The Passion Of Ayn Rand (book)

[Randrew]

The purpose of this thread is to continue discussion of some things mentioned in the "Nathaniel Branden" thread.

So Ayn Rand had some flaws, according to "The Passion." Big deal? The validity and integrity of Objectivism do not rest upon the actions of a single human being, but upon the objectivity of reality and the nature of Man. Just because Ayn Rand wasn't perfect doesn't mean that the ideals of Objectivism aren't worth living up to.

First, a response to Bill Bucko. Quoting from his Amazon review of "Passion,"

And now, from my review of Barbara Branden's trash-wallow:

"This is not a true biography of the great philosopher. It is a vitriolic exercise in hatred, riddled from beginning to end with self-contradictions. For instance, Branden insists that Miss Rand as a child conceived a life-long neurotic fear of physical reality. Yet only a few pages later she describes the young Ayn Rand joyously climbing a mountain on a vacation in Switzerland ... and later in life, happily taking the throttle of a New York Central diesel locomotive! ...

Hmmm, that does seem to be a flaw in Barbara's argument. Another counterexample would be the boldness she displayed in taking dancing lessons at age 62!

However, these may have been exceptions, as they were isolated incidents. I think what Barbara was trying to argue was that Ayn felt more alienation from physical reality than most people, and to an unhealthy extent. Let me adduce a few examples:

-Her awkwardness as a cook (239)

-Her fear of investing (318)

-Her fear of flying (318)

-Her unwillingness to exercise

None of these, however, can be considered a major flaw (excepting, perhaps, the last), since:

-The first is understandable, since her primary work was intellectual and she usually paid a servant to cook

-The second and third she eventually overcame

-To her credit, I don't know how advanced the theory of endorphins was during her life. TODAY, however, we do know that regular exercise is necessary to reach one's optimum health, happiness, and productivity.

There was another that I forgot, though: her inability to learn to drive.

"I had the pleasure of meeting Ayn Rand in 1971, and of seeing first-hand how gracious she was with her many fans. I found her a genuinely polite, warm, and considerate person, who seemed serenely at peace with herself.

Although Barbara mentioned that Ayn would sometimes tear apart a member of the audience during a Q&A session after a lecture, she did not give the contexts of the questions (as far as I can recall), so for now I will assume that whoever got attacked had it coming (i.e. they asked an offensive question or made an offensive comment.)

If you are really that interested in the detailed facts, a book is due to be published soon which will demonstrate quite clearly the all too numerous deceptions and fallacies in both of the Branden's books. If you stay on this forum I guarantee you will not miss mention of the book when it is published.

I'm interested in this. Who is writing it and what will it be called?

[BurgessLau]

The purpose of this thread is to continue discussion of some things mentioned in the "Nathaniel Branden" thread.

So Ayn Rand had some flaws, according to "The Passion."  ...

There was another that I forgot, though: her inability to learn to drive.

What is your evidence for saying that Ayn Rand was unable to learn to drive?

[Zeus]

The purpose of this thread is to continue discussion of some things mentioned in the "Nathaniel Branden" thread.

So Ayn Rand had some flaws, according to "The Passion."  Big deal?  The validity and integrity of Objectivism do not rest upon the actions of a single human being, but upon the objectivity of reality and the nature of Man.  Just because Ayn Rand wasn't perfect doesn't mean that the ideals of Objectivism aren't worth living up to.

First, a response to Bill Bucko.  Quoting from his Amazon review of "Passion,"

Hmmm, that does seem to be a flaw in Barbara's argument.  Another counterexample would be the boldness she displayed in taking dancing lessons at age 62!

However, these may have been exceptions, as they were isolated incidents.  I think what Barbara was trying to argue was that Ayn felt more alienation from physical reality than most people, and to an unhealthy extent.  Let me adduce a few examples:

-Her awkwardness as a cook (239)

-Her fear of investing (318)

-Her fear of flying (318)

-Her unwillingness to exercise

None of these, however, can be considered a major flaw (excepting, perhaps, the last), since:

-The first is understandable, since her primary work was intellectual and she usually paid a servant to cook

-The second and third she eventually overcame

-To her credit, I don't know how advanced the theory of endorphins was during her life.  TODAY, however, we do know that regular exercise is necessary to reach one's optimum health, happiness, and productivity.

There was another that I forgot, though: her inability to learn to drive.

