Following up on my recent post skeptical of a strong formulation of the difference between philosophy and science, I've been thinking about the character of many philosophical claims, particularly in light of my current reading of Rand.
In addition to the readings for the podcast proper (which I'll post about within the next week, but I can tell you right now that we're covering these two books), I've been choking down as an audiobook The Fountainhead
No where in that book have I seen the word "objectivism," and in fact there's a very clear influence of the rhetorical side of Nietzsche, talking about Man's greatness and contrasting the Übermensch who breathes excellence with the "last man" who just wants comfort and safety without exertion. Rand doesn't use those words either, but according to Wikipedia, she'd originally planned to lead off every chapter with a Nietzsche quote. So it's worth asking in what spirit we should take that kind of talk by Nietzsche, and without going into the disputes in the secondary literature about this, I can say that as modern readers, the natural way of taking it is with many giant heaps of salt.
Nietzsche was one of Deleuze's main models, and Nietzsche's use of characters like the abovementioned (and Zarathustra, and Zaratustra's ape, and even the master and slave serve something like this purpose) helps in understanding Deleuze's notion of conceptual personae. When Nietzsche expresses values by creating characters in that way, it strikes me less like a shorthand or illustration of some point just as easily made through regular philosophical discourse and more like how a good novel presents characters for our moral consideration, as discussed in our Cormac McCarthy episode. Good literature will bring ideas about living to life; a fully fleshed out character is always going to reveal how ideas can't really be mapped onto people... if the villain is merely a villain, then the story is oversimplifying and not really taking villainy seriously.
Most of Rand's characters are very one-dimensional, and presumably by design: she wanted to demonstrate some particularly awful lines of thinking that were going on in her society at the time. The fact that this is intentional doesn't make it any less irritating to read, and brings up the question of what exactly constitutes a straw man? There likely were (are?) people Rand had met that were intellectually vapid in exactly the way she depicts her many minor villains (the major ones being the ones who see Randian virtue and are perversely against it; these to me are more obviously thoroughly Randian straw man inventions), but there's some quality requisite to satire (like, say, Catch 22) that is just missing here (besides not being funny).
In any case, as with any philosophical novel, we see characters expressing philosophical sentiments, and moreso than with most philosophical novels, we know very clearly which sentiments voiced are ones that Rand agrees with and which aren't. A few of the characters are basically heroic but are victims of an imperfect philosophy that makes them do irrational things, but even in those cases, it's crystal clear what messages Rand wants us to come away with.
And what justifies these claims? Largely, as for Nietzsche, something aesthetic. Rand praises what she takes to be the glorious and is disgusted by the low. Now, according to her ethics (which you'll have to wait for the episode to hear much from me about), these divisions are given right in the nature of Man himself, which is something any rational person can figure out. But it's obvious--moreso I expect given the cultural shifts since the novel was written--that these are not simply obvious to any rational person, but come from the same bullshitty place that much of what for people who haven't read much philosophy passes for philosophy.
For instance, at one point, one of the hero characters talks about the phenomena of people looking up at the night sky and feeling very small. He says that feeling is bullshit. Instead, he likes looking on the skyline of a city and thinking "such is the greatness of Man!" This is very obviously in line with Randian sentiments: Feeling small is for sucks; it's tantamount to calling yourself small and implicitly trying to drag the rest of us down with you into your tiny, unambitious life. Self-esteem is healthy and life-affirming for Rand, so interpreting your experience in ways that express this is also life-affirming.
I don't, however, see this connection between the two experiences and psychological health as that tight. Feeling like I need to adapt my emotional reactions to some externally imposed standard, chanting some mantra about self-esteem or somesuch, is neither necessary nor sufficient for good sanity, and both the experiences as described can be perfectly legitimate parts of an aesthetic, life-affirming attitude. To my modern ears, praising "the greatness of Man" seems pretty goofy, but that doesn't mean I'm denying my own agency or all the great technological advances that human civilization has made. I'm willing to admit that which experience might seem more authentic to me or another reader is largely a matter of the prevalent zeitgeist: the plane of immanence in Deleuze's term. Expressing and evaluating such images is part of the role of both the philosopher and the literature major, and Deleuze's point about how they seem like "mere opinion" when translated into stark claims for analytic dissection seems right on the money when applied to this case.
I've made this point in a previous rant about philosophic content in literature: the kinds of messages "argued" for in literature are often gooey enough that they wouldn't stand up to scrutiny in the way we analyze the arguments of Descartes or Kant. My position there betrays my basically analytic viewpoint. Insofar as philosophy is one of the humanities and doesn't aspire to be scientific, it too evaluates gooey positions, and Rand's version of Nietzsche definitely qualifies as one of these despite her claims to the contrary. The choice is not between cut-and-dried standards for deciding between them as would be the case in deciding a matter in logic or maybe math or science and "it's all good, man" lack of any criteria for evaluating them. It's instead a matter of making up criteria as we go, drawing on whatever we've learned from philosophical history and our own experiences trying to make sense of this complex thing we call experience. In this case, I think Rand is displaying misplaced obsessive compulsion if she really thinks that all virtuous people should eradicate the experience of the feeling of smallness in the face of vastness. Nothing about this feeling logically or psychologically entails a hatred for life of the sort that Nietzsche so raged against.
