What do you think?
Rate this book
The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand
"An excellent book that provides a systematic account of Rand's work as a philosopher.... The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand gathers contributions from professional philosophers (some of them quite renowned) to tackle the various components --- metaphysical/epistemological, ethical, and social/political --- of Rand's comprehensive system. All the contributors demonstrate the particular genius of current academic the painstaking and meticulous analysis of assumptions with an eye toward the coherence and consistency of the conclusions derived therefrom.... Thorough and judicious, this book will provide the reader with the intellectual leverage necessary to understand an often confusing, always controversial, occasionally original, and perhaps curiously contemporary writer and thinker." -- Lloyd Lewis , Modern Fiction Studies
- GenresPhilosophy
235 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1984
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 29, 2024
A STRONG CRITIQUE OF THE BRANDENS’ BIOGRAPHICAL PORTRAYALS OF AYN RAND
Author James Valliant wrote in the Introduction to this 2005 book, “The truth of Rand’s philosophy is, of course, untouched by their [Nathaniel and Barbara Branden] allegations, one way or another. They are distracting and troublesome not simply because they are almost always irrelevant, but most importantly because they are historically inaccurate. To date, no detailed analysis of the Brandens’ accounts, one which addresses all of the major themes of their work, has appeared. Such an analysis is clearly overdue. Too much of the discussion of Rand and her ideas has been---and continues to be---based solely upon the accounts of two sources whose very reputations hinge on how history will interpret their roles in the events they purport to relate.” (Pg. 2)
He continues, “Rand’s private journals… provide the fascinating account of how an extraordinary mind systematically unmasked the systematic deceit of a rather extraordinary deceiver, and they provide a tragic chronicle of how a romantic soul was cruelly manipulated by a man to whom she had given her highest trust and affection.” (Pg. 7)
He summarizes, “As we proceed, Mr. Branden will be seen to invent implausible, improbable, and impossible quotations for Rand---again and again. Ms. Branden will be seen to make bold assertions even in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary---again and again. The Brandens’ books are themselves replete with evidence that this kind of dishonesty pervades all aspects of their ‘biographical’ efforts.” (Pg. 14)
He acknowledges, “Rand was certainly in one sense very alienated from the world around her. She was at times depressed, angry and harsh. Presumably, she was, at times, tense, irritable and demanding---as I fear, most of us are. Rand’s fierce anger, however, was an unusually intense and major part of her personality---of this, there can be no doubt.” (Pg. 30)
He observes, “Rand did have a lot of pain and suffering to deal with in her life. Yet, even if… the Brandens’ accounts can be credited, Rand appears to have dealt with this pain remarkably well, for she emerges looking much better than her detractors do, simply from their own renderings of Rand. The Brandens were close to Rand for eighteen years, and they have demonstrated every desire to criticize her on every possible count, no matter how tenuous, frivolous or contradictory. In short, this must be the VERY BEST case to be made against Ayn Rand.” (Pg. 53)
He points out, “In lectures and interviews, both the Blumenthals and the Holzers have endorsed the portrait drawn by Ms. Branden of Rand the Authoritarian. This has not deterred the Blumenthals from their own policy of ostracizing Nathaniel Branden (who is Dr. Blumenthal’s first cousin)---in 1996, they severed all association with an organization which had invited Branden to speak.” (Pg. 75)
He notes, “it is also clear that Mr. Branden was dishonest about matters other than his love-life and to many more people than his lovers. By his own admission he was giving Rand rhapsodic praise in his first book for something he did not think was her ‘strong point.’ If he was so conscious of his growing doubts as to make the psychology chapter ‘by far the briefest,’ then Branden was also conscious enough of the potential impact of these doubts on the content of his essay, as well as its length. Branden was lying to his READERS. Such was the intellectual respect Branden gave his public.” (Pg. 105)
He recounts, “Branden admits that he was afraid that the entire structure he had built at NBI on Rand’s endorsement would be destroyed if he were to reveal the truth to Rand about his other affair. Recall that at this time Branden is married to Ms. Branden, having an affair with Rand which is known to their respective spouses, AND having an affair with a third woman which both he and Ms. Branden are concealing from Rand.” (Pg. 107)
