Was Rand a nice lady?
Acar
gracious, patient and generous. Well, duh! So can everyone I know. These
are traits which make life endurable for humans from Adolph Hitler, through
Mafia dons to serial killers and child molesters. Evil does not always
manifest by the absence of virtue but it is more typically evident by the
presence of vice.
Can you imagine a woman who deliberately brings unbearable moral pressure on
a weak husband to allow her to have sexual intercourse with a younger man
once a week, and who, under the color of philosophy and reason, uses her
intellectual power and her status as moral mentor to pressure a weak
disciple to let her use the disciple's husband for sex on a scheduled weekly
basis? Can you fathom the massive and despicable hypocrisy of thanking the
reluctant spouses for their generosity and praising them for their
rationality?
If the spouses had accepted for its rationality the proposal with an
unburdened spirit, (somewhat comparable but for different reasons to the
willing participation of "swingers" in similar arrangements) one would
simply allow a situation in which consenting adults are acting freely. But
it is a matter of record that both spouses were battling from the start with
a severe conflict between their deepest instincts and the doctrinal pressure
that was brought to bear by the person who they trusted as mentor and moral
guide. Ayn Rand was not just their moral counselor. She was the author and
discoverer of their moral code.
How can anyone deny the parallel between that situation and the cult leaders
who pressure disciples into allowing the use of their spouses for sexual
services, based on doctrinal claims? Excusing and dismissing that level of
hubris and manipulativeness as a private matter of a personal nature,
unrelated to her function as leader is a level of blindness similarly
comparable to what is experienced under true cult situations. How can the
situation be separated from the philosophy if it was the philosophy that was
invoked as the moral basis for the arrangement? And when error bore fruit
thus exposing the bankruptcy of the alleged rationale, the general public
was mislead and protected from knowledge of this arrangement which in Rand's
words to the spouses was mandated by morality and reason. The public was
entitled to this instruction and should have been encouraged to follow suit
in their own lives. The manipulation and the misuse of moral force are
unequivocal evidence of a serious character problem, one which clearly
suggest psychopathic tendencies.
Here's another window into a psychopathic brain:
Two quotes:
1972:
Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?
AR: If some people put up with dictatorship-as some do in Soviet Russia and
as they did in Germany-they deserve whatever their government deserves.
1976:
Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also
that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive
work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?
AR: This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone
can entertain it seriously. It assumes that an individual inside a country
can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he
accepts (because he hasn't left the country). It is the idea that others
must surrender to aggression-in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who
won't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people.
In Soviet Russia, there aren't very many innocent ones-and they're mainly in
concentration camps.
If you could have a life independent of the system, so that you wouldn't be
drawn into an unjust war, you would not need to be concerned about politics.
But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives
are dependent on it-because a political system, good or bad, is established
in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.
Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense
for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at
you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by
force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy
you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life."
end of quote
The above quotes, uttered 4 years apart, lend a new meaning to the term
"collateral damage." It means kill all the sons of bitches and in the
elegant words of Kolker, let Allah sort out the bodies. If they are
dissident mothers with children in their arms, KILL'EM! KILL THEM ALL, GOD
DAMN IT!
Where is db cooper when we need him to wipe the froth off her psychopathic
mouth?
So Barbara Branden loved her dearly and still does. Rand called it the
sanction of the victim.
Snowdog
Kasparov personally either, but brother, he can sure play a damn good game
of chess!!!
Snowdog
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:002b01c1c0e1$3d35dfc0$6401...@cinci.rr.com...
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snowdog" <whisper...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
> I don't think I would've liked her personally. I don't think I'd like
Garry
> Kasparov personally either, but brother, he can sure play a damn good game
> of chess!!!
>
> Snowdog
That's an interesting reply. But on the other hand if it were the case that
Kasparov was bad chess player, and if it could be objectively demonstrated
that he does not understand chess theory and he lectured on chess and talked
a big game but lost the big match, what would a rational man conclude?
Suppose that person P proposes theory T which is predicated on the nature of
O. But when in experimental practice P manipulates O according to T, the
result is a huge bust, you may conclude that P actually does not understand
the nature of O.
Objectivism is predicated on a specific claim about the nature of man. Rand
brought her theory to bear in the sex-swap experiment. The experiment
resulted in a huge bust and ruined lives because Rand lacked proper
understanding of human nature, on which concept Objectivism is based.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snowdog" <whisper...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
> I don't think I would've liked her personally. I don't think I'd like
Garry
> Kasparov personally either, but brother, he can sure play a damn good game
> of chess!!!
The quotes about slaughter of the innocent was not about the chess player's
personality. It was about the chess player's theory of chess.
Ken Gardner
[General (justified, IMO) criticism of Rand's affair with Branden
omitted]
Is it your contention that this affair is a necessary consequence of
Objectivism as a philosophy? If so, one would expect to find lots of
Objectivists engaging in similar behavior. Where are they?
[...]
> Here's another window into a psychopathic brain:
[...]
Is it your contention that Objectivism as a philosophy leads to
psychopathic consequences?
> Two quotes:
> 1972:
> Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?
> AR: If some people put up with dictatorship-as some do in Soviet Russia and
> as they did in Germany-they deserve whatever their government deserves.
Bad questioner, if he or she let her get away with a non-answer such as
this one. But is it your contention that Objectivism, as a philosophy,
permits a person to dodge this question?
> 1976:
> Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also
> that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive
> work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?
> AR: This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone
> can entertain it seriously.
This is also a stupid response, but again I ask: is it because of the
philosophy or is it because of other reasons.
> It assumes that an individual inside a country
> can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he
> accepts (because he hasn't left the country).
A non-objective response, IMO.
> It is the idea that others
> must surrender to aggression-in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who
> won't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people.
Same comment. The questioner has not asked, or assumed, that we
shouldn't go to war merely because innocent people might be killed.
> In Soviet Russia, there aren't very many innocent ones-and they're mainly in
> concentration camps.
Not a good response -- probably overgeneralizing as well as being non-
objective. But again, Objectivism as a philosophy doesn't endorse
logically fallacious reasoning.
> If you could have a life independent of the system, so that you wouldn't be
> drawn into an unjust war, you would not need to be concerned about politics.
> But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives
> are dependent on it-because a political system, good or bad, is established
> in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.
And I don't think that this statement would stand up well under close
scrutiny, either...
> Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense
> for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at
> you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by
> force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy
> you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life."
If she would have answered with this statement, instead of everything
that came before it, it would have been a more defensible answer, albeit
an incomplete one.
[...]
Ken
David Friedman
Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
Objectivism is supposedly "the philosophy of Ayn Rand." But even the
most Orthodox Objectivists don't, in my experience, actually claim that
everything Rand said on every subject was correct and is included in
Objectivism. While I think some of them are unreasonably reluctant to
concede that she was wrong on some points, none of them reject that
possibility in principle, and most (in my experience) reject her
specific claim that a woman shouldn't want to be president.
Hence there is no inconsistency in someone saying that Objectivist is
correct but some of Rand's statements are wrong.
The place where I think there is a problem is in the idea that one can
easily identify the boundary between which of Rand's views are really an
essential part of the philosophy and which are not. To take one obvious
case, almost all Objectivists take it for granted that one cannot be
both an Objectivist and an anarchist. Almost none of the people who take
this view have an adequate understanding of the anarcho-capitalist
position, hence they are in a poor position to judge whether the
disagreement stems from a fundamental philosophical issue, or merely a
question of application.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Charles Novins
news:MPG.16eac6974...@news.charter.net...
> [General (justified, IMO) criticism of Rand's affair with Branden
> omitted]
CHARLES NOVINS:
Barely justified, in mine. Anyone who comments on this is speaking from
extremely dubious public pronouncements from two of the parties involved,
and probably no statement at all from the third (Frank O'Connor). It's
anybody's guess as to what really occurred, and the best you can say is
"assuming such-and-such version, it looked nasty."
Worse, though, is Acar's concern with whether Rand is "a nice lady." It
wouldn't be the first time Acar confused Objectivism with religion. Once
again, if Jesus was a guy who liked to steal, then the entire Christian
religion/philosophy is in deep trouble insofar as it tells the flock not to
steal. If Rand ran a concentration camp, it tells you nothing about the
propriety of the principle of non-initiation of force, which she correctly
identified in her writings.
Acar has made intelligent, substantive, contra-objectivist arguments in the
past. This, however, is crap. Earth to Acar: Rand does not = Objectivism.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds
discuss people." - unknown.
dbuel
cinci.rr.com>...
> The above quotes, uttered 4 years apart, lend a new meaning to the term
> "collateral damage."
Hmm ... no, not really. That's what "collateral damage" already was.
Ken Gardner
> Barely justified, in mine. Anyone who comments on this is speaking from
> extremely dubious public pronouncements from two of the parties involved,
> and probably no statement at all from the third (Frank O'Connor). It's
> anybody's guess as to what really occurred, and the best you can say is
> "assuming such-and-such version, it looked nasty."
Okay, fair enough.
> Worse, though, is Acar's concern with whether Rand is "a nice lady." It
> wouldn't be the first time Acar confused Objectivism with religion. Once
> again, if Jesus was a guy who liked to steal, then the entire Christian
> religion/philosophy is in deep trouble insofar as it tells the flock not to
> steal. If Rand ran a concentration camp, it tells you nothing about the
> propriety of the principle of non-initiation of force, which she correctly
> identified in her writings.
That's the real point that I was trying to make through my questions.
What does any of this stuff, even if true, have to do with the merits of
Objectivism as a philosophy?
[...]
Ken
Ken Gardner
[...]
> The place where I think there is a problem is in the idea that one can
> easily identify the boundary between which of Rand's views are really an
> essential part of the philosophy and which are not.
This is always a tough question. Let me toss out some general
guidelines.
Obviously, one must agree with the basic axioms of existence,
consciousness, and identity, along with their respective corollaries
such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle, and
the primacy of existence to the complete exclusion of the primacy of
consciousness (a/k/a realism, and not idealism).
Epistemologically, one must accept the epistemological axioms of free
will and the validity of the senses and that the fundamental role of
consciousness is to identify, without contradiction, that which exists
("Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification"). IMO, one
must accept her theory of concepts as the correct explanation of how we
can and should identify existents on a conceptual level.
