To Whom it May Concern


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

[This is an edited version of a post to SOLO Passion]

Dear SOLO-ists:

I have been referred to as engaging in an "ongoing campaign against free will." That is not accurate. I argue for conditional free will -- you could have done otherwise than you did in a given situation, IF you had WANTED to. This is in contrast to the standard Objectivist concept of free will, which is really more of a KANTIAN outlook, and which I have characterized as categorical free will -- you could have done otherwise than you did in a given situation, PERIOD, i.e., EVEN IF you HADN'T wanted to.

I am no more against free will than Ayn Rand was against necessity in morality. In regard to ethical necessity, she said, "Reality confronts man with a great many 'musts,' but all of them are conditional: the formula of realistic necessity is: 'You must, if --' and the 'if' stands for man's choice: '--if you want to achieve a certain goal.' " (CVD, pp. 118-119)

Similarly, in regard to free will, I say: Reality confronts man with a great many "cans," but all of them are conditional: the formula of realistic freedom (of will) is: "You can, if --" and the "if" stands for man's desires: "--if you want to achieve a certain goal more than you want to achieve some other goal" (i.e., if you value a certain thing more than you value another thing). I think that, in order to remain consistent with her Aristotelian, anti-Kantian outlook, Rand ought to have defined free will as I have, as conditional free will -- not as Peikoff (in OPAR) and others have, as categorical free will.

I realize that it's standard practice in Objectivist circles to refer to Kant as a destroyer of reality, reason, morality, you name it, and that the effect of his categorical necessity was to destroy moral responsibility (CVD, p. 121). I think a case could be made that Rand's categorical freedom has a similar effect. If as Peikoff says (OPAR, p. 60), there is no reason or explanation for focusing, one just focuses or not for no reason, then all of one's actions (to the extent they flow from one's focusing) become arbitrary. Categorical freedom a la Peikoff (and Rand?) destroys moral justification.

However, in the interest of dialogue and mutual exploration -- you know, truth-seeking? -- I would gladly set aside such judgments so that some reasoned discussion could take place. But that presupposes people are more interested in discovering truth than being right and defeating their opponents. If someone wants to explore this issue, on or off list, I am all for it. But I am not going to engage in rhetorically heated debates...

I have also been referred to as engaging in "subliminal psychophancy," because I want to refer to my point of view as Objectivist.

For the record: I am an independent thinker, using Aristotle's and Rand's most general frameworks and methodologies as my starting point and method of operation. My resulting views are not immune to criticism (but neither are theirs!), so I proceed by checking my premises, trying to be sure my views correspond (reduce) to reality and cohere (integrate) with one another, and double-checking my conclusions. I consider myself an Aristotelian because I agree with his essential philosophy, just as I consider myself an Objectivist (or Randian) because I agree with Rand's essential philosophy. I am no more a "psychophant" toward Rand than I am (or she was) toward Aristotle.

You might think that it would be perfectly fine for me to regard myself as an Objectivist, since Rand has given several prominent statements of the essence of her philosophy, with which I agree in toto and unreservedly. Still, that is not good enough for some, because I disagree with the Objectivist (categorical) version of free will, which is not included in any of those statements.

Here's something to ponder: no doubt, some of Aristotle's original followers, were they alive today, would dearly love to pitch out the whole lot of the Objectivists who identify themselves as Aristotelian, being in agreement with Aristotle's essential philosophy (while disagreeing with him on various very well known Aristotelian views, such as his politics, his Unmoved Mover, etc.). Would they be right? Are Objectivists out of line in claiming to identify with the basic Aristotelian world-view? Or would the purist Aristotelians be out of line in being so overly restrictive and jealous of competitors?

My way of cutting through all this silly squabbling and turf-protecting is this: of all the philosophies out there, which one do my views come closest to? For nearly 4 decades now, there has not been even a close second to Objectivism. Yet, despite the fact that I agree with the great bulk of Rand's views, I am certainly not a Randian/Peikoffian Objectivist. Nor am I a Kelleyite Objectivist (as I'm sure he's relieved to know, if he cares). Nor am I a Brandenian or Machanian Objectivist -- or Neo-Objectivist, as they sometimes style themselves. I think it's perfectly fine to qualify "Objectivism" in these ways, but since I don't have enough of a name or body of work to justify attaching my own name to it, I suppose the best label for me is "Independent Neo-Objectivist" (with no insult intended to the others). And that is where I will leave it...

Roger Bissell, musician-writer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

You touched on something very interesting here that I have encountered quite frequently. Before I get to it, let me say that I like the idea of thinking deeply about free will and desire. Understanding the nature of desire is extremely important to both morality and psychology.

