Until you can grasp Rand's view of "perfection," Neil, there is absolutely no point in discussing the impact of this philosophical idea on either the Brandens' works -- or on mine. For example, I have not always agreed with Peikoff -- so, until you are prepared to understand the subject at the level of nuance that you consistently ignore, it is senseless to sanction your on-going equivocations and smears.

As you also know, I do not "reject" all of the views of all of those you mention.

Your own "agenda" is the only obvious one in this discussion, sir.

As far as Rand knowingly violating her convictions, I believe that human nature being what it is, it's impossible to live to be 77 years old without doing so.

There you have it, folks!

The Christians call this "original sin" I believe.

"Human nature being what it is?" What's that, exactly, Neil? And please, speak for yourself.

No further comment necessary.

Linz

What a sad vision of humanity you must have to say something like that Neil. What good are convictions if you aren't going to live up to them to the best of your ability? Are all humans evil then and incapable of rational action? That is certainly the implication of what you are saying. Humans can never act fully rationally in the long term?

Wm

More than once I have explicitly said I'm no one's proxy.

As far as Rand knowingly violating her convictions, I believe that human nature being what it is, it's impossible to live to be 77 years old without doing so.

If you have any proof that Dr. Sciabarra, Barbara Branden or anyone else is responsible for my posts on this issue, then please present it.

I didn't assert. I asked. I recognise the signs. Not that they are "responsible," but I see their MO all over what you're doing here. BB works through proxies. She's the Mistress of the Backstage Whisper, the subterranean back-stab, just like Sciabarra, her poodle. You could easily have just answered, "No." Significant that you didn't?

Indeed, I consider the question highly relevant. Jim has said that he has no bias and no axe to grind. Yet he believes that the subject of his book (Rand) is morally perfect. That sounds like quite an agenda to me.

And I have repeatedly asked you and Jon to make your case that Rand knowingly breached her convictions. You still have not done so.

Linz

"The smallness of this exercise astonishes me. Another effort at scratching away with a stiletto, a la Sciabarra, with Barbara spitting whispers in the background?"

If you have any proof that Dr. Sciabarra, Barbara Branden or anyone else is responsible for my posts on this issue, then please present it.

Indeed, I consider the question highly relevant. Jim has said that he has no bias and no axe to grind. Yet he believes that the subject of his book (Rand) is morally perfect. That sounds like quite an agenda to me.

In addition, PARC is one of the few biographical works sold by Leonard Peikoff's ARI. Jim says we should reject the description of Rand by numerous people (the Blumenthals, the Kalbermans, the Brandens, the Holzers, etc.) and instead put in its place a sanitized version of Rand as advocated by Lennie Peikoff -- that Rand's only flaw was that she blew her top once in a while.

So, yes, I think it is very relevant what Jim thinks about Peikoff.

Do you believe that Leonard Peikoff is morally perfect?

Again I wonder what is the source of this peculiar fixation on whether Person X thinks Rand (and now Peikoff) was morally perfect. Neil and Jon, if you want to make a case that Rand consciously breached her convictions in some instances (or acted consistently with convictions she knew to be wrong), go ahead and make it.

The smallness of this exercise astonishes me. Another effort at scratching away with a stiletto, a la Sciabarra, with Barbara spitting whispers in the background?

Linz

Do you believe that Leonard Peikoff is morally perfect?

“Since it has absolutely nothing to do with PARC, why would you want MY opinion on such a technical subject, Jon?” [James]

It may or may not have absolutely nothing to do with PARC. I am interested not in your opinion here, but a clarification of your meaning. You have asserted Rand’s and other people’s “moral perfection.”

You seem to agree with Casey’s interpretation. You imply that Dr Smith also takes that side, but that’s not how I read the quoted passage, e.g., “simply unusually consistent”

Since it has absolutely nothing to do with PARC, why would you want MY opinion on such a technical subject, Jon? (I mean, even ignoring the fact that "the best that you can do" already implies no moral breach whatever...?) Given your confessed efforts at manipulation, you can understand the question, surely?

