The Vindication of Ayn Rand

The Autonomist ^ | 03/11/05 | Cass Hewitt

[Hank Kerchief]

The Vindication of Ayn Rand

A review of James S. Valliant’s The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics: The Case Against the Brandens

by Cass Hewitt

Who would have thought that within the seemingly sedate and cerebral world of philosophy would be found a history to rival any Hollywood drama for intrigue, passion, seduction, lies, betrayal, black evil, and the ultimate triumph of the good—and which is also a fascinating detective story.

Among those who rose to heights of fame in the last half of the twentieth century none was as charismatic as the author-philosopher Ayn Rand. Her electrifying, radical novels depicting her fully integrated philosophy, which she named Objectivism, broke on popular consciousness like a storm and caught the enthusiasm of a generation seeking truth and values in the aridity of postmodernism. She was a sought after speaker, her public lectures filled to standing room only. She was interviewed on Prime Time television and for high circulation magazines.

She taught a philosophy of individualism in the face of rising collectivism; an ethic of adherence to reality and honesty; of objective truth against the subjectivist antirealism of the Counter Enlightenment philosophies and presented the world with a blue-print for day to day living.

On the coat tails of her fame were two young students who sought her out, convinced her their passion for her ideas was genuine and became associated with her professionally, intellectually, and ultimately personally. They were Nathaniel Branden, now a noted “self-esteem” psychology guru, and his then wife, Barbara Branden.

Not only did Branden, 25 years Rand’s junior, become her favored student, he was so professionally close to her that he gave Objectivist lectures with her, edited and wrote for the “Objectivist Newsletter”, and formed a teaching venue, the Nathaniel Branden Institute, to teach details of her philosophy to the army of readers of her novels hungry for more. Rand dedicated her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged to him (along with her husband), and named Branden her intellectual heir.

Then suddenly, in 1968, Rand issued a statement which repudiated both the Brandens, totally divorcing them from herself and her philosophy. In “To whom it may Concern,” [The Objectivist, May 1968] Rand gave her explanation for the break detailing Brandens departure from practice of the philosophy.

However, in 1989, 7 years after Rand’s death, Nathaniel Branden published his book Judgment Day, a supposedly detailed biography of his famous philosopher-mentor. In it he painted a picture of a woman very different from that recognized by her army of admirers —a dark, “repressed“, angry woman who tortured and pilloried anyone who remotely disagreed with her, with no patience for any views not exactly her own, with an almost pathological arrogance and dictatorial tyranny.

Barbara Branden published her own “warts and all” version of her reminiscences earlier, in 1986. The Passion of Ayn Rand (later made into a movie) presented a similar picture of Rand. Both categorically stated that the reason for the break between Rand and the Brandens was because Nathaniel and Rand had been involved in an extra-marital sexual relationship while still married for a period of 14 years and that Nathaniel’s refusal to continue the affair had reduced a tyrannical Rand to hysterics.

Rand is presented as a seriously psychologically disturbed individual whose very philosophy was not only flawed but dangerous. Both books and their authors have become accepted as the last and most reliable “word” on Ayn Rand, and most works describing Rand today mainly trace back to these two as sources.

However, in 2002 a prosecuting lawyer, James Valliant, published on the Internet the results of his examination of these two books. Studied with the critical eye of a dispassionate investigative mind he saw serious errors: major contradictions both within each book and between both. Apparent to him was that a major act of deliberate deception had been perpetrated by these two well known, highly respected adherents of Rand’s philosophy.

For a considerable time before the final split the Brandens had drifted away from Rand’s philosophy but it was much worse. They lied to her about themselves, the state of their marriage, their multiple sexual affairs, and Nathaniel Branden’s secret four year love affair with another woman while he was supposedly carrying on a sexual liaison with Rand herself . Worst of all, was the reason for the deception. The lies enabled them to use her name to promote their own early publications and the considerable income they were deriving from the “spin-offs“. Nathaniel Branden admits that he frequently “paced the floor” trying to work out how not to wreck the “life he had built up for himself” as Objectivism’s authorized representative. At his wife’s urging that he admit his secret affair to Rand he responded “not until after she writes the forward for my book."

