The mere mention of this by BB was entirely unnecessary -- and the very question raised by it is along the lines of "how long have you been beating your wife?" It assumes that there is behavior to "explain" thus.

The method of insinuation is used in other contexts by Ms. Branden, as I think you are aware, and we should be alert to that here, as well.

Since I discovered that my name has been invoked, I wanted to note that my description of "the most reliable information available on the matter" refers to the agreement of all sources on some points (essentially that Rand had a prescription for diet pills), not Ms. Branden's account specifically. FWIW, I do not believe that Branden was attempting to attack Rand in this particular passage. Her characterizations of Rand veer back and forth between attack/criticism and defense/praise, and this is one of the more defensive passages. I'm not particularly confident about the accuracy of all her details (at a minimum there are contradictions between the two Brandens over what specific drug Rand took, and the timing of when she started taking it), but I don't see an attack in this particular passage. The comments from Nathaniel Branden, where he declares that "the discovery had yet been made that a protracted use of amphetamines can precipitate paranoid reactions," are another matter entirely -- that's a great example of passive-aggressive smearing.

--
Richard Lawrence
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center

This is a test post to make sure the site’s upgrade hasn’t blocked new posts, or something.

The site is doing funny things. I noticed that my post of Mon, 2007-08-06 00:50 makes me appear omniscient, as I quote Casey from a post of his which doesn’t exist until Mon, 2007-08-06 00:52. I assume this is because he edited his post, and the site assigned it the edited date instead of the origination date?.

Casey, Are you finished pretending to not understand my question? Would you answer the second half of my post?

It doesn’t COUNT. Got it.

OK, so an unjust burst of anger is no breach of morality, provided it grows from an error of knowledge. And “when it was pointed out to Rand that her anger might have been unjust […] she was mortified at the mistake.” As Galt said, “your moral stature is not to be gauged by matters not open to your choice,” and an innocent error of knowledge is not open to your choice. Fine.

Now, can we agree that this person must make a heightened commitment from now on? They have been made aware that this is a problem for them, they now HAVE that knowledge, and they presumably don’t wish to commit any further injustices, right? If they do it again and claim, “ah, shucks, another error of knowledge,” and then again, and again…Is there no limit to how many times we give it a pass by accepting the error of knowledge excuse?

Or do we at some point conclude they are failing to bring the required level of focus and awareness to the problem, so that their repeated commissions of injustices become, not so much anymore errors of knowledge but a failure to marshal their full rational capacity? Just a little bit more commitment to controlling themselves might be all it takes. For failing to do so, can we say they are just a little, little, little bit less than perfect?

Judging what is a breach in the first place is contextual. The one in the last post was NOT. So it doesn't COUNT. Get it?

You are not just counting, but you have to eliminate what does not deserve to be "counted."

If we're talking about Rand here.

If not, then this example still does not count. At all. Not even a little. Ever.

So you have to start from scratch with the hypothetical Jon Letendre to start building up his dossier of immoral acts.

Please look back at the comment I added to an earlier post. It is key. (I reference it at the bottom of the post to call your attention to it.)

“you are probably due some SLACK, dude.

OK?”

Sure, that’s OK. So, slack—like a couple times—is that your answer? Or is your answer any number of times, because the feeling of being besieged justifies any and all unjust anger, such that it’s not really unjust, but justified? Which?

I'm saying that in the course of fielding questions in a contentious Q&A session where some in the mass audience think you, Jon Letendre, are the devil incarnate, and you decide to participate anyway in dozens of such affairs to advance your radical philosophy that challenges the status quo, and you are fed poisonous diatribe and thinly veiled insult and hysterical denunciation and religious damnation in an endless stream during such events in addition to the reams of hate mail and newspaper columns printed about you, and your defensive reflexes combined with the knowledge that you are the one who is on the moral highground and should be the one on the offensive against such ignoble antagonists, err in assuming an English-impaired questioner is coming from the same enemy territory you've been bushwacked and ambushed from a thousand times before, you are probably due some SLACK, dude.

OK?

So your answer to my question, “Is there no limit to how many times we give it a pass by accepting the error of knowledge excuse?” is “A couple of karate chops were hasty in the hall of mirrors -- she felt bad about it.”

So, “a couple” is your answer? Is that right?

If someone refused to pay attention to such a problem once discovered, credited no import to it, felt nothing or repressed their feelings about it, avoided self-criticism, and charged ahead, that is evasion, and it is immoral. (MOREOVER, it proves more than that the person made this decision to evade in this one instance -- it proves that this person's whole code of ethics makes room for such evasion. It implies a completely alien code of ethics to what Rand espoused, not just some hypocritical abberration.)

Everything I know about Rand, and there is A LOT to know about Rand, says that there is no way she could ever be that kind of person EVEN SLIGHTLY to accomplish the things she did. She had to be the sort of person who very scrupulously inventoried the truth, the facts, her premises ("check your premises" was her motto, for gawd's sake!), etc. to fill the unforgiving minute with her sixty seconds worth of distance run.

I mean... come on. Right?

Remember, there is appropriate anger -- and considering the vast barrage Rand fought off while seeming, to her credit, to be the Goliath against David in the process, she had to be more defensive than Bruce Lee in Return of the Dragon. A couple of karate chops were hasty in the hall of mirrors -- she felt bad about it. Wow. She even had time to feel bad about that. Think about that.

I'm not saying your post was making implications about Rand, but just in case.

Jon -- I added the last parenthetical in the first graph. Heads up.

that.

And the other half of my post?

Your welcome!

You say, "Now, can we agree that this person must make a heightened commitment from now on?"

My answer, and Rand's according to Branden's account of that incident, is "YES!"

