A question was asked about good Nathaniel Branden books. From what I understand of his intellectual career, he was at his height right when the break with AR came along, i.e. in late 60s. That is when he wrote what I consider to be a fantastic book on Self Esteem, “Psychology of Self Esteem” (most of which was written before the break, and was approved by AR).
What evidence do you have that “most of” that book was “approved” by Ayn Rand?
The book was published in 1969, and most of it (so he says in the Introduction) was completed before the break
a work of that kind would be incredibly difficult to write and publish by 1969 if was started the day after the break
in the book I found none of bitterness toward AR and Oism that would so characterize NB’s later works
there are many passages in the book that are small, charming anecdotes providing a glimse of a comfortable, relaxed life (something I doubt he had after the break, what with the rejection, though deserved, from a woman of AR’s magnitude, breaking of NBI, changing cities, establishing a new practice from scratch).
I’m not a pro in Oism by any means, but I’ve found nothing in the book that contradicts the philosophy, and an enormous deal that complements it.
and finally he says so himself in the book’s introduction, though in retrospect I can see why one would give this fact the least weight. But then again, I read the first edition (my library doesn’t update books often apparently), and so whatever is said in the Introduction was said by the old NB, not the new one. In my cursory study of his intellectual career, I’ve observed that it went downhill from the break, with increasingly vague definitions and decreasing honesty about past events. I’d think he was still more or less honest in 1969.
- and finally he says so himself in the book’s introduction, though in retrospect I can see why one would give this fact the least weight.
Actually, I give that no weight. Your preceding answers were interesting comments but not at all evidence for what you asserted. If you want to claim your assertion is true because Branden said so, then in fairness to Ayn Rand you should qualify your assertion with something like “according to Branden.” But, please, do not make claims that the book was “approved” by Ayn Rand without identifying your (dubious) source.
This is admittedly speculative, and I don’t have the resources available to check it myself, but was any of the material in The Psychology of Self-Esteem previously published in The Objectivist Newsletter or The Objectivist? If Branden had been working on the book prior to the break that seems at least possible, and any material so published could reasonably be viewed as “approved” by Ayn Rand.
I do have to agree with the observation that the quality of Branden’s work went downhill steadily after his break with Rand. The Psychology of Self-Esteem is IMHO his ‘best’ work.
This is admittedly speculative, and I don’t have the resources available to check it myself, but was any of the material in The Psychology of Self-Esteem previously published in The Objectivist Newsletter or The Objectivist? If Branden had been working on the book prior to the break that seems at least possible, and any material so published could reasonably be viewed as “approved” by Ayn Rand.
Yes, if any material in that book was published just as it was previously published in the Objectivist material, then indeed it would be proper to say that that particular material was “approved” in advance of the book publication by Ayn Rand. But, even if that were true, that hardly qualifies as justifying the blanket statement that the book itself was “approved” by Ayn Rand.
Well, NB’s say-so was the last, and least weighty reason in the list I provided. The reasons for my statement were circumstantial, in that he was held in highest repute by AR for most of the book’s creative period, and the book itself deals with difficult subjects, and deals with them admirably and without equal in other books I’ve read. Now, if I were him and I was engaged in writing this book, I would show it to AR and have her comment on it. Since he’s been practicing psychology for many years by 1968, AR was well familiar with his psychology theories, etc. In general all circumstantial facts point to the conclusion that a book of this quality and magnitude would not avoid AR’s knowledge, as it was being written.
Now, however, in today’s environment of people appropriating AR’s name and work left and right (NB being himself on the bleeding edge of this phenomenon), I agree with you that we must be extra sticklers about what constitutes Objectivist material and what doesn’t. But when all this craziness blows over, in a decade or in 50 years, I do believe the book will be considered part of the Objectivist corpus, just like David Kelley’s “Evidence of the Senses”.
Edit: or rather, DK’s book will be held on par with LP’s “OPAR” as valid continuation of Objectivist theories, despite the fact that DK has shown himself in disagreement with the philosophy in the years subsequent to publishing the book.
