I know I’m a bit late, but what kind of therapy does he give and how can it possibly be worth $200 for 45 minutes?
Here is a response I wrote several months ago to someone who said I should read Branden’s essay.
Branden lists the following alleged hazards of Objectivism:
- Confusing reason with “the reasonable” – The essence of his accusation here is that Rand was “close-minded”, and refused to consider facts or evidence that contradicted her position. What does he offer as evidence? He gives us personal observations about Rand’s attitude toward Evolution, ESP, telepathy and hypnosis. In other words, he is telling us he personally witnessed Rand being irrational on these subjects.
There is nothing in Rand’s writings to substantiate any such attitude. What she does categorically reject is the notion of existence without identity.
In her article, Philosophical Detection, Rand explicitly addresses the issue of a “closed” versus “open” mind, and properly identifies that the real issue is an active mind versus a passive mind. She makes clear which type she considers appropriate.
So, even it we believe Branden’s contention that Rand was not appropriately receptive to new ideas (of which he offers absolutely no corroboration), how does that become a “hazard” of Objectivism, when Objectivism teaches nothing of the sort? How is Rand’s personal behavior with Branden – which we will never be able to witness or verify – constitute a “hazard of Objectivism”?
Branden attacks Miss Rand as a means of attacking her ideas – and we all know what that is called.
- Encouraging repression – Here Branden asserts that Rand’s novels teach people to “repress, repress, repress”. This is accomplished, he says, because the heroes are repeatedly shown “ruthlessly” setting aside their feelings while the villains are shown as “rotten and depraved by diving headlong” into theirs.
But repression is not about setting aside versus indulging one’s emotions.
What is repression? In The Psychology of Self-Esteem, Branden says on page 79, “Repression is a subconscious mental process that forbids certain ideas, memories, identifications and evaluations to enter conscious awareness. Repression is an automated avoidance reaction.” Repression is essentially automated evasion.
The decision not to act on one’s emotions in a particular situation is not the same as repressing them – and Branden knows it.
Nothing in Rand’s novels suggests that evasion is a good thing to do. To the contrary, the evaders are the villains like James Taggert and Peter Keating who meet disastrous ends precisely because of their evasions.
Rand shows us in detail how James Taggert’s refusal to face his own nature leads to his insanity – while Rearden’s ongoing introspection over his own unhappiness – aided, admittedly, by Dagny and Franciso – eventually leads to his triumph.
Wynand suffers because he evades the nature of his desire not to believe in integrity, whereas Dominique finally achieves peace because of her willingness to re-think her premises.
Where in these novels is there any suggestion that evasion is a good thing? Miss Rand’s heroes experience the most intense emotions imaginable – and Branden thinks this teaches repression? Nonsense.
- Encouraging moralizing – Branden says, “The most devastating single omission in her system and the one that causes most of the trouble for her followers is the absence of any real appreciation of human psychology and, more specifically, of developmental psychology, of how human beings evolve and become what they are and of how they can change.”
In the first place, Objectivism is a philosophy, not psychotherapy. It doesn’t provide guidance for psychological counseling, just as it doesn’t address a cure for cancer.
But more important, Rand wrote We the Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, The Comprachicos, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Philosophical Detection, Apollo and Dionysus, The Missing Link, The “Inexplicable Personal Alchemy” and The Age of Envy, just to list a few of her works that involve the mind, emotions, reason, conscious-subconscious interaction and behavior. Rand invented the whole field of psycho-epistemology. Rand identified the nature of our emotional response to art. She laid the foundations of a theory that explains how music evokes emotion. In the face of all that, how on earth can Branden state that she has “no real appreciation of human psychology”? It’s a monstrous evasion of the enormous effort Rand put into the study and explanation of human behavior.
All of her novels include characters in transition, either developing into something better due to their willingness to introspect, or deteriorating into something worse by evasion. How can Branden state that Rand has no appreciation for developmental psychology – when she painstakingly illustrates it in character after character?
But the most egregious thing is that Branden criticizes Rand for “instantly” condemning as evil anyone that disagrees with her, noting that such condemnation does not encourage people to change. Read “The Letters of Ayn Rand” and then tell me you honestly believe that “instant” contempt was Rand’s primary response to those who disagreed with her. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What is most disturbing is that Branden has to know this.