The only reason to be upset at yourself for not anticipating a fact of reality that may have made your behavior inappropriate is to make double-sure you pay attention to that in the future.

Rand did exactly that according to this account.

Hence the morally scrupulous self-condemnation after it was brought to her attention, even though it was not a moral transgression and just an error in knowledge. Rand still cursed herself for not attempting to be more aware of the possibility before the incident occurred. She was not telling herself she was immoral, but close, for not considering the point raised in advance (that's how morally scrupulous she was). In the dismay she expressed she propounded the need to watch out for that in the future and forcefully add that fact to her premises.

I think it is an EXAMPLE of what you're talking about.

"Objectivism is remarkable in that it sets the bar for IMMORALITY so high."

I'm about 2/3rds through Tara Smiths "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics" having just finished the chapter on integrity. You have put into words exactly what I was struggling to integrate after reading that chapter.

Wm

OK, so an unjust burst of anger is no breach of morality, provided it grows from an error of knowledge. And “when it was pointed out to Rand that her anger might have been unjust […] she was mortified at the mistake.” As Galt said, “your moral stature is not to be gauged by matters not open to your choice,” and an innocent error of knowledge is not open to your choice. Fine.

Now, can we agree that this person must make a heightened commitment from now on? They have been made aware that this is a problem for them, they now HAVE that knowledge, and they presumably don’t wish to commit any further injustices, right? If they do it again and claim, “ah, shucks, another error of knowledge,” and then again, and again…Is there no limit to how many times we give it a pass by accepting the error of knowledge excuse?

Or do we at some point conclude they are failing to bring the required level of focus and awareness to the problem, so that their repeated commissions of injustices become, not so much anymore errors of knowledge but a failure to marshal their full rational capacity? Just a little bit more commitment to controlling themselves might be all it takes. For failing to do so, can we say they are just a little, little, little bit less than perfect?

The quotes from Atlas Shrugged are really worth studying and integrating fully. Too many people just skim past the speech, I'm afraid.

James is right, I'm relying on Nathaniel Branden there. I'm no longer morally perfect.

He recounts a story where the questioner's word choice may have resulted from a poor facility with English which, after being pointed out to her, she considered and felt awful that that may have been the case.

His examples, I believe, come from the Brandens themselves. While I cannot endorse Casey's reliance on the Brandens here, it's not a breach of morality. (When will you read PARC?) However, this is also precisely what Peikoff himself has reported to me about Rand's "unjust" expressions of anger, too. But, then, I wasn't writing a biography.

> When it was pointed out to Rand that her anger might have been unjust in dealing with a particular questioner after a lecture, for example, she did not willfully evade that knowledge -- she was open to the suggestion. When she considered it she was mortified at the mistake she may have made, because it meant she may have treated the questioner unjustly. There is no moral breach anywhere in that sequence of events. Objectivism allows human beings the latitude they require based on their own nature to operate as moral agents within what is possible to their nature. Much like the rules of football, if a tight-end steps out of bounds while making a catch, the catch does not count, but the tight-end is not flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. The allowance for human error is built-in to the rules. [Casey]

I've only skimmed this thread, but this is a good point (assuming you willingly apply it equally to all-comers). Casey, do you have a clear example of her doing what you described in the first two sentences above?

Casey:
"The thing to understand about Objectivism is how benevolent it is (and you can infer how benevolent the creator of this philosophy was) in comparison to other popular notions of morality, human perfection, etc.

"Objectivism is remarkable in that it sets the bar for IMMORALITY so high -- Christianity, by comparison, sets the bar so low all one has to do to be considered immoral is be born (born in sin)."

Hmmm...I've never heard it put like that before. It's interesting how a change in perspective makes a difference. I had to reread the sentence "Objectivism is remarkable in that it sets the bar for IMMORALITY so high..." twice, because I think I "instinctively" read it as saying that immorality is so common, or that Objectivism sets the bar for MORALITY so high, probably because those arguments get so much play. But I believe you're right, Casey, thanks.

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

"It is not any crime you have committed that infects your soul with permanent guilt, it is none of your errors, failures or flaws, but the blank-out by which you attempt to evade them--it is not any sort of Original Sin or unknown prenatal deficiency, but the knowledge and fact of your basic default, of suspending your mind, of refusing to think. Fear and guilt are your chronic emotions, they are real and you do deserve them, but they don't come from the superficial reasons you invent to disguise their cause, not from your 'selfishness,' weakness or ignorance, but from a real and basic threat to your existence; fear, because you have abandoned your weapon of survival, guilt, because you know you have done it volitionally...

"Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience--that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible--that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error. In place of your dream of an omniscient automation, accept the fact that any knowledge man acquires is acquired by his own will and effort, and that that is his distinction in the universe, that is his nature, his morality, his glory.

"Discard that unlimited license to evil which consists of claiming that man is imperfect. By what standard do you damn him when you claim it? Accept the fact that in the realm of morality nothing less than perfection will do. But perfection is not to be gauged by mystic commandments to practice the impossible, and your moral stature is not to be gauged by matters not open to your choice. Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality--not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute.

"Learn to distinguish the difference between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality. An error of knowledge is not a moral flaw, provided you are willing to correct it; only a mystic would judge human beings by the standard of an impossible, automatic omniscience. But a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge, a suspension of sight and of thought. That which you do not know, is not a moral charge against you; but that which you refuse to know, is an account of infamy growing in your soul. Make every allowance for errors of knowledge; do not forgive or accept any breach of morality. Give the benefit of the doubt to those who seek to know; but treat as potential killers those specimens of insolent depravity who make demands upon you, announcing that they have and seek no reasons, proclaiming, as a license, that they 'just feel it'--or those who reject an irrefutable argument by saying: 'It's only logic,' which means: 'It's only reality.' The only realm opposed to reality is the realm and premise of death."

