Nathaniel Branden

The Critics of Objectivism
1

I’m just curious about what posters here thought about Nathaniel Branden’s arguments about the pros and cons of Ayn Rand’s philosophy from the perspective of psychology, if you haven’t already read it: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/ar…nd_hazards.html

This isn’t a challenge or anything, I’m genuinely interested. I was also thinking of ordering his books on the psychology of self esteem and wondered if they were any good (I’m going to read his memoirs anyway regardless). His writing style is a lot easier to read now than it was in the 60’s.

2

Gee, this board has only been around for like…6 years. It’s amazing we have never once had a Nathaniel Branden topic.

3

Thanks for the non-sarcastic reply.

I’ll check out those threads.

4

I’m just curious about what posters here thought about Nathaniel Branden’s arguments about the pros and cons of Ayn Rand’s philosophy from the perspective of psychology, if you haven’t already read it: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/ar…nd_hazards.html

This isn’t a challenge or anything, I’m genuinely interested. I was also thinking of ordering his books on the psychology of self esteem and wondered if they were any good (I’m going to read his memoirs anyway regardless). His writing style is a lot easier to read now than it was in the 60’s.

One thing I’ve noticed is that he does not present anything new as alternatives to her philosophy. I don’t doubt that he has a point to make, but he simply doesn’t make that point. The only positive things he has to say are that “she was right sometimes”, and where he says she wasn’t, he doesn’t offer a tangible alternative. He is following one of the follies of being too critical, and that is to attempt to lead away rather than to lead towards.

Ayn Rand was a leader type, as well as a philosopher type, and so it was necessary for her to not only lead you in the right direction, but to convince you that it was good for you so that you are not being led blindly. Nathaniel Branden, on the other hand, takes a more passive role, that of the watch dog, and not of serious opposition. So with Ayn Rand, you know what you stand for, and with Nathaniel Branden, you do not.

This is why his works shouldn’t be taken as seriously as Ayn Rand’s. There may be merit in reading them, but helping develop a fully comprehensible philosophy of your own is not one of them.

5

It seems to me from reading the article that, aside from praising emotions, he didn’t really reject anything so much as criticized a lack of means for people to improve themselves (according to Objectivists standards). Which is a normal critique coming from a psychologist. He believes Ayn Rand properly defined virtue but did not provide or allow for a guide for people to get there.

6

One thing I’ve noticed is that he does not present anything new as alternatives to her philosophy. I don’t doubt that he has a point to make, but he simply doesn’t make that point. The only positive things he has to say are that “she was right sometimes”, and where he says she wasn’t, he doesn’t offer a tangible alternative. He is following one of the follies of being too critical, and that is to attempt to lead away rather than to lead towards.

Ayn Rand was a leader type, as well as a philosopher type, and so it was necessary for her to not only lead you in the right direction, but to convince you that it was good for you so that you are not being led blindly. Nathaniel Branden, on the other hand, takes a more passive role, that of the watch dog, and not of serious opposition. So with Ayn Rand, you know what you stand for, and with Nathaniel Branden, you do not.

This is why his works shouldn’t be taken as seriously as Ayn Rand’s. There may be merit in reading them, but helping develop a fully comprehensible philosophy of your own is not one of them.

Actually, Branden’s work is quite good - and I am referring to his pyschology books, for example “The Six Pillars of Self Esteem” specifically. Nothing I read in that book did I find contrary to Objectivism in any manner. I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, he does actually have some really good things to offer in terms of pyschology/self esteem etc.

7

And I’m much more comfortable reading a self-help book where the author is closer to my worldview. It might not seem important but it makes a difference, however hard to explain.

Some of the materials I’ve come across are even religious in nature, which makes me uncomfortable.

8

And I’m much more comfortable reading a self-help book where the author is closer to my worldview. It might not seem important but it makes a difference, however hard to explain.

Some of the materials I’ve come across are even religious in nature, which makes me uncomfortable.

I agree with 100% on that. I just dropped off my copy of the “7 Habits of Highly Effective People” at Halfprice books about 10 days ago. I first read it when I was in religion - was a great book for me THEN - and tried re-reading it about a year or two ago. I just couldn’t get into it because, well, while it still has some merits for me, really didn’t offer anything I could use based on what I have learned through studying Objectivism.

I am not overally concerned with what happened between the Brandens and Ayn Rand any more - but of course when I read his book, I did look for “red flags” that maybe wouldn’t jive with what I have learned so far, and there were none. But even if there were, I think I am comfortable enough to sort out what is reasonable and what isn’t.