Although Barbara mentioned that Ayn would sometimes tear apart a member of the audience during a Q&A session after a lecture, she did not give the contexts of the questions (as far as I can recall), so for now I will assume that whoever got attacked had it coming (i.e. they asked an offensive question or made an offensive comment.)

I'm interested in this.  Who is writing it and what will it be called?

Why are you taking the word of people who only found the courage to speak against Ayn Rand after she was dead and could not provide her own side of the issues? Is that objective? Is that a way of attending to facts and forming valid conclusions?

I mean, in all my time as a student of Objectivism, I've heard many reasons for why one should ignore the Brandens. But many of those reasons are actually unnecessary. All one need do is consider my statement above. Coupled with the fact that Branden did not respond to the accusations she levelled against him in sixties, I see no reason for any supposed "investigation" of the Brandens' side of the story. That would be granting sanction to slime.

[Randrew]

What is your evidence for saying that Ayn Rand was unable to learn to drive?

"[Frank] gave her several driving lessons, then they both gave up the attempt in mutually enraged despair. Frank was a very bad driver and Ayn, who found mechanical objects impossible to master, was unable to learn. Whenever she had to go to the city, Frank had to take her. The isolation began to trouble her: she felt cut off and trapped, unable to do what she wanted when she wanted." (187)

Ok, "inability" *might* be too strong a word, and I don't know what other examples there are of her "finding mechanical objects impossible to master" (another phrase that might be too strong.)

But the fact remains that she was at least unwilling to learn to drive, a task that isn't really very difficult (once you get over the initial fears) and would have made her life much easier.

Why are you taking the word of people who only found the courage to speak against Ayn Rand after she was dead and could not provide her own side of the issues? Is that objective? Is that a way of attending to facts and forming valid conclusions?

Well, this is why I look forward to the new book mentioned by Mr. Speicher: I'm hoping that it will present the other side of issues such as these so that I can decide for myself which conclusions are proper. If the character flaws that Barbara has mentioned are indeed false and based on a distorted sense of reality, then this book should expose her falsehoods and set the record straight.

By the way: has this already been done in any other biographies on Rand? If so, let me know so I can check them out. Since I never met Ayn Rand and I wasn't around when all this was going on, I can only deduce the truth for myself through other peoples' accounts. If Barbara was wrong about something, please avoid the ad hominem "she is biased against Rand, therefore her account is necessarily distorted" and explain how others' accounts differ from hers.

[AMERICONORMAN]

When you read Ayn Rand, when you read her novels, you want to meet her. I only had one dream about her, ever. So I appreciate those books for allowing me to picture the real Ayn Rand. However, the Donahue and the "60 Minutes" guy interviews are gold. I love Ayn Rand's expressions in the latter, and her love for her husband in the former.

About driving. It is f*ck'n impossible that Ayn Rand could not learn how to drive. The only explanation I could think of is from my own experience: (1) the terrible nature of drivers out there; an accident is a real reality these days, and I'm sure then too. (2) When I used to drive a lot, I regularly had to manage my psycho-epistemological tendancy to be captured by some philosophical question; or, to consider some story line: that would surely lead to some deadly crash. Even today I don't drive, although I used to drive a lot, more than most people drive in ten years, and am disgusted by the drivers out there; and am conscious of my tendency to get taken by my abstractions and fantasies.

Take care,

Americo.

Who needs to drive when one has a reliable transit system and one lives in a city where it is enjoyable to walk the streets?

Edited November 2, 2004 by Capitalism Forever

[GiveMeLiberty]

This whole line of reasoning that says that since Ayn Rand (allegedly) couldn't learn how to drive a car, she suffered fear of mechanical objects, and therefore she had a problem mastering physical reality, is so crazy and arch-rationalistic that I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Miss Rand came from a country where cars were not commonplace, and she was well into her twenties when she tried to learn how to drive. I know from personal experience that it is pretty hard to learn how to drive if you don't do it in your teens, and it becomes increasingly harder the older you get.

I also want to object to the idea that it could be considered a flaw of character to not want to learn to drive. I guess those who entertain this idea would rather have Ayn Rand use her time in a driving school than at her desk writing the Fountainhead.

In any case, even if granting that there were some psychological problems leading to her "disability" at the wheel, it is simply outrageous have this imply generalities like "inability to master physical reality."