--Atlas Shrugged

IF something is ~ truly ~ "inevitable," then, by that very fact, it cannot be "immoral."

... still MORE perfection?!

I'm amazed that such basic ideas of Objectivism are so completely unknown to Jon and Neil here.

The thing to understand about Objectivism is how benevolent it is (and you can infer how benevolent the creator of this philosophy was) in comparison to other popular notions of morality, human perfection, etc.

Objectivism is remarkable in that it sets the bar for IMMORALITY so high -- Christianity, by comparison, sets the bar so low all one has to do to be considered immoral is be born (born in sin).

I say again for those who seemed to have skipped Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged entirely, it is UNJUST to call actions done out of ignorance or a lack of knowledge "immoral." Original Sin, for this reason, is an abomination. People are not perfect -- they make mistakes and lots of them, and there is no sin in that. We are not gods -- gods do not exist. Holding human beings to a god-like standard is a vicious practice meant only to mock that which does in fact exist.

To hold people MORALLY responsible for errors in knowledge is both unjust and EVIL -- it is the same vicious standard the Church has used to keep the human race enthralled to its mystical forgiveness and grace for thousands of years. Objectivism holds that an "error in knowledge" cannot be considered immoral. Man can not be held responsible for those things he can not or does not know about. To hold an individual morally culpable for such things is monstrous. (Especially for a god who supposedly made mankind with such limitations.) For a person to act immorally he must knowingly do wrong or willfully evade knowledge of his actions.

When it was pointed out to Rand that her anger might have been unjust in dealing with a particular questioner after a lecture, for example, she did not willfully evade that knowledge -- she was open to the suggestion. When she considered it she was mortified at the mistake she may have made, because it meant she may have treated the questioner unjustly. There is no moral breach anywhere in that sequence of events. Objectivism allows human beings the latitude they require based on their own nature to operate as moral agents within what is possible to their nature.

Much like the rules of football, if a tight-end steps out of bounds while making a catch, the catch does not count, but the tight-end is not flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. The allowance for human error is built-in to the rules. Football players are not presumed to be omniscient or omnipotent and therefore every mistake considered to be intentional. If the rules governing most of our culture's understanding of morality were applied to football, every player would start each game with a penalty before the whistle was blown and every mistake would result in ejection from the game -- there wouldn't be much of a game left and whatever game was left would be utterly pointless and an exercise in wallowing in human sin. Instead, the rules of football not only make allowance for human error, but allow the game to properly celebrate human excellence, instead.

Jon and Neil, with all due respect, are the last folks with whom I would argue ethics.

So, let's stick to PARC.

It's obvious that the necessity of imperfection -- especially Rand's -- is very, very important to you guys, but you might want to re-read (read?) Galt's speech again.

"You agree then that Rand's "expressions" of anger could be unjust, therefore immoral?"

Since he prefers addressing me in the third person, I'll address him likewise.

Note how he is not even trying to comprehend ANY context in any of these philosophical points. Now he is conflating "unjust" with "immoral."

It is unjust for a child to credit Santa Claus for all of his Christmas presents. But Neil does not seem to appreciate that it is not immoral because the child does not know better. Nope, the child is not only unjust by leaving a cookie for Santa, the child is IMMORAL, as well.

Likewise, Neil fails to understand that when someone is angry because they are mistaken it can make their anger unjust while it is still not immoral.

Neil perpetually drops context such as this. Unfortunately, the context of the person acting is all-important in deciding whether someone's actions are immoral, according to Objectivism. (There is no such thing as "Original Sin" for instance in Objectivism.) So he is lost like a babe in the woods, unable to compute the simple moral calculus, using 20/20 hindsight not just to discover where people made mistakes but to condemn them morally from his enlightened position as well, something Peikoff does not do.

Neil might as well believe in Original Sin, so dissociatted is his theory of morality from the knowledge and intent of the moral agent in question.

Don't worry, Neil. I don't consider your unjust reading of so many issues to be immoral. Just painfully ignorant.

"Moral perfection lies in sticking to your code, created by your reason in the service of your life and with the purpose of your happiness, and not wilfully breaching it. Though rare, it's not actually that difficult."

Are you saying that non-Objectivists and even officially anti-Objectivists could be morally perfect?

But for the record, you do believe that Ayn Rand was morally perfect? And Leonard Peikoff?

Jim,

You agree then that Rand's "expressions" of anger could be unjust, therefore immoral? She just didn't have enough of them to get in the way of her "moral perfection"?

BTW, are there degres of moral perfection? Is Casey as morally perfect as Rand? What about Peikoff. Is he higher than Casey but below Rand?

But not moral perfection. You can't go about doing things you are fully equipped to avoid doing -- that is, things you know damn well are wrong and therefore have no excuse for doing -- and then apologize your way back to a perfect record.

You can, easily, decide to quit doing things you know are wrong, for your own selfish sake as well as others, and regain all that you should have the nerve to ask for after commiting immoral acts in the past: integrity, now and moving forward, having turned over a new leaf.

If one has done immoral things in the past, the first step back to having integrity would be to admit they were wrong. That entails admitting you're not morally perfect. That's step one. Then you can have what is infinitely more important moving forward, and that is integrity (being true to oneself), now, and as a way of life.

Moral perfection consists mainly of being a person who actually tries to do the right thing. He may be mistaken in what the right thing is and not be immoral. That really doesn't seem like too high a bar, since being an immoral person consists of actually wanting to commit acts one knows are immoral. For those who have done that in the past, sorry, the pefection blue ribbon isn't available. But it's not a prize that is all that difficult to win in the first place, or shouldn't be.

