Nathaniel Branden

The Critics of Objectivism
61

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.

People don’t change much in life–especially after age 30 or so. (A handful of very deluded people think they do–but just ask their friends.) So Nathaniel’s actions reflect highly (and mostly to her credit) on Rand right now.

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?

That was fiction–and completely unrealistic. No such marriages take place in real life. It was “poetic license.”

As for Ayn being “completely fooled”–just how foolish do you think she was, AisA? Even if she was fooled, she probably wanted to be fooled.

And Valliant is not a credible source. It’s way too little, way too late. If the two Brandens were so evil and false in their books then Peikoff and others should have set the record straight long ago. That these high-ranking Objectivists don’t put forth an alternative biography prior to their deaths is a stunning loss to all of mankind–and totally inexcusable.

Even if they lie and excuse and rationalize and evade to infinity–so what? At least we have an alternative narative. Maybe these ARI guys will issue forth the usual uncritical, unintelligent, fawning hagiography, but at least we can compare their lies to Nathaniel’s and Barbara’s. As Isaac Asimov once observed: History is replete with people telling “self-serving lies.”

We all desparately need to compare and contrast the various versions of Ayn’s life from the main principals involved. I prefer not to defer solely to the authority of ARI, nor to take it all on faith.

62

Any criticism of Nathaniel reflects directly and overwhelmingly on Ayn.

Miss Rand herself criticized Mr. Branden.

63

As for Ayn being “completely fooled”–just how foolish do you think she was, AisA?

No less foolish than Branden’s latest victim–you! :stuck_out_tongue:

64

And Valliant is not a credible source. It’s way too little, way too late. If the two Brandens were so evil and false in their books then Peikoff and others should have set the record straight long ago. That these high-ranking Objectivists don’t put forth an alternative biography prior to their deaths is a stunning loss to all of mankind–and totally inexcusable.

Ariana, it could be that Peikoff et all. didn’t know enough about that part of her life to write an alternate biography. It seems sort of petty to care who did what, seeing as how one of the parties involved is dead. To expend your time pondering what actually happened between two consenting adults more than thirty years ago holds as much interest (at least to me) as reading cheap tabloids.

We all desparately need to compare and contrast the various versions of Ayn’s life from the main principals involved. I prefer not to defer solely to the authority of ARI, nor to take it all on faith.

I completely agree with you on this point.

65

People don’t change much in life–especially after age 30 or so. (A handful of very  deluded people think they do–but just ask their friends.) So Nathaniel’s actions reflect highly (and mostly to her credit) on Rand right now.

This statement confuses me. Which of Branden’s actions reflect highly on Rand? By highly do you mean favorably or strongly?

That was fiction–and completely unrealistic. No such marriages take place in real life. It was “poetic license.”

Setting aside for a moment the fact that history is replete with women manipulating men (and vice versa), your comment is not an answer. Would the fact that Lillian turned out to be scoundrel reflect negatively on Rearden’s character? If so, please explain how one individual’s moral status becomes a function of another individual’s actions.

As for Ayn being “completely fooled”–just how foolish do you think she was, AisA? Even if she was fooled, she probably wanted to be fooled.

Your premise seems to be that any successful fraud is partially the fault of the defrauded party. Why do you think this?

And if Miss Rand wanted to be fooled, why did she struggle so hard to discover the truth?

Have you read Valliant’s book? It contains many of Miss Rand’s private journal entries. Please read them and then tell me you still think she wanted to be fooled.

And Valliant is not a credible source. It’s way too little, way too late.

Too little? Valliant’s book is 433 pages with 492 footnotes. How much is enough? Why is truth a function of volume?

Too late? For what?

Why is credibility solely a function of timing?

If James Valliant did not have access to all the materials he needed for this project, or if he was simply busy doing something else, why does that necessarily disqualify his work? Why would Miss Rand’s and Branden’s own words be relevant and credible, say, 20 years ago, but not credible today?

If the two Brandens were so evil and false in their books then Peikoff and others should have set the record straight long ago.

Peikoff is a philosopher, not a biographer.

That these high-ranking Objectivists don’t put forth an alternative biography prior to their deaths is a stunning loss to all of mankind–and totally inexcusable.

As Rand’s heir, it was Peikoff who decided to make Miss Rand’s private journals available to Valliant. Her words are the best possible refutation of Branden’s lies, many of which, incidentally, he has already admitted.

Even if they lie and excuse and rationalize and evade to infinity–so what? At least we have an alternative narative. Maybe these ARI guys will issue forth the usual uncritical, unintelligent, fawning hagiography, but at least we can compare their lies to Nathaniel’s and Barbara’s. As Isaac Asimov once observed: History is replete with people telling “self-serving lies.”

