Objectivism

[newfangle]

I know you don't think an Objectivist government can be completely certified to function, but I was thinking someone might have come up with a plan on how the power of the government (as a whole; a separation of powers isn't enough, as looking at, say, the American government shows) can be truly limited, besides getting enough people in a democracy convinced that Objectivism is nice. Or, to word it another way, how a sweet elderly lady with no firearms can be certified more power (ideally enough power to protect her life, liberty, and property in any situation) than what her surrounding populace decides to be nice enough to give her.

You are correct. A VERY good and a VERY detailed plan would be necessary in order for such a system to work. I will not pretend to know of such a plan, on account of my lack of being an economist or poli scientist.

You should think it up! You seem smart.

What if these "little problems" turn out to turn the whole system upside-down allowing everyone's life to turn into one big hellhole?

To quote Rand again: "Contradictions do not exist. If you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises, you'll find that one of them is wrong."

So to answer your question, if I found that the idea of laissez-faire capitalism is completely at odds with reality, I would dig a little deeper. But I have yet to come across a concept that rocks the very foundations of free economics.

So what makes these axioms true? Do you actually think that 12-step plan can guide you to absolute truth?

Axioms, as defined, are self-evident properties that can neither be proven true or false. Therefore if anyone ever claims an axiom to be true, you may promptly call him a hack.

The best way to tell if an axiom is good or not is to assume the opposite. The ramifications of doing so should make the axiom quite evident. For example: existence. If I said "I don't exist," then that means I can't think because I don't have a brain, I can't move because I don't have a body, and I can't commit suicide because I don't have the means to kill myself. My conclusion is then that I exist, but I could never prove it to you. On the other hand, I don't consider God axionomic. Why? Because if I assume "not-God," nothing really gets affected. The universe simply exists without God.

And I don't believe that any program leads to absolute truth. That's just silly. I DO believe that you can use such a system based off the rules of logic to construct a body of thought congruent to reality, which of course is my aim.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Axioms, as defined, are self-evident properties that can neither be proven true or false. Therefore if anyone ever claims an axiom to be true, you may promptly call him a hack.

Isn't an axiom a construction that is considered "true" by default?

The best way to tell if an axiom is good or not is to assume the opposite. The ramifications of doing so should make the axiom quite evident. For example: existence.

If you put an "axiom" to the test doesn't that turn into a theorem?

 

[Mr. Blonde]

I think Objectivism is flawed. It states that the only acting force is physics, which can be agreed. But the mind itself is a construct of the physical world as it develops due to the impact of sensations which can only be of physical nature. I can not see how a free will can be derived from these assumptions (as does Objectivism). Will depends on the physical input, so no choice you meet is free. For these reasons the deduction of an ethical system as Objectivism does is not possible.

 

[Mise]

Because the person may choose to harm themselve. Someone else does not have that choice. Choice necessitates freedom. (I'm using my definition of choice here, but the common definition suffices as well).

Is choice the only reason why drugs should be legalised? I've never understood why "choice" should define what is morally right and wrong.

2) Check for contradictions. ... 4) Check for contradictions. ... 6) Check for contradictions. ... 8) Check for contradictions. ... 10) Check for contradictions. ... 12) Check for contradictions.

Why is it so important that a philosophy is consistent?

 

[thestonesfan]

cgannon saying that "Atlas Shrugged" was extreme is something I'd like to touch on, since it's probably the problem most people have with it. (Aside from Galt's 60 page speech. That was a chore to slog through.)

Anyway, when you think about it, it's the only way she could do it. She had to be uncompromising; this was her definitive outline of the philosophy. She wasn't an idiot, she knew what she was doing. She spent over a decade on the thing. The message wouldn't have worked if Dagny Taggart softened her principles for the sake of her irreedemable brother, for example.

I'm sure she also knows that people are rarely, if ever, like the "cookie-cutter" characters she used in Atlas Shrugged. Obviously she does. If people can't change, what's the use of trying to spread philosophy? Yet the characters in Atlas Shrugged don't change, and that's essential to the message.

