Posted on 10/16/2002 10:44:22 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
An Introduction
Ayn Rand is one of the greatest of twentieth century figures. A writer, lecturer, and philosopher, her influence continues to this day unabated in such diverse fields as the arts, literature, philosophy, education, economics, and politics.
Most famous for her novels, which continue to sell very well, her most profound influence is through her philosophy, which she called Objectivism. Ayn Rand has always been the object of controversy and criticism, because she had something to say, and it was not the same old insipid mush spouted my most intellectuals, but something fresh and interesting, even to those who ultimately disagreed or despised her.
Most of those who criticize Ayn Rand do not criticize her philosophy, at least they do not criticize it directly, because most of her critics do not understand it, although it is the easiest to understand philosophy to date, primarily, because it is entirely rational and objective, but also, because Ayn Rand was a very capable writer and able to explain and illustrate difficult and complex concepts so well.
|
While it is always her philosophy that is objected to, specific criticisms are always directed at her person, her personal life, or toward her fiction. When her philosophy is addressed at all, it is usually some erroneously presumed consequence of her philosophy, (the disabled will all starve because no one will help them), or the present-day philosophical and political movements that resulted from her philosophy.1
All of this is so we can make it clear this is not a criticism of Ayn Rand and it is not a criticism of her Objectivist philosophy, or of her accomplishments in the field of philosophy. As far as Objectivism goes, as she delineated it, it is undoubtedly the biggest leap of progress in that field since John Locke and the terrible decline that began immediately after Locke, initiated by Hume.
Some of the problems we shall discuss may seem like criticisms of Objectivism itself, and this requires a little explanation. In her famous description of her philosophy, "while standing on one foot," she said the essence of her philosophy consisted of the following:"2
Since this is her own view of the heart of her philosophy, this is what we mean by Objectivism. Ayn Rand expanded these concepts (again only as a "brief summary") thus:
A couple of comments are required here. In her second point, she identifies reason as the "faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses", and as "man's ... means of perceiving." This is not quite correct, and Ayn Rand, herself corrected this in many places, but most completely in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
We are not directly conscious of sensation, and even those things we call "the senses" (sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell) are not senses, but perceptions. A color (red, for example) is not a sensation, but a percept. The physiological sciences teach us that the data for perceptions are information from nerves which data is automatically integrated by the mind into percepts, but this is not strictly philosophy.
The above statement of Rand should be corrected as follows: "Reason, the faculty which identifies and integrates, by means of concepts, the raw material of perception, (that is, percepts) is man's only means of comprehending reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
The second comment regards the fourth point. In the original, she adds the following:
"The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."2
All of Ayn Rand's brief outline of Objectivism, up until the last few sentences just quoted, we call theoretical objectivism, the additional quoted comments about government we call practical or applied objectivism. By theoretical, we mean, the essential principles or philosophical theory of objectivism, by practical, we mean, the systems of private and social practices one presumes result from the application of the principles of objectivism to personal and social actions.
As far as it goes, theoretical objectivism, as outlined above, and all the places where it was more fully delineated in both her fiction and non-fiction writing is irrefutably correct. There is some question about Ayn Rand's view of the practical application of her philosophy, and while it is open to both question and criticism, the core principles should and do remain unscathed.
So, What's Wrong with Objectivism?
Nothing? So long as we are talking about theoretical objectivism, and so long as we are only concerned with those aspects of philosophy Objectivism actually addressed, there is nothing wrong with it. There are problems, however, associated with objectivism, and those need to be identified and addressed so the progress of philosophy does not cease, and the truths thus far learned and identified stay alive.
The most significant problems of Objectivism are the following:
Objectivism is an Incomplete Philosophy.
Would we have electric lights if there had never been a Thomas Edison, or telephone, if there had never been an Alexander Graham Bell, or radio and television if there had never been a Marconi? Probably. Maybe not as soon, and process of development may have been different, but these undoubtedly would have been developed by others.
