My own criticism of Rand branches from hers here:
"Before you come to ethics, you must answer the questions posed by metaphysics and epistemology: Is man a rational being, able to deal with reality — or is he a helplessly blind misfit, a chip buffeted by the universal flux?"
But hers, both in the setting the context, and providing an answer in relation to an irrelevant context that is provided as a canard to distract us, and remove a proper grounding in reality from our first consideration, is a mis-statement. We know we are not on an alien planet. We know those strangers approaching us at a crash site are not aliens. We should know if our fear of them is well founded, or not, based on varying circumstances. We know, to the limits of what is knowable in science, how the world works... while remaining open to having our understanding revised by new information, while recognizing the nature of the boundaries in "what we know" is not defining absolutes. And we know, to much larger degree than utopians find useful, the nature and limits of man's capabilities, and the range in his behaviors.
Part of that awareness... defines a line between reality and fiction... that allows us to appreciate fiction and the conflicts in ideas it enables in virtual form.... without thinking we should opt to adopt its fictional premises in our governance.
Rand opines that metaphysics is the only proper door to considering reality... and it is there she joins with other utopians to foster the belief that the world can be remade simply by adopting another opinion of it... And it is that "sub-basement in premises" that prevents Rand or her Opposites succeeding in disrupting the others ideas... as they share that common failing... which both refuse to address.
Both are correct, of course, that within the realm of human behavior, differing opinions alter behavior. And that seeking to alter opinion, whether the opinion is grounded in reason or in fantasy, has impact in altering behavior. But that does little, in either case, to define "what should be"... or grant those with meta-physically derived opinions any unique insight into improving rather than degrading mankind's condition... by fostering pointless conflict. People are less rational than we'd like to believe, on average, it appears... but, those willing to ignore others opinions are equally willing to ignore detachment from reason, or foster it, in order to pursue their own vision... or that path to power in the absence of any real commitment to anything else.
Outside the metaphysical lens the extremes adopt... in a deliberate attempt to grant themselves more degrees of freedom than others in attempting to alter reality by changing opinions... there are other ways to approach ethics ?
The clash in politics ultimately emerges as a battle between realists advocating the practical... and recognition of boundaries (reality vs fiction, ethical and not, what works and what doesn't) ... beyond jousting with error, focused not only within the "range of what works well" but on seeking more optimal solutions... within the range of the practical, without going metaphysical in putting carts before horses in adopting "wouldn't it be great if" as anything other than fiction. That approach better balances competing ideas... without ever requiring broad violations of ethics... imposed by utopians, who deliberately adopt "wouldn't it be great if" as the proper, knowingly incorrect, lens through which they see humanity as they seek to perform surgery, or worse, to change what man is... in order to force compliance with their vision of what could (they believe should) be.
Not a limit there, of course, as lines are blurred, so there is always a reality in which both conflicts proceed in parallel... the utopians not able to fully ignore reality... struggle to attain practical balances that prevent the wheels coming off... while ignoring, still, cognitive dissonance that should be adequate evidence of error.
A proper analysis of "Is man a rational being, able to deal with reality"... requires a truthful answer...
The role of science fiction, in leading us to future technological innovation... is worth considering there... as fiction does expand, through faith alone, our self limiting boundaries in belief, and the expectations of the possible in result, that science imposes, in some cases... while fiction clearly remains purely fiction in others. Science fiction, in that role, is the expression of faith... seeking answers beyond what science alone allows by avoiding the limits it imposes in what we may consider... addressing and expanding our awareness beyond science's self imposed limits.
What the utopians insist upon, first, as authors of fiction, is that the answer to Rand's question, "Is man a rational being, able to deal with reality"... must be an unqualified "yes"... only with their faith not brooking any divisions between what the faith might have right, and what it has tragically wrong. The result is a transplantation substituting metaphysics for realism... faith for truth... science fiction for science... converting politics into metaphysical faith based fiction. In the degree evidence suggests the correct answer to Rand's question is not an unqualified "yes", rather than admit to the potential for error, they determine they must fix the problem... by insisting all the more that their own irrational metaphysically derived vision of "wouldn't it be great if"... is the only right answer possible.
And in the degree the politics do, or are allowed to, diverge from reality... and ethics... too much, we are all made to suffer their errors.
Which boundaries we are committed to fight to defend... thus always devolves from political conflicts imposed by differing visions based in fictions... to those imposed by literal violations of practical limits that are enabled by the errors made in pursuit of that metaphysically derived error in vision... as it is used as a justification in forcing change on others.
And, still... within the fiction based battles... practical struggles continue, between people ignoring the fictions and those distracted by them, while seeking to survive in Darwinian world... that embraces much that is not rational... in a competition that features strategies and tactics in games played... as well as ethics and rules... that are often ignored. |