- Conflating sacrifice and benevolence – Here Branden claims that Objectivism does not put sufficient emphasis on the value of “kindness, generosity, and mutual aid, all of which clearly and demonstrably have biological utility, meaning: survival value.” But these issues are dealt with extensively in The Virtue of Selfishness and elsewhere.
How much more should Rand have written about this?
- Overemphasizing the role of philosophical premises – This is basically just a rehash of Branden’s earlier claim that Rand had “no real appreciation of human psychology”, and my reaction to it is the same as before. He is wrong.
If Rand had believed, as Branden claims, that “human beings can be understood exclusively in terms of their premises, that is, in terms of their basic philosophical beliefs, along with their free will choices” she would not have spent years studying the nature of man. She would never have been able to create characters like Roark, Galt, Reardon, Dominique, Gail Wynand, Toohey, Cheryl Taggert, Francisco, Eddie Willers, Akston, well the list goes on and on.
It is preposterous to paint Objectivism and Rand as being that shallow. Nor does it make sense to think that those who study Objectivism are more likely to underestimate the importance of psychology than those who do not.
- Encouraging dogmatism – Essentially, Branden claims that since Objectivist’s claim that they can prove every one of their propositions – when Branden “knows” we cannot – we have turned Objectivism into a “dogmatic religion”.
What does Branden give us as an example of an Objectivist proposition that we cannot prove? He cites Miss Rand’s opposition to a female president. This is another blatant example of attempting to discredit the philosophy by discrediting the philosopher.
Branden says, “If we are to champion the independent, critical mind, then the philosophy of objectivism can hardly be exempt from judgment.” Here Branden is erecting a straw man. Rand said, “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
Dogmatism is the uncritical, unthinking, non-judging, unreasoning acceptance of doctrine. The refusal to consider the possibility that “A” might really be “Non-A” is not dogmatism – and Branden knows it.
When I visit Objectivist forums, I hear a lively debate. What I do not hear is anyone screaming, “How dare you question Objectivism!?!”
This earlier thread (link) contained a discussion about prolonging life, etc.
He said that he is still an Objectivist in the fundamentals. He differs from Ayn Rand mainly on the issues of psychology. Man worship (said she could never produce any evidence on why the is the role of a rational woman) Benevolent Universe (he said “try telling that to a kid with cancer” and her hatred of those who did not share her views.
He said that none of her charachters ever dealt with a person who underwent a transistion from irrationality to reason. Only of people who were already that way and always had been. He said she believed people either were automatically born that way and it could never really be taught.
He said that in the 1950’s, after Atlas Shrugged she becamse very depressed because of the reaction to the book. Not the negative reviews, she expected those. But, the fact that none of the industrialist and men of the mind whom she championed and fought for in the book ever stepped up to defend her.
He said she became very mean-spirited and intolerant at that point and almost hypocritical.
He said the movie The Passion of Ayn Rand bears absolutely no resemblance to reality. It said it was a complete and total hatchet job of him and Ayn Rand.
There was a lot more. But, I am just giving you the main things he said.
OismForever, If you were to take NB’s criticism (from your conversation), summarize and re-frame it in as unemotional and benevolent form as possible, what would that summary look like?
To give you an example of the tone I’m seeking, I’ll create a sample summary. This is “fantastic” because I have neither conversed with NB nor visted his web site. So, treat the contents as fiction, and focus on the tone:
Many people who read Rand’s books get the wrong idea about how to live their lives consistently with Objectivism. They remember the parts that are so different from what they’ve always been taught, and miss the little bits that are similar to what they already know. They sometimes think that they must like skyscrapers, or that they have to live their lives fighting against an evil world, or that they must not have emotions. Some of them end up reading Rand’s letters or listening to “Understanding Objectivism” and say to themselves: ‘why was this not more explicit elsewhere?’ Others, never reach that far, they conclude that the philosophy is too impractical.
I know this is not a summary of NB, what would be an accurate summary?
OismForever, If you were to take NB’s criticism (from your conversation), summarize and re-frame it in as unemotional and benevolent form as possible, what would that summary look like?
