to add even more fuel to the fire" is probably true but probably exaggerated. Buckley did the same in National Review at the time of the original breakup, and look where it got him.

Such internecine feuds seem to be inevitable among people who take ideas seriously. Intellectual history moves on just the same. Movements are not identical to their ideas, and the latter survive the personal hostilities. If they were going to stop Objectivism they would have stopped it some time during the Nixon administration, as a lot of conservatives hoped. If Comte and St.-Simon helped bring Marxism about, I'd say their ideas had a huge impact, even if their names are much less familiar.

(Side note: St.-Simon wrote a Parable in which he imagined what would happen to the world if you took out the few hundred most economically, intellectually and artistically productive people in it, versus what would happen if you took out a comparable number of nobility and high clergy. Maybe he had a bigger influence than we thought.)

Peter

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 6/04, 11:36am)

Post 101

Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 9:53pm

Gerald Biggers, excellent post. Your use of concrete examples is what drives the point home. Peter, I think you missed his point, here: "Intellectual history is littered with the wrecked, dead, and dying corpses of ideological movements that diverted their attention." His point was that it was possible for ideological movements to take their eyes off the goal and become disreputable and vengeful in this way.

There is certainly evidence in the frequency with which oists discuss these factionalism and personal gossip issues (note which are the longest threads) that this may be happening to enough of a degree to cause damage that can ill be afforded.

There is certainly evidence that the Rand/Branden breakup destroyed a successful cooperative partnership, an organizational structure...and a movement that was growing phenomenally.

I could probably cite a dozen more examples of how Oists have been particularly bad at inflicting wounds on themselves instead of cooperating.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 6/04, 9:56pm)

Post 102

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:18pm

What I did not make clear in my previous post, when I stated that the enemies of Objectivism must be enjoying the Oist internecine feuding, I was not just referring to PAR/MYWAR/PARC, but also to the organizational factionalism of ARI/TOC/SOLO/etc. Especially, the purges, self-imposed isolationism, and rewriting of Objectivist texts and history that ARI has become known for. When others refer to Objectivism as "cultish," the continuance of these self-destructive practices are all the proof that they need. And this is tragic.

Post 103

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 2:44pm

Gerald -

Fantastic posts, a point I was hoping to make but wasn't quite eloquent enough to do ;-)

Welcome to RoR - We don't fight (Much!)

Andy.

Post 104

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 3:31pm

Gerald Biggers has said very economically, esp. in post #99, what I've said far less concisely elsewhere. Excellent posts, Mr. Biggers.

Post 105

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 3:17pm

Mr. Biggers and Mr. Bidinotto,

The Branden books had more reasons to give the enemies of Objectivism cause for delight than PARC could ever give to them. The Brandens' allegations are often used by Rand's opponents. This will not be the case for PARC.

Mr. Bidinotto at one time you thought the subject of PAR was worthy of attention, and that Peter Schwartz and others were calling for evasion of important history. This curious about face has yet to be accounted for.

(Edited by James Stevens Valliant
on 6/07, 3:18pm)

Post 106

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - 4:01pm

Mr. Valliant,

How many copies has your book sold?

Robert Campbell

PS. If you don't know, your publisher is holding out on you...

Post 107

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 10:54am

James Valliant writes:

The Branden books had more reasons to give the enemies of Objectivism cause for delight than PARC could ever give to them. The Brandens' allegations are often used by Rand's opponents. This will not be the case for PARC.

This claim is ludicrous. This book will probably stand for all time as the most tendentious and intellectually dishonest book on Objectivism ever written. You can taste the purple Kool-Aid from the first page.

If the goal of this book was to make all Objectivists look like cultists and Ayndroids -- mission accomplished.

If the goal of this book was to debilitate, discredit, and debase Ayn Rand and all her good works -- mission accomplished.

If the goal of this book was to shame, embarrass, and humiliate the genuinely great philosophy of Objectivism and all of its noble practicioners -- mission accomplished.

If the goal of this book was to make Objectivism and Objectivists seem stunningly irrational and religious -- and to blacken them for all time in the eyes of the general public -- mission accomplished.

Post 108

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 11:15am

Andre, at the risk of sounding like a Valliant-oid, have you actually read PARC? Because I just don't see how anyone could say that the book is damaging to Objectivism.
(Edited by Laure Chipman on 6/08, 11:16am)

Post 109

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 12:17pm

Andre,
I have to disagree with most of your assertions on the achievements of PARC. If anything, the book would mostly reflect the intellect and the mindset of its author. A reasonable and intelligent person would not judge Ayn Rand, the Objectivist philosophy, and any individual Objectivist simply based on a single book such as this.