One must fully, completely, and unconditionally accept the
correspondence theory of truth, to the exclusion (with extreme
prejudice) of the coherence theory. In other words, we are trying to
grasp if our statements correspond to the facts (if we are identifying
that which actually exists), not whether we are justified in thinking
that we are.
Ethically, one must accept the choice to live one's own life as a
rational human being, with all that such a choice implies and requires.
Politically, one must accept the principle of individual rights,
beginning with the fundamental life of every human being to his own
life.
This list may not include everything, but I would regard every one of
them as an essential (as in indispensable) part of Objectivism.
Ken
Charles Novins
> This is always a tough question. Let me toss out some general
> guidelines.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Great question. Really needs a new thread since this one references Acar's
pointless attack on the "lady." But, whatever, I have some questions about
what you've said here.
KEN:
> Obviously, one must agree with the basic axioms of existence,
> consciousness, and identity, along with their respective corollaries
> such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle, and
> the primacy of existence to the complete exclusion of the primacy of
> consciousness (a/k/a realism, and not idealism).
>
> Epistemologically, one must accept the epistemological axioms of free
> will and the validity of the senses and that the fundamental role of
> consciousness is to identify, without contradiction, that which exists
> ("Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification"). IMO, one
> must accept her theory of concepts as the correct explanation of how we
> can and should identify existents on a conceptual level.
>
> One must fully, completely, and unconditionally accept the
> correspondence theory of truth, to the exclusion (with extreme
> prejudice) of the coherence theory. In other words, we are trying to
> grasp if our statements correspond to the facts (if we are identifying
> that which actually exists), not whether we are justified in thinking
> that we are.
CHARLES:
So far I agree, and well-stated, BTW. Moving along...
KEN:
> Ethically, one must accept the choice to live one's own life as a
> rational human being, with all that such a choice implies and requires.
>
> Politically, one must accept the principle of individual rights,
> beginning with the fundamental life of every human being to his own
> life.
CHARLES:
Once you go beyond metaphysics and epistemology, I am not so sure that
Objectivism qua objectivism (I'm kidding with the last two words) sets out
specific points that require universal agreement of
objectivists-of-the-cloth. This comes up a lot at the political level. I
agree 100% with David that there is NOT a straight line leading from
"existence exists" to "anarchy sucks," as Rand effectively suggested. I'm
not an anarchist, but I've reviewed the arguments of DF, GHS, and others and
I'll be damned if I can dismiss them, and certainly not based on core-level
objectivism.
Rand often suggested a line where her (and philosophy's) analysis ended and
the subject was to be handed off to some expert in a given field, such as
economics or political science. But it's clear to me that she frequently
drew the line in the wrong place. Being a lawyer, I see this with respect
to her legal views more frequently, but the problem extended to other areas
as well. For my money, a sane world would have departments in every
university working out the details left unsettled by Rand. And Peikoff's
"closed system" rant
Finally, two things: (1) Your (Ken's) statement of the ethical and
political axes above are vague enough (e.g., "...all that such a choice
implies and requires...") so that I can't find fault. And (2) I want to
make clear my discussion of Rand, above, is merely to reference her
writings, since I just "dissed" Acar (quotes are because I actually respect
him) for his discussion of her.
Fred Weiss
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.16eac6974...@news.charter.net...
> > Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of
self-defense
> > for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone
comes at
> > you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer
him by
> > force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to
destroy
> > you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life."
>
> If she would have answered with this statement, instead of everything
> that came before it, it would have been a more defensible answer, albeit
> an incomplete one.
If this statement is true, you don't really even need all the rest, true -
though in my view it helps to clarify the reasons underlying it in most
situations.
Do you no longer agree with what you yourself said just a few days ago?
"...There are many who contend that the
Allies deliberately targeted civilians in places like Dresden and
Hamburg in an attempt to break German morale. Also, many of these
"innocent civilians" also build the tanks, the planes, the guns, and the
bullets that the enemy uses to kill us. Or they transport these things
to the battlefield. Or they feed, clothe, shelter, and care for enemy
soldiers, pilots, and sailors. Or they vote assholes like Hitler into
power in the first place, and then look the other way when he starts
killing millions of _genuinely_ innocent people and launches the world
into war."
This is precisely what Ayn Rand would have said. Why don't you interpret her
earlier comments in this light?
Fred Weiss
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Friedman" <dd...@best.com>
>
> Objectivism is supposedly "the philosophy of Ayn Rand." But even the
> most Orthodox Objectivists don't, in my experience, actually claim that
> everything Rand said on every subject was correct and is included in
> Objectivism. While I think some of them are unreasonably reluctant to
> concede that she was wrong on some points, none of them reject that
> possibility in principle, and most (in my experience) reject her
> specific claim that a woman shouldn't want to be president.
I assume that the above claim was not represented as flowing directly from
Objectivist principle. I have not heard of anything in the Objectivist
derivations from existence, consciousness and identity that commands a
fundamental qualitative difference between the role of the sexes in
politics. This could have been personal views based on remote non-mandatory
philosophical implications
But questions like that of innocents at war and the evilness of Kant, for
example, do flow (in her mind) from the view of reality that she invented,
and she and Objectivism must be held responsible for it, IMO.
Ken Gardner
[...]
> > Ethically, one must accept the choice to live one's own life as a
> > rational human being, with all that such a choice implies and requires.
> > Politically, one must accept the principle of individual rights,
> > beginning with the fundamental life of every human being to his own
> > life.
> Once you go beyond metaphysics and epistemology, I am not so sure that
> Objectivism qua objectivism (I'm kidding with the last two words) sets out
> specific points that require universal agreement of
> objectivists-of-the-cloth.
I agree, although -- as I indicated above -- I don't think that you
could limit the essentials solely to metaphysics and epistemology. But
note that I said very little beyond what I would regard as the axioms
(at least in the sense of starting points) of ethics and politics,
respectively.
> This comes up a lot at the political level. I
> agree 100% with David that there is NOT a straight line leading from
> "existence exists" to "anarchy sucks," as Rand effectively suggested. I'm
> not an anarchist, but I've reviewed the arguments of DF, GHS, and others and
> I'll be damned if I can dismiss them, and certainly not based on core-level
> objectivism.
I would go even further back, into ethics. Here, if anything, I'm as
much or more Aristotelian than Randian, yet there is no major tenet of
Rand's ethics with which I disagree. I think the two complement each
other nicely.
> Rand often suggested a line where her (and philosophy's) analysis ended and
> the subject was to be handed off to some expert in a given field, such as
> economics or political science. But it's clear to me that she frequently
> drew the line in the wrong place. Being a lawyer, I see this with respect
> to her legal views more frequently, but the problem extended to other areas
> as well. For my money, a sane world would have departments in every
> university working out the details left unsettled by Rand. And Peikoff's
> "closed system" rant
Darn, looks like you stopped writing here. :) I fully agree. Knowledge
is never "closed." And drawing lines can be a very tricky business,
often much trickier than Rand herself supposed on some subjects.
> Finally, two things: (1) Your (Ken's) statement of the ethical and
> political axes above are vague enough (e.g., "...all that such a choice
> implies and requires...") so that I can't find fault.
I was vague on purpose. I think that on the subject of ethics,
Aristotle had many important things to add (none of which is
inconsistent with Objectivist ethics) about what constitutes the good
life of a human being qua rational being. Also, I don't think that
Rand's list of seven virtues is necessarily exhaustive, or even that her
list of three cardinal values, while accurate, is necessarily helpful.
All of this is going to affect politics, because politics is essentially
about how each individual can live the good life, the life proper to a
rational being, in a rational society.
> And (2) I want to
> make clear my discussion of Rand, above, is merely to reference her
> writings, since I just "dissed" Acar (quotes are because I actually respect
> him) for his discussion of her.
Acar is -- to borrow a line from a movie I despise -- often like a box
of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get.
Ken
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Novins" <taxs...@free-market.net>
>
> Worse, though, is Acar's concern with whether Rand is "a nice lady." It
> wouldn't be the first time Acar confused Objectivism with religion. Once
> again, if Jesus was a guy who liked to steal, then the entire Christian
> religion/philosophy is in deep trouble insofar as it tells the flock not
to
> steal. If Rand ran a concentration camp, it tells you nothing about the
> propriety of the principle of non-initiation of force, which she correctly
> identified in her writings.
>
> Acar has made intelligent, substantive, contra-objectivist arguments in
the
> past. This, however, is crap. Earth to Acar: Rand does not =
Objectivism.
> "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds
> discuss people." - unknown
Thanks for not very much.
From your sig I would gather, erroneously, that I'm a great mind since I
made emphatically the point that in the matter of the sexual affair the act
can not be separated from the philosophy. Rand devised a philosphy on what I
consider a theory oh human nature. She explicitely and emphatically invoked
her philosophy in insisting that the spouses act "rationally". The affair
was an application of her philosophy of rationality. ONLY for philosophical
reasons did the spouses consent to the arrangement. How can you say then
that the incident has nothing to do with Objectivism?
The reason why I think that the incident is important is because it is not
fiction. In fiction Rand could make the principles of her philosophy work.
In The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged there are love affairs from which you
are supposed to derive lessons about rationality at work. I assume that in
the end rationality acquited itself elegantly in these fictional love
affairs. Rand controlled the vertical and she controlled the horizontal of
the outer limits. But now Rand whose philosophy rises or falls by the
correctness of her understanding of human nature brings that philosphy to
bear on the real life of four people. The result is disaster. Shattered
lives. The fact that Rand was a nasty woman is of interest only to the
extent that her philosophy made her nasty and when she applied it to her
sexual life it had nasty consequences. If the incident proves that Rand did
not have sufficient understanding of human nature, and if Objectivist theory
is based on Rand's understanding of human nature (it is), then you have my
advice: toss it :-)
I was talking ideas, you heard personalities. What a great mind I must be!
.
Ken Gardner
> Do you no longer agree with what you yourself said just a few days ago?
