In 2011, I wrote a post entitled A Reading List for Open Minded Objectivists. A lot has happened in the last fifteen years, including many of the links having gone dead. On the other hand, a lot has remained the same in the world of Objectivism, for example the continued use by Objectivists of bad sources in the history of ideas and the continued attacks on the existing biographies of Rand. However, some things have gotten better and I’ll acknowledge them. Finally, as a life-long bookworm, I’ll give some suggestions for books that I think might be helpful for those who are new to the study of Rand and Objectivism.
The History of Philosophy
Ayn Rand’s main writing on the history of philosophy was the lengthy essay “For The New Intellectual” in the book of the same name. Rand’s classification of history into major phases Ancient Greece (great), Rome (okay), the Middle Ages (horrible), the Renaissance (the rebirth of reason because of Aristotle by way of Aquinas) and everything since then (more or less horrible with the exception of the United States Founding Fathers). Unfortunately, it’s written in Rand’s know-it-all style. I can only imagine someone getting his knowledge of intellectual history from such a work. One of the problems with Rand’s approach is it gives readers the motivation to read the history of philosophy as if thinkers are responding to Objectivism. Fortunately, the tide is to some extent changing. Recently, Objectivist philosopher Mike Mazza said that it’s important not to read the history of philosophy in light of Rand. He also said that Leonard Peikoff’s History of Philosophy should be used primarily as an Objectivist understanding of philosophy, not as someone’s first source.
In understanding the history of philosophy, I’d recommend the internet series The History of Philosophy Without the Gaps (which I first heard about from Mazza). One book on modern philosophy that I’d recommend is Roger Scruton’s Modern Philosophy, which is organized by topic and not by philosopher.
Religion
Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy and Rand saw religion as one of the major forces for evil in human history. Rand didn’t know much about religion and her principal bugbear was the Catholic Church (which she seemed to think as synonymous with Christianity) and Christian ethics (which she seemed to think was synonymous with the worst excesses of Medieval ascetism). As I mentioned before, Objectivists fall for urban legends on religion at a high rate. For example, the Tertullian (mis)quote – “I believe because it is absurd” – is still a standard talking point when it comes to the supposed irrationality of Christian belief and every year when Christmas rolls around Objectivists repeat the likely urban legend that Christians settled on December 25 as the date of Jesus’ birth because of a supposed Roman December 25 sun god holiday.
Contrary to what Objectivists often think, religion (or at least Christianity, the only religion I have more than a passing knowledge of) doesn’t make exclusive appeals to “faith” (which Objectivists claim is belief without evidence). Since the beginning of Christianity, Christians have developed varieties of apologetic* arguments to matters such as belief in God, the possibility of miracles and the like. An excellent work is A History of Apologetics, by the Catholic theologian Avery Dulles. Anglican theologian Alister McGrath’s recent book on apologetics is quite good. McGrath has also written several introductory books on Christian theology and history which are valuable to those new to these topics. His textbook on the relationship between religion and science is excellent. Atheist Tim O’Neill has a web site that debunks urban legends on Christianity and related topics. For a site that discusses religion from a secular perspective, I like the YouTuber Religion for Breakfast.**
On religion in general, I’d recommend Daniel Pals, Ten Theories of Religion. On a personal note, the two books that most got me interested in religion are Henri de Lubac, The Drama of Atheist Humanism and Jean Danielou, God and the Ways of Knowing. For a critique of Objectivist anti-theistic arguments, see here.
The Philosophy of Objectivism
There have been a few critiques of Objectivist philosopher over the years, such as Greg Nyquist’s Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature and Scott Ryan’s Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality. These are both much better than William O’Neill’s With Charity Toward None. Calvinist philosopher John Robbins, Without a Prayer, is hit or miss, to put it mildly. (Incidentally Robbins’s mentor, Gordon Clark, wrote an excellent one volume history of philosophy, Thales to Dewey.)
On particular philosophical issues, I’d recommend William Alston’s The Reliability of Sense Perception. While it doesn’t mention Rand or Objectivism, I think he shows that this question is more complex than Objectivists make it out to be. Edward Feser’s The Philosophy of Mind is good.
Immanuel Kant
As anyone with a passing knowledge of Rand knows, Immanuel Kant was to her the chief villain in the history of philosophy. Rand famously called him the most evil person in human history. Not only that, but Rand’s heir Leonard Peikoff wrote the first book by an Objectivist philosopher after Rand, The Ominous Parallels, which blamed Kant for the rise of Nazism and even the Holocaust. I’m no expert on Kant, but he doesn’t sound like a Nazi to me. In fact, if one wants to blame the Nazis on any one philosopher in particular, it would be Friedrich Nietzsche, who at least sounds like a Nazi at times and was admired by Hitler. But since Nietzsche influenced Rand in her early years, that connection is generally ignored by Objectivists. On Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels, see here. On Rand’s reading of Kant, see here.
