Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Question about Nathaniel Branden

Rate this topic


CptnChan

Recommended Posts

I agree completely with Rand and Branden's decision to keep their affair a secret. All romantic relationships should be private — with the exception of marriage, which by its nature involves a public declaration. (Even then, it's not a good idea to discuss specific details of your love life with anyone but close friends.)

Ayn Rand's enemies have had a field day with the revelation of the affair. Can you imagine how it would have been used against her at the time?

None of us can know the exact circumstances and context which made this type of arrangement seem to those involved to be an avenue worth pursuing. What we do know is that it was consensual, and there was seemingly no deception.

Perhaps the affair was a mistake — then again, it apparently gave Rand much-needed inspiration and fuel during the years that she was writing Atlas Shrugged. (AR initially dedicated Atlas to both Branden and her husband.)

I'm usually not too concerned about the personal lives and decisions of others. People are free to do what they want; if they choose poorly, they will suffer the consequences.

It's generally better to take an easygoing, accepting attitude toward the issue of love and sex, rather than to risk becoming overly rigid in your approach, and thus puritanical in your thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely with Rand and Branden's decision to keep their affair a secret. All romantic relationships should be private — with the exception of marriage, which by its nature involves a public declaration. (Even then, it's not a good idea to discuss specific details of your love life with anyone but close friends.)

Why would anyone think that all romantic relationships should be kept secret?!!!

If you think that it's okay to discuss such things with close friends, why didn't Rand mention to anyone, including her closest friends and associates, that she was having a relationship for years with Branden?

And speaking of marriage being a public declaration, what type of public declaration is it? It's one in which two people declare romantic exclusivity/monogamy to each other, isn't it? And if they have altered that arrangement, don't they owe the public notification that the relationship is no longer monogamous? Isn't it an act of dishonesty to actively promote the public illusion of a monogamous marriage in order to continue to receive the benefits of the social status of marriage?

Ayn Rand's enemies have had a field day with the revelation of the affair.

Her "enemies"? Is anyone who is critical of Ayn Rand's behavior automatically an "enemy" in your book?

Can you imagine how it would have been used against her at the time?

Rand on appeasement:

"It is understandable that men might seek to hide their vices from the eyes of people whose judgment they respect. But there are men who hide their virtues from the eyes of monsters. There are men who apologize for their own achievements, deride their own values, debase their own character—for the sake of pleasing those they know to be stupid, corrupt, malicious, evil."

In other words, why should it have mattered to Rand what others thought of her relationship with Branden? Why put their stupid, malicious opinions above her own highest values? Rand never cared what others thought of her opinions on any other subject, so why should she value theirs above her own on the subject of her romantic relationships? It sounds to me, Kevin, as if you're promoting the cowardice of appeasing others as being virtuous.

None of us can know the exact circumstances and context which made this type of arrangement seem to those involved to be an avenue worth pursuing. What we do know is that it was consensual, and there was seemingly no deception.

There was deception. When people who have sought public and legal recognition of their marriage are falsely putting forth the public illusion of continued exclusive monogamy, they are engaged in deception. They are actively seeking to continue receiving a type of social status when they don't deserve it.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One additional point just occurred to me. Kevin wrote:

I agree completely with Rand and Branden's decision to keep their affair a secret. All romantic relationships should be private — with the exception of marriage, which by its nature involves a public declaration.

I take it then that you are on Branden's side when it comes to his not telling Rand about his romantic relationship with Patrecia? You think that he was right to not tell her, and that she was wrong to condemn him for not telling her?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely with Rand and Branden's decision to keep their affair a secret. All romantic relationships should be private — with the exception of marriage, which by its nature involves a public declaration. (Even then, it's not a good idea to discuss specific details of your love life with anyone but close friends.)

It seems to me that there is a large difference between keeping the details of a romantic relationship "private" versus keeping the relationship itself a secret. Before getting married, people were certainly aware that I was involved romantically with my now-wife, though they weren't necessarily privy to the details. And I suspect that this has been true of every substantial romantic relationship that I've had. I would really have needed to work to "hide" it from others -- and for what purpose? Because "all romantic relationships should be private"? What do you think you mean by this? How would hiding my relationship with my now-wife from my friends and family have made my life better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't anything wrong with romantic relationships with multiple people; at the time, she clearly thought they were okay as long as all the parties in question consent and are honest.

