{"id":5966,"date":"2016-12-10T04:29:00","date_gmt":"2016-12-10T04:29:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/12\/10\/a-note-on-ayn-rands-misunderstanding-of-kant\/"},"modified":"2016-12-10T04:29:00","modified_gmt":"2016-12-10T04:29:00","slug":"a-note-on-ayn-rands-misunderstanding-of-kant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/12\/10\/a-note-on-ayn-rands-misunderstanding-of-kant\/","title":{"rendered":"A Note on Ayn Rand&#8217;s Misunderstanding of Kant"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"firstinpost\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">Ayn Rand has some interesting things to say about the German philosopher <a href=\"http:\/\/www.iep.utm.edu\/k\/kantmeta.htm\">Immanuel Kant<\/a> (1724-1804) in her essay, \u201cFaith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World\u201d (1960) in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/exec\/obidos\/tg\/detail\/-\/0451138937\/104-9154472-7756727?v=glance\">Philosophy: Who Needs It<\/a> (Signet, 1982, ed. Peikoff, pp. 58-76). Here is one example:<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"trigger\" id=\"sheeev09o4.4d\" style=\"display: none; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">&#0160;<\/span><\/div>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #bf00bf; font-family: georgia, palatino;\">He [Kant] did not deny the validity of reason \u2013 he merely claimed that reason is \u201climited,\u201d that it leads us to impossible contradictions [as opposed to possible contradictions?], that everything we perceive is an illusion and that we can never perceive reality or \u201cthings as they are.\u201d He claimed,in effect, that the things we perceive are not real because we perceive them. (p. 64, italics in original)<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"hidden\" id=\"heeev09o4.4d\" style=\"display: block;\">\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">Although the quotation is suggestive of Kant&#39;s views, anyone who really knows Kant knows that this is a travesty of Kant\u2019s actual views. It is either a willful distortion, or a distortion based on ignorance of Kant\u2019s texts. First of all, notice how Rand runs together three separate ideas in one and the same sentence, the first sentence quoted. We ought to distinguish the following Kantian claims.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">K<sub>1<\/sub>: Reason is limited in its cognitive employment to the sense world: there is no knowledge by reason alone of meta-physical objects, objects lying beyond the bounds of sense, such as God and the soul.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">K<sub>2<\/sub>: When reason is employed without sensory guidance or sensory input in an attempt to know meta-physical objects, reason entangles itself in contradictions.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">K<sub>3<\/sub>: For knowledge, two things are required: sensory input and conceptual interpretation. Since the interpretation is made in accordance with categories grounded in our understanding, the object of knowledge is a phenomenon rather than a noumenon (thing-in-itself). Since phenomena are objects of objectively valid cognition, a phenomenon (<em>Erscheinung<\/em>) is distinct from an illusion (<em>Schein<\/em>). (Cf. <strong>Critique of Pure Reason<\/strong> B69-70 <em>et passim<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\"> <a class=\"asset-img-link\" href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/.a\/6a010535ce1cf6970c01b8d244a175970c-pi\" style=\"float: left;\"><img decoding=\"async\" alt=\"Kant\" class=\"asset  asset-image at-xid-6a010535ce1cf6970c01b8d244a175970c img-responsive\" src=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/.a\/6a010535ce1cf6970c01b8d244a175970c-320wi\" style=\"margin: 0px 5px 5px 0px;\" title=\"Kant\" \/><\/a>This is a quick but accurate summary of central Kantian theses. The question before us is not whether they are true, or even whether they are reasonably maintained; the question is solely whether Rand has fairly presented them. Comparing this summary with what Rand says, one can see how she distorts Kant\u2019s views. Not only does Rand misrepresent K<sub>1<\/sub>, K<sub>2<\/sub>, and K<sub>3<\/sub>, she conflates them in her run-on sentence although they are obviously distinct. Particularly outrageous is Rand\u2019s claim that for Kant, objects of perception are illusory, given Kant\u2019s quite explicit explanations (in several places) of the distinction between appearance and illusion.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">More importantly, Rand gives no evidence of understanding the problem with which Kant is grappling, namely, that of securing objective knowledge of nature in the teeth of Humean scepticism. One cannot evaluate a philosopher\u2019s theses except against the backdrop of the problems those theses are supposed to solve. The very sense of the theses emerges only in the context of the problems, arguments, and considerations with which the philosopher is grappling.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">To give you some idea of the pitiful level Rand operates from, consider her suggestion near the bottom of the same page that logical positivists are \u201cneo-mystics.\u201d Old Carnap must be turning over in his grave.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">On p. 65, we find another slam at Kant, this time against his ethics:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">What Kant propounded was full, total, abject selflessness: he held that an action is moral <em>only<\/em> if you perform it out of a sense of duty and derive no benefit from it of any kind, neither material nor spiritual; if you derive any benefit, your action is not moral any longer. <em>This<\/em> is the ultimate form of demanding that man turn himself into a &#39;shmoo&#39; &#8212; the mystic little animal of the L&#39;l Abner comic strip, that went around seeking to be eaten by somebody. (Italics in original.)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">This too is a travesty of Kant\u2019s actual position. To appreciate this, we need to draw some distinctions.&#0160; Kant distinguishes duty and inclination. (<strong>Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten<\/strong>, Akademie-Ausgabe 397 ff.) This distinction must be made since there are acts one is inclined to perform that may or may not be in accordance with duty, and there are acts one ought to perform which one is definitely not inclined to perform. An inclination to behave cruelly contravenes one\u2019s duty, while an inclination to behave in a kind manner is in accordance with it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">Kant also distinguishes between acting <em>from duty<\/em> and acting <em>in accordance with<\/em> duty. One acts from duty if one\u2019s act is motivated by one\u2019s concern to do one\u2019s duty. Clearly, if one acts from duty, then one acts in accordance with duty. But the converse does not hold: one can act in accordance with duty without acting from duty. Suppose Ron is naturally inclined to be kind to everyone he meets. On a given occasion, his kind treatment of a person is motivated not by duty but by inclination. In this case, Ron acts in accordance with duty but not from duty.