Larry Sanger

[Roger Bissell]

I found this piece years ago, when I first went online. Sanger is a pretty sharp guy, and he had some really helpful things to say about the appropriate attitude to take toward Objectivism as a system of ideas and a guide to living. He invited people to post this material elsewhere on the Internet, so I (at long last) am doing so, on the assumption that OL readers will find it interesting and useful....best to all, reb...p.s. My guess is that many if not all of the email addresses listed for the respondents to Sanger's questionaire are no longer in use. (In case any of you want to contact them for some reason.)

===============================================================

How To Avoid Dogmatism About Objectivism

Lawrence M Sanger

<lsanger@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

[23 Jul 1995 14:11:18 GMT alt.philosophy.objectivism]

It is a problem that no one would admit to having -- and a problem which everyone would feel at least a little insulted at being accused of having. The problem is being dogmatic, a blind follower, a mere conformist -- to the thinking of Ayn Rand.

Of course, everyone who has even a passing acquaintance with Ayn Rand's thinking can see the irony of such conformism.

So as to put others at ease on this issue, I want to say from the outset that I myself have held philosophical views which I later realized that I held merely because someone else "taught" them to me. This is a natural habit, for all of us but in varying degrees, for the simple reason that we depend upon others for some of the information that we get about the world. What philosophers call "testimony" is an important source of knowledge; without people telling us what is going on, on the other side of the world, or on the other side of town, we would know nothing except what we personally encounter. And of course none of us has personally encountered very much of the whole universe. So we are in the natural and necessary habit of relying upon other peoples' words for things. Of course, we can be lied to, misled, or the victims of well-intentioned but false communications. Fortunately for us, this is not the norm, and more importantly, we possess (or some of us do) the know-how to glean the most reliable information from what others say and imply.

In philosophy, reliance on testimony -- on what others say -- in forming our beliefs is a particularly bad idea. I take it I do not need to argue this point for Objectivists. It's one of the central and essential aspects of Objectivist methodology.

But unfortunately, being in the habit of taking other people at their word, we (humans) sometimes, even in philosophy -- again, to varying degrees, depending on how independent we are as thinkers -- simply believe, in an unreasoning, accepting way, what we read. Or, more commonly, we unknowingly accept the premises of an argument or question without any critical assessment on our part. We as it were find ourselves with beliefs that we did not rationally decide to have.

Now let's take the case of Objectivists and Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand is a very eloquent, persuasive writer and has a powerful mind. She is also practically unique in her philosophical point of view. For those people who share her general philosophical point of view (I being one of them), her eloquence, her intelligence, and her uniqueness make her a particularly powerful writer. What this means is that it is easy and natural (in the sense of being hard to resist) for at least some of her admirers to avoid being caught up in the power of her words and argument. They become so excited that this is a mind, unlike almost every other mind that has ever existed, that genuinely understands the core of philosophical truth; and this excitement makes Ayn Rand's writings extraordinarily persuasive to them.

But Ayn Rand herself told her students not to take her word for anything -- but instead to learn to her reasoning, and judge it and whether it supports her views.

Nonetheless, there are some who, for reasons mentioned above, find Ayn Rand's writings so impressive that they make only a lame show of evaluating them rationally and with an independent mind. They read what Rand wrote, and it sounds so trenchant, so to-the-point and so right, that they do in fact forget to read with a rational, active, independent mind, exercising their own judgement rather than merely being caught up in the excitement of Rand's discussion. As I said at the outset, no one would admit that this is the case with them; and it is not my purpose now to scold anyone for this vice. I simply want to point out, what may perhaps be obvious to many people, that this is a vice, and that it is natural for some Objectivists to fall prey to it. (And, I should add, it is natural for almost all Objectivists to fall prey to it to at least a small degree. I have, though I do not call myself an Objectivist.)

I think there are a few broad categories of people who are most at risk of blindly following Rand, in this way. I say they are at risk of mere conformism -- not that they definitely are conformists.