Would we have Objectivism, the philosophy, (by that or any other name) if there had never been an Ayn Rand? It is very doubtful, even though most of the essential principles of Objectivism have been discovered and even promoted by others, the principles were never integrated into a consistent fully developed philosophy. Even if such a development were eventually accomplished by the few who were capable of understanding the nature of these concepts, it is certain they would not have been able to give that philosophy the almost incredible promotion it received in the works or Ayn Rand. Could Objectivism have been developed without Ayn Rand? Possibly, but probably, none of us would ever have heard of it.4
Many people, including those who call themselves Objectivists, are unaware of the fact that Ayn Rand never intended be a philosopher, and even though we cannot deny that she was a consummate philosopher, it was not her profession. Ayn Rand was a writer and novelist. That was her chosen and very successful profession.
All writing is an expression of a writers philosophy. Ayn Rand called her literary style romanticism, by which she meant, heroic and idealistic, in the sense of a celebration of human life, its purpose, its potential, its achievement, and its success. This was Ayn Rand's implicit philosophy, what she called her, "sense of life," but at the time she was beginning to write, there was no corresponding explicit philosophy that defined the objective principles of these ideals. She knew if she were going to successfully write the kind of novels she intended to write, she would first have to develop the explicit philosophy they depended on.
Objectivism is that explicit philosophy. It is no criticism, therefore, to say Objectivism is an incomplete philosophy. In one sense, no philosophy will ever be "complete," if that means all possible philosophical questions will be answered, anymore than there will ever be a "complete" mathematics. What we mean by incomplete is that some of the basic branches philosophy are undeveloped in Objectivism. Objectivism, to the extent it has been developed, certainly fulfills all the requirements Ayn Rand originally specified for it and it certainly is a more fully developed philosophy than any other to this day.
The specific areas that Objectivism does not fully develop however, are very important to philosophy, and especially to those other disciplines for which philosophy defines the justifying principles, such as the sciences and technological development.
Because this is only an introduction, it will only be possible to identify those aspects of philosophy that remain to be addressed by objectivism. They are:
Ayn Rand's philosophy identifies metaphysics and epistemology as essential divisions in philosophy, which in her limited philosophy was correct. Classically, and I think approprately for a full philosophy, metaphysics is considered a general category which includes the three sub-categories, ontology, epistemology, and philosophical psychology, to which we add a fourth, generally neglected but necessary category, viology.
Briefly, this outlines the general categories of all philosophical knowledge of existence, and the relationships between them as follows: Ontology is the study of the ultimate nature of material existence where material existence is defined as that which consciousness is conscious of. Philosophical psychology is the study of the ultimate nature of consciousness which is defined as that which is our direct apprehension of existence. Ayn Rand's Objectivism begins with existence (ontology) and consciousness (philosophical psychology), as axiomatic concepts, and so they are.3 Ayn Rand fully addressed one aspect of consciousness, that is, rational consciousness, in her epistemology. It is consciousness itself, its ultimate nature, that she accepts axiomatically.
For her purposes, and as a correct basis for her philosophy, the axiomatic truth of consciousness and existence were sufficient. But an axiom is not the conclusion of enquiry, it is the beginning, and both consciousness and existence have natures which need to be understood in order to fully integrate those concepts with all other knowledge.
Material existence is that which consciousness is conscious of. Consciousness is that which is aware or conscious of existence. Ontology and psychology are very important because they define those aspects of material existence that make it possible for consciousness to be conscious of it, and the nature of consciousness that makes it possible for it to be conscious of material existence, as well as the nature of how (in what manner) consciousness is conscious of material existence, all of which are essential to epistemology.
Viology is the study of the ultimate nature life. Life is that quality which distinguishes organisms from all other material entities. Consciousness pertains only to organisms. The importance of viology is that it define those aspects of the nature of life that make consciousness possible to "non-conscious" material existence.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, or more exactly, the ultimate nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. This is the heart of philosophy, and the aspect, after ethics, most fully addressed by Ayn Rand, and probably her most important contribution to philosophy. Even here, however, there are some aspects that need more development. Some could not be developed without a thorough ontology and philosophical psychology.
Aesthetics is the study of the ultimate nature of beauty. Of all philosophical enquiries, this is probably the most difficult, and usually the most neglected. It's significance is easy to misjudge, and even to doubt. Tone deaf, color blind, "art-challenged," people are able to live perfectly full and satisfying lives. There is no work or art the world could not get along just as well without. What's so important about art?