So I suggest if you are curious - just pick up one of his books and read it. Judge for yourself.

9

I found his book “The Art of Living Consciously” to be very helpful, especially the sentence completion exercises. I’ve heard good things about his first book “The Psychology of Self-Esteem” but I haven’t read it personally.

10

What a blowhard Branden is:

  1. Rnad’s distrust of the new is probably well justified. Even if you don’t know the ins and outs. we’re all eqpuipped with BS dectectors. In philosphy, it’s called “conatural” and means “goes with being a grownup” e.t. “If it sounds too good to be true; it is”. When I hear the crap that hss come down in psychology, mostly about stress and self-esteem since the Revisionism of 1978 I understand her point. When I see the way things in medidcine change every 5 years, I’m tempted to say, “Hey, come back when you get it right. If you ever do!” For how many years was Pluto a planet? Now a bunch of Eruo-Weenies get together in 2006 and change the street signs again. Short Attention Span is endemic.

  2. The “theory of Evolution” is in fact a hypothesis. As of 1974 it was stlll being discussed as a non-settled issue. Petr Beckmann rejecited what is commonly called “the theory of Evolution” in the latge 1980’s. The reason is that “The Theory of Evolution” is taken to mean Darwin’s theory. The real kicker here is that in 1975 or 6, Rand wrote in her letter titled The Missing Link that she had a hypothesis that the “range of the moment menality” is the “missing Lin”. It also appears in either PHILOSPHY, WHO NEEDS IT or THE NEW LEFT: THE ANITI INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Now the rest of the stary; from SCIENCE DIGEST 1983 in an article titled “Was Early Man Schizophrenic”, a Dr.Jaynes located the defining characteristic of man in the rational faculty. I hope I don’t have to explain the connectin to “The Missing Link”.

  3. Given the understanding of hypnosis, especially before 1950 and how it is portraayed, one could hardly blame Rand for not buying it. Granted she was wrong but hindsight is better than foresight by a damnsight.

  4. We are supposed to take ESP and that kind of stuff seriously? Nathaniel? What’s next alien abductions? Majestic 12? shadow people? fairies, elves, demons and "nature people? Why don’t you just fill in for George Norry on Coast to Coast? You’ll fit right in. It’s been a fact for some times that the “scientist” is easily fooled and ends up falling for what a conjuror like the Great (James) Randi refutes in 3 minutes flat. e.g. Uri Geller: He had everybody buffaloed until Randi showed that he could do all those trick on demand.

  5. Science is by nature conservative. We don’t rush headlong into accepting novel ideas. Remember cold fusion? We’ve been knoked ass over tea kettle too many times.

Any more Hazards?

11

What a blowhard Branden is:

  1. Rnad’s distrust of the new is probably well justified. Even if you don’t know the ins and outs. we’re all eqpuipped with BS dectectors. In philosphy, it’s called “conatural” and means “goes with being a grownup” e.t. “If it sounds too good to be true; it is”. When I hear the crap that hss come down in psychology, mostly about stress and self-esteem since the Revisionism of 1978 I understand her point. When I see the way things in medidcine change every 5 years, I’m tempted to say, “Hey, come back when you get it right. If you ever do!” For how many years was Pluto a planet? Now a bunch of Eruo-Weenies get together in 2006 and change the street signs again. Short Attention Span is endemic.

  2. The “theory of Evolution” is in fact a hypothesis. As of 1974 it was stlll being discussed as a non-settled issue. Petr Beckmann rejecited what is commonly called “the theory of Evolution” in the latge 1980’s. The reason is that “The Theory of Evolution” is taken to mean Darwin’s theory. The real kicker here is that in 1975 or 6, Rand wrote in her letter titled The Missing Link that she had a hypothesis that the “range of the moment menality” is the “missing Lin”. It also appears in either PHILOSPHY, WHO NEEDS IT or THE NEW LEFT: THE ANITI INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Now the rest of the stary; from SCIENCE DIGEST 1983 in an article titled “Was Early Man Schizophrenic”, a Dr.Jaynes located the defining characteristic of man in the rational faculty. I hope I don’t have to explain the connectin to “The Missing Link”.

  3. Given the understanding of hypnosis, especially before 1950 and how it is portraayed, one could hardly blame Rand for not buying it. Granted she was wrong but hindsight is better than foresight by a damnsight.