Kant is most famous in Objectivist circles for his statement that “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.” It’s unfortunate that Objectivists focus on a single line in Kant’s vast writings to draw conclusions about his religious beliefs, considering he wrote an entire book on the relationship between religion and reason, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. As Greg Nyquist put it:
The problem with Kant's statement “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith” is that it is taken out of context. No Objectivist who ever quotes it cares about the context in which it was written. It appears in the preface to the second edition of the Critique. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is primarily a polemic against the speculative philosophy of Leibniz and other German philosophers. Under the influence of Hume, Kant wanted to criticize speculative metaphysics for not being sufficiently empirical. This, however, was rather controversial, because part of Kant's criticism was essayed against rationalistic arguments for God, such as the cosmological and ontological proofs for a deity, which Kant argued were "impossible." Now in the eighteenth century, criticism of religion was almost universally frowned upon. Even religious scoffers such as Voltaire believed that religious morality is what held society together. So Kant's attack against rationalistic arguments for religion was considered "dangerous." Kant's second edition of the Critique sought to address these religious criticisms. Essentially, Kant argued that his attack on "reason" (i.e., rationalism) shouldn't be regarded as an attack on religion because it was only an attack on false rationalistic arguments against religion, not on religious belief based on faith. The point of Kant saying he denied knowledge to make room for faith [was] to get his critics off his back. "I've taken away your rationalistic arguments for God, but if you leave me alone, I'll let you have your faith”— that's what he's trying to say.
For books on Kant, I’d recommend Roger Scruton’s Kant: A Very Short Introduction and R. C. S. Walker’s Kant.
Human Nature
Rand has, one could say, a highly optimistic view of human nature. Indeed, Rand’s earliest reason to oppose the existence of God was that if God exists, this puts a limit on man’s ability. (In fact, it is commonplace to argue that Rand was morally perfect.) As a practical matter, this seems to play out in questioning the validity of IQ testing and a refusal to accept the high heritability of intelligence and the correlation between intelligence and various life outcomes. I wrote a piece about this a while ago. On the question of intelligence, I like Russell Warne’s In the Know and Ian Dreary’s Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction.
Ayn Rand
Objectivists are defensive when it comes to Rand’s personal conduct, arguing that she was unfairly treated by Barbara Branden in her 1986 biography of Rand, The Passion of Ayn Rand. Since Branden and her husband had a break with Rand in 1968, it was easy for Objectivists to dismiss her biography as a tell-all book motivated by spite. (In fact, Branden interviewed approximately 200 people who knew Rand during most phases of her life.) This culminated in James Valliant’s 2005 dishonest hit-piece, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, which I reviewed here. In any event, in 2009 two biographies were published: Anne Heller’s Ayn Rand and the World She Made and Jennifer Burns’s Goddess of the Market. These works generally agreed with Branden’s “take” on Rand, while making occasional corrections to the historical record (such as Rand didn’t get her name from the Remington-Rand typewriter). And more recently, Alexandra Popoff published a biography of Rand. Popoff and Burns had almost complete access to Rand’s papers and other material contained in the Ayn Rand Institute’s Ayn Rand Archives. Yet, unfortunately, leaders associated with the ARI continue to maintain that Rand has been treated unfairly by her biographers. One might think that if the ARI believes the current biographies aren’t any good, it might fund its own. However, the long-anticipated biography of Rand by Shoshana Knapp isn’t likely to be published any time soon even though it’s been over twenty years in the making.
One issue that I’ve often mentioned is the serial rewriting of Rand’s posthumously published material by authors associated with the ARI. In the years since this became known (first by Chris Sciabarra in his comparison of the published Journals to photocopies, and later in more detail by Jennifer Burns) I can find only one acknowledgement of this by an ARI supporter. This was Greg Salmieri in a chapter in the Ayn Rand Companion. Salmieri, however, downplays the extent of the rewriting, arguing that the books serve the needs of the general reader. How this is possible is beyond me since Salmieri cites Robert Campbell’s analysis of Robert Mayew’s “editing” of Rand’s Question and Answers. Campbell shows that Mayhew’s rewriting of Rand’s answers (and questions to which she was responding) is so extreme as to render the book essentially worthless.
At the end of the day, I do consider Rand’s life to be inspiring, and I’d say that she largely lived up to her ideals. Putting aside certain flaws in her private life, I’d say most notably that she was not particularly careful in understanding ideas she didn’t agree with. Michael Prescott’s analysis of her Marginalia (notes she wrote in the margins of books she read) is particularly telling.
The Objectivist Movement
A
while back, Jeff Walker wrote a gossipy account of the Objectivist
movement entitled The
Ayn Rand Cult. While it
should be used with caution, it contains many interesting anecdotes.
Gary Weiss’s Ayn
Rand Nation contains
lots of valuable information, in effect updating Walker’s
book until 2012. YouTubers William Swig and Scott Schiff have a
channel, The
Ayn Rand Fan Club, which chronicles
the history and daily happenings of Objectivism.
____
* ”Apologetics” in this context comes from the Greek work “apologia,” which means defense.
**I’ve commented on the quasi-religious aspects to Objectivism.
No comments:
Post a Comment