Totalism in the Philosophy of Ayn Rand
by Neil Parille
Introduction
Even Ayn Rand’s critics concede that she is an exciting writer. Philosophy, often seen as one of the driest subjects, comes alive for her readers. I would suggest that one of the reasons for this is what has been called her “totalism.” [Sciabarra, Total Freedom, p. 165]. Rand sees systems of thought as “organic wholes.” She searches out the “logical import of all the truths that support” an idea with which she disagrees. [Id. quoting Lester Hunt.] For Rand, there are no innocent mistakes. The phrase “ideas have consequences” (popularized in the book of the same name by Richard Weaver) has never been more taken to heart by a philosopher than Rand.
To Rand, all ideas are intertwined. And by ideas, she doesn’t just limit these to strictly philosophical ideas. Philosophy is connected to all aspects of life, including art, religion, politics, education and psychology. Take Rand’s most complex work of philosophy: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Most works on concepts (or universals) treat it exclusively as a metaphysical problem. For Rand, it is largely epistemological and is related to questions in psychology, metaphysics and even politics. Compare ITOE to two books on universals by academic philosophers: Universals by D. M. Armstrong and Universals by J. P. Moreland. These works have a narrow, technical focus. Neither discusses the psychological questions surrounding concept formation, much less the political or cultural implications of holding to any specific view of universals. Moreland is a conservative Christian, but one wouldn’t know it from reading the book.
Rand’s philosophy taken as a whole shows her totalism. Reason, rational selfishness and Capitalism logically entail each other. Compromise in any one area and you inevitably undercut the foundations in all other areas. This explains Rand’s hostility to conservatives who supported Capitalism but also advocated altruism and religion. To defend Capitalism by any means other than reason and selfishness is to engage no defense at all.
Four Types of Totalism
Totalism operates in at least four ways in Rand’s philosophy. First, the conclusions or implications of ideas are expanded upon (or traced back to their roots). Second, the psychological origins or implications of ideas are identified. Third, the historical and cultural effects of ideas are developed. Fourth, human beings are accountable for seeing (or not seeing) the implications of ideas.
Intellectual Totalism
Sometimes Rand takes an idea and shows what the presuppositions are. Other times, she shows the logical conclusions of holding certain ideas. As one example, consider her discussion of “mysticism” from “The Objectivist Ethics” (I’ve added the numbers):
The mystic theory of ethics is [1] explicitly based on the premise that the standard of value of man’s ethics is set beyond the grave, by the laws or requirements of another, supernatural dimension, [2] that ethics is impossible for man to practice, [3] that it is unsuited for and opposed to man’s life on earth, and [4] that man must take the blame for it and suffer through the whole of his earthly existence, [5] to atone for the guilt of being unable to practice the impracticable. [Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 38]
Most “mystics” would probably agree with [1] (although they might not phrase it precisely that way). On the other hand, [2]-[5] constitute Rand’s opinion of what a mystic would believe if he acted consistently on his premises. As a matter of fact, most mystics would probably deny that they believe that ethics is “opposed to man’s life on earth.” In certain forms of Christianity, it is taught that those who obey God’s moral laws will benefit materially.
Psychological Totalism
Often times Rand discusses the psychology implicit in holding certain beliefs. A striking example is her denunciation of the psychology of religious believers in “Galt Speaks”:
A mystic is a man who surrendered his mind at its first encounter with the minds of others. Somewhere in the distant reaches of his childhood, when his own understanding of reality clashed with the assertions of others, with their arbitrary orders and contradictory demands, he gave in to so craven a fear that he renounced his rational faculty. . . . From then on, afraid to think, he is left at the mercy of unidentified feelings. His feelings become his only guide, his only remnant of personal identity, he clings to them with ferocious possessiveness—and whatever thinking he does is devoted to the struggle of hiding from himself that the nature of his feelings is terror. [Rand, For the New Intellectual, pp. 160-61.]
This is an interesting aspect of Rand’s thought. One might think that a philosophy committed to “objectivity” would require a dispassionate critique of ideas totally separate from the motives and psychology of those who hold them. We are often told that the truthfulness of any given idea is separate from the motives of the people who believe them. In her article “The Argument From Intimidation” Rand demonstrated an awareness of the dangers of excessive “psychologizing,” but her essays often contain a discussion of the motivation that people have for their beliefs.
Historical and Cultural Totalism
Rand does not limit her totalism to the field of personal ethics. Erroneous ideas don’t just lead to more false ideas or personal unhappiness; they result in societal and civilizational breakdown. Consider her discussion of concept formation. She taught that the fate of human society and every human being rested on the ability to develop the correct theory of concept formation. [Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 3.] In her essay “For the New Intellectual” she traces the rise of fall of civilizations almost exclusively in terms of philosophical ideas.
Ethical Totalism
Rand argues that people are accountable for the ideas that they hold. Many people are surprised to read that Rand believes Kant to be the most evil man in human history. Political despots such as Stalin, Hitler and Mao generally vie for this title. Yet Rand has chosen a philosopher who spent almost his entire life in one city and apparently treated everyone kindly. In fact, Kant was something of a classical liberal and a religious skeptic, two ideas consistent with Objectivism. Obviously it is Kant’s ideas that make him evil. And since there are philosophers who are “worse” than Kant, it must be the philosophical trends that Kant set in motion. Specifically, Rand holds Kant responsible for logical positivism and pragmatism. [Binswanger, The Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 237.]
Rand’s Totalism: A Critique
Rand’s totalism has the tendency to spin out of control. First, she often gives the impression that the linkage between ideas is inflexible and that influences only go in one direction. Second, she is selective in her use of historical examples.
A particularly good example of this is her critique of religion. Religion is, in her view, almost exclusively an attempt to keep man “small.” In her essay The Age of Envy she discusses the stories of the Tower of Babel, Phaeton, Icarus and Arachne. [Rand, Return of the Primitive, p. 138.] However, there is another side to religion. Much in religion is an attempt to elevate man and establish his place in the universe. The belief that God created man in his image is a testament to man’s uniqueness. The pre-Copernican view placed man at, quite literally, the center of the universe. [Greenspan & Andersson, Russell on Religion, pp. 132-33.]
A final example is Rand’s hostility to the Middle Ages. “[T]he supernatural doctrines of the Middle Ages . . kept men huddling on the mud floors in their hovels, in terror that the devil might steal the soup that they had worked eighteen hours to earn . . . .” [Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 160.] Rand seemed unaware of the development of capitalism in the late Middle Age in northern Italy and Spain, or the scientific advancements made during that time which have received more attention due to the writings of Pierre Duhem and others. In addition, many historians of political thought see the birth of the idea of limited government in the decentralized political order of the Middle Ages. The point is not that these interpretations are correct, but the controversy surrounding such issues indicates that history is more complex than Rand indicated. The role of cause and effect in history and the sources of civilization growth and decay are immensely difficult. The longest work of the twentieth century, Arnold Toynbee’s A Study of History, is devoted to these questions.
Conclusion
Ayn Rand’s totalism is one of the most unique parts of her philosophy. In spite of its limitations, it encourages readers to seek the broader implications of ideas.
Discuss this Article (19 messages)
|