This is a basic misunderstanding of aesthetics. Aesthetics is not the study of art, which ought to be a product of aesthetics, not the object of its study. Man noticed beauty and ugliness in the world before his attempt to create them, and that there is a fundamental relationship between ethical good and bad and aesthetic beauty and ugliness, and this relationship has a profound influence on all human activity, as well as our capacity to understand and enjoy life. It is what these are relationships are, and what they mean that is the objective of aesthetics.
Ayn Rand made some important contributions to the field of aesthetics, but would not doubt readily admit, those contributions were more like an introduction to the field than a full treatment.
Objectivism Not Understood by "Objectivists"
We put "Objectivists" in quotes here, because everyone who calls themselves an objectivist, of the Randian or any other variety are included.
Most adults greatly underestimate a child's ability to understand. As a result, adults frequently say things to children which both offend the children and diminish their respect for adults. The absurd argument (straight out of Kant), "what if everybody did that?" used by adults to convince children to avoid a practice they believe is bad or injurious, is seen through by every child, though some philosophers are still befuddled by it.
"Well, then, nobody should be a doctor. What if everybody was a doctor, who would make the shoes?" I once rashly retorted to an uncle who had insulted me with the stupid Kantian argument. The results were not good, however, but a learning experience nevertheless.
I was shocked as an adult, when on more than one occasion someone actually said, "what if everyone was an objectivist," implying that some grave consequence would result if everyone held objectivists views. Reasoning with this kind of objection is pointless, but, in spite of its absurdity, I sometimes answered the question, as though it was an objective one.
"If everyone were an objectivist, there would be a lot of things missing from the world as we know it. I willingly confess this. If everyone held objectivist views, and lived by them, there would be no welfare, because no objectivist would accept it, and since everyone is an objectivist, there would be no one to give it to. There would be no public school, because no objectivist would allow someone else to pay for the education of their children. There would be no criminal justice system, because there would be no criminals, no theft, no violent crimes, no murder. There would also be no war...."
Somewhere along here I would be interrupted by someone saying, "but that's Utopian. That can't ever happen."
"That's right!" I agree. "It cannot happen. I never said it could happen, I do not believe it can happen, but that evidently never occurred to the one who asked the question. The only reason I answered the question was to demonstrate its absurdity. It was meant to repudiate Objectivism on the basis that if Objectivism were universally embraced the results would be evil. When it is shown this is not true, you turn around and repudiate Objectivism on the basis that what it was originally accused of is impossible."
Many who call themselves Objectivists or objectivists, however, do talk as though they believe objectivist philosophy really can result in some kind of Utopian Capitalist heaven on earth and that this can be achieved by gaining some kind of general acceptance of objectivist philosophy which then will be implemented by an objectivist government. But objectivism will never be embraced generally, or even widely, or even by a large number of individuals. While it is the most consistent and logically simple of all philosophies, it is still too difficult and too demanding for most people to either understand or accept.5
Practically speaking, almost nobody understand Objectivism. This includes the majority of those who consider themselves objectivists, and certainly most of those who claim to, "love Ayn Rand," meaning her novels. If you do not believe this, ask the next ten objectivists you meet the following questions:
---What is the objective basis for rights? ---Who decides what is ethically right and wrong? ---What should be done about a radio station the censors the free speech of those calling a talk program? ---What is truth? ---What is money and can it ever be the cause of evil?
Only ask these questions of those who claim to be Objectivists. There shouldn't be a moments hesitation in answering any of these questions for an Objectivist. These are fundamental issues in Objectivism, and thoroughly discussed and defined numerous times in the works of Rand and many of her proteges. Yet, not one in a thousand so-called Objectivists will be able to answer more than two of these questions, and the number that can answer them all is miniscule.
Ignorance of objectivist principles by those who call themselves Objectivists is not because Objectivism is so difficult, although it does present difficulties for those taught in public schools whose ability to think has been severely crippled. Ignorance of the actual principles of Objectivism is because most people are really not interested in the truth, at least, not in the same way they are interested in sports, or entertainment, or their club, or whatever consumes them. There is nothing immoral in this, it is just a fact of human nature, a fact the Objectivists frequently ignore.
