What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Is Ayn Rand?
Explores the philosophy of the author of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged".
191 pages
Published January 1, 1969
6 people are currently reading
129 people want to read
About the author
Nathaniel Branden
187 books572 followersNathaniel Branden was a Canadian–American psychotherapist and writer known for his work in the psychology of self-esteem. A former associate and romantic partner of Ayn Rand, Branden also played a prominent role in the 1960s in promoting Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. Rand and Branden split acrimoniously in 1968, after which Branden focused on developing his own psychological theories and modes of therapy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
September 9, 2016
First supplemental to multi-part review series.
Nutshell: hopeless epigones burp up salty randroid load that they’d swallowed as adolescents.
Part I: Atlas Shrugged is the best book ever. We are treated to the following insights therein:
Comical that “in America, during the nineteenth century, men’s productive activities were predominantly left free of governmental regulations, controls and restrictions; men considered themselves emancipated from the thoroughly discredited economic policies of medievalism, mercantilism, and recapitalize statism” (14-15). What about private chattel slavery? What about Clay’s American System? We’ll just sweep that shit under the rug.
Otherwise, humans are apparently “free to choose their values,” alone among all life (24). Whatever.
Lovely that much abused Kant is the repressed that returns in lines such as “Man--every man--is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others. He is not a sacrificial animal” (29). Stated this way, i.e., as one of the alternate formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative, and paired with Rand’s most famous ethical principle, i.e., contra the allegedly sacrificial doctrine of altruist collectivism, it is readily apparent that randian philosophy is really just a puerile subset of Kantianism--but it’s got a nasty oedipal complex, insofar as its most passionately held desire is to kill its father by throwing Kant under the bus.
We are advised that “industrialists have been the most exploited victims of the mystic-altruist code” (39). Okay!
Please take notice: “the actual hero of Atlas Shrugged is: man’s mind” (40) (NB: collectivist mind).
Part II: Psychology before Objectivism is Evil. Includes at no extra cost:
Objectivist morality “merely requires that he choose to be conscious” (61). The nerve of these people, right?
”Contradictions in one’s values result in contradictions in one’s emotions” (58), which leads to psychological problems. Nevermind that this contradiction talk sounds kinda hegelomarxist, but the solution to all psychiatric problems is simply the choice to brainwash oneself with objectivist principles.
Part III: Ayn Rand is the Best Writer Ever. Demonstrated:
“Naturalism--the literary counter-revolution against Romanticism--was a regression to a pre-Romantic view of man” (79). Huh?
Anyway, assuming arguendo that the stupid assertion aforesaid is true: “A Naturalist observes that men act in a certain manner; he does not ask why; on the premise of determinism, he explicitly or implicitly assumes that somehow men’s heredity and environment force them to act as they do” (83). Very Wrong. Only the indeterminist, such as Rand, has no need to ask why anything occurs; it is the determinist who actually attempts to explain causation. For indeterminist randroids, there is no cause; the act of volition is a free choice, uncaused, &c. Science, history, economics: all attempt to explain causation, and therefore are determinist endeavors.
So, in contrast to Evil Naturalists are Rand’s favored Romantics: “Plot […] is central and basic to the Romantic novel; it proceeds from the concept of man as being of free will who must choose his values” (87), which is a good example of the kind of under theorized, dogmatic, and unevidenced non-sequitur that appears on every page of this book and Rand proper books. Based on dogmatic mantras such as this, authors conclude that Atlas Shrugged is good stuff, whereas “the typical philosophical novel, such as, for instance, Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain“ is simply characters who “sit on verandas or on mountain tops and debate or argue their theoretical convictions, while all action is suspended” (88). (We also find out that Anthem is better than 1984, too. (93))
Part IV: Ayn Rand is Jesus. The miracle is witnessed:
Despite all of her carping about the degeneration of the modern age in the United States, “she had reached a civilized world at last--and she was going to the most civilized country of all, the one country on earth where men were completely free, where collectivism had no foothold and no chance” (137).