And the message will change you. I'm not the rabid Randist I was shortly after reading it, but the impact the book had on me was huge. Obviously, objectivism doesn't hold all the answers to everything. But it does tell you that there IS an answer to everything, and that's the important thing.

We have limited minds. We won't always know the right thing to do because we rarely have all the facts. If you want, you can point that out to be the fatal flaw of practical objectivism. But Rand's books are about more than that. People as individuals have consistently been shackled by two things throughout history: God and the majority. This book destroys the notions that you should live according to the whims and wishes of others, and exposes those that would have you live that way as the abusive manipulators that they are.

 

[The Last Conformist]

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues…
— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

... and there she reduced morality to electrochemics. Remind me why I hate moral philosophy.

Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy, holding that the mind and body are an integrated whole, neither one of which can exist without the other, and neither of which can be interchanged between persons. Objectivism therefore rejects not only theism and idealism but also materialism, as well as any value judgment that is based upon a dichotomy between mind and body.

If I'm reading this correctly, Objectivism asserts that the mind is non-material? I'm assuming "materialism" here means the denial of the existence of anything non-material.

 

[The Last Conformist]

This book [Atlas Shrugged] destroys the notions that you should live according to the whims and wishes of others, and exposes those that would have you live that way as the abusive manipulators that they are.

Perhaps I should someday read it. I quite fail to see how such notions could be destroyed - they depend quite riggedly on unprovable assumptions on the nature of obligations and purpose.

(Then, so does Objectivism, near as I can tell.)

 

[WillJ]

You are correct. A VERY good and a VERY detailed plan would be necessary in order for such a system to work. I will not pretend to know of such a plan, on account of my lack of being an economist or poli scientist.

You should think it up! You seem smart.

Well darn, I thought you had something.

Axioms, as defined, are self-evident properties that can neither be proven true or false. Therefore if anyone ever claims an axiom to be true, you may promptly call him a hack.

The best way to tell if an axiom is good or not is to assume the opposite. The ramifications of doing so should make the axiom quite evident. For example: existence. If I said "I don't exist," then that means I can't think because I don't have a brain, I can't move because I don't have a body, and I can't commit suicide because I don't have the means to kill myself. My conclusion is then that I exist, but I could never prove it to you. On the other hand, I don't consider God axionomic. Why? Because if I assume "not-God," nothing really gets affected. The universe simply exists without God.

Like Aphex, I always thought of an axiom as being assumed to be true by default. (And as if it matters, dictionary.com agrees with me.)

And also like Aphex said, methinks that "assuming the opposite" is indirect proof, and thus anything obtained from this is not an axiom.

And I don't believe that any program leads to absolute truth. That's just silly. I DO believe that you can use such a system based off the rules of logic to construct a body of thought congruent to reality, which of course is my aim.

What exactly is the difference between absolute truth and congruence to reality?

 

[newfangle]

I think Objectivism is flawed. It states that the only acting force is physics, which can be agreed. But the mind itself is a construct of the physical world as it develops due to the impact of sensations which can only be of physical nature. I can not see how a free will can be derived from these assumptions (as does Objectivism). Will depends on the physical input, so no choice you meet is free. For these reasons the deduction of an ethical system as Objectivism does is not possible.

I actually agree with you. It is this assertion that prompted me to drop the Objectivist model of free will.

Isn't an axiom a construction that is considered "true" by default?

Since it is unprovable, I hesitate to use the word "truth." But I don't have a major problem with that definition.

If you put an "axiom" to the test doesn't that turn into a theorem?

No, a theorem is a statement with a proof. I wasn't attempting to prove the axiom, but merely pointing out that the idea of it not being true is silly (but still possible, of course).

Is choice the only reason why drugs should be legalised? I've never understood why "choice" should define what is morally right and wrong.

The fact that you are not harming anyone else by doing drugs has something to do with it.

Why is it so important that a philosophy is consistent?