> "...There are many who contend that the
> Allies deliberately targeted civilians in places like Dresden and
> Hamburg in an attempt to break German morale. Also, many of these
> "innocent civilians" also build the tanks, the planes, the guns, and the
> bullets that the enemy uses to kill us. Or they transport these things
> to the battlefield. Or they feed, clothe, shelter, and care for enemy
> soldiers, pilots, and sailors. Or they vote assholes like Hitler into
> power in the first place, and then look the other way when he starts
> killing millions of _genuinely_ innocent people and launches the world
> into war."
No, I still fully agree with it.
> This is precisely what Ayn Rand would have said. Why don't you interpret her
> earlier comments in this light?
Because I think the facts and circumstances in the former Soviet Union
are completely different from the ones that we know existed in WWII.
Believe me, if we got into a war with those people, and they helped
support the Soviet military against our military, then I say send them
to hell just like the Germans and Japanese enablers of Hitler and Tojo,
respectively, in WWII.
Ken
George Dance
snip
> Can you imagine a woman who deliberately brings unbearable moral pressure on
> a weak husband to allow her to have sexual intercourse with a younger man
> once a week, and who, under the color of philosophy and reason, uses her
> intellectual power and her status as moral mentor to pressure a weak
> disciple to let her use the disciple's husband for sex on a scheduled weekly
> basis? Can you fathom the massive and despicable hypocrisy of thanking the
> reluctant spouses for their generosity and praising them for their
> rationality?
>
> If the spouses had accepted for its rationality the proposal with an
> unburdened spirit, (somewhat comparable but for different reasons to the
> willing participation of "swingers" in similar arrangements) one would
> simply allow a situation in which consenting adults are acting freely. But
> it is a matter of record that both spouses were battling from the start with
> a severe conflict between their deepest instincts and the doctrinal pressure
> that was brought to bear by the person who they trusted as mentor and moral
> guide. Ayn Rand was not just their moral counselor. She was the author and
> discoverer of their moral code.
But I don't think any of this was a result of the Objectivist moral
code. Rather, for both Brandens and O'Connor to get pressured into
this arrangement, that they did not want, and did only because Rand
wanted it, sounds exactly like what I was referring to, in our debate
last month, as 'altruism'. (Though, I'll repeat, I don't care if
that's the word we use for it - all I insist is that this [doing
things one does not want, simply because others want it (and NOT
because one wants to do it to please the other; one doesn't want it,
just does it out of 'moral pressure')] is a real motivator for
behaviour, and this [etc.] is exactly what *Rand* identified as
'altruism.'
In AS, Rand actually wrote a scene which contained this very conflict:
Dagny is staying with Galt in the Gulch, and Francisco D'Anconia (her
lover in adolescence, and who is still in love with her) asks her to
stay at his home for her last week there. Dagny leaves the decision
to Galt, and Galt (after explaining, as his logical persona dictates,
that in leaving the choice up to him she is still making a choice)
refuses. What Dagny feels is 'relief':
"Part of the intensity of her relief ... was the shock of a contrast:
she had seen, with the sudden, immediate vividness of sensory
perception, an exact picture of what the code of self-sacrifice would
have meant, if enacted by the three of them. Galt, giving up the
woman he wanted, for the sake of his friend, faking his greatest
feeling out of existence.... she, turning for consolation to a second
choice, faking a love she did not feel, being willing to fake, since
her will to self-deceit was the essential required for Galt's
self-sacrifice.... Fransisco, struggling in the fog of a counterfeit
reality, his life a fraud staged by the two who were dearest to him
and most trusted, struggling to grasp what was missing from his
happiness.... the three of them, who had had all the gifts of
existence spread out before them, ending up as embittered hulks, who
cry in despair that life is frustration - the frustration of not being
able to make reality real." (797-98)
> How can anyone deny the parallel between that situation and the cult leaders
> who pressure disciples into allowing the use of their spouses for sexual
> services, based on doctrinal claims? Excusing and dismissing that level of
> hubris and manipulativeness as a private matter of a personal nature,
> unrelated to her function as leader is a level of blindness similarly
> comparable to what is experienced under true cult situations.
When Rand discovered and fell in love with Branden, she was determined
that she would not sacrifice him. But here she was apparently
'selfish' in the conventional sense; she considered only her own wants
and needs; or, if she did consider the others, she believed they could
be enrolled into this arrangement by her reasoning. She never
realized that they accepted her terms only by buying into the loathed
concept of 'altruism' (in her sense) - that her action brought this
poison into the very centre of her circle, and ultimately destroyed
it, just as (in AS) it would have destroyed Galt's moral revolution at
its centre.
Fred Weiss
"George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0203...@posting.google.com...
> When Rand discovered and fell in love with Branden, she was determined
> that she would not sacrifice him. But here she was apparently
> 'selfish' in the conventional sense; she considered only her own wants
> and needs...
This is really beneath you, George. This is pure speculation based
exclusively on the reporting of two known and self-admitted liars.
There is only one thing we know for sure - that she badly misjudged the
Brandens, for which she paid dearly.
Fred Weiss
George Dance
c1b96...@news.charter.net>...
> > This is precisely what Ayn Rand would have said. Why don't you interpre
> > t her
> > earlier comments in this light?
>
> Because I think the facts and circumstances in the former Soviet Union
> are completely different from the ones that we know existed in WWII.
> Believe me, if we got into a war with those people, and they helped
> support the Soviet military against our military, then I say send them
> to hell just like the Germans and Japanese enablers of Hitler and Tojo,
> respectively, in WWII.
>
> Ken
I think Rand had a background belief (which was quite common in the
60s and 70s) that the Soviets were in a war with us, by their own
intention, and that they pursued co-existence and detente and all the
rest as a matter of military strategy; they avoided conventional
military warfare, because they might lose it, but carried on the war
by all other means possible.
If so, then her conclusion follows by the same reasoning as yours.
Can you accept that she did have such a premise, and that the
correctness of her conclusion rests on the correctness of that, rather
than on that of her reasoning?
Snowdog
interview or article would suffice (as long as it isn't a biased interview)
Snowdog
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:u84cgel...@corp.supernews.com...
Ken Gardner
> I think Rand had a background belief (which was quite common in the
> 60s and 70s) that the Soviets were in a war with us, by their own
> intention, and that they pursued co-existence and detente and all the
> rest as a matter of military strategy; they avoided conventional
> military warfare, because they might lose it, but carried on the war
> by all other means possible.
> If so, then her conclusion follows by the same reasoning as yours.
> Can you accept that she did have such a premise, and that the
> correctness of her conclusion rests on the correctness of that, rather
> than on that of her reasoning?
I can accept that she had such a premise. I'm not so sure that it
justifies her conclusions.
Ken
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
> "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6312c50b.0203...@posting.google.com...
> There is only one thing we know for sure - that she badly misjudged the
> Brandens, for which she paid dearly.
That she badly misjudged human nature, Fred, on understanding of which her
philosophy stands or falls.
Fred Weiss
"Snowdog" <whisper...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:h_rg8.7$DM1....@typhoon1.se.ipsvc.net...
> Known liars? Self-admitted liars? Can you produce evidence of this? Just
one
> interview or article would suffice (as long as it isn't a biased
interview)
You might read their books for starters. They're confessionals, you know.
Not honest ones but it's all there if you know how to read.
Apart from a whole array of specifics, they both admitted that they had
serious reservations about Objectivism while at the same time parading
themselves as the opposite, both to Ayn Rand and the world. They've
acknowledged that they are frauds. Nothing has changed in that regard with
either of them.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:009301c1c2d8$b4600280$6401...@cinci.rr.com...
You're equivocating as between "human nature" and judging a specific
individual.
Fred Weiss
Acar
>, they both admitted that they had
> serious reservations about Objectivism while at the same time parading
> themselves as the opposite, both to Ayn Rand and the world. They've
> acknowledged that they are frauds. Nothing has changed in that regard with
> either of them.
It is not trolling to point out that this is a common phenomenon in cults.
Moral pressure is felt from the leader to the point that they fear to
confront and acknowledge their doubts. Their wills are debilitated and they
continue to be carried by the momentum of teacher's lead.
Ken Gardner
> You might read their books for starters. They're confessionals, you know.
> Not honest ones but it's all there if you know how to read.
Is there any serious dispute that the so-called Branden affair occurred
at all? If so, that would be news to me -- not that I really care if it
did occur because I don't see how it invalidates any material element of
Objectivism as a philosophy. But if it didn't occur, or if there is any
serious doubt that it did occur, that would be something that I would
like to know.
[...]
Ken
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
> "Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
> news:009301c1c2d8$b4600280$6401...@cinci.rr.com...
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com>
> > Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 9:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
> >
> >
> > > "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6312c50b.0203...@posting.google.com...
> > > There is only one thing we know for sure - that she badly misjudged
the
> > > Brandens, for which she paid dearly.
> >
> > That she badly misjudged human nature, Fred, on understanding of which
her
> > philosophy stands or falls.
>
> You're equivocating as between "human nature" and judging a specific
> individual.
Explain yourself. I do not understand this argument. Do you mean that Rand
didn't choose to be rational in that respect and that is why the experiment
failed? How should she have acted if she had acted rationally to achieve her
goal? Or do you mean that she attributed to the others a level of
rationality that they did not posses? If the latter, that is precisely what
I mean by failure to understand human nature, namely that people do not
react as she was entitled to expect from her assumptions. If she couldn't
make it work, and her best disciples who were also teachers made every
effort to make it work but failed, why should we believe that it's a sound
approach that will save the world?
Snowdog
>
>
>
> You might read their books for starters. They're confessionals, you know.
> Not honest ones but it's all there if you know how to read.
>
> Apart from a whole array of specifics, they both admitted that they had
> serious reservations about Objectivism while at the same time parading
> themselves as the opposite, both to Ayn Rand and the world. They've
> acknowledged that they are frauds. Nothing has changed in that regard with
> either of them.
>
> Fred Weiss
>
I did read Nathaniels book "Judgment Day", and I saw Barbara's movie. You
have no basis to claim their confessionals to be dishonest, even moreso
since they, unlike Rand, eventually admitted the truth. I read nowhere in
his book that he had any reservations about Objectivism as a philopophy. I
would be interested to know if you can cite that reference. I don't think
you can. Only "reservations" I can remember him citing concerned the
relationship that Rand had emotionally coerced him and the other two
participants into.