No, Neil, the radio interview you mention actually does help to "explain" the assertion, as well. It is THAT fundamental a point. You'd never know it from your account here, but PARC mentions the assertion being made in other contexts -- right? See, Rand really believed that she could reference a position -- as with her view of "selfishness" -- throughout her life, once she had made her context clear. It is your own understanding of that context that invariably needs help, sir.

Perhaps Rand was thinking of folks like Neil when she said that an argument can be "fool proof," but never "damn fool proof."

Second, you are the one not adequately quoting either Branden or PARC. (Would it ever occur to you to look outside of a single two or three-page area for any one of your efforts?) There was no "misread" -- or, do you think that your mild opinion on this topic IS really shared by Mr. Branden?

First, what about the interview on the Les Crane Show that Claudia referenced? It's even more sweeping than what Rand said in the About the Author postscript. And on a radio show she didn't have any reason to believe that all her listeners knew the basics of her theory.

Second, while I think your reading of what Rand said is unlikely to be correct, my main point was your context-dropping discussion of what Branden said. Nowhere did you mention that: (a) NB specifically says that Rand gratefully acknowledged receiving help from Mannheimer; and (b) NB's discussion is limited to Rand's "years of financial struggle. This is similar to the diet pill misquote (although not quite as bad) and many other examples I discuss.

Jon you are confusing the definition of perfect. Perfection in morality is like everything else in morality, contextual. From Smith (pg 240), "It is crucial to appreciate that a normative standard that is beyond our reach is not a genuine standard." As Peikoff writes, and Smith quotes later in the same section "the perfect person 'does not demand of himself the impossible, but he does demand every ounce of the possible.'" If I take the definition of perfect you imply - infallibility, and omniscience, I obliterate the usefulness -- indeed the possibility of morality. Moral perfection is not a destination. You don't work at it until one day you are morally perfect and then cease to grow as a person.

Wm

On the Dexamyl thread I pointed out that many Objectivists hold a view of moral perfection that permits moral breaches.

Casey disagreed, writing, “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.” And, “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.”

So Casey is pretty clear here. A morally perfect person has no immoral actions in their past.

But Dr. Smith writes, “[A morally perfect individual] is simply unusually consistent in abiding by his moral principles day in, day out.”

Not perfectly consistent, just unusually so.

“Rather, a person is morally perfect when he lives up to moral principles as well as he can.”

Not lived up to perfectly, but “as well as he can.”

I would be interested to know which side of this question James is on. I asked him on the Dexamyl thread, but I didn’t see him answer.

Does moral perfection permit of any past immoral actions?

Moral perfection is not only possible, it is a requirement of a rational code of ethics. As Tara Smith writes in her book 'Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics',

"[A morally perfect individual] is simply unusually consistent in abiding by his moral principles day in, day out. The perfect person is not infallible; his perfection is not an immunity or some sort of genetic guarantee against his ever taking an immoral action. (Nor is he a neurotic perfectionist, striving in vain to adhere to irrational standards.) Rather, a person is morally perfect when he lives up to moral principles as well as he can."

Unbreached rationality is what moral perfection demands. I suggest Ms. Smith's book to anyone who is interested in understanding Objectivist morality.

Wm

I have to say that I am very disappointed with most of you posters. Neil, of course, is as empty as always: just as in the case of Rand's concept of "perfection," his perfect ignorance of Objectivism, once more, sends him away deeply confused about the subject at hand. Also quite expected is his less-than-honest failure to share with y'all ~ anything ~ of substance from PARC on the very subject he addresses.

Neil tells us that this statement from Rand is an "exaggeration," and although he can hardly deny that Mr. Branden's opinion here is more severe than his own, he objects to my characterization of it. I am confident that readers of PARC (this apparently doesn't include Neil) will know its sources with clarity.

Neil simply cannot entertain the idea that Rand -- obviously, a far greater master of the English language than himself -- was perfectly aware that to ears ~ like his ~ this assertion would sound just as he has superficially regurgitated it. As PARC suggests, Rand indeed must have known that she had received some kinds of help -- and that we, too, would know this -- and that there is "help" Rand even referenced in that very statement (if you read the whole thing).

As PARC also notes, such an unconventional use of language is precisely one of Rand's common tools -- e.g., the closely related concept of "selfishness."