But here is what I have noticed both here and in other places. You, Roger, are frequently misrepresented. It seems to work like this. For example, you say "black" and then you are criticized for having the wrong opinion on color, which of course cannot be "green" at all.

Screeeeech! Whazzat? You said black, not green.

But the person will keep coming back to green as if you said it.

I wonder what leads to this kind of mentality. I keep vacillating between thinking whether it is some kind of honest monkey-wrench thrown into the minds of people, or whether it is is just a ploy to show off and trounce you - essentially misrepresenting what you say on purpose.

I was constantly subjected to this chronic misrepresentation on the old SoloHQ. Frankly, I still am in some places. But I have been avoiding engagements of this nature (well... sometimes I can't resist).

Even off line, I recently had an interaction with a person where I tried to explain why many of my articles were aimed more at "chewing" on ideas than trying to convince people to adopt a viewpoint (and thus follow me to a glorious new world!).

This person wrote a bit about something inessential or the other, then told me outright that I did not understand Objectivism very well, and then said that I ended up preaching the wrong ideas.

He just didn't get it. I ain't in the preaching business at all. I am working at understanding.

I said, "Black." And he said, "Of course it ain't green. You don't understand color very well."

For some reason, some people have a block in their minds against trying to understand properly. They want to judge strongly what they have assimilated poorly.

I did a study on this earlier from a cognitive/normative standpoint, noticing that cognitive blank-outs occur when normative thinking is relied on too much, i.e., when there is imbalance between identifying and judging tipped in favor of judging.

I can understand a person not liking something. That is normative and we all do it. What is difficult is to see is intelligent men and women completely ignoring something that is in their face or stating flat-out that it does not exist - all because they do not like it. Maybe it is because it conflicts with the jargon they learned.

Sort of like saying that Roger Bissell does not believe in free will right after hearing him state that desire is an important component of free will.

Is misunderstanding so blatantly a deterministic element in some people's minds, or do you think they can exercise free will about it? (Hmmmmmm... you kinda have to want to understand, don't you? //;-)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think you're on target, Michael. People often fail to acknowledge crucial facts, because they don't like those facts. In particular, in the free will debates, if a particular fact threatens certain other very important values, then that fact must be denied and the arguer for that fact lambasted, ridiculed, fallaciously argued against, whatever it takes to put them down and discredit their argument.

When Bill Dwyer and I argue for value-determinism, people react automatically as if our particular kind of determinism -- which is compatible with conditional free will -- is going to render objectivity, knowledge, morality, responsibility, and rights null and void. In order to "save the phenomena," we must be refuted! And what refutations! The discussions on Atlantis-2 list were classic travesties, and on SOLO not a lot better.

But note that value-determinism is light-years away from environmental determinism or genetic determinism (the kinds that really destroy objectivity, responsibility, and rights. In value-determinism, your choices and actions are the product of whatever you most desire at the point of decision. That goes for the actions in the world that we choose, as well as each act of thought, evaluation, reflection that we choose in the process of deciding what action in the world to take.

It even applies to choosing to focus. Do you want to focus more than you want to do anything else right now? (Including ignore inconvenient or frightening facts.) If so, then you can -- and will -- focus. That is why I say that conditional free will (can, if) and value-determinism (will, if) are compatible. That shows a way out of the never-ending morass between free will advocates and determinism advocates that is based on the reality of human choice being free to follow strongest desire and determined to follow strongest desire.

There is no guarantee that that strongest desire is based on a rational identification and evaluation. But you are free to replace that desire with a stronger one, if you desire even more strongly to review your thinking and evaluating and perhaps generate a new action-oriented desire to supplant the old strongest one. (Desires can't be directly replaced with others, only through new input of information and reflection, i.e., cognition and evaluation.)

You'll have to forgive me (please). I'm chewing. This is philosophy under construction. Not preaching.

And that's another point. As you said, you get reactions as though you are speaking as an authority of Objectivism, when instead you are challenging Objectivism and thinking out loud. They also react as though these posts are finished products, rather than exploration.

In a way, our posts are finished products, for (if not deleted) they form a permanent record. We are sort of committed to these ideas, unless we are clear to post a disclaimer with them. Nowadays, there is less difference between the published, printed word and electronic communication than there used to be.

No wonder (I'm realizing) Peikoff has given so many lectures (that could be books) and published so few books. A book is a commitment! It puts you out there on the chopping block. And an internet discussion group with archives is like a poor-man's publishing house. To your critics, anyway, who think you are preaching and spreading false Objectivism!

<SIGH> Will we get past this craziness? Hang in there, my friends. Please give me your feedback when you are so moved. I enjoy questions and criticisms -- but not debates. I'm too old for that alpha-male, testosterone-based head-banging. :roll:

Best 2 all,

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now