They've never acknowledged that they are frauds. Again, an unfounded
assertion.
How do you know nothing has changed? Where do you get off saying things like
this about people you don't even know anything about? Does the fact that
Rand never *admitted* to deceiving her followers as to the real reasons for
her break with the Brandens make her more honest than them?
Snowdog
George Dance
orp.supernews.com>...
> "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6312c50b.0203...@posting.google.com...
>
Yes, it was; and badly put. I should have said "There was no evidence
that Rand's actions were altruistic (by her concept of altruism)" or
something to that effect. And wrenched out of context as it was, the
quote made it look like this speculation was the point of my post;
whereas the post stands or falls with or without it.
> based
> exclusively on the reporting of two known and self-admitted liars.
Unfortunately, the only evidence for what happened is their mutually
supportive testimony (each of which confirms that he or she was acting
on altruistic motives, BTW). If that evidence is disregarded, what
remains but pure speculation? In which case, how is it even possible
to reply to claims like the one I was replying to?
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
Two of the most accomplished scholars and teachers of Objectivism were
practicing altruism while trying their best to practice Objectivism? What
does that say about the relevance of Objectivism to real life?
The egoist member of the group got herself in a mess and destroyed lives by
practicing egoism? Is there any hope for egoism to work for happiness,
success and the enrichment of life when dealing with real people in real
life situations?
R Lawrence
>Is there any serious dispute that the so-called Branden affair occurred
>at all? If so, that would be news to me -- not that I really care if it
>did occur because I don't see how it invalidates any material element of
>Objectivism as a philosophy. But if it didn't occur, or if there is any
>serious doubt that it did occur, that would be something that I would
>like to know.
To my knowledge, no one who is actually familiar with the historical
material on the subject actually denies that an affair took place. Some of
the details may be subject to dispute. The larger problem in discussing
this subject is the amount of ignorance about it, including widespread
misunderstanding of what the Brandens have claimed to be fact. (Example:
Many people believe Rand and Branden were actually sleeping with one
another up until she broke with him in 1968. His account says their sexual
relationship was in the 1950s.)
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
R Lawrence
>I did read Nathaniels book "Judgment Day", and I saw Barbara's movie. You
>have no basis to claim their confessionals to be dishonest, even moreso
>since they, unlike Rand, eventually admitted the truth. I read nowhere in
>his book that he had any reservations about Objectivism as a philopophy. I
>would be interested to know if you can cite that reference. I don't think
>you can.
My recollection is that there are some passing references in Nathaniel
Branden's book to him having some reservations about Rand's ideas. I'm not
sure how easy they would be to find, however, because they are not
discussed prominently or at length.
> Only "reservations" I can remember him citing concerned the
>relationship that Rand had emotionally coerced him and the other two
>participants into.
Branden does not claim that Rand emotionally coerced him into anything.
>They've never acknowledged that they are frauds. Again, an unfounded
>assertion.
I have to agree that neither Branden has acknowledged being a fraud or liar
in the present. They do admit to having lied in the past, at least with
regard to concealing Nathaniel Branden's affair with Patrecia Scott and
reservations he had about his romantic relationship with Rand.
Snowdog
>
>
> Two of the most accomplished scholars and teachers of Objectivism were
> practicing altruism while trying their best to practice Objectivism? What
> does that say about the relevance of Objectivism to real life?
>
> The egoist member of the group got herself in a mess and destroyed lives
by
> practicing egoism? Is there any hope for egoism to work for happiness,
> success and the enrichment of life when dealing with real people in real
> life situations?
She wasn't practicing egoism. She was rationalizing her was into getting
something she wanted.
Rands greatest liability as a thinker was her disregard for the relevance of
psychology. Her total lack of understanding of romantic psychology can be
seen in Atlas Shrugged where Rearden realized that she has fallen in love
with someone else and he seems thrilled to hear the news. He sees her again
and all he can do is tell her how happy he is for her. There are other
examples to point out, but that one stands forefront in my mind.
She wasn't practicing egoism. And the Brandens didn't know they were
practicing altruism. How could they, when Rand convinced them that what she
proposed was 100% rational, practical, and in fact, necessary!? I think it
is when NB figured out that was, in fact, acting against his own
self-interest that he began having reservations. But by that time, how could
he break it off?
I think the fact that Nathaniel and Barbara Branden are no longer friends
lends significance to the fact that their stories concur, at least on the
relevant issues.
Snowdog
Bob Kolker
Snowdog wrote:
> with someone else and he seems thrilled to hear the news. He sees her again
> and all he can do is tell her how happy he is for her. There are other
> examples to point out, but that one stands forefront in my mind.
Alternate explantion. Rearden realizes he is not going to get anymore where
that
came from so he may as well be a good sport and wish Dagny well.
Bob Kolker
Snowdog
"R Lawrence" <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YRNg8.6140$Gu6.3...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
>
> My recollection is that there are some passing references in Nathaniel
> Branden's book to him having some reservations about Rand's ideas. I'm not
> sure how easy they would be to find, however, because they are not
> discussed prominently or at length.
Ah... yes. I seem to recall something to that effect. But they weren't
reservations about her premises, or any of the fundamental tenants of
Objectivism. In fact, he still adheres to them. But honestly, is there
really anyone alive who still believes she was right about everything?
> > Only "reservations" I can remember him citing concerned the
> >relationship that Rand had emotionally coerced him and the other two
> >participants into.
Right.... I might have phrased myself poorly... "Only "reservations" I can
remember him citing concerned the relationship that Rand had emotionally
coerced him and the other two participants into."
What I meant was that the only reservations I remember him mentioning wer
regarding this relationship; the fact that Rand emotionally coerced him was
rather out of context and I probably should've omitted it.
> Branden does not claim that Rand emotionally coerced him into anything.
I don't think it began as coersion. I think it ended up that way, and
Branden isn't the type of guy to relinquish responsibility for his actions
with some "She made me do it" type of excuse. But it is clear from the text
that once he was in, he was scared as hell to get out. He takes
responsibility, as well he should, but the emotional coersion that took
place is clear.
>
> I have to agree that neither Branden has acknowledged being a fraud or
liar
> in the present. They do admit to having lied in the past, at least with
> regard to concealing Nathaniel Branden's affair with Patrecia Scott and
> reservations he had about his romantic relationship with Rand.
Yes, and it's the painful admission of his past mistakes that, in my
opinion, lend credibility to his story. He's never claimed to be proud of
these things. I can tell you I've never heard of an orthodox Objectivist
coming out and admitting an embarrassing mistake they've made. There's at
least one thing they have in common with Priests and Ministers.
Snowdog
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
She does identify that as altruism, and your nalysis has important
implications. You are saying that in pursuit of her egoist goals she
pressured others into altruistic behaviour. You are also saying that she
sacrificed herself to no one, but sacrificed others to herself. The question
is whether this personal error reflects on the philosophy. In order to
decide that question honestly one needs to consider that this was an effort
of experts to apply their philosophy in a manner that defied convention
along the lines which the philosophy prescribes that convention must be
defied when confronting specific choices.
By blaming it on "altruism" you are also saying that Frank and Barbara are
responsible for ruining Ayn's and Nathaniel's life - balimg the victims. It
is clear at least to me that Ayn and Nathaniel bear the greatest burden of
reponsibility. If such is the case egoism is more at fault than alleged
altruism.
> In AS, Rand actually wrote a scene which contained this very conflict:
> Dagny is staying with Galt in the Gulch, and Francisco D'Anconia (her
> lover in adolescence, and who is still in love with her) asks her to
> stay at his home for her last week there. Dagny leaves the decision
> to Galt, and Galt (after explaining, as his logical persona dictates,
> that in leaving the choice up to him she is still making a choice)
> refuses. What Dagny feels is 'relief':
>
> "Part of the intensity of her relief ... was the shock of a contrast:
> she had seen, with the sudden, immediate vividness of sensory
> perception, an exact picture of what the code of self-sacrifice would
> have meant, if enacted by the three of them. Galt, giving up the
> woman he wanted, for the sake of his friend, faking his greatest
> feeling out of existence.... she, turning for consolation to a second
> choice, faking a love she did not feel, being willing to fake, since
> her will to self-deceit was the essential required for Galt's
> self-sacrifice.... Fransisco, struggling in the fog of a counterfeit
> reality, his life a fraud staged by the two who were dearest to him
> and most trusted, struggling to grasp what was missing from his
> happiness.... the three of them, who had had all the gifts of
> existence spread out before them, ending up as embittered hulks, who
> cry in despair that life is frustration - the frustration of not being
> able to make reality real." (797-98)
None of this stopped Rand from exacting the same sacrifice from the other
two. In the above scenario galt was not suceptible to pressure by the other
guy. It is one thing to leave the choice up to Barbara and another thing to
pressure as per the (elsewhere) available quotes.
> > How can anyone deny the parallel between that situation and the cult
leaders
> > who pressure disciples into allowing the use of their spouses for sexual
> > services, based on doctrinal claims? Excusing and dismissing that level
of
> > hubris and manipulativeness as a private matter of a personal nature,
> > unrelated to her function as leader is a level of blindness similarly
> > comparable to what is experienced under true cult situations.
>
>
> When Rand discovered and fell in love with Branden, she was determined
> that she would not sacrifice him. But here she was apparently
> 'selfish' in the conventional sense; she considered only her own wants
> and needs; or, if she did consider the others, she believed they could
> be enrolled into this arrangement by her reasoning. She never
> realized that they accepted her terms only by buying into the loathed
> concept of 'altruism' (in her sense) - that her action brought this
> poison into the very centre of her circle, and ultimately destroyed
> it, just as (in AS) it would have destroyed Galt's moral revolution at
> its centre.
You are correct in saying that Rand didn't understand why the philosophy was
bound to fail, but you are grieviously wrong in blaming her victims. For
shame! :-)
x
x
x
x
Acar
> > Branden does not claim that Rand emotionally coerced him into anything.