Anything follows from a contradiction. If one's philosophy is not consistent, one could easily deduce justifications for a multitude of vile acts.

cgannon saying that "Atlas Shrugged" was extreme is something I'd like to touch on, since it's probably the problem most people have with it. (Aside from Galt's 60 page speech. That was a chore to slog through.)

Anyway, when you think about it, it's the only way she could do it. She had to be uncompromising; this was her definitive outline of the philosophy. She wasn't an idiot, she knew what she was doing. She spent over a decade on the thing. The message wouldn't have worked if Dagny Taggart softened her principles for the sake of her irreedemable brother, for example.

I'm sure she also knows that people are rarely, if ever, like the "cookie-cutter" characters she used in Atlas Shrugged. Obviously she does. If people can't change, what's the use of trying to spread philosophy? Yet the characters in Atlas Shrugged don't change, and that's essential to the message.

And the message will change you. I'm not the rabid Randist I was shortly after reading it, but the impact the book had on me was huge. Obviously, objectivism doesn't hold all the answers to everything. But it does tell you that there IS an answer to everything, and that's the important thing.

We have limited minds. We won't always know the right thing to do because we rarely have all the facts. If you want, you can point that out to be the fatal flaw of practical objectivism. But Rand's books are about more than that. People as individuals have consistently been shackled by two things throughout history: God and the majority. This book destroys the notions that you should live according to the whims and wishes of others, and exposes those that would have you live that way as the abusive manipulators that they are.

Awesome. I think of Rand as the Newton of philosophy. She was one of the first to provide a completely integrated, complete philosophy. It is not 100% correct, but provides a framework for working with.

... and there she reduced morality to electrochemics. Remind me why I hate moral philosophy.

If it can't be reduced to that, what is morality? Ghosts and goblins?

If I'm reading this correctly, Objectivism asserts that the mind is non-material? I'm assuming "materialism" here means the denial of the existence of anything non-material.

It is stating that the mind and body are inseparable, but obviously both of them exist in reality.

Like Aphex, I always thought of an axiom as being assumed to be true by default. (And as if it matters, dictionary.com agrees with me.)

And also like Aphex said, methinks that "assuming the opposite" is indirect proof, and thus anything obtained from this is not an axiom.

Responded to.

What exactly is the difference between absolute truth and congruence to reality?

The difference between deduction and induction.

 

[The Last Conformist]

If it can't be reduced to that, what is morality? Ghosts and goblins?

I'd like to think that morality is based on something more universal than the wiring of the human brain. I do realize this is about as likely as the existence of invisible elves dancing on atomic nuclei.

It is stating that the mind and body are inseparable, but obviously both of them exist in reality.

Inseparable doesn't say whether they're of the same nature or not. I still want to know what's meant by the denial of "materialism".

In an old thread on Objectivist ethics, one self-labelled Objectivist - I do not remember his username - was insisting on a ghost-in-the-machinery model of the "passive experiencer" type. I entirely fail to see how this does not sink any morality based on free will, but rather suspect his position is not assumed by all Objectivists (or objectivists).

 

[newfangle]

I'd like to think that morality is based on something more universal than the wiring of the human brain. I do realize this is about as likely as the existence of invisible elves dancing on atomic nuclei.

Fair enough, but remember, that as rational beings, we are restricted to perceptual evidence. We may only form value-judgements based on what we know, rather than what is not.

Inseparable doesn't say whether they're of the same nature or not. I still want to know what's meant by the denial of "materialism".

It refers to a divergence with the school of thought called materialism, something which was prominent a century ago. I don't quite remember the intricacies of materialism, but it differs from Objectivism in both metaphysics and epistemology. As such, Objectivism is not rejected what exists, but rather, a specific interpretation of what exists.

In an old thread on Objectivist ethics, one self-labelled Objectivist - I do not remember his username - was insisting on a ghost-in-the-machinery model of the "passive experiencer" type. I entirely fail to see how this does not sink any morality based on free will, but rather suspect his position is not assumed by all Objectivists (or objectivists).

I've never heard such model.

