Objectivism is an Individualist Philosophy

[Daniel Barnes]

Stephen:

>The statements above by Rand and Gotthelf are not deserving of scorn. Furthermore, we the readers here are not scientific ignoramuses standing in need of enlightenment from those whose diurnal song is denigration of Rand’s philosophy. “Nobler purposes we have I’m sure.”

Stephen, no-one is calling you an ignoramus - other than Ayn Rand. Are you arguing she's the only one who thinks there is an interaction between philosophy and science? (I have here my copy of "The Self and Its Brain" by philosopher Karl Popper and neuroscientist John Eccles, 1984, as just one example)The problem is that she seems to think any "interaction" is one-way; philosophy is the master discipline, and philosophers such as her and Peikoff get to tell scientists what words like "mind" and "brain" are supposed to mean, and even what questions they're allowed to ask! I put it to you: how do Rand and Peikoff justify claiming such sweeping authority for themselves?

And be fair, sir: you would have to say the "diurnal song" of Objectivism is the constant denigration of most other philosophies and most of modern science. Nobler purposes than this we have I'm sure.

Edited May 31, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Does algebra measure?

Brant,

According to Rand it does. If it's a number and has units (or is one), it measures.

She stated two types of measurement: cardinal and ordinal (i.e., fixed and comparative). This even has a parallel with conceptual type abstractions: cognitive and normative.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The problem is that she seems to think any "interaction" is one-way; philosophy is the master discipline, and philosophers such as her and Peikoff get to tell scientists what words like "mind" and "brain" are supposed to mean, and even what questions they're allowed to ask!

Daniel,

You still keep getting it wrong. Not "master discipline" as in "master-slave." Try "starting discipline" as in "simpler-more complex."

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

>You still keep getting it wrong. Not "master discipline" as in "master-slave." Try "starting discipline" as in "simpler-more complex."

But are scientists allowed to use words such as "mind" or "brain" in such a way as Ayn Rand would not approve? It seems not. Are they allowed to ask certain questions about consciousness, or do they have to operate strictly within the "provisos" stated by one Allan Gotthelf? And how do the scientists get to challenge philosophic notions, as they must do now and again, if the philosophers are the only ones who get to set the rules? It seems they must not. Further, I disagree with your interpretation of Rand and Gotthelf's statements. If you are right, why is the "simple" philosopher not to be brought into question by the "more complex" scientist? If that was the case, we would never have discovered that the earth went round the sun. Hence I suspect it is your interpretation of her comments that is wrong here.

But perhaps elsewhere Rand makes remarks that show that fundamental philosophy can be corrected by science. It would not suprise me for her position to be somewhat ambiguous on this, as it is elsewhere.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But are scientists allowed to use words such as "mind" or "brain" in such a way as Ayn Rand would not approve? It seems not.

Daniel,

Of course they can. However some questions are pretty silly because they breach the starting point. We start by investigating an entity. If we end up saying that they entity we are investigating does not exist, that's not scientific speculation. That's silly.

The only real thing Rand says about consciousness is that it exists as a part of certain living beings and it is characterized by individual awareness. I would have to find a quote to use her exact words, but that is the essence. Why would science wish to use the term consciousness in a manner that contradicts this or try to prove the contrary? Isn't the idea to discover how we are aware?

I'm confused.

Would you be able to study human consciousness by studying the mind and the brain, then conclude they don't exist? Like I said, that's not scientific speculation. That's silly.

The interpretation you claim I made is not an interpretation at all. It is stated quite clearly by Rand. How else can the following (from here) be "interpreted"?

Philosophy by its nature has to be based only on that which is available to the knowledge of any man with a normal mental equipment.

. . .

So whenever you are in doubt about what is or is not a philosophical subject, ask yourself whether you need a specialized knowledge, beyond the knowledge available to you as a normal adult, unaided by any special knowledge or special instruments. And if the answer is possible to you on that basis alone, you are dealing with a philosophical question. If to answer it you would need training in physics, or psychology, or special equipment, etc., then you are dealing with a derivative or scientific field of knowledge, not philosophy.