I'm not so sure about this. I guess it depends on what you mean by wrong. Perhaps it can be explained in a way that makes sense, but when put into practice is it really a good idea? Just because all parties consent at the outset, that doesn't necessarily mean all parties will continue to feel that way once it's actually happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes you don’t have a choice about whom you deal with.

...but you always have a choice of how you deal with them, and that is what sets the moral tone of the interaction.

IRS agents and traffic cops come to mind as stark examples.

(shrug...) They're still just people who have a wide latitude of personal discretion in their responses to you. So it is up to you to be the kind of person who deserves decent treatment. And that can't be faked. Only what you actually are inside will determine the consequences you set into motion.

Then there’s people at work. Sure you can find another job, or ditch an important client because one of his underlings is an asshole.

Assholes always find their own kind with whom to interact. And when just one person is genuinely not an asshole, the other cannot behave like one.

But not always, not without a disproportionate sacrifice. This calls to mind one of Nassim Taleb’s phrases, he relates how he got a big bonus while he was working on Wall Street, it was a life changing thing, and he called it “fuck you money”. It empowered him to tell people he didn’t want to deal with where to go.

F.U. are the most expensive words in the English Dictionary!

And you just made a good case for owning your own business.

Anyway, I gather you’re not nearly as naïve as I feared, and I agree that one should try to set a good moral tone, and that for the most part it can be done.

Yes. It is imperative... because if you do not set the moral tone, you just gave your sanction to be the victim of the other person who sets it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would anyone think that all romantic relationships should be kept secret?!!!

What are the specific actions Rand and/or Branden took in order to keep it secret? Secrecy implies an effort to hide information by means of deception (which I agree is wrong), not merely neglecting to mention some information that other people probably have no need to know. I don't know enough of the context to condemn Branden or Rand. Generally people are observant of relationships and may on occasion ask if someone is in a relationship with another. Upon finding out about one, many people would assume multiple relationships would be not even plausible, so wouldn't even bother to ask or wonder beyond the relationship known about. I can understand actually holding back a public announcement, she might have gotten some nasty flak from the government by accusing her of adultery regardless if there was consent. Remember, the time period, it was before the civil rights movement even. Avoiding mistreatment from the government is reasonable.

Why Rand didn't mention to her closest friends, I have no idea. That would apply to Branden as well.

I read your other post, I just don't have comments on it.

The only reason that I asked to be informed is that a few of my posts have been deleted lately without notification or explanation, and despite the fact that they didn't contain anything that was against the rules or guidelines here.

I was unaware of this, PM me about it if you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the specific actions Rand and/or Branden took in order to keep it secret? Secrecy implies an effort to hide information by means of deception (which I agree is wrong), not merely neglecting to mention some information that other people probably have no need to know.

I do think there was deception going on. Her statements on marriage, relationships, and Frank as her highest value were deceptive. It gave the perception that they had a monogamous, loving relationship and added to the belief by "followers" that she lived the moral life, which she clearly did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who honestly doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the whole thing?

I obviously love Rand’s work. I love Branden’s work too as his material in TVOS and CTUI were some of my early favorites and his later work was solid too. TVAR is my go to source for looking up basic objectivism facts as a matter of fact. Their material stands on its own and can be judged on its own.

Perhaps it’s because I spent the 90’s reading all of their material oblivious to the whole mess, outside of a simple non-descript message in one of the books, and thus just kept reading without the baggage of the whole thing, but I don’t see it affecting their work. As for the affair, it sounds like two people had a passionate affair and not surprisingly when they broke up it was also passionate. Branden was young and apologized for his party while Rand was angry. That isn’t surprising since she is an older strong personality with the mind of the century. It most have been a real blow and hell have no fury of a women who feels scorned.

So I just look at the work and judge their ideas, since that is the value I get from them anyway.

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who honestly doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the whole thing?

