Throughout history, men were ruled by an alliance of the man of faith: the Witch Doctor, and the man of force: the Attila.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This television interview (29:43), conducted by Professor James McConnell of the department of psychology at the University of Michigan, took place upon the publication of Ayn Rand's book For the New Intellectual. It included brief opening and closing statements by her.
AR: I have held the same philosophy I now hold for as far back as I can remember. I have learned a great deal through the years, and extended my knowledge of details, of specific issues, of definitions, of applications, and I intend to continue expanding it. But I never had to change any of my fundamentals. My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive activity as his noblest activity and reason as his only absolute.
James McConnell: I suppose it's true, at least in one sense, that every novelist is a philosopher, but I think very few novelists have devoted the time and the energy that you have to the development of a consistent philosophical system. So let me begin by asking whether you consider yourself primarily a novelist or a philosopher.
AR: I would say I am primarily both, equally and for the same reason. My main interest and purpose, both in literature and in philosophy, are to define and present an ideal man -- the specific, concrete image of what man can be and ought to be. When I first approached the task of literature and began to study philosophy, I discovered that I was in profound disagreement with all the existing philosophies, particularly their codes of morality. Therefore, I had to do my own thinking. I had to define my own philosophical system in order to discover the kind of premises that make an ideal man possible. I had to define the convictions that would result in the character of an ideal man.
McConnell: You've made the point that leadership in a culture -- in art, literature, morality, politics -- must be provided by what you call the professional intellectuals.What do you mean by "professional intellectuals"?
AR: The professional intellectuals are, in effect, the field agents of the army whose commander-in-chief is the philosopher. The philosopher, the one who defines the fundamental ideas of a culture, is the man who ultimately determines history. The professional intellectuals are all those whose professions deal with the humanities, as against the physical sciences. These individuals carry to the rest of society the ideas that have been defined by the philosophers. They are the transmission belts. They are the ones who directly determine the goals, the values and the direction of a culture.
McConnell: Is this true in any culture? Would it be true no matter where you found them?
AR: It is true in civilized cultures. But remember that the professional intellectual is a very recent phenomenon. He did not exist prior to the Industrial Revolution and the birth of capitalism. Before that, man could not make a profession of intellectual work. The intellect had no tangible value in those earlier cultures. It is only since the advent of capitalism that man acquired the chance to make a living by means of dealing with ideas. Reason became a practical issue for the first time, reaching its height in the nineteenth century. Today, we are losing this value -- and it is the intellectuals who are betraying it.
McConnell: You think, then, that American intellectual leadership has collapsed?
AR: Yes, collapsed and abdicated.
McConnell: How have the intellectuals not lived live up to their responsibilities?
AR: By betraying the very premise that made their existence possible: the importance of the intellect. For decades the intellectuals have been progressively advocating the idea that the intellect is impotent, that reason is unreliable, that we can know nothing for certain. These are men who, proclaiming themselves intellectuals, spend their time denying the validity of the intellect. They are engaged in committing suicide. The rise of such openly mystical, unintellectual philosophies today as Zen Buddhism or Existentialism -- doctrines that cannot even properly be called philosophies -- is an admission of intellectual bankruptcy on the part of those who accept such doctrines. If a theory like Zen Buddhism, which originated around the fifth century B.C., becomes the latest word of the mind among a group of men, it isn't I who am condemning them; they have condemned themselves by their own actions. They have given up. They have gone back to the mysticism of the Dark Ages.
McConnell: Why do you think they've done this?
AR: Because philosophers are the ones who set the basic premises of the whole intellectual profession, and Western philosophies have been increasingly endorsing mysticism ever since the Renaissance. The Renaissance was the intellectual result of Aristotelian philosophy. It was Aristotle who destroyed the Middle Ages and broke the ground for the Renaissance. But ever since then -- while men were achieving incredible progress on the basis of Aristotle's influence, culminating in the nineteenth century -- the intellectuals, particularly since Immanuel Kant, were moving progressively against reason. The trend started before Kant, of course, but I consider him the crucial destroyer and the crucial turning point. He was the philosopher who tried to undercut the validity of reason. He did not really succeed, but his is the most skillful system of pushing reason off the philosophical scene altogether. To the extent to which other intellectuals accepted his basic premises, they have been moving toward a "noumenal", mystical world ever since.
McConnell: You mentioned Kant, and you mentioned Aristotle. Under whose influence was the world before the Renaissance?
AR: Before the Renaissance, the Middle Ages were ruled by mysticism. In that period, philosophy was considered a handmaiden of theology. The predominant philosophical influence was Plato, through Plotinus and Augustine. Aristotle's triumph began with Thomas Aquinas, who brought Aristotelianism back into the culture, particularly its most important element -- its epistemology of logic and reason.
McConnell: What in particular about Kant's philosophy do you think was responsible for the trend we see today in philosophy?
AR: That very cumbersome, very complex and very phony system of divorcing man's mind from reality. Kant declared that what we perceive is only an illusion created by some special categories and forms of perception in our minds. He allegedly proved that we can never perceive things as they are, which means that if an object is perceived, our perception is incorrect. Kantianism was, in effect, an attack on the whole concept of consciousness -- not only human consciousness, but any consciousness. It was a denial of the reality of our awareness.
