(iv) Those who try to be all things to all men may end up by not being anything to anyone--but not because they are rational compromisers. They are usually not compromising but total give-in ass-lickers who do not go for what they really want at all, whose actual goal is unachievable, to please others all the time. Consequently, they frequently end up losing the respect of others and not being anything to anyone.
g. States Rand: "When a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture. There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil." (1967b). This assumes, again, that pure "good" and "evil" exist. It assumes, second, that one can invariably pick a "good" choice after one has seen that it is "good" and that one never has to mix it in with "evil". And it assumes, third, that no "good" can come from anything that is the least bit "evil". Actually, of course, even the blackest sin may lead to good since people who commit it may learn from their mistakes, may do good thereafter partly because they acknowledge their previous evil, and may have the incentive to make a major change in their lives largely because they discover the harm of their evil acts.
h. "If a man holds contradictory values," Branden states, "these necessarily do violence to his sense of personal identity. They result in a splintered sense of self, a self broken into un-integratable fragments." (1965c). Necessarily ? Yes--if this man believes, as does Branden, that he must not hold contradictory values and is a wretch for holding them. Then he really berates himself--and does violence, thereby, to his sense of personal identity. But if, like many non-objectivists, he doesn't feel wormy for holding contradictory views, acknowledges that there are disadvantages to his being contradictory but that he can live with those disadvantages, his sense of identity or personal worth may be excellent.
i. Rand: "The Law of Identity (A is A) is a rational man's paramount consideration in the process of determining his interests. He knows that the contradictory is the impossible, that a contradiction cannot be achieved in reality and that the attempt to achieve it can lead only to disaster and destruction." (1965c). Therefore, she states, he forbids himself to hold contradictory values, to follow contradictory goals, or even to imagine that his pursuit of a contradiction can ever be to his interest. There are several major flaws in this kind of thinking:
(i) The Law of Identity is a limited law that only holds for a given time and place. A is A and cannot be not A, at one and the same time or from one and the same point of view. But A can easily be not A, at a subsequent time or from a different point of view. Thus, A is good and usable one day for one purpose and person and useless another day for another purpose or person. For instance, A is a good lover to B, who enjoys a man who maintains his erection for thirty minutes during intercourse, and a poor lover to C, who cannot stand intercourse that lasts more than ten minutes.
(ii) Because A can be not A, under certain conditions, and different times--the contradictory is possible, and can be achieved in reality. You can be a traitor to your country today and nobly die for it tomorrow. A father can love his child intensely on Monday and wish she were dead on Wednesday, and love her intensely again on Thursday.
(iii) Your attempt to live contradictions obviously need not lead to your disaster and destruction. If you try to be devoted to your wife and at the same time have adulterous affairs with other women, you will probably get into some kind of difficulties, but there is little reason to believe that you will necessarily destroy your marriage, your self-acceptance, or your life. In fact, if you can effectively compartmentalize your feelings, and convince yourself that you do completely love your wife while you somewhat neglect her for outside affairs, you may tend to create some disadvantages for yourself (such as underlying guilt and anxiety); but you may do yourself and your wife more good than harm this way, (by deciding to stay with your wife rather than leave her to less desirable circumstances for your new, temporary lover), and may actually get away with your contradictory and even hypocritical values.
(iv) It is notable that where Ayn Rand and the objectivists are constantly quoting Aristotle's Law of Identity in an effort to prove that anyone who in any way lives with compromises and contradictions in his value system is horribly immoral and deserves to be damned, Aristotle himself, the first recorded enunciator of it, did not use the Law in this manner. On the contrary, in regard to human affairs, he constantly espoused what has come to be known as the Aristotelian mean--that is, conduct that is moderate and avoids extremes or excesses. Aristotle was a pretty good Aristotelian--and certainly no objectivist!
(v) The Law of Identity was devised by Aristotle as a logical measure, to demonstrate that two propositions may be contradictory. It does not necessarily imply, however, that it is wrong or terrible for contradictions to exist. Life and death are dualistic and contradictions-- it would hardly be proper to conclude that either should not continue to exist.
People are clearly creatures of contradiction; this may well be one of their defining characteristics! They are both individualists and highly social animals. They often compete, and they often collaborate and cooperate, especially when competing against other groups. Their sexual urges induce them to participate in the most ruthlessly sadistic and the most tenderly loving actions. When they become objectivists, they can be the most consistent kind of libertarian while they are the most dogmatic advocates of rationalistic regimentation. Aristotle's Law of Identity is often a great help in showing people when they are illogical and inconsistent. But who said that they should never be illogical and inconsistent? Mainly, I am afraid, the unrealistic objectivists.
(vi) That the pursuit of a contradiction can never be to a man's interest is a highly dubious proposition. Suppose, for example, someone vigorously pursues both God and mammon. He wants to lead an ultra-religious, spiritual-minded life and to get into the Kingdom of Heaven after his death; and he also wants to amass a few million dollars on earth. So he breaks his neck, for half a century, to achieve these contradictory goals. He will almost certainly have a rough time!
But, a) he may actually make a pile of money, become a notable philanthropist, and convince himself that he has achieved the best of all possible worlds -- wealthy and Godly. b) He may make a fortune and fail to achieve spirituality, or fail at moneymaking while succeeding at becoming spiritual, and he may find either of these solutions reasonably satisfying and still lead a good, though hardly perfect, existence. c) He may fail in business and also fail to achieve Godliness, but may be so vitally absorbed and enjoying all his life in striving for these two big goals that he may have a much better life than most people, with most "successes." Granted that even though the individual who pursues a contradiction will often lose out, it is rash to conclude, as Rand does, that he always will.
(vii) The Law of Identity may be one consideration in the process of a man's determining his interests but it had better not be the only or even paramount consideration. It is only a logical law; and it is hardly a great determiner of the individual's best values and interests. Even if it were as strictly true as Ayn Rand holds it to be--and certainly the general semanticists and many other respectable brands of modern philosophers would seriously doubt this--it is hardly a magical law that tells people what interests they'd better select and how they should run their lives. It is a law to be used mainly for examining and not necessarily for creating human values.
18. "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." Also it means one's total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full concentration in all issues, in all choices, in all of one's waking hours (Rand, 1964).
Note those only's and those alls! In my waking hours, I have rarely seen such an extremist statement of the way humans should be. If this be rationality, I think I'll take some irrational spinach!
19. "There is no greater self-delusion than to imagine that one can render unto reason that which is reason's and unto faith that which is faith's." Faith cannot be circumscribed or limited. If you do surrender one's consciousness by an inch, you surrender your consciousness in total. Reason is an absolute to a mind or it is not an absolute. If it is not, there is no place to draw the line, no barrier faith cannot cross, and no part of your life faith cannot invade. You then remain rational only until and unless your feelings decree otherwise," (Branden, 1965a).
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