To really understand objectivism requires time, work, and attention. Most of those who call themselves objectivists have been inspired by some of the ideas of Objectivism from reading Ayn Rand's novels or some other exposure to them. They like the ideas of independence, or see the value of a free market, or some other aspect of objectivism. Most, however, do not have a fully integrated view of objectivist philosophy, because they are unwilling to make the effort that requires. Many self-proclaimed Objectivists, if they really understood it, might not be Objectivists at all. Like life, it is very demanding, and like life, it only rewards those willing to meet those demands.
Unfortunately, these non-objective objectivists are often vocal and, presuming to speak for Objectivism, propagate a great deal of misinformation about it.
"Applied" Objectivism Contradicts Theoretical Objectivism
The distinction between applied and theoretical objectivism is not Ayn Rand's. What we call applied objectivism was, for Ayn Rand, simply the objective application of objectivist ethical and political principles.
For this introduction, it will have to suffice to identify some areas of applied objectivism that require further delineation.
Rights
The word "rights" today is used by politicians and special interest groups to promote positions and laws that are the antipathy of all Objectivist principles. There is a misunderstanding arising from this notion of rights. Ayn Rand correctly stated that no individual or group has a right to initiate the use of force, or the threat of it, against any other individual or group. If there is a legitimate use of the word "right," it is this negative use of the word that is the only possible correct one.
However, even in the objectivist use of the word, there is an idea that rights name something that can or ought to be guaranteed to men. This is a great mistake, and it is this idea that has opened the door to the proliferation of rights that allows any statist collectivist idea to be put over in the name of them.
Nature of Government
Objectivism's theory of government supposes that a government can be non-coercive, that is, that it can exist without the threat of initiating the use of force against its citizens. This is demonstrably not correct. Whatever an organization is, if it cannot initiate the use of force (and will not) it is not a government. This basic logical error about government results an several other issues with objectivist political theory. Some are the following:
People, the "Stuff" of Societies
Ayn Rand once said, "... even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy [no government], it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter of honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."6 This, of course, is a great mistake. When "fully rational faultlessly moral men," require an arbiter of their honest disagreements, they do not resort to an agency with guns. That is not how "fully rational faultlessly moral" men solve their differences. What necessitates government, whether you mean by necessitates, "makes them inevitable," or "makes them advisable," is that societies are never comprised of fully rational faultlessly moral men. On the contrary, most societies are comprised primarily of mostly irrational and immoral people.
It is this fact that all objectivist solutions to the political problem of government always overlooks. Any government of any design, unless imposed by an outside force, must draw from its own population for its "rulers," which means they will be not better, and probably worse, than the average citizen, that is, mostly irrational and immoral. For example: our present American government.
The Free Market and Government
There are only two kinds of power, the power of the market, that is, the power to influence people by offering them what they want and need, and the power of politics, that is, the power to influence people through fear of being denied what they want or having what they want taken away from them. Market power fails the moment coercive force is introduced. Political power can only work by the use or threat of coercive force. Markets and governments are contradictory concepts.
Since the market consists of mostly irrational men, because societies do, it can be counted on to favor the irrational. Those products, goods, services, and even ideas that appeal to people's short-term interests, satisfy their immediate passions, and make them "feel good," will succeed first. Those products of the highest objective value, and therefore, more demanding, in terms of intelligence and effort, will be the least successful, at least at first.
The temptation to "do something about it," that is, this tendency of the market to favor the cheap and tawdry, is very great, especially by those most likely to be appalled and frustrated by the "stupidity" of the market. The means usually selected for correcting the situation, unfortunately, is some kind of government control, with the inevitable disastrous results. The worst a free market produces is better and more valuable than the best produced by any system that includes the initiation of coercive force.
There is no way to prevent a government from interfering in the market, however. The interference appeals to everyone at some level, and all protest will only be about the immediate affect on small classes of people, never a general one. There is not a case in history where this intrusion of government in the market did not always increase, and there is no reason to suppose this will not always be the case. Objectivism correctly defines the evil of this, and correctly describes the only free market as capitalism. What objectivism misses is that a "capitalist government" is an oxymoron.