It's sort of like gossiping about an ink blot.

So I just look at the work and judge their ideas, since that is the value I get from them anyway.

Just my two cents.

I agree. Falling short of an ideal does not invalidate that ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who honestly doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the whole thing?

I obviously love Rand’s work. I love Branden’s work too as his material in TVOS and CTUI were some of my early favorites and his later work was solid too. TVAR is my go to source for looking up basic objectivism facts as a matter of fact. Their material stands on its own and can be judged on its own.

Perhaps it’s because I spent the 90’s reading all of their material oblivious to the whole mess, outside of a simple non-descript message in one of the books, and thus just kept reading without the baggage of the whole thing, but I don’t see it affecting their work. As for the affair, it sounds like two people had a passionate affair and not surprisingly when they broke up it was also passionate. Branden was young and apologized for his party while Rand was angry. That isn’t surprising since she is an older strong personality with the mind of the century. It most have been a real blow and hell have no fury of a women who feels scorned.

So I just look at the work and judge their ideas, since that is the value I get from them anyway.

Just my two cents.

My take is basically the same, with two exceptions:

1) As has been referenced in this thread before, there are some who seem to hold Rand up as some sort of paragon of human virtue. It is Rand's ideas which are important, not the details of her personal life, as I believe that she herself would have maintained. But if some are going to use her personal life as some sort of evidence to make a point (as referenced in the quote immediately below), then, in order to engage such a claim seriously, we may have to make our own examination of the facts, such as we can.

The one thing that still bothers me, is that often times on his podcast, Peikoff has been asked if there are any real heroes, or "John Galts". He always answers emphatically yes, saying that Ayn Rand was such a person. A person who was the perfect embodiment of a moral code.

2) In the process of doing what I've suggested in #1, it has been my experience that some people are willing to argue themselves into pretzels in order to provide a "defense" for Rand's actions, and thus preserve the conclusions of "moral perfection" or what-have-you. And these rationalizations can themselves be dangerous if taken seriously. For instance, my own participation in this thread was brought on, not to discuss Rand/Branden (for like you, I don't personally "give a rat's ass" what sex folks I've never met got up to decades ago), but because someone here made a claim that "[a]ll romantic relationships should be private," where "private," based upon the context, could very well mean "secret" (though we don't strictly know yet, because the person who posted that hasn't yet explained himself).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who honestly doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the whole thing?

I probably wouldn't give a rat's ass about the whole thing, except for the fact that in public statements, Rand, Peikoff and others have asked or demanded that their readers morally judge the Brandens. They've been accused of serious breaches of morality in regard to the affair. So I've taken up their public requests and investigated the matter, and have discovered that many of the accusations are false, and that the condemnations have not been based on objective reality, but on double standards and personal jealousy and spite.

I obviously love Rand’s work. I love Branden’s work too as his material in TVOS and CTUI were some of my early favorites and his later work was solid too. TVAR is my go to source for looking up basic objectivism facts as a matter of fact. Their material stands on its own and can be judged on its own.

Perhaps it’s because I spent the 90’s reading all of their material oblivious to the whole mess, outside of a simple non-descript message in one of the books, and thus just kept reading without the baggage of the whole thing, but I don’t see it affecting their work.

You don't see their actions as affecting their theories on romantic love?

As for the affair, it sounds like two people had a passionate affair and not surprisingly when they broke up it was also passionate. Branden was young and apologized for his party while Rand was angry. That isn’t surprising since she is an older strong personality with the mind of the century. It most have been a real blow and hell have no fury of a women who feels scorned.

So I just look at the work and judge their ideas, since that is the value I get from them anyway.

I think that their mistaken ideas on romantic love contributed significantly to their problems. They brought a lot of pain on themselves by trying to make their reality conform to their theories. Reality won. I think the fact that they employed deceptions, double standards and bullying of people they claimed to love overwhelmingly illustrates the impractibility of their theories. I also think that their inability to objectively reflect on their own actions and motives, and their inability to objectively judge their own behavior while under the "spell" of romantic love/lust is quite revealing about the nature of objectivity, subjectivity and romance. If the "mind of the century" (as you put it) can't be objective enough when in love to avoid deceiving herself and others, and to avoid employing double standards and unfairly lashing out at someone she sees as a rival for her man's affections, who can possibly be expected to practice what she preached?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the specific actions Rand and/or Branden took in order to keep it secret? Secrecy implies an effort to hide information by means of deception (which I agree is wrong), not merely neglecting to mention some information that other people probably have no need to know. I don't know enough of the context to condemn Branden or Rand.

