While I will be briefly alluding to the deeper metaphysical problems with Rand's position, Dr. Seuss by himself provides a complete refutation of Rand's naive conception of existence. I've tried to find some necessity for a deeper and more profound consideration of Rand's proposals. But at least as far as ethics goes, Dr. Seuss still remains considerably her equal in terms of intellectual complexity, if not her superior--Something that has distressed Randians so much that Dr. Seuss's family recently dropped publishing his 'more offensive' books.
Yes, despite an amazingly large crowd of enthusiastic and fervent Rand supporters, Dr. Seuss has transpired to be too great a mental challenge to Randian thinkers, an incredibly large number of whom have complained Dr. Seuss should be completely banned as a 'dirty commie.' Dr. Seuss' surviving family didn't really want to upset anyone, because the stories were meant to be loveable moral and metaphysical lessons for children--or at least, children capable of both empathetic and rational thought.
THE CAT IN THE HAT, AND THE PURPOSE OF EXISTENCE
Such empathetic and rational thought hasn't transpired to be the strong point of those who end up gravitating to Rand. Consider for example how Dr. Seuss' "Cat in the Hat" refuses to conform to conventional norms of behavior and just wants to have fun. The cat doesn't need to say why. The fact that the cat is enjoying himself is by itself a completely sufficient reason for his non-conformant behavior. This is totally outside the scope of explanation possible to Randian ethics and metaphysics, yet totally reasonable as an ethical position.
For this reason, 'Cat in the Hat' is high on the list of the fascists wishing progressive bans of all Dr. Seuss works to further their objectivist goal of censoring the child's mind. Younger folks won't know this started back in the 1950s, when deseated Truman fanatics sought to make the world safer for children by trying to ban 'subversive, anti-authoritarian propaganda' such as the fun-loving 'Cat in the Hat.' An objectivist in the 1960s, Mary Whitehouse, became famous in the UK for trying to ban 'Tom and Jerry' as too violent for children to see.
And finally, this year, after a failed assault on the capitol, the far right rang up a minor victory by getting some of Dr. Seuss condemned as 'racist.' One might justifiably think that objectivists have no reason for such actions, but it's very difficult to break into the children's book market, and it's become the most lucrative sector in the publishing arena since the Internet started. Under the edicts of Randian ethics, no rules exist for such low-handed tactics.
GREEN EGGS AND HAM, AND WILL TO POWER
Similarly, Dr. Seuss's whimsical 'green eggs and ham' is not only completely incomprehensible to Randians but actually offensive, no less, as a kind of rebellious subjectivity that assaults Rand's central metaphysical proposition...that 'axioms exist to destroy others.' Schopenhauer, in particular, would find that particularly funny, as Rand's ethics can do no better than usurping Schopenhauer's 'will to power' as the driving force of all creation by restating it on biological rather than empirical and phenomenological grounds, hence supposedly making it a superior statement to all others because it is 'more scientific.'
Rand thus claims to 'conquer' all alternative explanations by asserting a primitive evolutionary 'necessity' for 'survival of the fittest' as the sole force driving all human existence. In the milieu Rand defines, axioms 'battle' with each other to obtain conceptual superiority like dinosaurs attacking each other; but because Rand has perceived the 'total truth,' she claims her definition of this 'war' (which she assumes must exist for reasons of biological necessity) always 'wins.' Rand is not always consistent with her own metaphysics, perhaps because she was too horrified herself by its logical conclusions, but here I address what she states the nature of reality is, rather than her fictional plots.
I guess you should say she beat Dr. Seuss, if Dr. Seuss had actually known he was in a war. He didn't know, and the rest of us didn't either, including the philosophers, who just want to better define truth, and mostly are not at all interested in violent conflicts. A gold star for imagination, Ayn Rand, but on philosophy, you're lucky not to be in detention.
