Critics of Rand typically turn any conversation about her philosophy or achievements ? whether it occurs at a dinner table or at an academic conference ? into an analysis of her allegedly „twisted“ psychology. Their demeaning comments are based in large measure on the information and interpretation provided by the two Branden biographies. Through their eyes, Rand becomes a pathetic and deluded older woman whose self-declared rationalism cannot withstand being jilted by a much younger man. She becomes a callous, aging wife who forces her devoted husband to tolerate an affair that may have driven him to alcoholism.

In his Introduction to The Passion, Valliant pushes this phenomenon into the forefront as an explanation of why he believes a defense of Rand and “the affair” is necessary. ” He continues, “The root of this trend can be traced to two persons: Nathaniel and Barbara Branden.”

My point is not that Rand’s personal life or character should be whitewashed for https://hookupdate.net/escort-index/gainesville/ the greater good; truth is the greatest good

In response to such personal attacks, Objectivists tend to distance themselves from Rand „the woman“ before discussing Rand „the philosopher.“ Or they defensively explain that it is an ad hominem ? that is, a logical fallacy ? to discredit the truth of a person’s statements by reference to that person’s behavior. The statements or philosophy are true or false on their merits. Both responses acknowledge the „truth“ of the Branden’s accounts, however.

So far the world has heard only one side of what was essentially a messy divorce in both the personal and professional sense.Continue reading→