  4. We are supposed to take ESP and that kind of stuff seriously? Nathaniel? What’s next alien abductions? Majestic 12? shadow people? fairies, elves, demons and "nature people? Why don’t you just fill in for George Norry on Coast to Coast? You’ll fit right in. It’s been a fact for some times that the “scientist” is easily fooled and ends up falling for what a conjuror like the Great (James) Randi refutes in 3 minutes flat. e.g. Uri Geller: He had everybody buffaloed until Randi showed that he could do all those trick on demand.

  5. Science is by nature conservative. We don’t rush headlong into accepting novel ideas. Remember cold fusion? We’ve been knoked ass over tea kettle too many times.

Any more Hazards?

  1. I will repeat what I said earlier: Nothing I have read in Six Pillars contradicts what I have learned about Objectivism. Yeah, we all have BS dectors, and we can read and think for ourselves and decide if it is or not.

  2. Life has evolved. That is a fact. All the “ins and outs” of what the evoluntionary process is - that is a hypothesis. But that life evolves is a fact.

  3. Do I think hypnosis is valid? Maybe not - but having said that, I am not reading anything by him about hypnosis, and even if I do, it doesn’t have anything to do with what I have read and listened to by Branden (including his Basic Prin of Objectivism lectures - which Rand approved I might add). So what is your point there? Rand was mistaken about a few things, but I don’t through out everything she stated just because she (in my opinion) is wrong about no women should be president, or that she stated homosexuality is wrong.

  4. Again - what is your point? That’s great Rand disputes it. I haven’t seen any scientific proof that has convinced me that ESP is real. However, the same answer applies as #3

  5. He can be wrong about things and right about others. That doesn’t make everything he has written wrong or evil.

12

  1. I will repeat what I said earlier: Nothing I have read in Six Pillars contradicts what I have learned about Objectivism. Yeah, we all have BS dectors, and we can read and think for ourselves and decide if it is or not.

  2. Life has evolved. That is a fact. All the “ins and outs” of what the evoluntionary process is - that is a hypothesis. But that life evolves is a fact.

  3. Do I think hypnosis is valid? Maybe not - but having said that, I am not reading anything by him about hypnosis, and even if I do, it doesn’t have anything to do with what I have read and listened to by Branden (including his Basic Prin of Objectivism lectures - which Rand approved I might add). So what is your point there? Rand was mistaken about a few things, but I don’t through out everything she stated just because she (in my opinion) is wrong about no women should be president, or that she stated homosexuality is wrong.

  4. Again - what is your point? That’s great Rand disputes it. I haven’t seen any scientific proof that has convinced me that ESP is real. However, the same answer applies as #3

  5. He can be wrong about things and right about others. That doesn’t make everything he has written wrong or evil.

The point is that I was addressing thing that Branden castigated Rand for not believing. Did you see me reject the notion that life evolved? What I, and others, reject is that the choice is between Darwinism and creationism. In fact I’ve seen theological material from the 1200’s that held that “things go from teh lesser to the greater…” As for ESP et al to show how bogus all that stuff is use

http://console.spacepatrol.us/bsboard.html

This is basic stuff and one would expect a trained scientist, especially one who shoots his mouth off, to know better. In this case, would it be better to be though evil or dumb?

This was listed in the Hazards (of Objectivism; while at the same time, trying to appeal to Objectivists [scratches head]). They do not pertain to Objectivism in any way. Thereefore it was part of a package deal. If he wanted to attack Rand for some antiquated attitudes that’s one thing (and why wait until she had passed away and was unable to make a rebuttal or racant? THAT is evil). Now she was wrong in many cases. Hypnosis is real, I assure you and I stipulated that it was presented in a certain way at the time. However she claimed to be neither omniscient nor infallible so why castigate her for being a person of her time and try to tag Objectivism with it? all they amounted to were personal quirks.

My point is that, given these antics, Brnaden’s credibility is precariously close to fallign into the crapper. It may not make him totally wrong; even a blind sow can find some mash, and the question of evil, well, the jury’s still out, but it does make him suspect. and does not augur well.

That’s my point.

13

The first hazard Branden states in his essay, is confusing reason with “the reasonable.”

He says:

There is a difference between reason as a process and what any person or any group of people, at any time in history, may regard as “the reasonable.” This is a distinction that very few people are able to keep clear. We all exist in history, not just in some timeless vacuum, and probably none of us can entirely escape contemporary notions of “the reasonable.” It’s always important to remember that reason or rationality, on the one hand, and what people may regard as “the reasonable,” on the other hand, don’t mean the same thing.

The consequence of failing to make this distinction, and this is markedly apparent in the case of Ayn Rand, is that if someone disagrees with your notion of “the reasonable,” it can feel very appropriate to accuse him or her of being “irrational” or “against reason.”