When it came to their other romantic relationships, Rand and Branden naturally expressed themselves romantically with their partners, and often publicly spoke of their romantic love. Not doing so in regard to the affair was a specific action that was different from their normal behavior.

Generally people are observant of relationships and may on occasion ask if someone is in a relationship with another. Upon finding out about one, many people would assume multiple relationships would be not even plausible, so wouldn't even bother to ask or wonder beyond the relationship known about. I can understand actually holding back a public announcement, she might have gotten some nasty flak from the government by accusing her of adultery regardless if there was consent. Remember, the time period, it was before the civil rights movement even. Avoiding mistreatment from the government is reasonable.

No, it's not reasonable. Any excuse that comes to mind isn't reasonable just because you might want it to be true. The only real reasonable explanation is that those involved cared what others would think of them. And the reason that they cared is that they knew, or at least sort of subconsiously sensed, that their double standards and self-deceptions were something that they should be legitimately embarrassed about.

I was unaware of this, PM me about it if you want.

Yes, I suspect that eveyone's being unaware of moderators' actions is what certain moderators are counting on. I think that certain moderators believe that deleting posts anonymously and without notification is going to be too much of a hassle for members to challenge, and that they can therefore get away with it.

Anyway, thanks for your concern, but I don't want to pursue the issue further or privately. I just wanted to publicly request that whoever is deleting my posts anonymously and without notification to please stop doing it. To me, it just comes across as pettiness and dishonesty. I would hope that the moderators here would have the courage to practice the virtue of openly expaining their actions and defending them rather than hiding behind anonymity and making members jump through a lot of hoops just to discover who took action and why.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

someone here made a claim that "[a]ll romantic relationships should be private," where "private," based upon the context, could very well mean "secret" (though we don't strictly know yet, because the person who posted that hasn't yet explained himself).

I sometimes wonder how I ever managed to make a living writing for major publications. To those who have axes to grind against me, I apparently communicate in Sanskrit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sometimes wonder how I ever managed to make a living writing for major publications.

Would you mind posting links to some of your work that has appeared in major publications? I'd be interested in reading it.

To those who have axes to grind against me, I apparently communicate in Sanskrit.

You appear to be the one who has an ax to grind. You're very touchy about anyone disagreeing with anything you say, or even politely questioning you and asking for clarity. You might have a better chance of successfully communicating if you were to answer others' questions rather than avoiding doing so while complaining that they're picking on you and that they're out to get you.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only real reasonable explanation is that those involved cared what others would think of them.

This is the only reason you came up with. I came up with another one. I don't think either is more plausible. A failure of imagination on your or my part is no reason to say that these are the only reasonable explanations. Your tone is accusational here as though I'm trying to defend Rand no matter what. I am only saying that all I see is a relationship that went wrong as relationships sometimes do. I figure that it is reasonable for me to say that she could get into trouble *because* she had two romantic relationships while married as a public figure. That would have legal implications. But, I might be wrong. So, that's why I asked about what Rand and Branden did, in order to toss aside speculation and psychologizing (i.e. why, of course the only reason Rand would do this is because she was being second-handed!). Okay, you mentioned self-deception. Because I really am curious, what did Rand and Branden do in order to self-deceive or hold double standards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably wouldn't give a rat's ass about the whole thing, except for the fact that in public statements, Rand, Peikoff and others have asked or demanded that their readers morally judge the Brandens. They've been accused of serious breaches of morality in regard to the affair. So I've taken up their public requests and investigated the matter, and have discovered that many of the accusations are false, and that the condemnations have not been based on objective reality, but on double standards and personal jealousy and spite.

