Re: PHIL: Egoism (Was ART: What Art Is)

From: zeb haradon (
Date: Mon May 29 2000 - 18:41:36 MDT

>From: "Technotranscendence" <>
>To: <>
>Subject: Re: PHIL: Egoism (Was ART: What Art Is)
>Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 19:25:26 -0700

>Actually, Branden -- derived from "Ben Rand" = "son of Rand."

This is a myth. According to him anyway ("my years with ayn rand"), the
similarity is a coincidence.

>As for her views on sexuality in general, I find them more a projection of
>her peculiar personality than as firmly grounded in Objectivism.

This is one aspect of her main flaw - that to her, EVERYTHING had to be
derived from objectivity. There was no room for subjective sexual tastes, or
even objective tastes. As a result, she insisted that her own subjective
sexual and artistic tastes were objective, and anyone who didn't share them
is just wrong. I'm surprised that she left out tastes in food. Maybe
someday, "The Ayn Rand cookbook" will be compiled, with an introduction by
Leonard Peikoff, where she talks about how only second-handers and haters of
man like Italian food.

Zeb Haradon (
My personal webpage:
A movie I'm directing:

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:06 MDT