This book is notable (among other things) for the impartiality of its author. As far as I can tell, Burns is the first non-Objectivist scholar to have been granted full access to Rand’s papers. Since she harbors no perceivable agenda beyond relating the important facts about Rand’s life and thought, Goddess of the Market becomes the most “objective” (in the non-Randian sense of the word) account of Rand. Unlike works on Rand published through ARI or by the Brandens, the conclusions of Goddess cannot be questioned on the grounds of bias. “I am less concerned with judgment than with analysis,” Burns writes in her introduction, “a choice Rand would certainly condemn,” she adds with muted irony. I would describe her book as even-handed: wherever Rand conflicted with friends and associates, Burns goes out of her way to give both sides, basing her analysis on the relevant documentary evidence (rather than just on mere speculation or bias). The intellectual conflict Rand had with Rose Wilder Lane, for instance, is fleshed out not merely with reference to letters between the two right-wing individualists, but even with a letter that Lane wrote to a third person describing her final showdown with Rand.
The most interesting revelation in Goddess may very well be the extent to which Isabel Paterson influenced Rand’s philosophy. Rand was still working her way through her Nietzsche phase when she met Paterson in 1941. Paterson reinforced Rand’s growing commitment to “reason” and Aristotle. It is likely that Paterson introduced Rand to the banal phrase “A is A,” which later became such an important mantra within the Objectivist philosophy. Paterson also appears to be the original source of Rand’s detestation of Kant (which would later be reinforced by what she learned from Leonard Peikoff). Paterson may even have been the chief inspiration for Rand’s later fierce moral condemnation of using emotions as a tool of cognition. Paterson, famous for being “difficult” (W. F. Buckley would later describe her as “obstinately vindictive”), once, in Rand’s presence, screamed over the phone at Rose Wilder Lane, because Lane had confessed being led by her feelings, rather than by “reason.” Rand found Paterson’s arguments to Lane “marvelous and unanswerable," and her anger understandable, even honorable. Paterson was providing Rand with a model the younger woman would later imitate, to horrendous effect.
Rand emerges from Burns' book as a talented, energetic, sometimes even brilliant woman torn by paradoxical traits in her character. Rand was a “rationalist philosopher who wrote romantic fiction. For all her fealty to reason, Rand was a woman subject to powerful, even overwhelming emotion…. Her dual career as a novelist and a philosopher let Rand express both her deep-seated need for control and her genuine belief in individualism and independence.” Rand’s life, driven by a “clash between [the] romantic and rational sides” of her character, makes the story of her life “not a tale of triumph, but a tragedy of sorts.”
This book will not please the orthodox champions of Rand who have turned Objectivism into a personality cult. It confirms most of the controversial claims made by Barbara Branden in The Passion of Ayn Rand, including Frank O'Conner's alcoholism, Rand's increasing mental rigidity during her Objectivist period, her difficulties with intellectual interchange, the contempt which Rand periodically felt for her fans, and the catastrophic consequences of her split with the Brandens for the Objectivist movement as a whole. It provides even more light on the possible role which Rand's habitual use of Benzedrine may have had on Rand. Paterson had warned Rand to "Stop taking that Benzedrine, you idiot," but Rand, stubborn and self-willed as usual, refused to listen. It was not unusual for Rand to work on Atlas during the day and then stay up all night talking philosophy with the "Collective" [i.e., the inner circle around Rand, let by the Brandens]. As Burns relates:
The Collective marveled at how the opportunity to talk philosophy rejuvenated [Rand] even after a long day of writing. The obvious was also the unthinkable. To keep up with her younger followers, Rand fed herself a steady stream of amphetamines. [148]
This opens up the possibility that what some of us find objectionable in Atlas Shrugged—namely, the work's blistering disdain towards anyone who might be so horrid as to disagree with its author, coupled with the book's piercing tendentiousness—may have been influenced by her repeated exposure to these drugs, which can lead to aggression, over-confidence, feelings of superiority, and even paranoia. Following the publication of The Fountainhead, Rand's personal life slowly dissolved into personal tragedy, as she became increasingly difficult and insular. That a woman who would devise an entire philosophy around the notion that human beings are self-creators via "reason" should have relied so heavily on amphetamines is in itself a kind of refutation of her view of human nature.
That a woman who would devise an entire philosophy around the notion that human beings are self-creators via "reason" should have relied so heavily on amphetamines is in itself a kind of refutation of her view of human nature.
ReplyDeleteThis is a classic quote.
On Rand's intellectual development, I would also recommend many of the essays in the Mayhew collections. Although written by ARI types and not exactly critical, they have a lot of information. For example, Milgram's essay in The Fountainhead details N's influence on Rand.
ReplyDeleteApparently a number of bohemian writers in the 1950's and 1960's used amphetamines to stimulate their literary efforts. For example,Hugh Hefner (an Ayn Rand admirer) reportedly ingested a lot of Dexedrine while banging out his "Playboy Philosophy." Rand's addiction to Dexedrine doesn't make her that unusual in the context of her time.
ReplyDeleteThat a woman who would devise an entire philosophy around the notion that human beings are self-creators via "reason" should have relied so heavily on amphetamines is in itself a kind of refutation of her view of human nature.
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. It simply means that to improve its functioning, the human brain given its specific nature can benefit from certain substances (as any coffee drinker can attest). The enhancements in mental functioning from drug use may enable one to employ his rational faculty better. There is nothing unnatural about drug use per se. "Natural" does not mean "drug free".
Anon69: "Not necessarily. It simply means that to improve its functioning, the human brain given its specific nature can benefit from certain substances..."
ReplyDeleteSo in other words, human beings have free will, they are self-creators and all of that provided they take the right drugs?
So in other words, human beings have free will, they are self-creators and all of that provided they take the right drugs?
ReplyDeleteNo more than weightlifters can lift weights provided that they take performance-enhancing drugs, or that cars can travel fast provided that they have a supply of Nitrous Oxide. An enhancer is certainly not a requirement. And as Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy, I am hard-pressed to see any contradiction between the Objectivist account of volition and "self-creation" and drug use as a mind-enhancer. So, no.
And as Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy, I am hard-pressed to see any contradiction between the Objectivist account of volition and "self-creation" and drug use as a mind-enhancer. So, no.
