History: A Not-So-Random Thought
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
I always enjoy Thomas Sowell's occasional "Random Thoughts" columns. Their short paragraphs invariably are thought-provoking, humorous, or both. For example, in
his most recent
edition, Sowell has this to say about history:
If you think human beings are always rational, it becomes impossible to explain at least half of history.That's the truth, but in what sense? Is man not the rational animal, as Aristotle famously noted long ago? And what, if anything, does this mean about the power of rational persuasion to change the course of history?
Another figure popular among conservatives, Ayn Rand, spent lots of time considering this phenomenon, and has the following to say about why so much of the history of our intelligent species is marred by irrationality -- by men acting contrary to what reason would counsel:
There is only one power that determines the course of history, just as it determines the course of every individual life: the power of man's rational faculty--the power of ideas. If you know a man's convictions, you can predict his actions. If you understand the dominant philosophy of a society, you can predict its course. But convictions and philosophy are matters open to man's choice.Not to put words into Sowell's mouth, but it is too easy to observe the many disgraceful and horrific episodes history has to offer and come to the wrong conclusion about man's nature and, consequently, underestimate the power of rational men to change history's course for the better.
There is no fatalistic, predetermined historical necessity. Atlas Shrugged is not a prophecy of our unavoidable destruction, but a manifesto of our power to avoid it, if we choose to change our course. [bold added]
Time doesn't permit me to elaborate on why Rand has such an encouraging message, but she does a far better job arguing her point than I could, anyway. Suffice it to say for now that, while one cannot assume that men are always rational, one can still understand much of what they do and fight them effectively as a result.
I point this out because, as far as I know, Rand's view of history is novel and underappreciated by many of her fans and sympathizers. It is also something her opponents would probably wish never saw the light of day.
-- CAV
6 comments:
I don't think Rand was saying (or claiming to say) something novel, in stating that ideas move history. More like re-stating, and agreeing with, a common viewpoint.
Hugo's "Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come", is just one example. Or the apocryphal Lincoln saying to Harriet Beecher "so you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war."
RT,
Thanks for chiming in: What I said here is too sweeping, at least in terms of the idea that rational argument can change the course of history. That HAS been known for a long time.
I do think that she is at least unusual in how thoroughly she shows how that occurs and why we should care. For example, many intellectuals, especially among conservatives, explicitly write off "intellectuals" (or "ideology") as such, whereas Rand explains their role in causing a culture to adopt and carry out the ideas of its dominant philosophers (another class of individuals too many people see as irrelevant).
Gus
If you're interested, I expanded on my point in this blog post.
RT,
Thanks for doing that. BTW, either I wasn't aware of your blog or let it slip through the cracks when I made the blogroll for my latest blog template revision. Your posts will now show up there automatically.
(Click "view all" if it isn't on short list of latest posts.)
Gus
Thanks for doing that.
You're welcome.
Post a Comment