I agree with you that we must be extra sticklers about what constitutes Objectivist material and what doesn’t.
Then please do not make the claim that Ayn Rand “approved” that book when all you have is evidence that you yourself deem to be circumstantial. It is an issue of honesty to the facts, and respect for Ayn Rand.
Just out of curiosity, what would you say if I asked you whether I should read “Evidence of the Senses”?
Just out of curiosity, what would you say if I asked you whether I should read “Evidence of the Senses”?
I would say “Go right ahead.” But what has this to do with whether or not it is proper to claim that Ayn Rand “approved” a book when she clearly did not?
I guess the difference here is what we mean by the word “approved”. In the original post, I meant it in a more loose sense of a book (or at least most of it) that was written by a prominent Objectivist , was difficult and pioneering in its theme (not previously addressed by AR or other prominent Objectivists), and was read and agreement expressed by AR to the author and in private circles. I did not mean “approve” in the strict sense of her writing in the Oist Newletter, “I’ve read this book and I like it.”
Circumstantial evidence is, after all, evidence of some kind, not a useless fact. While we lack AR’s official statement, it is more than reasonable to suggest that she read and agreed with the parts of the book finished by the time of the break.
So it’s not that I’m misconstruing definitions or somehow allowing infringement on AR’s honor. I simply chose a loose definition while you chose a strict one. It is a matter of choice, and I agreed with you that for the time being, when people will abuse loose definitions to acquire unearned rewards, it will be best suit to exclude PoSE from “official” Oist material, though it certainly belongs there and ought to be so considered when the dishonest men stop trying to cash in. I’m arguing for the proper place for the book, not the current one. By corollary, though “officially” I will have to temporarily amend my previous statement and say that AR did not approve of Psychology of Self Esteem in any public fashion, it should be apparent from these posts that I see it “as if” it was official Oist material, and highly helpful to one’s pursuit of personal success and happiness (and I will venture a guess that everyone who’s read it will agree).
But the reason I brought “Evidence of the Senses” into this is I didn’t know how far you would go with the strictness policy. You might have said that DK’s book is bad because he’s shown himself to be a pseudo-Objectivist. I’m sorry if you were offended in any way.
Free Capitalist, if you meant “approved” in some other way than I take it, then fine; all I wanted to do is clarify the fact that Ayn Rand did not approve that book (in the normal meaning of “approve”) and it therefore should not be considered to be a part of her philosophy of Objectivism.
As to your mention of a “strictness policy,” I view ideas as being right or wrong essentially by their correspondence to reality, not by the standard of the person who said them.
A classic not mentioned is Henrik Ibsen, a novelist Ayn Rand herself enjoyed. I especially recommend his “The Lady from the Sea” and “An Enemy of the People”.
A classic not mentioned is Henrik Ibsen, a novelist Ayn Rand herself enjoyed. I especially recommend his “The Lady from the Sea” and “An Enemy of the People”.
I know Ibsen primarily as a playwright (and both of his works that you recommended are plays). Was he also a novelist, or was that just written in error?
But anyway, I’ll second the recommendation. I’ve loved Ibsen since high school, largely due to the two plays you mentioned here.
It’s funny. Last night I was at a bar with a pint of guiness. I had an abridged version of Les Miserables on the table. There was a couple to my right, and a man behind who it seemed had too much to drink. Eventually, after a discussion about heated patios, the lady of the couple, noticed that book and suggested that I sit with the drunken poetry enthusiast behind me. She soon realized that I wanted to be alone. The guy with her asked who was my favorite Latin American writer. I said that I hadn’t read any and that Ayn Rand was my favorite.
They knew of The Fountainhead and the lady related that her battered copy was stolen from her bookshelf at one of her parties. The man said that he had started reading The Fountainhead and could not finish due to its lenght. I answered with an air that suggested he was missing out on something wonderful.
The lady asked me what it was about Ayn Rand that attracted me. I said that it was the ideas in the novel, ideas that became the words for a feeling about life that I had already felt all my life; many of her fans have had this reaction. But then when you read the story over and over, you realize that the story is told superbly; and the conflicts by the onslaught of obstacles that hit Roark, cannot fail to keep one’s attention.