As the author states, “the persistent dishonesty of the Brandens about their own part in Rand’s life makes it impossible to rely on them as historians of events for which they are the only witnesses.” He amply demonstrates, taking their own words from their critiques of Rand, to substantiate his conclusion that “they will recollect, suppress, revise, exaggerate and omit whenever convenient… [where] necessary they will pull out of their magical hats a very “private” conversation that one of them “once” had with Rand to prove what all the rest of the evidence denies.”

Their criticisms of Rand are personal and “psychological,” perfect examples of the psychologizing Rand denounced, attempting to demonstrate that Rand did not live up to her own philosophy. Barbara Branden makes total about face contradictions within a few pages; draws conclusions from nearly non-existent evidence such as a single old family photo and uses such alien to Objectivism concepts as “feminine instincts” and “subjective preferences” without the bother of defining these terms.

In her The Passion of Ayn Rand, Ms. Branden draws personal psychological conclusions without any evidence. Examples such as “Her Fathers’ seeming indifference ..{had} ..to be a source of anguish.. as an adult, she always spoke as if [they] were simple facts of reality, of no emotional significance.. one can only conclude that a process of self-protective emotional repression [was deep rooted]…” and further “In all my conversations with Ayn Rand about her years in Russia she never once mentioned to me [any] encounter ..with anti-Semitism. It is all but impossible that there were not such encounters.. One can only assume that ... the pain was blocked from her memory … perhaps because the memory would have carried with it an unacceptable feeling of humiliation” Assumptions, which Valliant says, prove nothing.

It is interesting to note that Ms. Branden was an ardent supporter of Rand until immediately after the break, when such wild accusations and psychologizing rationalizations cut from whole cloth began. Indeed, Ms. Branden can be read at public Internet forums doing the very same thing to this day.

Nathaniel Branden is even more revealing. His own words not only carry the same blatant unreal contradictions as Ms. Brandens’ but he also reveals a twisted mentality capable of totally unethical acts which he then tries to portray as his victim’s faults. For example, he accuses Rand of being authoritarian and “causing us to repress our true selves” and offers as evidence his own lying sycophancy, agreeing with Rand on issues he was later to claim he had always disagreed; praising Rand's insight in topics such as psychology in which field, he says, she had little experience. Considering that it was Rand's endorsement of him he was seeking, his behavior constitutes, as Valliant says, “spiritual embezzlement.”

The complete lack of value in anything either of the Branden’s have to say about Ayn Rand is summed up with pithy succinctness by the author: “We have seen [they] will distort and exaggerate the evidence, and that they have repeatedly suppressed vital evidence and [employ] creativity in recollecting it. Both exhibit internal confusions and numerous self contradictions. The only consistencies are the passionate biases that emanate from their personal experiences. These factors all combine to render their biographical efforts useless to the serious historian.”

James Valliant has done more than demonstrate the complete invalidity—including a viscous character assassination—of both the Brandens books. Using the clear logic and language of an experienced prosecuting lawyer, with only essential editing, he has presented and interpreted Rand’s own private notes, made while she was acting as psychological counselor for Nathaniel Branden. These show her mind in action as she analyses the language of, and finally understands the bitter truth about, the man she had once loved.

Mr. Valliant not only demonstrates this is a tragic story of assault on innocence by a viciously duplicitous person, it is also an amazing detective story, and the detective is none other than Ayn Rand herself.

Over the four years of emotionally painful psychological counseling Rand gave Branden for his supposed sexual dysfunction, we see a brilliant mind carefully dissecting the truths she unearthed. By applying her own philosophy to Branden’s methods of thinking although still unaware of the worst of his deceptions, we see Rand slowly reaching her horrifying conclusion.

