Objectivism comes from
'being objective'. We encounter problem one in Rand's claim. Who can
be objective? Is there any human being that can be objective? Don't
we all have our own self-interests? Don't we all wear colored glasses
through which we view the world? “To be objective someone has to
be independent of the thing they are perceiving”2
How is a human to be independent of humanity? Further Werner
Heisenberg found in physics that the act of studying something
changes its properties. “The study of culture, language or
thinking is obviously more affected by the studier than particle
physics is since it is the creature studying itself. According to
David Hume, we cannot know anything about the external world since
all we know is the statistical patterns of the past. You cannot know
if the sun will rise tomorrow, simply because it has risen every day
of your life so far...our perception of the external world is only a
perception, not a means of gaining knowledge. Kierkegaard pointed out
that the 'objective' is of no relevance, because humans are
inherently subjective entities. They are particular individuals at
particular times and places, with particular thoughts and values etc.
A standpoint that is divorced from all this (truly objective) would
be useless to humans because it has nothing to say about everything
humans are.”3
Since individualism is one of Rand's
promoted values, she contradicts herself even if it was possible to
be objective as a human. Individualism and objectivity cannot go
together.
The second problem I see has to do
with her claim to reality. What is reality? Are reality only things
I can touch and see, smell, taste and hear? If I can hear something
another cannot hear (maybe because I have better hearing) is it then
not anymore reality, because not everyone can hear it? It seems
everyone would have to agree then on a certain reality. Such a
reality and what constitutes that reality needs to be then learned.
However, if it needs to be learned it does not constitute a true
reality. A true reality would not have to be learned it would have
to be recognized by everyone as reality.
Babies touch to learn about their
environment. In the beginning, they touch things but they do not know
what the object is until they are taught the name as well as what
function it serves. Then reality as their parents see it starts to
have meaning. A reality without meaning might as well be a dream.
Let us say if there were a creature from another planet in this world
that has never experienced the reality of this world, they would not
know what to do with the things in our world, would not be able to
identify their use. Hence experience is essential in order to
understand, see and make sense of, or reason, in what we call
reality. Only if we understand that reality can we claim we see facts
and respond to the facts using logic. The facts are that, for
example, someone came in and took the wallet out of my friend's
pocketbook. Using logic, I can try to deduct what happened. Did that
person greet me during this act and talk friendly? Did this person
look about guiltily? Did they offer an explanation? Was it someone I
knew? Was it a friend, or friend of my friend, who might have needed
to retrieve something for her? All these things can give a clue, but
unless I ask the direct question of my friend whether or not that
person, friend or not had the permission to take that wallet, I will
never know what happened. The same fact may still portray a different
reality for different people depending on each of their values.
For example, Dagny in “Atlas
Shrugged” valued the railroad tracks and the trains. Often Rand
referred to it as a network, a backbone. The real facts were, there
were metal tracks to many places on which trains went all throughout
the country. The rest is value, the network, the backbone. Values
are always subjective and cannot be easily discarded even while one
is making observations.
If an other-planetary creature would
see an avalanche coming from a mountain he would not be able to
respond accordingly to how one would need to respond in such a
situation. Since according to Rand intuition is nonexistent, he would
have no inner motivation to respond. He most likely would not run and
save himself. The fact is that a huge pile of snow is coming off the
mountain. The next fact is that houses are buried below it. If the
creature were lucky, he would have been spared. All he saw was a
white wall coming down from a vertical thing we call mountain and
then cover a few boxes, which we call houses. Seeing facts cannot
stay just facts. If logic must and can be learned, then the
conclusion for the creature would be: wall comes down; little houses
below become flat, white wall covers them. If he did not learn what
follows logically, his response would not be proper to what a human
would expect. It still would take the experience of having been in a
house before and interacted with people in those houses, to know that
there are people in them. And still another experience that those
people were most likely impacted and the experience that such a
situation can actually cause injury or death and that these two
outcomes were most likely not desired by those people. Another
experience would have to have been that in such a case one would
ordinarily take certain steps and actions. The situation would
require us as moral beings to respond accordingly. As for example,
sending in rescue crews to unbury the people trapped in their homes.