To give you an example of the tone I’m seeking, I’ll create a sample summary. This is “fantastic” because I have neither conversed with NB nor visted his web site. So, treat the contents as fiction, and focus on the tone:
Many people who read Rand’s books get the wrong idea about how to live their lives consistently with Objectivism. They remember the parts that are so different from what they’ve always been taught, and miss the little bits that are similar to what they already know. They sometimes think that they must like skyscrapers, or that they have to live their lives fighting against an evil world, or that they must not have emotions. Some of them end up reading Rand’s letters or listening to “Understanding Objectivism” and say to themselves: ‘why was this not more explicit elsewhere?’ Others, never reach that far, they conclude that the philosophy is too impractical.
I know this is not a summary of NB, what would be an accurate summary?
I will do my best. And I am not endorsing or sanctioning anything he says. Some of it I tend to agree with it, others parts not at all.
Ayn Rand was a just a human being. A towering genius who had a profound impact on him and his life. But, her flaws became an obstacle to her own continued growth and her work following Atlas Shrugged. She was never interested in the “pathology” involved with a person who thinks in error. Therefore she never considered “curing” anyone.
Her work mostly just described these men as they were instead of the cause and possible cure of their flawed epistemology. The relationship between them started out as a mutual and positive thing in their lives. As she grew older he wanted to return the relationship to the previous status of “best friends”. She took that as a rejection and saw him as another “Leo” the man who had deserted her back in Russia.
She felt if he could not look past their 25yr age difference that he was evil and nothing like her ideal man. Dominique and Dagny were beautiful, Ayn Rand was not. He felt her lack of self esteem about her appearance and age caused her to react the way she did when he tried to end the relationship. She just could not accept that the man she had dedicated Atlas Shrugged to would be incapable of romantic love for her.
He believes completely that capitalism, reason and rational self interests are paramount. He is very bitter about the way it all ended.
Here is a response I wrote several months ago to someone who said I should read Branden’s essay…
Great response AisA.
Who here thinks that this Rand - Branden thing is a little too melodramatic? :lol:
:lol:
I do. But then again I can see why the two parties involved made this a big issue. However, I don’t see how that concerns any of us. It is not as if we are involved in any way with issues that these two had with each other back in the day.
I can see why the two parties involved made this a big issue.
At the risk of prolonging the thread … I can see why one would say that NB made a “big issue” out of it. He wrote a book. I’m not saying – here – that he was wrong to “make a big issue out of it”. On the other hand, when you say that Ayn Rand made a big issue out of it, to what are you referring? Are you referring to the fact that she added a couple of lines to her books to say that despite the NB essays, which she retained in the anthologies, NB was no longer connected to her? Did Ayn Rand do anything else (anything that is publically verifiable) that could be considered as “making a big issue” out of it?
At the risk of prolonging the thread … I can see why one would say that NB made a “big issue” out of it. He wrote a book. I’m not saying – here – that he was wrong to “make a big issue out of it”. On the other hand, when you say that Ayn Rand made a big issue out of it, to what are you referring? Are you referring to the fact that she added a couple of lines to her books to say that despite the NB essays, which she retained in the anthologies, NB was no longer connected to her? Did Ayn Rand do anything else (anything that is publically verifiable) that could be considered as “making a big issue” out of it?
Ayn Rand used several pages of The Objectivist to blast and criticize Branden.
Ayn Rand used several pages of The Objectivist to blast and criticize Branden.
As did Peikoff to Kelley. But I think those criticisms were more intellectual and less personal, am I wrong?
Ayn Rand used several pages of The Objectivist to blast and criticize Branden.
I am 2/3rds of the way through Valliant’s The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, in the part concerning Ayn Rand’s personal notes regarding her attempts to help Nathaniel Branden in the months leading up to her dissociation with him. [Edit-addition: Rand’s letter regarding her dissociation with Branden told the necessary facts at the necessary level of detail for the readers of the Objectivist. It was Brandens’ letter in response to that that said too much, in that he could not maintain a romantic relation with Rand because of the age difference, which is only one of the many lies he has told.]
I have also read the so-called tell-all biographies by the Brandens, and I feel all the more dirtier for it, and all the more fooled because so many things had to be pointed out to me. Peikoff was right to dismiss them both as outright lies.