ReplyDeleteLet's get rid of this logical fallacy that is so cliched it is acceptable. The mind-body dichotomy.
This is a violation of the theory of types. Mind is an abstract term and body is a physical one. You can say Brain/Body dichotomy but that doesn't make much sense. And comparing mind and body is like comparing apples and diamonds.
Burns is a typical ambitious biographer aspiring for a tenure track position and a big blockbuster best seller. Checkout her travels in the book signing world. I think she's got it. By george, I think she's got it!
ReplyDeleteShe is your typical upwardly mobile academic. What I have read indicates competence but it is by no means an inspired biography. (For inspired read Graham Greene's 2 volume biography.)BB's is worse although more juicy with personal details. BB cannot write a decent sentence.And NB often writes well (more often not)but needed a professional editor. Some of his remembrances were so detailed as to be icky and I was embarrassed for him reading them. I was also embarrassed for BB and Rand.
And who gives a shit what Frank drank or what Ayn popped.
ReplyDeleteNeither was out of control. We don't see a rail thin speed junkie Ayn Rand nor a slobbering, hazy falling down drunk Frank O'Conner. So what the fuck is the obsession.
Might as well go back to talk about Balloon Boy and the stupid media's obsession with that little tidbit.
A very good friend invented the first dialysis machine. He took speed every day and worked at DuPont everyday. Before he left, invented the kidney machine and lived off it the rest of his life.
And think of all the ADD children on Ritalin. How it helps them to focus. We are not going to talk about the long range side effects of this speed pill. I took it a few times in graduate school and it was amazing the way it let you study.
ReplyDeleteI also took my SAT's on a benny my father gave me because I had been out late the night before with my boyfriend. Lest you think otherwise, I usually take nothing unless someone pays me to take it and pays me well.
Comparing an amphetamine like Benzedrine to coffee is quite misleading. It's like comparing a BB gun to .50 caliber. Also, it's in the long term that amphetamine drug abuse has its most damaging effect.
ReplyDeleteKelly
Anon69,
ReplyDeleteThe late Michael Jackson was at least honest enough to sing a song about demarol before his death. Where was Rand's ode to amphetamines?
It is very unlikely that she would admit that the drug played a role in forming her behavior. But that is precisely the point at issue. Would she admit that she couldn't have done what she did without the drugs?
tenaj:
ReplyDelete>What I have read indicates competence but it is by no means an inspired biography.
Well, I think you're off base here. My view is that Burns' writing is very tightly controlled. Having read the book I got right from the start that she's a talented writer, but she's left the lyrical style - which I think she's more than capable of, as she puts a few nice grace notes into her opening - to one side for whatever reason. (Possibly cos the Heller book, which is the more all-encompassing project, seems from the little I've read to deploy a more lyrical or literary style). Burns' book is purposive, disciplined and concise, and seems nothing like careerism.
Kelly:
ReplyDelete>Also, it's in the long term that amphetamine drug abuse has its most damaging effect.
Kelly's right. I know long term users myself.
"And who gives a shit what Frank drank or what Ayn popped. Neither was out of control."
ReplyDeleteThe question about Frank's drinking may have some relevance giving how Rand projected her relationship with him to the world. That the woman who wrote Atlas Shrugged should be married to a drunk is rather odd. It suggests that her philosophy about the heroic man is a sham. After all, if it didn't work for Rand in her own life, what chance is there that it will work for anyone else?
As for Rand's pill popping, it too reflects poorly on Rand's philosophy, because she claimed that everything could be controlled via free will and "reason," and yet were certain things about herself and her body that she could not control through mere will power and "thinking" alone (i.e., exhaustion and her weight), but required the assistance of a drug with harmful long-range side effects. Rand could not have been entirely ignorant of these long term side effects (Paterson had warned her about taking them), yet she took them anyway. How "rational" is that? What would Rand have said about another person who took drugs because of weak will power? "Drug addiction is nothing but a public confession of personal impotence," she once wrote. Why does Rand judge other people by one standard and herself by quite another? It would seem to me that anyone who argues that selfishness is a virtue would go out of their way to avoid this kind of self-centered, hypocritical, solipsistic moralizing.
Maybe she didn't consider herself addicted, and found the long-range benefits to outwiegh the long-range costs. So I'll stick to my coffee analogy, thank you. It is at least plausible and a sufficient rejoinder to the charge of necessary hypocrisy.
ReplyDelete"she claimed that everything could be controlled via free will and 'reason,'"
Well, no, that's too simple a caricature. A more apt expression comes from Rand: "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed", which admits of the potential positive use of drugs in influencing certain metaphysically-given aspects of the self. But as Rand's drug use evidently furnishes an exciting new way to attack Rand, I expect no serious consideration of this point.
Well, no, that's too simple a caricature. A more apt expression comes from Rand: "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed", which admits of the potential positive use of drugs in influencing certain metaphysically-given aspects of the self. But as Rand's drug use evidently furnishes an exciting new way to attack Rand, I expect no serious consideration of this point.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that this is your position already, that you believe that people who disagree with you are not seriously considering your point.
Rand did not deal realistically with the limitations of human beings. For your coffee example, the point here would be to what degree she regarded coffee as *necessary* to achieve the things that coffee drinkers are capable of. Michael Jackson, as I noted earlier, thought so well of Demarol that he wrote a song about it. Rand did not talk about any of her heroes being under the positive influence of a drug to deal with a personal limitation or flaw. While this is speculative, I think that says something about how she unrealistically she viewed human beings.
Moreover, the drugs that Rand used have side effects that might have accentuated certain aspects of her behavior in ways that are interesting. If repeated use of a drug increases your confidence and one of your noted traits is your certainty/certitude, isn't that interesting?
Rand's views on human nature were often unclear, but her views were in many ways far more libertine than conservative and most Objectivists tend to follow the same path, having self-destructive, unrealistic views about what human beings can achieve. Intelligent people who understand the limits of their talents often realize that they are not Einstein fairly quickly - others who do not like to pretend that they are Einsteins but do not just work hard enough to get the same results.
In any case, there is room for dissension on many points about Objectivism. I don't like it when people say that disagreement on an issue like Rand's thought, which I think we can all agree that all of us here have studied fairly deeply, is because one side has not considered the issue seriously...