McConnell: This brings up another point. In For the New Intellectual, mysticism is only one part of a trend you trace. You call the mystics the "Witch Doctors". But you also talk about the men of force, the Attilas of the world. How do they fit into your framework?
AR: Reason is the only means by which man can achieve knowledge of reality. And by reason, I mean the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. But reason does not work automatically. Man has to choose to think. Man can receive sensory data or integrate sensations into percepts automatically, but he cannot form abstractions automatically. Thinking is a volitional function of man's consciousness. But most men, guided by their philosophers, do not wish to think. They consider reason dangerous or impotent or too much of an effort.
Most human cultures, with rare exceptions, have been ruled by what I call Witch Doctors. A Witch Doctor is any man who takes his emotions, rather than his thinking, as his tool of cognition and his guide to reality. He functions by means of faith. He acts on the basis of blind beliefs, which in fact are nothing more than his wishes. On whatever level of the culture you find such a man, he is a Witch Doctor in his psycho-epistemology -- that is, in the way in which he uses his mind.
Since no one can deal with reality or with people on the basis of emotions, the natural ally of the Witch Doctor will always be the type I call Attila. He is the fiercest, most savage tribal chief, the man who acts only on the range of the moment, by means of his immediate sensory perceptions. He is contemptuous of, and refuses to consider, ideas, principles or abstractions. He deals with reality and with other men by brute force. Attila is the gangster, or the dictator, or the military conqueror -- or any man who believes that force is practical. Attila is any man who refuses to think and who wishes to loot and enslave others.
Throughout history, men were ruled by an alliance of the man of faith: the Witch Doctor, and the man of force: the Attila. The Witch Doctor provided the goals and the values for Attila to enforce upon the world. The Witch Doctor also provided the moral sanction. Today, we see the same phenomenon in allegedly civilized form, but the essence remains the same -- an alliance of a dictator, like Khrushchev, and his political theorists: the modern leftist intellectuals, who are philosophically Attila-ists. They provide an allegedly non-mystical philosophical justification for Attila's rule of brute force. I call them the neo-mystics, because they are as opposed to reason as were the original, jungle witch doctors.
McConnell: I can see what the mystics or the neo-mystics can give to the Attilas, but why do the mystics need the Attilas? What is the relationship the other way?
AR: The mystic's motivating force is dread of physical reality. He is a man who holds his emotions above reality. In any conflict between his feelings and the facts, he will select his feelings and will deny reality. He cannot deal with reality at all. His mysticism is a form of escape from the necessity of dealing with facts. Therefore, he needs Attila as a protector. He needs Attila to provide his material livelihood and to enforce his edicts on the victims.
McConnell: You said that each culture should have its philosophers and then the intellectuals should more or less put the philosophy into action. What about the role of science?
AR: Science on a wide scale is a very recent phenomenon. The broad achievements of science are the product of the Industrial Revolution, of capitalism and of a free society. Here, I must mention the third type of man who has seldom been the leader of any society. He has been the forgotten and exploited man of history. He is the man who lives by means of reason. He is the man who in his psycho-epistemology is guided, not by his immediate perceptions and not by his emotions, but by logic. This is the man I call the Producer. He creates, not only the material values of mankind, but also, and above all,the intellectual values. The first Producer in history, in this higher sense of the word, was Aristotle, the first rational philosopher. Scientists certainly should be Producers. They are the men who are supposed to -- and by the nature of their profession have to -- study reality by means of reason. Unfortunately, outside their laboratories, most of them are now turning more mystical than any other group of men. The fault is partly theirs, but predominantly it is the fault of the philosophers. Since there is no philosophical guidance being offered at all, many scientists are turning today to a Witch Doctor-type of mysticism of their own.
McConnell: What is the businessman's role in all this?
AR: The businessman is as recent a phenomenon as the intellectual. Before the birth of capitalism, there were no professional businessmen, just as there were no professional intellectuals. Both the mind and material production were enslaved by absolutist governments that represented various combinations of Attilas and Witch Doctors. These governments ranged from feudal absolutism to the absolute monarchies of Europe during the post-Renaissance period. The producers of ideas -- the teachers, the philosophers, the early scientists -- and the producers of material goods were men without official status and without a profession. They were at the total mercy of rule by force. It is only since the Industrial Revolution and the birth of a free society that a new class of individuals arose: the businessmen. They of course are the Producers in the strictest sense of the word -- or should be. And they are the greatest victims of today's society. They are the ones who have been betrayed by modern intellectuals. Both businessmen and intellectuals are committing suicide by destroying each other, and the fault belongs with the intellectuals.
