| | Objectivism, Realism and IdealismLong, long ago, in a Basic Principles opening session, someone asked Nathaniel Branden if "objectivism" is the same thing as "realism." He said that with small letters, yes, but that as proper nouns, no. On that basis, I would like to offer that the two recent posts by Machan and Malcom typify the realist-idealist dichotomy within objectivism. Each answers part of the question; both leave something unaddressed. Generally and broadly, as stated by them here, neither "position" is very arguable. I put that word in quotes because neither of them intended to articulate any consistent, validated thesis, but each was only expressing a broad-brush sentiment. That said, they do reflect themes of thought shared by many, certainly, I admit, by me.
Machan: My view, Jeff, is that because human beings, on average, are less than at their best, including when they address politics in their lives, it is not likely, though not impossible, that a fully free society be ever fashioned. But there is free will and thus the possibility of all members of a community getting it together all at once. But only a possibility. Yet as a model to keep in mind, the fully free society needs to be understood and explored even while its likelihood is meager.
Malcom: I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that civilization, as a process of individuation, is not long before it, like a few other aspects of human lives, reaches a point of singularity - with regards to the knowledge needed to grasp and impliment this freedom..... but - I will also say it will not be for everybody, that such a society will, while strong, be smaller when this is achieved, tho it may grow large again in later times......... the rest of humanity, however, will still wallow in their craving for dependency until, slowly, they in parts grasp that needed understanding.... but on a worldwide basis, no, there will always be those craving to be told what to do and thus wish to be ruled, and thus readily accepting rulers.... that is where the 'eternal vigilance' is required.....
Tibor Machan's philosophical Idealism defines an a priori political platonism. If only people were somehow "better" than they are, then we could enjoy a perfect world. This is shared by Marxism, for instance, and fascism, of course, the building of a better world according to a plan. Perhaps the radical difference between the liberal sociologists (Georg Simmel, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim) and the conservatives (Comte, Marx, duBois), is that for the liberals "conflict" was inherent in human relations. Different people want different things. Yet we all live together. So, how do we resolve these conflicts? Simmel looked to the markeplace. Weber and Durkheim looked to what they considered more fundamental aspects of culture. On the other hand, Marx et al., saw conflict as unnatural, a consequence of social evils, that once remediated, would allow humans to flourish in a better and happier world.
Malcom's view is closer to objective reality. It is the "freedom in an unfree world" hypothesis. You can make a better life for yourself. As others do the same, things will generally improve. However, as his mentor (mentrix?) Jane Jacobs so insightfully pointed out, old forms do not disappear. Here and now, we still have monarchies, smithy forges, hunters and gatherers, sailing ships, and sunworshippers. The fallacy is that these people who need to be ruled are now and always will be a danger to us. It is true that as conservative (or criminal) types survive, the innocent can be victimized. However, it is also true that even today, hikers are attacked by cougars and bears. In other words, Malcom's realism magnifies the accidental because it ignores the objective impotence of evil.
At some level, I agree with both Machan and Malcom. Just as an engineer can study a phenomenon and invent an application, we can look at human nature and suggest other ways to organize our settlements. We can invent better political constittutions. Obviously -- and I mean that: by inspection -- it is true that not everyone will do the same thing at the same time in the same way. People differ. (I have posted here on RoR the results of studies that show that individuality is inherent.) So, I can be freer than you and she can be freer than he and they can choose to be ruled by a hereditary monarch who is the head of their church. That's life.
However, it is also objectively true that any threats or dangers to us -- to me, to you, to those who are objectiviely rational and empirical in their philosophy of life -- are accidental. It is not necessary for the rest of the world to become "Objectivist" (by whose standard? Kelley's? Peikoff's? Mine? Yours?) for you and others like you to enjoy a happy, meaningful and productive life here and now. Not only has that always been true -- true for Aristotle, for the Fuggers and Welsers, for Locke and even Hobbs, Jefferson and even Hamilton, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Edison, Rodgers, Gates... -- you and I of course -- but since the publication of Atlas Shrugged 50 years ago, things have gotten a whole lot better for a lot of people. That is the power of an idea.
The problematic consequence of the Machan-Malcom dichotomy is that either side of the equation leads to futility and a negative sense of life. That feeds into the "true believer" pathology shared by mass movements:
- once upon a time, there was a (nearly) perfect world
- but an evil force stole it from us
- we cannot win the battle in our own time
- but if we all pull together, we can create a better world for our descendants.
It is true that we will not enjoy the better life of our descendants. That is the curse of mortality. However, you can improve your own life here and now. For me, part of making my life better is getting involved in local politics when and as such involvement is objectively good for me. The profession of politics is only as corrupt as one's own choice of actions makes it. That is true of any profession.
|
|