OBJECTIVIST SOLUTIONS
It is easy to identify problems and to criticize. It is much more difficult to define solutions to problems and to correct faults. Nevertheless, that is our intention.
No one can doubt the influence of philosophy on history. What people do is determined by what they believe. The influence of most philosophy has, in the past, worked its way from the philosophers, by way of the intellectuals, eventually to artists and politicians, and then to the people. Objectivism is the first philosophy to work in the opposite direction. Its success was not due to being embraced by the intellectuals, and promoted by the artists (except that its architect was also an artist). While the intellectuals of this country (USA) were promoting the nineteenth century philosophy that produced twentieth century Europe and its disasters, Objectivism was embraced by the common people, because it explained American culture, American values, and life as they actually lived it every day.
Only now are some intellectuals beginning to understand that European philosophy is bankrupt and that the people who have embraced objectivism are "on to something." What they are on to is something clean, something wholesome and right, something with real hope and meaning -- it's called the truth.
Truth is the God of benevolence. All human progress and all human success is the result of discovering and acting in accord with the truth. All human disasters and all human failure is the result of acting contrary to, or even in defiance of the truth.
But truth only benefits those who are willing learn and apply it. It is true that in a free society, or even a moderately free one like ours, even those who consistently evade the truth enjoy the unearned benefit of prosperity created by those who embrace and act according to the truth. Ultimately, a society where those whose life is dependent on those whom they are trying to destroy will itself be destroyed. The question is, do those who love the truth let themselves be destroyed with such a society? If not, what can they do about it?
Unfortunately, Objectivism addresses this question in an oblique manner that gives the impression that the solution is to save such a society from the error which is destroying it. In spite of itself, Objectivism, in practice, advocates a kind of collectivism, and that error ensures the failure of applied Objectivism.
There is no collective solution, no social solution, and no political solution. Freedom, like everything else of value, cannot be acquired or achieved with the use of a gun. The only positive thing that can ever be produced with a gun is dinner. Guns, as weapons, serve only one moral purpose, self-defense. 7 Guns can be used to protect one's freedom, but those without liberty cannot acquire it by using guns.8
The greatest disappointment about Objectivism is probably its failure to be of real help to those who have chosen to discover and live by the truth, that is, as fully rational human beings in a world dominated by irrationality and immorality. To live as a free human being in the world does not require that one convince the rest of the world that is the way to live, or even to convince those in one's own community, or even to convince one other human being. Just as one ought to be able to live and enjoy their life by their own effort and choice in every other area of their life, they ought to be able to "earn" their own liberty, no matter what the rest of the world believes or does.
This is what is really missing from Objectivism. This is what our future articles will provide. These are the solutions that will allow you to live as you choose in a world bent on making you live as they choose. To encourage you, many have done it before, many are doing it today, and when enough do that, the world also may choose to live rationally, but it is not necessary that it does.
You may live your life, rationally and freely, without convincing anyone else that you are right, or to live differently than they do. You may be as free and as prosperous as you choose, but nothing is free. It will cost your everything, but the reward is freedom and life.
|
|
Footnotes
1. There are a couple of exceptions. With Charity Toward None: An Analysis of Ayn Rand's Philosophy, by William F O'Neill and Without a Prayer (Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System, by John W. Robbins. You have probably not heard of either of these books, which just about says how important they are. I do not count as criticisms of Objectivism those carpings arising from different factions of objectivism.
2. "Introducing Objectivism," The Objectivist Newsletter, Aug. 1962
3. [The] underscoring of primary facts is on of the crucial epistemological functions of axiomatic concepts. It is also the reason why they can be translated into a statement only in the for a repetition (as a base and a reminder): Existence exists---Consciousness is conscious---A is A. (This converts axiomatic concepts into formal axioms.) [Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology] Epistemologically, the formation of axiomatic concepts is an act of abstraction, a selective focusing on and mental isolation of metaphysical fundamentals; but metaphysically, it is an act of integration---the widest integration possible to man: it unites and embraces the total of his experience.
4. The free market and ideas: The success of Objectivism in the market of ideas is not the result of Objectivism's value, as estimated by the market. It would not have mattered who developed the electric light, or the telephone, or wireless communication. They would have been successful if developed by anyone, because people loved electric lights, telephones, radio, and television. But people hated objectivism. Its success depended on something people loved, well written stories. If objectivism had to rely on the ability of people to objectively evaluate it for its market success, it would have been a failure. The importance of art in promoting ideas cannot be overestimated.