Some of the greatest heroes, however, are those who changed their ways and committed themselves to integrity moving forward. No shame in that, and, indeed, one can feel great (and real) pride in that accomplishment without having to pretend there were no moral breaches in the past.

James,

I haven’t a clue what you are talking about now.

I have seen many people express an understanding of the moral perfection issue that is like Landon’s: They hold that moral perfection allows moral breaches provided these are corrected. (It seems odd to me to speak of a person’s moral perfection with ANY number of breaches, corrected or not—thus my question as to how many are allowed. Incidentally, I would like to hear from anyone who holds this understanding…how many are allowed?)

When Casey commended Landon’s exposition, I thought, incorrectly it seems, that Casey held the same notion (of moral perfection that allows breaches.)

Now I know that Casey’s meaning of moral perfection does not allow of any breaches whatsoever.

Is your understanding of moral perfection like Casey’s, such that “If you can grasp that something is immoral and you do it anyway” then morally perfect status is never to be reclaimed?

Demanding a list of moral breaches as a condition for objectivity about someone is a fascinating notion. It's simply bizarre from a biographer's standpoint -- Christian/Platonic in its roots -- but always revealing.

Okay, Jon, just what do you need to get off your chest? Is that it?

Until you can demonstrate your own objectivity by adumbrating a few moral lapses of your own, why should we trust you?

The expression of anger is what can be unjust, Neil.

The Objectivist position on this is not unreasonable. If you can grasp that something is immoral and you do it anyway, you can not undo what you did in the past to reclaim moral perfection. You can admit what you did was wrong and make amends where possible, and commit yourself to no more such breaches in your integrity. But the past is the past, and what is done is done. You can't climb into the wayback machine and erase it.

Now, what makes moral perfection possible under an Objectivist definition is that one has the knowledge at the time of what is moral and immoral behavior in a given situation. The very fact that you can distinguish between the two both 1) makes certain acts immoral and not just mistakes and 2) makes it readily possible for you to avoid doing such acts since you full well grasp the immorality of them. That which makes it immoral is exactly what makes it avoidable.

Landon had some other excellent points about Objectivists who curiosly treat moral perfection as some impossibility -- I've had the very same reactions to that strange position, and he stated it quite well.

Casey,

You approved Landon’s exposition on moral perfection with corrected breaches. He wrote, “If you evaded knowledge on a particular issue but later acknowledge it, take whatever punishment you earned from it and make a genuine change in your thinking and behavior you still qualify as morally perfect.”

Now you write, “A moral breach is not just a mistake (an error in knowledge) but an intentional and knowingly immoral act. One cannot hold to be morally perfect after such a breach.”

So which is it? Can one “evade knowledge on a particular issue,” (a bona-fide moral breach) and “still qualify as morally perfect,” as he wrote and you approved, or “One cannot hold to be morally perfect after such a breach,” as you now say?

You're dropping context. AGAIN.

of "perfect" being the opposite of "real" is a pernicious one, and one inherited from Plato and the dualism of religion. By this creed there is no such thing as the ideal or the perfect. They are concepts with no home in reality which exist only to denigrate reality from some impossible and featureless supernatural world which does not exist while claiming to be superior to existence. This view has permeated culture -- it does not make it any more valid or any less destructive a notion.

"Anger -- like any emotion -- is outside the realm of moral evaluation, of course, Neil."

Well someone tell Peikoff, who described her anger as unjust!

Moral perfection lies in sticking to your code, created by your reason in the service of your life and with the purpose of your happiness, and not wilfully breaching it. Though rare, it's not actually that difficult. Could it be that Neil and Jon have a bad case of hatred of the perfect for being perfect, a corollary of their blind Branden-worship (love of the evil for being evil)?

If they know of an instance of Rand's deliberately breaching her code, perhaps they could share?

Linz

Anger -- like any emotion -- is outside the realm of moral evaluation, of course, Neil.

And Casey is, indeed, morally perfect. I've known him well for many years.

Yeah, perfect.

And I've seen more than one perfect ashtray.

Neil,

He does think Rand was morally perfect, he said so just a few posts ago.

He also thinks Casey is morally perfect, “and then some.”

Look here: http://solohq.solopassion.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1446_1.shtml

I had asked,

“Casey,

I would be much obliged if you would make a post saying that you are morally perfect.”

He responded,

“YUP”

Then James wrote,

“I can confirm Casey's testimony. He is morally perfect -- and then some!”

They have also recalled an ashtray they knew in childhood that was perfect, but I can’t find the link right now.

Do you think Rand was morally perfect (I don't include making mistakes about people)?

Do you think Rand's anger was a moral flaw? Any others?

Casey,

You approved Landon’s exposition on moral perfection with corrected breaches. He wrote, “If you evaded knowledge on a particular issue but later acknowledge it, take whatever punishment you earned from it and make a genuine change in your thinking and behavior you still qualify as morally perfect.”

Now you write, “A moral breach is not just a mistake (an error in knowledge) but an intentional and knowingly immoral act. One cannot hold to be morally perfect after such a breach.”

So which is it? Can one “evade knowledge on a particular issue,” (a bona-fide moral breach) and “still qualify as morally perfect,” as he wrote and you approved, or “One cannot hold to be morally perfect after such a breach,” as you now say?

You ask, "HOW MANY corrected moral breaches can be committed with preservation of morally perfect status?"

A moral breach is not just a mistake (an error in knowledge) but an intentional and knowingly immoral act. One cannot hold to be morally perfect after such a breach.