As PARC also notes, this statement comes at the end of 'Atlas Shrugged,' another thing Neil remarkably ignores altogether. In the novel one has just read, Rand has the characters giving, getting -- and, most importantly, refusing to give or accept -- various KINDS of "help." The same word is even used in the text. It is a VERY big theme of the book.

NOT considering that Rand is using the word in her OWN sense -- the one she so carefully presented in that very book -- is a willful misreading of Rand. We should have thought that Phil, at least, would have caught this basic. Ah, well.

For obvious reasons, this is also an unfair misreading of PARC.

Both of these of are the standard practice for Neil and Jon -- who are invariably taken in by the Brandens' intentionally shallow but all-too-common misreads of Rand -- misreads which form a vital part of their methodology.

There is, of course, nothing in PARC about Rand's perfection -- and in no way are any of its themes reliant on any understanding of this subject. That Rand made mistakes is made clear in PARC. Whatever idea of "perfection" Jon and Neil have, it is obviously not mine. Yet, they can can spout back the distortions you see below without the slightest pause. And, simultaneously, they accuse me of unfairness to the Brandens (!)

(btw: Why doesn't some intrepid interviewer ask either of the Brandens if THEY still believe in the possibility of moral perfection?)

As I say, it is the sad ignorance of some others on the subject of Objectivism 101 that seems to be on surprising display around here.

Claudia: "Fickleness of Ayn Rand's Tut-tutters... otherwise known as FART."

Like Jon, I too, would like to thank you Linz for your fair and objective standard here at SOLO.

I don't get this obsession with Rand's "moral perfection" other than as a manifestation of the moral dwarfism of the obsessed. If they wish to prove her imperfect they must show an instance of her knowingly breaching her own principles. Well, let them do so.

I wish Mr. Parille would do as Jennifer suggests, or better still author his own book. I'll even help him with a title (not altruistically of course... I haven't bled to death). It can be called the Fickleness of Ayn Rand's Tut-tutters... otherwise known as FART.

I never said Rand "lied." I think her statement in 1957 and the one you referenced on the tape are exaggerations. And note that my conclusion has nothing to do with whether NB is telling the truth about that.

I'm always copping flak precisely for "being so open." And though I couldn't disagree with you more on this thread, I truly appreciate the magnanimity in what you just said. Doesn't happen often. Thank you!

Linz

Linz,

I am sure I have never thanked you for providing this forum. I have noticed you have received some flak lately for being so open, so I thought this would be a good time to do so.

As Ayn Rand noted, freedom of speech doesn’t mean the right to anyone’s microphone. I have no right to your forum—yet you make it available to me, enhancing the practical significance of my freedom of speech. For that I thank you.

I don't get this obsession with Rand's "moral perfection" other than as a manifestation of the moral dwarfism of the obsessed. If they wish to prove her imperfect they must show an instance of her knowingly breaching her own principles. Well, let them do so.

The dwarves' Brandenian pin-ups lied through their squalid anuses for years, and continue to compound their lies with smears; the Brandens and the dwarves simply want to drag Rand down to their level. They equivocate between "perfection" and "infallibility," thus showing they're illiterate as well as vile as well as small.

Linz

Claudia should the same standard of correct judgment of character, motive, and context apply to Ayn Rand, NB, and BB?

If these are the best attempts to make Rand look morally imperfect, they're pathetic. Mr. Parille, your smallness is despicable. This is your way of saying Rand lied, therefore she fell short of her philosophical ideals.... therefore so can we all, so let's just accept our flaws. The most ridiculous part is that you're saying Rand lied - according to the word of a notorious liar. NB.

Rand meant nobody helped her in the sense that her effort was ALL her own effort and nobody else had to suffer any form of set back in order for her to achieve her goals.

OWNED.

“Can you please tell me what motive James might have for writing what you consider to be fiction?”

I have no burden to discover his motives, only to demonstrate that he misrepresented N. Branden’s account, which has been done.

You should be angry at his misrepresentation of Rand with that abomination of a re-writing: “altruistic help.” Do you seriously believe that she would lower herself to making a denial that anyone bled to death for her? You’re buying his re-write?

Valliant thinks that Rand was morally perfect. So he has a motive every bit as strong as "the Brandens" don't you think?

That is, I do not consider James's work to be garblings or misrepresentations.

Consider your question answered Jon.

Can you please tell me what motive James might have for writing what you consider to be fiction? I mean, Nathaniel and Barbara had personal motives for their works, but what of James?

I asked, “Now how about James’ garbling and misrepresentations? I’m not saying they’re immoral. Will you say they are real?”

Claudia responded, “Yes Jon... I think James achieved a remarkable book and showed enormous insight into the character of who Ayn Rand really was.”

Claudia, you didn’t answer my question, yet in not doing so, I have my answer: You won’t.

Like I said earlier: “In other words, no, Valliant's summary of Nathaniel Branden's memoirs is not accurate. But James is a passionate valuer who seeks to honour the memory of one who inspired us, so, in that most noble endeavor, he gets carte blanche to misrepresent and distort.”

I think James achieved a remarkable book and showed enormous insight into the character of who Ayn Rand really was.

“what do you do with all that fucking lying??? Please, I'd love an answer to this.”

The lies to Rand, like having erectile dysfunction, etc.?

Those were terrible, terrible fucking lies. Immoral.

The failure to just tell her the romance was over for him was also terrible.

You can keep asking me, and I’ll keep responding to obviously terrible behavior by acknowledging it was terrible. Ask me which ones were immoral and I’ll answer you.

Now how about James’ garbling and misrepresentations? I’m not saying they’re immoral. Will you say they are real?

in her book PAR, Barbara clearly paints a portrait of NB as a cowardly liar. So I had that judgment of NB long before I ever read Valliant's PARC.

Valliant illuminated the extent of his cowardice.

Whether you take the facts from Barbara or from James, what do you do with all that fucking lying??? Please, I'd love an answer to this.

Just understand that when Branden uses the word grandiose - he is alleging dishonesty and he knows it.

Pick your meaning: 1,2,3 or 4?

1 - affectedly grand or important; pompous: grandiose words.
2 - overblown: a grandiose scheme.
3 - grand in an imposing or impressive way.
4 - Psychiatry. having an exaggerated belief in one's importance, sometimes reaching delusional proportions, and occurring as a common symptom of mental illnesses, as manic disorder.

“And the more important question is, as Jon notes, whether Valliant's summary of Nathaniel Branden's memoirs is accurate. Why did Valliant ignore the part about Rand receiving $500 from Mannheimer, which forms the basis for Branden's account?” [Neil]

“I think the more important question is why you would prefer the words of a snivelling liar with a vested interest in magnifying Rand's faults... over that of a passionate valuer who seeks to honour the memory of one who inspired us remarkably” [Claudia]

In other words, no, Valliant's summary of Nathaniel Branden's memoirs is not accurate. But James is a passionate valuer who seeks to honour the memory of one who inspired us, so, in that most noble endeavor, he gets carte blanche to misrepresent and distort.

N. Branden’s use of the word “grandiose,” as I recall, was something like, ‘she had a grandiose view of herself,’ in reference to things like the About The Author. He doesn’t say she’s dishonest, and “evident contradiction” does not mean she’s dishonest. It’s a sort of blind spot on her part, that’s all. In her grandiosity, she would forget the help she received.

Claudia wrote, “That is, not relying on help to live life but relying on self. Whether she accepted gifts of money from friends or not... I think we can all agree that it was not a norm in her life to do so, but rather an exception (if it happened at all)”

First of all, it happened. She lived in a charity house. Second, of course we can all agree it was not the norm in her life, no one is saying it was. And finally, her denial of help in the About The Author is not a denial of reliance wholly on help as opposed to reliance on self. Rather, it is a denial of having received help. N. Branden’s explanation of this is to suggest that she had a grandiose view of herself, a benevolent interpretation that preserves her integrity and honesty. (Whereas Valliant’s explanation is to re-write Rand, so that “help” becomes “altruistic help.” Rand would have abhorred this and preferred we say she was simply being grandiose. She railed against the notion that altruism is merely a kind-spirited willingness to “help.” She would never confuse “altruistic” with “help,” she would never use those two words together.)