Like I said, simple to complex. The phrase you object to ("Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true"), which I deleted above, is to be understood in that context (simple to complex). Not a master-slave context. It doesn't get any clearer. If you don't see it, it is because you don't want to. The words are there, both before and after the phrase.

(And please do not try to establish Gotthelf as the authority here. That gives me heartburn. The person making the distinctions is Rand.)

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

> However some questions are pretty silly because they breach the starting point. We start by investigating an entity. If we end up saying that they entity we are investigating does not exist, that's not scientific speculation. That's silly.

If what you say here is true, then scientific investigation into say, "ether", "phlostigon", or even ghosts, is "silly", as so far we have found that none of the above exist. Which is quite wrong. Mike, is science allowed to challenge what Ayn Rand says are philosophic fundamentals or not? Yes or no? If no, who made her the authority on philosophical fundamentals?

My picture of the relationship between science and philosophy is very different. Roughly, we all rely on a lot of assumptions for our understanding of the world. Some of these are testable, some are not. The testable ones are scientific; the untestable are metaphysical. Both are important, and both are open to challenge from the other. There is a clear interaction between the two, as sometimes metaphysical speculation can become testable through technology (like the invention of the telescope made heaven somewhat more difficult to explain..;-)) Sometimes ideas that start out trying to be scientific, like Marx's or Freud's, become metaphysical as their adherents seek to protect them from criticism. Both can be simple, or complex. So neither is master; neither is the authoritarian ruler of the other.

>The interpretation you claim I made is not an interpretation at all. It is stated quite clearly by Rand. How else can the following (from here) be "interpreted"?

>Like I said, simple to complex.

The issue is who is the authority over the other.? Who is allowed to question who? Who is dependent on who?

>The phrase you object to ("Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true"), which I deleted above, is to be understood in that context (simple to complex). Not a master-slave context. It doesn't get any clearer. If you don't see it, it is because you don't want to. The words are there, both before and after the phrase.

I return the challenge: the authoritarian implication is clearly there. If you can't see it, well, I'm sorry.

>(And please do not try to establish Gotthelf as the authority here. That gives me heartburn. The person making the distinctions is Rand.)

This hardly makes the situation any better. Again: who declared Rand the authority over what all science shall and shall not consider?

Edited June 1, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If what you say here is true, then scientific investigation into say, "ether", "phlostigon", or even ghosts, is "silly", as so far we have found that none of the above exist.

Daniel,

These were not philosophical speculations. You can't perceive them or deduce/induce them as entities. They were hypotheses to explain what was being perceived or deduced/induced at the time. As far as I can tell, what gave rise to such speculations did not cease to exist with the abandonment of the hypotheses. The universe certainly did not stop existing. Its causes and components were merely found to be other.

The philosophical questions would have been, "Does what is being perceived or deduced/induced exist?" "Is such perception or deduction/induction valid?" "Is perception or deduction/induction of the thing universal so it can be perceived or deduced/induced by others?"

This is initial "entity" thinking.

"A moon exists. Everybody sees it every night." That is philosophy. "The moon is made out of green cheese." That is a hypothesis that needs to be examined by science.

"Everybody is suffering from a delusion. There is no such thing as a moon." That is psychosis. (It usually includes, "There is no such thing as perception," or "The mind is not reliable," or something like that.)

This is the relationship of philosophy to science according to Objectivism.

One does not seek to contradict his very investigation without being silly (i.e., investigate some entity everybody perceives, then say it does not exist). Of course, trying to see if the moon is an optical illusion would be a scientific hypothesis. But it would not deny that people (including the scientific investigator) were all seeing something they called a moon and it was practically the same thing for everybody. Postulating mass delusion is not science. It is silly. (Unless there is some reason like a drug in the air or something like that. But even in this case, the symptom would be investigated, not denied. The existence of the symptom, a philosophical question, would not be denied by science. It would be needed for science to even look into the matter.)