Like I’m going to investigate and judge someone decades removed from the quotes, let alone the incident because someone a long time ago said so. At this point it is so far removed and there have been so many statements on the issue it is pretty muddied up. I’m sure the truth is there but the opportunity cost in time is unreasonable when the only thing that is relevant is the ideas involved.

I can understand why those who were there or involved at the time would need to do this, since they met the people or where in some way “close to ground zero” so to speak. If I was in Dennis’ shoes for example, or some of the other folks over at OL it would be necessary. Or being invovled at the time when the books hit would create a need too.

The one thing I can say for sure that this whole debacle is a good way to learn about others real fast. For example, when I first started looking around the internet for Objectivist sites I bumped into the Diana Hsieh site and the ridiculously bad hit piece she ran on this spoke volumes. Well that and Kelly which was as joke.

You don't see their actions as affecting their theories on romantic love?

Well, no since I have no idea fully what they did, what really happened, and how it played out. Judging means not moralizing when one does not have the facts to be certain. Further, it is no agnosticism if one doesn’t bother simply because one neither cares nor has a reason to care. I have little desire to play gossip rag and waste time investigating gossip when I can just as easily judge the participants theories which is relevant to me.

Plus there is nothing wrong with one or both making a mistake. Fallibility is a trait of being human and the good is to correct it, not some demand to be omniscient.

I think that their mistaken ideas on romantic love contributed significantly to their problems. They brought a lot of pain on themselves by trying to make their reality conform to their theories. Reality won. I think the fact that they employed deceptions, double standards and bullying of people they claimed to love overwhelmingly illustrates the impractibility of their theories. I also think that their inability to objectively reflect on their own actions and motives, and their inability to objectively judge their own behavior while under the "spell" of romantic love/lust is quite revealing about the nature of objectivity, subjectivity and romance. If the "mind of the century" (as you put it) can't be objective enough when in love to avoid deceiving herself and others, and to avoid employing double standards and unfairly lashing out at someone she sees as a rival for her man's affections, who can possibly be expected to practice what she preached?

If there relationship exploded apart then it was certainly built on a poor foundation. Their theories could be part of it. It could also be there derivative opinions on their theories, for example Rand’s belief in man worship in the immediate psychological sense. It could also be because Branden was simply overwhelmed by the fact his teacher, mentor, and boss had a personality and mind that would naturally engage him at a stage he was not prepared to honestly evaluate it.

Or it could be they just screwed up. It happens. Whatever they did they certainly paid a price for it.

Either way, if one person fails to live up to their own code it does not necessarily say anything about that code, only the person. The ideas stand alone and fall on their own based on their truth. If I say living within my means is ethical then fail to do it that says something about me, not the principle.

And that is the point. Judging ideas is one thing and a completely different topic. Here we are asked to evaluate the people and simply put I am so far removed at this stage, and there is so much information and frankly bad blood driving that information, that taking the time and energy to do so is seemingly pointless since it provides little benefit. It is an admittedly bias on my part against gossip but really it survives no purpose. This is not like the Kelly incident which was so ridiculous that that it jumps off the page at you. In this case there is a lot of buried information with little need to go spelunking after it at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it could be they just screwed up. It happens. Whatever they did they certainly paid a price for it.

Either way, if one person fails to live up to their own code it does not necessarily say anything about that code, only the person. The ideas stand alone and fall on their own based on their truth. If I say living within my means is ethical then fail to do it that says something about me, not the principle.

And that is the point. Judging ideas is one thing and a completely different topic. Here we are asked to evaluate the people and simply put I am so far removed at this stage, and there is so much information and frankly bad blood driving that information, that taking the time and energy to do so is seemingly pointless since it provides little benefit. It is an admittedly bias on my part against gossip but really it survives no purpose.

Your position is completely understandable and rational. It is also infinitely more objective than that of the admirers of Ayn Rand who leap to a total condemnation of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, 40 years after the break, on the basis of one genuinely awful book (The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics)—while being explicitly told by Objectivist leadership not to read the accounts written by the Brandens.

The message has been: Just read our version and make up your mind--and their version consists of biased, illogical interpretations of Ayn Rand’s private journals.