If you read her books, or her essays in The Objectivist, or if you listen to her lectures, you will notice with what frequency and ease she branded any viewpoint she did not share as not merely mistaken but “irrational” or “mystical.” In other words, anything that challenged her particular model of reality was not merely wrong but “irrational” and “mystical” – to say nothing, of course, of its being “evil,” another word she loved to use with extraordinary frequency.

14

The first hazard Branden states in his essay, is confusing reason with “the reasonable.”

The concept reasonable does not mean what Branden has described above.

If one induces the concept from the facts of reality (by asking oneself what facts of reality gave rise to this concept?), it objectively means exercising reason (or being rational) in one’s dealings with other people.

But according to Branden, the concept reasonable has no objective meaning.

Bottom line: If there’s one thing that is clear from Branden’s essay, it is this: in his years of association with Ayn Rand, he never grasped the principle of objectivity.

I fail to see where Branden confuses reasonable with reason or objectivity in your selected quotations. In fact, he distinguishes the two correctly in order to illustrate a fallacy. You seem to have misread what he says, then blamed him for what he did not say. You will have to come up with better evidence that Branden neither understands nor practices objectivity, especially in the face of all his works, before and beyond his association with Ayn Rand.

Branden made a distinction here that allows the reader to understand the social metaphysical roots of “reasonable” for any society or time, and just because he highlights a common error, does not mean he endorses it, nor abandons true objectivity.

I suggest you first reread OPAR, and make sure you understand the fallacy of rationalism before you erect strawmen to attack or inflict cut & paste philosophizing on a great person.

Stay Focused,

<Φ>aj

15

And I’m much more comfortable reading a self-help book where the author is closer to my worldview. It might not seem important but it makes a difference, however hard to explain.

Some of the materials I’ve come across are even religious in nature, which makes me uncomfortable.

Most self-help books are trap doors for religion which welcomes people as flawed, and not perfectible.

We all >make< mistakes, but that doesn’t mean we >are< mistakes.

I was lucky enough to attend two seminars Branden held in Vancouver many years ago, which focused on teaching people how to use the sentence stem techniques for self-exploration and deprogramming flawed responses. One thing I’ll never forget, which I’ve never experienced with any other human being before or since, is Branden’s conscious integrity when someone asks him a serious question. In the seminar or in the hallway, he would stop, and think, and think, sometimes to the point when people would start looking at their watches, and then he would finally come up with the most enlightening, incisive, actionable, and profound answers.

As others have said, Branden is not seeking to replace or correct objectivism, only bring more clarity to one of its most important aspects.

Stay Focused,

<Φ>aj

16

Rather than get into a “separating the pepper from the flyspecks” argument of “reason” and “reasonable”. How about this

Reason is the faculty and reasoning is the process of using that faculty

Reasonable is the content generated by, or concomittant with reasoning.

Truth is what you get when you use valid reasoning (process) with factual premises (the stuff you start with that is material to the matter at hand) Now if you use valid reasoning to try and solve a problem but your premises are not factual you will get a falshood. If the premises are factua butl immaterial the result is a falsehood. If the precess is flawed, whether or not the premises are factuall or material, the resutl is a falsehood. Hence as Rand stated “Truth is the correct identification of a fact of reality”

Miss Rand said, to my knowledge, very little about the operational aspect of this save that it was the process of logic. Knowledge of this was treated as a given.

Given all the above, one of the key characteristics of objectivity is that I can follow the process and come to the same conclusions as anyone who used the same premises and valid reasoning i.e. it is replacable. If that is true and I come to a different conclusion then our disagreement most likely is in the area of premises and probably on the question of “Are they material?”

Why Branden ought consider this a Hazard of Objectivism I don’t know since it is not unique to Objectivism and is less of a factor in adult thinking (post age 25) than pre-adult thinking (20-25 due to the inexperience and physio-cognitive development), just as there is a separation of emotions from feelings (one is the generator, the other is the output) at about the same time. The difference is that the emotions, barring a physcial malfunction, have the logical process automatized and such errors that occur are errors of fact or judgement. Just rcently we have started to think of “emotional intelligence” and its use to stay out of bad situations. This logical process is inaccessible to conscious controlled and is “programmed” and “re-programmed” behaviorally (by setting up new “stimuls-integration-response” pathways). This is the foundation of behaviour modification. In one area, Branden was correct; the attempt to consciously control emotions is actually the evasion of the material premises and leads to repression, not the “cure”.

