Reason as the Leading Motive

Men of Excellence and Society

Posted by Jerry on July 31, 2007

In my previous response to the mediocre philosopher’s attack on human excellence, I missed exposing a crucial inaccuracy in his post attributed to Objectivism.

Steve Gimbel states:

“The [Objectivist] view contends that human society ought to be oriented in such a way as to maximize the production of great individuals and that concern for all only causes, in a zero-sum game, the weak to be elevated at the expense of the great, an effect that evolutionarily has disastrous consequences for the species as a whole. The pivot of this view, of course, is this notion of great individuals of human excellence.”

It is after attributing the above inaccurate assertion to Objectivism that Gimbel embarks upon his attack on human excellence as a sign of “mental illness” and irrationality. From the view he has attributed to Objectivism, he identifies the notion of human excellence in material, financial, and physical pursuits as the pivotal notion.

Let me argue that–at least in my understanding of the philosophy–Objectivism does not contend that human society ought to be oriented in a manner that maximizes the production of great individuals, because this is not even possible. 

To be sure, Objectivism does advocate a society that will foster and encourage greatness among men if the greatness already exists. However, Objectivism does not hold such a seemingly naive teleological and determinist view of human nature and society–that great individuals are the products of a society oriented towards greatness; indeed, a society cannot produce anything beyond what its constituent individuals already are, since a society is nothing but a collection of individuals–be they great or mediocre.

Of course, a society’s predominant ethos, political situation, or cultural sense of life does have great effects on the individuals living in that society; however, whatever the effects, they are fundamentally dependent upon the individual’s own volitional response to his circumstances. Man is a self-made being–he is what he chooses to make of himself, and material or physical excellence is not the barometer of his fundamental moral worth or virtue.

An irrational man who chooses to abdicate the responsibility of his own existence and the necessity to focus his mind will continue to wallow in mediocrity regardless of which society he lives in–that his society may be rational and free has no bearing on his deliberate abdication of moral responsibility.

Similarly, a rational man living in a predominantly irrational culture, surrounded by mostly irrational brutes, savages, and mystics, can continue to choose to maintain the rational integrity of his own mind and can continue to pursue the virtue of moral excellence as much as is existentially possible to him.

The excellence that matters the most and has the most significance to man according to Objectivism is excellence in moral integrity, which is safely protected within a man’s mind and soul and which cannot be breached by any influence of even the most oppressive culture or society. This is most poignantly exemplied by the character of Kira Argounova in Ayn Rand’s We The Living, where she symbolizes the sanctity of the soul that is untouched by society.

In Atlas Shrugged, the moral excellence of Dagny, Hank, and the characters who go on strike was not the product of their society, and they defiantly refused to allow the irrationality of their society to smother their spirit of moral integrity, excellence, and commitment to rational values.

A great and free society does not produce men of excellence but can attract, foster, and encourage the growth of such men if they have already made the personal choice to pursue greatness. Remember that Ayn Rand was born in Russia–a most oppressive society of brutes, irrational mystics of the muscle, and a communist dictatorship. But she was attracted to the United States and found it to be a society conducive to her consciously chosen value of life and pursuit of excellence.

Similarly, some of the best minds of the early twentieth century came to the United States fleeing from the oppressive chaos of European societies to consciously pursue excellence in their fields.

The error that Gimbel commits here is that of an hierarchical confusion, most commonly observed among people with collectivist tendencies: they tend to forget that individuals are ontologically prior to society. One cannot have or speak of a society before identifying that an individual man exists. Therefore, to speak of a society that “produces” great individuals is to confuse the hierarchical order of things: a society is itself the sum of what its individuals are and cannot “produce”–based on its ideological orientation–great individuals external to those already constituting the society.

In other words, according to the proper order of things, a group of great men first give rise to (and constitute) what can be called a great society; it is only subsequent to this that a great society of great men can create a free environment that fosters and encourages further excellence.


3 Responses to “Men of Excellence and Society”

  1. Rambodoc said

    Upon reading this blog (and not particularly this post), I am transported to the days of my youth, when I was in college and I used to read Rand countering other philosophers and policy makers on very similar issues. I feel deja vu-ed! In a world that has changed unrecognizably in 20-25 years, has nothing changed in philosophy?

  2. Dan said

    Nice work on the post. Steve Gimbel is totally irresponsible with his argument. Setting up straw men and then knocking them down may make him feel outwardly important or validated, but it does not make him correct. The real question for him is how far his delusions go. Does he really believe what he argued against is objectivism or does he know that he made up a false definition to make his arguments try to hold water.

  3. owen59 said

    I am interested in the interplay that must proceed from the feature that, greatest minds will advance regardless of the status quo, that many great minds may well have been and be subverted or submitted to the status quo, that ordinary minds create a bedrock of stability of energy to support the whole, including the greatest mind (to greater or lesser extent). I think, at the heart of the democratic process must be an encouragement, a permission, for everyone and anyone to raise their heads, and, per force of a type of evolutionary process that includes scientific developments but also practical community philosophies, some are reduced and some are elevated, creating a thrust of progress, drawing the platform along. Progress in any field has ‘Buckleys’ if the social platform is left behind, and that requires a continual and universal education ssytem. I suspect a democracy is better at providing the larger range of greatest minds to the endeavour of advancement, than other forms of governance that we have seen in human history so far. However, the democracy itself needs to agree, and therefore it needs to be continually argued at the platform level, that elevation of the mind and recognition of achievement is essential.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: