Part 33 (1/2)
The plot of a novel serves the same function as the steel skeleton of a skysc.r.a.per: it determines the use, placement and distribution of all the other elements. Matters such as number of characters, background, descriptions, conversations, introspective pa.s.sages, etc. have to be determined by what the plot can carry, i.e., have to be integrated with the events and contribute to the progression of the story. Just as one cannot pile extraneous weight or ornamentation on a building without regard for the strength of its skeleton, so one cannot burden a novel with irrelevancies without regard for its plot. The penalty, in both cases, is the same: the collapse of the structure.
If the characters of a novel engage in lengthy abstract discussions of their ideas, but their ideas do not affect their actions or the events of the story, it is a bad novel....
In judging a novel, one must take the events as expressing its meaning, because it is the events that present what the story is about. No amount of esoteric discussions on transcendental topics, attached to a novel in which nothing happens except ”boy meets girl,” will transform it into anything other than ”boy meets girl.”
This leads to a cardinal principle of good fiction: the theme and the plot of a novel must be integrated-as thoroughly integrated as mind and body or thought and action in a rational view of man.
[Ibid., 62; pb 84.]
See also ART; LITERATURE; MOTIVATION; NATURALISM; NOVEL; PLOT-THEME; ROMANTICISM; THEME (LITERARY); THRILLERS.
Plot-Theme. The link between the theme and the events of a novel is an element which I call the plot-theme. It is the first step of the translation of an abstract theme into a story, without which the construction of a plot would be impossible. A ”plot-theme” is the central conflict or ”situation” of a story-a conflict in terms of action, corresponding to the theme and complex enough to create a purposeful progression of events.
The theme of a novel is the core of its abstract meaning-the plot-theme is the core of its events.
For example, the theme of Atlas Shrugged is: ”The role of the mind in man's existence.” The plot-theme is: ”The men of the mind going on strike against an altruist-collectivist society.”
The theme of Les Miserable, is: ”The injustice of' society toward its lower cla.s.ses.” The plot-theme is: ”The life-long flight of an ex-convict from the pursuit of a ruthless representative of the law.”
The theme of Gone With the Wind is: ”The impact of the Civil War on Southern society.” The plot-theme is: ”The romantic conflict of a woman who loves a man representing the old order, and is loved by another man, representing the new.”
[”Basic Principles of Literature,” RM, 63; pb 85.]
See also PLOT; THEME (LITERARY).
Political Power. See Economic Power vs. Political Power.
Politics. The answers given by ethics determine how man should treat other men, and this determines the fourth branch of philosophy: politics, which defines the principles of a proper social system. As an example of philosophy's function, political philosophy will not tell you how much rationed gas you should be given and on which day of the week-it will tell you whether the government has the right to impose any rationing on anything.
[”Philosophy: Who Needs It,” PWNI, 4; pb 4.]
The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of ”conservatism” and ”liberalism” which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men.
[” 'Extremism,' or The Art of Smearing,” CUI, 178.]
It is political philosophy that sets the goals and determines the course of a country's practical politics. But political philosophy means: abstract theory to identify, explain and evaluate the trend of events, to discover their causes, project their consequences, define the problems and offer the solutions.
[”The Chickens' Homecoming,” NL, 109.]
Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics-on a theory of man's nature and of man's relations.h.i.+p to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarra.s.sing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as ”conservatism.” Objectivists are not ”conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish.
[”Choose Your Issues,” TON, Jan. 1962, 1.]
The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man-or group or society or government-has the right to a.s.sume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.
[”The Objectivist Ethics,” VOS, 31; pb 32.]
See: Conceptual Index: Politics.
Pollution. The word ”pollution” implies health hazards, such as smog or dirty waters.
[”The Left: Old and New,” NL, 87.]
As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem. In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved-as was done in the case of oil rights, air-s.p.a.ce rights, etc. But such laws cannot demand the impossible, must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e., the industrialists, and must take into consideration the whole context of the problem, i.e., the absolute necessity of the continued existence of industry-if the preservation of human life is the standard.
It has been reported in the press many times that the issue of pollution is to be the next big crusade of the New Left activists, after the war in Vietnam peters out. And just as peace was not their goal or motive in that crusade, so clean air is not their goal or motive in this one.
[Ibid., 89.]
See also ECOLOGY/ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT; ECONOMIC GROWTH; LAW, OBJECTIVE AND NON-OBJECTIVE; NEW LEFT; TECHNOLOGY.
Potylogism. Polylogism is the doctrine that there is not one correct logic, one correct method of reasoning necessarily binding on all men, but that there are many logics, each valid for some men and invalid for the others. The polylogist divides men into groups, and holds that each group has by nature (or creates for itself by choice) its own distinctive method of inference based on its own distinctive logical laws, so that the inferences that are entirely logical for one group are entirely illogical for the others....
On the polylogist view, there is no common or universal logic to serve as the objective standard and arbiter when men disagree. There is no way for members of opposing groups, with opposing views, to resolve their disputes; it is useless to appeal to facts or to evidence for this purpose, since the minds which engage in the process of reasoning obey different rules of thinking.
In the n.a.z.i version of polylogism, ... there is Aryan logic, British logic, Jewish logic, etc., and these give rise respectively to Aryan truth, British truth, Jewish truth, etc.... The movement that first launched the doctrine of polylogism in a culturally influential form [is] Marxism. Aware of the fact that communism cannot be defended by reason, the Marxists proceeded to turn the fallacy of ad hominem into a formal philosophic doctrine, claiming that logic varies with men's economic cla.s.s, and that objections to communist doctrine may be dismissed as expressions of ”bourgeois logic.” Thus, vilification of an opponent replaces a.n.a.lysis of his argument.... Kant [is] the real father of polylogism, the first among the major philosophers officially to sever logic from reality. ... In terms of fundamentals, n.a.z.i polylogism, like n.a.z.i subjectivism, is simply a pluralizing and racializing of the Kantian view.
Actually, polylogism is not a theory of logic-it is a denial of logic. The polylogist invests ”logic” with the character of a mystic revelation, and turns logic into its ant.i.thesis: instead of being the means of validating objectively men's claims to knowledge, logic becomes a subjective device to be used to ”justify” anything anyone wishes.
[Leonard Peikoff, ”n.a.z.i Politics,” TO, Feb. 1971, 12.]
See also COMMUNISM; FASCISM/n.a.z.iSM; KANT, IMMANUEL; LOGIC; OBJECTIVITY; RACISM.
Popular Literature. Popular literature is fiction that does not deal with abstract problems; it takes moral principles as the given, accepting certain generalized, common-sense ideas and values as its base. (Common-sense values and conventional values are not the same thing; the first can be justified rationally, the second cannot. Even though the second may include some of the first, they are justified, not on the ground of reason, but on the ground of social conformity.) Popular fiction does not raise or answer abstract t questions; it a.s.sumes that man knows what he needs to know in order to live, and it proceeds to show his adventures in living (which is one of the reasons for its popularity among all types of readers, including the problem-laden intellectuals). The distinctive characteristic of popular fiction is the absence of an explicitly ideational element, of the intent to convey intellectual information (or misinformation).
[”What Is Romanticism?” RM, 95; pb 110.]
See also LITERATURE; ROMANTICISM; THRILLERS.
Possible. ”X is possible” means: in the present context of knowledge, there is some, but not much, evidence in favor of X and nothing known that contradicts X.
[Leonard Peikoff, ”The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), Lecture 6.]
When you say ”maybe,” you are saying there is at least some evidence, some reason to suspect X. This is a claim that must be justified. There are many fantasies that are outrightly impossible, because they contradict already known facts. And there are other fantasies that are mere arbitrary inventions; even if you cannot specify facts which contradict these inventions, you have absolutely no basis to hypothesize them.
[Ibid.]
It is possible, the skeptic argument declares, for man to be in error; therefore, it is possible that every individual is in error on every question. This argument is a non sequitur; it is an equivocation on the term ”possible.”
What is possible to a species under some circ.u.mstances, is not necessarily possible to every individual member of that species under every set of circ.u.mstances. Thus, it is possible for a human being to run the mile in less than four minutes; and it is possible for a human being to be pregnant. I cannot, however, go over to a crippled gentleman in his wheelchair and say: ”Perhaps you'll give birth to a son next week, after you've run the mile to the hospital in 3.9 minutes-after all, you're human, and it is possible for human beings to do these things.”
The same principle applies to the possibility of error.
[Leonard Peikoff, ” 'Maybe You're Wrong,' ” TOF, April 1981, 10.]
See also AGNOSTICISM; ARBITRARY; CERTAINTY; CHANCE; CONTEXT; KNOWLEDGE; SKEPTICISM.
Poverty. If concern for human poverty and suffering were one's primary motive, one would seek to discover their cause. One would not fail to ask: Why did some nations develop, while others did not? Why have some nations achieved material abundance, while others have remained stagnant in subhuman misery? History and, specifically, the unprecedented prosperity-explosion of the nineteenth century, would give an immediate answer: capitalism is the only system that enables men to produce abundance-and the key to capitalism is individual freedom.
[”Requiem for Man,” CUI, 308.]