It never occurs to such evaders that most of those others accept their ideas in precisely the same manner, with no more thought, judgment or knowledge than their own. When men attempt to evade the responsibility of thinking, they become the victims of an enormous self-made hoax, each man believing that his neighbor knows that the ideas they share are true, even if he himself does not know it, and the neighbor believing that his neighbor knows it, even if he doesn‘t, and so forth. Where, then, do these ideas come from? Who sets the terms and the direction of a culture? The answer is: any man who cares to.

  For good or evil, whether such a man is a profound thinker or an ambitious demagogue, an idealistic hero or a corrupt, man-hating destroyer—those who choose to deal with ideas determine the course of human history. Those who formulate men’s thinking determine their fate. The makers of trends, the creators of cultures, the actual leaders of mankind are the philosophers.

  If you study history, you will be shocked to discover how few—how very few—of these philosophers were profound thinkers or idealistic heroes. But this should not be astonishing: when men attempt to escape the responsibility of thinking, it is not the thinker or the hero that they will attract to the role of their intellectual leader.

  The old slogan of con men “You can’t cheat an honest man” is nowhere as applicable as in the field of the intellect. An honest mind may make errors, but will not be taken in. The trickiest sophistries of the con men of philosophy are impotent against a mind honestly concerned with the pursuit of knowledge. Such a mind will accept nothing until his own independent, rational judgment has weighed it and found it to be true. But the pretentious, half-conscious zombie, who wants to be intellectual without effort and who mouths fashionable formulas, with no idea of their meaning, source, or implications, feeling safe in the belief that some omniscient, infallible authority somewhere has proved them to be true and saved him the bother—is sure to be the victim of those whose purpose is to destroy the mind he has abandoned. An intellectual leader such as Aristotle does not seek blind believers and formula-reciters; a leader such as Immanuel Kant does.

  There is one paragraph of Hume‘s, a single short paragraph, which has been working like a paralysis-ray on the brains of ethical theorists up to the present time, and which I should like to quote:In every system of morality which I have hitherto met with I have always remarked that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but it is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought or ought not expresses some new relation or affirmation, it is necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others that are entirely different from it. [Quoted from A Treatise of Human Nature.]

  This, in terms of modem philosophy, is the issue of the “is” versus the “ought.” It purports to mean that ethical propositions cannot be derived from factual propositions—or that knowledge of that which is cannot logically give man any knowledge of what he ought to do. And wider: it means that knowledge of reality is irrelevant to the actions of a living entity and that any relation between the two is “inconceivable.”

  May 21, 1961

  [AR made the following notes while attending a conference on “Methods in Philosophy and the Sciences ” at The New School in New York City.]

  [Speaker: Noam Chomsky, “Some Observations on Linguistic Structure. ”]

  Noam Chomsky (an expert social-metaphysical-elite witch doctor):

  “Studies” should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

  Simple trees [i.e., diagrams used in modern symbolic logic]: is the manner of presentation always in mid-stream, assuming previous knowledge?

  Pure Rube Goldberg. [Goldberg was an American cartoonist who drew absurdly complex mechanical devices.]

  How many trees would I need to build in order to understand Atlas Shrugged—and in how many volumes?

  Is Chomsky trying to systematize all conceptual relationships in language?

  [Speaker: Paul Ziff, “About Grammaticalness. ”]

  Paul Ziff (a social-metaphysical hatchet-man):

  “If a sentence is ungrammatical, then native speakers balk.” [This] as a test and criterion of grammaticalness!!! (Stolen concept!!)

  “[There are] 7029 or possibly 7023 grammatical categories.”(!!!)

  What is the method?

  [Speaker: Nelson Goodman, “Commentary. ” This talk addresses the goal of linguistic analysis.]

  Nelson Goodman (a nervous, old-fashioned professor):

  The whole damn thing is an attempt to escape from or by-pass the issue of context and integration.

  [Speaker: Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, “Mechanical Recognition of Sentence Structure. ”]

  Yehoshua Bar-Hillel (a conscientious scholar):

  I think the hierarchical structure of concepts is what they need for their problem—if I understand him at all.

  All this is obviously a substitute for epistemology—or an attempt to fill the vacuum left by the destruction of epistemology; linguistic analysis had to lead to this.

  [Bar-Hillel concludes that] it is impossible, by present knowledge, to arrive at a unique interpretation of syntactic structures for use in computers. His reasons: readers use “context” (“they are not tabula rasa”). “The hope for a complete automatization of syntactic analysis is close to utopian.” They had the hope of substituting “redundancy” for context.

  He seems to be good.

  [Speaker: Hans Herzberger, “Kernalization. ”]

  Hans Herzberger (a voodoo or medieval witch-doctor):

  To “kernalize” a sentence is to break it into simpler “kernal” sentences.

  Arbitrary BS.

  A batch of undefined terms related to nothing—practically a total divorce of thought and language from reality.

  The time it would take to do all that would eliminate the need for a computer—it would take less time to solve the problem by one’s own nonmechanical thinking.