He comments, “During the course of this secret affair, his marriage to Barbara Branden now in shambles, Branden nonetheless refused to give his wife permission to have an affair of her own (with a married man), when she had the honesty to come forward with her own new interest… Branden would continue for some time in this stance against Ms. Branden’s own affair while secretly commencing his own, according to Ms. Branden.” (Pg. 116)
He suggests, “The phrase ‘plotting annihilation’… in light of the actual evidence, takes Brandenian distortion to a new and intriguing level. Rand’s only written references to the Brandens after the break were the aforementioned statement and a brief ‘p.s.’ in a couple of books which still contained essays by Branden, to the effect that he was ‘no longer associated with’ Rand or her philosophy. That’s it. Then, complete silence. While Rand also removed Mr. Branden’s name from the dedication to ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ this hardly amounts to ‘professional destruction.’ His essays---and his name—remained in Rand’s books, ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ and ‘Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal.’” (Pg. 121)
He points out, “Whatever one’s opinion of the Rand-Branden affair, at least Rand was honest about it to those who mattered—scrupulously, rigorously honest. Honesty is a key virtue in Rand’s ethics, which, on the other hand, have no commandment against adultery.” (Pg. 141)
Of the TV movie ‘The Passion of Ayn Rand,’ he states, “Ms. Branden’s lies to Rand on behalf of Mr. Branden are hardly mentioned. Mr. Branden’s intellectual and professional exploitation of Rand is not presented at all. The extensive and deceptive counseling sessions are not depicted. The philosophy of Objectivism is repeatedly misrepresented… Whole characters are created from whole cloth. These are just a few of the movie’s radical projections from Barbara Branden’s empty claims.” (Pg. 174)
He states, “Branden had painted himself into a corner by professing for years that Rand was the only KIND of woman he would desire. If his had been such a soul… Nothing could have parted him from it, not age, not anything. This is precisely why, at first, Branden kept the new affair a secret. If his love for Patrecia was what his soul really needed, then why not come forward to Rand, just as he had been honest with his wife about his earlier relationship with Rand? Because he knew that it revealed his soul to be something other than what he had told Rand---and what he had told the world---it was.” (Pg. 225-226)
Although one might be advised to read the Brandens’ own books for “contrast,” this book is a powerful critique of Nathaniel Branden (and to a lesser degree, Barbara), that will be “must reading” for fervent supporters of Ayn Rand.
Author James Valliant wrote in the Introduction to this 2005 book, “The truth of Rand’s philosophy is, of course, untouched by their [Nathaniel and Barbara Branden] allegations, one way or another. They are distracting and troublesome not simply because they are almost always irrelevant, but most importantly because they are historically inaccurate. To date, no detailed analysis of the Brandens’ accounts, one which addresses all of the major themes of their work, has appeared. Such an analysis is clearly overdue. Too much of the discussion of Rand and her ideas has been---and continues to be---based solely upon the accounts of two sources whose very reputations hinge on how history will interpret their roles in the events they purport to relate.” (Pg. 2)
He continues, “Rand’s private journals… provide the fascinating account of how an extraordinary mind systematically unmasked the systematic deceit of a rather extraordinary deceiver, and they provide a tragic chronicle of how a romantic soul was cruelly manipulated by a man to whom she had given her highest trust and affection.” (Pg. 7)
He summarizes, “As we proceed, Mr. Branden will be seen to invent implausible, improbable, and impossible quotations for Rand---again and again. Ms. Branden will be seen to make bold assertions even in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary---again and again. The Brandens’ books are themselves replete with evidence that this kind of dishonesty pervades all aspects of their ‘biographical’ efforts.” (Pg. 14)
He acknowledges, “Rand was certainly in one sense very alienated from the world around her. She was at times depressed, angry and harsh. Presumably, she was, at times, tense, irritable and demanding---as I fear, most of us are. Rand’s fierce anger, however, was an unusually intense and major part of her personality---of this, there can be no doubt.” (Pg. 30)