-Mark Linsenmayer
Neil Postman argued that a language-based culture is superior to image-based culture because one can communicate ideas only through language, but could only illustrate ideas through, say, interpretive dance or painting or instrumental music. It sounds as if you’re drawing an even narrower bound. One can only communicate (explicate?) ideas through propositional language, and that narrative or poetic language can only be used to illustrate those ideas. Are you saying philosophical ideas cannot be argued through novels, or that philosophical ideas cannot be argued through BAD novels.
Either way, your point actually seems reasonable to me, though it gives me pause in that it seems to say that there is no affective element to ideas (or maybe just philosophical ideas). Camus’ “The Stranger,” may or may not explain existentialism or absurdism, but it does illustrate the existentialist or absurdist experience. Is that philosophy? Or merely philosophical?
I’m actually reversing the position complaining about philosophy in literature from my earlier post in favor of something closer to Deleuze (or at least considering that position), that philosophy and literature both evaluate philosophical ideas, but do so on grounds that aren’t comparable to those used by science or formal, deductive logic. The ideas involve aesthetic judgments, essentially normative judgments about what does or does not count as psychological health, and judgments of which points of experience or history or sociological happenstance are interesting enough to be emphasized and which aren’t.
My point re. Rand is that she’s illustrating this Deleuzian thesis even though the pretense of objectivism is to argue philosophy foundationally.
The Virtue of Selfishness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness
“There’s a very clear influence of the rhetorical side of Nietzsche, talking about Man’s greatness and contrasting the Übermensch who breathes excellence.”
“Largely, as for Nietzsche, something aesthetic. Rand praises what she takes to be the glorious and is disgusted by the low. ”
“Feeling small is for sucks; it’s tantamount to calling yourself small and implicitly trying to drag the rest of us down with you into your tiny, unambitious life. Self-esteem is healthy and life-affirming for Rand, so interpreting your experience in ways that express this is also life-affirming.”
Great presentation Mark, except for the conclusion. I too feel that there is so much wrong about Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, but she gets the spirit of it, as your quotes point out, inspite of a rationalism gone wrong.
I listen to her intent in her novels, and am refreshed.
So, Mark, are you saying I understood your post to mean exactly the opposite of what you intended? That … seems plausible. It’s been a recurring nightmare of mine, since I started swimming in the deep end here at PEL.
I believe the contrast Postman set up was not between image and language, but between the typographic and the televisual. Typography compels linear and cohesive thought and television quickly subverts that. Shakespeare makes for good literature in print from, but he is meant to be embodied, spoken, seen and heard.
In any case, perhaps the Randian aesthetic-analytic point Mark is trying to make here could be furthered by looking at Rand’s own book on aesthetics? “The Romantic Manifesto” tackles precisely these questions and ends up arguing what you’d expect: that her novels are objectively superior works of art. Along the way she also proffers a method for determining what kind of music is objectively superior to other kinds – a soul-sapping enterprise if ever there was one. And she devotes many pages to the genius of James Bond films while consigning all of Shakespeare to a paragraph on what she calls “naturalism” — an inferior mode of aesthetics in her judgment. “Bond, James Bond” = good. “To be or not to be …” = crap.
Looking forward to the discussion.
I was using “image” and “language” in my post as shorthand for the concepts you describe. The idea that one can only communicate linear, propositional ideas through language (and not images, or music, or dance, or …) is a pretty close paraphrase of a section of Amusing Ourselves to Death — he expanded his scope beyond simply television in his following book, “Technopoly.” Also, he doesn’t argue that typography compels linear and cohesive thought — nonsense can be generated typographically — but rather that typography increases the probability of linear cohesive thought happening, because the technology makes it easier for that to happen … or as he put it, linear thought is a value of typography.
Yeah, I sensed you were saying as much — I was just reading Technopoly the week prior and so was primed to split hairs. Sad he passed before he could give us a full take on the internet, though I suppose “Building a Bridge to the 18th Century” comes close.
Karl–
“To be or not to be …” = crap. LMAO
Guess she just didn’t like Shakespeare in her gut.
I have the same problem with Joyce’s stream of thought which she also didn’t like, even though it is brilliant literature. I think we are in the world of taste rather than truth here.
Taste vs. truth is a distinction I’m guessing Rand would never allow … 😉
That’s for sure.
great post
free download of Ayn Rand’s “Anthem”
http://librivox.org/anthem-by-ayn-rand/
and
http://librivox.org/anthem-version-2-by-ayn-rand/
an interesting break down and analysis of Atlas Shrugged
http://www.exploreaynrand.com/1957/
I don’t know about down loading from this site but you can press play on the player and listen.
Awesome discussion.
