Is Objectivism Philosophy?


Mike11

Recommended Posts

As Rand's perspective evolved philosophically, she supported her vision of the good life for human beings by identifying that reason is man's fundamental means of survival, and that emotionalistic behavior undercuts his good and happiness.

What do you mean by 'reason'? Do you mean the ability to apply 2-valued logic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What do you mean by 'reason'?

GS,

You are breathtaking when you do this. There is a body of work that explains this and the whole philosophy is devoted to it. There is even a Lexicon for free online. It is very easy reading. All you have to do is read it.

Expecting advanced people to do your ABC's is a bit much. I don't want to be harsh, but the only word that comes to mind is lazy.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expecting advanced people to do your ABC's is a bit much. I don't want to be harsh, but the only word that comes to mind is lazy.

I don't want to be harsh either but looking up the meanings of words in references is no guarantee that the person using the words means the same thing by it. Observe the divergence of views within the Objectivist community for example. The only word that comes to mind is naive. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expecting advanced people to do your ABC's is a bit much. I don't want to be harsh, but the only word that comes to mind is lazy.

I don't want to be harsh either but looking up the meanings of words in references is no guarantee that the person using the words means the same thing by it. Observe the divergence of views within the Objectivist community for example. The only word that comes to mind is naive. :)

Wikipedia has an article on reason along with dozens of references. That is a good starting point for finding the various meanings attached to the word "reason". Look first, ask second.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "myth" is a very inaccurate word to describe Rand's pre-philosophical viewpoint. I think a better word is "vision." Rand has always been a visionary. From her earliest days, she saw man as a heroic being who needs to be rational and productive and free in order to survive and be happy. This perspective became clearer and clearer in her novels, and emerged in full form in Galt's Speech (Atlas Shrugged) well before For the New Intellectual.

REB

A marvelous vision Rand had. How well does it conform to reality?

Hume supposed that human reason (he never denied reason's existence, ever) was subordinate to human passion. Was Hume closer to the truth?

Or perhaps Darwin was closer still.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Agreed.

As I see it, where Rand and Darwin (post-Darwin evolutionary theory at least) differ, IMHO the weight of evidence and reality is very clearly on the Darwin side of things. Essentially this renders large chunks of Rand's ideas obsolete and erroneous. Reading between the lines I suspect she knew this and avoided evolution like the plague.

Bob

First of all, welcome Bob. I am not understanding what you are implying when you stated:

"...Rand and Darwin (post-Darwin evolutionary theory at least) differ..."; and

"Reading between the lines ...", as a teaher of rhetoric/argumentation, that phrase confuses me as to what you mean.

If you would be so kind as to expound on these two (2) themes, I would appreciate it.

I admire a certain subset of Rand's ideas. I do not admire the person, and many of her ideas are, IMHO, plain wrong. I have come to the conclusion from reading her that her entire motivation for her philosophy was rooted in politics, and not in reason fundamentally. She was not true to reason.

Rand's idea of tabula rasa is wrong. Knowledge, character traits and many other personality traits are highly heritable. While the nature/nurture debate might still rage on, 'nature' without question plays the major role in most cases.

Life as the standard of value and the man qua man reasoning chain is contrary to modern (and not so modern) evolutionary thought. She HAD to dismiss or avoid evolution because it throws a huge wrench in much of her reasoning. I do not respect this. I think she cared more about politics and anti-socialism than the truth.

The reading between the lines comment reflects that I have come to the conclusion that she indeed cared much more about anti-communism/socialism than the truth. It's pretty damn clear that man struggles with socialist/altruist tendencies along with self interest and there are valid and dare I say proven evolutionary reasons for this. Dismissing the one side of our nature as evil is not acceptable to someone who pretends to be rational.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it wouldn't matter if you were correct. Of what importance is it how a philosophy came into existence or was developed? What is important is whether it is true or false.

Philosophy will never be "true or false", even our most exact sciences cannot simply be "true or false". The best we can strive for is "similarity of structure".

This is semantical. Semantics is all you bring to the table; not even one hammer to pound one nail.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is semantical. Semantics is all you bring to the table; not even one hammer to pound one nail.

Thinking in terms of 'true' and 'false' promotes dogma and absolutism and is anti-scientific, IMO. It also attracts dogmatic and absolutistic people which is what Rand and most Objectivists appear as to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it wouldn't matter if you were correct. Of what importance is it how a philosophy came into existence or was developed? What is important is whether it is true or false.

Philosophy will never be "true or false", even our most exact sciences cannot simply be "true or false". The best we can strive for is "similarity of structure".

Are we to accept this assertion of yours as true? If not, then to what is it "similar in structure"?

To echo another poster: your self-refuting attempts to refute philosophy are breathtaking.

In the past, you have tried to exempt your pronouncements from what they deny. I'm sure you will again treat us to the spectacle. But we're onto you...

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is semantical. Semantics is all you bring to the table; not even one hammer to pound one nail.

Thinking in terms of 'true' and 'false' promotes dogma and absolutism and is anti-scientific, IMO. It also attracts dogmatic and absolutistic people which is what Rand and most Objectivists appear as to me.

In an emergency you had better know what is true and false is very definite terms or you could well perish. If you are disinclined to accept definite statements which are either true or false, will you accept directions to the fire exit in case of a fire?

The directions are either true or not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is semantical. Semantics is all you bring to the table; not even one hammer to pound one nail.

Thinking in terms of 'true' and 'false' promotes dogma and absolutism and is anti-scientific, IMO. It also attracts dogmatic and absolutistic people which is what Rand and most Objectivists appear as to me.

Yikes! There you go again!

Are we to regard your assertions here as true -- and therefore dogmatic, absolutist, and anti-scientific? Or does the IMO soften it to the point where we are just being "offered a perspective"?

You semanticians are all alike! Or so it appears to me. :-)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is semantical. Semantics is all you bring to the table; not even one hammer to pound one nail.

Thinking in terms of 'true' and 'false' promotes dogma and absolutism and is anti-scientific, IMO. It also attracts dogmatic and absolutistic people which is what Rand and most Objectivists appear as to me.

In an emergency you had better know what is true and false is very definite terms or you could well perish. If you are disinclined to accept definite statements which are either true or false, will you accept directions to the fire exit in case of a fire?

The directions are either true or not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we to regard your assertions here as true -- and therefore dogmatic, absolutist, and anti-scientific? Or does the IMO soften it to the point where we are just being "offered a perspective"?

I'd like you to regard them as 'similar in structure' :) This formulation allows for various degrees of similarity so 'true' would be at high end of similar and 'false' would be at the low end of dissimilar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we to regard your assertions here as true -- and therefore dogmatic, absolutist, and anti-scientific? Or does the IMO soften it to the point where we are just being "offered a perspective"?

I'd like you to regard them as 'similar in structure' :) This formulation allows for various degrees of similarity so 'true' would be at high end of similar and 'false' would be at the low end of dissimilar.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I definitely regard your perspective as being at "the low end of dissimilar." :poke:

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The directions are either true or not.

Really? Do you imagine the first map of North America was true or false? The important things about maps and words are structural similarities, neither are ever perfect and they constantly evolve to improve structural similarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't one of the problems that when literature has dealt with philosophical thought the literature has not been done well. I am thinking of Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain for example.

That comment is beyond my ability to let go past without objecting. On what basis do you claim that Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain wasn't "done well"? Have you read the book?

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, thanks for the clarification. I definitely regard your perspective as being at "the low end of dissimilar." :poke:

REB

Good, that's much better than saying it's false, eh? :)

No. Because some situations are binary. They admit of no gradations. There is some things in the world that are yes/no, on/off, true/false. Your computer works with binary components, for example. You have a zillion yes/no thingies in your cabinet.