BUT, I did find an interesting essay that might be exactly what you're looking for:

http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/MONISM.htm

The most important point to be taken:

Materialism does not accept ALL of reality -- only the material part of it. Idealism imagines that there is something MORE than reality -- "another" reality somehow existing "outside of" or "above" everything. Of these three views, only Objectivism accepts ALL of reality (including matter and consciousness and whatever else) and ONLY reality.

As far as I can tell, it comes down to how precise one's definitions are.

 

[WillJ]

I actually agree with you. It is this assertion that prompted me to drop the Objectivist model of free will.

On that note, I was wondering... What exactly did you mean earlier by "self-determinism"?

[My response to everything else you said is basically, "Okay." ]

 

[Ayatollah So]

A world without the AS dichotomy is one where you can't formulate a classification, and then associate this classification with something else outside of the classification, which is necessary for intellectual advancement. For example, let's say I want to make the claim, "All triangles have three sides." Note that I'm not DEFINING a triangle as something with three sides; rather, my definition is "something with three angles."

Anyone who's familiar with my posts probably knows that I'm no fan of Objectivism. But on metaphysics and epistemology, they do get a lot of things right. On the analytic/synthetic issue, I think it's almost true that the distinction is bogus. At the very least the distinction is often overblown.

Take your triangle example. Once we discover that within a certain axiomatic mathematics, all triangles are necessarily three-sided, what harm is there in building in "three sides" right into the definition of "triangle"? None at all. So, is the statement "triangles have three sides" synthetic, or analytic? It's whatever, dude! Doesn't matter one whit which way you call it.

Picking and choosing which issues you raise interest me, I want to comment on one other in your first post:

1) Is whether or not something is in someone's best interests objective (as in it isn't just a matter of opinion)? Should it be determined by the individual? I'm under the impression that the answer to both questions is "yes," which seems contradictory to me. You'd think that if self-interest is objective, you should be able to objectively determine what's in someone else's best interests, and dictate this to them.

There's no contradiction in saying that while you may be able to do that, it would be wrong for you to do it. It disrespects them and tends to preclude moral community with them.

 

[WillJ]

Anyone who's familiar with my posts probably knows that I'm no fan of Objectivism. But on metaphysics and epistemology, they do get a lot of things right. On the analytic/synthetic issue, I think it's almost true that the distinction is bogus. At the very least the distinction is often overblown.

Take your triangle example. Once we discover that within a certain axiomatic mathematics, all triangles are necessarily three-sided, what harm is there in building in "three sides" right into the definition of "triangle"? None at all. So, is the statement "triangles have three sides" synthetic, or analytic? It's whatever, dude! Doesn't matter one whit which way you call it.

Let me ask you this, can that statement of "Triangles have three sides" be disproven?

Why, it most surely can, by finding a figure with three angles and four (or two, or whatever) sides. By doing so you have found a triangle without three sides. Thus, the statement is synthetic.

Now can the statement, "Triangles have three angles" be disproven? Considering it's my definition of triangle, no it cannot. It is thus analytic.

(Obviously triangles isn't a good example, since you're not going to find a four-sided traingle. A better example would be, "23% of Kenyan women have AIDS," in which case the statement is synthetic if finding that the number is 15% disproves it, or it is analytic if finding that the number is 15% means we're not talking about Kenyan women anymore. Unless you have some strange system of semantics, obviously the former is the case.)

Picking and choosing which issues you raise interest me, I want to comment on one other in your first post:

There's no contradiction in saying that while you may be able to do that, it would be wrong for you to do it. It disrespects them and tends to preclude moral community with them.

But you're doing it objectively! It'd be as "wrong" as criticizing a math teacher who teaches her students that 2+2=5.

 

[Ayatollah So]

It refers to a divergence with the school of thought called materialism, something which was prominent a century ago. I don't quite remember the intricacies of materialism, but it differs from Objectivism in both metaphysics and epistemology.