The picture of Rand which shines out through her notes is of a woman of amazing depths of compassion; who would not judge or condemn if she could not understand why a person thought and felt as they did; who would give all her time and energy to try to understand and help someone she believed was suffering and in need of guidance.

The facts indicate the sexual affair was apparently over 4 years before the final public split, though Mr. Valiant is careful to say he is only certain it had ended by the start of 1968 and that it was Rand, not Branden, who ended the relationship because she had finally understood his subjectivism, deceits (including financial misappropriation) and mental distortions.

From the flaws in their own works and from Rand's concurrent notes of the time it is clearly apparent that in her 1968 statement of repudiation, Rand told the truth about events and the Brandens lied. Throughout all of her years with them, Rand behaved with the integrity followers of her work would have expected. And, to quote Mr. Valliant, “The Brandens were dishonest with Rand about nearly everything a person can be … largely to maintain the good thing they had going at NBI. This dishonesty lasted for years. ..[They] not only lied to Rand, they lied to their readers .. [and] then they lied about their lies. Ever since they have continued to lie in memoirs and biographies about their lies, calling Rand's 1968 statement ‘libelous’. This remarkable all-encompassing dishonesty is manifest from these biographies and all the more apparent now we have Rand's journal entries from the same period.”

Her generous nature was unable to conceive the full truth about Nathaniel Branden. It is left to Valliant to finish the story, taking it to its full and final dreadful conclusion, showing exactly what it was Nathaniel Branden had deliberately done to this innocent, brilliant, compassionate woman, and what both the Brandens, whom Rand rejected as having any association at all with her philosophy, are still doing to this day—and why.

In the end, those who have used the Branden’s lies to claim the philosophy of Objectivism “doesn’t work, because it’s author couldn’t follow the precepts,” are shown to be completely wrong. Rand used her philosophy and psycho-epistemology to discover the truth; her philosophy to guide her actions in dealing with it and finally to lift her above the heartbreak and pain it caused her.

There is something almost operatic in the telling: A great woman, a great mind, who conceived of a philosophy of love for and exalted worship of the best in the human mind, who defended with searing anger the right of all people to be free to discover happiness, being deceived by the one person she believed to be her equal, her lover and heir, who had lied to and manipulated her for his own gains while she was alive and vilified her name and distorted with calumny the image of her personality after her death.

Perhaps in nothing else is her greatness better shown, than that she was able to rise above the cataclysm and live and laugh again. She always said, “Evil is a negative.. It can do nothing unless we let it.” In her life she lived that and proved it true.

[annalex]

challenging them as bad ideas, does not necessitate an attack on her goddes status

Of course it does. A goddess is supposed to be flawless. Despite the many books sold she isn't.

I don't habitually attack Rand, because I am in fact sympathetic to most libertarian ideas. On a thread whose topic is her persona rather than libertariansim, I think, an objective assessment of her legacy is in order.

I'd kind of feel sorry for both of them.

Right. So, you don't have a system of ethics. You have ethical indiffirentism. That is what I've been saying of the ethics of Rand all along.

[jackbob]

You quote FreeKeys in rour reply #130:

Rand have not only tried, but succeeded, in convincing millions of non-Christians and pseudo-Christians to appreciate the values of capitalism and freedom.

On which you then reply:

She did? Where? One can see some intellectual exercise value in Rand's work -- I do -- but please, let us not pretend that her pitiful philosophy ever convinced anyone outside of a very narrow circle of fellow-theorizers.

I would agree that "millions" seems a bit far fetched, but hundreds of thousands is quite likely. Now I may have erred in interpreting the meaning of the word "convinced" in the above quote. If by convinced, you meant an acceptance of the totality of her philosophy, then you are quite right, and I stand corrected for reading more into what you said than what you actually said. In that case, 5,000 to 20,000 at best, if even that many.