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">There are thus two distinctions and they cut perpendicular to each other. There is the distinction between duty and inclination, and there is the distinction between acting from and acting in accordance with duty\/inclination. This makes for four possible combinations: acting from duty and in accordance with inclination; acting from duty and contrary to inclination; acting from inclination and contrary to duty; acting contrary to both inclination and duty.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">Kant held that an act has moral worth only if it is done from duty. Contra Rand, however, this is obviously consistent with acting in accordance with inclination and deriving benefit from the act. Suppose &#8212; to adapt one of Kant\u2019s examples &#8212; I am a merchant who is in a position to cheat a customer (a child, say). Acting from duty, I treat the customer fairly. My act has moral worth even though I derive benefits from acting fairly and being perceived as acting fairly: cheating customers is not good for business in the long run. I may also enjoy reflecting on my probity.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">One can see from this how confused Rand is. She thinks that an act performed from duty is equivalent to one that runs counter to inclination, or counter to one\u2019s own benefit. But nowhere does Kant say this, and nothing he does say implies it. An act done from duty may or may not run counter to inclination. Either way, the act has moral worth. If Jack and Jill are married (to each other!) and Jill asks Jack for sex, then Jack has a duty to engage in the act with Jill. Presumably, Jack will be strongly inclined by his animal nature to engage in the act. But if he acts from duty, then the act has moral worth despite the natural inclination. The difficulty of determining whether or not Jack acts from duty or from inclination is not to the point.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">Again, the question is not whether Kant&#39;s ethical doctrine is true or reasonably maintained; the question is simply whether Rand has fairly presented it. The answer to that is in the negative.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">So I persist in my view that Rand is a hack, and that this is part of the explanation of why many professional philosophers accord her little respect.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">That being said, I&#39;ll take Rand over a leftist any day.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<fieldset class=\"zemanta-related\">\n<legend class=\"zemanta-related-title\">Related articles<\/legend>\n<div class=\"zemanta-article-ul zemanta-article-ul-image\" style=\"margin: 0; padding: 0; overflow: hidden;\">\n<div class=\"zemanta-article-ul-li-image zemanta-article-ul-li\" style=\"padding: 0; background: none; list-style: none; display: block; float: left; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; width: 84px; font-size: 11px; margin: 2px 10px 10px 2px;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/maverick_philosopher\/2015\/07\/sidney-hook-reviews-ayn-rand-for-the-new-intellectual.html\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" style=\"box-shadow: 0px 0px 4px #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i.zemanta.com\/352115834_80_80.jpg\" style=\"padding: 0; margin: 0; border: 0; display: block; width: 80px; max-width: 100%;\" \/><\/a><a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/maverick_philosopher\/2015\/07\/sidney-hook-reviews-ayn-rand-for-the-new-intellectual.html\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" style=\"display: block; overflow: hidden; text-decoration: none; line-height: 12pt; height: 80px; padding: 5px 2px 0 2px;\" target=\"_blank\">Sidney Hook Reviews Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual<\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"zemanta-article-ul-li-image zemanta-article-ul-li\" style=\"padding: 0; background: none; list-style: none; display: block; float: left; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; width: 84px; font-size: 11px; margin: 2px 10px 10px 2px;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/maverick_philosopher\/2014\/12\/clive-james-on-john-anderson.html\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" style=\"box-shadow: 0px 0px 4px #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i.zemanta.com\/319225022_80_80.jpg\" style=\"padding: 0; margin: 0; border: 0; display: block; width: 80px; max-width: 100%;\" \/><\/a><a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/maverick_philosopher\/2014\/12\/clive-james-on-john-anderson.html\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" style=\"display: block; overflow: hidden; text-decoration: none; line-height: 12pt; height: 80px; padding: 5px 2px 0 2px;\" target=\"_blank\">Clive James on John Anderson; Anderson and Rand<\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"zemanta-article-ul-li-image zemanta-article-ul-li\" style=\"padding: 0; background: none; list-style: none; display: block; float: left; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; width: 84px; font-size: 11px; margin: 2px 10px 10px 2px;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/maverick_philosopher\/2015\/04\/why-physics-needs-philosophy.html\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" style=\"box-shadow: 0px 0px 4px #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i.zemanta.com\/339245561_80_80.jpg\" style=\"padding: 0; margin: 0; border: 0; display: block; width: 80px; max-width: 100%;\" \/><\/a><a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/maverick_philosopher\/2015\/04\/why-physics-needs-philosophy.html\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" style=\"display: block; overflow: hidden; text-decoration: none; line-height: 12pt; height: 80px; padding: 5px 2px 0 2px;\" target=\"_blank\">Why Physics Needs Philosophy<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Ayn Rand has some interesting things to say about the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in her essay, \u201cFaith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World\u201d (1960) in Philosophy: Who Needs It (Signet, 1982, ed. Peikoff, pp. 58-76). Here is one example: &#0160; He [Kant] did not deny the validity of reason \u2013 he &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/12\/10\/a-note-on-ayn-rands-misunderstanding-of-kant\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;A Note on Ayn Rand&#8217;s Misunderstanding of Kant&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[60,270,175],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ethics","category-kant","category-rand-ayn"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5966","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5966\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}