If this were true, if all we can expect from biographers are lies, then why would you urge Peikoff to put forth a “narrative”?

If all such narratives are so full of lies and evasions, why is the failure of “high-ranking Objectivists” to “put forth an alternative biography prior to their deaths” “a stunning loss to all of mankind”? How does mankind benefit from lies and evasions?

We all desparately need to compare and contrast the various versions of Ayn’s life from the main principals involved. I prefer not to defer solely to the authority of ARI, nor to take it all on faith.

You need not take anything on faith. Valliant thoroughly documents his accusations; you can look at all of the source material your self.

66

No less foolish than Branden’s latest victim–you! http://forum.objectivismonline.com/uploads/emoticons/default\_tongue.png’ alt=‘:P’>

CF, you’re being far too generous.

67

Any criticism of Nathaniel reflects directly and overwhelmingly on Ayn. It’s as obvious as “A is A.”

That tone is way too harsh on Ayn Rand.

It would be reasonable to suspect that Ayn Rand’s association with Branden may illustrates some of her personal failings.[Though I have to stress that those were very very minor and do not even begin to compare with Branden’s deception.] She was passionately committed to her work and singleminded in her determination to achieve her goals. The book “The Ayn Rand Journal” has a quotation of some of her introspective notes regarding her commitment to her work. In it Ayn Rand basically tells herself that from now on she will be completely committed to her work and forget her personal needs. She actually uses the words “You don’t exist ! You are just a writing machine !”.(Refereing to herself.)

It is very difficult to find fault with Ain Rand for having made that commitment. Would she have been able to achieve what she achieved if she hadn’t done so ? I think that would be extremely unlikely. Yet her neglect of herself and her personal needs probably did have side effects, but I would not want to speculate on what those might be. But it does seem likely that if she had taken care of herself properly, she would not have made the tragic mistake of trying to seek fulfillment through Nathaniel Branden. It also seems likely that Branden made use of her personal shortcomings to manipulate her.

Yet I do not find fault with her for anything. Perhaps it was inevitable in the sense that it would have been impossible for her to discover Objectivism without being committed to the point of neglecting her personal needs.

Ayn Rand may not have been perfect, but she was a great human being in every sense. By all credible accounts, she was exceptionally benevolent at a personal level.

68

People don’t change much in life–especially after age 30 or so. (A handful of very  deluded people think they do–but just ask their friends.) So Nathaniel’s actions reflect highly (and mostly to her credit) on Rand right now.

I can’t imagine what sort of mental process would lead anyone to this conclusion. We judge someone based on how he acts given the knowledge available to him. When Rand thought Branden was a moral hero, she treated him exactly the way one should treat a moral hero. When she discovered he was the exact opposite, she treated him the way one should treat such a character.

The only criticism one could possibly level at Rand is that she had reason to doubt Branden’s true character but did not pursue or evaded that evidence. But in light of the publication of Rand’s private journals, such a criticism is baseless and contrary to all known fact.

Given the above, to negatively judge Rand for her failure to determine Branden’s true character earlier than she did is completely irrational and unjust. One does not watch a man commit murder and then blame his victim for failing to run faster.

And you are right – people don’t often change much later in life, which is exactly why it is absurd and inexcusible for people to “forgive” Branden his sins: years spent engaging in massive deception. (This, in addition to the continuing evidence of his dishonesty.)

As for Ayn being “completely fooled”–just how foolish do you think she was, AisA? Even if she was fooled, she probably wanted to be fooled.

What evidence do have that indicates she “probably wanted to be fooled”?

And Valliant is not a credible source. It’s way too little, way too late. If the two Brandens were so evil and false in their books then Peikoff and others should have set the record straight long ago. That these high-ranking Objectivists don’t put forth an alternative biography prior to their deaths is a stunning loss to all of mankind–and totally inexcusable.

What’s inexusible is your complete inversion of justice and complete disregard for reason.

Whether Valliant is credible or uncredible is a moot point since Valliant is not a source. In his book, he (1) analyzes evidence available to anyone who can read and (2) reproduces Ayn Rand’s personal journals. All he offers are facts and arguments. The facts can be checked by anyone who cares to. The arguments can be evaluted by ayone who cares to. In no case is the reader asked to rely on Valliant’s testimony.

The fact that the Brandens’ books were so evil and false is precisely the reason why no honest person had any obligation to answer them. One need not refute the arbitrary. Certainly not Peikoff, who has spent his life doing something much more important: teaching and spreading Objectivism. I don’t know what philosophy you think mandates that people write biographies of their friends, but it sure as hell isn’t Objectivism.

Even if they lie and excuse and rationalize and evade to infinity–so what? At least we have an alternative narative. Maybe these ARI guys will issue forth the usual uncritical, unintelligent, fawning hagiography, but at least we can compare their lies to Nathaniel’s and Barbara’s. As Isaac Asimov once observed: History is replete with people telling “self-serving lies.”

This is completely inappropriate. You are criticizing people for what you claim they might do in the future, and are finding them more blameworthy than two people who have actually written books repleate with provable lies and arbitrary insults. And what evidence do you present? Nothing, except that axiom with which you start: that the picture of Ayn Rand painted by the Brandens is true. Fantastic.

We all desparately need to compare and contrast the various versions of Ayn’s life from the main principals involved. I prefer not to defer solely to the authority of ARI, nor to take it all on faith.

That’s right. Instead you defer solely to the Brandens…and taking them on faith is precisely what you’ve done.

Edited for clarity.

69

CF, you’re being far too generous.

He’ll kill you. :thumbsup: (Our fellow moderators know who I’m talking about.) :wink:

70

What an excellent exposition of Ariana’s views on Ayn Rand. I wonder (rhetorically) what would motivate one to take the Brandens’ views on faith.

71

Most of what I wanted to say about Branden’s article was already said by AisA.

While Branden has a point in saying that people need to learn how to be rational, this is nothing new. It isn’t simple to know how to make sense of things, how to approach problems in order to solve them. He tells a lot of falsehoods hoping to show that Ayn Rand rejected that.

Also, notice how he calls benevolence, mutual helpfulness and mutual aid principles, and supporting life, assisting and alleviating suffering virtues. I found that to be very irresponsible of him, as it is clear what virtues are and why. Principles on the other hand should be practical (as in possible to apply in practice), and mutual helpfulness or mutual aid are not.

I find this sentence very dubious:

I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God’s creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.

What am I as the reader supposed to conclude from that?

On the subject of repression, I can tell many things, however, I will just quote a few sentences he wrote, to show that it’s all nonsense:

Consider these facts: The hero has just been expelled from school, he is the victim of injustice, he is misunderstood by virtually everyone, and he himself tends to find other people puzzling and incomprehensible. He is alone; he has no friends. There is no one with whom he can share his inner life or values. So far, with the possible exception of being expelled from school, this could be a fairly accurate description of the state of the overwhelming majority of adolescents. There is one big difference: Howard Roark gives no indication of being bothered by any of it.

Forgetting for a moment that “the overwhelming majority of adolescents” didn’t develop the level of reasonable thinking even close to that of Howard Roark, my qusetion to his last sentence is, why should he?

Yes, he has been expelled from school, but as he says later, he should have left sooner, because there was nothing new he could have learned. The mere fact that he was expelled changes nothing in his life, as he is competent enough - even without the diploma - to design his own buildings.

He is the victim of injustice, Branden says, but is he really? Think about it. In a free society, every school and every college chooses whom to teach and whom not to teach. Why should it be unjust that he was expelled? Because he was a great architect? It’s the school’s loss, really.

He is misunderstood. So what, I ask? Should he be miserable because nobody understands that a building should be the image of it’s architect’s soul?

Branden says that Roark finds others puzzling and incomprehensible. Really, why should he be concerned about their motives?

He is alone and has no friends. The most that can be said about that is that it’s sad that there are no people of value to such a great man.

The questions Branden raises are all trivial and have no connection to Howard’s goal in life, or his happiness. Now, irrational adolescents such as Branden correctly notices make “the overwhelming majority” might be bothered by this to the extent which is irreparably self-destructive. But Howard is an ideal man, not an average adolescent.

Another thing Branden does not understand is the difference between moral depravity - or “evil” - and an honest mistake. He shows this in the part he entitled “Encouraging moralizing,” but I can’t find the exact sentence where this becomes obvious. Anyway, he says something to the effect of that telling a person what he’s done is immoral or irrational is bad because that will induce the feeling of guilt and whatnot, and that this wrongdoing will most likely then be repeated. On the contrary, however, if this wrongdoing was due to real moral depravity, the wrongdoer will most likely be angry at you or whatever their whim tells them, while if this wrongdoing was the result of an honest error, the result will be an apology and the confirmation of your judgement. Most likely, the response will be “you’re right, I did do wrong, I’m sorry, I won’t do it again” or something to that effect. Once again, it shows why it is virtuous to be just.

72

All these replies are daunting. :frowning: I’m just going to try to answer the main points:

Absent alternative biographies from the ARI crew, the two Branden books stand as the definitive works on The Life Of Rand. History will conclude thus. The silence of Peikoff, Schwartz, Binswanger and others who knew Rand is deafening and intolerable. Silence here is assent. History will look very poorly on their “It’s all lies,” and “We’re not biographers,” statements.

