Debunking nothing...
Well, my reply was killed. Why? Because I was mildly obnoxious and/or verbose? (I was--but not as bad as some of the other comments.) Because I didn't number my comment like everyone else did? (Mine would have been 11--I didn't because I thought the computer did that automatically.) Because Mr. Goldstein correctly predicted I wouldn't move on? (I went back to look for replies, and checked out the Gimbel blog before posting this; it pretty much confirmed my instinct--though there was a somewhat meatier attack on excellence there.) Who knows? I tried posting the comment again, just in case the disappearing comment was due to technical reasons. (It'll be #13 now--we'll see if this one sticks. If it does, then I was an idiot and the computer was the co-conspirator.)Regarding Bemused’s point:
I wouldn’t say I’m coming out of the woodwork. I set up a search in Google News for “Objectivism” to try and confirm something a Randroid said in an article about Objectivism receiving positive mentions in the news every day. (Closer to every week, if that, would be my impression. I’d tend to chalk that up as a symptom of what’s wrong with the world, but we’re straying from the point.) That’s how I found this article.
A title like “Debunking Ayn Rand’s Objectivism” was bound to pique my curiosity—I’ve picked up some Objectivist memes over the years. I wondered whether someone had found solid reasons to attack Rand’s philosophy, or whether this was a flawed argument I could pick apart for intellectual exercise.
I didn’t bother to read Prof. Gimbel’s blog based on the summary provided here. The only two quotes by him provided were “If you take the writings of Nietzsche and remove everything insightful, interesting, and funny, ... what’s left are the writings of Ayn Rand.” and “narcotic to the upper-middle-class white male of above-average means and intelligence.” I know the former to be untrue from reading Rand; Rand wasn’t funny (she didn’t try to be), but she was VERY interesting and often insightful. The latter seemed mainly designed to equate Rand with religion in the minds of Marxists by echoing the famous “opiate of the people” quote, and strongly implied that the Objectivism was irrational and a system of evasion. (I would think philosophic ideas that appeal to people of “above-average … intelligence” would merit closer scrutiny, not dismissal. Maybe that’s just my bias from being a member of Mensa and it’s sloppy of me to try and argue from authority on that ground.) Neither quote substantially attacked Objectivism; both were more ad hominem attacks—against Rand in the former and the “average objectivist” in the latter. I took Mr. Goldstein’s selection of these quotes to be indicative of Prof. Gimbel’s piece as a whole. The previous comments seemed to bolster this view. It’s possible this article and its comments mischaracterized his views; however, while the cosmos may be infinite, my time is not.
In short, I think I agree with Allison W. Land’s comment.
It’s been fun. I’m moving on to other things.
— John ... Jul 27, 09:00 PM
Rand was an elitist; so am I. I do believe the great artists, the great scientists, the great businessmen do more for society than the average joe. (I also think most "average joes" have much more potential than they realize. I don't think I've tapped my full potential either, and I keep hoping to find that better side of myself, and the sooner the better. But I digress.)
I suppose the real irony is that someone who purports to debunk Rand has strengthened my regard for her. A subsequent commenter, Rajendra Lakhotia, wrote, "ironical that ayn rand has described mentality of such commentators in such detail." (Sic; he didn't even use caps in his own name.) He's dead-on. I'd always thought Ellsworth Toohey was a little unrealistic in his attacks on excellence. Prof. Steve Gimbel and his defender Evan Goldstein convinced me otherwise--there really are some Tooheys out there.
This time, I think it really is time to move on to other topics. Of course the last time I said that was before this blog.
Labels: NET, Philosophy
posted by John at 7/28/2007 02:49:00 AM
2 Comments:
The word "debunking" wasn't mine and was, indeed, an unfortunate choice on the part of the editor of the Chronicle's webpage since my post was never intended be a systematic unraveling of Rand.
That said, there's a reason why Rand is not taken seriously by trained philosophers. Her system is actually quite naive. If you want to see it undermined, check out Robert Nozick's comments on it (Nozick is a pro-capitalist, liberatarian who teaches at Harvard -- if there is anyone who would be a supporter amongst high power philosophers Nozick would be it, the fact that he's dismissive ought to send you a signal).
If you want to be an elitist, there are much better folks to pull in as influences, check out Plato, for instance, The Republic is probably the best pro-elitist text ever written.
That said, one must be careful in defining elitism. Does being elitist mean that there is no inherent virtue in sacrifice as Rand would have it? Surely such a view cannot be held by someone who wants to live a life filled with meaningful human relationships and these are essential for a life well lived. I have given up on making as big of a mark on history as I could have in order to be able to spend as much time as possible with my wife and children and to make my community a better place to live for the less fortunate. I also like to have silly fun. By Rand's take, all this is a wrong move. But surely the atomisitc idea that we as a species advance (assuming the notion of species advancement had any meaning which it likely does not)through the quantum leaps of great individuals who lift themselves up by their own bootstraps with no sacrifice from anyone else is not only absurd, but a recipe for a failed human life. My advice, for what it is worth, is to ignore anyone who worships great individuals and just strive to be a good person -- and the two are incompatible. Great individuals who perform superhuman feats often do so because a deep part of their humanity has been taken from them.