(1)

The philosophically uneducated

. People who have never or rarely read anything about, or thought through, the philosophical problems that Ayn Rand discusses. If Ayn Rand is your first exposure to philosophy, and you naturally agree with most of what she says, then you are very apt to fail to see that you are accepting very many controversial theses. The solution to this problem, of course, is to read other philosophers besides Ayn Rand. Especially those who are close in point of view to Rand, so that you can see the fine conceptual and doctrinal differences that divide philosophers. So you might read Aristotle's metaphysics, logic, and ethics; Locke's politics and epistemology; Reid's epistemology and metaphysics; and quite a few others.

(2)

Religious ref

ugees. Some people go immediately from being faithful Christians (or whatever) to being Objectivists, and the contrast is so strong and striking that it is easy to fail to see the controversial (but important) aspects of Objectivism. One is so deeply impressed with the general rational attitude, that one is tempted to, as it were, buy the whole system lock, stock, and barrel, without investigating the particulars with any care.

(3)

The logically unsophisticated

. Some people catch on to logical habits of mind more naturally and easily than others. It is hard to be always logical in one's assessment of Rand's philosophy, when one's own capacities for fine logical analysis are much inferior to Rand's. And this then can be intimidating: one thinks, perhaps to oneself or implicitly somehow, "Ayn Rand had such a deep and rigorous mind. How can I possibly expect to be able to analyze and judge her philosophy in as finely-grained a way as she expects? I know that she has all the important things right; so it is certainly very reasonable for me to believe that she has almost all the details right. I can at least take her views on the details as a sort of default..." This is surely a mistaken way of thinking. The way to remedy this mistake is to take a course in logic, or to read logic books. One that is recommended by many Objectivists is David Kelley's textbook,

The Art of Reasoning

. A standard text that covers much of the territory that Kelley's text covers is

A Concise Introduction to Logic

by Patrick Hurley. I personally think that Objectivists will find little to complain about, and much to learn from, in Richard Feldman's

Reason and Argument

. All of these books can be easily ordered at your local bookstore. -- And a course in traditional logic or what is sometimes called "critical thinking" at your local university would also certainly not hurt. -- And one course or one book will not make you a perfectly good logical thinker; it takes a good deal of practice.

Those are the three categories of people that I think are most at risk of being dogmatists about Objectivism: the philosophically uneducated, religious refugees, and the logically unsophisticated.

Consider then someone young -- perhaps 17 or 18 -- from a religious family -- never had any exposure to philosophy in or out of school -- not well trained in logic (what can be expected from today's schools?). But with the correct, namely Ayn Rand's, basic philosophical point of view. It is very easy for such a person to become a dogmatist about Ayn Rand's philosophy, I think. I think that after what I have said above, it should be fairly obvious why this is so.

So if you, in all honesty, suspect that you have indulged in a little of this sort of dogmatism, and want to do everything you can to keep yourself from such bad mental habits, what is the best way to ensure that you do not pick up such bad habits, and to unlearn old habits?

In the next message, I have included solicited comments from several people that answer this question. My own answer is below.

As I said above, if this applies to you: read other philosophers, and either study a logic text or take a course in logic.

Realize that philosophical truth is subtle. There are many important and fine and difficult-to-grasp concepts, distinctions, and principles in philosophy. If you approach Objectivism with the attitude that philosophical truth is all really quite obvious, and can be stated sloppily, and without too much trouble, then you are setting yourself up to be a philosophical dogmatist.

As you read Ayn Rand's very enjoyable and persuasive works, try to keep at the forefront of your mind the consideration that just because she wrote it doesn't make it so. You should believe what she says (if ever you should!) because there is good reasoning to support what she says -- not because it is stated well, or because she just really knew how to humiliate her intellectual enemies (which she did), or because you agree with her in generalities, or because you like the sound of an argument she gives for a particular point. If she just states something without any argument at all, as she does sometimes (and as of course all philosophers do and must -- you can't argue for everything in a single article!), you should not take her word for it. You should demand that it be grounded in experience, which is to say: rationally supported by sound argumentation based on empirically-verifiable premises.

Do your own thinking on an issue before you read what Ayn Rand, or anyone else for that matter, wrote about it. This has two beneficial effects: it makes you much more personally involved in the issue, and it improves your capacity to understand what is being said in an intuitive, experientially-based way. It has a third effect which is important here: it makes you less likely to follow blindly someone's, such as Ayn Rand's, opinion about the issue. For you will realize automatically and vividly, in a useful way, by the practice of thinking an issue through by yourself, that you are solely responsible for what you are to believe about a certain issue. And of course, be sure not merely to try to second-guess what Rand would say about the issue.

