| | James S. Valliant wrote:
I may be wrong, but wasn't it Ayn Rand who "rolled out" Objectivism in a couple of successful novels? And, these days, Branden presents as a critic of Objectivism's several "hazards," such as its alleged "moralism."
Yes, he may be wrong. Probably is, it seems to me.
"Rolled out" connotes a public presentation/announcement of a product, program, etc., complete with name identification. (As in: "today the Ford Motor Company rolled out its new 2005 Focus and Escape models.")
It is an anachronism to refer to The Fountainhead as a work of Objectivism, or as being about Objectivism. Rand had not yet formulated her philosophy. This she did while writing Atlas Shrugged, which was published in 1957. However, she did not name her philosophy at that time, neither in the novel itself, nor in the "About the Author" section that followed the novel's text. This was not a "roll-out" of Objectivism.
Thanks to David Harriman's editing of Journals of Ayn Rand (1997), we know that Rand had decided upon the name of her philosophy no later than June 8, 1958, the entry for which presented the preface of a projected book Objectivism: A Philosophy for Living on Earth. Since it was entirely personal and private, however, this was not a "roll-out" of Objectivism either.
Rand first publicly referred to her philosophy by name in 1961 in For the New Intellectual. This book excerpted Galt's Speech, which was retitled: "This is John Galt Speaking. This is the Philosophy of Objectivism." She gave the first non-fiction presentation of her philosophy in 1962 in her column for the L.A. Times entitled "Introducing Objectivism."
However, the "roll-out" of Objectivism had already occurred several years previously, in 1958, when Nathaniel Branden first presented his public lectures "Basic Principles of Objectivism."
Attempting to airbrush away this undeniable fact is yet another way in which ARI partisans engage in their Orwellian rewriting of history. (Another, my favorite actually, is the editing of the tape of the radio broadcast of the discussion of Rand's lecture "Our Esthetic Vacuum," so as to erase the identity of John Hospers and the existence of Barbara Branden.)
Two final points: as usual, Mr. Valliant presents only what he considers as putting Branden in a bad light. He carefully ignores the fact that Branden's talk/essay was called "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand." It was an attempt to bring some balance to his own public advocacy of Objectivism, to say, "You have to be careful how you use this philosophy." He, more than most people, was in a position to know how people had misinterpreted and misused the philosophy in the past, and he wanted to help his readers to avoid what he thought were some of the worst misuses of Objectivism. Thus, the ascription by Valliant and others of heinous, deliberately destructive motives to Branden is uncalled for.
Also, like all other tools, physical or cognitive, Rand's philosophy can be used for good or evil. Objectivism does not have a special exemption from this principle. Like a firearm, like alcohol, like an automobile, like a table fork, like a paperweight, like a Kleenex, etc., there are benefits and hazards to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Mr. Valliant and his allies may disagree with the particular hazards that Branden enumerates and discusses in his talk/essay -- and they may be right! -- but they cannot deny that there are hazards involved in Objectivism. (One of them is rationalism, as Leonard Peikoff makes clear in Understanding Objectivism and subsequent lecture series.) The sooner they admit this and get clear on what those hazards are from their perspective, the sooner they can move on to something more productive than bashing Branden for his (supposed) errors on the matter.
REB
|
|
