Part 36 (1/2)
Rationalization. Since an emotion is experienced as an immediate primary, but is, in fact, a complex, derivative sum, it permits men to practice one of the ugliest of psychological phenomena: rationalization. Rationalization is a cover-up, a process of providing one's emotions with a false ident.i.ty, of giving them spurious explanations and justifications -in order to hide one's motives, not just from others, but primarily from oneself. The price of nationalizing is the hampering, the distortion and, ultimately, the destruction of one's cognitive faculty. Rationalization is a process not of perceiving reality, but of attempting to make reality fit one's emotions.
Philosophical catch phrases are handy means of rationalization. They are quoted, repeated and perpetuated in order to justify feelings which men are unwilling to admit.
”n.o.body can be certain of anything” is a rationalization for a feeling of envy and hatred toward those who are certain. ”It may be true for you, but it's not true for me” is a rationalization for one's inability and unwillingness to prove the validity of one's contentions. ”n.o.body is perfect in this world” is a rationalization for the desire to continue indulging in one's imperfections, i.e., the desire to escape morality. ”n.o.body can help anything he does” is a rationalization for the escape from moral responsibility. ”It may have been true yesterday, but it's not true today” is a rationalization for the desire to get away with contradictions. ”Logic has nothing to do with reality” is a crude rationalization for a desire to subordinate reality to one's whims.
”I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true” is more than a rationalization: it is a description of the process of rationalizing. Men do not accept a catch phrase by a process of thought, they seize upon a catch phrase-any catch phrase-because it fits their emotions. Such men do not judge the truth of a statement by its correspondence to reality-they judge reality by its correspondence to their feelings.
If, in the course of philosophical detection, you find yourself, at times, stopped by the indignantly bewildered question: ”How could anyone arrive at such nonsense?”-you will begin to understand it when you discover that evil philosophies are systems of rationalization.
[”Philosophical Detection,” PWNI, 21; pb 18.]
When a theory achieves nothing but the opposite of its alleged goals, yet its advocates remain undeterred, you may be certain that it is not a conviction or an ”ideal.” but a rationalization.
[Ibid.. 24; pb 20.]
See also EMOTIONS; LOGIC; MORAL JUDGMENT; MORALITY; OBJECTIVITY; PHILOSOPHY; PROOF; RATIONALITY; SUBCONSCIOUS.
Reality. See Existence.
Reason. Reason is the faculty that ident.i.ties and integrates the material provided by man's senses.
[”The Objectivist Ethics,” VOS, 13; pb 20.]
Reason integrates man's perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man's knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic -and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.
[”Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” PWNI, 75; pb 62.]
Reason is man's only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge-and, therefore, the rejection of reason means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality.
[”The Left: Old and New,” NL, 84.]
The senses, concepts, logic: these are the elements of man's rational faculty-its start, its form, its method. In essence, ”follow reason” means: base knowledge on observation; form concepts according to the actual (measurable) relations.h.i.+ps among concretes; use concepts according to the rules of logic (ultimately, the Law of Ident.i.ty). Since each of these elements is based on the facts of reality, the conclusions reached by a process of reason are objective.
The alternative to reason is some form of mysticism or skepticism.
[Leonard Peikoff, OP, 332; pb 305.]
[Reason] is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice. Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort.
[”The Objectivist Ethics,” VOS, 13; pb 20.]
Man's essential characteristic is his rational faculty. Man's mind is his basic means of survival-his only means of gaining knowledge....
In order to sustain its life, every living species has to follow a certain course of action required by its nature. 'I'he action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival.
[”What Is Capitalism?” CUI, 16.]
To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason-Purpose-Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge-Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve-Setf-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.
[GS, FNI, 156; pb 128.]
Reason is man's tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables him to perceive the facts of reality. To act rationally means to act in accordance with the facts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong.
[”Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand,” pamphlet, 6.]
There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions-provided he observes their proper relations.h.i.+p. A rational man knows-or makes it a point to discover-the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relations.h.i.+p cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their pa.s.sive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow-then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction-his own and that of others.
[Ibid.]
I have said that faith and force are corollaries, and that mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality. The cause of it is contained in the very nature of mysticism. Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding are possible. Why do we kill wild animals in the jungle? Because no other way of dealing with them is open to us. And that is the state to which mysticism reduces mankind-a state where, in case of disagreement, men have no recourse except to physical violence.