"most Objectivists tend to follow the same path, having self-destructive, unrealistic views about what human beings can achieve."
ReplyDeleteThis ties in nicely with something I read just last night, in a self-help book called "It's Only Too Late If You Don't Start Now."
The author, Barbara Sher, writes:
====
"Believe it and you can achieve it!" ... "You create your own reality" ... "The only limits are the limits of your imagination." Catchy phrases, but if you fall for them, you're back in a narrow narcissistic focus where you care nothing for fate, weather, or the stock market, much less your own emotional needs. When you've sold yourself that bill of goods, you lose your respect for reality and become intoxicated with the illusion of your own potential.
Rather than deafen your fears with drums and trumpets to go after your goals, you'll be better off discovering what's real. Instead of hiding your uncertainty by shouting out your own grandiosity, relax and listen to what you have learned: Reality is bigger than you are. (pp. 165-166)
====
Although Objectivism pays much lip service to the idea of accepting reality, it seems to me that the unreality of Rand's view of the human condition undermines all her efforts. Why, it's almost as if Ayn Rand were, you know, contra human nature.
Someone should write a book about that.
Anon69: "Well, no, that's too simple a caricature. A more apt expression comes from Rand: 'nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed,' which admits of the potential positive use of drugs in influencing certain metaphysically-given aspects of the self."
ReplyDeleteThat's obviously one way to rationalize about it, and perhaps that's the rationalization Rand herself would have used; but in any case, it is just a rationalization. I suspect Rand would have adopted a slightly different argument, claiming that taking drugs are fine as long as they only affect one's body and not one's mind. Of course, in the context of long-term amphetamines use, this is naive and false: indeed, it has a whiff of evasion about it.
"But as Rand's drug use evidently furnishes an exciting new way to attack Rand, I expect no serious consideration of this point."
It's not entirely an issue of an attack Rand; it's also an issue of explaining Rand, of trying to figure out what went wrong in Rand's later years. The pre-Atlas Rand, whatever difficulties or issues she may have had, is nevertheless easier to admire than the post-Atlas Rand. Granted, that odd infatuation she had with that murderer is a bit a creepy; but given everything she went through during the Russian Revolution, I'm willing to cut her some slack. It is what happens after the success of The Fountainhead that needs explaining--for it is a kind of pathetic tragedy what happened in those years with Branden and the Collective, and some of us are naturally curious to try to understand what went wrong. I had heard about her drug use before Burns' book, but I had never taken it all that seriously. But Burns has convinced me that the drug issue could be a possible explanation for the entire post-Atlas disaster. The drugs, for instance, could be an important contributing factor to all the people she broke with; for the moralizing, in-your-face tone of Atlas; for her paranoia (or at least lack of graciousness) about criticism; and for the self-enclosed, self-reinforcing world she allowed to be erected around her in which she sheltered herself from people her own age and with comparable intellect who could stand up to her and pose a challenge to her more questionable speculations.
It is well known that completing a significant project (baby, book, thesis, degree, etc) leads to a sort of "post partum depression". Rand's completion of Atlas with all its attendant adulation and daily readings of the chapters to her adorers would lead to a complete change in lifestyle for her.
ReplyDeleteFor Burns to blame drugs is no different than a criminal blaming drugs did it. This is abysmal thinking.
Going back to her early life as told by Heller, the seeds are there. She had a cold unloving mother. As far as the family scraping together all the money they could get their hands on to get her out of the country can be easily interpreted as love, eh? It can also be interpreted as self interest. Her staying would have put the entire family in jeopardy with the KGB. (Not called KGB that early in time. GPU?)For sure she would have been picked up, detained and sent to a camp to service men and work and die. And they would have been tainted by her and picked up too. Or forced to denounce her. They chose the intelligent course of action in eliminating her from being a ticking time bomb for them. Smart thinking and planning. Too bad more soviets didn't think ahead as carefully as Rand's family.
You all go along with Burns and blame it all on drugs. Her family situation explains her psychological behavior much better. This is why I have criticized Burns. She is just another pop biographer. I am sure she has found new stuff, especially the edited journals which one could have guessed at anyway.
And I am beginning to admire the Machievellian nature of LP. He has shrouded Rand in secrecy for 30 years or so. Her mystery has deepened unaffected by information about reality allowing our perception, and the world's, to fantasize endlessly about her. This has permitted the mystique to grow and become fruitful (for LP) and as such is simply masterful. Had all this come to light right away there would have been no building movement for objectivism. Nice job LP.
Ayn Rand on drug use.
ReplyDeleteIn her essay 'Apollo and Dionysus' Ayn Rand said this.
"...But all discussion or arguments about the hippies are almost superfluous in the face of one overwhelming fact, most of the hippies are drug addicts.
<Bronx cheer, then applause>
I will assume that your booing is directed at the hippies because this is a fact, I object to it also.
<applause>
Is there any doubt that drug addiction is an escape from an unbearable inner state?
from a reality that one cannot deal with?
from an unthinking mind that one can never fully destroy?
If Apollonian reason were unnatural to man, and Dionysian intuition brought you closer to nature and truth, the apostles of unreason would not resort to drugs.
Healthy, self confidant men do not get stoned."
You can go Here if you don't believe me and go to 64:57 on the first recording. Better yet you could listen to the entire first recording, it actually is pretty good. Best yet you can find a copy of 'The New Left, The Anti-Industrial Revolution' and read it in there. I'm going to leave this up without further comment, although if there was a post about that essay, I promise I'll say something. Although I'm not going to promise to say something smart.
The Mind, what is it anyway?
ReplyDeleteI am of the opinion that the mind is rather like a software that runs on the brain (Which is something like a computer). My rationale for believing this is that there are certain diseases of the mind that appear even if the underlying brain is fine, just as software can malfunction even if the computer itself is not malfunctioning. However it is also possible to affect the mind by affecting the brain, proving that there is connection to the brain and the mind.
All of that also kinda explains why a mind/body dichotomy even appears to exist and why people have been arguing about it for so long. By the way, There is no brain/body dichotomy, brain is body.
On Expanding the mind.