So neither is master; neither is the authoritarian ruler of the other.

. . .

The issue is who is the authority over the other.? Who is allowed to question who?

This is where you keep getting it wrong. It is not a question of authority. It is a question of natural order of knowledge of facts.

Saying that you have to be a human being in order to have human consciousness does not mean that one is an "authority" over another. It is simply a condition.

Without existence, there is nothing to investigate. There is nobody to do the investigating. Existence is a philosophical concept. Investigation is science. How can you see a question of authority between a concept like existence and one like investigation?

Can there be investigation without existence? If you say, "Yes," you are not being scientific or philosophic. You are being silly.

Who is dependent on who?

Are we talking knowledge or people?

Here is what I think your beef is. You don't like Rand's rhetoric and think she is arrogant, etc. So you mix that in with the ideas. That is a terrible mistake.

Just because Rand or Peikoff can be condescending and obnoxious in their delivery, this does not mean that they, as people or thinkers, are trying to lord over science. I do admit that what I heard with the DIM Hypothesis lectures, Peikoff stretched the limit and made assertions he has no manner of knowing (like the universe always was and always will be), and condemned science that did not agree with this based on this glorified opinion. But I am unaware where Rand did that.

Obviously, even in Objectivism, philosophical concepts can be revised with scientific knowledge. If you would take the time to read Rand's theory of concepts from this angle, you will see clearly that definitions are contextual (even philosophic ones). They are dependent on the knowledge at the time, so they change.

The facts stay the same. The knowledge about them changes. Hell, even Peikoff says that. Here is a direct quote about definitions from OPAR, pp. 98-99.

When a definition is contextually revised, the new definition does not contradict the old one. The facts identified in the old definition remain facts; the knowledge earlier gained remains knowledge. What changes is that, as one's field of knowledge expands, these facts no longer serve to differentiate the units. The new definition does not invalidate the content of the old; it merely refines a distinction in accordance with the demands of a growing cognitive context.

. . .

Although definitions are contextual, they are not arbitrary. The correct definition at any stage is determined by the facts of reality. Given any specific set of entities to be differentiated, it is the actual nature of the entities that determines the distinguishing characteristics.

. . .

Definitions are determined by the facts of reality—within the context of one's knowledge. Both aspects of this statement are crucial: reality and the context of knowledge; existence and consciousness.

Although Peikoff did not say it, this new knowledge can include falsification of previous assumptions. But it will not include falsification of the very existence of the entity being investigated.

Knowledge is hierarchical. You do not start with existence and investigation and end by concluding nonexistence. Once again, that is silly. Something needs to exist and you need to exist to investigate. So how are you going to conclude yourself out of existence and call that science? I can't think of anything to call it but silly.

And that has nothing to do with authority or ruling or anything like that. It has to do with logical consistency.

Daniel, you are seeing two fields, philosophy and science, as if they were not connected. Philosophy and science are essentially the same thing. They are both organized forms of human knowledge. They are separated only by degree, not kind. Philosophy is the starting point and science is the continuation.

Philosophy is what the world looks like to us in everyday life. Science takes our basic body-size units of measurement (which we can use at the philosophy level), makes them smaller or bigger even to a vast degree, uses instruments for this purpose and for manipulating different materials (both larger and smaller and faster and slower, and so on) and runs tests on things to get even more distant from the limitations of everyday life. But it does not get to the point of saying that everyday life does not exist, or that the things experienced in everyday life do not exist (i.e., that entities do not exist). The only reason the investigation took place in the first place is because it all started with knowledge from everyday life—usually knowledge of some entity.

That is Rand's meaning that science is dependent on philosophy. Without fundamental axioms, there is no science. Without perception of entities, there is no science. Without logic, there is no science. Hell, without logic, there is not even any falsification. Without a method of thinking, there is no scientific implementation.

