Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
RickU and Objectivism Part I
In an earlier post I claimed that I was an objectivist with caveats. A commenter on that post essentially asked why. As the first part of my response I'll transcribe from the suffix of my copy of Ayn Rand's “Anthem”. The title is “The Essentials of Objectivism”
“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 achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand named her philosophy Objectivism” and described it as a philosophy for living on earth. Objectivism is an integrated system of thought that defines the abstract principles by which a man must think and act if he is to live the life proper to man. Ayn Rand first portrayed her philosophy in the form of the heroes of her best-selling novels, The Fountainhead(1943) and Atlas Shrugged(1957). She later expressed her philosophy in non-fiction form.
more below the fold
Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:
1.Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2.Epistemology: Reason
3.Ethics: Self-interest
4.Politics: Capitalism
She then translated those terms into familiar language:
1.“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
2.“You can't eat your cake and have it too.”
3.“Man is and end in himself.”
4.“Give me liberty or give me death.”
The basic principles of Objectivism can be summarized as follows:
1. Metaphysics: “Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are-and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural-and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.
2. Epistemology: “Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible). ***RickU's note – this is clearly not rejecting the form of skepticism that modern skeptics claim to use...They claim to be skeptical of based on reason rather than the idea that certain knowledge is impossible to attain.
3. Human Nature: Man is a rational being. Reason, as man's only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual's choice. “Man is a a being of volitional consciousness.” “ That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.” Thuse Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate , upbringing, genes or economic conditions) ***RickU's 2nd note – Remember my caveats? I'll be explaining them in a later post. Rest assured, this section definitely warrants one of my caveats.
4. Ethics: “Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: Man's survival qua man – I.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute.) Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: Reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man – every man – is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism – the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society. ****Rick U note 3 – I'll argue later, in fact, that there's no such thing as a truly altruistic act.
5. Politics: “The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force(RickU note 4 – I broaden this and will go in to it later)-i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense, and only against those who those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, I.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth. ***RickU note 5- again, this is why I claim caveats and I'll expound at a later time.
6. Esthetics: “Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgements.” The purpose of art is to concretize the artist's fundamental view of existence. Ayn Rand described her own apporach to art as “Romantic Realism”: “I am Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth.” The goal of Ayn Rand's novels is not didactic but artistic: the projection of an ideal man: “My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Reardon or Francisco d'Anconia as an end in himself-not as a means to any further end.”
***Transcripted (as stated earlier) from the after-word of the novel “Anthem”. Anthem can be found in its entirety here . Notes preceded by *** are not included in the original. Transcription errors will be corrected as they are noted/pointed out.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Ayn Randy
1) Metaphysics - There is an external, objective reality and we can come to some degree of agreement on it through modeling, observation and experimentation, but each of us will forever be confined to viewing that objective reality through our own little window constrained by our limitations and stained by our prejudices and we all know how hard it is to find people who 'do' windows in this day and age.
2. Epistemology: Our ability to think and make tools and our innate curiosity enable us to get a good grasp on reality but fully competant to know the facts of reality? That seems to indicate no room for improvement and I think there is a lot of that.
3. Human Nature: "Man is a rational being." No. Man is an emotional being capable of reason. The proof of this is no further away than the television or computer (both advanced technological devices created through experimentation and reason) which will display images of conflicts over imaginary beings and what they might have said one day in the distant past. The evidence is really against reason as the primary mover in human nature.
4. Ethics: “Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action." Well that might be, but like the speed limit signs on the highway you don't have to be driving on them long before you figure out how many people are paying attention to them.
5) Politics: Since human beings are social creatures I have never really understood why the word 'socialism' has become a pejorative. I would urge those who can survive completely and absolutely on their own without any kind of aid from any other human on the planet do so. But anyone else is going to be living in a society and those require certain behaviors. That is simply the way it is. As to the appropriate use of violence against other human, well recent scientific studies seem to indicate that we are violent by nature (i.e. brain wiring) and certainly that will need to be taken into account before crafting a utopia.
6. Esthetics: Let me be the first to say that I have never really understood art or why someone would pay millions of dollars for a painting. To me most art is a pale imitation of natural beauty and subject to the biased opinions of a regarded few who are ready to tell you what art is and what it is not. I won't tell other people how to spend their money but I will shrug my shoulders.
I could not disagree more. End? End? There is no END here. We are each of us part of a process. A human process. An earthly process. Change is constantly around us. If we have a nature then that nature is change. To speak otherwise is to totally misunderstand the natural world and yourself.
Finally got to read it
Thanks. This is one of those things that upon initial inspection seems great, but like you said facts are facts and I personally think there are a great many problems with this theory. I can't wait to read the next installment at which point this discussion should get quite interesting.
