Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Objectivism & History, Part 11

Heresy. Heresy is a concept generally related to religion. It refers to views that flout doctrinal orthodoxy. Such ideas are often considered dangerous, evil, and thoroughly wicked. They must be denounced and perhaps even put down by force. In Objectivism, the notion of heresy finds a secular equivalent in the view that most of the ideas opposed by Randian orthodoxy are evil. Since ideas determine the course of history, ideas leading to bad or evil outcomes are considered especially “horrendous.”

This view is used, among other things, to justify Rand’s anger. “Ayn Rand not infrequently became angry at me over some philosophical statement I made that seemed to ally me with one of the intellectual movements she was fighting,” confessed Leonard Peikoff in his short memoir “My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand.” ”Since her [Rand’s] mind immediately integrated a remark to the fundamentals it presupposes, she would project at once, almost automatically, the full, horrendous meaning of what I had uttered, and then she would be shocked at me.”

This “justification” of Rand’s anger is important, because Rand’s anger is a weapon Rand used to keep her disciples in line. That it was taken to absurd lengths can be heard in question and answer periods in which Rand participated. Anyone who ventured to submit any question in the least challenging would go out of his way to insist he did not advocate any of the philosophical implications of the challenge. Even then, Rand would sometimes go ballistic and attack the questioner. Ludwig von Mises and his wife were shocked at Rand’s conduct toward questioners when they attended a lecture in the early sixties.

That this notion of denouncing people, not merely for their views, but especially for the implications of their views, is highly mischievous can easily be established by simply examining some of the implications of the Objectivist philosophy of history. If the terrible evil of history finds its roots, not in the psychology of evil men, but in ideas, then why should evil ideas be tolerated? Why shouldn’t they be put down by force?

In his essay “Philosophy and Psychology in History,” Peikoff wrote:
Millions, billions of men may be oblivious to the mind, they may be ignorant of philosophy, they may be contemptuous of abstractions. But, knowingly or not, they are shaped ultimately by the abstractions of a small handful. It is far to weak, therefore, to say the pen is mightier than the sword. The pen, and only a very few pens, create all the swords and the swordsmen, and set the cause of their battles and the final outcome.

Now if the pen is so very mighty, shouldn’t it be regulated? If somebody is hatching “horrendous” philosophical premises and letting them loose against an unsuspecting world, shouldn’t that person be stopped? While Objectivism strongly opposes state supported censorship, the implications of their philosophy of history could easily be used to support such censorship. And indeed, that has always been the main argument for censoring thought. Since some thoughts are heretical and heresy is “dangerous,” the authorities have to put it down by force.

The sociologist Vilfredo Pareto took a different view of the matter. He believed that men were motivated by psychological states, not by ideas. Ideas merely rationalized those psychological states. From this point of view, Pareto concluded that all censorship was futile, because it attacked rationalizations, rather than what was being rationalized. If one rationalization were suppressed by the state, that was of little consequence, because there were many more that could be brought forward to rationalize the very same human sentiments and interests defended in the suppressed rationalization.

6 comments:

Damien said...

Greg,

One problem with your analysis that ideas have no effect on human behavior is the example of suicide bombers. Its hard to imagine any group of people committing themselves to die for a cause without the belief in a glorious after life. I have a hard time for example imaging not just obejectivists, but the followers of any other secular ideology being as willing and eager to die as a fanatical jihadist or the Japaneses Kamikazes of WW2. There is also no case that I know of, where the followers of a secular ideology were not only willing to die, but eager to die for their cause, in significant numbers. I'm wondering how you would explain the phenomenon of religious suicide bombers, during WW2 and in the present conflict against Islam-o-Fascists.

Although I agree with you that censorship is largely futile.

Anonymous said...

What about the stem cell controversy? Both sides are essentially motivated by human sympathy, but they hold different ideas as to what constitutes life, what priority an embryo should have. The argument hinges on ideas, not psychological states.

-- Ian.

Anonymous said...

"Now if the pen is so very mighty, shouldn’t it be regulated?"

The pen is regulated: FCC, MPAA, laws against hate literature... You're not setting up the C word as a straw man, are you?

-- Ian.

gregnyquist said...

Damien: "Its hard to imagine any group of people committing themselves to die for a cause without the belief in a glorious after life."

Belief in an after-life may make it easier for people to be suicide bombers, but it doesn't provide the motivation for carrying out such acts. In-group social pressure, hatred born out of feelings of lost face, and fear of modernity (especially the liberation of women) probably have more to do with it.

gregnyquist said...

Ian: "What about the stem cell controversy? Both sides are essentially motivated by human sympathy, but they hold different ideas as to what constitutes life, what priority an embryo should have. The argument hinges on ideas, not psychological states."

Does it really? Why does one person think that fetuses constitute real human lives, and another holds the opposite view? It's not as if there's a slam-dunk argument either way. Indeed, all the arguments put forth are of the "preaching to the choir" variety and only convince those already convinced. They have the aura of rationalization all over them.

Ian: "The pen is regulated: FCC, MPAA, laws against hate literature... You're not setting up the C word as a straw man, are you?"

Not at all. The source of my criticism is actually all ad consequentum arguments—that is to say, any argument that tries to disprove X by claiming that X is logically associated with ideas that can be used to defend Z, which is something really bad. Hence, Objectivists claim that it is bad to use religion to defend freedom because religion is based on faith and faith leads to force, which is contrary to freedom. But this assumes that those people who are using religious-based arguments to defend free markets believe in free markets because they are religious, which strikes me as implausible. All such religious-based arguments are mere rationalizations.

Now on the question of censorship, I have simply used the same style of argumentation and turned it against Objectivism. Objectivism claims that ideas cause social change, often for the worse. But that notion is behind most claims for censorship. (And I wouldn't regard FCC, MPAA type restrictions of speech necessarily as "censorship," any more than laws against urinating or copulating in public constitute censorship.)

Anonymous said...

Does it really? Why does one person think that fetuses constitute real human lives, and another holds the opposite view? It's not as if there's a slam-dunk argument either way. Indeed, all the arguments put forth are of the "preaching to the choir" variety and only convince those already convinced. They have the aura of rationalization all over them.


They're rationalizations, yes, but is it the motivation that's the problem (human sympathy, group fidelity, disposition for tradition/innovation) or the embryo-life conception along which it's channeled? Are psychological states necessary AND sufficient factors, i.e. is it impossible to "switch sides" without altering one's tendencies? Do the interpreted/perceived facts have no role whatsoever? Also, are rationalizations as interchangeable as you imply? Is a theological stance against stem cell research of equal consequence to a similarly-motivated position on adult baptism?

Not trying to defend Rand here; I just think you're veering too far into psychological fatalism. Psychology may be the primary motivator, but ideas are the guide for action—the rudder on the ship. They're inherently consequence-laden.

-- Ian.