/CW

[BurgessLau]

"[Frank] gave her several driving lessons, then they both gave up the attempt in mutually enraged despair.  Frank was a very bad driver and Ayn, who found mechanical objects impossible to master, was unable to learn.  Whenever she had to go to the city, Frank had to take her.  The isolation began to trouble her: she felt cut off and trapped, unable to do what she wanted when she wanted." (187)

Ok, "inability" *might* be too strong a word, and I don't know what other examples there are of her "finding mechanical objects impossible to master" (another phrase that might be too strong.)

But the fact remains that she was at least unwilling to learn to drive, a task that isn't really very difficult (once you get over the initial fears) and would have made her life much easier.

...

First paragraph: How did Barbara Branden come to "know" what she said above, in the quotation? Was Branden an eye-witness? What source does B. Branden cite?

Second paragraph: The issue is not the "strength" of words, but the objectivity of the ideas which the words label. Objectivity is a relationship of a certain kind: The relationship between ideas in the mind drawn logically from sense-perceptible facts of reality. None of the alleged evidence shown indicates Ayn Rand was physically or psychologically unable to learn to drive. Unwilling to continue under present conditions (as alleged by B. Branden)? Sure. So what? That's a life-style decision not a flaw.

Third paragraph: Neither B. Branden (as quoted here) nor you has provided any evidence that Ayn Rand was "unwilling to learn to drive." It is impossible to draw that conclusion even from the alleged facts as claimed by B. Branden. As for driving making "life much easier," I can only laugh. I do not drive. Most of my neighbors do not drive (though they may have driven in the past). Why? Because for some individuals, driving and car ownership make life much more difficult for a variety of reasons. I walk, bike, bus, and occasionally cab, but I have never had any interest in driving.

[Zeus]

Well, this is why I look forward to the new book mentioned by Mr. Speicher: I'm hoping that it will present the other side of issues such as these so that I can decide for myself which conclusions are proper.  If the character flaws that Barbara has mentioned are indeed false and based on a distorted sense of reality, then this book should expose her falsehoods and set the record straight.

But, the point is, a new book is not required to make a decision on this issue. One need neither be a genius nor an Objectivist to see that the stories told by the Brandens cannot be taken as fact.

If there are two parties - and two parties only - to a situation and one of the parties is mortally unable to present its perspective of the situation, and the side able to make its case is engaged in defamation, then it follows that the presenters' views are necessarily invalid, since all the facts of the situation cannot be determined.

For instance, in a court of law, a plaintiff presupposes a defendant, and vice versa. No defendant, then no plaintiff.

This is a very important principle, especially since the person being libeled is Ayn Rand. But the principle would apply to anyone, anywhere, at any time.

Because this principle is metaphysical (the total facts being unknowable), it defeats any logical case one could make for labelling my point an ad hominem. In fact, her entire book is one gigantic ad hominem against Ayn Rand, yet you seem to have no problem with what it contains.

This is an act of injustice.

--------

The book to be published (by James Valiant) cannot present this other side, and this is so by necessity, as I have indicated above: He too was not party to these matters. All he can do is present contradictions in the noxious concoctions of these creatures.

In doing so, he has to swim in the soup, hence conceding their immoral premises.

[BurgessLau]

The book to be published (by James Valiant) cannot present this other side, and this is so by necessity, as I have indicated above:  He too was not party to these matters.  All he can do is present contradictions in the noxious concoctions of these creatures. 

In doing so, he has to swim in the soup, hence conceding their immoral premises.

Have you examined a draft of the Valiant book? What approach does he take?

If he works from Ayn Rand's journals and letters to present her observations, presumably made at the time of the events, how is that conceding the Brandens' immoral premises?

Very few historians are a party to the events they write about. That does not threaten their objectivity. If Valiant is working from records, then his account will have more credibility than the alleged memories of tainted witnesses.

[Zeus]

Have you examined a draft of the Valiant book? What approach does he take?

If he works from Ayn Rand's journals and letters to present her observations, presumably made at the time of the events, how is that conceding the Brandens' immoral premises?

Very few historians are a party to the events they write about. That does not threaten their objectivity. If Valiant is working from records, then his account will have more credibility than the alleged memories of tainted witnesses.

I read some work he produced in this connection about two years ago. It was published on the web and provided a detailed analysis of the different accounts of the various breaks with Ayn Rand from the sixties till her passing.

I don't think Mr. Valiant was/is being immoral in his attempt to seek justice. However, I don't think such an attempt will change the minds of those who are convinced that Ayn Rand's personality was "flawed."

To attain an objective view of Ayn Rand's life, you have to understand (to a good degree), and accept, her philosophy. Those who are determined to put the cart before the horse will not even get to the point where they'll give Mr. Valiant's book consideration. In fact, they will most likely view a lengthy Objectivist "rebuttal" as an indication that there is some truth to the stories told by her enemies.

While not a trained historian myself, I know that objective historians are quick to minimize or dismiss altogether any non-objective assessment of historical figures, especially if made by those with an axe to grind.

In a formal clash of ideas (if the phrase is here applicable), one crucial error is to grant your opponent's premise, even if inadvertently as Mr. Valiant seems to be. I have already provided reason for the invalidity of this approach above.

[Randrew]

This whole line of reasoning that says that since Ayn Rand (allegedly) couldn't learn how to drive a car, she suffered fear of mechanical objects, and therefore she had a problem mastering physical reality

If you bother to read the statement closely, you will see that it is the other way around: it says that her difficulty with mechanical objects was the cause of her frustration with driving, i.e. the difficulty of driving was one example of this character trait. I wish that BB had bothered to come up with more examples of this, though.

Listen, I'm not trying to say that these things make her a bad person. My motivation for writing this was that I read Bill Bucko's review of Passion and found it unfair. I did not see the book as a "vitriolic exercise in hatred," but as a biography that both offered much praise of Ayn and also pointed out that she was not perfect. BB's purpose in doing the latter might have been to convince would-be Objectivists that you don't have to feel guilty if you screw up now and then, as long as you honestly admit your mistakes/flaws and strive to understand them.

It's proper to worship Ayn Rand as a hero, but not as a deity who was incapable of doing wrong. There is a fierce battle being waged over Objectivism; indeed, if you look at the Amazon reviews of Passion, you will find that almost everyone gave it either a really high score (4 or 5 out of 5) or a really low score (one star.) I fear that many of those in the latter category either worship Rand in the second way I mentioned above, or they give off the appearance of doing so by trying to defend her reputation at all costs, which only serves to fuel the work of people like Jeff Walker (author of The Ayn Rand Cult.)

all the facts of the situation cannot be determined.

Where do you go off saying this? It's not like BB was the only person who knew Ayn Rand intimately. There are plenty of other witness accounts to draw upon, and I expect that Valiant will use these in his attack on the Brandens.

Because this principle is metaphysical (the total facts being unknowable)

How is this statement not skepticism? Once again, we are trying to determine whether or not Ayn Rand regularly exhibited certain personality traits, and the accounts of people who were close friends of hers are the only source of information we have to resolve this. If we could not use such people, then no biographies would be possible at all.

I think Burgesslau said the same thing I did, only more succinctly

In fact, her entire book is one gigantic ad hominem against Ayn Rand, yet you seem to have no problem with what it contains.

An ad hominem attack would be "Ayn Rand made some mistakes/wasn't perfect, therefore Objectivism is invalid," correct? I did not think the book made that argument, and it saddens me to think that there are some people out there who might get turned-off to Objectivism because of reading this. I may be wrong about this, though, as I read Passion only once and at a fairly rapid pace. When the Valiant book comes out, I will read both books in parallel and reconsider this question.

Zeus: if I appeared to "have no problem with what [Passion] contains," it is because I didn't see any reason why BB would tell any flat-out lies about Ayn Rand. It seemed to me that, although there was a period of mutual animosity between the two, they made up and restored their friendship before Ayn died. I hadn't realized, until very recently, that there was such a savage hatred among Objectivists for Barara, and I'm still trying to fully understand it.

[Godless Capitalist]

"[Frank]gave her several driving lessons, then they both gave up the attempt in mutually enraged despair.  Frank was a very bad driver and Ayn, who found mechanical objects impossible to master, was unable to learn.  Whenever she had to go to the city, Frank had to take her.  The isolation began to trouble her: she felt cut off and trapped, unable to do what she wanted when she wanted." (187)

What is "found mechanical objects impossible to master" supposed to mean? She was unable to use a can opener? That seems extremely unlikely.

I've actually worked as a driving instructor. Learning to drive is hard and students get frustrated easily. It is not a good idea for a spouse/parent/etc to be the instructor. If AR tried to learn as an adult, and her instructor was not only her husband but "a very bad driver" it's no wonder she had trouble.

Even assuming AR did have little mechanical aptitude, that's hardly unusual or a character flaw. My wife is very smart, but if she got a flat and had to change the tire herself you can bet I would check the nuts when she got home.