There are several ways that one can go about expanding one's mind. One can study a subject, smoke marijuana, jump out of an airplane, run around naked in the snow, live in a warzone, do lines of coke, read a good book, take up asceticism, have sex, walk on a frozen lake, walk on hot coals, ride rollercoasters, take speed, go into business for yourself, read Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, Tenaj is arguing somewhat convincingly that psychoanalysis also helps. My list is by no means exhaustive. I'm sure each of you could add something.
Of course there are better and worse ways to expand the mind. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
For Burns to blame drugs is no different than a criminal blaming drugs did it. This is abysmal thinking.
ReplyDeleteA couple of things here, tenaj. You've not stated if you've read the book, and if you have not read the book, it is not fair to characterize Burns's position in all or nothing terms. In fact, on page 178, Burns describes the depression post Atlas as a result of a confluence of factors, with benzedrine use being a contributor. This is entirely reasonable.
Your quote uses confusing logic. I have done things under the influence of alcohol that I would NEVER have done when sober, the most prominent that comes to mind right now being driving on the wrong side of a HIGHWAY at the age of 22/23 at 2am in the morning. Luckily, there were no cops to record the event or who knows where I might be today.
You seem to be confusing the moral dimension necessitated by what we can and cannot excuse for the law to function with the causal dimension, which is whether the drug contributes to the prevalence and cause of the offending behavior.
"Granted, that odd infatuation she had with that murderer is a bit a creepy...I'm willing to cut her some slack."
ReplyDeleteGood attitude to have Greg. Let's hope the objectivists out there follow your example. As one wonders how they would react if an enemy of theirs had an odd infatuation with a murderer. I think we can all guess they'd find such an attitude ruinious?
I'm not cutting her any slack. Didn't she say: "judge and be prepared to be judged"? Imagine that some similar text by Kant had be found... She may have been more careful with expressing such sentiments later in life, but I don't think that they had disappeared. In Atlas Shrugged there are enough hints that her basic attitude hadn't changed significantly.
ReplyDeleteDF:
ReplyDelete>Imagine that some similar text by Kant had be found...
Yes, well that's the phenomenon I call the Objectivist Double Standard.
It works like this:
If Ayn Rand criticises something, no matter how plainly ignorant she is of the topic, nor how fact-free the assertion, nor how much contrary evidence exists, nor how hyperbolic and even insulting her language, that's always ok because with the above she is, apparently, brilliantly grasping the essentials of her opponent's arguments.
A critic of Rand, on the other hand, must always keep "full context" (ie take into account everything she ever said or ever might have said about anything, anywhere, at any time), must be prepared to accept any meaning of any term that Objectivists might choose (including what they mean by "logic"), must be prepared to sympathetically allow for every possible delicate flutter of nuance in interpreting Rand's own writing and history, and finally must completely understand down to the last detail Rand's philosophy of Objectivism - which is of course impossible, because anyone that truly understands Objectivism could not possibly criticise it.
tenaj: "You all go along with Burns and blame it all on drugs."
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about "all on drugs"? I merely suggested that Rand's drug use, as reported by Burns, "opens up the possibility" that some of her objectionable characteristics "may have been influenced" by her repeated drug use. Of course drugs aren't the full explanation. But they may have aggravated some of Rand's less admirable characteristics. I believe Burns is right when she describes Rand's life as a kind of tragedy (particularly the last 25 years or so). I'm open to the possibility, perhaps the probability, that drug use played a role in that tragedy.
But Daniel and Dragonfly, re:Hickman, arent you forgetting that Rand stated that those members of the jury and the people that packed the court room to see justice done were/are guilty of worse crimes than Hickman. Now, don't ask me what those worse crimes were as Ayn Rand does not explain them. But surely that clears up her creeps infatuation with Hickman? She admired a Hickman with a purpose. Got that?
ReplyDeleteAs for Mark Plus's comment earlier about the drug use of the Bohemians, lol. Yeah what has been their lasting contribution ot literature? The 'Playboy philosophy'? Heffner and author? No, Heffner is a pornographer and his philosophy is as convincing as a drug-dealers. Yes, yes, yes William S. Burroughs is readable at times but try getting passed the first few pages of the nonsense of Kerouac and Ginsberg.
ReplyDeleteAnon:
ReplyDelete>She admired a Hickman with a purpose. Got that?
Not sure what point you are trying to make?
Me neither Daniel, I put that to an objectivist and that was the answer. She did not admire Hickman the killer but what he could have been, you know with a purpose. It's the standard objectivist trick, you try to figure out what the hell they mean...I'm still scratching my head over that one. I'll admit I gave up debating Hickman with him, I mean only a masochist would try.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he meant that if Hickman had not been corrupted by Kant he'd have put his energy into something more constructive? I honestly just don't know what he meant when he said she admired a Hickman with a purpose.
Anon:
ReplyDelete>It's the standard objectivist trick, you try to figure out what the hell they mean...
Oh, now I gotcha. Yes, this is a standard Objectivist rhetorical feint. Obviously Rand admired Hickman for a "purpose", the whole point is trying to winkle out just what that purpose was.
I suggest there are notes of Rand's Nietzchean turn sounding still in The Fountainhead, such as the street urchins - let's call them "little Hickmans" - that Rand admiringly surrounds the home for intellectually handicapped children with.
Your quote uses confusing logic. I have done things under the influence of alcohol that I would NEVER have done when sober, the most prominent that comes to mind right now being driving on the wrong side of a HIGHWAY at the age of 22/23 at 2am in the morning. Luckily, there were no cops to record the event or who knows where I might be today.
ReplyDeleteYour example is illogical. You are comparing apples to oak trees. Alcohol impairs physical reflexes and physical skills. This has nothing to do with using alcohol (or any drug) as an excuse for behavior. This is AA 101.
Togive you the benefit of a huge doubt, you chose to drive while intoxicated. It is your fault, not the alcohol.
"Rand stated that those members of the jury and the people that packed the court room to see justice done were/are guilty of worse crimes than Hickman. Now, don't ask me what those worse crimes were as Ayn Rand does not explain them."
ReplyDeleteAs I read it, she implies that their crime is that they are ordinary, average, mediocre. First she rails against society:
"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man.... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal."
Later she describes the jury:
"Average, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, 'dignified' housewives. How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone's fate?"
Though the two statements are separate, I see them as expressing the same basic outlook -- that "average" people simply have no right to judge a superior kind of man (which Rand took Hickman to be) because they are, in their own way, much more repellent.