[”Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” PWNI, 85; pb 70.]
Man's mind is his basic means of survival-and of self-protection. Reason is the most selfish human faculty: it has to be used in and by a man's own mind, and its product-truth-makes him inflexible, intransigent, impervious to the power of any pack or any ruler. Deprived of the ability to reason, man becomes a docile, pliant, impotent chunk of clay, to be shaped into any subhuman form and used for any purpose by anyone who wants to bother.
There has never been a philosophy, a theory or a doctrine that attacked (or ”limited”) reason, which did not also preach submission to the power of some authority. Philosophically, most men do not understand the issue to this day; but psycho-epistemologically, they have sensed it since prehistoric times. Observe the nature of mankind's earliest legends-such as the fall of Lucifer, ”the light-bearer,” for the sin of defying authority; or the story of Prometheus, who taught men the practical arts of survival. Power-seekers have always known that if men are to be made submissive, the obstacle is not their feelings, their wishes or their ”instincts,” but their minds; if men are to be ruled, then the enemy is reason.
[”The Comprachicos,” NL, 227.]
Only three brief periods of history were culturally dominated by a philosophy of reason: ancient Greece, the Renaissance, the nineteenth century. These three periods were the source of mankind's greatest progress in all fields of intellectual achievement-and the eras of greatest political freedom.
[”The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age,” pamphlet, 5.]
Western civilization was the child and product of reason-via ancient Greece. In all other civilizations, reason has always been the menial servant-the handmaiden-of mysticism. You may observe the results. It is only Western culture that has ever been dominated-imperfectly, incompletely, precariously and at rare intervals-but still, dominated by reason. You may observe the results of that.
The conflict of reason versus mysticism is the issue of life or death-of freedom or slavery-of progress or stagnant brutality. Or, to put it another way, it is the conflict of consciousness versus unconsciousness.
[”Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” PWNI, 75; pb 62.]
If you rebel against reason, if you succ.u.mb to the old bromides of the Witch Doctors, such as: ”Reason is the enemy of the artist” or ”The cold hand of reason dissects and destroys the joyous spontaneity of man's creative imagination”-I suggest that you take note of the following fact: by rejecting reason and surrendering to the unhampered sway of their unleashed emotions (and whims), the apostles of irrationality, the existentialists, the Zen Buddhists, the non-objective artists, have not achieved a free, joyous, triumphant sense of life, but a sense of doom, nausea and screaming, cosmic terror. Then read the stories of O. Henry or listen to the music of Viennese operettas and remember that these were the products of the spirit of the nineteenth century-a century ruled by the ”cold, dissecting” hand of reason. And then ask yourself: which psycho-epistemology is appropriate to man, which is consonant with the facts of reality and with man's nature?
[”The Esthetic Vacuum of Our Age,” RM, 119; pb 128.]
I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.
This-the supremacy of reason-was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism. (For a definition of reason, see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.) Reason in epistemology leads to egoism in ethics, which leads to capitalism in politics.
[”Brief Summary,” TO, Sept. 1971, I.]
See also ART; AXIOMS; CAPITALISM; CONCEPTS; EMOTIONS; EPISTEMOLOGY; FREE WILL; HISTORY; INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS; KANT, IMMANUEL; KNOWLEDGE; LOGIC; MAN; MORALITY; OBJECTIVISM; OBJECTIVITY; PERCEPTION; PHISICAL FORCE; PRODUCTION; RATIONALISM vs. EMPIRICISM; SELF-ESTEEM; SELFISHNESS; THOUGHT/THINKING.
”Redistribution” of Wealth. If a man proposes to redistribute wealth, he means explicitly and necessarily that the wealth is his to distribute. If he proposes it in the name of the government, then the wealth belongs to the government; if in the name of society, then it belongs to society. No one, to my knowledge, did or could define a difference between that proposal and the basic principle of communism.
[”The Dead End,” ARL, 1,20,2.]
Observe that any social movement which begins by ”redistributing” income, ends up by distributing sacrifices.
[”The Fascist New Frontier,” pamphlet, 5.]
Whoever claims the ”right” to ”redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the ”right” to treat human beings as chattel.