Despite her preference for romanticism in the arts: “In Atlas Shrugged, when Richard Halley, the composer, denounces those who claim that art represents the spontaneous outpouring of the artist’s blind feelings […] he speaks for the author” (147). The denounced position is none other than arch-romantic Wordsworth’s in the ultimate statement of British Romanticism in the preface to the Lyrical Ballads: “Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility.” But nevermind the details; we’ve already made up our collective mind!
We are treated to the tale of Rand’s hardship during the 30s while working for the film industry, which was filled with Evil Altruist-Collectivists, who thwarted her with mystical obstacles at every turn (150-51). Unmentioned is the fact of the global crisis of the 1930s, which may or may not have contributed.
We also get hagiographic description of her work on the Willkie campaign, which he would have won, apparently because of her efforts, but for his betrayal of his own campaign, as well as her heroic testimony at the HUAAC.
Climax for authors is apparently when they enter the story directly and became her acolytes: “Both Nathaniel and I had been seeking, since adolescence, to acquire a consistent view of life” (178), and Mr. Branden had found it after reading “The Fountainhead when he was fourteen years old” (176). That describes the normal acquisition of Rand; most people typically let it go by age 18, though.
Comical section about how the public initially ignored We The Living and The Fountainhead, mostly because evil reviews didn't understand the texts or politically were evil or whatever. We should cross-reference this kind of lament with the bits in The Romantic Manifesto, which allege that art's function is to transmit the author's sense-of-life to the reader, that the entire purpose of literature is for the author to dump a load of fecal matter into the readers' brains. If that's true (it's not), then Rand was a complete failure in transmitting anything, at least in the begininng. Later, a different story, though it's hard to say if the texts themselves conformed to her simple literary theory, or if her political agitation otherwise was a factor in publishers pushing the texts.
Anyway, like the writings of the object of their veneration, these authors inscribe multiple errors on every page. As with an actual Rand book, it would take a volume double the length to address every negligent misrepresentation, unevidenced dogmatism, logical fallacy, and outright dishonesty.
Recommended solely for those who understand the issue that even the professional defenders of capitalism fail to understand, and readers who wish to abate the present crisis and set out on the road to an intellectual renaissance.
Nutshell: hopeless epigones burp up salty randroid load that they’d swallowed as adolescents.
Part I: Atlas Shrugged is the best book ever. We are treated to the following insights therein:
Comical that “in America, during the nineteenth century, men’s productive activities were predominantly left free of governmental regulations, controls and restrictions; men considered themselves emancipated from the thoroughly discredited economic policies of medievalism, mercantilism, and recapitalize statism” (14-15). What about private chattel slavery? What about Clay’s American System? We’ll just sweep that shit under the rug.
Otherwise, humans are apparently “free to choose their values,” alone among all life (24). Whatever.
Lovely that much abused Kant is the repressed that returns in lines such as “Man--every man--is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others. He is not a sacrificial animal” (29). Stated this way, i.e., as one of the alternate formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative, and paired with Rand’s most famous ethical principle, i.e., contra the allegedly sacrificial doctrine of altruist collectivism, it is readily apparent that randian philosophy is really just a puerile subset of Kantianism--but it’s got a nasty oedipal complex, insofar as its most passionately held desire is to kill its father by throwing Kant under the bus.
We are advised that “industrialists have been the most exploited victims of the mystic-altruist code” (39). Okay!
Please take notice: “the actual hero of Atlas Shrugged is: man’s mind” (40) (NB: collectivist mind).
Part II: Psychology before Objectivism is Evil. Includes at no extra cost:
Objectivist morality “merely requires that he choose to be conscious” (61). The nerve of these people, right?
”Contradictions in one’s values result in contradictions in one’s emotions” (58), which leads to psychological problems. Nevermind that this contradiction talk sounds kinda hegelomarxist, but the solution to all psychiatric problems is simply the choice to brainwash oneself with objectivist principles.