I believe that this attitude persists in Rand's later writings. Frequently in her novels she describes ordinary people in the most unflattering terms, concentrating on their appearance -- shabbily dressed or overdressed, worn and thin or fat and sleek, the women wearing too much makeup, the men looking sweaty or pallid, etc.
She seems to have had an extreme visceral aversion to "average" people, which she rationalized in "vulgar Nietzschean" terms. Possibly this attitude was a result of her formative experiences in Soviet Russia, when she had to live in crowded, squalid conditions, cheek to cheek with shabby, unwashed, impoverished people.
The irony, which the young Rand could not know, was that she herself was fated to end up as one of the dowdy, overweight, poorly made up, unfashionably dressed people she so despised. As Mel Brooks said, "We mock what we are to become."
Well, I think you're off base here. My view is that Burns' writing is very tightly controlled. Having read the book I got right from the start that she's a talented writer, but she's left the lyrical style - which I think she's more than capable of, as she puts a few nice grace notes into her opening - to one side for whatever reason. (Possibly cos the Heller book, which is the more all-encompassing project, seems from the little I've read to deploy a more lyrical or literary style). Burns' book is purposive, disciplined and concise, and seems nothing like careerism.
ReplyDeleteI have read some of Burns's book. Since I am a professional bookseller of used books for the past 15 years, I make judgement calls very quickly on a book. I have to when going through hundreds of them with competitors also doing the same. Riffling through a book, reading some sentences here and there, some paragraphs, the beginning and ending can tell me very quickly what price a book will sell for.
When it first comes out a book is hyped with the author doing a lot of book signing appearances. The publisher likes this and it does sell books. Burns is making about one a week right now. This is about right for any pop book that is current and Rand is certainly current now. But when I look at a book I am considering the long range price it will command. I do not deal in remainders. A pop book will go for 75 cents on half com ebay and 01 penny on Amazon. These are sales by the remainder wholesale people who get them by the truckload from booksellers returns to the publisher. They often have a red dot on the leaves, or a black magic marker slash on the leaves.
Greenspan's memoirs are already in the thrift stores for 1.00 or so. Because he was guaranteed a large advance and they ran a large printing. A large printing is usually for the best seller type of book where they will make a killing in the first month or so and then that is the end of it.
Judgement Day and PAR I have seen for 75 cents and they were not large printings. I really don't know what the printing was for Burns or Heller's but I suspect Heller's will hold up some around 3.00 or so and Burns will go down to 75 cents. But Joshi on Lovecraft is always holding its price and then some as Rand's first editions do. Fountainhead and Atlas sell out right away at around 3.00 but I have had We the Living for years and it hasn't sold and I consider it the best. (Capitalism at work for quality.)
Houellebecq on Lovecraft is very hard to get in translation. Graham Greene's biography is a work of art as I have said. It is worth buying just to get the complete reprint of his review of Shirley Temple which took the magazine into bankruptcy because of what he said.
Burns will have a lot of remainders I think. So to own it and read it at my leisure completely I'll wait for it to go for 75 cents (.01 Amazon). This is where fixed postage makes the money for the seller. It won't be too long.
Now if only Iris Murdoch had done a biography of Rand. That would hav been really something.
As for Hickman this comes from her favorite novel The Possessed by Dostoyevsky. The great one made a statement that when God is non-existent then anything is permitted. Of course this is Nietzsche also but she probably got it from Dostoyevsky along with her admiration of The Possessed.
ReplyDeleteIt was just the kind of judgement an impressionable young woman might make if she were trying to be logically consistent.
ReplyDeleteThe irony, which the young Rand could not know, was that she herself was fated to end up as one of the dowdy, overweight, poorly made up, unfashionably dressed people she so despised. As Mel Brooks said, "We mock what we are to become."
Analytic theory calls it projection. The photo in JD of Rand in CA when NB met her appears to fit your description. And hers.
Besides when has Rand been honest. Her entire system is a rationalization, a complicated one but still....
ReplyDeleteTo continue to blame NB for the way he treated her, lying to her, etc and no one ever talks about the way she colluded with him to deceive all the other members of the Objectivist circle. I mean they were not to know the truth about the affair.
Why? Because it was so preposterous to begin with? It would affect how people perceived her? People would laugh at her and at him? I certainly would have in 1960.
Be honest here. Who wouldn't have thought it weird?
And how did these intelligent perceptive people around her miss it so completely. I am thinking of the Henry James novel Portrait of a Lady where the two conspirators are unknown to everybody else at the gathering as knowing each other-intimately.
http://shavingleviathan.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeletea review of Burns's Goddess by a Rand follower who presents a pretty fair assessment of the biographer.
Your example is illogical. You are comparing apples to oak trees. Alcohol impairs physical reflexes and physical skills. This has nothing to do with using alcohol (or any drug) as an excuse for behavior. This is AA 101.
ReplyDeleteAre you writing this with a straight face? Maybe binge drinking is a modern problem which you are too old to be familiar with, or you have some other ideological reason for holding such a ridiculous position. I've never heard anyone say, "Don't drink alcohol - you can't move as fast!"
For empirical evidence.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7172680/Alcohol-s-effects-on-sexual.html
There is a difference between a *cause* and an *excuse*. If you cannot make the distinction for ideological reasons, fine. This kind of libertarian free will is, IMO, of the ridiculous variety.
If AA is Alcoholics Anonymous, I think that any program that teaches abstinence cannot be logically consistent by saying that one should avoid alcohol and then doing an about face and saying that all it does is "impair physical skills and physical reflexes" and then complain about such impairment if it does not affect choices and behaviors!
So in the eyes of Rand, wearing a shabby coat, being fat or looking average were worse crimes than those of a child-killer?
ReplyDeleteSo if Obama passed a law saying all the people in the US who wore shabby coats, were over-weight and were average had to go to the electric chair the ARI would support this?
