"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
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Monday, June 05, 2006
Contributor Profiles
Greg Nyquist is a freelance writer and scholar living in California.
Daniel Barnes is a businessman living in New Zealand.
Daniel Barnes is a businessman living in New Zealand.
About the ARCHN Site
Overview:
With a multimillion-selling oeuvre of fiction and polemic, promoted by both her followers and herself as the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century, and possibly of all time, Ayn Rand remains a controversial figure. Yet while both loved and loathed, her work is still too little examined.
This is not due to its modest ambition. Many of Ayn Rand’s adherents contend that she is the greatest genius who ever lived, that she almost singlehandedly solved all the major philosophical problems of the last 2000 years, and that the entirety of Western civilisation needs to be urgently recreated in the image of her particular philosophy, Objectivism, if it is to survive. These are the kind of claims that usually attract critical attention. Yet until recently the response had been either superficial, or rather specialised and fragmented, with no comprehensive criticism in the vigorous popular style that Rand herself wrote in.
Greg Nyquist’s book “Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature” fills this vacuum. Starting from the key insight that her life’s work was the ‘projection of an ideal man’, Nyquist conducts a blistering examination all the main branches of her philosophy, exposing the immense divide between her romantic rationalisations and the hard empirical facts of reality. Perhaps most devastating of all, he shows how, on close examination, some of the most important doctrines of Objectivism turn out to be little more than empty word-games mistaken for profound insights.
Format:
This is intended to be a low-volume site. It will over time be updated with condensed summaries Nyquist's book and other criticisms of Rand's philosophy. Time also permitting we will also discuss any reviews or criticism of ARCHN as they come to hand.
Comments policy
This is a privately owned blog. It will be moderated occassionally due to a pesky troll or comments spam. While the discussion policy is liberal, I reserve the right to moderate or ban at my discretion. If you don't like being moderated, get over it. It's a big internets, with many other sites where you can express the earth-shaking messages you bear.
- Daniel Barnes
With a multimillion-selling oeuvre of fiction and polemic, promoted by both her followers and herself as the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century, and possibly of all time, Ayn Rand remains a controversial figure. Yet while both loved and loathed, her work is still too little examined.
This is not due to its modest ambition. Many of Ayn Rand’s adherents contend that she is the greatest genius who ever lived, that she almost singlehandedly solved all the major philosophical problems of the last 2000 years, and that the entirety of Western civilisation needs to be urgently recreated in the image of her particular philosophy, Objectivism, if it is to survive. These are the kind of claims that usually attract critical attention. Yet until recently the response had been either superficial, or rather specialised and fragmented, with no comprehensive criticism in the vigorous popular style that Rand herself wrote in.
Greg Nyquist’s book “Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature” fills this vacuum. Starting from the key insight that her life’s work was the ‘projection of an ideal man’, Nyquist conducts a blistering examination all the main branches of her philosophy, exposing the immense divide between her romantic rationalisations and the hard empirical facts of reality. Perhaps most devastating of all, he shows how, on close examination, some of the most important doctrines of Objectivism turn out to be little more than empty word-games mistaken for profound insights.
Format:
This is intended to be a low-volume site. It will over time be updated with condensed summaries Nyquist's book and other criticisms of Rand's philosophy. Time also permitting we will also discuss any reviews or criticism of ARCHN as they come to hand.
Comments policy
This is a privately owned blog. It will be moderated occassionally due to a pesky troll or comments spam. While the discussion policy is liberal, I reserve the right to moderate or ban at my discretion. If you don't like being moderated, get over it. It's a big internets, with many other sites where you can express the earth-shaking messages you bear.
- Daniel Barnes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)