ity. Nihilism and the unleashing of hatrednas the dominant responses to experiencenserved to eliminate personal confidencenin individual existence; not unexpectedly,nPeikoff discovers Freud and his followersnat the center of this antiperson,nantivalue morass.nThe half-truths that make such a viewnappealing must be faced squarely; however,nPeikofiFs credibility slips when henbecomes swept up in his own rhetoricalnexcesses which manhandle the subtlencomplexities of the events and the psychologynthat determine human behavior:nMan’s science, they say, requires thendismissal of values (Max Weber), hisnfeelings require the dismissal of sciencen(Heide^er), his society requiresnthe dismissal of the individual (thenFrankfiirt Institute), his individualitynrequires liberation from logic (thenBauhaus)—logic is oppression, consistencynis an illusion, causality is dated,nfree will is a myth, morality is a convention,nself-esteem is immoral, heroismnis laughable, individual achievementnis nineteenth-century, personalnambition is selfish, freedom is antisocial,nbusiness is exploitation, wealth isnswinish, health is pedestrian, happinessnis superficial, sexual standardsnare hypocrisy, machine civilization isnan obscenity, grammar is unfair, communicationnis impossible, law andnorder are boring, sanity is bourgeois,nbeauty is a lie, art is s[ 1.nIsn’t such reverse sloganeering annanathema to reasoned judgment andn9*y:nChronicles of Culturenpresentation regardless of its galvanizingneffect on certain readers?nWhat Peikoflf fails to attend to adequatelynis the fine line between reasonnand loss of faith. Because it is two-edged,nreason must be construed as a humannpower worthy of exaltation, not as a flawnwhich spells despair and leads to the kindnof antilife “solutions” so well documentednin the work of David Holbrook,nespecially in his The Masks of Hate.nPeikoff, however, is insensitive to thesensubde tensions surrounding the gift ofnreason and so he would polarize, rathernthan seek to synthesize, human intention.nAlas, even in America, according tonhis view, we may already have slid overnthe brink.nWe must, of course, resist the continualnerosion of individual authority bynthe state, but Peikoffs assertion that suchnerosion is solely the result of philosophicalnidealism is at best suspect. And hisnassertion is based on rhetorical strategiesnthat permit him to glibly attack Americannphilosophers from Emerson to Deweynand to see pragmatism as the intellectualndisease responsible for current welferentrends. The assassination of pragmatismnis eflSciency itself—guilt by association:n[Kant and Hegel concluded that] thenessence of mind, is not to be a perceivernof reality, but to be a creator oinreality. This is the heart of Germannidealism, and this is the heart of thenpragmatist metaphysics the truthnnnof an idea, according to pragmatism,ncannot be known in advance of action.nThe pragmatist does not expectnto know, prior to taking an action,nwhether or not his ‘plan’ will worknAristotle, and the Enli^tenment shapednby his philosophy, had held that realit)’nexists prior to and independent ofnhuman thought—and that humannthought precedes human action ….nPragmatism represents a total reversalnof this progression . . . First, action—nsecond, thought—third, reality.nUnfortunately, these concepts and theirninterrelationships are much more complexnthan Peikoffs slippery movementnhere would indicate.nAlthough Hegelian ideas have influencednAmerican pragmatic philosophy,nPeirce, James, Dewey and their followersnwere attempting a new synthesis ofnidealism and experimental empiricism.n”Action to thou^t to reality” sounds impressivenbut is empty because the realnissue is the relationship between knowledgenand action in which thought is thenongoing dialectical mediator, both initiatornand evaluator. We can’t know realitynin advance of some sort of test; however,nthe pragmatists hardly advocated anprogram of blind feeling action in isolationnof reasoned prior expectations asnPeikoffs characterizations imply.nieikoffs analysis of America’s “susceptibility”nto German idealism mightnhave been better served had he pondered,nfor instance, the experience ofnthe immigrant John Roebling, reputedlynone of Hegel’s prized students. Comingnto America to found a Utopian agriculturalncommunity, the reality of the Americannexperiment eventually took hold ofnhis consciousness. The end result, thenmajestic Brooklyn Bridge, celebrates thenvital connection between an aesthetic reflectingnpast traditions and a technologynpointing to the genius of future engineeringninnovations. Such achievements givensubstance to the claim of America’s destinynsoaring beyond the limited imaginationsnof sinecured bureaucrats.nThe clincher comes in the conclud-n