On the other hand, if you mean that her philosophy did not add to or change opinions all ready held, then I say you are wrong. I've known to many people who often rejected the finality of her position on a particular subject to have credited her in moving their prior position to something in between the two. And that qualifies as changing peoples minds. Here I suspect the totals to be in the hundreds of thousands. At any rate her philosophy was anything but "pitiful." Unless of course you are claiming that all philosopher's opinions are pitiful by some standard or another. In which case the word "pitiful"is meaningless when spoken by you.

So, you don't have a system of ethics. You have ethical indiffirentism.

The taking of an answer that you do not agree with to a single narrow question, and deriving out of it the totality of ethical indifference, tosses all bias in thought aside, leaving only gross prejudice as the basis for conclusion.

With regard to the two men described, assuming the standard model dictum that all else be not known and equal, any statement as to there not being an ethical difference would be such a gross understatement as to make totally incorrect. My position is not that there is no ethical difference. My position is an assertion that they both are absolutely ethically equal. And that kind of claim requires a system of ethics.

[annalex]

Yes, Rand influenced more people laterally than the number that wholly accepts objectivism. I would attribute the influence to the fact that libertarian Adam Smith economics are as correct today as they were in the time of Adam Smith, and she reiterated them, selling more books than Adam Smith.

The statement that a kind man and a selfish man are ethically equal is not an ethical theory. Or, if it is, sort of like the statement that the earth is flat is an astronomical theory, it is still laughable. Why? Because it leaves me with no explanation why the kind man's reward, wholy non-palpable, is equivalent to the selfish man's reward, wholly objectively manifestable to all.

[jackbob]

You compare a kind man to a selfish man. Where as I compare two wholly greedy selfish men. Which of the two is truly "kind," is dependent upon outside factors not brought into this discussion thus far. The only difference we have presented is that the one gives away his extras to others, while the other keeps his extras for him self.

Changing the parameters of the discussion after the fact, so as to justify an insult of me, does not prove your point. But if it makes you feel good, go right ahead doing so. Especially if that be the ethics you speak of.

[annalex]

Where did I change the parameters? I compare a kind man -- one who gives his excess to others -- to a greedy man -- who keeps his excess to himself. You evade the question by imputing greed into the first one, then pretend that I insulted you.

Let me make sure you understand the question. The man has an excess of $100. Some other has a need of $100. If the man acts kindly, both he and the other one have their needs met. If the man acts selfishly, only his needs are met. Do you maintain the ethical equivalence of the two behaviors, and if so, on what rational basis?

[jackbob]

You did change the parameters by bringing kindness into it. Doing so then necessitates a much deeper discussion of its parameters to include delineating that point where kindness does more harm than good. It also brings into question best possible use of the extra wealth for all concerned so as to determine what is in fact actually kindness as opposed to a greedy self satisfaction in giving.

I evaded no question by imputing greed, and your whole flat earth description was an insult that had no necessary legitimate purpose with regard to anything said, other than to purely insult.

As I see it, kindness in a general sense may or may not be a good. When viewing it as a good (which I usually do), it is only a good ethically speaking, where it is not required by expectation or law. The instant it is granted a higher ethical standing, it then become required by expectation and thereby looses part, if not all of the ethical aspects of its good and thereby begins to fall into an unethical category.

In this regard, kindness is an opposite of lets say honesty, where an increased expectation and duty, takes nothing from its ethical standing.

[annalex]

I explained the flat earth slur when I made it. Your most recent post confirms that indeed, Randism has a flat earth problem as regards the ethical theory. Please don't take it personally.

First, I do not call for be-kind laws. I want to understand the essence of kindness. This is central to any ethical theory. Rand does nothing to explain it, she either defines it away as a form of selfishness, or points to the well-known difficulty of discerning true kindness.

Granted, some acts of purported kindness have ulterior motivation; granted, laws that enforce kindness are silly and defeat the purpose. Now, what does Rand have to say about genuine kindness?

Note that I did not bring kindness into a discussion of unrelated stuff as an evasive maneuvre. I claim that Rand has nothing useful to say on ethics and kindness is a central ethical concept.

[jackbob]

You did not "explain the flat earth slur" when you made it. You just made it solely as an insult to an ethical theory you do not agree with. The mere claiming that a theory "is not an ethical theory," with out further explanation, reduces disagreement to a childish "I'm right and therefore you are wrong" argument. Then adding an insult to assert the rightness of such an argument, reduces any discussion even further and, only leaves cliches and sloganeering as the method of discourse. Such never leads to any clarity of understanding.

I do not agree with you that the "essence of kindness... is central to any ethical theory." Ethics is much larger than that, with the vast majority of its theories being unrelated to anything having to do with kindness. While you may correctly view it as central to a theory we may be discussing, I did not view it as central to any discussion we were having. Bringing it in to the discussion, broadened rather than narrowed the parameters, thereby reducing the precision of the discussion. Arguably you can say it increased applicability, on which I would yield the field to you to propose a theory of kindness.

Your position that Rand does nothing to explain kindness, either defining it away as a form of selfishness or pointing to its well known difficulty in discerning what it is, may quite possibly be all the attention it deserves in her theory of ethics. I don't recall the specifics much beyond the fact that I both agreed and disagreed with her, often changing from sentence to sentence. But my disagreements with her have never been a basis for me to say that "Rand has nothing useful to say on ethics." I wouldn't make such a broad generality about anyone, no matter how much I disagreed with them on particulars. Besides saying such, is actually meaningless.

Boy, that sounds like a bunch of crap. I sure hope I'm not laying it on a bit to thick.

[cornelis]

I want to understand the essence of kindness. This is central to any ethical theory.

I think so too. It may come with different names, and ethics involves more than it, but it is central.

[annalex]

It looks like I need to explain why this reminds me of an earth-is-flat discussion.

The argument for round earth is twofold: (1) the sun disappears behind the horizon in the West, and (2) the sun re-appears in the East. So the earth must be round. A flat-earthist responds to (1) by saying: there is a hill in the West. Remove the hill and the sun will be visible longer. That is your argument about some seemingly kind acts being, upon further analysis, unkind.

A flat-earthist responds to (2) by saying: why the sun reappears in the East does not lie in the center of my interests. I don't know why it does, but let us not unnecessarily broaden the issue because that will reduce the precision with which we can discuss the hill in the West.

Your admission that my assessment of Randian ethics "may quite possibly be all the attention it deserves" would be a good way to deflect my criticism, if objectivism treated the ethics of enlightened self interest with similar nonchalance. But the lameness of objectivist ethics has repercussions in real life. For example, libertarian obsession with drug and other vice legalization, coupled with indifferentism to moral issues such as gay marriage or abortion, stem directly from the deficiencies in Rand's ethical theory.

[jackbob]

Hmmm. That is cute. Only the opposite actually better fits your examples. It seems that your vision that an obvious apparent kind act as it would appear to be on the surface, is incapable of looking beyond the obvious surface so as to what it actually is. And when confronted with a deeper vision, you respond with but but it must be so, as that is the way it alway has been presented.

The use of such childish examples, also only reduces discussion to "I am right, therefore you are wrong," and subsequent " child stories that have no bearing on the reality of the discussion, except to reduce it to nothing more than "cliches and sloganeering as the method of discourse."

In your last paragraph, you misquoted me so as to to say that I "deflect" your "criticism," further saying that "objectivism treated the ethics of enlightened self interest with similar nonchalance." Such statements without supporting explanation also decrease the level of discourse to the same lows I have already described. This is further seen in your reference to "libertarian obsession..." and "indifferentism..." which you fail to support. And then state that such "stem directly from the deficiencies in Rand's ethical theory." Which is pure unsupported hogwash. Libertarian positions have developed from a number of different schools of thought, of which Randianism has never even been a necessary ingredient.

[annalex]

confronted with a deeper vision

Your deeper vision was not, and I pointed it out. You merely mentioned that some seemingly kind acts are not truly kind, and anyway they cannot be legislated about, then proceeded to parse my debating style. But truly kind acts exist. And so I ask again (see #225):

The man has an excess of $100. Some other has a need of $100. If the man acts kindly, both he and the other one have their needs met. If the man acts selfishly, only his needs are met. Do you maintain the ethical equivalence of the two behaviors, and if so, on what rational basis?

you misquoted me

I did not misquote you as anyone reading this thread can see.

[riri]

bkmk

[annalex]

I did so much sorting out the sheep and the goats in libertarianism on Liberty Forum lately, I can do it in my sleep. It is like playing chess openings.

One thing I noticed, that certain words are a taboo and the doctrinaire libertarians run from them like holy water. "Kindness" and "charity" are good, and of course "greed" cannot be used as a negative. Do that, and points of order are raised, as if I switched from English to Icelandic in the middle of a debate.

[jackbob]

I did not misquote you as anyone reading this thread can see.

Oh, I did not admit that your assessment of Randian ethics "may quite possibly be all the attention it deserves," as you misquoted me as saying. "Anyone" as you like to say, can easily see that the words you quoted were referring to you quite specifically saying that Rand does "nothing to explain" kindness. Your broader general "assessment of Randian ethics," was not even mentioned. Taking my words out of context, and slipping them into what was not said, is an act of misquoting.

And so I ask again (see #225): The man has an excess of $100. Some other has a need of $100. If the man acts kindly, both he and the other one have their needs met. If the man acts selfishly, only his needs are met. Do you maintain the ethical equivalence of the two behaviors, and if so, on what rational basis?

I already challenged the nature and legitimacy of this question, in relationship to our discussion in my replies #224 and #226. I should like to add a challenge to the whole new pseudo "leftist" notion of ethical rating schemes which reduces ethics to meaning nothing more than "virtue." Ethics is so much more that that. Because it is so much more, the only legitimate question that can ever be asked in this regard is if an action or inaction, is ethical or not ethical.

Now for your silly little question. Since I reject modern pseudo "leftist" ethical rating schemes, and have already pointed out in prior replies a few of the more subtle, unintended,out side factors that are automatically implied and thereby must be considered when answering such a question, I challenge the legitimacy of your question. And more specifically, in a broader sense, I challenge your entire understanding of what you think ethics is.

Now if you were asking who is more virtuous, that is quite a different matter. Assuming the standard all else being equal and not known, requirements, my position is that the "kind man" would be in most cases, quite clearly more virtuous. Of course it could be argued that an even kinder act would be to offer the man a loan that he could then pay back. Or better still offer him a job so as he could at least earn the $100. But I think both of these fail, as the all else being not known requirement, could include that the man in need is only asking for it so as to pay for preparing and sending out notices to his distant family and friends, of his imminent death.

As for the original question, with out the addition of "kindness" that you added after I answered it. I say that generally speaking, probably more often than not, of the two equal men in all respects (including kindness), the one who gave the $100 to the man in need, demonstrated a quality of virtue, which the other did not, and thereby would in most cases be more virtuous.

[annalex]

The phrase of yours that I excerpted was

Your position that Rand does nothing to explain kindness, either defining it away as a form of selfishness or pointing to its well known difficulty in discerning what it is, may quite possibly be all the attention it deserves in her theory of ethics.

No, you did not admit that my entire position on Randian ethics is correct, just that my central thesis, her unability to explain kindness, is accurate. This admission was for the time being sufficent to me, and I took it. If you now wish to retract it, go ahead, and I will rephrase the last paragraph of #230 accordingly. You then proceed to say in that phrase that it is so because kindness does not deserve to be talked about much. That is the deflection, which I noted and explained why it is insuffucient defense of Rand.

I'll skip past the part of your post about rating schemes, which lacks specifics, to the point where you answer the $100 question by admitting that the man is more virtuous if he gives his $100 away. But you qualify it by saying that the two men are equal in kindness. So your answer applies to the question which is absurd and which I did not ask. So let me clarify.