Eternal Return
FF: The Philosophy of Nietzsche – Joseph Brisendine
http://www.nuttymp3.com/mp3/1620147
much respect
Curious post to follow the “uselessness of moral outrage” post previous.
I’d agree that her philosophy seems “bullshitty”, if that needed to be said again, but after listening to more episodes, especially the recent one on the purpose of philosophy, I’m wondering if “partially examined life” is not a euphemism for how to read philosophy and always return to your point of departure. It seems like whatever you’re reading at the moment can be flexed toward an anti-Rand position or some other generally unchallenging self affirmation. I hope the episode on her is cathartic so that you can move on to more worthy targets.
Hey Mark, you said some things near the end of the Deleuze episode regarding how to take in a philosopher’s work which really resonated with me in regard to this question of “literary” philosophy. Using Descartes and the cogito as a jumping off point you talked about how one could either attempt to see Descartes through his perspective–his personae–to see how he got to where he did, or by contrast simply jump to “what is he saying?” The former mode (which you described much better than I did just now) reminded me very much of what we can potentially glean from literature. When I watch Hamlet, for example, it is the empathic experience of seeing this character go through what he goes through, to see the world through his perspective. It is not to break down any particular character into shorthand for a proposition about the world.
If an author is writing characters merely to represent one-dimensional philosophical/propositional views, then we lose that opportunity to try on a full-blooded personae…and the work of literature is failing not so much on a philosophical level (those propositions may or may not hold up) but on a literary one.
Anyway it’s been awhile since I had a chance to chime in. You guys are doing great.
Thanks, Adam. Very well put. I think, though, what you’re describing is entering into the author’s plane of immanence (insofar as that’s even possible; it’s unarticulated, after all, so we can only approximate this by, I guess, being very familiar with his influences/historical circumstances/the zeitgeist of the time). The Conceptual Persona I think is on the contrary supposed to be for Deleuze not something we see through but something that animates the idea, giving it a full-bodiedness that you wouldn’t get from just looking at the claims w/o knowing who made them or (since knowing biography is not supposed to be the point here) without having some image conveyed by the stance of the text itself about who made them. I’m not yet sure whether I’m making a distinction that makes a difference…
certainly to the degree that one might (or might not) wish to give ‘agency’ to concepts/ideas, and or emphasize emergence/events this would be a difference that makes a difference.
On my view literature of the best variety – literary fiction – is inherently deeply philosophical in nature. It is philosophical not through conveyance of propositional messages – a la Ayn Rand – but through seducing the reader into looking closely at the world. The philosophy is not in the telling but in the efforts to show (on the part of the writer) and the thought that attends and follows the seeing (on the part of the reader).
What makes Ayn Rand-type “philosophical fiction” lower brow is that it is a relatively simple-minded way of conveying the philosophical through fiction. The artform is capable of something philosophically far deeper. Ayn Rand is the Hokey Pokey to Chekhov’s transcendental ballet.
Regarding philosophy and fiction, John Gardner said that if a character expresses a philosophical viewpoint, the author better not agree with it. That’s good and I agree but I would say it this way: nothing recognizably philosophical in a work of fiction should have a close relation to what is actually philosophical in the work.
It might be interesting to hear the PEL guys discuss whether and how they think literature that is not of the “philosophical fiction” genre is philosophical.
Paul–
To continue with the Deleuzian concepts of the previous posts, I wonder if Reality is the more common denominator which can be approached from either the conceptual mode of Philosophy or the affect and perceptual mode of Art?
Wayne,
I don’t want to try to talk about Deleuze, but I would agree that reality is something approached by art as well as philosophy. I wouldn’t say however that conceptual versus affective/perceptual is the way to distinguish the philosophical from the artistic mode. I think it would be better to say that art is (effectively) a branch of philosophy that has the affective and the perceptual as part of its manifestation.
While doing philosophy of art is an integral part of doing serious art generally, doing philosophy in a broader sense is an integral part of doing literary art. The aim of representing the world raises philosophical questions about how it should be represented, both conceptually and ethically. These challenges make a serious literary writer a kind of philosopher and their work a kind of philosophy. While much fiction is paint-by-number, and hence a trivially new variation on a worn vision, literature has the potential the convey new visions of the world, and this is philosophical, an expression of philosophical thought.
Apparently the Deleuze talk was unclear. I fully agree with ” literature has the potential to convey new visions of the world, and this is philosophical, an expression of philosophical thought.”
The epitomy of this would be to compare Thus Spake Zarathustra with Blood Meridian (same content different expression). or Being and Nothingness with Suttree (same content different expression). McCarthy limits his expression of philosophy in Suttree to one line at the end of the novel. He expresses a few more philosophical concepts in the voice of the Judge in Blood Meridian, but again, the main mode is that of experience.
Blood Meridian is a dramatization of McCarthy’s view of human nature (Zarathustrian) which is like being sprayed with agent orange and having napalm dropped on you to help communicate the hell of war. [War as Art and Philosophy ]