A metaphysical argument against objectivism

[Brant Gaede]

I believe that Michael MSK is off-base here on this, and in no way speaks for Objectivism, but only as a person who has been influenced by Objectivism.

I have never spoken "for Objectivism," and I object to what that phrase implies.

Objectivism is simply a body of ideas. It is not an entity. It is not a religion.

There are no high priests that "speak for it."

Michael

I guess I'm going to have to file for unemployment.

--Brant

darn

[Xray]

In this sense, in buddhism, one could say, that it really is fair that one is born smarter, and the other more stupid, since it is the consequence of results of his previous actions. (Howard Roark in the next life would be different from Peter Keating; he would have much more to start with.

Buddhism's premises contradict this assumption. For Roark's blowing up the building is an act of violence, destroying the work of many people.

Buddhism would also label Roark's as act as hateful. (hate is one of the 'three poisons' in Buddhism):

http://buddhism.abou...hreepoisons.htm

Buddhism teaches that harboring the three poisons leads to evil (akusala) and suffering (dukkha). The Three Poisons are lobha, dvesha and moha, most often translated as "greed," "hate" and "ignorance."

Lobha, greed or desire, is attraction to something we think will gratify us.

Dvesha (Sanskrit) or dosa (Pali) is anger, hatred, animosity, ill-will, aversion.

Moha is ignorance or delusion. The first two poisons have ignorance as their root. Because we see ourselves as small, limited and needy, we pursue things we think will make us happy and hate things that cause us discomfort.

Yeah, he destroyed their work destroying his work--and they got paid too boot. Gimme a break! You come up with a better climax then criticize Rand literarily. Everything else in the context of her great novel is petty and uninteresting bs.

--Brant

bombs away!

My # 19 post post was not about my personal critique of an action (Roark's blowing up the building).

It was about correcting a wrong premise by poster samr who argued that, according to Buddhism, Roark would have been been upgraded in his next reincarnation.

But since the act Roark committed would qualify, by Buddhist standards, as an act of violent destruction, Roark would have "blown it" (pun intended) regarding his next incarnation and have been downgraded instead. That was my point.

[Xray]

Michael,

I don't think that saying the nature of man is "both individual and social" really means anything. It is just a contradiction.

Is no contradiction but a statement of undisputed fact. "Both - and" scenarios need not be contradictory at all

Example: a man can be both a father and a brother. No contradiction there.

You only get a contradiction in cases where a "both - and" scenario contains incompatible components.

Example: if Mom thinks little Susie took the last cookie from the jar, Susie cannot have both taken it and not have taken it. Either she took it or she didn't.

As for stating that the nature of man is both individual and social, it refers to the fact that we are group beings, but that we, as opposed to lesser brain-devoloped group beings, have a lot more scope when it comes to individual choice.

But group beings we remain, regardless of whether we decide to go against group pressure in some instances.

The mental act alone in e. g. weighing the pros and cons would reflect group consciousness, and the result of our decisions in turn will affect the various groups we belong to (private, professional, public, etc.).

[studiodekadent]

Even so, if man is metaphyscially (primarily) a social animal, then the basis for selfishness is... what?

Altruism is based on the idea that man is primarily a social animal.

Egoism is based on the idea that man is primarily an individum.

You are making a significant error here.

Your definition of "altruism" is much, MUCH softer than Rand's.

I accept that you're right about one thing; we're born into the world in a state where our survival basically depends upon other people. That is correct. But does that mean we are metaphysically social animals?

Certainly, humans have evolved as social animals. So I guess you could fairly say human nature greatly benefits from (and requires, in the sense of infants) social existence.

BUT.

"Altruism" and "Egoism" isn't "society" vs. "being completely isolated and alone and never talking to or interacting with anyone else."

"Altruism" in the sense Rand used the term is Auguste Comte's Altruism. This is the idea that an action is good IF the ultimate end of that action is the benefit of others. This means that individuals are only moral if they make other people the ultimate end of their actions.

This is a FAR stronger claim than "humans are social animals."

Of course we are social animals. Social means by nature we gain benefit from interacting with each other. That's obviously true.

But how does this necessitate Comtean Altruism?

The short answer is that it doesn't.

We are social animals. But we are not herd animals. Nor are we pack animals.

"Egoism" is not a refusal to be social. Egoism is the belief that the ultimate end for any agent should be that agent's benefit.

This often makes sociality, benevolence and togetherness necessary.

[studiodekadent]

I don't think that saying the nature of man is "both individual and social" really means anything. It is just a contradiction.

It isn't a contradiction.

"Social" presupposes individuals to be social.

Man MUST be individual in order to socialize (and hence, be social).

Your definition of "individual" and your definition of "social" are bizarre.

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't think that saying the nature of man is "both individual and social" really means anything. It is just a contradiction.

It isn't a contradiction.

"Social" presupposes individuals to be social.

Man MUST be individual in order to socialize (and hence, be social).

Your definition of "individual" and your definition of "social" are bizarre.

Man is a social animal, not a hive animal or a herd animal.

Humans never come into this world alone. In order to survive they need at least one nurturing adult.

Cases of purely feral children are so rare as to be negligible. We are not atomic beings, we are family folk.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

I believe that Michael MSK is off-base here on this, and in no way speaks for Objectivism, but only as a person who has been influenced by Objectivism.

I have never spoken "for Objectivism," and I object to what that phrase implies. Objectivism is simply a body of ideas. It is not an entity. It is not a religion. There are no high priests that "speak for it." Michael

That is not entirely true, Michael. We might find contradictory statements or intentions in the words of Ayn Rand. We might show deviations from previous publications in newer works by recognized Objectivists such as Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley, Diana Hsieh, Robert Campbell, Andrew Bissell, et al. Your gloss about high priests does not do justice to the nuance of understanding. Is there such a thing as "Marxism"? Who speaks for it? Can I claim that as an advocate of laissez faire I am a Marxist? Some strict historicists, indeed, did want to bring Russia and China first into the capitalist industrial age before going forward to socialism. But to advance that variant today would only be confusing.

So, too, was your statement personal, not canonic. My statement was based on literature from the recognized body of Objectivism. I cited my sources. You spoke only from your own viewpoint. That's fine. But the question was not "What do you believe?" but "A metaphysical argument against Objectivism." So, from my point of view, you can say whatever you want, but you did not offer "a metaphysical argument for Objectivism." You have a right to your own opinion. You do not have a right to your own facts. The facts are found in a recognizable body of publications.

I certainly do offer different solutions to the problems of crime and war than those advocated by the later Ayn Rand and most of the self-defined Objectivists today. But I would never attempt to pass my own views off in answer to, say, "a political argument against Objectivism." As an Objectivist myself, I understand and appreciate the need to differentiate new ideas from the canonical texts. Again, the same standard would apply to Logical Positivism, Existentialism, or even baseball. (When I was a kid, we played ball in a narrow alley. We made up new rules. But we did not pretend that "no one speaks for baseball" so any Major League game could be played by any convenient amendments before, during, or after a game.)

I don't see the contradiction in claiming that man is rational animal and a social animal at the same time, especially since "social" is an inherent part of the genus "animal" (herding, flocking, mating, etc.) ...

Mating is not flocking, though they can sound the same, as when then one shepherd said to the other, "Let's get the flock out of here." Not all animals are social. Ever see a flock of eagles or a herd of cats or a school of sharks?

Human evolution was complicated by our brains. Learning to survive on the glaciers rewarded smaller tribes, nuclear families, and even lone individuals. Before we were apes, we were monkeys. That part of us certainly came back when we invented cities. Over the last 10,000 years the rewards may well have been reinforced through epigenetic mechanisms. (See Wikipedia here and PBS Nova here. Scientists may have found the mechanism whereby environment including our lifestyle choices affect our heredity.) But "social" is not a necessary attribute of "animal."

On that note, though, I did see where you cited a later editiion of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and you were not satisfied with the presentation. I recognize that as a valid observation within the context of Objectivist philosophy.

[john42t]

I think that you can speak of individualism vs. collectivism as a world-view. In that sense, they are ideal types.

And, I think that to every world-view, there should be some basic element of nature that identifies it. First-principles.

So, as a world-view, is man primarily an individual or a social being? Independent or dependent? His brain seems to suggest the first, but the fact that he can't survive alone.