In Rand's journal entries she allows that the whole thing may have been a mistake from the beginning, as she is starting to become aware of Nathaniel Branden's dishonesty and true character. She did not enter into the affair with this knowledge, so this is not a question of a moral breach on her part. When she became aware of the truth, she corrected the mistake.

Many serious changes were made with Ms. B.'s help. Yet, the "assistance" Ms. B. seems to have rendered curiously all involved Mr. B.'s portraits of Ms. B.'s ~ friends ~ not Rand herself -- despite these differences between the two Brandens' accounts.

I guess other things were foremost in her mind.

No one's emotions are the measure of morality, Neil. Demonstrated callousness on Rand's part towards someone she claimed to have loved would certainly make her conduct suspicious, in my view.

As for adultery, I share Rand's published view that an "affair" is moral depending on the circumstances.

And, please do, for once, at least ~ try ~ to account for all of the evidence, its sources, and the motives of the witnesses involved, along with the entire context of behaviors, in your account of this most unusual affair.

Believe it or not, PARC does not exhaust the catalogue of things that I believe -- even about Rand.

If correction of one’s moral breaches is sufficient for restoration to the status of moral perfection, then shouldn’t correction of one’s innocent mistakes be sufficient for restoration to the status of plain ol’ “perfection”? Shouldn’t James be arguing not just for her moral perfection but also for her “mistake perfection,” indeed, her total perfection?

As an aside, HOW MANY corrected moral breaches can be committed with preservation of morally perfect status? One or two, obviously, but how MANY? I’d like to get my arms around this theory of moral perfection with breaches. Is it lots if they’re little, but fewer if they’re big? Must be. How many corrected big moral breaches before I lose morally perfect status?

I think Jon's second paragraph sums it up.

The affair was probably a bad judgement call on everyone's part, but just that a bad judgement call I don't necessarily think any immorality could be said to have happened yet on anyone's part, save possibly for Barbara not making her qualms known at the time.

From what I've heard and seen I'd say Rand probably gave the Brandens the benefit of the doubt for too long after she should have had grounds to suspect them of instances of dishonesty.

Beyond that she eventually became aware of the issues with the Brandens and reacted accordingly. And when the affair ended IF (I'm honestly not sure one way or the other about this) but if she had mistreated Frank during the affair, they still had decades together and she always talked fondly of him at every stage of his career so I think it's likely that either:

a) Both of them were adjusted to the situation and there was little problem within the marriage before, during, or after the affair

b) She did spot in the aftermath that she had inadvertantly hurt Frank and made it a point to make it up to them

either way I think there's plenty of evidence that both escaped the situation fairly unscathed even if there was a degree of "moral balancing" involved.

I'm mainly basing this on all the different accounts I've heard and the general manner in which Rand refered to Frank, I don't think there's any evidence that she'd leave something that big unresolved after getting a reality check like the break with the Brandens.

But again if anyone more informed than myself feels like chiming in for an addition or a correction feel free.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Ah, so “PARC does not argue for Rand's "perfection."” means that PARC admits mistakes, errors of judgment on Rand’s part, such as trusting the Brandens, and THAT is the sense in which PARC does not argue for her “perfection.”

Landon’s post explains that moral perfection allows breaches given that they are corrected. So wouldn’t judgment perfection allow mistakes so long as they corrected? Rand corrected her mistake of trusting the Brandens—and so we’re back to perfection?

If not, then I have to ask: Why is someone forever stigmatized with having imperfect judgment even when they correct all of their (innocent, honestly mistaken) judgment errors, yet treated to morally perfect status even though they can commit real moral breaches (given those are corrected)?

Moral perfection is not the same thing as perfection. Humans make mistakes, but there is nothing immoral about making mistakes.

Landon's post is an excellent description of the issue here.

Here’s James on Thu, 2007-08-02 17:16:

“PARC does not argue for Rand's "perfection."”

Here’s James on Fri, 2007-08-03 23:40:

“I will not enter the debate over moral perfection with you. I think folks other than Rand have achieved this, too.”

I think some people "learned" too much about Objectivism from the Brandens. These were people who were once chosen public exponents of Objectivism who STILL haven't reconciled some percieved problems that I had figured out by the time I finished reading Atlas Shrugged (which was in fact the first thing I had ever read by Rand) after decades of sitting with these issues.

I've been reading OPAR and it just amazes me how consistant and concise it is and it's given me a new lack of appreciation of the Brandens' interpretation of Objectivism.

One of the key things that sat with me was the view of Objectivist moral perfection. It surprised me how well I actually understood the issue without reading any in depth interpretation of it, it also surprises me that people with far more education than me and in some cases even knew Rand personally have such a hard time grasping this issue.

Objectivist moral perfection is contextual. If you evaded knowledge on a particular issue but later acknowledge it, take whatever punishment you earned from it and make a genuine change in your thinking and behavior you still qualify as morally perfect. But conversely if you make an active choice to do something you know is morally wrong and never correct your errors you should not be forgiven under any circumstances.

That being said, if I thought that Ayn Rand did this and moreso that this was necessary to deal with Objectivism WHICH IS DESIGNED TO BE PRACTICED AS AN ENTIRE NON-CONTRADICTORY SYSTEM WHERE MORAL PERFECTION IS A REQUIREMENT I wouldn't be an Objectivist, I wouldn't be posting on an Objectivist site... To put it simply Objectivism as a system of thought would be dead to me.

