The Sixth Branch of Philosophy

[Dennis Hardin]

NOTE: I originally posted this in the ARI Corner on the Understanding Objectivism thread, but it got buried beneath one of those gossipy Randesque “reality show” threads. So I’m re-posting it here, because I know everyone will agree with me about how vitally important and significant this topic is. (Yeah, right.) Well, okay, maybe someone will agree with me about how vitally important and significant this topic is.

Anyway, here’s what I posted before:

My understanding of Objectivism has always incorporated the five traditional branches of philosophy—metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics. Have you ever noticed that, in OPAR, Peikoff does not go directly from the last topic on epistemology to the subject of ethics? Chapters 2 through 5 all deal with epistemology (sense perception & volition, concept-formation, objectivity and reason). But the discussion of ethics begins, not with Chapter 6, but with Chapter 7 (The Good). Chapter 6 is on Man.

In Understanding Objectivism, Peikoff clarifies what appears to be an Objectivist innovation: an intermediate branch between epistemology and ethics—the metaphysical nature of man.

Peikoff states:

Now that we’ve finished metaphysics and epistemology, we turn to what topic? Does ethics come next? No, it does not. There is an area of philosophy that comes at this point, that rests on metaphysics and epistemology and prepares the ground for ethics and politics as kind of the link between the two, and it itself is not pure metaphysics in the sense of the nature of reality, nor is it epistemology. It’s the first application of those very broad abstract subjects to something specific that will then pave the way to ethics. . .What is the . . .general name of this subject matter? [This} is the metaphysical or essential nature of man.

UO, p. 158

Peikoff makes clear that this is not metaethics. This intermediate branch introduces and elaborates two basic principles: Reason as man’s means of survival, and the integration of mind and body.

Peikoff seems to be saying something here that was not explicitly addressed in OPAR. I suppose Peikoff may have discussed this in his lectures on “The Philosophy of Objectivism.” I don’t recall. He devotes minimal attention to the topic, so perhaps it’s not that big of a deal. On the other hand, if man’s metaphysical nature constitutes a new “intermediate branch” of philosophy in Objectivism, that would seem to be something worthy of scholarly attention

[anthony]

Dennis,

"Worthy"? Ha, you're being your laconic self here.

It's as central a concept, as they come. For all Objectivists, not only scholars - and I know you know it.

Perhaps too much was left by Rand to what she probably saw as common-sensical, or self-evident,

I believe. Is there any doubt she saw the metaphysical nature of man as the engine room that starts up

and drives everything else? She requires a lot of reading between the lines, I think, and across all her literature,

for the full meaning to be clear.

Her phrases, "self-directing", "self-generating", and so on, are only the tip of her iceberg.

In a current discussion at O.O ("Who's life is it anyway?" started by Leonid) a nagging sense

has been coming to me that many Objectivists place more store in individual rights, than they

do in Man's nature. The tail wagging the dog, in effect. "Self-sovereignty" as I called it, a state

which patently precedes 'rights', is taking some explaining.

How do O'ists perceive and comprehend rational egoism, in such a case? More on that later.

Anyhow, whether or not this concept deserves its own category as another branch, or should

remain a sub-category of Metaphysics, is an absorbing question.

People ARE reality - how important a part ?

[syrakusos]

Nice catch, Dennis! And an interesting subject.

I look to library catalogues, for instance. We all know Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress. In LOC, books on paper money are in with banking; and postage stamps are in with transportation. LOC puts coins with heraldry and epigraphy. According to Dewey, all collectibles are in the 700s. Coins are 737; paper money is 769, as are postage stamps. In addition, there is the Bliss System, popular in the UK, though unused in the USA.

I look also at the possible arrangements of the Periodic Table. (Google Images will give the prettiest common results.)

You can organize knowledge any way you want. I believe that our organization of philosophy came from Medieval universities. Certainly, Aristotle did not put it together this way. His focus was on man in society. Everything else related to that. How we speak and think were important because they determine how we socialize. We all know that "Metaphysics" was only the book placed after Physics according to the catalog of Theophrastus, pupil and successor of Aristotle. So, really, we should all study physics first, if you want to follow the so-called "Aristotlean" system.

Peikoff's suggestion places the study of humans in the center. Metaphysics (or physics) supporting it, and ethics and aesthetics following it. To me that would be psychology, economics and sociology. With some unnamed "philosophy of man" as the foundation. And perhaps psychology is that center. After all, the presence of a psyche is the essential distinguishing characteristic of a volitional being, whether Human, Ferengi, or Hobbit, etc.

[Brant Gaede]

Nice catch, Dennis! And an interesting subject.

I look to library catalogues, for instance. We all know Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress. In LOC, books on paper money are in with banking; and postage stamps are in with transportation. LOC puts coins with heraldry and epigraphy. According to Dewey, all collectibles are in the 700s. Coins are 737; paper money is 769, as are postage stamps. In addition, there is the Bliss System, popular in the UK, though unused in the USA.

I look also at the possible arrangements of the Periodic Table. (Google Images will give the prettiest common results.)

You can organize knowledge any way you want. I believe that our organization of philosophy came from Medieval universities. Certainly, Aristotle did not put it together this way. His focus was on man in society. Everything else related to that. How we speak and think were important because they determine how we socialize. We all know that "Metaphysics" was only the book placed after Physics according to the catalog of Theophrastus, pupil and successor of Aristotle. So, really, we should all study physics first, if you want to follow the so-called "Aristotlean" system.

Peikoff's suggestion places the study of humans in the center. Metaphysics (or physics) supporting it, and ethics and aesthetics following it. To me that would be psychology, economics and sociology. With some unnamed "philosophy of man" as the foundation. And perhaps psychology is that center. After all, the presence of a psyche is the essential distinguishing characteristic of a volitional being, whether Human, Ferengi, or Hobbit, etc.

I suppose you can throw anthropology into the mix, too. A good liberal arts education is desirable, but Rand's was lumpy. She went right ahead with her ethics and politics nonetheless, never properly appreciating how her big brain tended to vitiate the rest of her. That's how she came with that nonsense advice to Dagny in Galt's Gulch about how in a conflict between her mind and emotions, go with the mind.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

Thanks very much for all of your thoughts on this topic. The more I think about this, the more I realize how crucial this “sixth branch” really is. In fact, I’m wondering if a lack of focused attention to these “middle floors” in the Objectivist philosophical superstructure may help to explain much of the rampant confusion about Objectivism, particularly among those who think that the upper floors can somehow stand alone.

I’ll have more to say about this. For now, I just want to add these additional quotes from OPAR. They are all from Chapter Six: Man.

A philosophical inquiry into man is not part of the special sciences, such as psychology, history, or economics; it does not define detailed laws of human thought, feeling, or action. It is concerned only with fundamentals; hierarchically, a knowledge of such characteristics is a precondition of pursuing any specialized science. Ayn Rand refers to this inquiry as a study of man's metaphysical nature. The term is apt because, in some form, every fundamental of human nature involves the issue of man's relationship to reality.

In this inquiry, one is not concerned to discover what is right for man or wrong, desirable or undesirable, good or evil. A view of man is a step on the road to ethics, but the view itself does not include value-judgments. The concern here is a purely factual question: what is the essence of human nature?

Like the special sciences, value-judgments – ethical, political, and esthetic – presuppose an answer to this question. Until you decide in some terms what you are, you cannot know whether you should be selfish or just or free; . . All such issues are derivatives. Their root is the nature of man.

A view of man, however, is not a primary; it rests on metaphysics and epistemology; it may be described as the center of a system of thought, the link between its abstract base and its practical culmination. This is why thinkers and artists have disagreed so often about man; they have approached the question from different fundamental premises.

According to Objectivism. . .a philosophic view of man is not exhausted by metaphysics and epistemology, nor does it at every point follow deductively from them; fresh observations are required. But they are observations made within the context of an established philosophic base….

If reason is an attribute of the individual; and if the choice to think or not controls all of man's other choices and their products, including the emotions he feels and the actions he takes; then the individual is sovereign. His own cognitive faculty determines not only his conclusions, but also his character and life. In this sense, man is self-created, self-directed, and self-responsible. Since he is responsible for what he thinks (or evades), he is responsible for all the psychological and existential consequences that follow therefrom.

Man is an organism of a distinctive kind, living in a universe which has a definite nature. His life depends on it cognitive faculty which functions according to specific rules. This faculty belongs to man the individual.

What then should man do?

OPAR, pp. 187-188, 202, 205 (emphasis mine)

[Dan Haggerty]

I think it’s a great idea.

I went through VOAR real quick to see if I could pick up some more information to support the idea and came to a startling conclusion real fast. The subject is dealt with as an aspect of the other subjects. Metaphysics deals with the consciousness of man and it’s relation to reality, epistemology deals with man’s cognition along with objectivity and freewill (as aspects of man). Psychology and self-esteem are derived from it. Ethics moves on from there. Etc.

As whYNOT said, it might have been treated as self-evident by the parties involved (outside of where Peikoff does take it head on) since it was dealt with in each subject, but the more I think about it this subject really does deserve its own exploration. Considering that a good deal of Objectivist philosophy deals with the consequences of man’s nature it’s amazing to think that this territory has not been explored in detail.

[Brant Gaede]

"Man's metaphysical nature" is the same as any other animal's plus ________________________.

--Brant

[anthony]

"Man's metaphysical nature" is the same as any other animal's plus ________________________. --Brant

Autonomous(consciously solitary). Actively focused cognition (non-automatic). Knowledgably, self-organizing, self-expanding. Fallible (non-omniscient, -mystical).

Volitional (self-motivating, -directing). Self aware(introspective). Emotional (of a higher order). Lacking inherent knowledge (any dependable instincts for survival). Valuing.

A rough stab, trying to avoid over-lap and any value-judgments.

[studiodekadent]

Yes, Meta-Anthropology is an important subject of philosophy that must come before ethics (before one can make a determination about how human beings should act, one should at least establish what human beings are).

[BaalChatzaf]

Why not use the human genome to define Man? It is observable and measurable.

Ba'al Chatzaf