Closely related to the previous point, I would recommend not taking Ayn Rand's views as your own "default" views. This is a habit that I have noticed in some Objectivists (and even in myself, in the past). That is to say, when you are presented with a certain issue, do not think, "Well, the proper starting-place for thinking on this issue is what Ayn Rand said; if I am to change my opinion, it will have to be changed from her opinion." Instead, your attitude should be expressible in this way: "Well, what exactly is involved in the proper resolution of this issue? What, in my own experience and philosophical knowledge, bears upon it? And -- by the way -- what did Ayn Rand happen to think about it?"

Do not fall into the trap of thinking that all you have to do, to be justified in holding a philosophical belief, is to go over and understand, in all its rich detail, Ayn Rand's reasoning for that belief. Rational evaluation is far more than that: it involves asking for precise meanings of terms or concepts that Rand may not have defined (or at least, not in the texts you have in front of you); actually checking the reasoning to see if it is valid (just because it's an argument by Ayn Rand, that doesn't mean it's valid!); and making sure that the premises on which the reasoning is based are all rational for you to believe (a.k.a. check Ayn Rand's premises just as much as you do everyone else's).

Above all, be honest with yourself. In particular, be honest with yourself about (1) what evidence and arguments you certainly have; (2) what views that evidence and those arguments certainly support; (3) whether you really are believing what you believe based on that evidence -- or instead because Rand (or someone else) put it in a very vivid, forceful way -- or because it "just seems right." ("It just seems right" is not an argument.) In other words: get used to honest introspection about the actual reasons you have for believing (or disbelieving) what you do. And be prepared to suspend judgement about what you had hastily believed on inadequate evidence.

If all of this sounds very difficult, that is because it is. If it sounds like it means you have to make yourself something of a specialist in philosophy, that is because it does mean that. If you are going to be an independent thinker, then you have to be an independent thinker -- and no one, including Ayn Rand, can do your thinking for you.

All of this is what Ayn Rand wanted of you; so if you are going to be a follower of hers, then start by following her on her doctrine of intellectual individualism.

A few days ago I asked:

Given that independent thinking is an objectivist virtue, and that blind conformity in thinking is an objectivist vice, how best can beginning Objectivists ensure that they think independently about objectivism, and that they do not become blind conformists with regard to the philosophy of Ayn Rand?

Several people did not understand what question I was intending to ask; that was probably my fault. I should have put my question in several different ways. One thing that I did not mean to ask about was how to interpret Ayn Rand's philosophy without being unduly influenced by other peoples' interpretations. Another thing I did not mean to ask about was how one may change the dogmatism that one sees in other people. Instead, the question concerns how one may avoid dogmatism in oneself in one's acceptance of Objectivism itself.

Some people, such as Mark Peter and Jimmy Wales, took issue with the fact that I was asking how not to become a blind conformist with regard to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, as against blind conformism about anything else. Why should we be interested in this special case? Well, I hope my previous post has made it clear why Objectivists should be interested in that special case. There are many aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy which make blind conformity to it both (1) hard for certain people to avoid, and (2) supremely hypocritical and ironic. This is, of course, not to deny that blindly conforming to Ayn Rand's philosophy is not simply a special case of blind conformism in general. But since this is an Objectivist forum, and because I think I have detected some blind conformism among Objectivists, I thought that particular special case would be useful to concentrate on. Needless to say, a great deal of what I say about blind conformity to Objectivism can be applied more generally.

Without further ado, here are the answers that I received to my question. I have omitted only those answers which I thought were not intended for public consumption, or which did not actually answer the question at all. Remember that in order to make sense of the answers sometimes it will help to review what the question was, as some of them are direct replies to it (as if in conversation).

Travis Norsen <tnorsen@osiris.ac.hmc.edu>

Lots of people automatically assume that everything they read is correct. This applies to absolutely everything, including newspaper articles, physics textbooks, and, yes, Ayn Rand's books. I don't think this "syndrome" is in any way a distinguishing characteristic of students of Objectivism, however. As I said, people in all fields do it, not just budding Objectivists.

