Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature (ARCHN) appears regularly on my Google alert for Ayn Rand. The author of the site and of a book by the same name is Greg Nyquist. Most of the time I ignore his stuff but I thought it might be an interesting exercise in philosophical detection to get some basic errors Greg Nyquist makes out of the way so if someone stumbles onto this blog they could read a general approach to dealing with material like this.
If you go here or here you can read for yourself the uninformed, un-integrated ravings of a mind so steeped in B. S. that it is hard to know where to begin. In this case the writer is actually David Barnes, writing a summary of Nyquist’s book. IF you start with the premise that everything this author says of substance about Rand’s philosophy is contradicted by reading it, you won’t be far off the mark. And if you keep in mind some basic errors, you’ll have a good start. Stolen concepts, arbitrary assumptions, non sequitur are three of the most common.
Here’s an example. Turning to the post on “theory of human nature” (the second of the links above) we read what Barnes, speaking for Nyquist, says:
1) There are two basic conceptions of human nature: utopian and naturalistic. The utopian considers how man “should be”. The naturalist considers how he is. I argue that Rand’s view of human nature is utopian to the core, and her philosophy is a mere rationalization of her romantic notions about how man “should be”.
In an interview with Alvin Toffler, he asked “Do you regard philosophy as the primary purpose of your writing?” Rand replied, “No. My primary purpose is the projection of an ideal man, of man ‘as he might be and ought to be.’ Philosophy is a necessary means to that end.”
To admit that philosophy is a means to some end other than discovering the truth is to admit that one is merely rationalizing one’s existing beliefs. This, in essence, is what Objectivism is all about. And it is in the vast gap between the Randian ideal of Howard Roark or John Galt and real human beings that the rationalistic, utopian nature of her philosophy becomes most striking.
It doesn’t take much to identify what is wrong here. The core issue is the charge that Objectivism is the rationalization of prior beliefs. The unanswered question is: where did the beliefs come from? Were they reasoned conclusions or emotional outpourings? How do you know?? Is your view nothing more than the rationalization of your prior beliefs? The evidence presented here – that Rand considers philosophy a means to an end independent of truth – is certainly weak. If one is searching for the model of man at his best so that one can live one’s own life in the same way, surely one is looking for the truth about the nature of such a man. Indeed if one is looking for truth for no reason, if truth is not at the service of man’s life, what is it in the service of? What is its value?
Furthermore, there are no grounds for any belief that “should be” or “ought to be” are utopian or opposed to the way things are or what man is. Nor are there any grounds for the notion that making the search for truth a means to some end makes of the search a rationalization for ones already held beliefs. This is particularly true in the case of philosophy. Philosophy is always a means to the end of supporting mans life. Indeed, it is the glory of philosophy that it is the source of the reminder of how important to man’s life the truth is.
Observe that if my doctor tells me I ought to be losing weight (i. e. I should be lighter) it is because of his already held belief that being overweight is bad for my health, but it is not a rationalization of that belief nor is it utopian; it is a straightforward statement of truth about what I need to do to come closer to the ideally healthy man. If a reporter should ask my doctor “Do you regard losing weight as the primary purpose of your clinical practice?” and my doctor answered “No. My primary purpose is the ideal health of the people in my care – of healthy human beings as they might be and ought to be. Losing weight is a necessary means to that end,” no sane commentator would claim that the doctor had abandoned the search for truth.
One might ask Barnes/Nyquist “If philosophy is not a means to any other end but discovering the truth, do you mean that I might find the book of truth hidden in the garage or behind my stored photographs, easily identified with a neatly printed label on the outside? And do you mean that when I open the book of truth I will find nothing but blank pages inside or that if they are not blank that I will find them to be of absolutely no use to me whatsoever, since using the truth to achieve some end would make it unclean or demote its status to mere prudence?”
This is truth for truth’s sake when the only reason that truth is important at all is man’s life on earth. This is B. S. on stilts!
If this isn’t bad enough, where does the notion that Rand’s philosophy entails that man has no nature, but creates himself ex nihilo. I’ll have something to say about this in a future post and you’ll be able to judge for yourself
AF
No comments:
Post a Comment