The businessman has to use his mind to deal with reality. He has to study facts to produce material goods. He is the man who serves as the transmission belt for the discoveries of science. He takes the innovations of a theoretical scientist or of an inventor, transforms them into useful products and, by putting them into mass production, makes them available to all levels of society. The businessman is the one who achieved an enormous, historically miraculous rise in mankind's standard of living during the nineteenth century. He is the man who has lived up to the role of a Producer -- the role of a rational, creative individual. But the intellectuals have never given him credit for doing so. They have regarded him as a mindless brute. And, being afraid of freedom, the intellectuals have been looking, since the start of the Industrial Revolution, for some sort of Attila to protect them against the free market of ideas.
McConnell: You've been talking about the bankruptcy of our modern intellectuals. I know that your most recent book is really a manifesto for those you call the "New Intellectuals". Would you mind telling me who they are and how they differ from the old-style intellectuals?
AR: Since it is the current intellectuals who have declared their own bankruptcy by abandoning the intellect, the New Intellectual we need today is any man or woman who is willing to think. It is any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystical revelations. It is any individual who values his life, and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence. It is any individual who does not intend to give up the world to the Dark Ages and to the rule of the collective.
McConnell: This New Intellectual, then, is a fairly recent phenomenon. Have there been any of this type in the past that you would like to point out?
AR: I can name a few historical examples in the most general way. Aristotle is the man I regard as the first intellectual in history, in the best sense of the word. America's first intellectuals were the Founding Fathers, because they were thinkers who were also men of action. They were the men who knew that reason is man's guide to reality, that man can achieve an ideal way of life on earth by means of his reason and that man requires freedom in order to be guided by the judgment of his mind. They understood that men should deal with one another by trade and persuasion, not by force.
The Founding Fathers established, in the United States of America, the first and only free society in history. The economic system that was the corollary of the American political system was capitalism -- total, unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism. However, it has never yet been fully practiced. A total separation of government and economics had not been established from the first. It was implied in principle, but certain loopholes or contradictions were still allowed into the Constitution, which permitted collectivist influences to undermine the American way of life. Today it is practically collapsing. There is nothing left except an undefined tradition. The active, intellectual direction of our society at present is anti-American and anti-intellectual. We are going back to the primordial mysticism and the coercive rule of dictatorships.
The New Intellectuals are those who will stand up for two fundamental values: the value of man's life, of self-esteem, of independence, of inalienable rights; and the value of a free society in which men do not use force against one another.
McConnell: You mentioned in For the New Intellectual the right of the pursuit of happiness. Do you think this is very important?
AR: I don't know what could be any more important, if you attach exact meaning to the concept. The pursuit of happiness means a man's right to set his own goals, to choose his own values and to achieve them. Happiness is the state of consciousness that comes from the achievement of your values. What could be more important? But happiness does not simply mean momentary pleasure or any kind of mindless self-indulgence. Happiness means a profound, guiltless, rational feeling of self-esteem and of pride in one's own achievement. It means the enjoyment of life, which is possible only to a rational man acting on a rational code of morality. I couldn't possibly tell you, in a brief interview, what that code is. But those who are interested will find the explanation in my books, particularly in Atlas Shrugged.
McConnell: Do you think it's important, then, that we be guiltless in our feelings about this?
AR: I wouldn't even know how to answer such a question. To put it in my terms, I would say it is important to be moral. I would stress the positive, not the negative.
McConnell: Where do the New Intellectuals start and how do they proceed?
AR: Above all, they need an integrated, consistent philosophy of life. Now, to define or even to agree with a new philosophy is a long process. It requires careful thinking, because an intellectual will not accept a philosophy on faith or on arbitrary say-so. If any man takes this issue seriously and wants to become an intellectual, he has to begin by accepting two premises, which I call the basic minimum of civilization. They are not axioms, but a man first has to prove them to himself, and then his mind will be free to consider other questions of philosophy. They pertain to the relationship of reason to emotion, and to the evil of force.
The first premise is that emotions are not tools of cognition. A man has to learn to differentiate his thinking -- i.e., his reasoned judgment -- from his feelings. He must learn that emotions are not a form of knowledge and are not a guide to reality. Rather, they are the automatic product of his thinking. Therefore, the first thing any intellectual has to understand is that man must be guided by reason, and that it is only on the basis of reason that he can deal with other men. On the basis of emotion, he would have to resort to blind force, because emotions are unprovable. If two men act on the basis of their emotions, they have no means of communication. When emotions are put in their proper place, though -- as the consequence of reason, not as its leader -- then men have a common vocabulary. They then have a common means of understanding and a common frame of reference. And they have an ultimate arbiter: reality.
This leads to the second premise an intellectual should accept. And that is the basic social principle that no man has the right to initiate physical force. No one has the right to compel another man to act against his judgment.
McConnell: You have been listening to a discussion of the intellectual crisis in modern American society. Our special guest on today's program has been Miss Ayn Rand, noted American novelist-philosopher, whose analysis of the role of the intellectual holds this hope for the future:
AR: Those who will accept the basic minimum of civilization will have made the first step toward the building of a new culture in the wide-open spaces of today's intellectual vacuum. There is an ancient slogan that applies to our present position: "The king is dead -- long live the king!" We can say, with the same dedication to the future: "The intellectuals are dead -- long live the intellectuals!" -- and then proceed to fulfill the responsibility which that honorable title had once implied.