The "habit of mind" that causes this problem is the evasion of the necessity of independent thought. Lots of people think it's easier or "pragmatic" to let other people do their thinking for them, and are therefore not critical of what they read. Certainly many students of Objectivism are guilty of this evasion.

But the fact is that independent thought is the precondition of knowledge. If your goal is to understand Objectivism (which it is for students of Objectivism) then you must read the appropriate material and "chew" it in your mind. This means: be critical of anything you don't agree with and force yourself to discover the truth. Understand the works, don't just read them. Learn the arguments, don't just quote them. Verify everything, don't just believe.

Someone who approaches a new area of study with this attitude will gain an excellent understanding of the issues involved, and will in no way be acting blindly. Anyone who sees the difference between properly digested study (which represents actual knowledge) and mere recitation (which represents arbirary assertions) will choose the former. They will have chosen correctly.

[Later added:]

When I say that someone should accept things that they agree with, I mean that they should accept things that they consider to be proven, etc. "Feeling" like something is "probably" right is not really enough. You must understand exactly what it is you believe, and why you believe it--which means knowing its derivation or proof.

Many people, and many Objectivists, don't do this.

Betsy Speicher <betsy@primenet.com>

By reducing every abstract idea in Objectvism to the personal concretes of one's own life and experiences. This is the process of "chewing" an idea and is explained and illustrated in Leonard Peikoff's wonderful Understanding Objectivism (UO) course.

I recommend UO to everyone who would like to make Ayn Rand's philosophy his own philosophy. UO can cut the amount of time it takes to understand and apply Objectivism to your life by years.

Chris Walker <cwalker@ece.utexas.edu>

Besides Understanding Objectivism which is available from Second Renaissance Books, to understand Ayn Rand's views, one must actually study them. I recommend Dr. Binswanger's taped lecture, "How to Study Ayn Rand." One thing that was obvious from many of the examples of students trying to reduce Ayn Rand's philosophy to facts was that many did not know the actual content of Objectivism that well, much less the steps by which Ayn Rand demonstrated her points.

Mark A. Peter <mpeter@primenet.com>

To think independently is to understand and judge issues oneself as a matter of principle. To do it, one must approach each issue with one's mind focused on reality, being sensitive to anything that is unclear, actively reducing all of the essential concepts and ideas to their ultimate source in perception, and never taking the conclusions of any authority as a substitute for a first-hand understanding. [...]

My answer is, "Think in principles."

Norm Andrews <norm@harpo.wh.att.com>

Good question. First of all, I'm not an Objectivist, but have been associated with the philosophy since 1967. I may yet become an Objectivist. I once thought I was an Objectivist, but that was a mistake. I am still learning.

Here is my answer: a beginning student of Objectivism is not an Objectivist, nor even a "beginning Objectivist". One either understands and agrees with all of the essentials of Objectivism or one does not. Now "objectivity" is a certain method of relating one's consciousness to reality. It is possible to be "generally objective" without fully grasping "Objectivism".

Being "generally objective" means to be reality-focused, willing to root one's ideas in reality, and willing to root out contradictions by trying to integrate new knowledge with previous knowledge. To the extent that someone is comitted to being generally objective, they are able to study someone with Rand's rhetorical power, and independently decide whether or not her ideas are correct.

This is not to say that they won't make mistakes, and accept an idea too soon. Fallacy of neglected aspect, you might say, or a failure of reduction or of integration. But once they have the method, that is once they approach a new philosophy with the commitment to be objective in the sense I described above, then it is possible to discover, and recover from, one's errors.

Me, I'm still grinding my axioms, in particular, the axiom of free will. I thought I was an Objectivist until I read Skinner's abominable book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity. It is very bad, but the good that I got out of it was that I needed much more work, much more integration. That was more than 15 years ago, and I am still working on it (obviously not full time...).

If I ever do call myself an Objectivist again, it will be because I've earned it. If I ever finally decide that Rand is in some way fundamentally wrong in her philosophy, I'll still be happy to associate with those who have worked hard to be objective, whether or not they call themselves Objectivists, so long as they are honest and are not working aginst my values. To the extent that they dowork against my values, I will try to do something reasonable about it.