I haven't met a Randian who's read Schopenhauer yet, and it's doubtful Rand knew she co-opted his thesis either, albeit via a far more simplistic justification. Thus all Randians I know, as well as Ayn Rand herself, appear to have no knowledge that Schopenhauer invented the concept because he despised Hegel's thought. But Schopenhauer didn't want to 'destroy' Hegel's thought. Schopenhauer professed himself he needed Hegel, because without Hegel, Schopenhauer had nothing to despise--a problem Nietzsche later 'solved,' per se, by despising everything except himself, setting the perfect stage both for Nazism and Rand's 'laisser-faire capitalism.'
Despite Rand actually discussing Nietzsche herself, I've found it necessary numerous times to explain Nietzsche's central proposition. Nietzsche holds that a small number of individuals are so completely superior to others that there are NO common and naive concepts, such as 'morality,' that should constrain their behavior in any way. For substantiation, Nietzsche calls on Plato's Republic, which states only 'thinkers' are qualified to rule by virtue of their own thought. Plato thus provides a 'hallowed authority' for Nietzsche's belief that he can do anything he wants (regardless of what Plato thought 'philosopher kings' should actually do). Nietzsche, therefore, claims supremacy as a self-proclaimed member of a 'master race' who have transcended the 'slave morality' of those Rand called 'Second Handers' in "The Fountainhead."
Neitzsche gave rise to the cult of the 'overman,' who is 'beyond good and evil' because those who are slaves to morality are so constrained in their actions that they never become fully conscious. Therefore, it was argued, those with slave mentality are inferior beings who deserve no more rights than animals, justifying authoritarian control without the strictures of inalienable rights. I'm obliged to point out Rand states there should be universal rights, but she has no actual rational reason for them, as explained in the metaphysics section below.
THE GRINCH AND SELF LIBERATION
Before moving on to Rand's metaphysics, I introduce to you: Jim Carrey.
This man started his career thinking only about how to make as much money as possible by being funny. And he succeeded, making more profit from his first five movies than any comedian had in history. But by the time he filmed 'Man on the Moon,' Carrey had already ended up regretting that his earlier Randian obsession with profit only served to imprison his later life in a limited stereotype which he had started to despise himself.
The Grinch was the character he used as a bridge of self-liberation, which could restore some purpose to his life otherwise trapped in mere slapstick. Randians get so incredibly upset by the Grinch's happiness when the Grinch decides to agree with Scrooge! While Dickens' account of Scrooge probably appeals more to Randians, because the ghosts of Christmas provide ample reason to be kind-hearted, Carrey's film on forgiveness and celebrating the joy of giving doesn't even need the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future. Joyful love is enough all by itself to convert the Grinch. What an amazing update to a centuries-old fable!
We may find some consolation in the hope that 'How the Grinch stole Christmas' is likely to be recognized and celebrated long after Carrey's other works, in many more yuletides, with much more positive effect than Rand, and long after Rand's philosophy has shrugged itself off the planet, as more of the population find another truth for themselves: sufficient wealth for a pleasurable existence is enough, beyond which, the pursuit of profit transforms into a shackle on life, and is no longer a means to freedom, no matter how much power it endows. Randians may have won its battle with Dr. Seuss this decade, but in the long term, Rand's narrow-minded conceptions can only lose the war which its own supporters have declared on other explanations of the human condition, and what we should do about it.