I agree with the statement that Rand was morally perfect and I'll go a step further and I'd actually say most Objectivists are. In fact the only ones I see being very immoral are the ones that talk about Objectivist moral perfection as if it's synonomous with the Christian concept where every human being is wretched and immoral unless the go through Jesus as an intermediary.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Jim,

I don’t deny that Mrs. Branden may have offered some “assistance” to Branden in his memoir. My point, however, is that you have implied that she is somehow responsible for Branden’s less careful discussion of the diet pill issue. Unless you have some proof she had editing or final authority over his memoir, any such claim is unfair.

In PARC the only moral failing on Rand’s part you acknowledge is her anger, which was at times “unjust.” But even then you qualify it, arguing for example that she became angry in part because all the evil and relativism in the world. You claim that her impatience in understanding people was in part due to her “modesty.”

Do you think Rand had a single moral failing other than anger? If so, what was it?

Putting aside the issue of adultery, which apparently you don’t consider immoral, if Frank did in fact suffer grievously as a result of the affair, wouldn’t Rand’s conduct have been morally suspect?

I will be discussing your “evidence” that Frank got turned on by his wife having an affair with another man in their home, but your speculation looks like an attempt to bolster your claim of Rand’s moral perfection.

I will not fix the gaps in research you should have done well before engaging in your jihad against PARC.

That you are ignorant of Ms. B.'s assistance in reworking Branden's memoir is hardly surprising, but highly indicative.

And, then, do you accept Mr Lawrence's view of this subject, generally?

I won't give you any list -- you really do need to read PARC, you know -- but her judgment of the Brandens, I would say, was a big mistake.

I will not enter the debate over moral perfection with you. I think folks other than Rand have achieved this, too.

Also, until you can account for the evidence, you have no business calling anything "absurd." It amounts to a religious dogma on your part, otherwise.

To misjudge someone isn't a moral failure. I do think Rand's callous treatment of Frank was a moral failure however. (I think Jim's speculation that the whole thing turned Frank on borders on the absurd.)

She made two huge mistakes in her judgment the character of the Brandons -- if by mistake you mean falling prey to deception. But what does this prove exactly about the character of Ayn Rand overall?

Wm

Mr. Green,

Evil is too strong a word - it's redolent of criminal acts. Simply doing wrong by someone is a moral error. For example, it is almost certain that Ayn did wrong by Frank by starting the affair with Branden.

Neil, your question is insightful. What do you mean by moral errors? Are you asking for an instance of acting knowing to commit evil?

Wm

Jim,

If you provide me citations to statements by either of "the Brandens" indicating that Mrs. Branden had some role in the editing of Mr. Branden's memoirs or was somehow responsible for the final product, then I will be happy to look into that issue.

Incidentally, if you go to Richard Lawrence's Objectivist Resource Center, he considers Mrs. Branden's discussion to be the "most reliable" and doesn't appear to consider it suspicious.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q6.3

(Indeed, in a post below even you conceded that she provided "important qualifications".)

Given that you keep harping on "context," let me ask you about the context of PARC (and your claims that you don't argue for Rand's "perfection" and "as readers of PARC know, Rand was human being, some of her mistakes are discussed").

Would you provide a list of Rand's errors mentioned in PARC? I recall only the Peikoff approved thing about anger.

Any moral errors? Being human, we all make errors at some time in our lives, right? Morality is not excluded from this basic truth.

So, did Rand, being human, ever commit any moral errors (you can omit trivial ones)? Are any of Rand's moral errors mentioned in PARC?

As you know, PARC does not argue for Rand's "perfection." As readers of PARC know, Rand was human being, some of her mistakes are discussed, and, of course, it is only those with an interest in preserving the Brandens' reputations, or with a vested interest in their obviously flawed assault on Rand, who are relentlessly and irrationally obsessed like Jon and Neil.

And, so, is that all you're left with?

Then, veni, vidi, vici.

Neil, your "evidence" was unknown to Ms. B.. Neither she nor you even have any "symptoms" to explain.

Then, so, may we take it that you have no response to those problems posed below?

Omit what you like, add what you like -- it doesn't change her FULL text, Neil.

Neil,

You are wasting your time. James Valliant “restored” their hero and they will never entertain any flaws in her or PARC. By all means, continue exposing errors and misrepresentations in PARC, but don’t expect them to admit any of it.

Here is Leonard Peikoff, My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand. BOLD for italics:

“Ladies and gentlemen: in my judgment, Ayn Rand did live by her philosophy. Whatever her errors, she practiced what she preached, both epistemologically and morally. As a result, she did achieve in her life that which she set out to achieve; she achieved it intellectually, artistically, emotionally. But for you to judge these matters yourself and reach an objective view of Ayn Rand, you must be an unusually philosophical kind of person, because you are living in a Kantian, anti-value culture, and you are going to be offered some very opposite accounts of the facts of her life. So you have to know: what is objectivity? What sort of testimony qualifies as evidence in this context? What do YOU believe is possible to a man—or a woman? What kind of soul do YOU think it takes to write Atlas Shrugged? And what do you WANT to see in a historic figure?

I am not a Kantian. I do not believe that we can know Ayn Rand only as she appeared to somebody or other. But if I were to grant that premise for a split second, if I were to agree that we all construe reality according to our own personal preferences, then I would still draw a fundamental moral distinction between two kinds of preferences: between those of the muckrakers and those of the hero-worshippers. It is the distinction between the people who, confronted by a genius, are seized with a passion to ferret out flaws, real or imaginary, i.e., to find feet of clay so as to justify their own blighted lives—as against the people who, desperate to feel admiration, want to dismiss any flaw as trivial because nothing matters to them in such a context but the sight of the human greatness that inspires and awes them. In this kind of clash, I am sure, you recognize where I stand.”

So, you see? You can either be a muckraker with a blighted life, or you can be “desperate to feel admiration [and] want to dismiss any flaw.”

