Objectivism amidst the Modern Anti-reason Climate

[Victor Pross]

Objectivism amidst the Modern Anti-reason Climate

Ayn Rand was a Nazi. Oh, you didn’t know that? Here, let me explain:

An anonymous McGill philosophy professor has declared the following: “I was shocked to learn…that my department has even considered an offer to endow an Ayn Rand Chair. Imagine the department of political science considering an offer to endow the Adolf Hitler Chair in international politics.”

Private donor Gilles Tremblay submitted the Ayn Rand Chair. His purpose was to establish in perpetuity a professorship for teaching the ideas of Ayn Rand, a philosopher who currently receives no exposure within the entire McGill university academic corpus. He offered 1.8 million dollars to establish the Chair. Mr. Tremblay’s goal was to “expose Ayn Rand’s philosophy to the average student.” He noted that Rand’s is a “practical philosophy that applies to everyday life,” and that this is in marked contrast [italics mine] to academic philosopher’s who “go on and on about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or all sorts of esoteric questions that only other philosophers are interested in.”

In making the statement that links Rand with Hitler, this professor is making a deceitful claim that Rand’s ideas are essentially similar to Nazism and racism. Here’s a philosophy that holds that reality, reason and individual rights form the basis of a free society and the key to human life. The administration’s failure to note the easily available evidence of the importance of Ayn Rand’s system—and what that system actually stands for---is so clearly a demonstration in hostility and dishonesty.

This type of dishonesty and philosophical corruption is all too typical, and not merely restricted to McGill University.

“Although Ayn Rand was most obviously controversial in her ethical and political views,” Ronald Merrill writes in his book, The Ideas of Ayn Rand, “the case could be made that it was her epistemology that was most radical. What has really driven opposing philosophers up the wall has been less her individualism or egoism than her claim to certainty. Vital to structure—and Objectivism is its promise of route to knowledge—real knowledge, certain knowledge.” I couldn’t agree more with this assessment.

(NOTE FROM MSK: The passage by Merrill from pp. 91-92 of The Ideas of Ayn Rand is slightly misquoted. The correct is: “Although Ayn Rand was most obviously controversial in her ethical and political views, the case could be made that it was her epistemology that was most radical. What has really driven opposing philosophers up the wall has been less her individualism or her egoism than her claim to certainty. Vital to the structure—and attraction—of Objectivism is its promise of a route to knowledge—real knowledge, certain knowledge.”)

In a recent article I wrote, The hatred of Objectivism is the hatred of objectivity, I inquired in the opening paragraph: “I have wondered why modern intellectuals have such a deep hatred for Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism—a hatred that they would not accord even to Lenin and Hitler or other sundry assortments of evil.

In my article, I go on to point out the following:

“Today’s intellectuals are predominately products of the modern education system, which has bombarded them with the tenets of skepticism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, altruism, pragmatism: knowledge is impossible, no one can know anything for certain, there is no independent reality, all ethics are arbitrary, the individual is evil or impotent to deal with the challenges of life, the collective—or the state—is all, self sacrifice is the moral ideal, sacrifice progress to the ‘environment,’ submit to the dictates of the tribe, etc. None of these systems purports to be systems of objectivity. Very much the opposite, they are openly hostile or subtle in their attacks upon the concept.”

Thereafter, I go on to point out why the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, is unique in its position in the modern world—and why this philosophy is particularly vilified than what has been accorded to outer philosophies.

These are broad sweeping claims, and in this article I would like to concretize and substantiate what has been dismissed as my “rhetoric.” In this article, I wish to elaborate further as to why Objectivism is specifically singled out and denigrated--above and beyond--any other modern “isms”. I wish to point out that not only is this so—but why it is so: the answer lies in the very concept of objectivity itself.