Perhaps I should paraphrase your statements and see if it makes more sense:

"If the goal of this book was to make its author look like cultist and Ayndroid -- mission accomplished.

If the goal of this book was to debilitate, discredit, and debase its author and all his good works -- mission accomplished.

If the goal of this book was to shame, embarrass, and humiliate its author -- mission accomplished.

If the goal of this book was to make its author seem stunningly irrational and religious -- and to blacken him in the eyes of the general public -- mission accomplished."

Post 110

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 2:54pm

The main people who care about Objectivist schisms are other Objectivists.

Many people don't know who Rand was at all. Many others simply discredit her and her philosophy because she was a hypocritical cultist. About any anti rand book you could read references at least PAR (the kinder gentler of the two Branden accounts).

The Branden accounts made Objectivism look like a joke.

---Landon

Post 111

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 4:53pm

Objectivity speaks for itself, as does its opposite. Laure, Landon, this stuff just puts PARC in italics.

Post 112

Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 8:05pm

Landon wrote:

> The Branden accounts made Objectivism look like a joke

I completely disagree with this. But I'm not going to debate the point.
--
Jeff

Post 113

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 7:24am

... or consider the evidence, either?

Post 114

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 7:25am

Jihads are not evidence.....

[and yes, the book has been read, quite carefully in fact - and filed]

(Edited by robert malcom on 6/09, 7:26am)

Post 115

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 12:06pm

> The Branden accounts made Objectivism look like a joke

I completely disagree with this. But I'm not going to debate the point.

This is actually quite simple. The body of works from Ayn Rand, fictions and non-fictions, as well as her own life stand behind the philosophy of Objectivism. Nobody's accounts or books can make it a joke unless the person is so inclined as to rely on others to tell them what the Objectivism is, or who Any Rand is.

Ayn Rand's works have been out there since the 50s and 60s and they have never changed. The basic facts of Rand's life have also been known for the past 20 years or so. And yet, some people's opinions about Rand and Objectivism can sway so violently from one extreme to another just because of what he said or she said at one moment or another. The problem is neither Rand nor the philosophy. It is all in those people's own minds.

Post 116

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 2:19pm

I agree, Hong.

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 3:13pm

There's a saying in the comics industry... every issue is somebody's first. Every single thing that is published in association with a thing or an idea is some person's first exposure.

PAR is the most well known biography of Rand there is, it's even been made into a film.

In PAR we see this neurotic nightmare version of Ms. Robinson going after a boy half her age and putting all these intimidating attributes on him (and everyone else she spends five minutes with). And gleefully using a philosophy of individualism to turn a bunch of bright young students into weak little worms of yes-men. We see a woman focused on values driving her "highest value" (a pathetic sad sack of a cuckhold) into a prolonged suicide.

We hear a little bit of her great ideas (which she disowns much of the time in privilaged conversations). But most importantly we see yet another philosophical system developed that was "good in theory but hopless in practice."

It doesn't jive. From every verifiable quote of Frank O'Conner I read I saw the template for Roark and Francisco's sense of humor, I did not see the pathetic wimp PAR portrayed. From every word Rand wrote I saw a woman who got a lot from developing a philosophy which was designed to be lived without contradiction or hypocrisy... I did not see a woman who listed a number of arbitrary rules she tried to shoehorn anyone she associated with into.

But I've said my piece. I've looked at the last dozen or so posts I've made... it's on a topic I find unpleasent and it's the only thing that's spurred me to post here lately.

I'd rather spend my time on things I enjoy so this will be my last post on this subject here.

---Landon

Post 118

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 3:56pm

In PAR we see this neurotic nightmare version of Ms. Robinson...

No, Landon, it is not "we" but "you" who sees what you see here. Obviously, many people including myself got a quite different picture of Ms. Rand after reading PAR .

I want to put up a test based on your last post. Among the underlined phrases, which is opinion (Landon's opinion)? and which is fact?

"In PAR we see this neurotic nightmare version of Ms. Robinson going after a boy half her age and putting all these intimidating attributes on him (and everyone else she spends five minutes with). And gleefully using a philosophy of individualism to turn a bunch of bright young students into weak little worms of yes-men. We see a woman focused on values driving her "highest value" (a pathetic sad sack of a cuckhold) into a prolonged suicide."

(BTW, I've read PAR and have no idea what the last sentence is about.)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 6/09, 3:59pm)

Post 119

Friday, June 9, 2006 - 6:27pm