Typically, many who seek to misrepresent the Objectivist position on this issue, by trying to charge that Objectivism stands for ontological materialism, make the mistake of assuming the false alternatives involved in monism — and indeed are often just hawking their particular religious views, which they hold on faith and not by reason, but which they seek to smuggle into the discussion of philosophical issues. By trying to associate the natural exclusively with the material, such religionists hope to pave the way for their version of reductive spiritualism and supernaturalism. Since Objectivism rejects monism and the false alternatives of materialism and idealism/mysticism from the start, this dishonest tactic does not succeed. It must only be pointed out.If seems to me it is not the "religionists" who are hoping to reduce the natural to the material, so to "pave the way for their version of reductive spiritualism and supernaturalism." [Reductive???] They are just the ones who notice that it is the atheists who specialize in this sort of thing. Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, was an atheist. As such, she had all the fashionable atheist presuppositions, the most famous being that faith and reason are absolutely mutually exclusive entities. She ever purported to be "Aristotelian" in her methods, while excoriating Plato, Aristotle's own teacher, for his "idealism," not to mention his putative fascist tendencies. She evidently did not see that both men saw just the same thing, albeit from different perspectives: That is, at bottom, the world is as it is because it is the creature of a divine will and intelligence that emanates from outside the natural world system. Both recognized that "creature" manifests "form." Plato put creature-specifying Form outside of or "beyond" nature; Aristotle, within the creature itself. In either case, "Form" for both of them remains a metaphysical entity that specifies all the particular living systems in the (immanent) natural world.
I just think the woman was terribly confused....
In any case, you mention that you couldn't tell whether the belief in naturalism or idealism came first. The question strikes me as anhistorical to begin with. For if we want to know the answer to that question, we have to go back to the original sources of the ancient world. And if we do that, we have to interpret them in light of the meaning and intent of their authors — who will not have been applying such modern categories as "naturalism" and "materialism" or "idealism" to their efforts, nor had they ever heard of "the scientific method."
To clarify this, C. S. Lewis drew the distinction between the "use" of a text, and the "reception" of a text.
In An Experiment in Criticism Lewis draws an important distinction between “using” and “receiving” the text. If we are to understand an ancient text, or any text for that matter, we must get out of the way. We must toss all our culturally and historically conditioned biases aside and “receive” the text in the manner in which the author intended. When we approach ... [a] text, we must read it in the light of its own cultural, historical and literary context. Since modern scientific and historical precision were foreign to the ancient writers, we must not hold them to such standards.Of course, this is the very opposite of what the literary deconstructionists recommend.... But it seems to me that Ayn Rand has taken a page from their book. She must, for it seems she uses Aristotle as some kind of ventriloquists's dummy, through which to speak her own thoroughly disordered and distorted ideas.
Anyhoot, I'm not an Objectivist (as you can see). I'm also not a Libertarian, through I am so often sympathetic to their views. As long as they keep taking "pot shots" at religious believers in general, and Christians in particular, I can find no home among them. FWIW
First, I’m blown away that you’d actually read “The Monist/Reductionist Fallacy”. It shows an uncommon degree of courage.
I think that the term “reductive” was used to describe the supposed alternative to idealism as materialism rather than naturalism. That eliminates all energies, forces, dimensions and transitions between them and matter (both known and unknown) so that a supernatural force becomes a more compelling necessity for consciousness. I think that’s why he points to reductionism by theists (not to be confused with atheistic deconstructionists).
I’m no authority regarding faith. My understanding of the Christian view in short is that it is what is necessary after reason has been exhausted and a choice of direction must still be made. Assuming that’s accurate enough for this discussion, I think Rand believed that religions promote a premature arrival at that conclusion, and she clearly didn’t give them the benefit of the doubt as to why.
Regarding Rand’s divergence from Aristotle on form and identification, that may be the most revolutionary (yet simple) concept in Objectivism, that “forms” or patterns exist and we simply identify them and create concepts of those patterns. It was ridiculously simple (A = A) but infinitely controversial because it eliminated the need for divine guidance in either Aristotle’s form conceptualization or Plato’s form creation. It eliminated previously well reasoned arguments that forms were impossible without the divine. I don’t know whether it was the profound implications of that or just Rand’s blatantly confrontational personality that made her such a target, but the whole thing certainly snowballed.
I’m not aware of Rand’s reliance on Aristotle as some kind of “ventriloquist dummy”. If nothing else can be said about her, she took ownership of her own words rather than relaying on authority. She claimed Aristotle’s most profound achievement was defining an independent objective reality (denying Plato’s world of forms, a “shadow projection controlled by a divine dimension” as she said).
“Let us note… the radical difference between Aristotle’s view of concepts and the Objectivist view, particularly in regard to the issue of essential characteristics.She called Aristotle “the father of logic”, the “philosophical Atlas who carries the whole of Western civilization on his shoulders”. But just as our understanding of what makes up the “essence” of an object has progressed, she didn’t consider his work to be the end of the road in how we identify that essence. In line with Lewis’s thinking, we can still appreciate and “receive” Aristotle’s description of form as a historical achievement. But I think it would be absurd to believe it following our understanding of molecular structure.It is Aristotle who first formulated the principles of correct definition. It is Aristotle who identified the fact that only concretes exist. But Aristotle held that definitions refer to metaphysical “essences”, which exist “in” concretes as a special element or formative power, and he held that the process of concept-formation depends on a kind of direct intuition by which man’s mind grasps these essences and forms concepts accordingly.
Aristotle regarded “essence” as a metaphysical; Objectivism regards it as epistemological.” [ITOE, 68]
FWIW, We probably hold similar opinions of Libertarians. And technically, I’m probably not an Objectivist either. Like anyone, Rand made mistakes, just a lot fewer than myself unfortunately.
BTW, I think that people in all ideologies take way too many pot shots at one another. I resist the urge to join the “us vs. them” mentality until someone starts throwing more than insults.
Good talking with you BB, but this takes more time than I’ll likely be able to continue.