You have to ask yourself, “what do you WANT to see in a historic figure?” Some people desperately WANT to see perfection, and you will simply never talk them out of it.

If, for example, one study finds that long term, low dose use of diet pills causes anxiety and one study finds it doesn't, then there is "fragmentary" and "contradictory" evidence. An expert is therefore entitled to say that its use "may" cause "harm."

Get is now?

Again--

JV: " . . .she speculates in a footnote that the low-dosage diet pill that Rand was prescribed by a doctor ‘may’ have resulted in ‘paranoid symptoms.’"

BB: " . . . a number of people, aware that she took this medication, have drawn ominous conclusions about Ayn's mental health; there is no scientific basis for their conclusions."

Was to restore the context the Brandens left out.

Neil's whole m.o. is to take each point out of context again.

This is a classic example of Neil's whole method -- to divorce the smallest items mentioned from the broader contexts in which they are found in PARC. In this case, the wider contexts of both:

1. the Brandens' method of proof by INSINUATION; and,

2. the Brandens' need to bolster their case for Rand's alleged flirtations with "paranoia" and "suspiciousness."

Neil, you write "Here is what you said: 'Indeed, the very evidence Ms. B. cites suggests that only large doses are ~ even harmful ~ at all.'

"No. This is what she said: 'to this day, there is only the most fragmentary and contradictory scientific evidence to suggest that low doses such as Ayn took could be harmful.' So there was some evidence circa 1986 low doses of diet pills could be harmful."

It is your own capacity to read English that one must wonder at!

Not only does Ms. B. write that the evidence of harm at low doses is "most fragmentary," she tells us that it is "contradictory." This means that there is no reason to believe it, right?

On the other hand, the part of quotation you seem to have intentionally omitted: "They found that extremely high doses were harmful, sometimes even resulting in paranoid symptoms; but to this day, there is only the most fragmentary and contradictory scientific evidence to suggest that low doses... could be harmful."

From this we are to conclude that there IS evidence that low doses even cause harm? No... really?

You warp and distort by omission.

You cannot evade the reality that the "expert" Ms. B. quotes says that "perhaps" they harmed Rand -- and, according to the "evidence" Ms. B. found, only large doses seem to be able to do this.

Get it now?

Ms. B. can surely rely on the unstated fact that no one is likely to have witnessed Rand taking the pills.

Why even address the matter, complete with possible "paranoid symptoms," if it is truly baseless -- e.g., if there was no paranoid behavior to "explain" thus? The whole question is akin to the "How long have you been beating your wife?" variety. One that I see you have been easily sucked into yourself.

And, how DO you explain Mr. Branden's different take? He had read this very "refutation" before writing either version of the memoir -- including the one Ms. B. helped him to correct...

I'm sure that you found swell evidence, but, alas, it is not evidence known to PAR.

Barbara Branden used the fact that Frank O'Connor mixed "strong" martinis (what other kind is there) as evidence of a drinking problem, along with equally ridiculous evidence. Nathaniel Branden built on top of this (in much the same way as he built on Barbara's comments about diet pills) to claim Frank had a very serious drinking problem.

You are the one digging a hole by trusting snakes like the Brandens.

And by the way, what the Hell does this mean?

_____________

Indeed, the very evidence Ms. B. cites suggests that only large doses are ~ even harmful ~ at all. For there to be "harm" at all, it is suggested by Ms. B.'s material, there must be large doses. And the ONLY kind of "harms" we are told about are "paranoid symptoms."

The pharmacologist then says that "perhaps" the pills hurt her... so, what are we to conclude? Only large doses will harm ~ at all -- the "harm" from this stuff includes "paranoia" -- and "perhaps" it harmed her?

No, there is no "scientific" evidence, she phrases it, based on the low doses Rand ~ reportedly ~ took, but, then, still a "perhaps"? WHY?

________________

Are you saying that even though Branden says Rand took low doses and didn't have paranoid symptoms that she really meant that Rand took high doses and did have paranoid symptoms?

What next, PAR read backwards has Satanic messages?

When you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

Do you seriously believe that Barbara Branden brought this up, suggested Rand could have been harmed or effected by diet pills, that the science on it is sketchy and so forth, in order to defend her and lay this to rest? You are a dupe, if so. Especially since her ex-husband did not treat the issue as having been laid to rest by his ex-wife and instead dressed it up and took the rumor out for a night on the town. And Barbara helped him edit that memoir!

And given the context, yes, Neil, the CONTEXT, of what the Brandens, starting with Barbara, tried to suggest about Frank O'Connor, you have to start questioning the noble intent you seem to ascribe to them even in instances such as this. Jim doesn't have an ax to grind in this -- both of the BRANDENS (CONTEXT AGAIN) have an ax to grind about Ayn Rand! Jeeze, man, get a grip!

Jim,

Here is what you said: "Indeed, the very evidence Ms. B. cites suggests that only large doses are ~ even harmful ~ at all."

No. This is what she said: "to this day, there is only the most fragmentary and contradictory scientific evidence to suggest that low doses such as Ayn took could be harmful." So there was some evidence circa 1986 low doses of diet pills could be harmful.

Given this, it was accurate for the pharmacologist and Branden to say it "perhaps hurt" her. I did some research on the web and found that low dosages of diet pills over time may cause harm such as inability to sleep, anxiety and nervousness. Can anyone say for certain that Rand never had any of these symptoms over thirty years as a result of her use of diet pills? I certainly can't.

And if there was no potential harm, why did her doctor (after taking her health history) order her to stop taking them?