One the other hand there are states and processes which are describable in a continuous or variable manner. Motions and changes of physical states often fit in this category. We live in a world in which both binary truth tables and differential equations are useful.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting reponses all around, I'll only be responding directly to a few however. Also, I wanted to qoute Mr Bissell and Miss Branden but I guess I can't if they're on seperate pages. Anyway, here I go -

I suppose it doesn't take Kant's kind of epistemology and metaphysics to lead to some sort of total non-self-interest morality -- just some false premises along the way! Still, I think it is Kant's undercutting of the human mind's grasping of an independent reality that underlies his ethics. If you undercut man's confidence in his tool of survival, you undercut his means for obtaining happiness, which is the purpose of his life and his ethics--leaving him wide open for a non-self-interested ethics. I would think that, more than anything, is the fundamental source of Rand's hostility toward Kant.

REB

This is close to what I mean by saying that rationality is not free to question in Objectivism, or at least move beyond Objectivism. This message expresses the same underlining point as Philosophical Investigations and Fact and Value. Here, reason and reality are simply accepted as a given, we have "Reason", narrowly defined by Objectivist epistemology, and we have "Reality" any questioning of this is and any new ideas on what Reason and Reality are simply undercut our Reason and our ability to work in Reality. Objectivism's views on Reason and Reality are closed to skepticism and possible falsehood.

Further, "you undercut his means for obtaining happiness," implies that any counter view is dangerous as it must be, well, depressing to our happiness. Linking emotion to a view of the world like this prevents learning, this is why science proceeds Dispassionatly.

Let me give a real life example of what I mean here. You have 2 people on a desert road, one is a man whose car broke down, the other is a stranger and they're trying to figure out how to fix the car (also I know nothing of cars but the specifics shouldn't interfere with the point):

Man: Its obviously the carborater, I'll use the carboraterfixing strategy.

Stranger: No, its not the carborater its worse, let me call Triple A.

Man: No, its the carborater, isn't it far more Noble and Manly for me to fix this myself? You're just undercutting the fact that it is obviously the carborater, How can I possibly be Noble and fix this now if its not the carborater?

Stranger: But the entire engine is on fire.

Man: Well, I find that disturbing to my sense of happiness, its the Carborater.

All Peikoff does is go one step further, he'd club the stranger on the head.

This is what happens every time you ask "What Truth would make me happy?" and work backwards from there. Which is my entire point.

Now to reply to Miss Branden....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike11, you are factually mistaken when you state that Rand came to espouse reason as a means of justifying her concept of the ideal man. For one thing, the ideal man, in her view, was always the rational man. Further, the importance and necessity of reason was a crucial issue for her even in childhood.

However, it wouldn't matter if you were correct. Of what importance is it how a philosophy came into existence or was developed? What is important is whether it is true or false. I wouldn't particularly care if Aristotle arrived at his laws of logic in a dream; I care only whether they are valid or not. And similarly with Objectivism.

I think you go too far when you begin reading Rand's mind -- saying such things as that she (and the early Objectivists, of whom I was one) feared dispassionate rationality. I say this not because it is Ayn Rand, or because it includes me, but because it is an unfair method of argument. Say, if you like, that certain ideas are not valid or reasonable, but don't become the all-knowing psychologist of the people you disagree with. You rightly object when this is done to Kant; don't do it to others.

I agree that Peikoff's "Fact and Value" is a disgraceful piece of pseudo-argumentation. And clearly one of the things you most dislike about it, as do I, is that he attributes the most dishonest of motives to whomever he disagrees with.

Barbara

Wow, Barbara Branden just talked to me, albeit in only 12 lines; I feel like I heard History. Okay, thankyou for you reply, You made some good points in thier but I disagree with you.

1)" For one thing, the ideal man, in her view, was always the rational man. Further, the importance and necessity of reason was a crucial issue for her even in childhood."