Hwever, even if we allow that this is a “Hazard” of Objectivism [which it is not since non-O’ists can make the same errors]". the enumeration of the other “Hazards of Objectivism” which appear to be quirks that I’ve dealt with elsewhere, and not matters that Rand presented as philosophical matters (not material) merely make this the opening wedge for an attack on Rand and by extension (being listed as a hazard of), Objectivism.

This is a technique that I use if I must lie. I tell one or more truths of the matter and the lie is inserted somewhere near, but not at, the end of the presentation, usually as a premise, and then let my target try to figure it out. As I put it : “Tell four truths and one lie”. but this seems to be telling one truth and a few lies (immaterial matters) and using the truth to leverage the lies.

17

I like Dr Hurd better.

18

I fail to see where Branden confuses reasonable with reason or objectivity in your selected quotations. In fact, he distinguishes the two correctly in order to illustrate a fallacy. You seem to have misread what he says, then blamed him for what he did not say. You will have to come up with better evidence that Branden neither understands nor practices objectivity, especially in the face of all his works, before and beyond his association with Ayn Rand.

Branden made a distinction here that allows the reader to understand the social metaphysical roots of “reasonable” for any society or time, and just because he highlights a common error, does not mean he endorses it, nor abandons true objectivity.

I suggest you first reread OPAR, and make sure you understand the fallacy of rationalism before you erect strawmen to attack or inflict cut & paste philosophizing on a great person.

Stay Focused,

<Φ>aj

I disagree.

Being objective means you are focused on nothing but adhering to reality in the exercise of your rational faculty.

This means in dealing with other people, you are primarily concerned NOT with what they regard as rational or reasonable but with how it is related to reality, i.e., if it can be related to reality, to begin with.

If it cannot be so related, then what they regard as rational or reasonable is not objectively so, regardless of the fact that it is what they regard as such.

It is this fundamental principle (of relating everything to reality, including the rational or reasonable according to any individual or group) that Branden fails to practice in his false criticism of Ayn Rand.

Instead, he says, in addition to being rational, it is also important to focus on what other people regard as rational or reasonable, since (according to him) there is a fundamental difference between the two. And that Ayn Rand was only focused on the first and negatively judged anyone whose idea of the rational or reasonable clashed with what she regarded as such.

I would have accepted this criticism of Ayn Rand if she was the kind of person who habitually rejected what other people regarded as rational or reasonable, regardless of whether she could relate it to reality. But there’s no evidence of her being such a person. And I’m definitely not going to take on faith what Branden has written about her in his memoirs as evidence of such a possibility.

Had Branden explicitly mentioned that in dealing with other people, it is ultimately reality and nothing but reality which is the standard for objectively judging what they regard as rational or reasonable, I wouldn’t have bothered to criticize him.

Because in that case, I would have correctly identified him as a person who really knows what it means to practice the principle of objectivity in dealing with other people.

19

Diana Hsieh has written an excellent post titled Nathaniel Branden’s Campaign Against Objective Moral Judgment on her blog NoodleFood, in which she thoroughly analyzes Branden’s third hazard from his essay, namely, encouraging moralizing.

I highly recommend this post to anyone who is seriously interested in understanding why his essay is a complete distortion of Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

20

The second hazard Branden states in his essay, is encouraging repression.

He says:

We must be guided by our conscious mind, Rand insisted; we must not follow our emotions blindly. Following our emotions blindly is undesirable and dangerous: Who can argue with that? Applying the advice to be guided by our mind isn’t always as simple as it sounds. Such counsel does not adequately deal with the possibility that in a particular situation feelings might reflect a more correct assessment of reality than conscious beliefs or, to say the same thing another way, that the subconscious mind might be right while the conscious mind was mistaken. I can think of many occasions in my own life when I refused to listen to my feelings and followed instead my conscious beliefs — which happened to be wrong — with disastrous results. If I had listened to my emotions more carefully, and not been so willing to ignore and repress them, my thinking — and my life — would have advanced far more satisfactorily.

A clash between mind and emotions is a clash between two assessments, one of which is conscious, the other might not be. It is not invariably the case that the conscious assessment is superior to the subconscious one; that needs to be checked out. The point is not that we follow the voice of emotion or feeling blindly, it means only that we don’t dismiss our feelings and emotions so quickly; we try to understand what they may be telling us; we don’t simply repress, rather we try to resolve the conflict between reason and feeling. We strive for harmony, for integration. We don’t simply slash away the pieces of ourselves that don’t fit our notion of the good or the right or the rational.