5. No philosophy can actually do anything. Philosophy, like science (the accumulated body of knowledge, not the process) or mathematics does not produce one thing, or make one thing right. It is only the application of the principles philosophy, or science, or mathematics to actual work or practices that produces anything of value. Ultimately, philosophy only matters, if individual human beings understand it and apply it in their own choices and actions.
6. "The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness
7. This statement is to be understood in a rhetorical sense and applying only in a social or political context. Guns provide enjoyment to human beings on many levels, of course, as instruments of sport or hobby, as objects of study, for hunting, and even for show.
8. Since this may easily be misunderstood, a little explanation is required. Freedom, in the political sense, is what you would have if you were the only person in the world, or where there are other people, none of them ever use force to coerce you in any way, either to do or not to do anything. Your liberty or freedom can only be lost to some individual or group that threatens to use force against you. If this happens, your only means of preventing your freedom being lost is to use force against those who threaten to take it away.
|
The word "rights" today is used by politicians and special interest groups Most of all it is used by lawers and lawmakers, not politicians.
Ayn Rand correctly stated that no individual or group has a right to initiate the use of force, or the threat of it, against any other individual or group. There appears to be a confusion here. One has to distnguish moral right and civil right. "No individual or group has the right" reads to me as "has no moral right" and, therefore, should not have civil right to do so.
If so, this question cannot be resolved without stating to which ethical norms the author adhears. Of course, an answer could be easily given along the lines, "In Judeo-Chrisitian system of values, no individual...;" in other words, "the Bibile says so." Somehow I verym uch doubt that this is what the author had in mind. even in the objectivist use of the word, there is an idea that rights name something that can or ought to be guaranteed to men. This is a great mistake, Now we are talking about civil rather than moral rights. If so, the statement is wrong. The rights and duties occur in duality: whenever one has a right, it places an obligation on some- or everyone else. If you own a house, I have aduty not to tresspass onto your property, for instance. If you have freedom of speech, the government has a duty not to interfere with your exercise of it.
Your right is that which you may do without asking others. It is a boundary of your behavior acknowledged by the rest of society. Without society there is no notion of rights. it is this idea that has opened the door to the proliferation of rights that allows any statist collectivist idea to be put over in the name of them. NO, it is the ever-chaning values of society that opened the door for these developments.
As mentioned earlier, a right is a behavioral boundary acknowledged by society (not necessarily, of course, by every memeber of it). Where specifically society draws that boundary depends, naturally, on its values. When they change, the boundaries are redrawn.
Hank
When "fully rational faultlessly moral men," require an arbiter of their honest disagreements, they do not resort to an agency with guns. This not because of the arbiter role but the enforcer role: that which has been decreed in arbitration must also be enforced.
What necessitates government, whether you mean by necessitates, "makes them inevitable," or "makes them advisable," is that societies are never comprised of fully rational faultlessly moral men. No, this is a misunderstanding of rationality. Fully rational people may disagree due to the aymmetry of information in their possession. It is not even the boundedness of rationality but the asymmetry of information that makes them disagree. Secondly, the preferences diverge. An action of a fully rational agent is predicated on these two factors: his preferences, and information. Two such rational agents will usually not agree on the same action, hence the enforcement is necessary.
Consider a pure market for goods provided by a utility company. The technology here is such that only one company in a given territory will survive. Such natural monopoly has a great deal of market power to charge whatever prices it deems preferable: where else will you go?
Once the government intervenes and places the monopoly under regulatory cnstraints, the prices are lowered. Here the market power of consumers increases with government intervention.
Of independent importance is the ussue of provision of public goods --- something that "pure market" adherents and libertarians always fail to address. Markets are incapable of producing public goods, such as police and military protection, lighting in the streets, clean air and water, etc. This is because it is in your self-interest to wait for others to pay for that service: once I pay for the army, you are protected also --- a free-rider problem.
The gov't is able to produce public goods precisely becuae of its coercive power. It says, "We need an army, you SHALL pay the tax." And the army (clean water, highways, etc.) is produced.
In essence, we hire the government to produce public goods that no private citizen wants to pay for.
5. No philosophy can actually do anything. Philosophy, like science (the accumulated body of knowledge, not the process) or mathematics does not produce one thing, or make one thing right. It is only the application of the principles philosophy, or science, or mathematics to actual work what on earth does THAT mean?
or practices practice(s) of what?
that produces anything of value.
Consider a person that, while sitting under an unstable bolder, observes an increase in wind velocity. If he knows that the wind exerts pressure on the boulder, and the boulder is liable to fall (onto him), he will move away and save his life. Thus, mere knowlege of a scientific fact, that wind exerts pressure, produced materiall usuful results.
The following part is utterly ridiculous, I am sorry:
Ultimately, philosophy only matters, if individual human beings understand it and apply it in their own choices and actions. The trouble with philosophy is that it's not clear what it says, much like the lessons of history: it is not clear what we should learn from them.
The whole statement is childish; it is of the type, "my dress is prettier than yours."
This is totally false:
5. No philosophy can actually do anything. Philosophy, like science (the accumulated body of knowledge, not the process) or mathematics does not produce one thing, or make one thing right. It is only the application of the principles philosophy, or science, or mathematics to actual work what on earth does THAT mean? or practices practice(s) of what?
that produces anything of value.
Consider a person that, while sitting under an unstable bolder, observes an increase in wind velocity. If he knows that the wind exerts pressure on the boulder, and the boulder is liable to fall (onto him), he will move away and save his life. Thus, mere knowlege of a scientific fact, that wind exerts pressure, produced materiall usuful results.
In this case, "he knows the wind exerts pressure on the boulder" is the scientific knowledge, which, if ignored, that is, not acted on, (the work or practice of moving away), he will not save his life. Only by applying the "scientific knowledge" is the good "saving his life" produced. The science (or philosophy, or any other knowledge) that does not actually result in any action produces nothing of value.
Hank
But I hope that it was easy to see the main point. Reverse the situation, and make a man walking while the bolder is already moving down. By knowing a bit of dynamics, the man can coclude that he should continue at the same speed to conclude injury. Inaction, in this case, saves his life.
To speak in more general terms, one improves his utility (well-being, value) by optimizing it within a set of alternatives. One of these alternatives is maintaining the status quo (usually feasible). Knowledge may result in the optimal choice "do nothing" (let the waters in the river recede, let the flooded basement dry on its own, etc.), whereas any other action would be more costly.
This is ridiculous on two counts.
First, if objectivism is so reasonable and rational, then reasonable and rational people should long ago have discovered and described it -- especially given that it is " the easiest to understand philosophy to date."
If the sycophantic claim were true, then we wouldn't have had to wait several thousand years for Ms. Rand to discover it for us -- I guess because only Ayn could "explain and illustrate difficult and complex concepts so well" -- those easy concepts of his....
In fact, as Whittaker Chambers pointed out, the basic elements of her philosophy -- at least as portrayed by her characters -- had been described decades earlier by Friedich Nietzsche. Not the sort of endorsement Rand would acknowledge and trumpet, but true nonetheless.
Second, Rand's exposition of objectivism is really quite awful, not least because her four basic premises are not logically consistent.
And this: "Ayn Rand was a very capable writer." Prolific, perhaps, but she writes with the style, subtlety, and grace of a German jazz band.
I always giggle when Randians claim that their philosphy is just grand "because it is entirely rational and objective." One cannot defend such a claim against Rand's own words: The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Not only is there is nothing at all objective about this "highest moral purpose," but it is entirely possible to meet that highest purpose by violating Rand's own premises.
Rand is useful for getting people started in thinking outside the standard ruts. But that's a two-edged sword. Simple logic demonstrates that Rand's ideas are not consistent, and that any truth in her claims has their basis is in something other than objective reality.
Overall, your posts show you don't really "get" this guy. He has anticipated your objections to a greater extent than you seem to realize.
I do not care at all about "getting this guy:" he pushes pragmatism beyond its limits and over-reached as a result. See post 13 as well.
If you have anargument, please advance it: neither the author's personality nor my own is the subject here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.