The social in social animal belongs conceptually to indvidiualism.

The social in social democracy belongs conceptually to collectivism.

There's a reason why the mystics destroyed language.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That is not entirely true, Michael.

Michael,

I always get amused when I go after the subtext and get a lot of verbiage in response.

Let's take the covers off, shall we?

I don't seek converts to "Objectivism" (qua religion that no one is not supposed to call a religion).

I suspect you do.

From my perspective, contrary to your comment, my observation actually is entirely true. No one "speaks" for a body of ideas. Some people know the canon better than others, so they have the same kind of authority a college professor might have for a math topic. But that's as far as it goes.

I see your point, though, if I were engaged in the subtext--say, seeking converts to Objectivism or new meat for a collective movement.

My thing is to encourage people to think through things for themselves.

With...

their...

own...

minds.

I trust the mind of the individual independent thinker. Such a person honestly seeks his or her own values, not those of a worshiping collective. I feel good and safe around such a person. In my experience, meaning the people I have known, this kind of person has the best character, the greatest sense of fairness, and the least measure of malice than any movement follower I have come across.

From the other end, some of the "Objectivist movement" people I have known and read (I call the worst ones the Objectivist collectivists) are some of the most petty, whining, snarky, pompous, dogmatic and backstabbing people I have ever encountered. Bill O'Reilly once made an offhand comment that I have found to be true over my entire life. If you consort with fanatics, the day will come when at least one of them will turn on you--and turn in a really nasty way--over ideology. That always happens.

I know that stings the inner preacher in some folks, but I don't care.

It's great if newbies learn the Objectivist canon and get it right. Getting it right is important to me. (I claim that one cannot properly evaluate what one does not correctly identify. That's a radical thought, I know. ) When Rand was on top of her game, she was brilliant. I believe her best work and ideas belong among mankind's greatest treasures. But you can only see her true brilliance if you understand her correctly, both the good and the bad. Otherwise, you get cheap glitter reflected off a blemished surface. So you will often find me conflicting with people--usually Rand bashers, but not always--who insist on being inaccurate about what Rand said or meant.

Anyway, getting it right is the great part. It's not so great if newbies turn their brains off by adopting--as their default positions--the views of someone who "speaks" for Objectivism. Actually, I misspoke. It's horrible.

This is the reason for my objection. Those kinds of people make me shudder.

It's funny how my post is a lot of verbiage, too.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, though. I am trying to allow newbies enough intellectual breathing space to think through things. I sometimes find that necessary when I detect authority and peer pressure psychological triggers being used.

I guess my main message to them is: It's OK to get it wrong while you are working on getting it right.

As the saying goes, fail fast and fail often. It's better be wrong with your own mind than right with someone else's. (We already know it's great to be right with your own mind.)

If you believe Objectivism is heartless, irrational, etc., probe that and don't deny it to yourself. Look at the literature, discuss it and question everything. Get your values from choices that you think through and agree with all the way down to your gut, not from predigested pap someone hands to you.

Once again, I trust the honest independent thinker, even when I disagree with that person. I don't trust anyone who claims to "speak" for Objectivism.

I've seen them wreak too much gratuitous damage on sincere honest people to respect them.

Michael

[samr]

I think that in most everyday uses of the term social it does imply something not individualistic. I try to use "friendly" instead. Man can be a friendly "animal", but not a social one.

[john42t]

I think that in most everyday uses of the term social it does imply something not individualistic. I try to use "friendly" instead. Man can be a friendly "animal", but not a social one.

Yes, the everyday meaning is the collectivist one.

[EDIT: This fact alone is an example of neo-mystical corruption - you can't argue indvidualism any more without sounding like a loner.]

[Xray]

I think that in most everyday uses of the term social it does imply something not individualistic. I try to use "friendly" instead. Man can be a friendly "animal", but not a social one.

Being friendly is a social action. As is being benevolent toward others.

I have the impression that the mere mentioning of the term "social" can produce almost allergic-like reactions.

This reaction seems to be rooted in a personal value system where the term 'social' is immediately connoted with 'socialism', 'collectivism' and the like.

But if, in a discussion, one's connotation with a term overlays its denotation, this can impair objectivity.

John: The social in social animal belongs conceptually to indvidiualism.