>
> I don't think it began as coersion. I think it ended up that way, and
> Branden isn't the type of guy to relinquish responsibility for his actions
> with some "She made me do it" type of excuse. But it is clear from the
text
> that once he was in, he was scared as hell to get out. He takes
> responsibility, as well he should, but the emotional coersion that took
> place is clear.
I can not imagine Branden seducing the older woman or she allowing herself
to be seduced. It seems much more likely that it was the older woman who
initiated the infatuation and lust. However that is speculation.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snowdog" <whisper...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
>
> "Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
> news:002c01c1c393$1d54f380$6401...@cinci.rr.com...
>
> She wasn't practicing egoism. She was rationalizing her was into getting
> something she wanted.
Isn't that a contradiction? She went about it honestly, getting the approval
of all concerned. What more does egoism as taught by Rand require?
> Rands greatest liability as a thinker was her disregard for the relevance
of
> psychology. Her total lack of understanding of romantic psychology
Are you saying that her understanding of human nature was off the mark?
>can be
> seen in Atlas Shrugged where Rearden realized that she has fallen in love
> with someone else and he seems thrilled to hear the news. He sees her
again
> and all he can do is tell her how happy he is for her. There are other
> examples to point out, but that one stands forefront in my mind.
>
> She wasn't practicing egoism. And the Brandens didn't know they were
> practicing altruism. How could they, when Rand convinced them that what
she
> proposed was 100% rational, practical, and in fact, necessary!?
And yet they were Objectivist scholars. Who is Objectivism for? Mr. Spock?
> I think it
> is when NB figured out that was, in fact, acting against his own
> self-interest that he began having reservations. But by that time, how
could
> he break it off?
>
> I think the fact that Nathaniel and Barbara Branden are no longer friends
> lends significance to the fact that their stories concur, at least on the
> relevant issues.
It can be rationally assumed that each of those two are telling the story as
honestly as they are capable of doing. Of course the circumstances will look
different to every participant.
x
x
x
x
George Dance
cinci.rr.com>...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 10:16 AM
> Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
snip
> > Unfortunately, the only evidence for what happened is their mutually
> > supportive testimony (each of which confirms that he or she was acting
> > on altruistic motives, BTW). If that evidence is disregarded, what
> > remains but pure speculation? In which case, how is it even possible
> > to reply to claims like the one I was replying to?
>
> Two of the most accomplished scholars and teachers of Objectivism were
> practicing altruism while trying their best to practice Objectivism? What
> does that say about the relevance of Objectivism to real life?
For one thing, that any authority figure is capable of error; so
there's no easy out of subordinating your own judgement to one.
There's a highly relevant application of Objectivism, right there.
> The egoist member of the group got herself in a mess and destroyed lives by
> practicing egoism? Is there any hope for egoism to work for happiness,
> success and the enrichment of life when dealing with real people in real
> life situations?
I think so; the relevant lesson from all this seems to be that one
should not make one's happiness dependent on others' actions or
beliefs; which sounds like something an egoist is capable of
appreciating.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
> Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:<002c01c1c393$1d54f380$6401a8c0@
> cinci.rr.com>...
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com>
> > Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 10:16 AM
> > Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
>
> snip
> > > Unfortunately, the only evidence for what happened is their mutually
> > > supportive testimony (each of which confirms that he or she was acting
> > > on altruistic motives, BTW). If that evidence is disregarded, what
> > > remains but pure speculation? In which case, how is it even possible
> > > to reply to claims like the one I was replying to?
> >
> > Two of the most accomplished scholars and teachers of Objectivism were
> > practicing altruism while trying their best to practice Objectivism?
What
> > does that say about the relevance of Objectivism to real life?
>
> For one thing, that any authority figure is capable of error;
What was the error?
> so
> there's no easy out of subordinating your own judgement to one.
> There's a highly relevant application of Objectivism, right there.
Frank and Barbara consented over something like 4 or 5 years. It will be
hard for you to claim that at the time they did not think that they were
acting of their own free will. The blunderous nature of the entire rationale
became clear only when it unraveled. Only then did they confront and
recognize their conflict. Human nature, George. Psychology. They believed
their intellect, not taking subjectivity into account.
> > The egoist member of the group got herself in a mess and destroyed lives
by
> > practicing egoism? Is there any hope for egoism to work for happiness,
> > success and the enrichment of life when dealing with real people in real
> > life situations?
>
> I think so; the relevant lesson from all this seems to be that one
> should not make one's happiness dependent on others' actions or
> beliefs; which sounds like something an egoist is capable of
> appreciating.
They acted rationally by their definition of rationality. Big mistake in
that context.
R Lawrence
>"R Lawrence" <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>My recollection is that there are some passing references in Nathaniel
>>Branden's book to him having some reservations about Rand's ideas. I'm not
>>sure how easy they would be to find, however, because they are not
>>discussed prominently or at length.
>
>Ah... yes. I seem to recall something to that effect. But they weren't
>reservations about her premises, or any of the fundamental tenants of
>Objectivism.
I don't recall exactly which ideas he mentions in his book, so you may be
right.
> In fact, he still adheres to them.
I haven't followed his recent work closely enough to say what he claims to
believe now. Certainly the explicit criticisms of Objectivism he made back
in the 80s were not particularly fundamental.
> But honestly, is there
>really anyone alive who still believes she was right about everything?
No one that I'm aware of. But try telling that to the "cult" critics.
<snip>
>>Branden does not claim that Rand emotionally coerced him into anything.
>
>I don't think it began as coersion. I think it ended up that way, and
>Branden isn't the type of guy to relinquish responsibility for his actions
>with some "She made me do it" type of excuse. But it is clear from the text
>that once he was in, he was scared as hell to get out. He takes
>responsibility, as well he should, but the emotional coersion that took
>place is clear.
A conclusion about whether any "emotional coercion" took place depends on
how one interprets the motivations of Rand and Branden. The most negative
interpretation towards Rand is that she engaged in emotional blackmail and
he was cowed by it. The most negative interpretation towards Branden is
that he manipulated her feelings for financial gain. I don't think we can
rely simply on one text to justify either interpretation (or any additional
alternatives), since each party has a clear motivation to portray the
situation in a way that deflects negative interpretations of his or her own
motivations.
Ken Gardner
> To my knowledge, no one who is actually familiar with the historical
> material on the subject actually denies that an affair took place.
But is there anyone, other than the Brandens, who claims to have first
hand knowledge that such an affair DID take place? If so, who are they,
and how credible are they?
> Some of the details may be subject to dispute. The larger problem in disc
> ussing
> this subject is the amount of ignorance about it, including widespread
> misunderstanding of what the Brandens have claimed to be fact. (Example:
> Many people believe Rand and Branden were actually sleeping with one
> another up until she broke with him in 1968. His account says their sexual
> relationship was in the 1950s.)
I would be much more inclined to believe that the relationship, if any,
was in the 1950s, given that Ayn Rand was born in 1905. :)
Ken
Ken Gardner
> Frank and Barbara consented over something like 4 or 5 years. It will be
> hard for you to claim that at the time they did not think that they were
> acting of their own free will.
There is an alternative explanation, which the more I read about this
story the more I am beginning to think just may be true.
They are making the whole thing up.
Ken
R Lawrence
>R Lawrence says...
>>To my knowledge, no one who is actually familiar with the historical
>>material on the subject actually denies that an affair took place.
>
>But is there anyone, other than the Brandens, who claims to have first
>hand knowledge that such an affair DID take place? If so, who are they,
>and how credible are they?
Since the affair was apparently a secret, the only living witnesses
are the two Brandens. If you want a witness to the actual sexual acts, then
presumably only Nathaniel Branden could testify. Another witness, not quite
first-hand, would be people Devers Branden, who purportedly discussed the
fact of the affair with Rand when they met in 1980. Offhand, I don't know
of anyone else still living who would have had occasion to discuss the
issue with both Rand and Branden.
Peikoff reportedly believes that there was an affair based on material he
found in Rand's private papers. In the movie _Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life_,
he confirms on-camera that he believes there was an affair.
If contemporary writings (e.g., journal entries or letters) by Rand exist
that refer to the affair, then they would be virtually conclusive proof on
the subject, and could be viewed by any number of people given access by
Rand's estate. Rand's private journals are supposed to be the basis for an
authorized biography, which I expect will be forthcoming as soon as
Nathaniel Branden is no longer available to respond to it (sauce for the
gander, so to speak).
Ultimately, the most overwhelming evidence in favor of there having been an
affair is that no one who knew Rand and Branden personally is denying it.
R Lawrence
> Another witness, not quite
>first-hand, would be people Devers Branden, who purportedly discussed the
>fact of the affair with Rand when they met in 1980.
I apologize for my sloppy editing. The word "people" in the above is a
superfluous leftover from a prior version of the sentence.
Fred Weiss
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:002801c1c313$60bbcd40$6401...@cinci.rr.com...
> > > That she badly misjudged human nature, Fred, on understanding of which
> her
> > > philosophy stands or falls.
> >
> > You're equivocating as between "human nature" and judging a specific
> > individual.
>
> Explain yourself.
Having a philosophic understanding of human nature does not provide one with
omniscience regarding specific individuals or situations, or tell one in
advance what is necessarily the right thing to do in every case, or
guarantee its results. In the end, it is also the case that people have free
will, so that while you may be correct in your evaluation up to a point, you
cannot predict the future with 100% certainty.
Beyond that I'm certainly not going to belabor the "affair" of Rand and
Branden about which I know very little and you know even less.
Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
[...]
> If contemporary writings (e.g., journal entries or letters) by Rand exist
> that refer to the affair, then they would be virtually conclusive proof on
> the subject, and could be viewed by any number of people given access by
> Rand's estate. Rand's private journals are supposed to be the basis for an
> authorized biography, which I expect will be forthcoming as soon as
> Nathaniel Branden is no longer available to respond to it (sauce for the
> gander, so to speak).
> Ultimately, the most overwhelming evidence in favor of there having been an
> affair is that no one who knew Rand and Branden personally is denying it.
Speaking for myself, the only evidence that I would consider reliable
and credible is Rand's own statements in her own private writings. I
doubt that she would have said anything about such an affair in these
writings if it didn't exist.