Ayn Rand’s theory of concept formation provides a radically original, and correct, solution to philosophy’s central issue: the problem of universals. This problem concerns the relationship between abstract ideas and particular concretes in reality. By identifying the basis mechanism of concept formation, Rand validated the objective relationship between correctly formed ideas and their referents. This watershed achievement fulfills philosophy’s most dire need, a need unmet since Plato. It is the very concept of “objectivity” that has driven opposing philosophers and intellectuals over the edge

Now, I don’t care to become an alarmist announcing proclamations of inevitable destruction for the world, as do the “Orthodox prophets of doom”—as Michael Kelly puts it. Such apocalyptic declarations are not mine. Very much the opposite: In this regard, I agree with Ayn Rand: there is no “historical necessity” or “historical determinism” to dictatethat Western culture is due for ultimate destruction--or continued progress. There is no guarantee at all. Men have free will. That says it all. But I do say that the current intellectual climate is hostile to all the central ideas that make up “Western civilization.” This hostility is created and maintained by today’s intellectuals.

This hostility and dishonesty is not a recent phenomenon. It goes back to the early days of Objectivism. As Nathanial Branden wrote:

“Ayn Rand’s opponents have found it preferable to debate straw men, to equate her philosophy with that of Spencer or Nietzsche or Spinoza or Hobbes and thus expose themselves to the charge of philosophic illiteracy—rather than identify and publicly argue against that which Ayn Rand actually stand.”

In the effort to demonstrate this, let’s examine, briefly, the modern intellectual climate in which we are immersed. Let’s examine the dominate “isms” that are all the rage—excluding, of course, objectivism [little ‘o’ and/or Objectivism big ‘O’ objectivism]. Before doing so, I would like to offer a dictionary definition of “objectivism.” In this case, the Dictionary of Philosophy by Peter Angeles:

OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE (reality): Existence is an entity or an object in the external world (a.) that is known, or (b.) that can be known, and © that exists independently of our perception, conception, or judgment of it, as opposed to being merely a subjective existence in our mind…”

OBJECTIVISM (epistemology): The theory that a world (a.) exists in itself independently of and external to our comprehension of it and (b.) that it is a world which we can come to know about independently of any subjective viewpoint.

The above, I submit, is almost completely contrary to the intellectual climate of today. We are immersed in a world that prizes subjectivity, relativism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, altruism, statism—and a plethora of other “ism” with objectivism [Rand or otherwise] on the outside looking in. It is all around us.

First, let’s take a look at the world of economics and politics as covered in university. Most humanities and social science professors are anti-capitalist, or outright Marxist. It That is all that they were taught as undergraduate and graduate students. Many of them—purposefully, in many cases, teach a distorted view of capitalism. They brush over the essence of capitalism, that it is the protection of individual rights, including property rights and the rights to life. And while is may be argued that communism is dead--I say that statism is alive and well. Why?

These teachers distort capitalism by telling students that it causes unfair differences in wealth, enslaves workers [so-called “wage-slaves”], exploits third world countries, dehumanizes the human soul and creates environmental degradation. It’s no wonder that many students choose to study science because they are weary of the “isms” found in the humanities. They avoid the humanities because most of the courses are irrational and worthless. This is to say that they are NON-OBJECTIVE.

Philosophy is the most fundamental science, so as philosophy goes bad---science is fated to follow. [Please note: I am not here saying that this course is inevitable, as I pointed out—it can be reversed; men have free-will].

Today’s students do not learn the important ideas were discovered by Western intellectuals—such as free market economics, individualism, limited government, the role of reason in history. Students aren’t taught that western wealth has improved our lives dramatically, and that this wealth is the result of the fact that capitalism made it possible, and that the root cause of it all is human reason. The industrial Revolution proved that man’s survival and progress depend on science and technology. Of course, Ayn Rand was an ardent advocate of reason, science, capitalism and technology. Being the twentieth-century’s greatest champion of reason and individualism---this makes her an outsider among today’s intellectuals—collectivist intellectuals of the old Left or the New Earth First Left variety.

Then there is ethics: The moral philosophy of relativism is widely taught in universities. Relativism is the idea that moral values are neither scientific nor absolute, that morality is determined by the feelings of the individual or the group. Most people believe that morality comes from God or is either an arbitrary social injunction. This is the popualr viewpoint with public at large! But the intellectuals have their own brand of subjectivism [exceptions aside].

Now, If one reads Ayn Rand’s “The Objectivist Ethics” in the The virtue of Selfishness will learn that Objectivism is the polar-opposite of this whole approach to the field of ethics. The fundamental question of ethics is: To be or not to be. It is the science of survival, which is not automatically known or guaranteed to man. Ayn Rand's position crashes in the face of the modern appraoch to ethics.

*** *** ***

When I attended University, I was struck by the brazen irrationally that was rampant. There was a definite deterioration course content. The classes I attended had a particular axe to grind for the Western canon. [“Yo! Yo! Western culture has to go! Yo! Yo! Western culture has to go!”] However, luckily for me, I did take Objectivist professor John Ridpath’s class “Intellectual history.” This class was an A to Z in intellectual history starting with philosophical titans Aristotle and Plato culminating to the Postmodernist philosophies of the twentieth century and Ayn Rand.

Let me tell you, my eyes were opened. I was privileged to witness a living microcosm of Ayn Rand’s “philosophy: Who needs it” when I was able to trace the broad casual philosophical musings of my peers to the philosophers I was learning about. It was an eye-opener. “There are no absolutes!” and “Ethics is a matter of subjective opinion!” and “Man is destroying the planet!” and “knowledge is not possible!” and “We have a right to education!”

What surprised me was not that these old canards were trotted out. It was the failure of the students to be even slightly embarrassed by them. In some cases, they were announced with a kind of “hold page one for this item” confidence that totally belied their hoariness.

Another unique University experience was when Objectivist Gary Hull delivered a lecture at my university. I’ll never forget the incident that occurred the evening he gave his speech. I forget the lecture topic, but I do recall Mr. Hull speaking at one point of the “absolutism of reason and reality”—and bam! A ruffled man stood-up and shouted out: HAIL! HAIL!--all the while giving Mr. Hull the Nazi salute. He was asked to leave.

After the lecture I went to the university bar with some friends to down a few. Imagine my surprise when I saw “Mr. Hail” and learned that he was a TA! He recognized me from the lecture and decided to join my table to discuss the speech. He took it on himself to critique Mr. Hull’s talk and it all amounted to attack not only politics but also the validity of sensory-evidence. And more: He claimed that Mr. Hull was, in effect, a “metaphysical dictator.” What nerve Mr. Hull has in excluding all the other philosophies as being “true.” Why can't they be true? And who is to say what truth is...what do you mean when you say 'the cat is on the mat? Why is it that only “objectivity” that has the exclusive rein? Who the fuck does he thinks he is? Why can't...bla, bla, bla...

Now, some fifteen years later I have learned of another interesting university incident. Of course, I didn’t experience it. I learned of it. “Since its inception,” writes Ray Girn, editor of The University of Toronto Objectivist Club, “the Objectivist club has attracted a lot of controversy. The ideas published in our newspapers have raised the ire of many people on campus. The fact that we have caused so much offense is not a reflection of any intention on our part to offend. Rather, it is a symptom of the radical gulf between our ideas and those that are popular on campus."

To conclude:

It is important to understand that philosophical perspectives penetrate the culture. People are not philosophers are always caught in some general propositions which they accept from their culture as being true and right. The power of philosophy is absolutely dominate, even though most people don’t even know that they have a philosophy.

We can trust that today’s university students—especially those in the humanities—will become tomorrow’s haters of Objectivism. If they don’t become too familiar with Ayn Rand—they will, given today’s intellectual climate—become agonists of objectivity and rationality. Objectivity, in either metaphysics, ethics or espistemology--is NOT POPULAR. It is not popular in the universities. It is not popular in the culture. Today’s intellectuals have all but excluded the concept.

**