No, it doesn't .

For if you test this premise of yours, you get the result that all social animals are also individualists. Since this is not the case, the premise must be wrong.

[john42t]

The social in social animal belongs conceptually to indvidiualism.

No, it doesn't .

For if you test this premise of yours, you get the result that all social animals are also individualists. Since this is not the case, the premise must be wrong.

Which social animals (except the *eu*social ones, which I don't think you meant) are not individualists?

They are all pursuing their *own* values, sacrifice only happens in the case of kin-selection, which, apart from eusocial species, is almost entirely directed towards offspring.

The kind of tribalist sacrifice that human beings show, to identify with the clan, the city or the state, is a phenomenon non-human animals don't show. Non-human animals are (eusocials excluded) truly individualist.

The confusion is between individualist in the Randian sense (pursuing ones values) and individualist in the mystical sense (loners). Would you say that Merekats are less individualist than eagles? If that's the case, it just shows that the mystics have attacked the right concepts: I can't even communicate with you properly.

I'm pretty Randroid in the sense that I think it's all about concepts and mystical corruption thereof. In a clean, well-defined language none of these things would be worth talking about.

[Xray]

The social in social animal belongs conceptually to indvidiualism.

No, it doesn't .

For if you test this premise of yours, you get the result that all social animals are also individualists. Since this is not the case, the premise must be wrong.

Which social animals (except the *eu*social ones, which I don't think you meant) are not individualists?

'Social animals' includes all animals living in social structures, i. e. also ants, bees, etc.

[john42t]

'Social animals' includes all animals living in social structures, i. e. also ants, bees, etc.

That's why I excluded the eusocial ones to make it clear what I mean.

[studiodekadent]

I think that in most everyday uses of the term social it does imply something not individualistic.

Only because Individualism's haters have deliberately distorted what "individualistic" and "social" actually mean.

[syrakusos]

'Social animals' includes all animals living in social structures, i. e. also ants, bees, etc.

That's why I excluded the eusocial ones to make it clear what I mean.

It was not clear at all as you did not provide examples. I had to look up "eusocial." It refers specifically to ants, bees, etc.

• Reproductive division of labor (with or without sterile castes)
  
• Overlapping generations
  
• Cooperative care of young
  

(Wikipedia here.) That would apply to insects. I do not see that it applies to sheep. It certainly does not apply to eagles, cats, and sharks, who are genetic individualists.

... Mating is not flocking, though they can sound the same, as when then one shepherd said to the other, "Let's get the flock out of here." Not all animals are social. Ever see a flock of eagles or a herd of cats or a school of sharks?

[samr]

The important thing is this : In "social" there is something more than in "many individuals". Of course many individuals can function together. But, if many individuals function together, no qualitative function is added. "Social" always implies a different quality.

And you cannot deduce man's nature from biology. Biology is a science, questions of "what is the of nature something" are philosophic. For example, one can argue from buddhist premises that the nature of all things existing is "change". Why? Because everything existing changes, so change is the nature of existence.

So the nature of man is his most basic quality, that what makes man man.

Philosophy comes prior to science, and determines its scope. When one answers "what is the nature of man" generally,one can use a science (in the aristotelian sense of the word) to answer specifics.

I think I have just invalidated my OP in the above paragraph. The fact that a man cannot survive as a baby is not a crucial fact of his nature, but a specific, scientific, observable fact.

[anthony]

I mostly agree with you.

To add Rand's perspective, to counter collectivist "arguments from biology":

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy.

The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe;

Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. [AR]

It's a "process" which has regressed in recent decades, resulting in statism and tribalism.

Perhaps neither extreme is completely feasible - but the *direction* is all-critical.

[Xray]

'Social animals' includes all animals living in social structures, i. e. also ants, bees, etc.

That's why I excluded the eusocial ones to make it clear what I mean.

It was not clear at all as you did not provide examples.

John,

As Michael M. Marotta has pointed out, it was not clear what you meant.

In your # 33 post, where you stated that "the social in social animal belongs conceptually to individualism".

you also did not provide examples to make clear what you mean.

One could interpret your statement to mean that 'social' is a defining element of individualism. (?)

For what else can "belongs conceptually to" mean?