You can accept that or not, but you cannot claim that you properly understand Objectivism if you do not. Once again, this has nothing to do with authority.

Philosophy and science complement each other. Why? Because they are the same thing. They are both human knowledge.

Making them make war is silly. The whole authority issue is silly. It's fighting over something imaginary.

Here is one final metaphor. Words/grammar and literature. Philosophy is like words and grammar. Literature is like science. Does one have authority over the other? That question doesn't even make sense. But the truth is that you can have words and grammar without literature. You cannot have literature without words and grammar.

Likewise, you can have philosophy without science. Mankind essentially lived that for centuries of stagnation. But you cannot have science without philosophy. There is no such thing as using logic without logic existing. So to answer your final question,

Who declared Rand the authority over what all science shall and shall not consider?

There is only one answer. You did. You declared "Rand the authority over what all science shall and shall not consider." Nobody else I know of did that. And you don't like your own declaration, so you are arguing about it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I think AR, from what I vaguely remember, wouldn't have considered herself any kind of authority over science in any respect--that reality was the authority, period--only that philosophy encompassed more than just science. In a deeper sense, though, because of her proprietary attitude toward her philosophy, she must have considered herself the ultimate authority on everything knowledge-wise. The pure epitome of that was Galt's speech. It was Moses come down from the mountaintop (in this case the valley) telling everybody why he took away the punch bowl spoiling their party. Victor Hugo's heroes manned the barricades of life putting their lives on the line. In Atlas, only Ragnar, and he never hurt anyone or had any of his crew hurt sinking all those relief ships. That's why nearly a million, maybe more than a million, attended Hugo's funeral in Paris. Less than a thousand paid their respects to AR. Her heroes weren't really heroes; they didn't fight for a better world, they gave up on the world just to show everybody how valuable the men of the mind actually were and that they were withdrawing their sanction of self-sacrifice, in the name of the impotence of evil. But the AR perfect, ideal man, is completely unreal for the rendition pretends that somehow he is beyond the inner conflict between good and evil, right and wrong. AR didn't want to "humanize" her heroes so she actually turned her back on heroism in spite of Rearden or the "Wet Nurse" and the like. Note that the idea was for Dagny to give up her heroic struggle. The same for Rearden. Mission accomplished, "The End." No life after Atlas. All the real heroes were dead or converted--from heroism.

Ayn Rand, however, was a real hero. A hero who wanted to rescue heroes. What if they didn't want to be rescued? Or needed to be? The response to Atlas was not the response she thought she deserved: instead of hundreds of successful middle-aged businessmen and scientists flocking to her banner, she got students. There were exceptions, of course. John Hospers, for instance. A philosopher who could stand up to her. I speculate that she needed an excuse to get rid of him--and found one. Hell, she almost got rid of Leonard Peikoff. But he saw the light.

AR was an authoritarian, very controlling regarding her life and philosophy.

Life is a struggle. Fight for your freedom. Don't retire to Galt's Gulch.

--Brant

[Daniel Barnes]

I wrote:

>>Who declared Rand the authority over what all science shall and shall not consider

Mike replied:

>There is only one answer. You did. You declared "Rand the authority over what all science shall and shall not consider." Nobody else I know of did that. And you don't like your own declaration, so you are arguing about it.

Great, so then you think Rand has no authority to declare what are "legitimate" or "illegitimate" questions for science to ask, or what definitions of words it should "properly" use, and that Objectivism has no role as any kind of final authority over science? I agree.

For some reason I got quite the opposite impression from her work, but then I can be mistaken as much as anyone else.

[Daniel Barnes]

Brant:

>In a deeper sense, though, because of her proprietary attitude toward her philosophy, she must have considered herself the ultimate authority on everything knowledge-wise.