The break occurred in 1968. PARC was published in 2005, and its author was allowed unprecedented access to the Ayn Rand archives by the guardians of her estate. Let’s just say that resurrecting old demons and then demanding allegiance to a one-sided presentation is perhaps not the best way to earn respectability for a philosophical movement founded on reason and objectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely with Rand and Branden's decision to keep their affair a secret. All romantic relationships should be private — with the exception of marriage, which by its nature involves a public declaration. (Even then, it's not a good idea to discuss specific details of your love life with anyone but close friends.)

Ayn Rand's enemies have had a field day with the revelation of the affair. Can you imagine how it would have been used against her at the time?

None of us can know the exact circumstances and context which made this type of arrangement seem to those involved to be an avenue worth pursuing. What we do know is that it was consensual, and there was seemingly no deception.

Perhaps the affair was a mistake — then again, it apparently gave Rand much-needed inspiration and fuel during the years that she was writing Atlas Shrugged. (AR initially dedicated Atlas to both Branden and her husband.)

I'm usually not too concerned about the personal lives and decisions of others. People are free to do what they want; if they choose poorly, they will suffer the consequences.

It's generally better to take an easygoing, accepting attitude toward the issue of love and sex, rather than to risk becoming overly rigid in your approach, and thus puritanical in your thinking.

The real problem was elevating Ayn Rand to the Platform of Utter Perfection. Rand was a talented writer, no doubt about that (look how many copies of her novels sell on Amazon). However she was as all the rest of us are, quite human with the same inventory of faults and deficits that come with being human.

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the only reason you came up with. I came up with another one. I don't think either is more plausible.

I think the problem is that Rand is a hero of yours, so rather than judge her according to normal human behavior, you're treating her as if normal explanations don't apply, and you're therefore searching for some super rational explanation. Your notion of plausibility, as it applies to your hero Rand, appears to be tainted by your admiration for her.

A failure of imagination on your or my part is no reason to say that these are the only reasonable explanations.

The idea here isn't to be imaginative, but to identify the realistic likelihood of certain motives based on normal human psychology.

Your tone is accusational here as though I'm trying to defend Rand no matter what. I am only saying that all I see is a relationship that went wrong as relationships sometimes do. I figure that it is reasonable for me to say that she could get into trouble *because* she had two romantic relationships while married as a public figure. That would have legal implications.

Maybe we should step back a bit here and clarify what we're talking about. Earlier, you had said that you could "understand actually holding back a public announcement, she might have gotten some nasty flak from the government by accusing her of adultery regardless if there was consent."

What do you mean by "nasty flak from the government"? Do you mean that the government would have enforced laws against adultery, and that its doing so would somehow be unjust? Do you realize that Rand freely chose to publicly and legally become married to Frank O'Connor, and that in doing so she was volitionally agreeing to certain legal and social conditions and benefits (including the right to continue living in the US when her visa was about to expire), and that she was legally declaring an exclusive relationship, respect for the institution of marriage, and voluntarily agreeing to the constraints of marriage and to the legal consequences of breaking the contract? Do you understand how biased and non-objective it sounds for someone to spin the enforcement of such laws as "nasty flak"? It makes it sound as if Rand is a victim when punished for violating laws and breaking contracts.

If Rand had publicly agreed to any other type of contract in which she received a certain social status and public benefits, would you be trying to frame the government's enforcement of that contract as an act of dishing out "nasty flak" as well, rather than an act of delivering justice? Is it your view that Rand somehow had the right to unilaterally re-write the contract that she and her husband had voluntarily entered into with society and government? For some reason, she got to receive all of the benefits that she received, but it was morally acceptable of her to ignore the conditions that she had agreed to and to not keep up her end of the bargain?

In short, in sounds to me as if you're claiming that Rand was motivated to keep the affair secret by the fact that she knowingly wanted to avoid the legal consequences that she had agreed to. If that's what you're trying to claim, I think it makes her appear to be morally worse than if she had merely cared too much about what the public would think.

But, I might be wrong. So, that's why I asked about what Rand and Branden did, in order to toss aside speculation and psychologizing (i.e. why, of course the only reason Rand would do this is because she was being second-handed!). Okay, you mentioned self-deception. Because I really am curious, what did Rand and Branden do in order to self-deceive or hold double standards?

Have you read Rand's journal entries on the subject of the affair? They're full of self-deceptions and double standards.

Did you read my earlier post in which I mentioned the fact that Patrecia was being condemned by Rand as being unworthy of Branden's affections, despite the fact that Patrecia, by any measurable, objective standard, was significantly more worthy of Branden's affections than Frank O'Connor was of Rands? Do you not see how that's a blatant double standard?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I’m going to investigate and judge someone decades removed from the quotes, let alone the incident because someone a long time ago said so. At this point it is so far removed and there have been so many statements on the issue it is pretty muddied up. I’m sure the truth is there but the opportunity cost in time is unreasonable when the only thing that is relevant is the ideas involved.

I disagree. It's not difficult or time-consuming to investigate and weigh what each side has had to say, to judge the types of demands that they've made of others, or to evaluate the behaviors that they've indulged in.

Well, no since I have no idea fully what they did, what really happened, and how it played out. Judging means not moralizing when one does not have the facts to be certain. Further, it is no agnosticism if one doesn’t bother simply because one neither cares nor has a reason to care. I have little desire to play gossip rag and waste time investigating gossip when I can just as easily judge the participants theories which is relevant to me.

I don't accept your attempt to paint the issue to be one of "gossip" just because you're personally not interested in recognizing the substance of the matter and the relevance that it has to the philosophy of Objectivism and its views on gender, sex and romance. If you don't care, then don't care, and don't get involved, but then also don't try to insult anyone who does care, and who does grasp the philosophical importance of the issue, by smearing them as "gossips."

I have no interest in gossip. I am only interested in the reasons that people might feel the need to employ self-deceptions and double standards in regard to their philosophical views on romantic love.

Plus there is nothing wrong with one or both making a mistake. Fallibility is a trait of being human and the good is to correct it, not some demand to be omniscient.

I agree, but which behaviors were "mistakes"? Was Rand mistaken to declare that Patrecia was a "shop girl" and was unworthy of Branden's romantic attention? Was she mistaken to view Frank as worthy of her own romantic attention? Or was her philosophical theory about the worthiness of romantic partners mistaken?

If there relationship exploded apart then it was certainly built on a poor foundation. Their theories could be part of it. It could also be there derivative opinions on their theories, for example Rand’s belief in man worship in the immediate psychological sense. It could also be because Branden was simply overwhelmed by the fact his teacher, mentor, and boss had a personality and mind that would naturally engage him at a stage he was not prepared to honestly evaluate it.

Or it could be they just screwed up. It happens. Whatever they did they certainly paid a price for it.

Well, as I keep saying, I'm not interested in gossip or the personal aspects of the affair. I'm not interested in condemning anyone or analyzing the "price they paid." I'm only interested in the validity or invalidity of the theory of romantic love.

Either way, if one person fails to live up to their own code it does not necessarily say anything about that code, only the person.

The ideas stand alone and fall on their own based on their truth. If I say living within my means is ethical then fail to do it that says something about me, not the principle.

Again, who failed to live up to the code? Did Branden fail to live up to the code by becoming romantically involved with Patrecia? If so, then did Rand also fail to live up to the code by becoming romantically involved with Frank? Should Rand have left Frank once she fell in love with Branden for his greater virtues? What, in your mind, would constitute acting according to the code? Which of Rand's conflicting opinions and judgments represents the actual code?

And that is the point. Judging ideas is one thing and a completely different topic. Here we are asked to evaluate the people and simply put I am so far removed at this stage, and there is so much information and frankly bad blood driving that information, that taking the time and energy to do so is seemingly pointless since it provides little benefit.

I'm not asking you to judge the people. I've been doing nothing but asking you to judge the ideas. Yet you keep bringing it back to judging the people. It's as if you want to avoid the ideas by falsely claiming that the discussion is nothing but lowly gossip.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine who had some personal interaction with Rand mentioned in an interview some years ago that, unlike some of her fictional protagonists, Rand certainly did care about what others thought of her. Neither my friend nor I regard that as a defect of any sort, rather, as something better than her fictional characters in that regard, and as something that is consistent with Randian virtues of independence and integrity.

It was no failing, morally or psychologically, for Rand and Branden to have the romantic relationship they had (the account I have read was Branden’s My Years with Ayn Rand). It was no failing to want it kept out of the public eye. Rand’s ethics taken full-body is not against what they tried for and had for a while. Monday morning quarterbacking is not to the point of real life and a realistic ethics.

Moreover, what they did to the point of Nathan’s concealment of his new love from Rand was fine by my own moral standards. Rand remains a hero of mine. And she remains a hero of mine even with her later defect of trying to destroy Nathan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS

A hero of mine even though she (and Branden much worse) attacked homosexuality, which was something (someone) precious to me.* Small defect in comparison to her gift.

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your notion of plausibility, as it applies to your hero Rand, appears to be tainted by your admiration for her.

You're mistaken. I am not giving Rand any special consideration. I am not defending a viewpoint. I'm asking questions because I don't know. This is how my reasoning goes for any person: understanding my context before I make a judgment (and even then, my objective here isn't primarily in order to make a judgment).

The idea here isn't to be imaginative, but to identify the realistic likelihood of certain motives based on normal human psychology.

Hence my ponderings and questions.

What do you mean by "nasty flak from the government"?

I meant that the government may unjustly prosecute *any* public figure that has extra-marital relationships. Yes, I do think the government may have enforced laws against "adultery". Indeed, Rand agreed to a marriage, but I don't think that should mean there is a legal declaration of exclusivity, respect for the institution of marriage. Now, if this were the case, that laws of marriage are unfair, I think it would be more consistent to avoid marriage altogether and make some statement about injustice. However, I don't know if marriage is something that allowed Rand to stay in the US. If it is, that would probably be justified to do. It sounds like you're trying to prove to me that Rand acted improperly, but at no point did I say Rand acted wholly properly. My plausible explanations don't mean justified actions.

Have you read Rand's journal entries on the subject of the affair? They're full of self-deceptions and double standards.

I said actions. I don't care if a journal entry has apparent self-deceptions or double standards, but then again, I haven't seen the entries. Perhaps they'd be informative. But in this context, I'm curious about specific actions. Basically, I'm asking about biographical details, because I'm curious. I'm not trying to build a moral case for or against Rand, but on my own time, I'll make a judgment.

Do you not see how that's a blatant double standard?

Sorry, I don't. Can you be more specific what the double standard is you are identifying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, what they did to the point of Nathan’s concealment of his new love from Rand was fine by my own moral standards.

Just to clarify, so there is no confusion about this: Nathaniel Branden has always acknowledged that his conduct with respect to deceiving Ayn Rand was morally wrong:

I should now like to turn to one accusation in her [Ayn Rand’s] article [“To Whom It May Concern”] that is founded on fact and that involves a grave error I did make. Several years ago, I found myself in an agonizing personal dilemma, which I saw no way to resolve. The solution I ultimately chose was wrong, because it involved resorting to a falsehood. It entailed, among other things, withholding from Miss Rand certain information about my personal life – specifically, my relationship with a young woman, with whom I was and am deeply in love…..

When I decided to close NBI (which I did by personal choice, not by legal or financial necessity), I called a meeting of the staff in order to make a statement about my break with Miss Rand. I did not want to leave them with an incomprehensible mystery. I felt very regretful over the pain I had caused Miss Rand, and wanted to assure the staff that she was fully within her moral rights in severing our relationship. I did not specify what I had done wrong; I merely acknowledged that I had taken an action that I considered wrong. I did not suspect that this attempt at candor and honesty would be used against me; but thereafter, when accusations were hurled by partisans of Miss Rand, these accusations were often accompanied by the argument: “Nathaniel Branden confessed to doing something wrong, didn’t he? What else do you need to know?” In other words, I was now to be judged guilty of any offense anyone chose to charge me with.

Nathaniel Branden, In Answer to Ayn Rand (10-16-68)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...