Back in 1974, John W. Robbins wrote a critique of Objectivism. I just started reading it and have stopped at page 9 to jot down notes about it. Here are some quotes and some notes:
page 4
... catechization of the faithful proceeds apace under the tutelage of Leonard Peikoff, who replaced Nathaniel Branden as the heir apparent.(4) Taped lectures are the vehicle for catechization, ... . Apparently the purpose of such a procedure is to indoctrinate thoroughly the followers before the appearance of any philosophical treatise thus guaranteeing (1) profitable publication, and (2) a hard-core of Objectivists impervious to reasonable criticism and disdainful of any who dare to express disagreement.(5)
Robbins is using shoddy reasoning here, claiming that adopting Objectivism requires faith, and that that faith gets protected against reasonable criticism by close-minded, offensive emotionalism. And, just a few pages later, he engages in equivocation on the word "reasonable" -- claiming that destructive humanists such as those from the French Revolution gain rhetorical ground on opposition by arbitrarily staking out what is "reasonable" (e.g., the Guillotine as a reasonable response to tyranny, or whatever they were arguing about back then in France).
Basically, on one page, he uses the term in the very same manner in which he, just 3 pages later, criticizes the exact same kind of use of the term.
page 5
The main presupposition of all humanist thought is the autonomy of reason ...
But that's not true (at least not anymore). There are plenty of existentialist humanists nowadays who shun reason in order to enshrine their personal feelings as being the proper rule or law over all of mankind. Just look at global warming alarmists or at that one scientist who is interested in creating a virus that will destroy 90% of civilization (in order to get man back in sync with nature). While they are more like "earth-lovers" than "man-lovers", they are still an off-shoot from the broad group of secular humanist, altruist-collectivist, hippie peace-nik, sandal-wearing tree-huggers (i.e., the "flower children" of the 1960s). Their main presupposition is sacrifice, not reason. Rand argued against them, not for them.
page 6
[quote about Branden not calling his work "Objectivist Psychology" or "Biocentric Psychology" but simply "psychology" -- because otherwise that is just an admission that psychology, as a science, is in such an early, undeveloped stage that there are still many viable schools of thought on the matter] ... Should Rand choose to be as consistent as Branden she must not call her system Objectivism, but philosophy, thereby implicitly denying status to any other thought system.
But Robbins is, here, assuming that philosophy isn't still in the development stages. By implying that there can't be various schools of thought on the subject, he is implying that philosophy has been (almost) fully developed. If that were the case -- if philosophy was fully developed -- then it might look a lot like Objectivism. Heck, it might even be identical to Objectivism! So Robbins' case here is a non sequitur. He cannot say what philosophy looks like when fully developed, so he should not say whether a philosophy school such as Objectivism deserves to call itself "philosophy" (in general). You have to have knowledge of the one matter in order to make comment on the other matter -- and Robbins proceeds to make comments in the absence of the requisite knowledge.
... the common dogma of all non-Christian humanist thought, that "reason" is independent of and prior to any presuppositions.
This is a false generalization made under the presumption of the 'promulgation' view of reason outlined by Eric Mack in The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand. The better view of reason -- the 'validation' view -- partially championed by Rand herself (though with accidental 'lapses' into the promulgation view) would transcend this criticism and make it inappropriate when directed at Objectivism.
page 7
But "reason" is simply a cue word that has been used by all varieties of humanists since the world began. Its derivatives, "reasonable," "unreasonable," "rational" and "irrational" are the necessary verbiage of all socialist legal systems, ... a great empty vessel into which any and all meanings may be and have been poured ...
This is the Fallacy of Guilt-by-Association. Just because petty tyrants and immoral socialists have utilized terms like "reason" in order to obtain and to abuse power over other human beings, does not mean that Rand would use it in order to accomplish the same kind or amount of evil. She fought against that stuff. Lumping her up (and, presumably, anyone who focuses on the human use of reason in daily life) with this ilk is not just distasteful. This Robbins-guy, even though he obtained a Ph.D. from John Hopkins University, actually sucks as a philosopher/thinker. An analogy is the car used as a weapon:
A car is a great invention, but some people have used a car as a weapon before (deliberately running someone over). Under the shoddy thinking of someone like Robbins, this makes all car owners into violent, rights-violating criminals -- which is absurd. It's not enough to merely note that something has been misused before -- whether it be an automobile, or the concept of "reason" -- you cannot, like Robbins, just stop there and make judgments about people. Rand went to great lengths to explain the extra steps that the human use of reason requires, such as the integration required, but Robbins treats her like any other Joe-blow who touts reason as a tool for living on earth.
|
