My interview with Ayn Rand heir, philosopher Leonard Peikoff – PART 3
Steve Cohen: Is there a basic human need to be deceived? Do people seek out scenarios where they can be willingly deceived? Why would smart and/or successful people who typically are in control of every area of their lives be interested in coming to a “magic show”?
Leonard Peikoff: I absolutely disagree that there is a need to be deceived. The only people who have a need to be deceived are people to whom reality is a threat, in some way, and therefore they need to escape it. They may have some fear of dealing with the world. The most common form of self-deception is through religion, through inventing a supernatural power. People who need to escape reality, which is the essence of deception, have a terrible problem. That is not human nature. That’s a disease. And there are many very wicked people who are not just weak or frightened, but feel joy in subverting reality. Showing that their reason is invalid. Showing that they can get away with anything.
By “need,” I mean a provable requirement of human survival. You need food, you need a mind, you need freedom. But you certainly don’t need to be out of touch with reality. On the contrary, you need to be in touch with reality.
SC: Then why would people search out a magic show?
LP: To me, it’s the same category as watching a great hockey player or baseball player, or a pianist, for that matter. When you see a skill that someone has mastered, and are able to experience complete enjoyment of that skill, it’s a pleasure to anyone who values human life and human achievement. I mean, how many people in any field acquire that kind of skill?
I don’t have any metaphysical need to come see a magic show. If I thought that you were going to take me into a supernatural world, I would not enjoy it at all. First of all, I would feel fear. If this guy can suspend the laws of nature, then they are not reliable. They’re not absolute. Who knows what’s coming next? I could fall through the floor, or disappear, maybe disintegrate. Plus, I would lose any admiration of you, the magician. Because if you are a vehicle of the supernatural, why should we give you any credit? Why would we admire you?
There is an absolute, legitimate state called the “suspension of disbelief.” This is not at all the same as wanting to be deceived. If you watch a movie, and you see one person stalk another, you won’t call the police. You know it’s not really happening. On the other hand, it has a reality to you. It’s not just shadows on the screen. You’re pulled into it. You feel fear, apprehension. It’s a state in which you know what you believe, but you are suspending that within limits. That’s exactly what you do when you watch a magician. You know that he is not turning a rabbit into a hippopotamus. But you suspend your disbelief by saying, I watched it happen, isn’t that fantastic. While not considering that somewhere there’s an explanation. As soon as you reach the end of the performance, the audience’s disbelief is no longer suspended. It’s a way of enjoying one aspect of a total. But there is no element of escaping from reality.
Click HERE to return to Part 1
ShareThis
|
I found his answer to your last question very interesting. He draws a very (superior) line between those who are “reasonable” and those who are not. (especially with regards to the religious).
So here is a thought. Much of the world is religious or as he puts it:
“The most common form of self-deception is through religion… People who need to escape reality, which is the essence of deception, have a terrible problem. That is not human nature. That’s a disease.”
So knowing that many people who enter your show are irrational (according to Leonard), does this affect the elements that you put into play during the show?
continued…
Or does a performer do better to not try and convince that magic is real (much like a medium) but instead give the audience credit that it is not supernatural or ‘magic’ but a manipulation of their senses and of the tangible, scientific world around them? Or does this make it into too much of a puzzle? Is that bad or better? Does the audience want to pretend for a while, more than they want to have their world view challenged? Not sure how much of that makes sense.
I love the wit and skill of professional conjurors. The whole point of the performance is that the audience knows that there must be a rational explanation for the illusion, but doesn’t know how it is accomplished. We know that the rabbit doesn’t come from nowhere, but we don’t know where it does come from; we know that the lady doesn’t really get sawn in half, but we don’t know how she survives. We watch magicians because they are elegant, polished, and smarter than we are! Thanks for a fascinating interview with Dr Peikoff.