RAND'S METAPHYSICS AND ETHICS: AN IMAGINARY 'WAR OF AXIOMS'
Objectivists would not be happy if I did not address Rand's actual metaphysics. I've already introduced Schopenhauer and Nietzsche as the invisible bedrock for her 'axioms', which is what Rand calls her fundamental propositions to make them sound more authoritative. She certainly states them with self-pronounced authority. Sadly, there's no other ground for her choice.“An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. ” - Ann Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Rand's three primary axioms are simply stated as 'self-evident truth,' in much the same manner as Thomas Payne rejected Hume's distinction between the domains of mind and matter. In Payne's view (now known as 'naive realism'). reality is intuitively known from common sense, and no further thought is needed. In contrast with Payne, Rand does acknowledge Hume's mind/body distinction, at least enabling her thought to explain some basic problems with perception, such as optical illusions. However, despite Rand's frequent adulations of the faculty of reason, her own reasoning on the domain of mind doesn't elevate her metaphysical stance much above Payne's naive view of reality known only via intuitive common sense. As substantiation of that rather damning statement, one can't even get past the first and primary axiom: the necessity of conscious existence. Rand thankfully agrees with the conclusion of Descartes' famous 'cogito ergo sum.' But Descartes argued for his conclusion. [Descartes cogito stated we might be deceived in many ways, leading to rational skepticism; but we cannot doubt that we are doubting. Descartes concludes, therefore, that the act of doubting is proof of our conscious existence.]
Descartes established the bedrock of certain knowledge for all Western empiricism, but Rand finds it necessary to mock him. Instead of building on Descartes' idea, she scorns him as a 'witchdoctor.' She instead asserts, in her rather typical style of self-glorification, a supposedly superior axiom: “A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms.” That's presented as intuitively obvious, without any rationale for her perceived contradiction.
Except for concepts derived from Darwinian competition, all Rand's other statements are presented as self-evidently true, in the same naive manner, despite Rand's frequent adulations of the faculty of reason.
Regarding ethics, though, Rand carefully avoids the currently contemptuous monicker of 'social Darwinism.' But then, while she agrees with Hume's mind/body distinction, she cannot pass the test of Hume's guillotine. [Hume's guillotine states there is no way to define morality from phenomenological observation; or in Hume's own simpler words, there is no way to bridge the gap between that which 'is,' and that which 'ought to be,' without introducing unprovable moral criteria or a concept of intrinsic goodness.]
On Hume's guillotine, Rand wrote:
Rand again introduces a self-evidently-true axiom, this time on the 'necessary existence of values,' without defining any rational method to define rules for the 'descriptive ethics' she desires to be self-evidently true. But having avoided social Darwinism, that's all she can do.In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. (Ann Rand, The virtue of Selfishness)
Rand also has no justifiable grounds for defining any morality, because she condemns altruism as a wrongful deviation from Darwinian competition in a capitalist society. This may be her most fatal error, because she resorts to social Darwinism as a justification to reject altruism, without gaining its benefit as a rationale for descriptive ethics. Moreover, even Darwin himself advocated that altruism is a competitive advantage for a social species, and the idea has since reemerged in sociobiology (for example in Dawkins 'The Selfish Gene,') and has been reinforced by computer models of 'Hawk versus Doves' scenarios in game theory. So her rejection of altruism was not only unnecessary, but also, actually wrong.
In order to reject altruism, Rand is also forced to deny the existence of intrinsic goodness, without which she further cannot define any 'normative ethics' (as to what one ought to do). Her position isn't helped by her spiteful attitude to Kant, whose ideas could best have helped her define intrinsic goodness. It's only coincidental, after her rather hateful remarks of him, that her criticisms of Kant are not only wrong but actually flaws of her own position. The emotional problems are not surprising, because in reality, she can't accept the existence of intrinsic goodness, for the same reason she rejects altruism: there is no competitive advantage to being good for its own sake.
Then Rand upholds concepts such as 'duty.' But they still don't pass Hume's guillotine, so they are really no more than religious edicts. In fact, her entire edifice is contrived on the assumption that capitalism infinitely increases well being by producing more wealth. Again, the desire for 'happiness' in stated as self-evidently 'good,' without defining what 'good' actually is. Her actual assumption is that wealth purchases more pleasure, and more pleasure is the absolute end goal of life. The idea that a certain level of wealth is all that's necessary for humans to pursue a meaningful existence is ignored.