Part III: Ayn Rand is the Best Writer Ever. Demonstrated:
“Naturalism--the literary counter-revolution against Romanticism--was a regression to a pre-Romantic view of man” (79). Huh?
Anyway, assuming arguendo that the stupid assertion aforesaid is true: “A Naturalist observes that men act in a certain manner; he does not ask why; on the premise of determinism, he explicitly or implicitly assumes that somehow men’s heredity and environment force them to act as they do” (83). Very Wrong. Only the indeterminist, such as Rand, has no need to ask why anything occurs; it is the determinist who actually attempts to explain causation. For indeterminist randroids, there is no cause; the act of volition is a free choice, uncaused, &c. Science, history, economics: all attempt to explain causation, and therefore are determinist endeavors.
So, in contrast to Evil Naturalists are Rand’s favored Romantics: “Plot […] is central and basic to the Romantic novel; it proceeds from the concept of man as being of free will who must choose his values” (87), which is a good example of the kind of under theorized, dogmatic, and unevidenced non-sequitur that appears on every page of this book and Rand proper books. Based on dogmatic mantras such as this, authors conclude that Atlas Shrugged is good stuff, whereas “the typical philosophical novel, such as, for instance, Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain“ is simply characters who “sit on verandas or on mountain tops and debate or argue their theoretical convictions, while all action is suspended” (88). (We also find out that Anthem is better than 1984, too. (93))
Part IV: Ayn Rand is Jesus. The miracle is witnessed:
Despite all of her carping about the degeneration of the modern age in the United States, “she had reached a civilized world at last--and she was going to the most civilized country of all, the one country on earth where men were completely free, where collectivism had no foothold and no chance” (137).
Despite her preference for romanticism in the arts: “In Atlas Shrugged, when Richard Halley, the composer, denounces those who claim that art represents the spontaneous outpouring of the artist’s blind feelings […] he speaks for the author” (147). The denounced position is none other than arch-romantic Wordsworth’s in the ultimate statement of British Romanticism in the preface to the Lyrical Ballads: “Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility.” But nevermind the details; we’ve already made up our collective mind!
We are treated to the tale of Rand’s hardship during the 30s while working for the film industry, which was filled with Evil Altruist-Collectivists, who thwarted her with mystical obstacles at every turn (150-51). Unmentioned is the fact of the global crisis of the 1930s, which may or may not have contributed.
We also get hagiographic description of her work on the Willkie campaign, which he would have won, apparently because of her efforts, but for his betrayal of his own campaign, as well as her heroic testimony at the HUAAC.
Climax for authors is apparently when they enter the story directly and became her acolytes: “Both Nathaniel and I had been seeking, since adolescence, to acquire a consistent view of life” (178), and Mr. Branden had found it after reading “The Fountainhead when he was fourteen years old” (176). That describes the normal acquisition of Rand; most people typically let it go by age 18, though.
Comical section about how the public initially ignored We The Living and The Fountainhead, mostly because evil reviews didn't understand the texts or politically were evil or whatever. We should cross-reference this kind of lament with the bits in The Romantic Manifesto, which allege that art's function is to transmit the author's sense-of-life to the reader, that the entire purpose of literature is for the author to dump a load of fecal matter into the readers' brains. If that's true (it's not), then Rand was a complete failure in transmitting anything, at least in the begininng. Later, a different story, though it's hard to say if the texts themselves conformed to her simple literary theory, or if her political agitation otherwise was a factor in publishers pushing the texts.
Anyway, like the writings of the object of their veneration, these authors inscribe multiple errors on every page. As with an actual Rand book, it would take a volume double the length to address every negligent misrepresentation, unevidenced dogmatism, logical fallacy, and outright dishonesty.
Recommended solely for those who understand the issue that even the professional defenders of capitalism fail to understand, and readers who wish to abate the present crisis and set out on the road to an intellectual renaissance.
November 14, 2014
Very informative and explained so much about Ayn Rand. By the way, The authors knew Ayn Rand for years. Barbara stayed with Ayn Rand up to her dying days. Unlike other authors, this one comes from close friends who knew Rand. Mostly, I learned a lot about Communist Russia and 1930's Hollywood! That was AMAZING to read about! Ayn Rand worked under Cecil B. Demille!