N. Branden never wrote, “grandiose dishonesty.” Valliant puts those words into his mouth. Maybe that’s just HIS blind spot. if so—fine.

My question can be answered independently of what caused James’ inaccurate summary, blind-spots, or something else: Is Valliant's summary of Nathaniel Branden's memoirs is accurate?

No, it is not.

Incidentally, I think it's a bit too much to expect readers, after finishing AS, to know what Rand's view on accepting charity might have been.

Um.. I don't know how anyone could read Atlas and not know what Rand's view on accepting charity *might* have been.

And the more important question is, as Jon notes, whether Valliant's summary of Nathaniel Branden's memoirs is accurate. Why did Valliant ignore the part about Rand receiving $500 from Mannheimer, which forms the basis for Branden's account? And why discuss NB for a page and a half and then end with some jibe against "the Brandens"

I think the more important question is why you would prefer the words of a snivelling liar with a vested interest in magnifying Rand's faults... over that of a passionate valuer who seeks to honour the memory of one who inspired us remarkably - that is, inspired us in the name of the best within human nature, history and achievement. People like that are worth GOLD in our lives. NB treated her like CRAP.

And maybe James Valliant discussed NB for a page and a half because the book was written as a case against the Branden's. They were quite central to the theme, weren't they.

What you call Rand's "sweeping" statement, was her authentic comparison of herself to the the spirit of independence she and they exemplified. That is, not relying on help to live life but relying on self. Whether she accepted gifts of money from friends or not... I think we can all agree that it was not a norm in her life to do so, but rather an exception (if it happened at all). So why consistently place all of your focus on it?

The interview is called "Selfishness as a Virtue" and the discussion is at 3:10-5:00.

"I had the longest period of struggle . . . I had to write part time . . . nobody helped me in that period . . . I never expected the government or other people to help me with my struggle. I earned what I made."

I don't see how this helps Valliant's case.

I don't have time to listen to the interview now, but would readers of the About the Author statement, even after reading AS, think Rand was denying only that she received welfare or some sort of altruistically-motivated organizational help? Welfare didn't even exist the way we understand it today. She accepted a gift of $500 (a lot of money in those days) and subsidized housing. That's a lot of "help" by anyone's standards.

Incidentally, I think it's a bit too much to expect readers, after finishing AS, to know what Rand's view on accepting charity might have been. I'm not sure Rand published anything definitive about this until "The Ethics of Emergencies."

It's like her claim that she didn't make substantial changes to WTL. Is it wrong to change from time to time? Is it wrong to accept help? I don't think Rand necessarilty thought these things wrong, but she couldn't always bring herself to admit that she did accept help, for the reasons Jon mentioned.

And the more important question is, as Jon notes, whether Valliant's summary of Nathaniel Branden's memoirs is accurate. Why did Valliant ignore the part about Rand receiving $500 from Mannheimer, which forms the basis for Branden's account? And why discuss NB for a page and a half and then end with some jibe against "the Brandens"?

rather than me post the question and answer, you can go to the ARI website and download the interview for free. It's the one titled The Virtue of Selfishness. It's in the Ayn Rand Multimedia Library.

I don't think she was bragging. I think she was stating a fact. Nobody sacrificed themselves in order for her to achieve her goals and neither did she expect them to. To look past the context of Atlas is to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. The whole thing is about INDIVIDUALISM (man's independent achievement) vs COLLECTIVISM (the group's pillaging of the individual).

Hellooo?!

James’ line of reasoning: That a novel about altruistic monsters is the context of her denial of “help” in the About The Author, such that obviously she meant to deny “altruistic help,” I find very unconvincing. What she really meant was: “no one bled to death helping me”? Come on. Obviously, she would never have ACCEPTED that kind of help.

No, the relevant context to reference (if one thinks her denial is ambiguous) is the surrounding text in the About The Author itself.

That surrounding text includes:
• I chose my lifelong career, at age nine.
• I chose my nationality
• America is based on MY premises
• I came to America alone
• I had a difficult struggle
And then… “I did it all by myself.” Just kidding.
And then…”No one helped me”

The About The Author page is actually approximately five times longer again than what Neil quotes. So here is some more of the relevant context:

* “I have held the same philosophy I now hold, for as long back as I can remember.”
• “The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle.”