Ken
Snowdog
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.16ee95981...@news.charter.net...
> Speaking for myself, the only evidence that I would consider reliable
> and credible is Rand's own statements in her own private writings. I
> doubt that she would have said anything about such an affair in these
> writings if it didn't exist.
>
> Ken
This is an argument from silence, isn't it? For one, she eveidently did
refer to her affair in her private journal entries, but if she didn't, that
doesn't mean it didn't happen.
And why is Rands admission credible and not Brandens?
Snowdog
George Dance
cinci.rr.com>...
> > > Two of the most accomplished scholars and teachers of Objectivism were
> > > practicing altruism while trying their best to practice Objectivism?
> What
> > > does that say about the relevance of Objectivism to real life?
> >
> > For one thing, that any authority figure is capable of error;
>
> What was the error?
Both Brandens, by their own account, acted on a moral principle that
they
condemned verbally; they acted on another's judgement rather than
their own.
That was the error.
> > so
> > there's no easy out of subordinating your own judgement to one.
> > There's a highly relevant application of Objectivism, right there.
>
> Frank and Barbara consented over something like 4 or 5 years. It will be
> hard for you to claim that at the time they did not think that they were
> acting of their own free will. The blunderous nature of the entire rationale
> became clear only when it unraveled. Only then did they confront and
> recognize their conflict. Human nature, George. Psychology. They believed
> their intellect, not taking subjectivity into account.
Both Branden's claim to have felt emotional, if not moral, conflict,
long before the grand finale. Whereas, by Objectivist standards,
deciding the conflict would have been a no-brainer; they should have
acted on their own judgement.
>
> > I think so; the relevant lesson from all this seems to be that one
> > should not make one's happiness dependent on others' actions or
> > beliefs; which sounds like something an egoist is capable of
> > appreciating.
>
> They acted rationally by their definition of rationality. Big mistake in
> that context.
They acted in a way they believed they should not be acting; not
'rationally' at all, by Rand's definition, as they were
self-contradictory and lacked integrity.
Snowdog
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote
>
> There is an alternative explanation, which the more I read about this
> story the more I am beginning to think just may be true.
>
> They are making the whole thing up.
>
> Ken
>
Good theory! I have a similar working theory.... I don't think Ayn Rand even
ever existed!!
Acar
> And why is Rands admission credible and not Brandens?
I was about to ask that.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
Neither will I belabor by repeating myself.
x
x
x
x
Steve A Simon
greater weight if, as seems to be the case, she had more to lose by it.
Charles Novins
> Having a philosophic understanding of human nature does not provide one
with
> omniscience regarding specific individuals or situations, or tell one in
> advance what is necessarily the right thing to do in every case, or
> guarantee its results. In the end, it is also the case that people have
free
> will, so that while you may be correct in your evaluation up to a point,
you
> cannot predict the future with 100% certainty.
>
> Beyond that I'm certainly not going to belabor the "affair" of Rand and
> Branden about which I know very little and you know even less.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Exactly. A discussion with a bare minimum of anyone knowing what they're
talking about, and not particularly relevant even if they did. This whole
thread constitutes a low water-mark for HPO. Did Rand have sex? With whom?
More sex in the late '50's? or early 60's? Did she read slow - or fast!
How would she have done on an IQ test? Edwin Locke says she's really smart,
well, maybe, hard to tell on audio. But Walker certainly doesn't agree.
Lucky Skirvin can't filter by IQ because this entire thread would disappear,
and I couldn't entertain myself by dissing it.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve A Simon" <steve...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
> I'm not sure why Rand's personal life is relevant, but her admission would
have
> greater weight if, as seems to be the case, she had more to lose by it.
Rand's personal life is relevant when she is making a conscious and
deliberate effort to apply the principles of her philosophy to the
achievement of her goals. If she applied a good philosophy badly then one
should ask how she could have applied it correctly to the achievement of
that particular value, and whether that better approach would have been more
consistent with a person of her temperament.
Ken Gardner
> > Speaking for myself, the only evidence that I would consider reliable
> > and credible is Rand's own statements in her own private writings. I
> > doubt that she would have said anything about such an affair in these
> > writings if it didn't exist.
> This is an argument from silence, isn't it? For one, she eveidently did
> refer to her affair in her private journal entries, but if she didn't, that
> doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Or that it did happen. That's my whole point.
> And why is Rands admission credible and not Brandens?
Because the Brandens had a huge axe to grind. Besides, just about any
psychobabblist is immediately suspect when it comes to credibility -- at
least in my book.
Ken
Snowdog
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
> Or that it did happen. That's my whole point.
Right. That she was silent about it results in no evidence one way or the
other. So why even bring it up?
> > And why is Rands admission credible and not Brandens?
>
> Because the Brandens had a huge axe to grind. Besides, just about any
> psychobabblist is immediately suspect when it comes to credibility -- at
> least in my book.
The Brandens had an axe to grind *according to Rands camp*. This is a
pre-existing bias based on what Rands side had to say. It doesn't explain
why you think that, at the outset, that Branden is somehow less credible
than Rand, although that seems to be the case. As far as your discrediting
due to his achievements in the fields of psychology, well that's just plain
laughable, and I don't think you really mean what you're saying. At least I
hope not.
Snowdog
Ken Gardner
> Right. That she was silent about it results in no evidence one way or the
> other. So why even bring it up?
Because I am raising the possibility that it never happened, which I
cannot reasonably do if there is credible evidence -- such as an
admission from Rand in her private papers -- that it did happen.
> > > And why is Rands admission credible and not Brandens?
> > Because the Brandens had a huge axe to grind. Besides, just about any
> > psychobabblist is immediately suspect when it comes to credibility -- at
> > least in my book.
> The Brandens had an axe to grind *according to Rands camp*. This is a
> pre-existing bias based on what Rands side had to say. It doesn't explain
> why you think that, at the outset, that Branden is somehow less credible
> than Rand, although that seems to be the case.
You got that right. I don't think that the Brandens are credible on
this issue. I want to see corroborating evidence from someone else who
has (or, in this case, had) first hand knowledge of the affair. An
entry in Rand's private journal, written by Rand herself, would be
sufficient for this purpose.
> As far as your discrediting
> due to his achievements in the fields of psychology, well that's just plain
> laughable, and I don't think you really mean what you're saying. At least I
> hope not.
I most definitely mean it. I have nothing but contempt for
psychobabblists. If this bothers you, get over it.
Ken
David Friedman
explanation for the very sharp and unpleasant split with Branden. So far
as I know, neither Rand nor anybody else offered one.
You also have to explain Barbara Branden's role. I think it's obvious
listening to her that her loyalty is far more to Rand than to her
ex-husband.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Steve A Simon
>Rand's personal life is relevant when she is making a conscious and
>deliberate effort to apply the principles of her philosophy to the
>achievement of her goals. If she applied a good philosophy badly then one
>should ask how she could have applied it correctly to the achievement of
>that particular value, and whether that better approach would have been more
>consistent with a person of her temperament.
>
Should we also, then, be studying the personal lives of other influential
philosophers? Is Kant or Hume's sex life relevant? Is there something about
Rand that differentiates her in this respect?
It seems to me that the words on paper stand or fall on their own.
Bob Kolker
Steve A Simon wrote:
>
> It seems to me that the words on paper stand or fall on their own.
Yes and no. What people are, are not only what they profess, but what they do.
For example if such and such a philosopher extolled the virtues of sexual self
control (only within marriage etc) but was a wild sexual libertine, would y
ou be
convinced by what he wrote?
Bob Kolker
Rob
> You got that right. I don't think that the Brandens are credible on
> this issue. I want to see corroborating evidence from someone else who
> has (or, in this case, had) first hand knowledge of the affair. An
> entry in Rand's private journal, written by Rand herself, would be
> sufficient for this purpose.
I think that represents an extreme unwillingness to accept testimony
as evidence. Be that as it may, according to Peikoff, there is
evidence from her journals that the affair occurred. On a videotape of
some public lecture he gave in the late 80s after Barbara Branden's
book came out, he mentioned it in response to a question from the
audience (along with saying he had no plans to read the book).
Plus, don't you think that if people like Peikoff _could_ credibly
deny the affair, backed up by silence from the journals, that they
_would_?
Rob
Ken Gardner
> If you want to argue that the affair never happened, you need some other
> explanation for the very sharp and unpleasant split with Branden. So far
> as I know, neither Rand nor anybody else offered one.
I haven't exactly closely followed the split, but my recollection is
that Rand's explanation mentioned business or financial reasons. There
is some 1968 letter she wrote "to whom it may concern" that provided
this type of explanation.
> You also have to explain Barbara Branden's role. I think it's obvious
> listening to her that her loyalty is far more to Rand than to her
> ex-husband.
Her alleged role is actually one of the facts that makes the entire
story incredible (as in "unbelievable") to me. It just ain't normal, in
common human experience, for a young wife to react the way the Brandens
say Barbara reacted. Ditto for Rand's husband. That's why I would want
independent corroboration by Rand in a manner that would not exist
unless it was true, e.g. a private entry in her private journals.
Ken
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner wrote:
> I haven't exactly closely followed the split, but my recollection is
> that Rand's explanation mentioned business or financial reasons. There
> is some 1968 letter she wrote "to whom it may concern" that provided
> this type of explanation.
You should have seen the 1968 issue of - The Objectivist - (I used to
subscribe to the pamphlet). It was a crei de coure and the pain of A Women
Scorned. Ayn Rand for all her brains and philosophy was apparently no
different from any other women who was dumped by her man for a younger women.
She bled, she wept, she cried.
Bob Kolker
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve A Simon" <steve...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
Actually no, because the words on paper are theory. Theory stands or falls
by its validity in practice. In science it is called the experimental
method. The material on paper is a string of deductions on something as
complex and as loaded with undefined variables as human nature.
Results are the grounds on which Rand alleges that Kant's philosophy is
evil. Rand points to innumerable ways in which she thinks that Kant's
philosophical approach has failed in practice.
If someone writes that the best way to bring up children is to be strict and
says: "Just watch me." then applies his philosophy, but his children become
so hostile that they kill him you would say that what he wrote did not work
in practice; something crucial appears to be missing.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Friedman" <dd...@best.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:52 AM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
> If you want to argue that the affair never happened, you need some other
> explanation for the very sharp and unpleasant split with Branden. So far
> as I know, neither Rand nor anybody else offered one.
>
> You also have to explain Barbara Branden's role. I think it's obvious
> listening to her that her loyalty is far more to Rand than to her
> ex-husband.
In my opinion the conspiracy theory in this case does not merit serious
discussion.
x
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
If I read Ken Gardner correctly he thinks that Rand's actions are (in his
opinion) too irrational to be credible. If he can't believe that the spouses
acquiesced, obviously he can't believe that anyone would ask. If it happened
Rand was irrational, therefore it didn't happen. And just like George, the
whole thing was the spouses' fault. And nothing here is cultish or
"evasive".
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob" <log...@mailandnews.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
> ...Peikoff,...
> (along with saying he had no plans to read the book).
Where have I heard something like that? Wait till Fred reads that...
Acar
> Ayn Rand for all her brains and philosophy was apparently no
> different from any other women
But this was a crisis. This philosophy does not apply in emergencies.
:-)
Bob Kolker
Acar wrote:
You are cruel and nasty. Keep it up!
Bob Kolker
Brian Holly
ttbi.com>...
Yes, I'll never forget how stunned I was when I got that in the mail.
I was a freshman in college. A small group of us had been talking
informally about Objectivism, and we got together to share our grief.
It was obvious to all of us what had happened, and this was some time
before we got the Brandens' response, which confirmed our guess.
Apparently none of her supporters at the time had the guts to tell her
that her message let the cat out of the bag. - Brian
David Friedman
Ken Gardner <kesga...@charter.net> wrote:
> Her alleged role is actually one of the facts that makes the entire
> story incredible (as in "unbelievable") to me. It just ain't normal, in
> common human experience, for a young wife to react the way the Brandens
> say Barbara reacted. Ditto for Rand's husband.
I can't say about Rand's husband. But it's clear that Barbara Branden
still worships Rand. Rand had a lot of charisma, and was surrounded by
people who seriously believed she was the smartest, most wonderful
person in the world.
You see much more extreme examples of the pattern in religious cults
with a charismatic leader.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
David Friedman
Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
> If I read Ken Gardner correctly he thinks that Rand's actions are (in his
> opinion) too irrational to be credible. If he can't believe that the spouses
> acquiesced, obviously he can't believe that anyone would ask. If it happened
> Rand was irrational, therefore it didn't happen. And just like George, the
> whole thing was the spouses' fault. And nothing here is cultish or
> "evasive".
I don't think that's fair to Ken. Unless I've missed something, he
hasn't said it didn't happen, just that it might not have.
I don't, as it happens, think that is a defensible position (save in the
sort of "might" that I use but Objectivists don't--very low probability
cases). But it isn't unreasonable if he hasn't ever looked at the
relevant evidence very carefully--as his vague recollection of "to whom
it may concern" suggests.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Friedman" <dd...@best.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
In order to realistically consider, however cautiously, the possibility that
the two Brandens are capable of having conspired to concoct out of whole
cloth such an elaborate deception after Rand's death one would have to
assume that their character is completely Machiavelic. Even I am willing to
bet against that. Most Objectivists are people who want to act morally.
Nobody is perfect but only the worse of the worse act that way.
Ken Gardner
> > You got that right. I don't think that the Brandens are credible on
> > this issue. I want to see corroborating evidence from someone else who
> > has (or, in this case, had) first hand knowledge of the affair. An
> > entry in Rand's private journal, written by Rand herself, would be
> > sufficient for this purpose.
> I think that represents an extreme unwillingness to accept testimony
> as evidence.
No. Only an unwillingness to accept incredible testimony --
"incredible" as in unbelievable or highly suspect.
> Be that as it may, according to Peikoff, there is
> evidence from her journals that the affair occurred.
Fine if true, but I want to see the evidence myself and make my own
judgment.
> On a videotape of
> some public lecture he gave in the late 80s after Barbara Branden's
> book came out, he mentioned it in response to a question from the
> audience (along with saying he had no plans to read the book).
> Plus, don't you think that if people like Peikoff _could_ credibly
> deny the affair, backed up by silence from the journals, that they
> _would_?
I don't think that silence proves anything, one way or the other. I
would also think that Peikoff would choose instead not even to talk
about the affair, perhaps on the ground that the allegations are
themselves "arbitrary."
Ken
Ken Gardner
> If I read Ken Gardner correctly he thinks that Rand's actions are (in his
> opinion) too irrational to be credible.
You read me incorrectly. I'm saying that I don't buy the Brandens'
story, at least in the absence of any corroborating evidence from Rand
herself (e.g. entries in her journals).
> If he can't believe that the spouses
> acquiesced, obviously he can't believe that anyone would ask. If it happened
> Rand was irrational, therefore it didn't happen. And just like George, the
> whole thing was the spouses' fault. And nothing here is cultish or
> "evasive".
I don't know if the affair happened or not. All I'm saying is that I'm
not going to take the Brandens' word for it without any independent,
reliable corroborating evidence.
Ken
Ken Gardner
> > If I read Ken Gardner correctly he thinks that Rand's actions are (in his
> > opinion) too irrational to be credible. If he can't believe that the sp
> > ouses
> > acquiesced, obviously he can't believe that anyone would ask. If it hap
> > pened
> > Rand was irrational, therefore it didn't happen. And just like George, the
> > whole thing was the spouses' fault. And nothing here is cultish or
> > "evasive".
> I don't think that's fair to Ken. Unless I've missed something, he
> hasn't said it didn't happen, just that it might not have.
Exactly. Thank you.
> I don't, as it happens, think that is a defensible position (save in the
> sort of "might" that I use but Objectivists don't--very low probability
> cases). But it isn't unreasonable if he hasn't ever looked at the
> relevant evidence very carefully--as his vague recollection of "to whom
> it may concern" suggests.
I haven't, that's true. I don't know whether there was an affair. I'm
saying only that I don't believe the Brandens' version of events -- I'm
like the juror in a trial who concludes that the witness on the stand
(the Brandens, in this case) lacks credibility and therefore should be
given little or no weight.
Ken
Ken Gardner
> > Her alleged role is actually one of the facts that makes the entire
> > story incredible (as in "unbelievable") to me. It just ain't normal, in
> > common human experience, for a young wife to react the way the Brandens
> > say Barbara reacted. Ditto for Rand's husband.
> I can't say about Rand's husband. But it's clear that Barbara Branden
> still worships Rand. Rand had a lot of charisma, and was surrounded by
> people who seriously believed she was the smartest, most wonderful
> person in the world.
> You see much more extreme examples of the pattern in religious cults
> with a charismatic leader.
And was Rand's husband also similarly mesmerized, even if -- solely for
the sake of argument -- Barbara was? I seriously doubt it. And when
did the Brandens first make this charge -- before or after Rand had
died?
Ken
Ken Gardner
> > You also have to explain Barbara Branden's role. I think it's obvious
> > listening to her that her loyalty is far more to Rand than to her
> > ex-husband.
> In my opinion the conspiracy theory in this case does not merit serious
> discussion.
Who said anything about any conspiracy? What about the much simpler
explanation that they were simply lying, perhaps because they had axes
to grind? It sometimes happens, especially when you are dealing with
flawed human beings to begin with.
Ken
Fred Weiss
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.16f0bf069...@news.charter.net...
>....I don't know whether there was an affair. I'm
> saying only that I don't believe the Brandens' version of events -- I'm
> like the juror in a trial who concludes that the witness on the stand
> (the Brandens, in this case) lacks credibility and therefore should be
> given little or no weight.
There apparently was some kind of affair. But your position with regard to
the Brandens' version of it is absolutely correct.
Fred Weiss
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com>
>
> There apparently was some kind of affair. But your position with regard to
> the Brandens' version of it is absolutely correct.
You write like someone who was there or who has access to information not
generally available. You could help to end the speculation by sharing the
information that you have.
David Buchner
> >, they both admitted that they had serious reservations about Objectivism
> >while at the same time parading themselves as the opposite, both to Ayn
> >Rand and the world.
Acar <g...@d-g-s.com>:
> It is not trolling to point out that this is a common phenomenon in cults.
> Moral pressure is felt from the leader to the point that they fear to
> confront and acknowledge their doubts. Their wills are debilitated and they
> continue to be carried by the momentum of teacher's lead.
Lame.
If they're losers, they do.
I've read where this is also really common with corporations, government
bureacracies, even movie stars' entourages: it's really hard for the
folks at the top to get clean, accurate information because they're
surrounded by kiss-ups who tell the boss what they think the boss wants
to hear.
--
David
Buc...@wcta.net Osage MN USA
David Buchner
> She wasn't practicing egoism. And the Brandens didn't know they were
> practicing altruism. How could they, when Rand convinced them that what
> she proposed was 100% rational, practical, and in fact, necessary!?
If that were the case, then it means they chickened out by not deciding
for themselves. There's no excuse for substituting somebody else's
judgement for your own.
Fred Weiss
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:005201c1c5f9$0b052660$6401...@cinci.rr.com...
Oh, so you're acknowledging that you're basing your trolling on this topic
on speculation?
I figure that's where this thread should end.
Fred Weiss
George Dance
orp.supernews.com>...
But what weight should anyone give your testimony, or Ken's, or mine
for that matter? Even saying that there 'apparently some kind of
affair' is already, in the absence of any other evidence, is already
accepting some of the Brandens' claims as veridical, and therefore are
giving them some weight; the only question being how much weight to
give each individual assertion. If you, I and Ken know nothing about
this affair <pi> other than that the Brandens' have made claims about
it, by what possible standard can we judge those claims?
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
An enemy of mine used to say that there are at least three versions of a
fact: his account, my account and the truth. That is one of the most
eloquent refutations of Objectivism that I know. In an emotionally charged
situation each participant has a different perspective on the reality of
what actually took place. If one disregards Gardner's suspicion of malicious
intent, it is reasonable to assume that the reporting participants are
making an honest effort to give an accurate account, but it is equally
reasonable to assume that such a thing is impossible. So there is merit to
what Fred suggests: that it is not likely to have happened exactly as
reported.