Nevertheless, I suppose it depends what you define as moral. If you
are a member of a selfish society your personal happiness, your
highest goal, saving yourself, or not bothering with something so cumbersome and unhappy, might be the highest moral. Here is the
influence of value again.
The other-planetary creature would
never connect the dots, whether or not he is moral. Facts alone do
not cut-it, logic can only go so far. The experience of pain of
having someone you loved injured or die will have to give life to
this logic and let in the emotions, which are so distrusted by Rand
so that appropriate action can be taken. Hence, I believe that
emotions (and experiences) give the motivation to act when we observe
certain facts and give life to the logic with which we interpret the
facts. It is through the feeling world that we know what produces
happiness or sorrow. If we disregard feelings, how do we know when we
are happy?
Rand claims that reason is the only way
to gain knowledge about the world. To be able to reason requires a
knowledge based on a set of experiences in order to draw conclusions.
Even in the material world we need to have experienced what a thing
does. Past experiences are the basis to judge present experiences and
happenings we observe. We must internalize what we gather through our
senses and respond through feelings to that what we experience,
otherwise we might as well be robots.
Rand claims that mysticism and the
supernatural is mindless mush, or something to that effect! There
are several problems with that. Mysticism as well as what we call reality is based on experiences. Given, each has its own set of
experiences, nonetheless they are experiences. Mystical experiences
can not be experienced on the outside like in reality, but on the
inside of a person. Dr. Newberg, a neuroscientist writes, “No two
people perceive the world, or God, in the same way, because no two
human brains begin with the same genetic code.” 4
The fact that each individual is created in such an intricate way,
can only point to a vast intelligence, or God. Having such an
individual experience makes it impossible for more than one person to
notice the same mystical experiences and awareness. However, many others
will have similar experiences and by communication and comparisons
one will take the experience one had, lets say for example 'peace'
and gather that most likely the other person had also an experience
of peace by the described properties or sensations. Reason is not the
only way to know things as Rand claims, there is an awareness which
is based on a different set of experiences which will give us
knowledge. That very awareness, if practiced with discipline can push
through walls of lack of understanding through which reason cannot
push.
The hopeful thing is that Neuroscience
has started to prove that this awareness exists by monitoring and
measuring the disciplines that cause changes in the brain of people
who claim mystical experiences and awareness. Mystics have known a
long time about this awareness and knowledge, but since we live in a
world of materialism and reason, the mystical knowledge needs to be
proven by the language of the materialistic world so that it can be
understood. Dr. Andrew Newberg a renowned neuroscientist and
therapist Mark Robert Waldman have recorded evidence from brain-scan
studies, which has wide reaching implications.
Not only do various spiritual practices
but also secular meditation, which are some of the disciplines to
obtain that awareness, reduce stress, they slow down the aging
process, increase feelings of security, compassion and love. Those
very feelings are essential for a harmonious society and help people
live empathetically. It is my notion that without the ability to have
empathy we are merely selfish savages.5
The promotion of leaving feelings by
the wayside as Rand's philosophy proposes would leave us blind to
quite a few areas necessary for a happy life in the world. Let us now
look at other objections.
A website which serves as study-guide
for the “Anthem”
http://www.gradesaver.com/anthem/study-guide/section13/
has following objections to Rand’s Philosophy:
Self-interest can easily end up in
monopolies “created by men who prize only money. Consequently,
anti-trust law and increased Federal regulation in the US has altered
the American understanding of capitalism, resulting in a more
restricted system where self interest is checked by law.” 6
In Rand’s system, we would not have to worry about oppression by
government, by about oppression by the wealthy and elite.
In addition, if my highest goal is
happiness, and that which I pursue is not the happiness of another
person but his or her unhappiness, we would enter a serious conflict.
Physical force is forbidden in Objectivism, one of the good things in
her philosophy, but then how do I get my happiness if the other
person finds it intruding on their happiness? Do I accept half
happiness? Alternatively, if the situation was reversed, will the
other person accept half happiness? On the other hand, who is
entitled to happiness...only people with money? Do you see the flaw?