TIA for elaborating further, using concrete examples.

[Xray]

Which social animals (except the *eu*social ones, which I don't think you meant) are not individualists?

They are all pursuing their *own* values, sacrifice only happens in the case of kin-selection, which, apart from eusocial species, is almost entirely directed towards offspring.

The kind of tribalist sacrifice that human beings show, to identify with the clan, the city or the state, is a phenomenon non-human animals don't show. Non-human animals are (eusocials excluded) truly individualist.

The confusion is between individualist in the Randian sense (pursuing ones values) and individualist in the mystical sense (loners). Would you say that Merekats are less individualist than eagles? If that's the case, it just shows that the mystics have attacked the right concepts: I can't even communicate with you properly.

It think the confusion lies in using a philosophical term (individualism) in a biological context where we speak of animals living or not living in group structures. Which is why to speak of eagles as "individualists" makes no sense. For the eagle has no alternative to go against its biological program. It cannot choose not to breed, etc.

Rand herself has pointed out that no values are possible where no alternative exists.

Therefore she had had neither meerkats nor eagles in mind when she wrote about "collectivism" or "individualism". Her focus was on "man", and his conscious ethical choices.

I'm pretty Randroid in the sense that I think it's all about concepts and mystical corruption thereof. In a clean, well-defined language none of these things would be worth talking about.

I think it's all about reality, with concepts being an attempt to reflect reality. But the most clean, well-defined language can still miss reality. Just think of all the elaborate concepts ideologists who were fundamentally wrong about basic facts have worked out in the course of history.

So instead of concentrating too much on the concept itself, I have come to prefer the approach "What does the concept stand for? And does what it stands for match reality?"

Of course the are limits when it comes to 'private' definitions. For exampe, if Jane suddenly chooses to arbitrarily define for herself 'butter' as the substance which is called 'fork' in English, the result would be a communication breakdown if she asks her husband at the breakfast table to pass her the 'butter' while meaning the fork.

But it is not the terms which are clearly denoted in the linguistic code that cause philosophical problems.

It's the connotatively loaded terms which do, like "freedom", "justice", "natural rights", "capitalism", "individualism", "collectivism", "egoism", etc.

For we humans make the frequent mistake of primarily using our personal connotations with these terms in philosophical discussions, especially in debates on ethical issues.

[john42t]

It think the confusion lies in using a philosophical term (individualism) in a biological context where we speak of animals living or not living in group structures. Which is why to speak of eagles as "individualists" makes no sense. For the eagle has no alternative to go against his biological program. It cannot choose not to breed, etc.

No, that's not where the confusion lies. That's another source of confusion, but not the one we just tripped about.

For if you test this premise of yours, you get the result that all social animals are also individualists. Since this is not the case, the premise must be wrong.

Name one social animal that is not an "individualist" (other than man, who sometimes is and sometimes is not).

And don't you dare to name bees! :-)

[john42t]

It was not clear at all as you did not provide examples. I had to look up "eusocial." It refers specifically to ants, bees, etc.

• Reproductive division of labor (with or without sterile castes)
  
• Overlapping generations
  
• Cooperative care of young
  

(Wikipedia here.) That would apply to insects. I do not see that it applies to sheep. It certainly does not apply to eagles, cats, and sharks, who are genetic individualists.

The last two points in that list have nothing to do with eusociality.

What I meant in the social vs eusocial aspect of the discussion is that eusocial animals do not belong in the category of social animals.

That's where they are if you look at wikipedia, but that's wrong.

social->individualist

eusocial->collectivist

Eusocial animals *sacrifice* for the sake of the state, as only their queen can reproduce. Social animals don't sacrifice for the sake of the state, as they can reproduce themselves.

That's why you always have to exclude eusociality when you speak about social animals - otherwise you get some smart ass pointing out: "But bees are altruist! They are social animals!".

[Xray]

Name one social animal that is not an "individualist" (other than man, who sometimes is and sometimes is not).

And don't you dare to name bees! :-)

Name one social animal that Ayn Rand would have called an "individualist" (other than man).

"Individualism" is a philosophical term, no matter from which angle you look at it.

[samr]

It doesn't _really_ make sense to speak of animals as individualist, or collectivist...

We don't understand their psychology.