But
(1) We know that it happened. We have coherent accounts by actual
participants supported by specific statements of other contemporaries and
implied by widespread contemporaneous speculation and by references by Rand
herself, in "To Whom It May Concern" to "issues in Nathaniel's personal
life" (paraphrase). Plus the fact that not one iota of evidence to the
contrary has been brought forth.
and (2) Having "integrated" the above we know that Rand's account of her
motives for the break are deliberately misleading, and that it did not
happen as she represented it.
So objectively speaking the weight of evidence for honesty and credibility
favors the Brandens heavily.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchner" <buc...@wcta.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
They decided for themselves to accept Rand's analysis. They went with the
advice to trust their intellect, not their subjectivity.
x
Fred Weiss
"George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.02030...@posting.google.com...
>...Even saying that there 'apparently some kind of
> affair' is already, in the absence of any other evidence, is already
> accepting some of the Brandens' claims as veridical, and therefore are
> giving them some weight; the only question being how much weight to
> give each individual assertion. If you, I and Ken know nothing about
> this affair <pi> other than that the Brandens' have made claims about
> it, by what possible standard can we judge those claims?
Leonard Peikoff has confirmed that there is evidence of an affair in
documents amongst Ayn Rand's effects. Beyond that I don't know anything more
than you do. When, and if, this material becomes public, we'll know more.
But I fail to see the interest in the matter except to the Brandens who have
used it to sell books and to salvage their "reputations" and to the other
various and sundry trolls who relish any purported dirt they can uncover in
the attempt to discredit Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
Fred Weiss
Steve A Simon
>> It seems to me that the words on paper stand or fall on their own.
>
>Yes and no. What people are, are not only what they profess, but what they
>do.
Sure, but the relevant debate is not to assess the life of Ayn Rand, but the
philosophical ideas she developed.
>For example if such and such a philosopher extolled the virtues of sexual
>self
>control (only within marriage etc) but was a wild sexual libertine, would y
>ou be
>convinced by what he wrote?
>
If the arguments were convincing, I don't see why I should be swayed by the
author's personal life.
That said, I must confess that the Branden affair is bizarre and intriguing.
Ken Gardner
> But I fail to see the interest in the matter except to the Brandens who have
> used it to sell books and to salvage their "reputations" and to the other
> various and sundry trolls who relish any purported dirt they can uncover in
> the attempt to discredit Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
Here is an extremely rare moment: I fully agree 100% with something that
Fred Weiss wrote.
Ken
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
> and to the other
> various and sundry trolls who relish any purported dirt they can uncover
in
> the attempt to discredit Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
If you consider it dirt and it's on your doorstep, why do you think it's
unimportant? Do you think that it discredits Ayn Rand and Objectivism?
Or do you think that it was just human mistakes, just like the errors of
Christianity? After all Christians are only fallible humans, yes?
Fred Weiss
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:003101c1c662$9203c5e0$6401...@cinci.rr.com...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com>
> Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
>
>
> > and to the other
> > various and sundry trolls who relish any purported dirt they can uncover
> in
> > the attempt to discredit Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
>
> If you consider it dirt ..
But I don't.
Fred Weiss
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Novins" <taxs...@free-market.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
> "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:a62k6m$eju$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Having a philosophic understanding of human nature does not provide one
> with
> > omniscience regarding specific individuals or situations, or tell one in
> > advance what is necessarily the right thing to do in every case, or
> > guarantee its results. In the end, it is also the case that people have
> free
> > will, so that while you may be correct in your evaluation up to a point,
> you
> > cannot predict the future with 100% certainty.
> >
> > Beyond that I'm certainly not going to belabor the "affair" of Rand and
> > Branden about which I know very little and you know even less.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Exactly. A discussion with a bare minimum of anyone knowing what they're
> talking about, and not particularly relevant even if they did. This whole
> thread constitutes a low water-mark for HPO. Did Rand have sex? With
whom?
> More sex in the late '50's? or early 60's? Did she read slow - or fast!
> How would she have done on an IQ test? Edwin Locke says she's really
smart,
> well, maybe, hard to tell on audio. But Walker certainly doesn't agree.
> Lucky Skirvin can't filter by IQ because this entire thread would
disappear,
> and I couldn't entertain myself by dissing it.
Would a well regimented thread be more to your liking?
x
x
x
x
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
> Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:<007801c1c3b9$55076a80$6401a8c0@
> cinci.rr.com>...
> > > > Two of the most accomplished scholars and teachers of Objectivism
were
> > > > practicing altruism while trying their best to practice Objectivism?
> > What
> > > > does that say about the relevance of Objectivism to real life?
> > >
> > > For one thing, that any authority figure is capable of error;
> >
> > What was the error?
>
> Both Brandens, by their own account, acted on a moral principle that
> they
> condemned verbally; they acted on another's judgement rather than
> their own.
> That was the error.
This is spin. They were confronted by Galt with The Great Choice: Act
rationally or act according to emotion (whim). They chose to ignore emotion.
It was a selfish decision, or so they thought. According to Galt, allowing
your actions to be controlled by emotion rather then rationality could only
lead to problems down the road (the path of death!). There is every reason
to believe that that is how it went down. The rest is spin.
Bob Kolker
Acar wrote:
>
> This is spin. They were confronted by Galt with The Great Choice: Act
> rationally or act according to emotion (whim). They chose to ignore emotion.
> It was a selfish decision, or so they thought. According to Galt, allowing
> your actions to be controlled by emotion rather then rationality could only
> lead to problems down the road (the path of death!).
Unless the emotions are correctly aligned with the true and rational
self interest of the person. To a certain extent we can get our
emotions and intuitions pointing in the same direction as reason.
Bob Kolker
Larry Shultis
32...@ord-read.news.verio.net>...
Here are some of the reasons Rand gave in the May 1968 isssue of
"The Objectivist" for breaking with the Brandens:
"disturbing change in Nathaniel Branden's intellectual attitude"
which was manifested, partly, in his attempt to establish NBI Theater which
was to perform Romantic drama. He was producing Barbara's adaptation of "The
Fountainhead" for stage. She writes, "His attitude toward the project was
oddly at variance with his former manner and conduct: it was an attitude
that can best be described as authority-flaunting, unserious and, at times,
undignified." She says he got behind in his other responsibilities with the
magazine and in rewriting the "Basic Principles of Objectivism".
She says that in 1964 Branden was no longer keeping up with writing half
of the content of the magazine and that his lack of contributions was the
reason the magazine became four months late in 1968.
In the three years before "To whom it may Concern", she says that their
relationship "was deteriorating in a puzzling manner: it was turning into
a series of his constant demands on my time, constant pleas for advice,... ."
"...; he admitted that in many respects he was acting on the basis of
unidentified feelings."
Now this was the May 1968 issue, so I assume that it was several months late
because she states: "About two months ago (at the beginning of July), in an
attempt to terminate the discussions he himself had initiated, Mr. Branden
presented me with a written statement which was so irrational and so offensive
to me that I had to break my personal association with him." But she "gave him
one last chance." She says that about two months later Barbara came to her
and "suddenly confessed that Mr. Branden had been concealing from me certain
ugly actions and irrational behavior in his private life, which was grossly
contradictory to Objectivist morality and which she had known about for two
years." She said, that Mr. Branden admitted that "his actions had involved
the deliberate deception of several persons for a period of some four years."
That was when she broke all contact with the Mr. Branden.
She then goes into Branden's business practices.
She says that the Brandens' articles and lectures "up to this time were
valid and consonant with Objectivism."
There is more dealing with Barbara, etc. But apparently the "deception" must
be the real breaking point, and to me it had to be a real emotion producer,
not just some irrational behavior which she could easilly have dealt with.
It had to be another woman to piss Rand off so much. What other "ugly action"
could he have done other than maybe cheating on Rand with either Barbara or
another woman?
Larry
Acar
> Here are some of the reasons Rand gave in the May 1968 isssue of
> "The Objectivist" for breaking with the Brandens:
> She said, that Mr. Branden admitted that "his actions had involved
> the deliberate deception of several persons for a period of some four
years."
> That was when she broke all contact with the Mr. Branden.
I hate to keep harping but that and the rest of it seems to me like a
deliberate deception of the reading public. Where is Clinton's evasive and
misleading deposition?
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Was Rand a nice lady?
George alleges that in this case they were not aligned.
x
x
x
x
Fred Weiss
"Larry Shultis" <gold...@lgwis.com> wrote in message
news:5c32181d.0203...@posting.google.com...
> There is more dealing with Barbara, etc. But apparently the "deception"
must
> be the real breaking point, and to me it had to be a real emotion
producer,
> not just some irrational behavior which she could easilly have dealt with.
> It had to be another woman to piss Rand off so much. What other "ugly
action"
> could he have done other than maybe cheating on Rand with either Barbara
or
> another woman?
It had to be? Why did it have to be? First of all, from all the evidence,
the "affair" (whatever it was) with AR was long over by that point. Branden
was with Patricia as early as 1964 and everyone saw them together, myself
included. May I suggest that you talk to some people who knew him intimately
in that period and you will have no difficulty imagining a whole host of
other possible "ugly actions" he was capable of.
Given the nature of my business, I have had the occasion to talk to many of
those people, on all points of the spectrum with regard to Objectivism
today, so with no particular ax to grind. It has surprised me the number of
them who think he killed Patricia (who did die under suspicious
circumstances). None of it is unfortunately provable but it is revealing
that they all thought him capable of it.
Fred Weiss
Charles Novins
> An enemy of mine used to say that there are at least three versions of a
> fact: his account, my account and the truth. That is one of the most
> eloquent refutations of Objectivism that I know.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Really? Actually, you've composed better ones yourself here on HPO. Too
bad this thread hasn't even a shred of credibility. I'm surprised others
are even replying.
I suppose that even though this newsgroup is named
<humanities.philosophy.objectivism>, there is no reason why Rand's personal
peccadillos are necessarily off-topic. But it certainly brings out the
boring and irrelevant like nothing else.