| | In describing what he views as some of the hazards of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Nathaniel Branden makes the following points:
"What I have to say will by no means be exhaustive or comprehensive, but I do want to touch on just a few issues that strike me as especially important. I want to share with you what I have observed.
"Confusing reason with 'the reasonable'
"I have said that Ayn Rand was a great champion of reason, a passionate champion of the human mind—and a total adversary of any form of irrationalism or any form of what she called mysticism. I say 'of what she called mysticism,' because I do not really think she understood mysticism very well—I know she never studied the subject—and irrationalism and mysticism are not really synonymous, as they are treated in Atlas Shrugged. That gets me a little off my track, however. A discussion of mysticism outside the Randian framework will have to wait for some other occasion. I will only state for the record that I am not prepared to say, as Rand was, that anyone who might describe him- or herself as a 'mystic' is to be dismissed as a crackpot or a charlatan."
Of course not; that would hitting a little too close to home, because Branden himself believes in what Rand regards as a form of mysticism, namely extra-sensory perception or what he calls "anomalous perception." Rand defines "mysticism" as "the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason." ("Faith, and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," reprinted in Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 75), According to this definition, ESP (or AP) is a form of mysticism, because it repudiates sensory evidence as a prerequisite of knowledge.
Branden continues, "Reason is at once a faculty and a process of identifying and integrating the data present or given in awareness. Reason means integration in accordance with the law of noncontradiction. If you think of it in these terms—as a process of noncontradictory integration—it’s difficult to imagine how anyone could be opposed to it."
It's more than that. As Rand defined it, "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." In other words, Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates sensory evidence.
Branden continues, "Here is the problem: There is a difference between reason as a process and what any person or any group of people, at any time in history, may regard as 'the reasonable.' This is a distinction that very few people are able to keep clear. We all exist in history, not just in some timeless vacuum, and probably none of us can entirely escape contemporary notions of 'the reasonable.' It’s always important to remember that reason or rationality, on the one hand, and what people may regard as 'the reasonable,' on the other hand, don’t mean the same thing."
True, Religionists, paranormalists and supernaturalists think they're being "reasonable" when they claim non-sensory knowledge.
Branden concludes, "The consequence of failing to make this distinction, and this is markedly apparent in the case of Ayn Rand, is that if someone disagrees with your notion of 'the reasonable,' it can feel very appropriate to accuse him or her of being 'irrational' or 'against reason.'"
True again. I've actually had Randroids (on Diana Hsieh's blog) accuse me of betraying reason, simply because I said something they disagreed with--something they thought was unreasonable. But Randroids are not Rand; they're little more than a bunch of blind, dogmatic followers, who give Objectivism a bad name.
Branden writes, "If you read her books, or her essays in The Objectivist, or if you listen to her lectures, you will notice with what frequency and ease she branded any viewpoint she did not share as not merely mistaken but 'irrational' or 'mystical.'"
Here I wonder if Branden is being entirely fair to Rand. Some examples would help, otherwise I would need to go back and review all of the material from The Objectivist and her lectures in order to see if what he says is true. But it was not my impression that, with the exception of supernaturalists and the like, Rand ever accused anyone of being mystical--unless, of course, she qualified it as she did with her "mystics of muscle" designation of Attila in For The New Intellectual. As for the appellation "irrational," I think there is much in contemporary culture to warrant that characterization. I don't think Rand was using the term "irrational" simply as a synonym for whatever she disagreed with.
Branden adds, "In other words, anything that challenged her particular model of reality was not merely wrong but 'irrational' and 'mystical'—to say nothing, of course, of its being 'evil,' another word she loved to use with extraordinary frequency."
What does he mean by "her particular model of reality"? I'd say that Rand's "model of reality"--that reality exists independently of us and that we can know it by means of reason applied to the evidence of our senses--is so obviously true that those who dissent from it are to that extent either irrational or mystical. If these terms have any meaning at all, then they must have some application!
Branden wrote, "No doubt every thinker has to be understood, at least in part, in terms of what the thinker is reacting against, that is, the historical context in which the thinker’s work begins. Ayn Rand was born in Russia: a mystical country in the very worst sense of the word, a country that never really passed through the Age of Reason or the Enlightenment in the way that Western Europe did. Ayn Rand herself was not only a relentless rationalist, she was profoundly secular, profoundly in love with this world, in a way that I personally can only applaud. Yet the problem is that she became very quick on the draw in response to anything that even had the superficial appearance of irrationalism, by which I mean, of anything that did not fit her particular understanding of 'the reasonable.'"
Perhaps that was true in certain cases, but I'd say that a lot of what Rand dubbed irrationalist deserved that characterization.
He continued, "With regard to science, this led to an odd kind of scientific conservatism, a suspicion of novelty, an indifference—this is only a slight exaggeration—to anything more recent than the work of Sir Isaac Newton. I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, 'After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.' I asked her, 'You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms—including humans—evolved from less complex life forms?' She shrugged and responded, 'I’m really not prepared to say,' or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God’s creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable."
That does sound a little odd, but it makes more sense than Branden's sympathies for the paranormal. If the issue is respect for responsible, well-established science, then I'd say, look who's talking! One might ask him analogously, "You mean you seriously believe that we can apprehend reality through some means other than the five senses?"
