Jordan Peterson appeared on the Dave Rubin show on 11/9/2017 to talk about Ayn Rand, and the title of the 3.15 minute youtube.com video which I took notes on and lightly edited, and present below, is “Ayn Rand, A Good Philosopher?—Jordan Peterson.
Here is the video: Dave Rubin (R after this): “This is particularly interesting I think because when we did this event at Clemson, it was through the Ayn Rand Institute, and they said to us, they said to me, because I’ve done a bunch of them, we don’t, you know, do whatever you want.”
Jordan Peterson (J after this): “Hm.”
R: “They just liked what I was doing. They liked the free speech. They invited you on. They didn’t tell you to do it unless they secretly did. So, the question is, Dr. Peterson, I am very curious as to your opinion of Objectivism and the philosopher Ayn Rand. It’s the one thing I never heard pop up in your lectures, and it’s great that your back here with Dave.
So, you mentioned Ayn Rand briefly, but you were talking about a sort of the fiction writing. Do you have any thoughts on Objectivism generally, or the sort of greater philosophical part of it?”
J: “Well, I like the emphasis on individual responsibility.”
My response: Peterson the altruist does not much like rational egoism and individuality, so he posits that his primary or only use for individualism is that of personal responsibility--which is hugely significant but does not define all or perhaps even a majority of the individual’s opportunities and rights. Peterson pushes individual responsibility to see the self-suppressed, not just for reason of honoring the personal, moral obligation everyone has and must meet to be praiseworthy, the serious obligation to control herself.
I suspect Peterson regards individualism qua individualism as sinful and requires suppressing by the self to meet her individual responsibility to serve the collective, a responsibility which I mostly dismiss as beneficial least to the self, and, in the long rung is even damaging to social relationships and connections.
J: “You know I think that is very important and I like also (Her philosophy, Ed surmises) I think she was actually more powerful as a fiction writer than as a philosopher, and that’s not, that’s not a denigrating comment.”
My response: He hedges this put-down of her as a mediocre philosopher, but being a bit better as a novelist, but it is a denigrating remark, and inaccurate at that. She was arrogant, outspoken and domineering, but her philosophical genius was her knack for discovering and promoting the most vital, ultimate truths: individualism, proper self-pride, capitalism, democracy, rational egoism and Objectivism in metaphysics and epistemology. She found out universal philosophical truths and principles which escape many of the skeptics, nihilists, subjectivists, and anti-realists among professional thinkers.
She may have sounded crazy and acted the part of a guru running a secular cult, but she was insightful and correct more than she was not, and that makes her, in my opinion, a philosophical genius, a great mind.
JL “I don’t believe philosophy is a higher calling than fiction.”
My response: It is actually, but writing fiction is a high calling too.
J: “You know, it’s, it’s like they each have their own domains. I think my sense is I don’t regard Ayn Rand as a great mind. I don’t, I don’t think her take on things was sufficiently differentiated and sophisticated.”
My response: First, Jordan dismisses her philosophy, and now he is dismissing her fiction.
I don’t think spare writers like Louis Lamour, with little stream of consciousness writing, and little time spent on writing scintillating dialogue between characters, or little internal musing by the protagonist, indicates that Lamour or Rand is a writer of insufficiently differentiated and unsophisticated literature. Their literature, rather reveal its profundity through clear, sparse use of language, and the action carries characterization. I am not all convinced that Rand is a shallow, or second tier novelist or philosopher. Her prose may not be witty and pretty, but it is gritty, powerful, and stirring.
J: “I, like I said, I do think she had plenty of reasons to be anti-communist, so I certainly and I can resonate with her critiques of that collectivism.”
My response: So, does Jordan mean that he has a soft spot in his heart for other kinds of collectivism—a few years ago, he championed the individual as the sovereign, commendable Western concept. Which is it, with you, Jordan?
J: “And I like the romanticism in the books. I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged and I read it again recently. I enjoyed it again you know.
But, but I also don’t think it’s great literature and the reason for that she doesn’t place the struggle between her characters, and that’s a mistake, because even your most radical left-wing revolutionary is mostly not a radical left-wing revolutionary, right.”
My response: Collectivists of all stripes are sick, immoral people, and radical left-wing revolutionaries are the most cruel, vicious, sick, and immoral of altruists, be they fervent all the time or just part of the time at the most critical moments.
R: “Right, you mean it’s obviously home watching Seinfeld and doing . . .”
J: “Yeah, exactly, exactly, and, and, and so you have to show the struggle within more.
I don’t think she does a very good job at that. Her noble people are too noble, and her ignoble people are too ignoble.”
My response: It is not that Rand is depicting cardboard, one-dimensional characters. Rather, as a moral and romantic idealist, in her fiction she is identifying who is noble and who is ignoble in extra emphasized language and stark behavior. Her characterization may seem shallow and one-dimensional, but she allows each character’s personality to exemplify some ideal.
J: “And it divides the world too much into the bad guys and the good guys. And that is comforting and there is an archetypal element to it too, but it’s not sufficiently differentiated enough or sophisticated enough. “
R: “No, it’s interesting because I know if any of the ARI are watching this, they’d be happy to continue that conversation with you publicly, like that’s what it is all about, so that’s nice.”
No comments:
Post a Comment