[Thoyd Loki]

-Her awkwardness as a cook (239)

-Her fear of investing (318)

-Her fear of flying (318)

-Her unwillingness to exercise

You picked these? These innocuous examples out of that slander fest of a book? If Peikoff wrote a biography of her and included these examples, I wouldn't bat an eye. Where are the examples from her book of the gaping moral flaws? The irrational venomous rage? The part where she went psychotic and the Branden lady saw the eyes of a crazy person? What about the examples of rationalization, and of building huge fantasy projections of people totally out of touch with reality?

And, awkwardness at using mechanical objects, and an alienation from physical reality are not the same thing. To imagine, the author of the Objectivist philosophy alienated from physical reality. Wouldn't that be a coup of a slander? Like VonMises was secret pen pals with Stalin!

[Thoyd Loki]

I hadn't realized, until very recently, that there was such a savage hatred among Objectivists for Barara, and I'm still trying to fully understand it.

Read my post above for that reason. I don't even doubt many of those homey examples since they mean nothing, and kind of make sense for such a genius. But, that book is an acid bath of personality assassination, in a completely undisguised attempt not only to cut down the character of the author of the philosophy, but, by extension, that philosophy as well. Even Nathanial Branden's book is not as bad as hers; at least he spends a good amount of time letting us know what an untrustworthy man he is. Barbara Branden is all victim.

[Randrew]

To imagine, the author of the Objectivist philosophy alienated from physical reality. Wouldn't that be a coup of a slander?

First, let me present the passage that Bucko criticized:

"Her second memory was of fear. Walking with her nurse one day, she happened to notice a sheet of glass in a wooden crate, propped along a wall. Curious, Alice approached and touched the edge of the glass. The frightened nurse pulled her away; she mustn't touch it, glass was sharp, it could cut her, it was dangerous. For days afterward, the child worried that invisible particles of glass somehow had gotten into her skin and would seriously hurt her. She felt a sense of danger hanging somewhere over her head. This, too, as a number of her friends would observe, was a reaction she was to carry with her all of her life, unadmitted and unrecognized but with a singular motivational effect: the feeling that the physical world held neither safety nor ease for her. As the years passed, her sense of a fundamental alienation from the material existence she would exalt in her writings was to take on a quality of obsession." (6)

What I want to know is who were these "number of her friends" and what were their "observations" to support this claim? Either BB is lying about this or she isn't. Either there are a number of other friends of Ayn's that made similar observations, or this is just BB's distorted interpretation of a few observations intended to create a flaw that wasn't there.

So, tell me: how the hell am I supposed to figure this out? I guess I'm just going to have to search for these accounts in other literature about Rand.

I'm getting kind of tired of quibbling over the driving issue, anyway. The main reason I presented those examples was to tell Bucko that he can't just easily dismiss BB's claim without considering the rest of the evidence presented in the book that supports it.

Where are the examples from her book of the gaping moral flaws? The irrational venomous rage? The part where she went psychotic and the Branden lady saw the eyes of a crazy person? What about the examples of rationalization, and of building huge fantasy projections of people totally out of touch with reality?

(Sigh.) Do you really want me to bring these up? For now, I'm just going to point out the one that bothered me the most:

"Since her late twenties, she had smoked two packages of cigarettes a day. 'You've got to stop it,' Dr. Dworetzky said. 'It's terribly bad for you. It's dangerous.' With a gesture of defiance, Ayn took a long, deep puff from the slim cigarette in its gold and black holder. 'But why?' she demanded. 'And don't tell me about statistics; I've explained why statistics aren't proof. You have to give me a rational explanation." (380)

Ok, can someone please tell me what the hell is going on here? Where can I find Rand's "explanation" that statistics aren't proof? Is there a context to this that I'm missing? Was she just referring to the current (1974) statistical evidence of the correlation between smoking and lung cancer, or was she referring to statistical evidence in general?

Two pages later:

"For many years, questions about the dangers of smoking had been raised by NBI students and at Ayn's own lecture appearances. Each time, she had lit a cigarette with a defiant flourish, then discussed the 'unscientific and irrational nature of the statistical evidence.'"

Does anyone know where I can find out what the statistical evidence of the time was? I want to see for myself whether it was "unscientific and irrational."

[Godless Capitalist]

On the statistical issue, the correct scientific principle is that "correlation does not prove causation." What that means is that just because you observe that smokers have higher rates of lung cancer than nonsmokers, that does not prove that smoking causes lung cancer. To have proof you need to show what the physical mechanism is, which was not done until much later.

