It took decades of collectivist philosophy to bring this country to its present state. And it is only the right philosophy that can save us. Ideas take time to spread, but we will only have to wait decades—because reason and reality are on our side. (Letters of Ayn Rand, 596)We find Rand in this passage making two very broad assumptions:
- That’s Rand’s own philosophy represents “reason and reality.”
- That rational ideas (that is, ideas based on “reason and reality”) spread quicker than non-rational ideas—presumably because most human beings prefer “reason” to "non-reason."
In the previous Objectivism and Politics post, I showed how rationality can be compromised by lack of specific knowledge. In the next series of posts, I intend to explore the influence of the non-rational in politics. I will begin by explicating a category of action identified by Vilfredo Pareto: non-logical conduct. James Burnham, in The Machiavellians, describes the distinction between logical and non-logical conduct as follows:
A man’s conduct (that is, human action) is “logical” under the following circumstances: when his action is motivated by a deliberately held goal or purpose; when that goal is possible; when the steps or means he takes to reach the goal are in fact appropriate for reaching it…
If … any one or more of the conditions for logical conduct are not present, then the actions are non-logical.
Actions may, for instance, have no deliberate (i.e., conscious) motivation at all. This would be true of all or almost all of the behavior of animals; and Pareto, in spite of the prejudice of rationalists, believes it to be true of a surprising percentage of human actions [a view that is now receiving empirical support from cognitive science]. Taboos and other superstitious acts, which are by no means confined to primitive peoples, are obvious examples, as are many rituals, sports, courtesies. Human beings simply do things, without any [conscious] purpose at all; it is natural for them to be active, whether or not there is any consciously understood point in the activity.
Very common, also, are cases where the purpose or goal is impossible. The goal may be transcendant—that is, located outside of the real spatio-temporal world of life and history… On the other hand, the goal, if not impossible in strict logic, may nevertheless be impossible for all practical purposes, granted the nature of the real world…
Finally, action is non-logical when the means taken to reach the goal are in fact inappropriate to that purpose. If … the carpenter tried to pound his nails with a sponge, then his means would be inappropriate, no matter how suitable he might himself think them. So, too, if … a democratic electorate believed that by voting a change of parties in power they might be guaranteed an era of endless prosperity.
Everyone knows that a certain amount of human conduct is non-logical. Pareto’s stress is on the enormous scope of the non-logical—his book lists many thousands of examples, and each of these could suggest a thousand more of the same kind… Pareto not only shows that non-logical conduct is predominant; his crucial point is that the conduct which has a bearing on social and political structure … is above all the arena of the non-logical. What happens to society, whether it progresses or decays, is free or despotic, happy or miserable, poor or prosperous, is only to the slightest degree influenced by the deliberate, rational purposes held by human beings. [193-196]
There exists a tendency in Objectivism to deny or belittle non-logical conduct. Rand tended to believe that human conduct is logically derived from an individual’s “premises.” This, in any case, is the implicit reasoning behind Rand’s view that human beings are the product of their premises. It is also behind her view that capitalism is incompatible with altruism and mysticism. She even went so far as to imply that non-logical conduct is impossible: “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible,” she characteristically wrote; “they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society.” It is difficult to take this statement altogether seriously; but it does betray the drift of Rand's sentiments, which is clearly opposed to the whole idea of non-logical conduct.
Pareto has some interesting comments on those who either deny non-logical conduct or regard it, as Rand apparently did, as scandalous:
In certain writers the part played by non-logical actions is suppressed altogether, or rather, is regarded merely as the exceptional part, the “bad” part. Logic alone is a means to human progress. It is synonymous with “good,” just as all that is not logical is synonymous with “evil.” But let us not be led astray by the word “logic.” Belief in logic has nothing to do with logico-experimental science; and the worship of Reason may stand on par with any other religious cult, fetishism not excepted…
In the eyes [of these cultists] every blessing doth from “reason” flow, every ill from “superstition.” Holbach sees the source of all human woe in error; and that belief has endured as one of the dogmas of the humanitarian religion, holiest of holies, of which our present-day “intellectuals” form the priesthood. All these [cultists] fail to notice that their worship of “Reason,” “Truth,” “Progress,” and other similar entities is, like all cults, to be classed with non-logical actions. [The Mind and Society, §300, §303-304]
Pareto’s remarks on this subject are helpful in several respects. They remind us that Rand is not the first philosopher to sing the praises of that vague, cognitively empty philosophical abstraction known as “reason”; and they also remind us that Rand’s very commitment to “reason” is itself non-logical, based, not on Pareto’s logico-experimental method (i.e., science), nor even on the pragmatic, trial-and-error reasoning of everyday life, but merely on Rand's own sentiments and wishful thinking and on her insufficiently detailed knowledge of "things in general."
Finally, Greg, you're on to the track we can agree with.
ReplyDeleteOutstanding post, Greg.
ReplyDelete>...and they also remind us that Rand’s very commitment to “reason” is itself non-logical...
Yes indeed. Firstly, as we have seen particularly in our recent discussions, Rand committed herself wholly to a variety of non-logical positions (claiming she'd solved is/ought, that there are "true" and "false" meanings of words etc etc).
Further, she never addressed that other old problem of what's called "comprehensive rationality", which is how the commitment to reason comes about in the first place (clearly it can't be via reason, or this would be circular). She must have been dimly aware of it, as Objectivism hints at genetic explanations (superior men are born fully rational somehow) and even quasi-mystical/subjective ones ("there is no 'why'..."), but there's certainly no logical argument put forward.
