On May 21, 1934, Ayn Rand wrote in her philosophical journal:
"Mankind? It is an abstraction. There are, have been, and always will be, men and only men." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
I would change that to go one step further: man, only man.
Has there ever been a history written from the viewpoint not of a nation's development through its outstanding individuals, but of these individuals' desperate fight against their nations, for the sake of the development and advancement for which the nation so noisily and arrogantly takes credit after it has made a martyr of the "developer" and "advancer"? History as a deadly battle of the mass and the individual. A scientific task for me: to trace just how many of mankind's "geniuses" were recognized and honored in their own time. And since they were not—as most of them weren't—is there any ground for the conception of any national cultures, histories and civilizations? If there is any such thing as culture and its growth—isn't it the culture of great individuals, of geniuses, not of nations or any other conglomerations of human creatures? And isn't history the fight of mankind against advancement, not for it?
"Man, only man." Man the achiever, man the genius, man qua man.
Showing posts with label objectivism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label objectivism. Show all posts
Friday, June 26, 2009
Sunday, April 20, 2008
"What turned you off of Objectivism?"
The title of this post came from a question asked on the "AynRandContraHumanNature" blog. I know there are basically two answers, one coming from the ex-Objectivist being asked and the other coming from his ex-friends whose personal individualities are still enmeshed in the movement and the aura of Ayn Rand's beliefs. Those who have left the movement will relate various reasons for the break. But those still in the movement think they know the real reason: there is some deep flaw in the ex-Objectivist's premises so profound that not even Objectivism can root it out.
What amazing mind-readers.
I know for me it started slowly, over time. The first awareness I have of breaking away (although I didn't see it coming at that time) occurred when curiosity drove me to find a wider historical context for Objectivism; but it didn't seem to fit in anywhere, it resisted labeling beyond itself. And so the system (such as it is) kind of just hung in mid-air attached to nothing, originating nowhere. This was intellectually dissatisfying, and so Objectivism slowly turned from the focus of my life to an anomaly to be studied from afar, like an insect.
The process was aided along by my eventual realization that Rand and Peikoff were light-years away from an understanding of Immanuel Kant, "the most evil man in mankind's history." Their critique of Critique is so deeply flawed that there is no hope for it. Even Kant's harshest critics do a better job of critiquing than both Rand and Peikoff combined, whose Kant sound-bites were carefully hand-selected and aimed at an audience of converts willing to swallow it all hook, line, and sinker; or simply to those who despise grandiloquent systems of thought anyway, having so recently had them rammed down their throats in college.
Ayn Rand, a philosopher who wrote and spoke about Reality and A is A, had little idea about reality around her. Her break with reality became more evident with the passage of time, culminating in Atlas Shrugged, a novel which is ingenius yet utterly ridiculous, sane in its utter insanity, and gigantic in inverse proportion to the philosophy it attempts to put forth. In this work Rand portrayed a world ripped out of the romantic 19th century and flung into the 20th, consisting of a combination of dazzling, newfangled technology bordering on and then acquiring the status of science fiction, and old-fashioned chutzpah in which politicians sound like 1920s gangsters and leaders of industry behave more like fantasy adventurers of yore. And although Rand admits that this is all dramatization designed to pique the interest of potential fans, and that she never expected anyone to actually recite the oath of egoism ("I swear, by my life and my love of it..."), one begins to wonder how much she really understood that to be the case. Because, in her later essays, characterizations of real people, politicians and such, sadly begin to resemble characterizations from one of her fantasy dramas.
Even more sad is the plight of those whose egos, once their own, are still caught up in the philosophy of a dead cult-leader, having sacrificed their minds and souls to a goddess who most likely did not originally intend to take on such status, but when she did, played it to the hilt and then some.
What amazing mind-readers.
I know for me it started slowly, over time. The first awareness I have of breaking away (although I didn't see it coming at that time) occurred when curiosity drove me to find a wider historical context for Objectivism; but it didn't seem to fit in anywhere, it resisted labeling beyond itself. And so the system (such as it is) kind of just hung in mid-air attached to nothing, originating nowhere. This was intellectually dissatisfying, and so Objectivism slowly turned from the focus of my life to an anomaly to be studied from afar, like an insect.
The process was aided along by my eventual realization that Rand and Peikoff were light-years away from an understanding of Immanuel Kant, "the most evil man in mankind's history." Their critique of Critique is so deeply flawed that there is no hope for it. Even Kant's harshest critics do a better job of critiquing than both Rand and Peikoff combined, whose Kant sound-bites were carefully hand-selected and aimed at an audience of converts willing to swallow it all hook, line, and sinker; or simply to those who despise grandiloquent systems of thought anyway, having so recently had them rammed down their throats in college.
Ayn Rand, a philosopher who wrote and spoke about Reality and A is A, had little idea about reality around her. Her break with reality became more evident with the passage of time, culminating in Atlas Shrugged, a novel which is ingenius yet utterly ridiculous, sane in its utter insanity, and gigantic in inverse proportion to the philosophy it attempts to put forth. In this work Rand portrayed a world ripped out of the romantic 19th century and flung into the 20th, consisting of a combination of dazzling, newfangled technology bordering on and then acquiring the status of science fiction, and old-fashioned chutzpah in which politicians sound like 1920s gangsters and leaders of industry behave more like fantasy adventurers of yore. And although Rand admits that this is all dramatization designed to pique the interest of potential fans, and that she never expected anyone to actually recite the oath of egoism ("I swear, by my life and my love of it..."), one begins to wonder how much she really understood that to be the case. Because, in her later essays, characterizations of real people, politicians and such, sadly begin to resemble characterizations from one of her fantasy dramas.
Even more sad is the plight of those whose egos, once their own, are still caught up in the philosophy of a dead cult-leader, having sacrificed their minds and souls to a goddess who most likely did not originally intend to take on such status, but when she did, played it to the hilt and then some.
Monday, March 17, 2008
For Rand, perception of color and length are only in the subject
This is for you non-believing Randroids I have conversed with who
refuse to accept the idea I've put forth here that color doesn't exist
outside of perception.
The context is a question about the primary-secondary quality
"dichotomy."
AR:
"We perceive light vibrations as color. Therefore you would say the
color is not in the object. The object absorbs certain parts of the
spectrum and reflects the others, and we perceive that fact of reality
by means of the structure of the eye. But then ask yourself: don't we
perceive all attributes by our means of perception - including length?
Everything we perceive is the result of our processing, which is not
arbitrary or subjective." (ITOE2, Appendix, 279)
("Processing"?... as in "I am HAL, pleased to meet you Commander
Data"? Are humans thinking machines? What would be the purpose in
nature evolving a thinking machine...)
First, I would like to get out of the way Rand's comment about
perception not being arbitrary or subjective. Fine. Whatever. It's
never been relevant to any of my points anyway. I am simply interested
in what *is*, not whether it is objective, arbitrary, or subjective.
Those labels are all just ideological blather, used in place of a chip
on one's shoulders in daring some arbitrary, subjectivist skeptic, who
doesn't even exist, to come knock it off. Nothing works like inventing
enemies in order to make one's position seem stronger, even
unbeatable.
But it is not necessary to work on Objectivism via ideological
conflict, that is the illusion she wanted to portray. It is necessary
merely to analyze Rand's writings for factual consistency, accuracy,
or just plain good old-fashioned internal logic (e.g., is it
self-contradictory?). And internal logic is not objective, it is not
anything ontological; neither is it "non-objective" because it
abstracts from all (objective, subjective, arbitrary) content of an
argument and judges only its formal presentation, that is, the formal
manner in which it is presented.
So with regard to the material quoted from the Appendix to ITOE, I
want to highlight the following for examination:
"...don't we perceive all attributes by our means of perception -
including length? Everything we perceive is the result of our
processing..."
The question boils down to asking, "but don't we perceive by means
of perception?" I know, you're thinking that the context is qualities,
or attributes, so I should not have dropped the word "attributes." But
is it relevant?
Not at all. Rand is talking past her interlocutor in her answer.
Because he (known only as "prof. c") specified only qualities such
as color, not attributes such as length. So Rand's example of length
is not relevant to the question, and this question doesn't all boil
down simply to the tautology regarding perception of that which is
perceived, qualities and attributes being held up as equals and not
distinguishable as either primary or secondary. Both are merely the
result of processed sense-data.
In this way, Rand reduced the question to her formula, A is A. And as
a result, implied that, just as color is not in the object, therefore
neither is length. This is why it was necessary for Rand to keep to
the example of color which is a quality and avoid reducing every such
example to perception.
refuse to accept the idea I've put forth here that color doesn't exist
outside of perception.
The context is a question about the primary-secondary quality
"dichotomy."
AR:
"We perceive light vibrations as color. Therefore you would say the
color is not in the object. The object absorbs certain parts of the
spectrum and reflects the others, and we perceive that fact of reality
by means of the structure of the eye. But then ask yourself: don't we
perceive all attributes by our means of perception - including length?
Everything we perceive is the result of our processing, which is not
arbitrary or subjective." (ITOE2, Appendix, 279)
("Processing"?... as in "I am HAL, pleased to meet you Commander
Data"? Are humans thinking machines? What would be the purpose in
nature evolving a thinking machine...)
First, I would like to get out of the way Rand's comment about
perception not being arbitrary or subjective. Fine. Whatever. It's
never been relevant to any of my points anyway. I am simply interested
in what *is*, not whether it is objective, arbitrary, or subjective.
Those labels are all just ideological blather, used in place of a chip
on one's shoulders in daring some arbitrary, subjectivist skeptic, who
doesn't even exist, to come knock it off. Nothing works like inventing
enemies in order to make one's position seem stronger, even
unbeatable.
But it is not necessary to work on Objectivism via ideological
conflict, that is the illusion she wanted to portray. It is necessary
merely to analyze Rand's writings for factual consistency, accuracy,
or just plain good old-fashioned internal logic (e.g., is it
self-contradictory?). And internal logic is not objective, it is not
anything ontological; neither is it "non-objective" because it
abstracts from all (objective, subjective, arbitrary) content of an
argument and judges only its formal presentation, that is, the formal
manner in which it is presented.
So with regard to the material quoted from the Appendix to ITOE, I
want to highlight the following for examination:
"...don't we perceive all attributes by our means of perception -
including length? Everything we perceive is the result of our
processing..."
The question boils down to asking, "but don't we perceive by means
of perception?" I know, you're thinking that the context is qualities,
or attributes, so I should not have dropped the word "attributes." But
is it relevant?
Not at all. Rand is talking past her interlocutor in her answer.
Because he (known only as "prof. c") specified only qualities such
as color, not attributes such as length. So Rand's example of length
is not relevant to the question, and this question doesn't all boil
down simply to the tautology regarding perception of that which is
perceived, qualities and attributes being held up as equals and not
distinguishable as either primary or secondary. Both are merely the
result of processed sense-data.
In this way, Rand reduced the question to her formula, A is A. And as
a result, implied that, just as color is not in the object, therefore
neither is length. This is why it was necessary for Rand to keep to
the example of color which is a quality and avoid reducing every such
example to perception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