  May 20, 1962

  [AR attended the same conference the next year.]

  [Speaker: George Simpson, “Explanation of the Evolution of Life as a Sequence of Unique Events. ”]

  Prof Simpson:

  There are no laws in evolution (or in biology); everything is unique. After stating that no explanation is possible, since everything is unique, he states that we all have an “intuitive, instinctive feeling” that explanation and prediction are connected “in some way.”

  After all the modern BS, he goes right back to abstraction, via such things as “anterior and consequent configuration.”

  [Speaker: Colin Pittendrigh, “Evolution and the Explanation of Organization. ”]

  Prof. Pittendrigh:

  “Organization in biology is end-directed.”

  “It can trap the improbable and make it common.” This is a sample of the approach, of the method of speaking.

  “Organization is strongly history-dependent.”(!!)

  There could have been more than two ways of respiration—but only two exist, the “possibilities” being limited by “history.” Good God, by what standard? What do they mean by possibility of other ways?

  [Speaker: Ernest Nagel, “Commentary. ”]

  Regarding syllogisms: you will not draw any conclusion unless the necessary terms were “smuggled into” the premises. Example: You can’t deduce the age of the captain from the position of the ship. (Good God!!!)

  “Whether something is explicable or not depends on the assumptions which you are making.” (Boy, oh boy!)

  All of this is an escape from—or ignorance of—abstractions. God, what is left of epistemology?!

  They all substitute metaphors for concepts—like savages.

  None of them know what they are talking about and all of them are going through the motions. Anyone can set the terms and the direction.

  Undated

  Note for “Self-Esteem” “ (and Morality)

  The “able to live” and the “worthy to live” issue can be called “Darwinism” as applied to man: only the man who has made himself able to live is worthy to live—which means: the man fit to survive, can survive—which means: the intellectual (and moral) “survival of the fittest.” But observe the meaning of this, as against the “Spencerian” kind of Darwinism: (a) other species survive by “destruction” of lesser species (incidentally, not by the destruction of their own species, there is no such thing as “dog-eat-dog”)—man survives by production (not by fighting over the given in nature); (b) the human “survival of the fittest” benefits every human being (the “pyramid of ability”), except the parasites.

  All altruist societies create the metaphysical contradiction of: the man fit to survive finds himself unable to survive—because of conditions geared to the non-thinking parasite and because of the principle of penalizing virtue for being virtue. (This is the [key] for explaining the altruist’s package-deal about “compassion” and concern for the “unfit”—the unable or the unwilling?—their real concern is: “Let me survive out of focus at your expense.”)

  Undated

  [AR made the following notes while planning an article on “The Unsacrificed Self ”]

  Issues

  The sacrifice of material goods is only the last, and superficial, result of altruism. The basic demand of altruism is the sacrifice of one’s mind.

  To sacrifice material goods means to sacrifice one’s values—which means, to sacrifice one’s judgment—which means, to sacrifice one’s mind. (Give clear examples.)

  (Power-lust is the attribute of the irrationalist. A rational man wants to know the truth, to perceive reality, and has no vested interest in the subversion or submission of another man’s mind.)

  The basic motive of altruism: parasitic survival or the destruction of the mind? Both—since it is the same issue. Existentially, it is not so much parasitic survival (and, sometimes, not at all) as the “sense of life,” “pseudo-self-esteem” kind of search for metaphysical-epistemological vindication or “pseudo-efficacy”—for the reassurance that if one can destroy man’s reason, one can get away with surviving by one’s corrupt, irrational psycho-epistemology. It is the constant urge to get away with irrationality—in order to escape the anxiety of knowing that one is unfit to exist. In this sense—the “non-venal” lust for power (“obedience for the sake of obedience”).

  The dominance of anti-mind in world religions: Lucifer, Adam, Prometheus, Phaethon, Icarus, the Tower of Babel. Pride as a sin is always the pride of the mind, that is, reason. (Which means: the absolutism of one’s own rational judgment, the reliance on one’s own “unaided” intellect.) Superficially, people think that pride is some sort of moral conceit, the boast “I am good,” usually unearned. But it does not pertain to morality—it pertains to epistemology, as intended by the altruists. For mystic altruists—it is “the pride of the mind”; for collectivist-altruists-it is “the pride (or the evil) of independence.” (Observe how the second brings out the intention of the first, by bringing the issue down to earth. This is an instance of the mystics of muscle being the product and heirs of the mystics of spirit.)

  The need of all power-lusters for a “higher authority” to sanction their doctrines, either God or Society—the ultimate reason is that no man could get away with demanding the sacrifice of your mind to his; he has to be the spokesman of a “higher power.”

  “Under altruism, no moral calculations are possible. ” All altruistic-collectivist systems are guilty of the “fallacy of the stolen concept” in regard to individualism: they intend to preserve the values of individualism while destroying their base.

  (America’s subordination to the “underdeveloped nations” in the U.N. is the national counterpart of what altruism demands of the individual: the sacrifice of the power of judgment.)

  Non-objectivity-as revolt against the independent mind. The “tyranny of reality.”