I may not have been clear on point or may have simply emphasised things the wrong way. What I meant was Rand in her fiction painted the world as she thought it should be, this Vision included her beliefs in the virtues laid out in Galt's speach and a rough defence of the need to be rational. This vision was completly sincere and honest. My issue is with Objectivism as a formal system. It is one thing to say that reason is our greatest tool in a fictional work, quite another to begin defining that rational faculty so narrowly that belief in things like the synthetic apriori, gameplaying nature of language and behavioural conditioning are irrational and therefore anti-life positions (Nathaniel wrote about this in the Perils of Objectivism paper); while proclaiming your own very precise abstract system as Reason. Its the nature of the formal system I'm attacking here not Roark's lack of mysticism.

2)"However, it wouldn't matter if you were correct. Of what importance is it how a philosophy came into existence or was developed? What is important is whether it is true or false. I wouldn't particularly care if Aristotle arrived at his laws of logic in a dream; I care only whether they are valid or not. And similarly with Objectivism. "

You're right in a sense here, the path one takes to a position does not impact its truth value (all cars are black, 2 and 2 are five - Therefore the Sun will come up tommorrow), but it does say a great deal about the probability of the idea being true. If someone came to me and said they had a Vision filled with heroes and demons in which all those who did not share the ideology were intentionally trying to corrupt us with alternate versions of the truth I would immediatly discount it, as would any rational person, because that way of thinking is so inherantly dogmatic and closed to doubt. If someone came to me and said through the free enterprise of reason, unchained by prior profound emotional commitments I would hear what they have to say in areas of metaphysics, epistemology and technical philosophy.

My problem with the formal system's honesty is that despite the claim it is an advocacy first of a metaphysical, then an epistemological position with the rest flowing from it, she advocated a crude Nietzchean egoism, became highly emotionally involved in it, then used reason to refine and temper it.

The formal system, frankly, is unstable enough that you ultimatly can not judge its truth as it more often than not, makes little sense. Words are often redifined without warning, strawmen are set up than bombastically taken down, you can not rationally try to deal with it. I have yet to read a single page of Rand that did not contradict itself or swing into the absurd. Not one page. It must be accepted, or rejected on intuition. Due to that its origin causes me to have a lack of requisite faith.

3) "I think you go too far when you begin reading Rand's mind -- saying such things as that she (and the early Objectivists, of whom I was one) feared dispassionate rationality. I say this not because it is Ayn Rand, or because it includes me, but because it is an unfair method of argument. Say, if you like, that certain ideas are not valid or reasonable, but don't become the all-knowing psychologist of the people you disagree with. You rightly object when this is done to Kant; don't do it to others."

If someone claims to have a profound rational system of ethics it is entirely fair to ask how rational they were. Normally, in most philsophy (and the academic world generally) you don't need to go there because the academic world regulates itself, more often than not, against taking positioons for emotional reasons. There is peer review, there is skepticism, and thereis general cool headenes, none of which Rand would subject herself to. If I can't be safe to assume the author of an idea was rational it is right to research it.

If I was in court for robbing a bank it would be legit to have my history as a car thief exposed. Its the same princible here.

Kant, on the other hand, was far more logical and dispassionate than Rand and existed in the academia where he would have to take the heat of doubt. This is why Rand's perpetual claims of mysticism and intentional skewing of reality in the academia are wrong - the academia's counter criticisms of Rand's formal philosophy, are correct.

3 edits for removing direct attacks on specific problems in the formal system, I don't think I need to go there but will if asked

Edited by Mike11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Because some situations are binary. They admit of no gradations. There is some things in the world that are yes/no, on/off, true/false.

I admit that an electric switch or electronic switch can only have 2 values, off or on in theory but that does not mean they will always work that way in practice. Besides you are trying to use an extreme to prove a general point. I started this because of a sweeping statement that a philosophy could be true or false. Getting back to the map-territory analogy just exactly what is it that philosophy is a map of? What territory is the map of Objectivism supposed to be the map of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Because some situations are binary. They admit of no gradations. There is some things in the world that are yes/no, on/off, true/false.