Nonetheless correlation does often indicate the likelihood of causation, and IMO quitting smoking would have been the rational thing to do. (My grandfather was a doctor, and quit smoking the very day he read the earliest studies.)

First, let me present the passage that Bucko criticized:

"Her second memory was of fear.  Walking with her nurse one day, she happened to notice a sheet of glass in a wooden crate, propped along a wall.  Curious, Alice approached and touched the edge of the glass.  The frightened nurse pulled her away; she mustn't touch it, glass was sharp, it could cut her, it was dangerous.  For days afterward, the child worried that invisible particles of glass somehow had gotten into her skin and would seriously hurt her.  She felt a sense of danger hanging somewhere over her head.  This, too, as a number of her friends would observe, was a reaction she was to carry with her all of her life, unadmitted and unrecognized but with a singular motivational effect: the feeling that the physical world held neither safety nor ease for her.  As the years passed, her sense of a fundamental alienation from the material existence she would exalt in her writings was to take on a quality of obsession." (6)

This kind of story is just ridiculous. Children have similar experiences all the time and do not become obsessed or alienated. It's just not believable that a single experience like this would affect someone's whole life.

[A.West]

Here's an story from my early 20s that I find interesting:

Years ago in the early 90s there was an event held in Central Florida, promoted adequately in the newspaper to get a few hundred people to show up to an auditorium. It was a "Birthday Party" for Ayn Rand. I went with a couple of friends at the time to witness the farce. There was a musician who renamed a piece of electronic new-agey music "Wyatt's Torch", who introduced himself by recounting a dream he had of Ayn Rand coming to him and telling him to quit smoking, and that dream meant a lot to him. He later commented that he really disliked Rachmaninoff's music because it was "pretty". Babs Branden was the keynote speaker, and predictably she started by saying how great Ayn was and how she changed her life and the world, and then provided about 30 minutes of psychological criticism of her and people who like her, and then wrapped up with some psuedo-inspiring statement about the future. She got a standing ovation from most folks, then everyone had punch and a slice of dollar-sign cake.

A college acquaintance of mine was studying journalism and interviewed her and was still doing so when I left. I later learned that they decided to continue that interview all the way into her hotel room that evening. This Kelleyite to be told me he was excited by the idea of having sex with someone who had sex with someone who had sex with Ayn Rand. I told him that was pretty disgusting, especially considering the horrid speech, moral character, and unappealing grandmotherly figure Babs presented. I don't know what he did that night.

I did manage to undermine the efforts of several future Kelleyites to stage another disgusting "Birthday Party," this time with Nat Branden, the next year. I couldn't believe my ears when I discovered some people were planning to invite him as the main speaker, and created a schism at the Objectivist Club Christmas party by publicly denouncing the materializing party plan as immoral and evil, and an affront to Ayn Rand's memory, followed by some lady screaming at me and marching out. Fortunately, the club sponsor and host of the party sided with me, people took sides over the next few weeks, and the plan gradually dissolved - facilitated by the fact that N. B. wanted something like $5000 for his hour of spitting.

When you're hoping to find a local Objectivist group, be careful what you wish for.

[BurgessLau]

Randrew,

I have two points to make.

(1) This is a procedural point. When you quote people in this thread, be sure to include the name of the person quoted (at the top) and the snap-back feature (because it allows the reader to jump back and see what the context was for the quotation). If you write a post that addresses several people, and then you quote them individually without naming them in the quotations themselves, the reader can become confused -- as I was when I read one of your posts above. It seemed to attribute a quotation to me, by juxtaposition. This is not a major problem, but retaining the name and the snap-back can prevent confusion.

(2) Let's take a specific example from B. Branden's book. I read her book when it first came out (15 or more years ago?). My memory tells me B. Branden criticized Ayn Rand for failing to ever thank the managers of the Hollywood Studio Club, where the nearly impoverished young Ayn Rand stayed for free when she first arrived in Hollywood.

Is my memory of B. Branden's account correct? If so, you might turn to Letters of Ayn Rand, pp. 28 and 31-33. There two letters appear from Ayn Rand to Marjorie Williams, director of the Hollywood Studio Club. In the first letter -- which was a response to an inquiry from Williams, Ayn Rand effusively thanks the Club. (Apparently Ayn Rand did not originally take the initiative to thank the Club in a formal way. That would be very typical of most young people. They sail through life barely expressing gratitude to the many older people who make the way easier for them.)