I realize you despise "the Brandens", but they are not one person. BB isn't responsible for what NB says in his book. I haven't checked NB's books on this lately, but if what you are saying is true, then it suggests that BB is a more careful writer than NB.

Again--

JV: "she speculates in a footnote that the low-dosage diet pill that Rand was prescribed by a doctor ‘may’ have resulted in ‘paranoid symptoms.’"

BB: "a number of people, aware that she took this medication, have drawn ominous conclusions about Ayn's mental health; there is no scientific basis for their conclusions."

Since it was, in fact, Ms. B. who let this genie out of the bottle, I guess we'll never know, Neil.

And, well observed: the pharmacologist that Ms. B. quotes does not say that low doses can cause paranoid symptoms.

Indeed, the very evidence Ms. B. cites suggests that only large doses are ~ even harmful ~ at all. For there to be "harm" at all, it is suggested by Ms. B.'s material, there must be large doses. And the ONLY kind of "harms" we are told about are "paranoid symptoms."

The pharmacologist then says that "perhaps" the pills hurt her... so, what are we to conclude? Only large doses will harm ~ at all -- the "harm" from this stuff includes "paranoia" -- and "perhaps" it harmed her?

No, there is no "scientific" evidence, she phrases it, based on the low doses Rand ~ reportedly ~ took, but, then, still a "perhaps"? WHY?

This is hardly a "refutation" -- it leaves open the possibility of "harm," and therefore the possibility of large doses, therefore the possibility of "paranoid symptoms" -- as MR. Branden's LATER discussions of this topic demonstrate. (Notice that his memoirs, very much aware of Ms. B.'s work, don't even mention any of these qualifications on this topic. Was this a dishonest evasion of her "refutation" on his part -- or merely his own speculations from the possibility Ms. B. had left open? Which is it, Neil? And, why -- again -- have you omitted vital context in PARC from the discussion?)

If Ms. B. was to mention this at all -- if it was indeed so "inevitable" a topic -- then she should have said that there is NO EVIDENCE whatever that these pills caused her any harm. Put it to bed.

Instead, she suggested they may have "harmed" her -- and that only large doses can do this AT ALL -- and the only "harm" suggested at such doses as will harm is "paranoia"...

Those "ominous" conclusions aren't absurd but typical anti-Rand slander -- they are merely an unlikely hypothesis (to explain an assumed "paranoid" behavior, I suppose), based on the current evidence...

Right.

Neither Branden or the pharmacologist she quotes say that the low doses Rand took "might" have caused "paranoid symptoms." The pharmacologist says only the low doses may have "hurt" her. There are many ways a person can be hurt by taking such drugs far short of paranoia. (In other words "may have hurt" doesn't mean "may have caused paranoia".)

Here is Branden:

"I have learned that a number of people, aware that she took this medication, have drawn ominous conclusions about Ayn's mental health; there is no scientific basis for their conclusions."

And here is Valliant:

"The level of Ms. Branden’s desperation for evidence can be measured by the fact that she speculates in a footnote that the low-dosage diet pill that Rand was prescribed by a doctor ‘may’ have resulted in ‘paranoid symptoms.’"

If you think this is a fair summary of what Branden wrote, then you and I have different conceptions of what it means to be objective.

Incidentally, there were rumors before 1986 that Rand was a "speed addict", so it was only a matter of time before they made it into print. Given that, it was appropriate for Branden to defuse them. You might want to look at Jeff Walker's 1999 book for what it means to report gossip about this. Fortunately, readers of that screed could have picked PAR off the shelf to refute this claim.

James says:

“The level of Ms. Branden’s desperation for evidence can be measured by the fact that she speculates in a footnote that the low-dosage diet pill that Rand was prescribed by a doctor ‘may’ have resulted in ‘paranoid symptoms.’ Ms. Branden does so despite also conceding that the pills only had a ‘placebo effect’ after just a short time. Nor is Ms. Branden in any way dissuaded by the fact that Rand easily continued their use, again on medical advice.” (PARC, p. 51.)

Barbara had said:

"Dexamyl consists of two chemicals: an amphetamine and a barbiturate. It was not until the sixties that researchers investigated the effects of large doses of these chemicals. They found that extremely high doses were harmful, sometimes even resulting in paranoid symptoms; but to this day, there is only the most fragmentary and contradictory scientific evidence to suggest that low doses such as Ayn took could be harmful. As one pharmacological specialist has said: 'Perhaps they hurt her, and perhaps they didn't.' In the early seventies, when for the first time she became seriously ill, her doctor took her medical history, and, quite innocently, she told him about the Dexamyl. Disapproving, he ordered her to cease taking them at once. She never took another. I include this discussion only because I have learned that a number of people, aware that she took this medication, have drawn ominous conclusions about Ayn's mental health; there is no scientific basis for their conclusions." (PAR, p. 173 n. 1.)

BB can point to the last sentence as evidence of the purity of her motives. But note—she raised the matter, which was a non-issue in the first place; she quotes an unnamed "pharmacological specialist" as saying the pills MIGHT have hurt Ayn; she describes the evidence as "fragmentary and contradictory," again implying it could have some validity; she mentions "paranoid symptoms" in the context of a biography that paints Ayn in part precisely as paranoid. Ordinarily I might be inclined to give BB the benefit of the doubt and say James was overstating the case (though not "misrepresenting" her); but as I say, having been on the receiving end of her loving solicitude, and also knowing as we all do how slender was the basis for her allegations about Frank, "ordinarily" doesn't apply here.

Linz

PS—Jon, if BB were genuine, she'd come here and face down her critics, which she's welcome to do. Certainly, if the things that have been said about her were unjust, that's what I would do, not skulk in the skunk-hole that is O-Lying. Having random, occasional pro