I recommended plays since the length of Rand’s writings seemed to be a factor. I recommended Schiller, Hugo, Rostand.
Finally I commented with a smile that if he wanted to read The Fountainhead without reading The Fountainhead, then he might want to read Ibsen’s Enemy of The People. The themes of both are similar.
So I definately recommend Ibsen. Also I recommend Tore Boeckman’s course The Principle of Drama which gets into the structure of several of the stories of the above Authors and more.
The man, it seemed, was planning on actually reading The Fountainhead.
Americo.
I know Ibsen primarily as a playwright (and both of his works that you recommended are plays). Was he also a novelist, or was that just written in error?
But anyway, I’ll second the recommendation. I’ve loved Ibsen since high school, largely due to the two plays you mentioned here.
You are absolutely right, the works recommended are plays, not novels. I do not think he wrote any novels at all, none that I know of.
Also I recommend Tore Boeckman’s course The Principle of Drama which gets into the structure of several of the stories of the above Authors and more.
I second that recommendation. Tore’ Boeckmann’s course is great and made me appreciate litterature and Ibsen even more than before. By the way, Tore will give a lecture in London this weekend on “Romanticism and Individual Values”; Scott McConnel will lecture on The Greatness of Terrence Rattigan: I soo look forward to their lectures! Other speakers will be Robert Tracinski on “To the Empire! A Vindication of British Colonialism”! John Lewis on, among other things, Ancient history and the lessons we can draw from it in our current war between Faith and Reason (see detailed lecture desription on conference website below) and the Dane Christian Beenfeldt on Alan Turing and the philosophy of AI.
The one and only Professor John Ridpath will lecture on the Founding Fathers (I heard his Nietzsche talk last year, in Oslo; it was awesome, I really got inside N’s twisted mind and I saw concretely why and how N. influenced modern philosophy. John Ridpathh is a truly outstanding and moving lecturer!).
So if any of you on the East Coast or elsewere have the opportunity, come to London this weekend, for details see (and please forward to anyone who might be interested):
http://www.icognition.biz/iCon2004/index.html
Thanks,
Harald
I’d like to recommend a military history book:
The Soul of Battle, by Victor Davis Hanson, 1999
The book’s subtitle is From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny, and that is an accurate summary of the book’s content. The book is in three sections that deal with:
an army of soldiers from Thebes and other Boeotian city states
in a campaign to destroy the slave society of Sparta and liberate
hundreds of thousands of people who had been slaves to the
Spartans.
the Confederacy. Hanson argues that Sherman’s caimpaign was
responsible for ending the Civil War, and with far fewer casualties
than would otherwise have been the case.
Hanson argues that Patton’s military genius and the resulting rapid
progress of his Third Army resulted in a much earlier defeat of Germany
than would have otherwise been the case. He also describes how Patton
was repeatedly held back by superiors.
The book emphasizes generalship, and the fighting spirit of free men - who fight for a moral cause. Hanson emphasizes how much the successes are due to these particular generals; in his opinion, there was nobody else at the time who could or would have done what they did. To me it’s quite inspiring. These generals fought brilliant and ruthless campaigns with audacity, and in spite of opposition from other leadership on their own side. In addition, Epaminondas, Sherman and Patton were good at inspiring men in a great moral crusade. They didn’t just see themselves as fighting a war: they saw themselves as smashing tyranny, and they did their best to instill this idea in the men they led.
Frustrating is that apparently much of the information that existed about Epaminondas is lost, so Hanson’s description of this campaign left out lots of details. But also in the case of Sherman and Patton, Hanson does not provide a detailed description of the campaign. So if you are looking for a complete description of these campaigns, you won’t get it from this book. I don’t regard this as a problem, because there are plenty of other books (quite a few of which are listed in Hanson’s bibliography) that do provide these details. But, you’ll probably get more out of the book if you are somewhat familiar with the course of the Civil War and the European theatre of World War II. (Though even that’s not a prerequisite: I previously knew very little about Greece at the time of Epaminondas, yet was able to follow that section of the book easily.)