This despite the fact that Nathaniel and Barbara both absurdly paint themselves as saints. Talk about payback time! :nuke: These two only err when they think they made a mistake and fail to appreciate their own infinite greatness. We do indeed need to hear the other side of the story. Valliant’s book is rather helpful–but not nearly enough. The silence of Peikoff et al.–and the implication that we should take their painfully brief counter-claims as gospel–is shameful.

At a minimum these guys need to read the two bios and then list their twenty or so strongest disputes. How hard can this be? Let someone at least interview these busy busy people to reveal at least a summary of what they say is false and evil in the 2 lengthy bios on record. I remind everybody–Nathaniel and Barbara spent YEARS of their valuable lives on recording this stuff. Does anyone really think it’s all a calculated insult and fraud?

Let Peikoff and crew also have the humanity and integrity to also explain what is true and insightful and helpful in the work of the Brandens. Otherwise, no one will believe them, and maybe no one should.

The ultimate truth here is that Rand was an utter GIANT but somewhat flawed as well. Nathaniel was a semi-giant (and still is). Given his youth and looks, he was a worthy lover. Barbara, in turn, was a bit of a mediocrity. Still–Barbara broke the ice and opened up the gates to a lot of truth. She probably inspired and forced Nathaniel to vastly improve his Rand bio. This includes the quality of his self-serving lies.

The current ARI stance on biography is deeply anti-social, and an insult and affront to all. They ask us to defer to their magnificent authority and take it all on faith. But no one will.

For me the issue is very simple: No more excuses! At the very least, Peikoff and others should give us 10 or 20 hours of oral history on The Life Of Rand. Hit the tape recorders, guys! :lol:

73

The current ARI stance on biography is deeply anti-social, and an insult and affront to all. They ask us to defer to their magnificent authority and take it all on faith.

[bold added for emphasis.]

What is your evidence for either of these charges?

74

What is your evidence for either of these charges?

Why bother asking? She has so clearly demonstrated her contempt for justice and rationality that to pretend this is an honest intellectual dispute is to help her perpetrate a fraud.

75

Why bother asking?  She has so clearly demonstrated her contempt for justice and rationality that to pretend this is an honest intellectual dispute is to help her perpetrate a fraud.

From the Forum Rules, Intellectual Guidelines, Prohibited Behavior:

“If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument, not the poster. If you think that a poster is behaving in an irrational or immoral manner, contact the moderators.”

76

“If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument, not the poster. If you think that a poster is behaving in an irrational or immoral manner, contact the moderators.”

My apologies for stating my judgment rather than alerting the moderators per the forum guidelines. However, I will note for the record that I attacked the argument, and the poster responded with arbitrary assertions and insults, making it inappropriate to engage her in argument any further.

77

My apologies for stating my judgment rather than alerting the moderators per the forum guidelines.

No need to alert–we are already watching this thread very closely.

78

All these replies are daunting.  :nuke:   I’m just going to try to answer the main points:

[Repeats “Why didn’t Peikoff do this-and-that” routine]

You weren’t trying very hard, were you?

You have stated that you have known Mr. Branden personally. Could you give us some further background info on that? Things like when and how you met him, how old you were back then, how long your acquaintance lasted, whether your reason for meeting him had to do with psychiatry, Objectivism, or something else–and so on. We need this in order to be able to judge you more accurately.

Most members and moderators of this forum, myself included, hold Nathaniel Branden to be a professional con man and a liar on a massive scale. This judgment necessarily casts a suspicion on any person who appears here as his advocate, although we understand that a young and naive person may easily be taken in by his deceptions.

79

Most members and moderators of this forum, myself included, hold Nathaniel Branden to be a professional con man and a liar on a massive scale. This judgment necessarily casts a suspicion on any person who appears here as his advocate, although we understand that a young and naive person may easily be taken in by his deceptions.

That is not the issue, in my view. The issue is that Binetta’s posts have been completely arbitrary, including arbitrary denunciations of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and others. When called out on these claims, or when evidence has been demanded of her, she has been silent. That is, I think, inappropriate behavior on a forum devoted to rational discussion.

80

Most members and moderators of this forum, myself included, hold Nathaniel Branden to be a professional con man and a liar on a massive scale. This judgment necessarily casts a suspicion on any person who appears here as his advocate, although we understand that a young and naive person may easily be taken in by his deceptions.

I think there is really more to this. While reading Branden’s article, he mentioned some of his patients coming to him and asking certain questions and he mentioned the answers he gives them. What I think he does is that he indoctrinates his patients with his own pseudo-objectivism under false pretenses: his patients probably don’t even know (much) about his break with Ayn Rand and he exploits that.

I mention this only as a possibility though, not as a fact that I’ve established. But judging from his article, I would put that forward as something more than a possibility: a probability.