  People do not want total irrationality or dependence. What they want is much worse: an independent mind who, in case of conflict, accepts their judgment above his own. (This is impossible, therefore the result is neurotics with switching metaphysics; also—the men who reserve their independence for their professions, but surrender their mind in everything else. Examples: Einstein, Frank Lloyd Wright.)

  The ultimate political-social result and expression of the sacrifice of the mind: unlimited majority rule, “democracy,” numbers (or the collective) as the standard of morality and truth. (Current examples: Kennedy, the Saskatchewan doctors.)

  The “frozen absolute” attitude toward altruism-collectivism: “What will you do about the poor?”

  Altruism is destructive of the mind of the giver and also of the receiver. (“It’s for your own good”—white lies, etc. Example: the universal tragedy of “self-sacrificial” parents.)

  November 4, 1964

  [AR was interviewed by the New York Times on the day after the 1964 Goldwater-Johnson presidential election.]

  Told on the Phone to the N.Y. Times

  “I am not a ‘conservative,’ but an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism. I think that this campaign was conducted very badly, that this is the end of old-fashioned, anti-intellectual ”conservatism‘—and that the advocates of capitalism have to start from scratch, not in practical politics, but as a cultural-philosophical movement, to lay an intellectual foundation for future political movements. It is earlier than you think. The status quo of today is a mixed economy with a fascist, rather than socialist, trend—and [Lyndon] Johnson is the conservative in the exact sense of that word. Today, the advocates of laissez-faire capitalism, which Sen. [Barry] Goldwater is not, are and have to be radical innovators.“

  February 20, 1966

  Possible Themes for Articles

  “The Short-Range View of Reason”: The people who claim that “man cannot live by reason alone” are concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment non-thinkers who have no idea of principles, wide integrations, fundamental issues, philosophy—and, therefore, who use their mind only moment by moment, on immediate, concrete problems. They have no inkling of a phenomenon such as a sense of life and no idea of the way in which mind determines emotions. These are the people who say that reason can deal only with the means to achieve values, but not with the ends—that the choice of values is subjective, mystical or arbitrary—that morality is not the province of reason, and there can be no rational morality. (If a man like [Ludwig von Mises] advocates this last, it is a sign of some enormous repression (or second-handedness) in the realm of values—since he is certainly not concrete-bound in his professional psycho-epistemology; if anything, he is “rationalistic” (Kantian) and inclined to floating abstractions. This is an interesting psychological lead.)

  “Sense of Life and the Primacy of Consciousness ”: Man needs a state of psychological integration—of inner unity and, therefore, full certainty. Uncertainty is a dangerous state for man existentially, and unsupportable psychologically. The truly unbearable uncertainty is uncertainty about the validity of one’s own consciousness. And since man never learned how to live with a volitional consciousness, how to possess certainty and knowledge without infallibility and omniscience—his most urgent need is the validation of his own consciousness. Therefore, in the absence of a rational epistemology (which is the only solution to this problem) man takes his consciousness as an absolute (uncritically) and fakes reality to fit it—in order not to face the horror of an impotent consciousness; hence, Platonism and other such philosophies. (This is the distorted element of truth in such systems—or the psycho-epistemological need which makes them possible. A great deal of conscious evil and faking for evil motives is involved in the authors of such philosophies, as, for instance, in Hume or Kant.)

  March 6, 1966

  Themes for Articles

  Psychological selfishness: the kind of selfishness that consists of constant focusing on: “What does it show about me?” (Which implies psycho-epistemological passivity, determinism, the taking of emotions as causeless primaries, emotion-motivation, whim-worship, the primacy of consciousness.) The “games” of double-meaning dialogue, focused on “beating” somebody—the focus on “impressing” somebody or “proving” something about oneself, rather than on facts and reality. In regard to art: the focusing, not on whether one enjoys a given work of art, but on: “What will it prove about me if I enjoy it or not?” (The paradox: enormous and irrational concern with one’s moral status—by a person who has given up values and moral sovereignty.) The irrationality of altruism on this issue: the advice to “come out of yourself” and “concern yourself with the ‘wider’ world,” which is equated with “concern with others”—as if the objective meant the collective, as if “others” had a stake in reality, but one did not, as if the withdrawal from reality into one’s own feelings were actually to one’s own interest.

  (This is actually the issue of “self-doubt-centeredness.”) [AR regarded the term “self-centered” as a pejorative, meaning, roughly, “neurotically concerned with one’s own worth, ” i.e., “centered on self-doubt. ” In her view, the virtue of selfishness requires that one be “reality-centered. ”]

  The issue of men’s unidentified best: The reversal of the idea that men pretend to be good in public, but are monsters in private (like Peyton Place). The exact opposite is true: men (I suspect, predominantly) repress and hide their best (their values, their honest or profound thoughts, their serious concerns), and put on an act of cautious, empty superficiality (and, often, moral treason) in public. The “lynching” spirit: the worst in men is encouraged by a mob feeling (and I doubt whether the best ever is—such instances as “public” courage are not courage).