Thanks again!
In general, people rely on
This is being proven in recent developments in neuroscience. Check out some of the work by Dr. Antonio R. Damasio, for example. We're learning that decisions-all decisions-are made FIRST on the left (emotional, creative) side of the brain, then passed the right (rational, cognitive) side of the brain. We make the decision emotionally, then use our rationality to, well, rationalize those decisions AFTER it's already made. Our rational side may find it too difficult to rationalize the emotional decision and "veto" it, but if the emotion is powerful enough, we're capable of finding a way to rationalize just about anything.
Shite!
I'm the one who wanted to talk about this and I'm not going to have time to read this today. I look forward to reading this post and the follow up's.
Thanks, this should make for an interesting conversation.
Rationality and Initiation of force
Like a lot of great ideas, Objectivism is crippled by the problem of involving people. People being people, they mostly agree that they themselves are rational, but in practice rationality is often put to irrational or short-ter goals. For instance, a lot of people spend a great deal of effort rationally trying to prove that the other guy initiated force--when looked at a certain way. That way may involve any number of redefinitions to achieve, but it eventually gets there. Rationalization.
After all, that fellow with the nice gold watch might have been going to mug me. His intention was clear. I merely defended myself by striking first and am simply taking the watch as a means to deter further aggression on his part.
Relying on human rationality and self-interest guarantees a great deal of this kind of rationalization. After all, nobody ever made a decision that they could not, in some way, at that instant, justify to themselves as rational and in their interest.
An objectivist society would work for as long as it took for everyone to realize that their rational self-interest required them to take over running things, the better to advantage themselves. When I declare that I own everything, after all, anyone who disagrees with me is doing me harm and justifies violence in defense of my rights.
I'd need muscle to carry that out, of course. But I could give them a cut of my stuff. They could call me a king, and I could call them barons...
Steve "Hey, this sounds familiar" James
Waiting impatiently
Capitalism is an economic system, not a social system nor a socio-economic system.
Anyway, Objectivism , like it or not, is an excellent starting point for further discussions. Your introduction is excellent and I am waiting impatiently for the installments to follow.
How wrong can you get
There are so many fallacies and assumptions, it is hard to know where to begin.
Human institutions are, well, human. From the aynrand org site.
"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others."
Oh yeah, that is capitalism alright.
Also, Capitalism must have existed at the time of hunter-gatherer societies, no?
There are so much metaphysical whatever. "purpose" for example. What is "property" but a collective decision of human groupments. "property" doesn't exist in objective reality. It is just a convention.
She also says at the same site, "Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears."
But her view of Capitalism is based on her feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. In your above statements, "Men have the right to use force only in self-defense, and only against those who those who initiate its use.'
"the right". What does that mean? "Rights" are also a human convention. Human societies have decided on these to enable community living. So-called "natural rights" is an 18th century idea which has long since been abandoned. Read Stephen J. Gould for example.
Rand's ideas are mostly based on an entire misconception of the evolutionary reality.
I myself was enthused by Rand when I was nineteen or twenty. I also liked guys like Lysander Spooner and Max Stirner. I soon learned that life wasn't like that. Rand really didn't invent anything.
There is much more to say about all the details, but who wants to bother?
Tru Dat
No need to re-invent that broken wheel, eh?
Awaiting patiently...but red-faced...
Hey Rick -
I can't wait to take you to the mat on some of these points, but it's probably fair to let you get your entire piece said first. Wouldn't want to step on a caveat.
Just know: I'm watching.
A
Man is a Rational Being?
I have big trouble with No. 3 which states that man is a rational being. My observations of other people suggest that humans are capable of using reason and logic, but most of the time prefer not to employ them. In general, people rely on the immediate emotional/judgement results returned by their 'neural network'. In layman's terms: acting on hunch, first impressions, previous experience, prejudice, etc... anything except thinking something through!
Reason depends to some degree on understanding the rules of logic. It is trivially easy to set childish logic problems that throw most people. Once we get beyond 2 logical operators in a logic expression, most of us are lost to accurately express the meaning of the logic expression. The best evidence for this is to see the most appalling logical fallacies strewn all over any discussion forum on the internet.
Is Ayn saying that we 'are' rational, or is she promoting reason as an ideal to be strived for?
Thanks for the post!
I haven't been able to wallow in this stuff since I was 17! Ayn Rand was never one of my favorite people, but I think that's more because people I knew used her as an excuse to be assholes. Anyway, thanks for the refresher course in objectivism. It has its virtues.
Post new comment