"I except a few skeptics—the decent type in the history of philosophy: the rest are simply unaware of the most basic requirements of intellectual honesty." —F. Nietzsche
In ARCHN, I sought to explain how a woman of Rand's obvious intelligence could have adopted and propagated so many notions, ideas, and principles that are at odds with the basic facts of the human condition. Rand's tabula rasa view of human nature, her sociologically naive view of history, her rationalistic metaphysics, and her essentialistic, speculative epistemology can hardly be accounted for on the basis of innocent errors. Rand was smart enough to know better. So how did she fool herself in believing that most of the problems of the modern world stem from the failure of philosophers like Descartes and Locke to solve the problem of universals or that human beings are self-creators?
She did it by using philosophy to rationalize her preconceived notions about human nature. Objectivism has special pleading written all over it. But what, specifically, was Rand pleading for? Well, Rand herself claimed that all her writing was motivated by the desire to project her view of the ideal man. It is from this romantic conception of human nature, which Rand fashioned, not from her experience of men, but merely from her own fantasies and wishful thinking, that leads her to the absurdity of the "ideal" man who, although born with no personality or character, nevertheless experiences no difficulty in creating his own self ex nihilio, merely through "rational" thinking. Philosophers down through the centuries have inflicted the human race with all kinds of absurdities, many of them as far removed from common sense and reality as one could possibly imagine. But few of these absurdities can equal the whopper that Rand bequeathed to the world. Because human beings have free will, Rand argued, this means that man can shape “his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of . . . the rational being he is born able to create.” Rand never provided even the tiniest shred of compelling empirical evidence for this view. It was true because she said it was true, and that is supposed to be good enough for the rest of us. This is what a woman who prided herself on being rational and adhering to reality resorts to whenever she wants to believe in something that doesn't correspond to the facts. And this is how she begins her Objectivist system: with a colossal falsehood which she tenaciously throws into the very face of reality. We find ourselves in the presence of a philosopher who not only doesn't give a fig about the truth, but who is ignorant of the most basic requirements of intellectual honesty.
- Greg Nyquist
7 comments:
Greg N:
>It is from this romantic conception of human nature, which Rand fashioned, not from her experience of men, but merely from her own fantasies and wishful thinking, that leads her to the absurdity of the "ideal" man who, although born with no personality or character, nevertheless experiences no difficulty in creating his own self ex nihilio, merely through "rational" thinking.
The absurdity of Rand's tabula rasa position reaches peak intensity when she writes the following:
"No one is born with any kind of 'talent' and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired."
(from the Introduction to 'We The Living', thanks to Dragonfly for the tip)
What is one supposed to say in reply to a such statement? Yes, one can acknowledge the merits of hard work and practice; one can agree that persistence pays off; yes, many qualities of a Tiger Woods or a Mozart that appear to be god-like gifts are the result of unseen hours of focus and determination. However, the idea that I could just up and play football like Maradona, or sing like Caruso, or play guitar like Hendrix, or fight like Ali, with nothing more than the application of a little willpower is just laughable. Anyone who's worked in the creative industry, or sports, or any other field, is bound to encounter talent, even prodigious talent. And when one does it is unmistakeable. It will be someone who's put little or no prior effort in, and they'll be able to blow away far more experienced and hardworking competitors (usually to their considerable chagrin). In fact, this ability to best people with far more practised than you seems to be the very definition of 'talent'. Yet Rand seems to be claiming that this is impossible. I have certainly read Objectivist sites where it is claimed that one can be the next Einstein, or Edison, simply by the application of effort and the correct philosophical principles! I mean, wishful thinking is charming enough as far as it goes, and I can certainly see that this kind of promise is makes Rand particularly appealing for your more naiive types. But this goes beyond wishful thinking into a kind of megalomania. And most notably, like most wishful thinking it is doomed to fail.
Dragonfly wrote:
There is a thread on Objectivist Living about a review by Fred Seddon of ARCHN that originally appeared in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (the version here
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=544
seems to be slightly abridged). This review is a typical example of hairsplitting about some minor points that are hardly relevant (and often misrepresenting these by highly selective quoting) and ignoring the really important parts of the book.
(reposted by Daniel due to a weird comments glitch)
I think it's obvious that people are born with certain inclinations. If Rand truly denies that then I disagree with her. But what I always took away from Rand is that with introspection and discipline you could shape your attitudes and actions any way you choose. That's what most Objectivists I've talked to believe.
Jay:
>I think it's obvious that people are born with certain inclinations. If Rand truly denies that then I disagree with her...
She makes some pretty strong remarks to this effect (see her preface to "We The Living" above).
>But what I always took away from Rand is that with introspection and discipline you could shape your attitudes and actions any way you choose. That's what most Objectivists I've talked to believe.
Well, I'd broadly agree with that too, but the question would be over degree.
For example, in the book "The Art of Demotivation", E.L. Kersten recounts a tale of a man born with a birth defect affecting the digits on his hands and feet who nevertheless persevered and became a high school football and professional tennis player. The easier thing to do would be to just accept it and never aspire to anything.
Obviously, that's a VERY extreme case but it illustrates a human's potential to change his limitations or inborn qualities.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
>Because human beings have free will, Rand argued, this means that man can shape “his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of . . . the rational being he is born able to create.” Rand never provided even the tiniest shred of compelling empirical evidence for this view.
Only because man has free will is evidence possible. To a brute animal, whose mental actions are determined beyond its control, there is no such thing as evidence, merely automatic responses to material causes. Only man
can and must view a fact relative to an idea and identify the logical relation, if any.
Post a Comment