Before I reply, I must first apologize to Mr. Goldstein. It appears that my reply was not killed, and that, while I though the reply had been posted, it, rather, seems more likely that what I saw was a "preview" page of some sort and that the error was mine.
Regarding SteveG's comment:
That's the danger with editors' headlines and titles. (And sometimes with our own, too.) It's easy and tempting to overstate or misstate what the article does, or to fail to do what one intended. It's also a two-edged sword--an ambitious title can attract readers, including sympathetic ones.
I'm not familiar with Nozick's arguments. (I take it I should look for his essay "On the Randian Argument" first, but I don't believe I have a book including it in house, I don't expect to have a good chance to get to a bookstore or library that would have it for several days, and it's not on the Internet--I'd expect because it's under copyright. If there are other places to look, please advise.) One of the frustrating things in the libertarian movement in general is a tendency to argue over points in philosophy. A good example is Peter Schwartz's essay, "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" (found in "The Voice of Reason"--a volume of essays mainly by Rand). The quest for philosophic purity at the expense of forming useful alliances hampers the achievement or common goals.
I'm not sure I accept the premise that Rand is nearly universally rejected by philosophers. Part of that it probably the influence of Rand herself and many sympathetic authors who'd want her philosophy to spread, and eagerly trumpet any sign of success. My main piece of evidence from outside Objectivist circles is my that introduction to philosophy text, "Reason and Responsibility," edited by Joel Feinberg, contained an essay by Ayn Rand. ("The Ethics of Emergencies" to be specific; for what it's worth). We didn't cover the Rand essay in class; that the professor might not be an Objectivist was clear when he told the class he was retiring from teaching in college to become a minister. I'd also note that the text doesn't seem biased towards Objectivism. All that said, I can't speak for most philosophers, I'm not a professional philosopher and don't read the professional journals. I can't prove or disprove either position.
I fear I may have misused the term "elitist." I do not mean to argue for philosopher kings as Plato did (or for "businessmen kings," "scientist kings," or "artist kings"). I, rather, tend to think that the wealth that some people earn is justly theirs, and that it is unjust to take it from them (through taxation, for example). (It must be acknowledged that this process is imperfect, some people are bound to make their work seem to be worth more than it actually is, an others will fail to be recognized. To cite the literary world as an example, that Emily Dickinson or Edgar Allan Poe failed to become wealthy for their work is not in and of itself a justification for heavily taxing Stephen King or J. K. Rowling. Nor would it be proper to tax society as a whole to ensure that all writers are paid generously by the government.) I also think that individuals who achieve excellence deserve admiration for that. For example, Albert Einstein deserves admiration for his work as a scientist. That Einstein had failings in other areas of their lives is doubtless true (his marriage was, I've heard, quite unhappy), and should be acknowledged when it is true, but it does not diminish his contributions to humanity as a scientist.
It's also true that all great individuals were helped along the way--if only in that someone fed them when they were infants. Many of the computer companies that are household names today were started in garages. Indeed, many of those garages belonged not to the companies' founders but rather their parents. However, that doesn't diminish the founders' work with these companies--the use of the garage may have been helpful early on, but it doesn't equate to the businessmen's efforts to build the company over the years.
The word "sacrifice" is one that we must be careful with when talking about Rand. Rand defined a sacrifice roughly as "giving up a greater value for a lesser one." Her definition of sacrifice is problematical--since it's questionable whether it could even happen under compulsion. If a thief says "your money or your life," you could argue that it's a sacrifice in Rand's sense because your plans for the money represent a greater value to you than the thief's plans; you could also argue that it's not on the basis that preserving your life is a greater value than a wallet of money. However, in Rand's sense, your decision to seek a balanced life over making a big "mark on history" is not a sacrifice--the balanced life is the greater value to you.
There is no single right way to live one's life. Some people will prefer to seek professional greatness at the expense of all other pursuits. Others might prefer a balanced life, where as many different aspects of their lives are as satisfactory to them as possible. It's up to each individual to determine how best to achieve a happy and/or satisfying life, and a course that's right for one person wouldn't necessarily be the best choice for someone else. Despite her tendency toward "hero worship," I don't think Rand would argue that every individual would or could be a John Galt (to use her fictional hero as an example), either.
I would disagree with the statement the "idea that we as a species advance .. through the quantum leaps of great individuals who lift themselves up by their own bootstraps with no sacrifice from anyone else is not only absurd, but a recipe for a failed human life." There are many great achievements (especially in the realms of thought--in philosophy, science, and art) accomplished by great individuals primarily through their own individual effort which nonetheless advanced humanity as a whole; I would argue that this is not necessarily a recipe for failure. (It's not necessarily a recipe for success, either--there are people who single-mindedly chase goals they can't achieve.) I would also argue that concentrating one's efforts to achieve excellence is not a failing and doesn't diminish one's humanity; it's simply a life choice. Individuals who become great through great achievements deserve praise, since their life choices yielded great achievements. Gratitude for the great achievements of others is not incompatible with being a good person.
(Again--so much for moving on. Oh, well.)
Post a Comment
<< Home