Would this be the materialism of Gilbert Ryle and the behaviorists? Especially, the claim that "mind" talk is superstitious nonsense? Nowadays that would be referred to as "eliminative materialism", to be distinguished from other forms which identify minds with physical things.

One of the annoying things about Objectivism is the tendency to use words in ways that are uncommon or quaint, or sometimes ("sacrifice") downright bizarre. (On the Objectivist definition of "sacrifice" - giving up a higher value for a lesser one - a "queen sacrifice" in chess and "sacrifice fly" in baseball are oxymorons. If you get a run at the cost of an out, obviously that gives you a higher value, therefore it wasn't a "sacrifice".)

 

[newfangle]

On that note, I was wondering... What exactly did you mean earlier by "self-determinism"?

Here's a short summary of how this idea came about:

A close friend of mind is currently doing his Ph.D. Thesis in Comp Sci and Philosophy, and essentially, he is trying to create AI.

He came to the conclusion that free will, as defined, is something that a machine could never possess. Essentially, free will states that man can create his own cause, ie, he is his own first cause. This implies that he possesses a mechanism necessary for his consciousness to potentially violate certain laws of physics when making a decision.

If such a system were introduced to a system of order (ie a computer), you'd be introducing order to chaos. Effects would occur without cause. In fact, researches at MIT years ago came to the same conclusion. Machines could not possibly possess such free will.

Now, this got us to the topic of "what makes humans special." How can we violate the laws of physics, but computers can't? It doesn't make sense, which lead us to the conclusion that man could not possibly possess such a tool either.

Obviously, this new line of thinking had dramatic consequences. How then, is every philosophical concept beyond free will justified, if in fact, everything is determined? Well, once again he must go back to our definitions. How do we normally view the abstract of free will? Well, I view it as the ability for man to pick an option among several choices, when those choices exist.

What it comes down to is that humans are determined in their choice making. Our own contexts (experiences, knowledge, instinct, etc) automatically determine which option we choose. This model of self-determinism is actually equivalent to free will in all by one respect. Self-determinism states that the choices you have made WERE made and could NOT have been made any other way. You're contexts determined that you could not have possibly chosen otherwise. Doing so would have resulted in a blatant violation of causality.

I liken it to the Oracle scene in Matrix II. She states that Neo has already made the choice, he is just trying to understand the choice.

I believe that this is what all humans do. We are constantly assessing why we behaved, rather than how we will behave. How we will behave will only happen in one way. Justifying why we behaved in such a way will, in part, determine how we behave the next time.

 

[WillJ]

Here's a short summary of how this idea came about:

A close friend of mind is currently doing his Ph.D. Thesis in Comp Sci and Philosophy, and essentially, he is trying to create AI.

He came to the conclusion that free will, as defined, is something that a machine could never possess. Essentially, free will states that man can create his own cause, ie, he is his own first cause. This implies that he possesses a mechanism necessary for his consciousness to potentially violate certain laws of physics when making a decision.

If such a system were introduced to a system of order (ie a computer), you'd be introducing order to chaos. Effects would occur without cause. In fact, researches at MIT years ago came to the same conclusion. Machines could not possibly possess such free will.

Now, this got us to the topic of "what makes humans special." How can we violate the laws of physics, but computers can't? It doesn't make sense, which lead us to the conclusion that man could not possibly possess such a tool either.

Obviously, this new line of thinking had dramatic consequences. How then, is every philosophical concept beyond free will justified, if in fact, everything is determined? Well, once again he must go back to our definitions. How do we normally view the abstract of free will? Well, I view it as the ability for man to pick an option among several choices, when those choices exist.

What it comes down to is that humans are determined in their choice making. Our own contexts (experiences, knowledge, instinct, etc) automatically determine which option we choose. This model of self-determinism is actually equivalent to free will in all by one respect. Self-determinism states that the choices you have made WERE made and could NOT have been made any other way. You're contexts determined that you could not have possibly chosen otherwise. Doing so would have resulted in a blatant violation of causality.

I liken it to the Oracle scene in Matrix II. She states that Neo has already made the choice, he is just trying to understand the choice.

I believe that this is what all humans do. We are constantly assessing why we behaved, rather than how we will behave. How we will behave will only happen in one way. Justifying why we behaved in such a way will, in part, determine how we behave the next time.

I'm confused. How can you be determined/certain to choose something? How is it a choice? If there is a 100% chance that you will put on a red sweater, then you must not have the option to put on a blue one, right?

 

[Ayatollah So]

Let me ask you this, can that statement of "Triangles have three sides" be disproven?

If "triangles" is short for "Euclidean triangles", then no. In fact, it's been proven.

(Obviously triangles isn't a good example, since you're not going to find a four-sided traingle. A better example would be, "23% of Kenyan women have AIDS,"

Look at the words in your example sentence. Which of them are promising candidates for an analytic definition? "Percent" and maybe "twenty-three". The rest, no. IMHO, there aren't many truly analytic statements that can be formulated, and the identification of them as analytic is tricky, to boot. There just isn't much use for the distinction.

But you're doing it objectively! It'd be as "wrong" as criticizing a math teacher who teaches her students that 2+2=5.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were discussing an example of forcing someone to do what's in their best interests. If you just inform them that their plan is harmful to their interests, I see no problem.

(Or self-interest. I've talked about interests, full stop, which to my mind is more to the point. And yes, they are different in many cases. And where they diverge, forcing someone to do what is in his self-interest, as opposed to his (total) interests, has an extra moral problem.)

 

[newfangle]

I'm confused. How can you be determined/certain to choose something? How is it a choice? If there is a 100% chance that you will put on a red sweater, then you must not have the option to put on a blue one, right?

Because your contexts may have developed in such a way that you would choose the blue over the red, but in this instance the opposite is true.

But before we go too much deeper in this, I'm not yet 100% sure I buy into it. I definitely reject the classical definition of free will, but I am still uncertain about a substitute.

Once this friend of mine has written a paper on it, I will post it with his permission.

 

[WillJ]

If "triangles" is short for "Euclidean triangles", then no. In fact, it's been proven.

Yep, it's not a good example.

Look at the words in your example sentence. Which of them are promising candidates for an analytic definition? "Percent" and maybe "twenty-three". The rest, no. IMHO, there aren't many truly analytic statements that can be formulated, and the identification of them as analytic is tricky, to boot. There just isn't much use for the distinction.

Well, it seems very simple to me, so either you're missing something or I'm seeing something that's not there.

Words aren't magical entities that inherently correspond to the real world. They are just made up. When someone feels like creating a word, his/her espousal of the word's assigned meaning, along with any statement whose truth is contained within this definition, is an analytic statement. It's analytic because it's not really right or wrong (or, if you prefer, always right) because it's simply a label made by the creator of the statement.

For example, how about you define for me the word cat. Then, since this is apparently not analytic, explain how the scientific method might demonstrate that your definition is wrong.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were discussing an example of forcing someone to do what's in their best interests. If you just inform them that their plan is harmful to their interests, I see no problem.

(Or self-interest. I've talked about interests, full stop, which to my mind is more to the point. And yes, they are different in many cases. And where they diverge, forcing someone to do what is in his self-interest, as opposed to his (total) interests, has an extra moral problem.)

Nope, you didn't misunderstand; I am indeed talking about forcing people to act in their best interests.

I may be operating under a complete misinterpretation, but I thought Objectivists are against the initiation of physical force because it prevents people from using their faculty of reason; well, what if it's objectively determined that the person is being unreasonable? Can't physical force be used to bring people into reason? And if so, why is this bad?

Because your contexts may have developed in such a way that you would choose the blue over the red, but in this instance the opposite is true.

Woah, back the trolly up a minute... Would you say you believe (not as in 100% though, since I realize the bottom of your post points this out) in determinism? Is self-determinism just a subset of determinism, specifically the part that relates to peoples' choices?

I ask because according to determinism, at least as I understand it, contexts COULDN'T have devoloped in other ways; they HAD to develop in such a way that I chose red.