The 'need' for 'axioms' to destroy each other may fit well with Rand's egocentric and self-serving arguments, but it has little to do with what the goal of philosophy has been for over two millennia: building on the thought of others to define truth in the most complete way possible. In comparison to that, Rand's so-called 'metaphysics' is really her own religion, based on the minimalist belief of purpose which calls itself right by simply denying large swathes of reason and human experience. It's a waste of time to question why Rand's own axioms can't be defeated like all others, thus introducing an irresolvable paradox in her own metaphysics, because such logic is already dismissed as another set of axioms that her system obviously defeats. End of rational debate.
SHRUGGING OFF ATLAS SHRUGGED
One cannot deny the appeal of simple scientific models, yet nonetheless, attempting to cram all ethics, politics, and metaphysics into a naive evolutionary explanation suffers from the same problems that the theory of evolution presents in the philosophy of science.
- First, there are the limits introduced by the pre-staged debate. Darwinian fanatics have so focused their arguments against teleology on theism alone, the debates on evolution have totally disregarded the potential multiplicities of purposes for existence beyond scientific measurement. For example, we can't know if animals have other motives when they choose mates, but many have noted the extraordinary beauty of nature. Hence it should be reasonable to speculate that animals acquired an appreciation of beauty at some point in the history of evolution, even if it can only be a hypothetical proposition. As so eminently detailed in Nagel's "What's it Like to be a Bat?," we can never do better than surmise what animals actually 'think.' Certainly, many artists have appeared to place the beauty of their own creations above their well-being (perhaps most famously, Vincent Van Gogh).Yet even a tragic pursuit of beauty, as in Goethe's Faust, is only one of a plethora of reasons for existence that humanity has defined for itself, most of which offer no competitive advantage at all. Objectivism precludes such alternative teleological explanations, whether they be as pointless as the simple fun of Dr. Seuss, or as audacious as painting nudes on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. "God created Man, and all of him is beautiful," said Michelangelo, risking prison and torture, and even eternal damnation perhaps--for what? Had he painted more modestly, no one would lessen his praise.
Second, there are the metaphysical limits imposed by such a constrained explanation. By declaring that all behavior is defined by 'survival of the fittest in a war of axioms,' one is forced to deny any other teleological explanations, and thus (per Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason") objectivists are forced to deny also the meaningfulness of concepts such as intrinsic goodness, morality, and normative ethics. Objectivism substitutes in its place a deontological model for descriptive ethics without room for any hypotheticals, including the unachievable ideals upon which Aristotle named capitalist democracy as the least-worst evil in the first place.
Beyond Rand's Objectivism
The Randians' absolutist need to remove human feelings from her 'objectivist' religion may stem from bad childhoods, which have made her supporters fearful of feeling empathy or compassion. Such fear has made right-wing capitalists actually threatened by concepts such as pre-adolescent individuation and value systems outside fiscal scales. As a result, they've created an unnecessary war with all such as the imaginative conceptions of Dr. Seuss.
Maybe this is a symptom of the post-truth era, where Randian 'dialog' on what reality SHOULD be (in their opinion) replaces that which actually IS, in all its sublime facets. It is easier to censor green eggs and ham than understand how such concepts exist and yield experiences in the imagination. It is easier to deny the validity of alternative perspectives than to understand them, when desiring that money be the fascistic control of all existence.
I don't expect these observations to 'convert' Randians to a more encompassing view. I've tried many times to argue for a less narrow-minded view on existence. But rationality cannot dissuade the religious profit zealots seeking shelter from the suffering their own views inflict on themselves by so criticizing others. It takes a major life-changing event, such as the death of a loved one, or bankruptcy, or losing a home, or infidelity of a spouse, to make such disciples of fiscal gain consider that there might really be something more to life than a bank account. When that happens, I hope Randians who read this little piece remember its words and find some more beauty in the bleak world they have created for themselves.
Meanwhile, those of us who've studied more of the history behind Rand's thought can only be sad how little her followers know of their own doctrine; for as Schopenhauer discovered and so thoroughly detailed, those who delve into humankind's will to power cannot escape eventual suffering and nihilistic pessimism, unto and perhaps beyond the inevitable dust of death.
