August 10th, 2004 is the date for both Don and Diana’s posts(for future readers)
Good news: James Valliant’s “The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics” will be published in February 2005.
From Press release:
“… a work that challeges the biased assumptions of Rand’s critics previously held as truth. For the first time, Rand’s never-before-seen diary entries are used along with the only in-depth analysis of the biographies written by [the Brandens]- to reveal that they are riddled with errors and misconceptions, thus giving a long absent voice to Rand’s defenders.”
Dianna Hesiah has recently exposed his deceit on her weblog and now I read his response to “Orthodox Objectivists” which is “they can go f*ck themselves!” The intellectuality of this man is remarkable. (Sarcasm)
I can hardly wait for the interview. ( More sarcasm)
“Issue 64 of ‘The Free Radical’ will be sizzling off the presses in a few days. Veteran neo-Objectivist Nathaniel Branden is the star of this issue, interviewed by rookie Objectivist Alec Mouhibian. Dr. Branden thoughtfully & elegantly ranges over such questions as the meaning of life(!), Ronald Reagan, the war in Iraq, Israel, his difference with Ayn Rand over the role of government, the weakness of her case for individual rights, the benefits of having even a flawed world-view as opposed to no world-view, the place of moral judgment, why orthodox Objectivists are humorless, homosexuality, love & the trader principle, & other topics. “Philosophical principles,” Dr. Branden admonishes, “are no substitute for thinking, yet many Objectivists act as if they were.” Of adherents to one particular piece of orthodox silliness, Dr. Branden is moved to say, “My official response is that they can go f*ck themselves!””
“Thoughtfully and elegantly” in sentence two. “Go f*ck themselves” in the closing sentence. Yeah, Solo has a chance of positively influencing the culture.
Wow, what a tremendous event I missed, Diana Hsieh rejecting TOC and heaping just abuse upon the Brandens. It was great, especially her post about Nathaniel Branden, a 70 year old man, playing juvenile pranks and toying with her like an adolescent. Maybe I’ll visit her blog regularly now.
I was just looking at their tagline: “‘The Free Radical - Politics, Economics & Life As If Freedom Mattered’!!”
As if freedom mattered? When I read this, I thought it was their idea of a rather crude joke. That it was actually serious was quite a shock to me. I had no idea just how appallingly irrational these so-called “Objectivists” are.
Has anyone read the interview in this publication? Is it as uncritical and sympathetic as I am suspecting but would no longer find at all surprising?
I was just looking at their tagline: “‘The Free Radical - Politics, Economics & Life As If Freedom Mattered’!!”
As if freedom mattered? When I read this, I thought it was their idea of a rather crude joke. That it was actually serious was quite a shock to me. I had no idea just how appallingly irrational these so-called “Objectivists” are.
Dr. Branden does phone therapy for $200 per 45 minute call. I emailed and asked if I could just have a discussion with him about Rand and Objectivism for 45mins for the same $200, they agreed.
We discussed a variety of topics, but, there is one thing he said that really surprised me. I asked him about Cryonics. The premise of freezing the dead indefinately until such time as medical science can bring them back to life and cure whatever it was that killed them.
Dr. Branden said “I would not want to live forever, I think that at some point I deserve a rest and want to die”.
Do many other people feel this way? I just can’t understand that at all.
I am very supportive of cryonics, and I think that anyone who values life over death should support it too. However, I think my generation will be fortunate enough to never need cryonics because anti aging medicine seems to be on the way in plenty of time.
The Objectivist ethics holds man’s life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man…Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life. (VoS : 1.The Objectivist Ethics)
It seems to me (& I’m just a neophyte Objectivist) that Mr. Branden does not hold true to the Objectivist ethics. Death != Resting.
Dr. Branden said “I would not want to live forever, I think that at some point I deserve a rest and want to die”.
Do many other people feel this way? I just can’t understand that at all.
Wow, it sounds to me as if he is not enjoying living…like it’s some kind of chore or task we must get through. Or maybe he’s just an old man trying to comfort himself as he nears the end. He thinks perhaps it’s better to be resigned to death rather than be one of those old people lamenting about the fact that people have to die…
Or as others have said, it may be a product of his philosophy. I don’t know very much about the Rand/Branden split so I couldn’t say. Actually, if anyone feels like it could you summarize where he differs from Rand? I remember hearing something about a business deal gone sour but I’m more interested in their philosophic split.
This is Brandens criticism in essay form. Follow the link, then scroll down to the bottom of the blurb and click read article.
Im about half way through it. I’d like to know what others think. Branden claims that Rand didn’t like much of contemporary science and was very skeptical of the theory of evolution, she found it a bit unbelievable, and so refused to study it.
The essay isn’t incredibly harsh. It mostly deals with aspects of psychology that Rand never addressed, because she admitted that she knew nothing of psychology so she never made claims she couldn’t support. He just talks about how moral condemnation is appropriate but will never change the morally wrong person, thus some other approach has to be taken to get people to change, which Rand never endorsed.
And this passage struck me as interesting:
"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, “It’s all or nothing.” Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.
The true believers might respond by saying, “How can you call it dogmatic religion when we can prove every one of Ayn Rand’s propositions?!” My answer to that is, “The hell you can!” Prior to our break, Ayn Rand credited me with understanding her philosophy better than any other person alive—and not merely better, but far better. I know what we were in a position to prove, I know where the gaps are. And so can anyone else—by careful, critical reading. It’s not all that difficult or complicated.
This may sound like a trivial example of what I mean, but it’s an example that has always annoyed me personally. I would love to hear some loyal follower of Ayn Rand try to argue logically and rationally for her belief that no woman should aspire to be president of the United States. "
I can see why there are not a lot of Branden fans here. He does not seem to have any criticism of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, only the effects that it has had on his patients or of her personality. I really had a hard time deciphering the point of his article other than to say “She was right, but has hurt some people’s feelings”.