I ask you to rate the actions of giving or not giving excessive $100 to a real need. I am not asking of other actions that the two men have taken. It is possible that the first man, -- the giver, -- is also a murderer and the second, -- the non-giver,-- is a Mother Theresa, but you are only evaluating that discrete $100 act, and not the rest of their personas. The action of giving from excess is normally described as an act of kindness. The action of holding on to excess in the face of need is normally described as an act of greed. Kindness, as well as bravery, honesty, etc. are virtues. So it is not possible to say that one has virtue and not name the virtue.

So, do you admit that the first man has some unnamed virtue -- and then the follow-up request would be to name it, -- or do you agree that the first man acted kindly and therefore virtuously, or what is it that you are saying?

[secretagent]

Well, if Rand objected to self-immolation and called that altruism, then I would agree to the objection but it is not what altruism is, and it is not how most Randians today understand her.

Objectivists quote Rand:

"The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value."

I can see how they believe this leads to self destruction. Indeed the altruist acts with "selfless devotion to the welfare of others" according to my dictionary, a definition not at odds with Rand's description.

[annalex]

The slef-immolation quote is at odds with the dictionary definition. The one you cite now is not descriptive of Randian ethics. Rand did not merely say: As you give of yourself, make sure you have enough left to survive; she said, Do not make virtue out of altruism at any level.

In order to do something for the welfare of others one has to have something positive to give. Albert Schweitzer did not self-immolate, he built a hospital and lived to be 90.

[jackbob]

No, you did not admit that my entire position on Randian ethics is correct, just that my central thesis, her unability to explain kindness, is accurate. This admission was for the time being sufficent to me, and I took it. If you now wish to retract it, go ahead, and I will rephrase the last paragraph of #230 accordingly.

I do not need to retract anything I said. Your admition that you misquoted me, is as equally deceptive, as your misquoting. I did not agree that what you claim as being central to your thesis, her inability to explain kindness, is accurate. I didn't even vaguely imply it. Thus I need not retract anything.

You then proceed to say in that phrase that it is so because kindness does not deserve to be talked about much.

I did not say or imply this either. What I did was restate your position that "Rand does nothing to explain kindness, either defining it away as a form of selfishness or pointing to its well known difficulty in discerning what it is," adding that it "may quite possibly be all the attention it deserves in her theory of ethics." Now it seems to me that if she defined it away as a form of selfishness and also pointed to its well known difficulty in discerning what it is, then she must have been explaining something substantial about it. But regardless of all that, I said that she "may quite possibly" have given it "all the attention it deserves in her theory of ethics." Now I would say that my words "may quite possibly" have a meaning that you completely ignored in drawing your conclusion as to what I had said. Furthermore, even if I had not included those words, which I did, a statement that she gave "kindness... all the attention it deserves in her theory of ethics," is not the same as stating that "kindness does not deserve to be talked about much," as you claim I was saying. There is a difference between the two.

But you qualify it by saying that the two men are equal in kindness. So your answer applies to the question which is absurd and which I did not ask.

The approximate question was asked twice by you in our exchange, with added criteria the second time it was asked. I used two paragraphs so as to distinguish between both askings. As for it being "absurd" I should like to ask you a question. Two men again are the main characters, both equal in all respects with the exception that the first is a generous kind man who regularly gives his extra money to help the needy, while the second is a greedy self centered scrooge who never gives a dime, using his extra money as kindling to start fires in his fire place, after throwing out his mornings newspaper. But on this occasion, the first ignores a request for help, and instead goes home, throws out the morning newspaper and uses his extra $100 to start a fire in the fireplace. It is the second one, who gives the the man in need his extra $100. Is the first man still the more virtuous? Or has all that he has done before been erased away? Is the second man now more virtuous? Which one do we call the kind man? Is the other (which one) not a kind man? Do we call him an unkind man?

[annalex]

The first man acts kindly most of the time and greedily some time, the second man vice versa. The first then is mostly kind and the second mostly greedy.

So what was that "quality of virtue" in 235?