Oh hell how many of us have never worn shabby clothes, or been over-weight or left the house looking average at some point in our lives. Crazy stuff which shows the dark side of objectivism and why for all it's virtues it is a risible philosophy. Who would want to be governed by these ubermen who would pretty much decide who lives and dies on something as trivial as the state of your coat.
to tenaj, it's a shame they don't do dime store versions of Ayn Rands fiction. As I think an abriged version of Atlas Shrugged, perhaps a 1/4 of it's length & priced at 99 cents would make a passable book at a reaonable price. I would pay $1.99 for the Fountainhead abriged to say 1/3 or even 1/2 of it's length. Well with all the crappy bits cut out it would be an o...and...k read.
ReplyDeleteAs for Anthem, that should go at at full length, without the fascimle of the original manuscript to pad it out, at 99 cents.
All versions like this to be free of LP's introductions which aren't bad but I one for one could live without him praising these works beyond their merits.
I mean, let me make up my own mind if the book is any good or not.
Rand is a pop author elevated to a status that never would have happened if NB had not started NBI lectures. For Burns to say NB was a negative influence on Rand is just false. He made her and gets vilified for it because he didn't want to fuck her anymore and didn't know how to say that realistically and bluntly without incurring her irrational rage. He knew her very well and knew that she was capable of destroying everything if she were no longer his primary value for bedding.
ReplyDeleteI mean I don't blame him. He built something and wanted to keep it. He built what Rand could never have done. LP and all the rest couldn't keep Humpty-Dumpty together after NB was kicked out. It has never been what it was even with all the money available to do it now. There is no charisma with these people at ARI. Peikoff is a blithering idiot on youtube. Who would want to change their life by following him?
BB babe just mouthed the lecture words NB had written with Rand. She read notes, not a teleprompter but the effect was the same. And she was good at Q & A within the closed system of objectivism.
To say NB became nationally famous mouthing Rand's words and was nothing himself is what I would expect of a biographer airhead like Burns. What I have read of Heller is much better.
But psychologizing is so so yesterday in biography writing. This goes for BB too.
But that part in PAR where BB goes to dinner and Rand is making dinner. The details are so telling. Rand reveals who she really is and BB needs to say nothing. Just see, listen and tell. It is a beautiful part and utterly revealing of Rand. All the he said, she said, I felt, blah blah is just so much junk. Fnoof.
And because of NBI she became an influential part of the right wing political movement. It is to her credit that I heard her say in 1961 when we were all flappy about Goldwater, that if this movement gained political influence that it would destroy capitalism because its foundations were irrational.
tenaj:
ReplyDelete>For Burns to say NB was a negative influence on Rand is just false.
I presume you mean nett negative. Burns doesn't claim that AFAICS.
She claims he was a key player in the cult of personality that grew up around Rand. She claims he was the prime enforcer of the repressive side to the movement. This is negative, and is what Branden says himself. He doesn't emerge flatteringly from the book, sure, but this isn't a Jim Valliant blame-the-Brandens exercise either.
Burns clearly suggests Rand endorsed her own cult of personality, despite being, as is typical in such cases, sometimes repelled by it.
Burns also clearly suggests, as I would, that beyond the personalities of Rand and Branden, elements deep in Rand's philosophy also are at work that encourage this cultish irrationalism. This is evident in that the Rand cult of personality, while smaller, is just as crazy under the ARI if not crazier. As neither Branden nor Rand have ever been personally involved with the ARI, this suggests Burns is correct.
I haven't read it all and was going on a long review so maybe she wasn't so hard on him. All I can say is I think he was the prime mover of Objectivism and its entrance on the political scene as there were many taking it with me who were political at that time. I opted for not voting and didn't for many years.
ReplyDeleteI am pushing the point that if you weren't personally there you cannot appreciate NB's influence, however he may minimize it now. Rand would never have moved into the non-fiction aspect without him. And The Objectivist Newsletter was greeted with love and awe. It sealed the deal.
And then without him, all the air went out of the anatomically correct doll.
You should have seen LP in those days. His wild fluttery hand movements, his cigarette holder, his very full wet red sputtering lips that sprayed saliva in a mist in front of him when he lectured. Not appealing, not sexy, no charisma and he smiled all the time, never stopping. Very nervous as NB says in JD. He could never have pulled it off. At the end there was just no one left but him. She needed a constant supply of scapegoats.
And then there's Frank. Fnoof.
And really there was no way NB could have told her the truth and kept NBI if he kept Patrecia. And from his observations of Patrecia she was well worth it. He gives detail after detail about her. His is a memory of love. Now there was a woman with clear vision and one who wasn't interested in owning someone.
That a woman who would devise an entire philosophy around the notion that human beings are self-creators via "reason" should have relied so heavily on amphetamines is in itself a kind of refutation of her view of human nature.
ReplyDeleteDiet pills and benezedrine are really not the same as meth. She wrote during the day and met with her disciples every night just about. And she was almost sixty then. Of course she needed stimulants. This was a heady time for her. She couldn't have completed it as it is without their adoration. They all were a necessary part of her creation.
So she took amphetamines. I don't find this out of whack. I knew lots of graduate students, who were brilliant, who used them all the time.
A necessary part of creation? All amphetamines give you in wonky heart rhythms. They don't give you energy, I thought everyone knew that, they stimulate your body so you use up tomorrows energy today. So when tomorrow comes you are repaid with fatigue.
ReplyDeleteI'd have thought a rational individual would have realised that. To burn the candle at both ends...sure we have all done it from time to time but nature will repay you with ill health and, if you persist, ultimately death.
You all just put your words in your mouth and swallow them. The news today from Agassi's autobiography is that he used Crystal Meth during his career! Wow! Yes the great Agassi who changed the game of tennis.
ReplyDeleteAnd he was helped by Meth. Imagine that all you puritans who want to bash Rand for using diet pills. Bash her for the things she deserves to be bashed for, not stupid trivia like diet pills. This entire culture has become a game of Trivial Pursuit.
Agassi reportedly says he used meth in 1997. That year was the nadir of his career, when his ranking slipped to 141 and he was reduced to playing in amateur events (and losing).
ReplyDeleteThis is your brain on drugs.
BTW, I was taking tennis lessons in '97, and I remember the tennis pro laughing and joking about Agassi after he managed to lose a Las Vegas invitational event to an unranked amateur.
ReplyDeleteAgassi was a joke, a laughingstock, in '97.
It speaks well for Agassi that he was able to overcome his drug use and make a historic comeback. But drugs didn't power his career; they derailed it.
How do you know for sure he stopped.