I admit that an electric switch or electronic switch can only have 2 values, off or on in theory but that does not mean they will always work that way in practice. Besides you are trying to use an extreme to prove a general point. I started this because of a sweeping statement that a philosophy could be true or false. Getting back to the map-territory analogy just exactly what is it that philosophy is a map of? What territory is the map of Objectivism supposed to be the map of?

I am providing a counterexample to YOUR general point. You claim everything has gradation. I gave examples where this is not the case. It is YOUR generality that is false.

Some things have degrees and gradations. Some things do not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike11,

I find your remark about the honesty of the formal system strange. People are honest or dishonest. Systems are not. They are either correct or incorrect.

Also, just for the record, your remarks about Rand's formal system making little sense and every page of Rand you read was prone to "contradict itself or swing into the absurd" are strictly your opinions and not facts (except as they pertain to your personal experience). My own experience with the formal system, using my own independent reasoning and a great deal of study, is that the formal system makes perfect sense, does not contradict itself and is not at all absurd. There are a small number of points where I flat out disagree with Rand, but where I otherwise find problems, the vast majority of the time the issue is scope. When I take the all-inclusive condition off in these problematic parts, I almost always find Rand's observations spot on with great insight.

I don't like her oversimplified negative rhetoric, but I recognize it for what it is. I don't make the mistake of confusing her opinions with her ideas.

So far, you have done nothing to convince me of the contrary except state negative opinions of her nonfiction or formal system. Others around here have argued much better against her system with much more precision. A guy named Greg Nyquist even wrote a book based on the "philosophy constructed to justify the perfect fictional man" theme you are promoting (Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature) and his partner in a website to promote the book, Daniel Barnes, posts here often. Now that guy is good. We disagree a lot, but he argues ideas and does not just issue opinions. There are others around here, too, who are at odds with Rand and are very competent in expressing their disagreements.

My biggest issue with any Rand critic is whether he or she gets the ideas and facts right or not. I don't mind disagreement. I even like it because it prompts me to think. For a simple example (and there are complicated ones, too, but this one easily illustrates my point), there are several posters who believe in God and disagree with Rand about atheism. The issue is clear and readers are free to examine one side and the other without a huge noise-to-signal ratio. They also do not preach, constantly seek to debunk Rand through repetition of smarmy comments, or try to gather followers for their religion.

What I do not like is when a person misrepresents Rand's ideas, especially with a lot of bombast (while aping her style at its worst), then bashes his own misunderstanding and pretends he is trouncing Rand. This is either incompetent or dishonest, and sometimes both. Incidentally, I am a stickler for this point about any thinker. I have also criticized Rand for her oversimplifications of great thinkers. I am not a friend of incompetence, gross oversimplifications or smearing.

I wish to appeal to the best within you. So far I have not seen it (opinions do little to show it).

Thus, I shall continue thinking as I do: Ayn Rand was a great philosopher, albeit very feisty and opinionated.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That comment is beyond my ability to let go past without objecting.

Sounds like something someone on ATL might write (back in the day) or

(maybe???) on ATL2 now. Then someone could quote it out of context

and say "Look, Ellen admitted something is beyond her ability." (_I_ would

never think of such things, of course.) -- Mike Hardy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, you wrote: "What I meant was Rand in her fiction painted the world as she thought it should be, this Vision included her beliefs in the virtues laid out in Galt's speach and a rough defence of the need to be rational."

Not so. Rand was attempting to show what human life objectively required, not what she subjectively wanted it to be. Her concept of the virtues did not arise from some vision of a perfect world, but, as she clearly stated, out of her conviction that honesty, integrity, justice, etc., are necessary conditions for human thriving.

You wrote: "It is one thing to say that reason is our greatest tool in a fictional work, quite another to begin defining that rational faculty so narrowly that belief in things like the synthetic apriori, gameplaying nature of language and behavioural conditioning are irrational and therefore anti-life positions ."