The problem of comprehensive rationalism is, as always, the one of first premises. The situation is analogous to, say, one of a system of land rights, which once established, can change ownership according to a rational system. However, establishing the first owners is the hard part! As such, a grab bag mixture of tradition, power, precedent, sentiments, wishful thinking etc come into play; indeed, seem to be the only way to resolve such basic problems.
___________________________________
ReplyDeleteFurther, she never addressed that other old problem of what's called "comprehensive rationality",... - Daniel
___________________________________
I would prefer a term, "Perceived rationality".
For this would acknowledge that, "rationality" is alwasy relative to who makes the call at the moment when that call is made.
___________________________________
The problem of comprehensive rationalism is, as always, the one of first premises. The situation is analogous to, say, one of a system of land rights, which once established, can change ownership according to a rational system. However, establishing the first owners is the hard part! - Daniel
___________________________________
Indeed, this is my problem with these so-called "Free Marketers".
Indeed, this is my problem with these so-called "Free Marketers."Yes, but if there's a problem of first premises no matter what, isn't it better to have a market with as little political interference as possible than one with more? What would you honestly prefer in its place?
ReplyDeleteYou talked briefly about a mixture of different systems but it didn't sound like you had a ready replacement in mind yet.
___________________________________
ReplyDeleteIndeed, this is my problem with these so-called "Free Marketers." - Red Grant
===================================
Yes, but if there's a problem of first premises no matter what,... - Jay
___________________________________
So do you agree that there is a problem of first premises?
___________________________________
...isn't it better to have a market with as little political interference as possible than one with more? - Jay
___________________________________
By, 'better', you meant in economic sense?
By, "political interference", you meant, with no ultimately economic objectives?
If so, then yes, I would agree.
___________________________________
What would you honestly prefer in its place? - Jay
___________________________________
Not necessarily in its["free market"] place. For it seems to me people have different views of what a "free market" is.
As of this moment,(now I could change and/or refine it further for the future, since this is still an "open system", a work in progress):
I prefer an economic system that optimizes(as perceived by those making the decision(s) at the time when the decsion is made) the combined mixture of political and military system of a given nation in a way that would optimize (as perceived by those making the decision(s) at the time the decision is made)the probability(as perceived by those making the decision(s) at the time the decision is made) of that nation's survival and prosperity(as perceived by those making the decision(s) at the time the decision is made) for the future.
___________________________________
You talked briefly about a mixture of different systems but it didn't sound like you had a ready replacement in mind yet. - Jay
___________________________________
Of course not, I want to be able to define it explicitly and objectively (that is, independent of, whether it happens to be popular for whom, when, and where), before recommending it, and hopefully implementing it if fate ever provides me an opportunity.
After all, you cannot define what "free market" is, explcitly, and objectively that is, (independent of, whether it happens to be popular for whom, when, and where), either.
That is another problem I have with these "Free Marketers", they either don't want to or unable to define what a free market economy is explicitly and objectively (that is, independent of, whether it happens to be popular for whom, when, and where).
Another problem I have with "Free marketers" whom I have met and discussed is that they don't want to face/admit/acknowlede what they recognize as free market's nature(based on historical evidences they themselves accept) if it contradicts their romantic, ultra-idealized views of what they call an example of free market.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRand wrote the following in a letter to a fan:
ReplyDeleteIt took decades of collectivist philosophy to bring this country to its present state. And it is only the right philosophy that can save us. Ideas take time to spread, but we will only have to wait decades—because reason and reality are on our side. (Letters of Ayn Rand, 596)
We find Rand in this passage making two very broad assumptions:
1. That’s Rand’s own philosophy represents “reason and reality.”
2. That rational ideas (that is, ideas based on “reason and reality”) spread quicker than non-rational ideas—presumably because most human beings prefer “reason” to "non-reason."The first assumption is so fanatically rediculous is so utterly rediculous it necessitates an intrinsic tautology within the criticism. Yes, I suppose she does assume that her philosophy represents "reason and reality." What philosopher or any sane person would not. Clearly, if Mr. Nyquist is to better than Ayn Rand, he should not make her broad assumptions. He lists a broad assumption of hers to be assuming that her own philosophy represents "reason and reality." Thus, in this case, Mr. Nyquist not to make the same assumption must not assume that his philosophy is of the same status, and why stop there? Why should he assume that his understanding of Rand represents "reason and reality?" Why does he assume any critique of anything represents "reason and reality?"
Thus, I have proven that there are three possible explanations for this.
1. Mr. Nyquist is criticizing Rand for something he is committing himself, thus making him inconsistent at the least and hypocritical at the mot.
2. Mr. Nyquist vindictively criticizes Ms. Rand for something he does not do, meaning he is actively writing using a philosophy he does not believe is based on reason or reality, making all his conclusions based on said philosophy entirely arbitrary when it comes to how much insurance he has in it.
3. Mr. Nyquist decided to point something out that would objectively never be considered a valid criticism, making that point completely null and void, and proves that he hand nothing better to point out.
The the second point, I would advise Mr. Nyquist to educate himself on the law of identity. Ms. Rand said that it took decades of collectivist philosophy to bring this country to its present state, while saying it would take decades for her ideas to spread. She does not quantitatively differentiate the decades that it took for the collective philosophy to spread and the decades that it would take her ideas to spread. Any belief that she attempted to make clear that the decades that would at some point result in the mass acceptance of her ideas are shorter in comparison to the decades that it took for the collectivist philosophy to bring the United States of America to its present state is completely arbitrary in nature.