ayn rand's open affair with Nathaniel doesnt make any sense in light of her own philosophy ?

Question

Ayn Rand said my personal life is a post script to my works/novels : it consists of the sentence "And I mean it ". I have always lived by the philosophy I present in my books - and it has worked for me , as it works for my characters .The concretes differ , the abstractions are the same. But as stated in " The passion of Ayn Rand " - she suggested an open affair with Nath for just a year or so , as she couldnot see herself as an old woman chasing a younger man It is appalling to know that she could even think of such an arrangement.Later it is said in the book that at times Ayn wanted Frank to assert himself and deny her the affair , why does Mrs Logic need someone else to sanction /deny her the moral premise of an affair ? Hasnt she said that the highest sanction of any man comes from within himself and not without . Also she swore to secrecy everyone who was involved in this immoral arrangement , thou she said one doesnot need to hide one's love ...which is the reflection of ou

.which is the reflection of our highest values in another person . It seems she knew her followers would denounce her if this ever came to light and thats why when her public falling out occured she gave other reasons but never admitted the real truth to anyone for fear of being judged harshly , the same as she had always judged others who had fallen short of her moral definitions. So does this mean when it comes to belief - it has to be a choice between her works or her life as a model ? I have always strongly felt that a philosopher has to first live the philosophy he/she teaches and i feel in this Ayn Rand failed . Agree or disagree ? No doubt Nathaniel was a hyprocrite but the brilliant moralist/objectivist that Ayn was ought not she have to seen through him ? Or at the very least , if she loved him she ought to have left Frank and choosen to marry Nath /live with him rather than make others suffer the indignity of her open affair ?

very surprising ............not a single answer till date .....how do i change the category of this question from pyschology to books . maybe i will get some response there

Answer 1

Even if we personally knew all the people involved, it might be difficult for us to judge exactly what was going on with the people involved. And sometimes the poorest judge of a particular person's personal life is that person themselves - they are, after all, far too close to be easily objective.

The reason I mention all this is that although Ayn Rand certainly seemed to believe she was living a certain kind of life, it hardly means that she was. And the same goes for Barbara Branden, who is the author of 'The Passion of Ayn Rand' (nor am I the only one to find the facts questionable - there's always 'The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics' by James Valliant). And unfortunately for you and I, if we completely discount both of these views, we have scarcely anything left.

But instead of getting involved in 'he said/she said' kind of games, let's just cut right to the quick here. Though her works aggrandize mental and physical supermen such as John Galt, Howard Roark, and Hank Rearden, they also pay their respects to lesser people such as Eddie Willers - people whose intentions exceed their capacity. These lesser people are still good and moral, even if they cannot quite possibly contribute in the same ways as the supermen, and even if they occasionally make mistakes (as even the supermen do).

Suppose, then, that instead of being a hypocrite, she just made mistakes. Suppose that although she WANTED to be rational at all times, she found that sometimes she wasn't entirely capable of doing so. And it may bear on our guesswork that shortly after the fiasco with Nathaniel you refer to she has herself completely removed herself from the Objectivist movement altogether. Why would a hypocrite do that?

Personally, I tend to disagree that an originator of an idea must necessarily be the paragon of its action - there are, after all, many electrical engineers who can't work a VCR. But even if we accept your supposition as so, there is a way to explain the facts of the case in a consistant manner.

Unless you can find a way to actually get facts from everyone involved to demonstrate that one theory or another is correct, we're probably left with just choosing whichever one we happen to like best... or accepting that we'll never really know.

That's my take, anyway, for what it's worth. Peace.

Answer 2

i might lean in the direction of the existence form saying greater relating to the guy than the books written... nonetheless that's a hard call, all precise. slightly is a ingredient of a author, a e book a protracted tale of ways that author sees issues. whilst the author seems to flow against all of it, it is the two because of the fact the paintings replaced into pretend (a rarity, and tough to pull off) or the element (an affair) that went against the paintings replaced into "pretend," or a passing outburst of hormones; in Rand's case, maybe menopause or something like that. oooh, i think hardship coming because of the fact of my comments, yet enable me assure truthfully everybody that i think of adult adult males have menopause too, and make contact with it a "mid-existence disaster." equivalent time and movements each of ways around. At any fee, in case you like her books, do not enable some temporary 'achilles heel' deliver down the finished element for you: flow forward and study and revel in her paintings; who're we to decide yet another?