He continues, "Like many other people, she was enormously opposed to any consideration of the validity of telepathy, ESP, or other psi phenomenon. [Hello!] The evidence that was accumulating to suggest that there was something here at least worthy of serious scientific study did not interest her; she did not feel any obligation to look into the subject; she was convinced it was all a fraud. It did not fit her model of reality. When an astronaut attempted during a flight to the moon to conduct a telepathic experiment, she commented on the effort with scorn—even the attempt to explore the subject was contemptible in her opinion. Now I have no wish to argue, in this context, for or against the reality of nonordinary forms of awareness or any other related phenomenon. That is not my point. My point is the extent to which she had a closed mind on the subject, with no interest in discovering for herself why so many distinguished scientists had become convinced that such matters are eminently worthy of study."
"So many distinguished scientists." Ah, yes--like all those "distinguished scientists" who believe that global warming is a man-made contrivance and that a Kyoto accord is the only answer. But assuming that these "distinguished scientists" earned their distinction through responsible scientific inquiry, which relies on sensory evidence and rational proof, does that mean that they are similarly qualified to speak on the paranormal or supernatural? For example, does the fact that these scientists happen also to believe in religious dogma qualify it as "eminently worthy of study"? I don't think so.
Branden continues, "Another example—less controversial—involves hypnosis. I became interested in hypnosis in 1960. I began reading books on the subject and mastering the basic principles of the art. Now this generated a problem because on the one hand Ayn Rand knew, or believed she knew, that hypnosis was a fraud with no basis in reality; on the other hand, in 1960 Nathaniel Branden was the closest thing on earth to John Galt. And John Galt could hardly be dabbling in irrationalism. So this produced some very curious conversations between us. She was not yet prepared, as she was later, to announce that I was crazy, corrupt, and depraved."
"Crazy, corrupt and depraved"? Were those her words? Of course, we'll never know, just as we'll never know whether in fact Rand actually held these views. Even assuming that she did, it would help to know whether they were expressed before or after the break. Of course, Branden does not tell us.
He continues, "At the same time, she firmly believed that hypnosis was irrational nonsense. I persevered in my studies and learned that the human mind was capable of all kinds of processes beyond what I had previously believed. My efforts to reach Ayn on this subject were generally futile and I soon abandoned the attempt. And to tell the truth, during the time I was still with her, I lost some of my enthusiasm for hypnosis. I regained it after our break and that is when my serious experimenting in that field began and the real growth of my understanding of the possibilities of working with altered states of consciousness.
"I could give many more examples of how Ayn Rand’s particular view of 'the reasonable' became intellectually restrictive. Instead, to those of you who are her admirers, I will simply say: Do not be in a hurry to dismiss observations or data as false, irrational, or 'mystical,' because they do not easily fit into your current model of reality. It may be the case that you need to expand your model. One of the functions of reason is to alert us to just such a possibility."
Translation: "Do not be in a hurry to dismiss 'observations' of paranormal data as false, irrational or mystical, because they do not fit into your current model of reality." And what model might that be? Oh, you mean the one which says that in order to know something, you have to possess a means of knowledge? Or the one which says that in order to be aware of something, you must be aware of it in some particular form? Or the one which says that existence is identity and that consciousness is identification? Right, I think I see the point. I always thought that model was too "intellectually restrictive." How I hate being restricted by the laws of identity and causality. I think it's time to "expand" my model. Don't you? [g]
Branden continues, "It would have been wonderful, given how much many of us respected and admired Ayn Rand, if she had encouraged us to develop a more open-minded attitude and to be less attached to a model of reality that might be in need of revision."
Oh, please!
"But that was not her way. Quite the contrary. Other people’s model of reality might be in need of revision. Never hers. Not in any fundamental sense."
Not in any fundamental sense? What's that supposed to mean? If anything is in need of expansion or revision, it is most emphatically not Objectivism's fundamentals. If Branden didn't learn that in all his years with Rand, then what can he be said to have learned?!
He sums up: "Reason, she was convinced, had established that for all time. In encouraging among her followers the belief that she enjoyed a monopoly on reason and the rational, she created for herself a very special kind of power, the power to fling anyone who disagreed with her about anything into the abyss of 'the irrational'—and that was a place we were all naturally eager to avoid."
Not any more, evidently. And what does it mean to accuse Rand of "enjoying a monopoly on reason and the rational"? She did not claim to be the only one who agreed with her philosophy, which is what it would mean for her to hold a "monopoly" on reason and the rational. But if by "monopoly" Branden means that she believed her view of reason and the rational to be correct and those who disagreed with her incorrect, then that's true of anyone who holds firm ideas.
In sum, there may be some legitimate points that Branden raises in the "hazards" portion of his talk, but he also does Rand and Objectivism a disservice in what he chooses to criticize. Moreover, this is not a criticism that one would expect from someone who is as familiar with Rand's philosophy as he was. I would have expected this kind of critique from someone with a more superficial understanding of Objectivism. In a way, it's a little puzzling to hear it coming from Branden, but perhaps understandable from someone who bears as much ill-will towards her as he does.
- Bill
|
|