A minor flaw is that he identifies “democracy” as being what these men were fighting for. Which in a narrow sense, it is, since the systems they instituted were ones in which leaders were democratically elected by the populace, but it should be distinguished from the kind of mob rule of an unlimited democracy, which is not at all what they were fighting for. (Though perhaps in ancient Greece the ideas were not fully enough developed so that the distinction was clear.)
This book is particularly relevant today: our fine armies are held back by men who do not have the moral courage to wage a ruthless war, so it is inspiring and instructive to read about men who had that courage, “went for the jugular”, and decisively won, at far less overall cost in lives, than if the armies had been led by lesser men. I also like the connection Hanson makes between the ancient Greeks and America.
There is nothing so powerful as an army of free men, led by a military genius, fighting to obliterate a tyrannical state.
…
In reading this book, I also discovered that its author has written some good essays on current events that are available on his web site. And I strongly recommend that too.
Hanson is a professor of classics at Cal State Fresno. His web site is http://victorhanson.com. It contains a list of fairly current essays, mostly on topics related to the war, and also has some archived essays. I’ve by no means read all of them, and I have read none of the ones on his site that were written by other people.
The best thing I like about his essays on the present war and the greater political situation today is that he does not hesitate to name the issues. Morally, and with force. He speaks as a man who does not consider situations such as the 9/11 terrorism or the recent murders of the Russian schoolchildren morally ambiguous at all. This is a man who sees things in black and white. (In these respects, his essays are reminiscent of his book. Forcefully written, with moral clarity.) Not being an Objectivist, he doesn’t go all the way back to the philosophical roots of the problem, so you won’t find something as clear, for example, as Peter Schwartz’s outlining of the fact that a proper foreign policy rests on self interest. And though he identifies the Islamic fundamentalists as evil and names the concretes that justify this, he doesn’t quite get to the root of the evil. But - the way I look at it is that an Objectivist reader can fill this in. I also don’t know whether he’d actually recommend quite as ruthless of a fight as Peikoff would (and I concur with Peikoff).
Another refreshing aspect of his writing is that he makes no attempt to be politically correct. Interestingly, he’s apparently a Democrat (and some of his writing does use fairly liberal justifications for his positions), but doesn’t seem to have much use at all for people like Dean or Kerry and holds Michael Moore in complete contempt.
Whatever he is politically, he’s a man who loves Western Civilization and understands that it needs to be unhesitatilgly defended. From his book and from his essays, he clearly understands that there is such a thing as a just war. His essays are some of the best analysis of the present war that I’ve found anywhere.
the curious incident of the dead dog in the night time, by mark hadden
count of monte cristo by dumas
I have read these so I recommend them (none of them are Objectivist)
(They are not all great literature, but have good heroes or good plots, in the case of Follett and Clancy the bad characters are better drawn than the good ones)
Barometer Rising, by Hugh MacLennon
Monna Vanna, by Maurice Maeterlinck
Ian Fleming (James Bond series)
Eye of the Needle, Ken Follet (none of his other books)
The Hunt for Red October, Tom Clancy (none of his other books, although I have read them all)
Harry Potter, JK Rowling
The Mind Thing, Brown, Fredric, , also his mystery and other sci-fi books
McWilliams Special, Spearman, Frank
Cold Equations, Goodwin, Tom
Cappy Ricks, Kyne, Peter
My favourite books other than AR are those written by Andrzej Sapkowski. They will be finally published in english so you will be able to enjoy them too. He wrote great fantasy pentalogy which is about the Witcher. If you see it, I highly recommend to buy it.
From fantasy I liked some books by David Gemmell - especially those about Wayfarer.
I recommend books by Milan Kundera too. I haven´t read much of fiction recently but books by him are worth mentioning.
I read a lot of nonfiction, I especially like Richard Dawkin´s books from the field of biology (evolution) and William Glasser´s books in psychology.