In the second letter, Ayn Rand gladly gives Williams permission to reproduce the earlier letter for a fund-raising drive and expands Ayn Rand's full support for organizations that help deserving, potentially productive young people. Once Ayn Rand had been contacted, some years later, she took full advantage of the opportunity to express her thanks, looking back as an older, more mature adult.

This sort of contrast -- B. Branden's ill researched, animosity-ridden account of Ayn Rand's life versus evidence from other, more reliable sources, particularly Ayn Rand's own writings -- undermined my initial confidence in B. Branden's account. My understanding is that Mr. Valiant's account will provide more such contrasts, based on objective evidence -- actual, testable documents -- rather than the vague memories of others.

I highly recommend the Letters of Ayn Rand. It shows many things about Ayn Rand: her loyalty to her friends, her willingness to invest a lot of time in helping people she valued, her passion for ideas, and her driving purpose.

[Zeus]

Where do you go off saying this? It's not like BB was the only person who knew Ayn Rand intimately. There are plenty of other witness accounts to draw upon, and I expect that Valiant will use these in his attack on the Brandens.

You are disregarding the full context of the relationship between the Brandens and Miss Rand. There was a split in the 60s, which surely you are aware of in some form. If you know about this, and a hunger for knowledge of the person of Ayn Rand is what you wish to satiate, why don't you first investigate Miss Rand's account of the facts of that situation? Isn't that the obviously proper thing to do?? If someone were to try to find out all they could about you after your death, is it rational for them to disregard the account of your friends and your own account and then go straight to the account of your enemies? And then make a big fuss about it by opening unproductive threads? Time that could have been used reading up more of her work? Is this any way of gathering reliable information? Is it objective?

But perhaps the problem here is that you do not know what objectivity entails, which is why I say that you should first learn how to think rather than waste your time on losers who could not even invent toothpicks, talkless of the most revolutionary philosophy ever.

As I have said, the proper way to go about improving one's knowledge of a philosophy is to try learning as much about the ideas as possible. Not about the opinion some eel had about anything.

You have a LOT of literature regarding Objectivism to go through - and since much of the literature is very abstract, you have a lot of supporting literature to go through also - and I think it's a good idea for you to spend your time studying what can improve your life, instead of going by what you already think you know, which might or might not be properly understood.

To make this last point clearer, even if one were to give this idea of "flaws" some attention, what would it entail? It would mean providing a solid validation and formulation of the concept "flaw", which is an epistemological task. It would mean a proper, valid method of concept-formation, a knowledge of which you seem very far from, judging by your posts on this thread.

To analyze "flaw", you would have to have a proper understanding of "perfection", a concept which presupposes it. If you hold that there is only one reality and "perfection" does not exist in a world of Forms a la Plato, what would perfection then consist of? If one rejects an intrinsicist view of "perfection", and thus of "flaw", how then does one know when to use the term?

Now, in the Objectivist literature, you don't get a lengthy discussion of the concept "perfection" till Dr. Harry Binswanger's "The Possible Dream" (The Objectivist Forum, Vol. 2, February and April, 1981.).

But you won't even get to this stage of superior understanding if you put any store by ne'er-do-wells.

How is this statement not skepticism? Once again, we are trying to determine whether or not Ayn Rand regularly exhibited certain personality traits, and the accounts of people who were close friends of hers are the only source of information we have to resolve this. If we could not use such people, then no biographies would be possible at all.

I think Burgesslau said the same thing I did, only more succinctly

Here again, context is dropped. The context I made that statement in is "in regard to Miss Rand and her husband's one-party dealings with the Brandens." Skepticism, as a philosophical concept however, holds the ultimate context, existence, as its field of operation. Context-dropping, by the way, is a logical fallacy.

As I have written above, the Brandens were once close friends of hers but did not remain so unto her death. To deliberately forget that is mischievous. And no, you are trying to determine Ayn Rand's personality traits by using non-objective, non-trustworthy people. I do no such thing. I rely on those who are trusted to be objective. There is a lot of material from which to know Ayn Rand out today. There is the Michael Paxton documentary; there is her work, her speeches, her TV appearances; there are her papers which have now (all, I believe) been published by Dr. Peikoff; there is a biography by the Sures, who also knew her well; there are off-the cuff accounts by other honest people who knew her in various media.

But, most of all, there is your own capacity for introspection. Consider all the spell-binding truths discovered and elucidated by Miss Rand. Truths which span the gamut of human understanding and achievement. Consider the hours of contemplation and application that it must have taken to produce them. Then project the type of person who could have done all this. In such moments, I feel as if I were at the birth of time itself, as if I were present when the Christians say that God made the World and that it was Good. It must have been a marvellous work indeed to behold. As is Objectivism, a marvellous work indeed.