Proof of an imperfect system is that
Rand could not live by her own philosophy. “She jokingly called
a group of her disciples the 'Collective’s, who headed the
Objectivist movement during the mid-twentieth century. (The
'Collective' is something she writes against, as oppressive
governments). Although her writings encouraged people to think for
themselves, within the movement, her word was considered law, and
disagreement tended to either be suppressed or cause schisms over the
concept of ideological purity. Even her personal preferences in music
were to be adopted by those within the movement, and her strong
personality merely reinforced this manifestation of what some have
accused to be a cult.”7
The other objection comes from
feminism. Her female characters even though intelligent “take a
place at the male heroes' side as their lovers and disciples.”8
The women are dominated. In the Fountainhead, Dominique Francon was
raped but her reaction is one of joy. If Roak would have treated her
in a kind way she would have loathed him, she claimed. That is
abnormal, perverse, harmful, and unfit to read for young girls. By
the way, violent sexual behavior (not necessarily rape) is also found
in Atlas Shrugged. This re-enforces the female as weak (and
non-thinking, not sure that is her intention) and an old pattern of
male dominance, one which has even given way to sex slavery. In the
end, as we can find with many cult leaders, is that she could not
live up to her own ideology. The very things she rejected, God, the
supernatural, would be the very things that might have enabled her to
live up to high ideals of the human race. Why did her ideal not
work? Objectivism embraces justice alone and disregards forgiveness
and mercy. The problem is that no person (not even Rand) is perfect
enough to put herself in judgment of another; hence, forgiveness and
mercy are the only final options. As Rand claims that everything has
an inescapable nature, then the inescapable nature of one human and
the inescapable nature of another human could certainly have been a
problem to each of them. That problem can only be solved by
forgiveness and benevolence. Pure judgment would have had to
eliminate or at least restrict one or the other thus forfeiting one
or the other's happiness. Rand might have thought she was perfect
and thought she lived by her philosophy; it was certainly her
happiness she obtained. I am not so sure it was the happiness of her
disciples. Hence, she too was/is in need of absolution and
forgiveness from those around her, whether she abhorred the thought
or not.
Reflections:
After reading both, this and the blog entry titled :"Insidious Onslaught" take a deep breath and reflect. Ask yourself following questions:
1. Are my children worth the time for me to read Rand's books if they are required in school?
1. Are my children worth the time for me to read Rand's books if they are required in school?
2. What are the values I want to teach my children?
3. How, if at all do these books promote those values?
4. How do these books hinder those values I want to teach?
5. Do I feel that these books are harmful to my child and do I need to talk to the teacher?
6. What in these books when I read them bothered me most or confused me most and how will those same passages impact my child?
7. Are these books worth reading for the sake of an open mind?
8. Does my child have a solid enough value system to be confronted with this philosophy?
9. Do I have enough time to help my child understand this philosophy in comparison to our own values?
3. How, if at all do these books promote those values?
4. How do these books hinder those values I want to teach?
5. Do I feel that these books are harmful to my child and do I need to talk to the teacher?
6. What in these books when I read them bothered me most or confused me most and how will those same passages impact my child?
7. Are these books worth reading for the sake of an open mind?
8. Does my child have a solid enough value system to be confronted with this philosophy?
9. Do I have enough time to help my child understand this philosophy in comparison to our own values?
1Http://www.atlassociety.org/what_is_objectivism
(accessed 3/17/13)
4Andrew
Newberg, MD, and Mark Robert Waldman, God Changes Your Brain:
Breakthrough Findings from a Leading Neuroscientist. (New York:
Ballantine Books, 2010), pg.105.
5Andrew
Newberg, MD, and Mark Robert Waldman, God Changes Your Brain:
Breakthrough Findings from a Leading Neuroscientist. (New York:
Ballantine Books, 2010), Cover, pg. 18.
6
http://www.gradesaver.com/anthem/study-guide/section13/
(accessed 3/17/13)
No comments:
Post a Comment