J. Kyle Griffin <jkgriffi@tuba.aix.calpoly.edu>

Ask yourself questions, and give answers. If some of the answers fall apart, then it takes review by yourself. Reading other philosophers' systems allows you to highlight any difficulties with the system, or in other cases, to refute the other philosophers. Hume, for instance was very useful to me.

Mostly, though, the rememberance of a famous quote from Rand will help:

"An error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith"

Never accept anything without analyzing/critiquing it.

Paul Hsieh <hsiehp@crl.com>

[Paul stubbornly refused to answer the question, but his reason for doing so I found interesting.]

But in all seriousness, why should one worry much about those who do not use their independent judgment? If someone is being an unthinking dogmatist (about any ideology, whether it be Christianity, a political party, or a particular philosophy), there's probably not much of a chance of getting him to "snap out" of him current frame of mind. In that case, the only viable strategy is to take steps to minimize the harm he might do to me and otherwise ignore him.

If a person refuses to listen to reason, then (almost by definition) I won't be able to use reason to persuade him otherwise.

Of course, if a person has a mixed modus operandi, sometimes relying on his independent reason and sometimes accepting appeals from authority, then I might be fortunate enough to appeal to his rational half and get him to re-examine the beliefs he holds by faith. This may (somtimes) be a worthwhile use of my time, if I consider him valuable enough.

But it seems that you are asking a question of the form:

"If a person has a strong, self-reinforcing tendency to do X, where X is a habit which is detrimental to his rational self-interest, how can he take steps to not do X, especially if he is unaware that he is doing X or if he honestly believes he is not doing X, and the nature of X is that it is extremely unlikely that he will accept evidence that he is doing X?

"In fact... ... how can I be certain that (unbeknownst to me) I am not doing X at this very moment (to my detriment)?"

(In this case, X = "holding beliefs dogmatically, rather than as a result of independent judgment".)

All I can say is that you'll have to use your own judgment on this issue (independent or otherwise)!

[Later Paul added:]

Well, I could tell you answer, but if you just accepted it on faith, it wouldn't be an act of independent thinking on your part.

On the other hand, if you already know how to evaluate my answer with your own independent judgment, then you don't need me to tell it to you...

James Heaps-Nelson <jheapsne@slate.mines.colorado.edu>

1. Do your own thinking. Try to make a conscious, clear distinction between those concepts and integrations you've thought through for yourself and ones you've merely "adopted" because they seem to be better than the available alternatives.

2. Make a habit of trying to be precise about gauging the level of certainty with which you hold your conclusions. For instance, make a list of your more important philosophical conclusions and rank them according to how certain you are about each one.

3. Occasionally, change your point of reference. Take a vacation, move to a different location, actively seek out fresh points of view. Often, our lifestyle, friends, etc. prevent us from thinking about things in new and original ways by reinforcing and supporting old thought patterns.

4. Check your premises.

5. Ask yourself: what makes you happy and why? Decide these things for yourself. Try to come to a deeper level of self-understanding. Don't blindly accept others' prescriptions for what should make you happy: they probably don't know you very well.

Jimmy Wales <jwales@MCS.COM>

1. Be sure to avoid any evidence that might appear at first glance to contradict Rand's ideas.

2. Remain as much in the dark as you can about other philosophers.

3. Write each of Rand's major ideas on a notecard and repeat it out loud as fast as you can for as long as you can. What you want to achieve is the point where you no longer "hear" the conceptual content of the ideas, but instead only perceive them as sounds.

4. Whatever you do, don't tell anyone that you are a supporter of capitalism. They might disagree with you, thus forcing you to think on your feet.

5. Steer clear of all Objectivist organizations, they are just chock full of interesting and thoughtful people who might cause you to understand the ideas that you espouse.

These are all facetious answers, of course. I actually advocate precisely the opposite on every score. Investigate all the evidence, learn all you can (within the context of your time and interest) about other philosophers, seek conceptual understanding rather than an ability to recite ideas verbally, confront other people with your ideas, and talk to other Objectivists. [...]

Thanks to all participants in this interesting exchange.

Larry Sanger

P.S. Feel free to post this to the Web or to other Objectivist forums. I think it is very important.