ReplyDeleteAnd David Foster Wallace took everything I ever heard of and then some. He is arguably the best American writer of the last half of the 20th century. A real genius, not a labeled one like Rand. His envisioned future for us is, well, read IJ if you haven't already.
And yes I know he killed himself. Who could stand living with that incredibly perceptive consciousness. And so much love.
Just reading DFW's IJ now as it happens. An amazing talent. Writes Rand into a paper bag, it just jumps of the page.
ReplyDelete"How do you know for sure he stopped?"
ReplyDeleteThe ATP periodically tests players for drugs. In his book, Agassi says he tested positive in 1997 but was able to convince ATP officials that he had ingested some meth by mistake. See this article:
http://snipurl.com/svseq
He must have stopped after that. Otherwise, the next time the ATP tested him and found him positive, he wouldn't have been able to talk his way out of it.
That said, I don't doubt that some drugs can open "the doors of perception" (Aldous Huxley's phrase) and provide the user with new insights.
But if Rand used drugs to accelerate or expand her consciousness, she probably shouldn't have been so harsh in her condemnation of drug users, as in these representative quotes (from the online Ayn Rand Lexicon):
"Now take a look at modern literature. Man—the nature of man, the metaphysically significant, important, essential in man—is now represented by dipsomaniacs, drug addicts, sexual perverts, homicidal maniacs and psychotics."
"Today we see the spectacle of old Marxists blessing, aiding and abetting the young hoodlums ... who proclaim the superiority of feelings over reason, of faith over knowledge, of leisure over production, of spiritual concerns over material comforts, of primitive nature over technology, of astrology over science, of drugs over consciousness."
"It appears, however, that the “progressive” rich will be the first victims of their own social theories: it is the children of the well-to-do who emerge from expensive nursery schools and colleges as hippies, and destroy the remnants of their paralyzed brains by means of drugs."
It seems rather hypocritical of Rand to talk this way, given her amphetamine habit. In one of her "Donahue" appearances, she says she judges herself by asking, "Do I practice all the principles that I preach? And the answer is yes -- resoundingly."
Did she?
I don't think Rand took benzedrine to get high or anything like that. I do think that benzedrine could have played a significant part in acerbating some of her vices. These drugs cause all kinds of chemical imbalances. Moreover, I find it hypocritical not that Rand looked down on drug users, but that Rand was pushing a vision of man that she didn't live up to - if she need stimulants to live in old age, couldn't she have charitably written about human limitations?
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is why tenaj is trying to make this sound like it is unreasonable. We can all disagree about the degree to which Rand's use of benzedrine acerbated her vices. But anyone who's even suffered a mild form of addiction knows how bad the crashes from the highs can be. Rand in a bad mood after being on a stimulant could easily be the Rand that got offended at the Birthday surprise, for example. This is speculation, but not entirely unreasonable.
Here is a review of the Heller Bio:
ReplyDeletehttp://nymag.com/arts/books/features/60120/
Wikipedia: "Psychological effects of amphetamine can include anxiety and/or general nervousness (by increased norepinephrine), euphoria, metacognition, increased confidence, perception of increased energy, increased sense of well being, increase of goal-orientated thoughts or organized behavior, repetitive behavior, increased concentration/mental sharpness, increased alertness, feeling of power or superiority, increased aggression, emotional lability, excitability, talkativeness and occasionally amphetamine psychosis, typically in a high and/or chronic doses. Effects are similar to other phenylethylamine stimulants and cocaine."
ReplyDeleteWhat is amphetamine psychosis? From another site:
"Consistent heavy use or a single large dose can induce amphetamine psychosis, which has symptoms almost identical to schizophrenia.
"Vivid auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions are the real frighteners and, unlike hallucinogens, the 'trip' cannot be turned around. This is a very real mental state caused by over-excitement of the brain's fright centers.
"Its effects often start with curiosity, deep thought, and paranoia. Its slow build up makes it all the more dangerous, as it is harder to recognize the symptoms.
"Some people get into obsessional activities, ironing or scrubbing floors though the night, or dismantling and reassembling electrical equipment.
"While amphetamine psychosis is much more common among heavy regular users, there are real dangers that any small amount of speed used by a person with schizophrenic tendencies could push them over the edge."
Finally, what are the withdrawal symptoms? Wiki:
"Withdrawal from chronic recreational use of amphetamines can include anxiety, depression, agitation, fatigue, excessive sleeping, increased appetite, short temper, psychosis and suicidal thoughts."
I think this is highly relevant to Rand and to her increasingly strange behavior in later years. Look at some highlights from the above material. Euphoria; metacognition; increased confidence, energy, alertness, aggression; a feeling of superiority; emotional lability; excitabiliy; talkativeness. All of this fits in well with Rand's all-night bull sessions with the Collective, and with her increasingly abusive treatment of those who crossed her.
Amphetamine psychosis? I'm not saying Rand hallucinated. But she did show signs of paranoia and of obsessive, repetitive behavior. Note that amphetamine psychosis is more likely to emerge with chronic use of the drug. Rand used Benzedrine daily for decades.
And the effects of withdrawal -- the crash, as Xtra Laj puts it? Depression, fatigue, short temper, suicidal thoughts. All of which is consistent with Rand's darker moods, including the birthday incident, as Laj observes.
I don't doubt that Rand had some elements of borderline personality disorder from an early age; her journal notes on Hickman prove as much to me, but even the reaction of her Chicago relatives, who (according to Burns) were desperate to get rid of her, would suggest that she was quite abnormal from the start. Burns also cites the opinions of Rand's housemates in Los Angeles that the young Rand was weird, socially off-putting, creepy, etc. But the daily use of amphetamines may well have worsened her preexisting mental illness, making her much crazier than she started out.
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it takes, as given, that all of this Rand behavior is "bad", "strange", "creepy" etc. and then simply puts the gloss on so that the mapping from amphetamine use is virtually automatic. You might as well start by labeling all of Rand's behavior "apparently drug-induced", then (when you learn of her actual drug use) shout "Aha! See, I told you so!" Adding "but it's only speculation" underscores the futility of your effort at producing anything even close to a reasoned argument. I'm telling you this because smart minds reading your work will get the gist of how fatally flawed, self-serving, and fallacious the whole "drugs explain the Birthday surprise and so much else" line of argumentation is. You may pursue it if it you wish, but I doubt that anyone with even a scintilla of real sympathy for Rand (as opposed to the feigned variety) will go along.