Please, for your sake, you need to realize that Branden is blowing smoke. He never fully integrated Objectivism, and had deceived Ayn Rand over the course of 4 years. Do you think he’s telling the truth now?
Do you think his criticisms of Objectivism are on the spot? Do you think the philosophy is responsible for the actions of people who do not correctly integrate it to the level of consistent habit, and instead earn the pejorative name ‘Randroid’?
If you end up living by Branden’s ‘corrected’ form of Objectivism, you are going to go down a road of pain, my friend. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and those bad ideas are those that have no bearing at all in reality.
My personal opinion is that The Passion of Ayn Rand is much less accurate than Judgement Day Judgement day rings true in a lot of ways.
In the book Branden takes responsibility for the mistakes he made and for his role in the breakup. Barbara portrays herself as the perfect person. I believe the breakup was caused purely and wholly by the fact that he ended the relationship with Rand and then she learned he was carrying on an affair with one of his students. She felt rejected and betrayed. I do not believe that he was guilty of any financial misdealings. It just doesnt add up when you know the facts.
Ayn Rand was a great great human being. But, she was not a god and not perfect. She deserves some criticism for what happened between them. However, her philosophy and her work stand on their own. I do not throw out her teachings simply because she made some wrong choices in her life and fell in love with a man who could not return her love. Judgement Day is a fascinating look at the early days of Objectivism. Its a must read for those who are interested in Rand’s life. The Passion of Ayn Rand is just a self serving and biased account that omits entirely too much.
Also, they knew each other for 20 years, not 4 years.
As did Peikoff to Kelley. But I think those criticisms were more intellectual and less personal, am I wrong?
It was definately personal. If it is permissable I will post the article here. Is that allowed?
It was definately personal. If it is permissable I will post the article here. Is that allowed?
While I would recommend the article to anyone interested in this debate, it would not be appropriate to post Ayn Rand’s entire article here if it is still under copyright. Limited “fair use” quotation is fine.
BTW, I did not know that article existed. So, thanks for pointing it out. For others, the reference is “The Objectivist, May 1968”.
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.
Many old or sickly people feel this way. For example, see:
Some possible reasons might be:
-
If death seems inevitable and near, embracing it may give one an illusory sense of power. <<I am choosing to die. Therefore, I am not being taken against my will. I am choosing the time and the method. So they are not being forced upon me by the grim reaper.>>
-
One may realize that one no longer has the ability to do anything creative or anything which will bring one joy. So one may decide that the best thing one can do to promote one’s values is to relieve others of the burden of taking care of oneself.
-
One may mistakenly think that by dying one is escaping from the suffering caused by disease and the loneliness of the old who have lost all their friends and relatives. <<When I die, I will go to heaven and be cured of all my illnesses. There I will see all my friends and relatives again, restored to youth and health.>>
Miss Rand was honest. Branden is a manipulative liar and a parasite that has exploited Miss Rand’s popularity for decades.
Nathaniel is many things. He was Rand’s best friend and frequent lover for the most intellectually fertile and personally dynamic fifteen years of her life. He was her hero, and Galt, and the love of her life. Any criticism of Nathaniel reflects directly and overwhelmingly on Ayn. It’s as obvious as “A is A.”
Any criticism of Nathaniel reflects directly and overwhelmingly on Ayn. It’s as obvious as “A is A.”
So, you’re saying shame on her for being taken in by such a fraud.
Nathaniel is many things. He was Rand’s best friend and frequent lover for the most intellectually fertile and personally dynamic fifteen years of her life. He was her hero, and Galt, and the love of her life. Any criticism of Nathaniel reflects directly and overwhelmingly on Ayn. It’s as obvious as “A is A.”
There are two problems with this statement.
In the first place, what Branden is now and what he was at the beginning of his association with Miss Rand are not necessarily the same. Under no conditions do his actions after the breakup reflect anything on Miss Rand.
Second, Miss Rand was completely fooled by Branden. A liar’s success does not reflect on his victim if the victim was doing everything in their power to discover the truth, and after reading Valliant’s book, it is clear Miss Rand was doing just that. Lillian Reardon cleverly used Hank’s sense of justice to disarm him for years; the fact that she turned out to be an utter scoundrel does not reflect “directly and overwhelmingly” on Hank, does it?