Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
fanofayn

Nathaniel Branden

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

"If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument, not the poster. If you think that a poster is behaving in an irrational or immoral manner, contact the moderators."

My apologies for stating my judgment rather than alerting the moderators per the forum guidelines. However, I will note for the record that I attacked the argument, and the poster responded with arbitrary assertions and insults, making it inappropriate to engage her in argument any further.

Edited by DPW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All these replies are daunting.  :nuke:  I'm just going to try to answer the main points:

[Repeats "Why didn't Peikoff do this-and-that" routine]

You weren't trying very hard, were you?

You have stated that you have known Mr. Branden personally. Could you give us some further background info on that? Things like when and how you met him, how old you were back then, how long your acquaintance lasted, whether your reason for meeting him had to do with psychiatry, Objectivism, or something else--and so on. We need this in order to be able to judge you more accurately.

Most members and moderators of this forum, myself included, hold Nathaniel Branden to be a professional con man and a liar on a massive scale. This judgment necessarily casts a suspicion on any person who appears here as his advocate, although we understand that a young and naive person may easily be taken in by his deceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most members and moderators of this forum, myself included, hold Nathaniel Branden to be a professional con man and a liar on a massive scale. This judgment necessarily casts a suspicion on any person who appears here as his advocate, although we understand that a young and naive person may easily be taken in by his deceptions.

That is not the issue, in my view. The issue is that Binetta's posts have been completely arbitrary, including arbitrary denunciations of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and others. When called out on these claims, or when evidence has been demanded of her, she has been silent. That is, I think, inappropriate behavior on a forum devoted to rational discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most members and moderators of this forum, myself included, hold Nathaniel Branden to be a professional con man and a liar on a massive scale. This judgment necessarily casts a suspicion on any person who appears here as his advocate, although we understand that a young and naive person may easily be taken in by his deceptions.

I think there is really more to this. While reading Branden's article, he mentioned some of his patients coming to him and asking certain questions and he mentioned the answers he gives them. What I think he does is that he indoctrinates his patients with his own pseudo-objectivism under false pretenses: his patients probably don't even know (much) about his break with Ayn Rand and he exploits that.

I mention this only as a possibility though, not as a fact that I've established. But judging from his article, I would put that forward as something more than a possibility: a probability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ultimate truth here is that Rand was an utter GIANT but somewhat flawed as well.

Interesting. How is it you know "the ultimate truth" if there is no evidence to counter the Branden's "self-serving lies"?

Absent alternative biographies from the ARI crew, the two Branden books stand as the definitive works on The Life Of Rand. History will conclude thus. The silence of Peikoff, Schwartz, Binswanger and others who knew Rand is deafening and intolerable. Silence here is assent.
Are you aware of the feature film, "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life"?

Are you aware of the 20 page essay by Peikoff titled, "My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand: An Intellectual Memoir"?

Have you read, "Letters of Ayn Rand"?

Or "Journals of Ayn Rand"?

Are you familiar with "Ayn Rand's Life: Highlights and Sidelights," by Harry Binswanger?

How about "Facets of Ayn Rand" by Charles and Mary Ann Sures?

What about "Ayn Rand and the Atlas Shrugged Years: Reminiscences and Recollections," by Mary Ann Sures with Harry Binswanger?

Have you read "Ayn Rand" by Jeff Britting?

How about "Ayn Rand and Song of Russia" by Robert Mayhew?

All of this is in addition to Valliant's 433 pages and 492 footnotes. So, I ask again, how much is enough? What has not been answered? What claim have the Branden's made that has not been refuted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot to consider on this thread. One quick point is that I do not know Nathaniel Branden in any serious way -- I've just chatted with him a few times and read some of his books (plus all his Objectivist essays). Same with Brook, Binswanger, Hull and a few others. As for all the works cited by AisA--this list is long and I really had no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoshana Milgram is currently working on a biography of Miss Rand (covering her life from birth up to the publication of Atlas Shrugged), with the full cooperation of ARI and its Archives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One quick point is that I do not know Nathaniel Branden in any serious way -- I've just chatted with him a few times and read some of his books (plus all his Objectivist essays). Same with Brook, Binswanger, Hull and a few others.

OK, so then the question is: Why have you singled out Mr. Branden as your "favorite" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, so then the question is: Why have you singled out Mr. Branden as your "favorite" ?

Good lord, you really attack her from all sides, do you.

I don't really see a real problem here.

She just said: Maybe Branden isn't quite the asshole you think.

She read his texts and said that there is some merit to them and wondered why there are no alternatives. The alternatives that exist were unknown to her.

She only knew one of them and she believed Branden made a more convincing case. Even though she may be biased by having chatted with him, from her point of view this made sense.

Sometimes, in the middle of a fight, it helps to step back and reevaluate the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×