This is the sense I meant, Brant. I think it is something of a mousetrap that she might have caught herself - and some of her followers - in. Consider the following propositions.:

1) Philosophy is the master discipline that determines the truth of all human knowledge

2) Objectivism is the apogee of philosophy, and the only true philosophy

3) Ayn Rand is apogee of Objectivism, the one person who truly understands it more than anyone else

By combining these propositions logically, you end up with..."The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics"...;-)

[Brant Gaede]

Brant:

>In a deeper sense, though, because of her proprietary attitude toward her philosophy, she must have considered herself the ultimate authority on everything knowledge-wise.

This is the sense I meant, Brant. I think it is something of a mousetrap that she might have caught herself - and some of her followers - in. Consider the following propositions.:

1) Philosophy is the master discipline that determines the truth of all human knowledge

2) Objectivism is the apogee of philosophy, and the only true philosophy

3) Ayn Rand is apogee of Objectivism, the one person who truly understands it more than anyone else

By combining these propositions logically, you end up with..."The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics"...;-)

I emphatically disagree with "1)". She never said anything like that. People determine truth using reason.

You are right, in my opinion, with the rest of it. PARC is the logical consequence.

The purpose of AR for us that care is deconstruction for our constructions. In this she is a modern-day Jesus. Something she'd never understand or admit to. She lived for our virtue. So, what are our constructions?

Better get to work.

--Brant

edit: Of course she didn't "live for our virtue." That statement is just a think piece.

BG

Edited June 1, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Great, so then you think Rand has no authority to declare what are "legitimate" or "illegitimate" questions for science to ask, or what definitions of words it should "properly" use, and that Objectivism has no role as any kind of final authority over science? I agree.

Daniel,

We certainly do agree. Rand has no more authority over the laws of logic than you or I do. Neither does Objectivism. This was clearly stated by Rand over and over and over. Her usual manner of expressing this was "reality is the final arbitror" and so forth.

(Read her ideas, not her rhetoric.)

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Mike:

>You still keep getting it wrong. Not "master discipline" as in "master-slave." Try "starting discipline" as in "simpler-more complex."

But are scientists allowed to use words such as "mind" or "brain" in such a way as Ayn Rand would not approve? It seems not. Are they allowed to ask certain questions about consciousness, or do they have to operate strictly within the "provisos" stated by one Allan Gotthelf?

There is little doubt that Objectivists see it as a master discipline. That reminds me of Michael Prescott's comment on your blog:

Years ago I took Peikoff's taped lecture courses. In one of them he says, "Philosophy has veto power over science." A physics student in the class muttered, "Yeah? Let him try to exercise it."

A biologist or a physiologist can very well define himself what a brain is, in general or specifically. He doesn't need some damn philosopher for that.

[Dragonfly]

And be fair, sir: you would have to say the "diurnal song" of Objectivism is the constant denigration of most other philosophies and most of modern science. Nobler purposes than this we have I'm sure.

Exactly. Read Peikoff's rants against modern science (see the references to the DIM course and to TOP I've given in a previous post); Peikoff is still officially the spokesman for Objectivism and I haven't seen many Objectivists distance themselves from his statements in these matters, so it can be hardly surprising that sometimes the compliment is returned. Objectivists shouldn't be surprised that if they kick they may be kicked back. We don't believe in the sanction of the victim.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is little doubt that Objectivists see it as a master discipline.

Dragonfly,

I agree with this (for some Objectivists). I do not hold this view, many I know don't either, and I don't find it in Rand's ideas, although I do find it insinuated in her rhetoric.

Since Peikoff has made a few incorrect statements about science (cosmology, etc.,) and holds that philosophy trumps science, I understand the complaint. I suggest that Rand's statements not be confused with Peikoff's.

EDIT: I added "for some Objectivists" and "many I know don't either" later. I realized that my agreement as stated might be construed as a blanket statement.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

A few incorrect statements ??!!!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A few incorrect statements ??!!!