April 1, 2022
It's just a childish and self-centered book: all it does is talk about how great she is and how novel and original and groundbreaking her ideas are. All criticisms lodged at her are evil ignorant and communist, everyone is a weak hearted evil fool except for me and people like me and people who agree with me. Yada yada yada. Childish and evilly mean spirited towards all other ideas and veins of thought except for me.
It's kind of gross to read and i need a shower after this book. The audacity is more profound than the ideas they posit because they never give any credit, credence, or examination to any other ideas. They just judge them as wrong and go back to self-indulgently talking about Rand and using her novels as defense which they view to be proof of her world, her ideas, and her philosophy. If you can call it that. It's just bitterness towards ideas and others in general. Bad in a new level of existence.
All this book does is felate Ayn Rand the entire time and genuinely left me feeling disgusted in a new way before that i never thought i could experience.
Good introduction, theories are interesting to say the absolute least. The methods of writing, research, and argumentative defense, however, are horribly, horribly bad. 🤮
It's kind of gross to read and i need a shower after this book. The audacity is more profound than the ideas they posit because they never give any credit, credence, or examination to any other ideas. They just judge them as wrong and go back to self-indulgently talking about Rand and using her novels as defense which they view to be proof of her world, her ideas, and her philosophy. If you can call it that. It's just bitterness towards ideas and others in general. Bad in a new level of existence.
All this book does is felate Ayn Rand the entire time and genuinely left me feeling disgusted in a new way before that i never thought i could experience.
Good introduction, theories are interesting to say the absolute least. The methods of writing, research, and argumentative defense, however, are horribly, horribly bad. 🤮
November 25, 2017
A study of Objectivism by the founder of the Branden Institute which holds lectures and publishes treatises on the subject. The Brandens were early followers of Ayn Rand, and Nathaniel Branden seeks to explain the philosophy with relationship to psychotherapy. Easier to understand than much of the writings of Rand herself, he explains how an atheistic system based on pure logic and enlightened self-interest is superior to a morality based system, and how capitalism is the fundamental basis for the advancement of the human species, especially when compared to collectivism.
The second part is a biography of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden. How a 12 year old girl from a Jewish bourgeois shopkeeping family lived through the October Revolution in its very heart in St. Petersburg, and how the horrors she witnessed shaped her life. Not surprising given the circumstances that Rand should become the uncompromising ideologue expounding the virtues of self reliance and ardent anti-communist, even going so far as to be one of the "friendly witnesses" for the House UnAmerican Affairs Committee testifying against the Hollywood Ten. Fascinating.
The second part is a biography of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden. How a 12 year old girl from a Jewish bourgeois shopkeeping family lived through the October Revolution in its very heart in St. Petersburg, and how the horrors she witnessed shaped her life. Not surprising given the circumstances that Rand should become the uncompromising ideologue expounding the virtues of self reliance and ardent anti-communist, even going so far as to be one of the "friendly witnesses" for the House UnAmerican Affairs Committee testifying against the Hollywood Ten. Fascinating.
May 8, 2017
Reminded me of reading Dianetics: worthless philosophy based on pseudo science. A horrible book written by horrible disciples of a horrible leader.
December 4, 2011
Marginally interesting examination of a cult leader by a headman of the cult followed by an essay about the cult leader written by the wife of the headman. The last third of the book was an easier read but it was still an exercise in egoism.
March 25, 2014
Well , I am a fan of Ayn Rand so guess that is why I liked it. It is possible to like a person and not agree with her 100%. I was not born until after the second world war so I can not fully understand what she saw in her life time.
August 14, 2008
Branden admitted this was not completely true. AR would not accept anything but glorious treatment from any author.
October 29, 2008
Same old, same old.
April 12, 2008
This is a dreadful book about a terrible woman. I won't waste any more time on it.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews