I’m confused on why Nathaniel Branden is no longer a part of the Objectivist movement. In watching videos of him he seems to still be an objectivist. But why did Ayn Rand remove him? I’ve heard about the sexual controversy but is that reason enough to expel him from Objectivism?
He’s not “expelled” from Objectivism. Ayn Rand expelled him from her personal presence and refused to affiliate with him after she (I believe) found out he was using her. Both of the Brandens (Nathaniel and Barbara) have made a career since then of trying to smear Ayn Rand’s character, so most of the reputable Objectivists (Peikoff, Schwartz, Bernstein, Binswanger, etc.) refuse to associate with him as well.
I can’t imagine how you’d expel someone from an ideology short of brainwashing, and even that likely wouldn’t work long-term.
I don’t know all the details, nor do I consider them to be my business, although James S. Valiant got so annoyed with the business that he wrote The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics to refute the Brandens’ various claims. Read that if you’re really interested.
Also. Branden is not an objectivist. The guy believes in ghosts and psychic powers.
I can’t imagine how you’d expel someone from an ideology
Yup, that would be like expelling someone from the Pythagorean Theorem. Objectivism is a philosophy, not a club or a party or a movement or a church.
If you are interested, read The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics. It basically details how Branden was a con-man who cheated Rand out of a large amount of money, and an even larger amount of time under false pretenses.
Still, I’m currently reading the book ‘The Disowned Self’ and it is a very good read. Whatever the mans faults (and there are plenty one can name) he certainly made some headway into Objectivist applications of psychology.
Yeah, sadly the stuff on psychology he wrote before the Schism (is that a good word? Whatever) is actually pretty good.
Yeah, sadly the stuff on psychology he wrote before the Schism (is that a good word? Whatever) is actually pretty good.
Why are you sad about something that is good?
I think “excommunication” is more probably appropriate than “schism”.
John Link
I guess “sad” in that he showed potential for greatness.
Why are you sad about something that is good?
I think “excommunication” is more probably appropriate than “schism”.
John Link
“Dissociation” I think is the better term. “Excommunication” implies some sort of organization he was a member of that he was kicked out of.
I guess “sad” in that he showed potential for greatness.
Yes–it’s always sad when people who once wrote awesome stuff (see Alan Greenspan) go totally off their rocker.
I’m reading “The Psychology of Self Esteem” by Branden right now. It was apparently written during the 60’s when he still agreed with objectivism, and the book itself is consonant with objectivist philosophy. There is some really good content in there, although a lot of it will be just review for you if you are already well acquainted with objectivism.
Also. Branden is not an objectivist. The guy believes in ghosts and psychic powers.
Is this true? Could you provide any reference to any of his writings to support this accusation?