(These last two seem to conflict. Did she know Aristotle for as long back as she could remember?)

(There’s also this: “When I wrote The Fountainhead, I was addressing myself to an ideal reader—to as rational and independent a mind as I could conceive of. I found such a reader—through a fan letter he wrote me about The Fountainhead when he was nineteen years old. He is my intellectual heir. His name is Nathaniel Branden.)

***The grand total number of references to altruism or welfare: Precisely zero. ***

Would Ayn Rand write of welfare or altruism and choose the word, “help”? The notion is preposterous on its face. She spent her entire career explaining that altruism is DEATH, not “help.” Let us give some credit to the woman’s intelligence and writing skill. She expressed herself quite well, and if she meant “altruistic help” then she would have written, “No one sacrificed themselves in my name” or some such. But she wouldn’t even do THAT, because it would be beneath the woman to bother making such a denial.

“No one helped me,” means “No one helped me.”

So Nathaniel Branden called the whole display “grandiose,” did he? Big fucking deal…it IS grandiose! Is it so hard to admit she was bragging? If you think she deserved to brag, like I do, then it should be that much less painful to admit that’s what she was doing.

Claudia,

Would you post the question and answer? I’d like to judge for myself that in that interview she denies plain old “help” intending really to deny “altruistic help”. I may agree with you once I see it, but I can’t tell from the minimal description you have given. Of course, even if the Q&A you refer to DOES indicate an example of her denying plain old “help” in a context that makes clear she intends to deny “altruistic help,” that hardly establishes that every time Ayn Rand writes, “help” she means “altruistic help.”

The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn makes this claim once again and it is clear that she is talking about welfare.

The interviewer puts the question to her in the context of a discussion about altruism and taxes. "You wrote for the movies and were paid handsome sums of money... then a portion of your earnings was given back in the form of taxes etc etc." The implication being if she was paid well and given opportunity, why begrudge taxes. She makes the point that neither the government, nor other people helped her, she earned her way through a hard struggle of work and odd jobs.

James's interpretation of Ayn's meaning in this so called "sweeping" statement is the correct one. Considering what the antagonists in Atlas Shrugged are all about (collectivism) her post-script is extremely relevant and appropriate.

Phil,

Your alternative interpretation, “Like […] someone willing to pay her for her work” is covered already. Neil wrote, “Nathaniel Branden begins his discussion by recounting Rand’s relationship with screenwriter Albert Mannheimer. Rand told Branden that “during her years of financial struggle”, Mannheimer sent her a check for five hundred dollars.” I assume this was a gift and not in exchange for any published work.

“someone willing to pay her for her work,” indeed! Here we have someone who paid her just to propel her potential, from his generosity, and for her non-work!

The more important question that Neil asks, of course, is: Does James get his account of Nathaniel’s account of the issue of help right, or does James get it all garbled up?

Jen, Both he and Mr. Valliant have the right to raise their points and argue them without anyone speculating about their motives or psychology for doing so. That just gets in the way of pointing out when a particular point is a good or bad one.

The best approach is to simply evaluate the arguments on their merits (or say that one finds the too-incessant focus on Rand herself rather than the philosophy to be wasted time - if that's your view - it's usually mine), rather than getting personal.

Mr. Parille, do you have nothing else to do with your time? Since you seem so committed to brandishing this sword, why not go all out and craft a whole web site where you can go chapter by chapter? Then people who actually have interest in your "refutations" can come to you.

You have gone beyond making a nuisance of yourself -- you have now entered the realm of the ridiculous.

Jennifer

-- Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

>"I had a difficult struggle, earning my living at odd jobs, until I could make a financial success of my writing. No one helped me, nor did I think at any time that it was anyone's duty to help me." Valliant claims that Rand was only denying “altruistic” help (such as welfare). I don’t find this persuasive, but readers can decide for themselves. [Neil]

Another interpretation might be that no one helped her break through - as a writer. Like a mentor, or someone willing to publish or publicize or pay her for her work. Or tell the world how good her screenplays, short stories, etc. were. . .