ReplyDeleteHow would you regard the issue, Anon69? It seems to me the long-term amphetamine issue has some explanatory power in terms of Rand's later life. (I base this opinion on my own experience with long term speed users, including two close friends, and my own dabbling in my misspent youth). Speed does really make you think you can solve all the problems of the universe at a stroke. You can stay up all night raving in what you think is a completely coherent and lucid manner but is actually nonsense. Reading the ITOE for example strongly reminds me of those late night rabbitings - I've referred to it as a kind of dorm room ramble for years before Burns' book. And the payback is hell - deep depression and despair always follows these apparently sunlit summits.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm sensing a connection here. Like Burns, I'm not sure how far to take it, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist, or is like taking an aspirin or glass of wine a day either.
I certainly would not take it to the level of "it discredits the philosophy", and for the sake of prudence would avoid drawing any conclusions from it. One, we'll never know the extent, if any, to which Rand's evident drug use may have affected her thinking and behavior. The speculation cannot lead anywhere substantive, so it instantly takes on the appearance of an unfair and sensationalized attack, particularly when it's presented as a sort of Grand Unification Theory. Two, there are plenty of things that really do discredit the philosophy, many of which are amply documented here, so to casually mix in something so unfair, unsubstantiated, and sensationalistic cheapens the entire enterprise.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it discredits her philosophy. I think some psychoactive drugs can actually enhance perception and generate creative insights. (I haven't used such substances myself, but some thinkers I respect have used them for that purpose.)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, these drugs, especially when taken regularly and unsupervised, can have unwanted side effects. The side effects of Benzedrine seem relevant in explaining Rand's strange behavior in her later years.
In other words, I don't see Benzedrine as an argument against Rand's philosophy, which will stand or fall on its own merits. I do see Benzedrine as a possible explanation for her otherwise baffling (and well documented) psychological problems.
I'm not even sure that this is an "unsympathetic" perspective. If her personal problems were the result of innocently misusing an overprescribed drug, perhaps she appears a bit *more* sympathetic than she would otherwise.
Anon69:
ReplyDelete>I certainly would not take it to the level of "it discredits the philosophy", and for the sake of prudence would avoid drawing any conclusions from it.
All good points Anon69. I think about as far as the ARCHNblog has gone with the issue is Greg's comment above: "But Burns has convinced me that the drug issue could be a possible explanation for the entire post-Atlas disaster." (referring primarily to Rand's spiral into long depression following Atlas Shrugged.)
Other than that, and the observation that her usage might be "a kind of refutation" view of human nature, we haven't taken the view that it discredits the philosophy root and branch - ie that her philosophy is mostly the product of presumed drug intake like Timothy Leary or Carlos Castenada, say - although our commenters are free to make as little or as much as they like of it.
Anon69:
ReplyDelete"I certainly would not take it to the level of 'it discredits the philosophy'"
Since this seems to be a common misperception whenever we discuss personal issues concerning Rand, perhaps, adding to what Daniel wrote above, clarify the position we generally take on this subject. When we bring up Rand's personal life, the point is not to discredit Rand's philosophy, but to try to explain how the Objectivist movement, supposedly dedicated to spreading individualism and self-fulfillment, began instead to resemble a mere personality cult that turns to mockery Rand's theoretical commitment to individualism and all her fine words about "reason" and reality. Now much of went wrong with the movement probably can be explained in reference to Rand's philosophy, particularly Rand's unrealistic view of man. But the fact that Rand refused to budge on her view of man itself requires explanation; it is hard to account for it merely on the grounds of intellectual error.
I would also note, in connection with this subject, that the majority of posts on this blog are addressed to philosophical and social issues relating to various contentions in Rand's philosophy. Whatever discrediting of Objectivism (I would prefer to describe it as clarifying the errors and weaknesses of Objectivism) are done in those posts.
Anon69 said...
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it takes, as given, that all of this Rand behavior is "bad", "strange", "creepy" etc. and then simply puts the gloss on so that the mapping from amphetamine use is virtually automatic. You might as well start by labeling all of Rand's behavior "apparently drug-induced", then (when you learn of her actual drug use) shout "Aha! See, I told you so!" Adding "but it's only speculation" underscores the futility of your effort at producing anything even close to a reasoned argument. I'm telling you this because smart minds reading your work will get the gist of how fatally flawed, self-serving, and fallacious the whole "drugs explain the Birthday surprise and so much else" line of argumentation is. You may pursue it if it you wish, but I doubt that anyone with even a scintilla of real sympathy for Rand (as opposed to the feigned variety) will go along.
Thanks Anon as you have said it much better than I. I have know many on speed, some destroyed by it and others using it as it used them.
I don't really think discussing it at length adds much to understanding Rand's psychological behavior. Perhaps it intensified it at times. And certainly the last time I saw her she was paranoid as hell and her eyes were not intense and piercing so much as they were paranoid. The way institutionalized paranoids look at you. The kind of stare Phillip Garrido has that was observed by his victims and near victims.
Having worked with institutionalized paranoids I don't see any difference in her stare later in her life. Early on it can be fascinating to certain people and charismatic.
And black eyes come from dark eyes with huge pupils indicating high arousal of some sort.
ReplyDeleteBarbara Branden notes use of 'dexamyl' (a blend of dexedrine and amobarbital, according to Wikipedia) whereas Burns mentions it not at all (in favour of benzedrine) -- and Nathaniel Branden notes amphetamines in his book and dexedrine in an interview.
ReplyDeleteI vaguely and probably incorrectly remember Barbara commenting on these differences -- any 'diminishers' here to correct my addled memory?
Richard Lawrence notes the difference in a post to SOLO, but I haven't seen anything else recently that discusses this.
What might be missed is the context of the times -- it appears that Dexamyl was heavily prescribed in the last century, as a diet pill, pick-me-up, anti-depressent and all-round fabulous medication . . . I suspect that Dexamyl was a standard urban Rx in her time.
Yeah, you've all missed the point, her drug use was/is subjective and not objective. It was wrong for the hippies to take it but not for her.
ReplyDelete