You appear again to do what you've done throughout your objections to Objectivism. You disagree with a particular conclusion Rand arrived at -- such as that behaviorism is irrational -- and you assume that it means her concept of rationality is false. It doesn't follow. Surely you recognize that it's quite possible to make an error in one's application of a principle, without placing the principle itself in doubt.

Again, you wrote: "If someone came to me and said they had a Vision filled with heroes and demons in which all those who did not share the ideology were intentionally trying to corrupt us with alternate versions of the truth I would immediatly discount it, as would any rational person, because that way of thinking is so inherantly dogmatic and closed to doubt. If someone came to me and said through the free enterprise of reason, unchained by prior profound emotional commitments I would hear what they have to say in areas of metaphysics, epistemology and technical philosophy."

I assume you put Rand in the first category. But you have not explained your reasons for again insisting that she was governed in her thinking by some sort of meta-rational vision, nor, even if that were so, what is its relevance to the truth or falsity of her ideas. I have to say again that the fact of a profound, even a prior, emotional commitment to an idea says nothing about the truth or falsity of that idea. Those who believe the earth is flat and those who deny it presumably both have profound emotional commitments to their stand. That tells us nothing -- except about their psychology. Do you judge other philosophical systems by your assumptions about the psychology of their creators?

You wrote, "She advocated a crude Nietzchean egoism."

I'm now wondering if you have read Rand. This statement is so unequivocally false that If would be pointless for me to argue against it. Rand did a better job of explaining the difference than I'm likely to do. Her view of morality has nothing to do with Nietzchean egoism, crude or otherwise. See any of her writings on egoism.

You went on, "The formal system, frankly, is unstable enough that you ultimatly can not judge its truth as it more often than not, makes little sense. Words are often redifined without warning, strawmen are set up than bombastically taken down, you can not rationally try to deal with it. I have yet to read a single page of Rand that did not contradict itself or swing into the absurd. Not one page. It must be accepted, or rejected on intuition. Due to that its origin causes me to have a lack of requisite faith."

This is simply a string of assertions, which you don't trouble yourself to support by a shred of evidence. I understand that you think this is so -- but I don't have any idea if it's because of some drunken vision of your own or for intelligible reasons. So I will have nothing more to say about it.

You said, "If someone claims to have a profound rational system of ethics it is entirely fair to ask how rational they were. Normally, in most philsophy (and the academic world generally) you don't need to go there because the academic world regulates itself, more often than not, against taking positions for emotional reasons. There is peer review, there is skepticism, and thereis general cool headenes, none of which Rand would subject herself to. If I can't be safe to assume the author of an idea was rational it is right to research it."

I did not say it is unfair to ask about a philosopher's rationality; I said it is unfair to use one's conclusions about the psychology of the philosopher as an argument against his or her ideas. It is unfair to do this in any field, for that matter. Would you question the value of van Gogh's art because he was profoundly emotionally troubled?

When you say the academic world regulates itself against taking positions for emotional reasons, I can't imagine where you've been. Have you not noticed what's going on in the academy? -- a world that in large part praises post-modernism, that invites dictators to speak to its students, that condemns anti-terrorists but not terrorists (as in the days when academia saw anti-communism as the sin, not communism), that believes ruthless dictators can be gently brought to reason, etc. etc

You wrote that "the academia's counter criticisms of Rand's formal philosophy, are correct." Despite being tempted, I won't say "Sez you!" -- but I don't know what to say that would be relevant. Academic criticisms of Rand range from the those I consider valid to those that are simply mistaken to those that fail to understand her ideas to those that twist her ideas out of any intelligible shape in order to dismiss them. I cannot grasp what it could mean to say that their criticisms are right.

The above is a rather quick response to your post. I'm pressed for time, and I'm not certain I'll be able to continue this discussion. If I'm able to, I'll do so.

Barbara

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