An ad hominem attack would be "Ayn Rand made some mistakes/wasn't perfect, therefore Objectivism is invalid," correct? I did not think the book made that argument, and it saddens me to think that there are some people out there who might get turned-off to Objectivism because of reading this. I may be wrong about this, though, as I read Passion only once and at a fairly rapid pace. When the Valiant book comes out, I will read both books in parallel and reconsider this question.

Zeus: if I appeared to "have no problem with what [Passion] contains," it is because I didn't see any reason why BB would tell any flat-out lies about Ayn Rand. It seemed to me that, although there was a period of mutual animosity between the two, they made up and restored their friendship before Ayn died. I hadn't realized, until very recently, that there was such a savage hatred among Objectivists for Barara, and I'm still trying to fully understand it.

I don't think it is necessary to go over these points in detail as I have already done so ad nauseaum.

The main points: (1) "Ayn Rand made mistakes" requires one to define "mistakes" in the proper context, etc. (2) The onus of proof is on you to first establish that this friendship was indeed restored -- it is wrong to take only one party's word for it, as I have demonstrated irrefutably. I have never heard that claim made by anyone till now.

[Randrew]

Sorry, I didn't mean to start any fistfights with this thread. I hadn't realized how difficult the study of Ayn Rand's life and personality would be. It's clear that I have a lot more research to do before bringing these issues to closure. I hope that whatever errors I have committed here can be considered "errors of knowledge" and not "breaches of morality."

Zeus, I hope I haven't angered you too much. I still do appreciate the advice that you gave me earlier in my thread about CPLs. (You too, Burgess.)

[Ed from OC]

What I want to know is who were these "number of her friends" and what were their "observations" to support this claim?  Either BB is lying about this or she isn't.  Either there are a number of other friends of Ayn's that made similar observations, or this is just BB's distorted interpretation of a few observations intended to create a flaw that wasn't there. 

So, tell me: how the hell am I supposed to figure this out?  I guess I'm just going to have to search for these accounts in other literature about Rand.

I'm getting kind of tired of quibbling over the driving issue, anyway.  The main reason I presented those examples was to tell Bucko that he can't just easily dismiss BB's claim without considering the rest of the evidence presented in the book that supports it.

One principle from Objectivist epistemology is that the arbitrary is neither true nor false, and should be summarily dismissed. If someone asserts a claim, the responsibility is on that person to provide evidence. If someone wants to convince me of something, I insist on proof. The fact that she doesn't prove any of her wild claims is very telling.

What you have in this example is a series of assertions. The first sentence I quoted is the right question to ask. Without evidence -- e.g., eyewitness testimony -- such claims are arbitrary.

In the particular case of this book, there is today much more information available about Ayn Rand's life than when the book first came out. Those interested can compare contents of multiple sources.

[Yes]

I think what Barbara was trying to argue was that Ayn felt more alienation from physical reality than most people, and to an unhealthy extent.  Let me adduce a few examples:

-Her awkwardness as a cook (239)

-Her fear of investing (318)

-Her fear of flying (318)

-Her unwillingness to exercise

I'd like to try to induce some reason into this.

First off, I did read "The Passion of Ayn Rand". I found the insights into the book interesting. There appeared, at least in my mind, an attempt to humanize Ayn Rand by Ms. Branden, followed by contradictions by Ms. Branden which had the effect of conveying a message that "Miss Rand, in spite of her personal quirks, pursued her mission of life to the utmost."

Going to your various examples, the one that strikes me is "her unwillingness to exercise."

Here's why.

First and foremost, the "pursuit of happiness" is the most important aspect of anyone's life.

But the pursuit of happiness is strictly up to individual preference. If Ms. Rand did not think that exercise would contribute to her own personal happiness and comfort, then why should she do it? And who am I to criticize her for that choice?

.

There was another that I forgot, though: her inability to learn to drive.

Were I to try to learn to drive in the 1930's, I might have not learned to drive a vehicle, either. Have you any conception as to what went into cars in the 1930's as opposed to the cars you and I drive today? No automatic transmissions. No adjustible steering wheels, even the seats were not adjustible. No power steering. Mechanical brakes that required superhuman strength to apply.

Considering that she was the best American novelist in the 20th Century, I'm more than willing to overlook whatever personality quirks she had.