He observes, “Rand did have a lot of pain and suffering to deal with in her life. Yet, even if… the Brandens’ accounts can be credited, Rand appears to have dealt with this pain remarkably well, for she emerges looking much better than her detractors do, simply from their own renderings of Rand. The Brandens were close to Rand for eighteen years, and they have demonstrated every desire to criticize her on every possible count, no matter how tenuous, frivolous or contradictory. In short, this must be the VERY BEST case to be made against Ayn Rand.” (Pg. 53)
He points out, “In lectures and interviews, both the Blumenthals and the Holzers have endorsed the portrait drawn by Ms. Branden of Rand the Authoritarian. This has not deterred the Blumenthals from their own policy of ostracizing Nathaniel Branden (who is Dr. Blumenthal’s first cousin)---in 1996, they severed all association with an organization which had invited Branden to speak.” (Pg. 75)
He notes, “it is also clear that Mr. Branden was dishonest about matters other than his love-life and to many more people than his lovers. By his own admission he was giving Rand rhapsodic praise in his first book for something he did not think was her ‘strong point.’ If he was so conscious of his growing doubts as to make the psychology chapter ‘by far the briefest,’ then Branden was also conscious enough of the potential impact of these doubts on the content of his essay, as well as its length. Branden was lying to his READERS. Such was the intellectual respect Branden gave his public.” (Pg. 105)
He recounts, “Branden admits that he was afraid that the entire structure he had built at NBI on Rand’s endorsement would be destroyed if he were to reveal the truth to Rand about his other affair. Recall that at this time Branden is married to Ms. Branden, having an affair with Rand which is known to their respective spouses, AND having an affair with a third woman which both he and Ms. Branden are concealing from Rand.” (Pg. 107)
He comments, “During the course of this secret affair, his marriage to Barbara Branden now in shambles, Branden nonetheless refused to give his wife permission to have an affair of her own (with a married man), when she had the honesty to come forward with her own new interest… Branden would continue for some time in this stance against Ms. Branden’s own affair while secretly commencing his own, according to Ms. Branden.” (Pg. 116)
He suggests, “The phrase ‘plotting annihilation’… in light of the actual evidence, takes Brandenian distortion to a new and intriguing level. Rand’s only written references to the Brandens after the break were the aforementioned statement and a brief ‘p.s.’ in a couple of books which still contained essays by Branden, to the effect that he was ‘no longer associated with’ Rand or her philosophy. That’s it. Then, complete silence. While Rand also removed Mr. Branden’s name from the dedication to ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ this hardly amounts to ‘professional destruction.’ His essays---and his name—remained in Rand’s books, ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ and ‘Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal.’” (Pg. 121)
He points out, “Whatever one’s opinion of the Rand-Branden affair, at least Rand was honest about it to those who mattered—scrupulously, rigorously honest. Honesty is a key virtue in Rand’s ethics, which, on the other hand, have no commandment against adultery.” (Pg. 141)
Of the TV movie ‘The Passion of Ayn Rand,’ he states, “Ms. Branden’s lies to Rand on behalf of Mr. Branden are hardly mentioned. Mr. Branden’s intellectual and professional exploitation of Rand is not presented at all. The extensive and deceptive counseling sessions are not depicted. The philosophy of Objectivism is repeatedly misrepresented… Whole characters are created from whole cloth. These are just a few of the movie’s radical projections from Barbara Branden’s empty claims.” (Pg. 174)
He states, “Branden had painted himself into a corner by professing for years that Rand was the only KIND of woman he would desire. If his had been such a soul… Nothing could have parted him from it, not age, not anything. This is precisely why, at first, Branden kept the new affair a secret. If his love for Patrecia was what his soul really needed, then why not come forward to Rand, just as he had been honest with his wife about his earlier relationship with Rand? Because he knew that it revealed his soul to be something other than what he had told Rand---and what he had told the world---it was.” (Pg. 225-226)
Although one might be advised to read the Brandens’ own books for “contrast,” this book is a powerful critique of Nathaniel Branden (and to a lesser degree, Barbara), that will be “must reading” for fervent supporters of Ayn Rand.
July 31, 2014
No es un mal libro. Es claro y explica bien las ideas de A. Rand sin necesidad de leer sus novelas. El problema está en las ideas de Rand: su defensa de la libertad es loable, pero quedarse en eso nada más, no es filosofía propiamente. El problema: una visión muy unidimensional de los humanos.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews