A Thought Exercise

Over at Phatic Communion, Curtis Weeks (who is not an Objectivist) gives his impressions of a blog by an Objectivist college student. I found certain aspects of his analysis thought-provoking, but I regard the overall analysis as fundamentally flawed. On the one hand, certain philosophical issues he raises were interesting to mentally kick around a little and he does raise rhetorical issues about the still relatively new medium of the web log. I will discuss a few of the philosophical issues and only touch a little on the rhetorical ones here. (There are many, and I have barely begun to sort them out. I may or may not blog about them later.) On the other hand, I found the overall analysis often suffered because of Curtis's equivocation between the broader term "objectivism" and the more specific term "Objectivism" (which refers specifically to the philosophy of Ayn Rand).

So that's my summary.

This is a long, rambling post that will probably be of interest only to other Objectivists, possibly to Curtis, and perhaps to those curious about Objectivism. Especially to those last: I do not hold myself out as an authority on same.

A question implicit from the start in the critique is made explicit later on. Namely:

"Why are Objectivists so insistent on their proclamations?"

I'll begin with the following line since it accidentally gets at the crux of the matter.

Its been awhile since I addressed the subject (object?) of objectivism [sic: The lower-case term names a philosophic principle important to the philosophy named by the upper-case term. --ed].

I take the word-play as my point of departure. What is the "object" (read: "point" -- for my purposes) of Objectivism? Since Curtis at one point remarks on the propensity of Objectivists to quote other Objectivists, I can't resist, at this point, answering him by quoting Ayn Rand herself on this point: "Objectivism is a philosophy for living on this earth." This apparently simple statement has many ramifications, not the least of which is that Objectivists regard philosophical ideas as relevant to their lives. This is in marked contrast to adherents of many other (if not most) schools of philosophical thought. I will elaborate more on this point as appropriate as I continue discussing this post.

As his point of departure, Curtis gives his general impressions of a blog I hadn't encountered before reading his post. Since I had not encountered this blog before reading his post -- and he likens the blog to those by other Objectivists anyway (one in particular that I happen to follow quite closely) -- I will address his remarks by referring to that blog and its author, Gus Van Horn, at all times unless context otherwise indicates or I say otherwise.

My initial thoughts...

1. Some of the observations -- perhaps quite a few of the observations -- are clever, indeed, and humorous.
2. The young author of that blog certainly seems to have thought the observations were particularly witty.
3. The obligatory capitalist, rationalist, anti-liberal conservative pronouncements are sprinkled here and there — and sometimes poured thickly.

I was reminded quite strongly of another objectivist’s weblog I frequently read…and I’m beginning to detect a pattern.

Point 1: Fair enough. Point 2: No comment on this but to ask why any author would knowingly commit to "paper" an observation he thought would make him look like a dimwit. Points 1 and 2 are not really pertinent to a discussion of Objectivist blogs in general, but at Point 3, the rubber hits the road. Weeks notes the commonality of terms pertaining to various philosophical and political positions that Objectivists frequently support or oppose. Given that Objectivists regard ideas as vitally important, this should be even less surprising than, say, seeing a Catholic blogger using such parallel terms as, "social justice" or "heretical", and making "anti-abortion" or "anti-greed" pronouncements.

Why less so? Because the tenets of a religion are supposedly handed down by God and may or may not pertain to living in this world, as witness the many "moral vs. practical" dilemmas faced by Christians of all stripes. In Objectivism, on the other hand, the moral is the practical. (e.g., Murder is not practical, but that would take a long time to explain fully.) On average, an Objectivist is going to think about moral questions much more often than the follower of a religion. Also, few people are raised as Objectivists, so most of us had to consciously decide to study and accept the tenets of Objectivism. This means that a greater proportion of us on average tend to think about philosophical matters than the average Joe, who more likely simply absorbed his beliefs from others while growing up. While some Objectivist (and Catholic) bloggers might discuss their philosophical positions more or less than others, I think Objectivists are going to be much more prone, on the average, to mention or discuss Objectivism (and aspects thereof) than a Catholic Catholicism.

On "Obligatory Pronouncements"

As for the list of ideas Curtis brings up.... Objectivists favor laissez-faire capitalism, an idea we would like to see implemented politically. Most of us regard this goal, if it ever occurs, to be one that we will not see in our lifetimes. In the meantime, we would like to at least see our mixed economy become more capitalist. But even this idea meets strenuous resistance from the socialists of the left. On the right side of the political spectrum, matters are more complicated. Some conservatives also oppose capitalism. Nearly all the rest claim to favor capitalism, but offer as arguments in its favor (when they do at all) that actually undercut the case for capitalism. (My favorite of all time: "Communism is a noble ideal, but human beings can't live up to it." Translation: "We're not 'good enough' for socialism." What kind of defense of capitalism is that? It concedes that socialism is a moral system and perhaps practical as well!) This means that most conservatives offer nothing or worse than nothing as theoretical defenders or advocates of capitalism. Hence all the anti-liberal and anti-conservative "pronouncements" -- and economics is only one area in which Objectivists find ourselves at odds with each side of the traditional political divide.

And as for "rationalism", I am not sure how Curtis is using it in his list. Some use it to mean "rationality" or "reason", and Objectivist epistemology can indeed best be summarized with the word "reason" (He may accuse me of quoting Ayn Rand here if he wishes.) But in Objectivist discussions, "rationalism" does not mean "reason", but the peculiar misapplication of deductive logic to a situation demanding inductive logic. A rationalistic argument might be logically coherent, for example, but it will be marked by a tendency to ignore relevant facts. The casual reader should not be surprised to find this term being discussed by Objectivists.

Recall my point about Objectivists regarding ideas as important. This bears directly upon Curtis's next thought on Objectivist bloggers: "Why are [O]bjectivist bloggers so insistent about their proclamations?"

There are many reasons for this. Consider the "proclamation" that "Socialized medicine is bad." This statement, for an Objectivist, is anything but a "proclamation" in the sense that a divine fiat or an arbitrary statement would be. It derives from an inductive evaluation of the facts of reality in light of one's philosophical premises. I could go on for eons about this, but I will provide just a small sample. Socialized medicine means that a physician is not free to work on his own terms. He is a slave to the state. Thus government control of medicine further implies that a society has accepted the premise that certain individuals belong to the state. On what basis? And, if you're not a physician, on what basis do you not belong to the state? Socialized medicine is a threat to your freedom in the sense that it is a horrific precedent for your future enslavement (If you aren't already a slave -- er -- doctor.).

Socialized medicine also means that the government will supposedly pay for whatever medical care you need. It's a no-brainer that the system will get swamped by high demand, so some form of rationing will be imposed. Who knows whether you need a physician more: You or a government bureaucrat who doesn't know you from Adam? Also, consider the numerous problems faced by every socialized medicine system in the world: shortages, long waits for important procedures, poor standards of cleanliness in hospitals, physician "brain-drains", etc., etc. Socialized medicine is a threat to your health. If you see something as a threat to your freedom and your health wouldn't you be vehemently opposed to it? Again: Objectivists regard philosophical principles (like "Man has the right to profit from his own effort.") and evaluations (like "Socialized medicine is bad.") reached by applying said principles as relevant to their lives.

Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness

Later on, Curtis makes the following statement that reveals a lot more to me about his most fundamental philosophic premises than he might realize. "Objectivist bloggers seem quite absorbed in their process of dictating the conditions of 'objectivism' for those who do not share their perspective(s). " No Objectivist blogger who knows what he's talking about will try to do that. It's impossible.

This statement touches on the fundamental issue that lies at the base of any philosophical system: primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness. The former position, which I, as an Objectivist, hold, is that the universe exists independently of any consciousness, be it that a of deity, or of "society", or my own, or Curtis Weeks's. One's consciousness is merely the faculty of perceiving that which exists. The opposite position, primacy of consciousness, holds that reality is created by some consciousness. To gain knowledge of reality, one receives divine revelation, learns the consensus, or looks within one's own mind.

So what does this have to do with what Curtis said? The very idea of "dictating" to someone else what the "conditions of [objectivity] are for those who do not share their perspective(s)" implies one of two things: (1) We are incessant proseletyzers. (Remember, Curtis: I've got the goods on you. You will read this blog religiously. And you will read Atlas Shrugged over and over again until you can recite Galt's speech in your sleep and you agree with all of it. But seriously, I don't see this blog causing someone to make such a major change in their lives.) or (2) That what is "true for me" may not be "true for you", and so any statement of something as objective fact is completely unwarranted. My vote is for (2). But as much as I'd like the entire world to agree with me -- unless I've made a mistake at some point in my thinking -- I can't "dictate" the conditions of objectivity for anyone, including myself. These conditions just are, and I can only state what I think they might be.

Man's consciousness has a specific nature. It grasps reality in a certain way. We can discover how it does and act accordingly, or we can pretend that we know things by some other means. That's not up to me or anyone else. You can disagree with what I just said, but that will not affect its truth or falsehood. And we will each live with the consequences of our own conclusions as to the nature of consciousness. How have I "dictated" anything to anybody? I have merely stated what I regard as fact. Take it or leave it.

Personal Dicta: Subjective, Right, or Wrong?

The next quotation leaves me nonplussed. I have added words (in bold) omitted in Curtis's quote to provide context.

After listing five “causes” of serial killing that were given in English class, the Young Objectivist replies:

Today in English I learned: 1. Serial killers exist because (1) society glorifies violence, (2) they were neglected or abused by their families, (3) they are mentally unstable, (4) they were genetically predisposed, or (5) they drank too much alcohol.

Thanks, teach. I’m going to hack a couple families and pick a number between one and five. It’ll be just like lotto, only without the personal responsibility.

So, yes: personal responsibility. Does the Young Objectivist doubt the reader’s personal responsibility for figuring these things out on his own? Is the Young Objectivist therefore inclined to take the reader’s education in hand?

Although I am not the author of that blog, I can hazard a guess at what the writer is doing here, having myself had to listen to criminal-pandering pap in college classes before and wishing I had an outlet -- like a blog -- where I could vent some steam. The "Young Objectivist" sees a list of factors -- not a single one of them being "The killer repeatedly chose to commit murder." -- cited as "causes" of serial killing, all of which seem to imply a lack of responsibility on the part of the serial killer.

I didn't attend this class. It is possible that this blogger is overreacting to a list of things known to make people more prone to becoming serial murderers. Who knows? Who cares? It's just a guy blowing off some steam as far as I can tell. Let's give him that much credit. At least he's not a serial killer.

Curtis follows with this.

Is the Young Objectivist more concerned about the edification of others than about presenting a peculiar -- perhaps, a subjective -- statement of personal dicta? (The question will bear heavily in my conclusion!)

I am not, at this point, sure where there might be a conflict between "edification of others" and "presenting a ... statement of personal dicta". Interestingly, Curtis suggests that the blogger's personal "dicta" are somehow "subjective", which brings us right back to the issue of primacy of existence. I am not familiar with this blogger, but insofar as anyone's "personal dicta" (which I read here as "personal ethics") go, they are products of his consciousness and will ultimately reflect his use of perceptual data and logic. That is, personal dicta can indeed vary widely from one individual to the next. However, in every individual case, these will be correct or incorrect. Thus these "dicta" might indeed be "subjective" in the sense that they are products of an individual's consciousness, but their truth or falsehood is a function of how well they correspond to reality, of how objective they are.

A Definition and an Induction

This one confuses me, even within its larger context, so I will pass over it, at least for now. "Why is the great Objectivist regard for self so damned subjective?"

As for the next few paragraphs, detailing what looks to me like a needless (and probably quite rude) confrontation in a class, I have only a two comments.

In an entry under the heading “Teaching the Impossible #11,” the Young Objectivist expresses delight over his open confrontation (in class) with multiculturalists:

There’s no better way to liven up a boring class than to raise your hand and ask what’s so good about other peoples’ cultures. I know, I know, it isn’t a good idea to become too active and argumentative. Today was unbearable, so while we were having another dainty chat about some American girl who spoke Spanish with her family to “keep with her cultural roots,” I interrupted the class: “What’s the point? I’m ethnically European, and I don’t care about Europe at all. I never wanted to learn their languages, nor study their culture. Why do people want to do this?”

The Young Objectivist concludes by saying that many children of immigrants “want to be American, not Korean, not Spanish, not Kenyan.” Disregarding for a moment the fact that the Young Objectivist has presented the subjective desires of unnamed individuals as objective proof, one must credit the Young Objectivist’s adherence to the selfish desires of those unnamed and unquantified children — with one proviso. The Young Objectivist hasn’t actually bothered to define the adjective “American.” I suspect that the Young Objectivist has an idea of what is meant by the adjective (most likely a culture much like his own personal or familial culture) and is really arguing for his own self rather than theirs. I.e., it is a collectivist argument.

I have to address two issues in reverse order for the sake of clarity. First, Curtis objects to the blogger's undefined use of the term "American" after himself failing to define what look to be a few hundred words in his own post. Reductio ad absurdum aside, the cultural implications of the term "American" are commonly-enough understood that I see no need for him to define it.

Curtis objects to the blogger's offering of "the subjective desires of unnamed individuals as objective proof." Certainly, one cannot read minds, but one can reasonably induce what others probably want by simply observing them. From my own experience with the children of immigrants in high school and college, it is plain that, indeed, most were willing participants in the non-ethnic culture of America. Most (but not all) wanted to "fit in". Some knew their parent's language and some did not, but they apparently wanted to be Americans. What I think this blogger did was to make a similar induction about the desires of these immigrants' children, not a "collectivist argument".

This one I can see.

Following on this, Curtis asks a couple more questions that I will try to answer from my own experience.

Naturally, of course, the liberal multiculturalists are engaged in the same sort of self-extension: they often claim that everyone else must worship the cultural relics and traditions of another group, as they purportedly do. I can understand the Young Objectivist’s distaste for such multiculturalist authoritarianism. The Young Objectivist’s desire to give back, tit for tat, the same argument presented by these multiculturalists seems rather illogical, however.

The writer has not, as I have just indicated, done what the multiculturalists do. To recap: The blogger seems to have induced that immigrant children on the whole wish to be American. On the other hand, multiculturalists preach that all cultures are equivalent while actively discouraging children from preferring (or even learning about) America's culture.

If a classmate says that she, personally, wants to learn her parents’ culture, why does the Young Objectivist object? (Is it that he would dictate the terms of her relationship with her parents and to her parents’ culture?)

This is a valid question and it is why I regarded the in-class confrontation as almost certainly being rude. There are plenty of valid, non-multicultural reasons to want to know things about one's parents' culture(s). My guess is that he got sick and tired of having multiculturalism beaten into his head incessantly in class that day and had an understandable, if intemperate, reaction.

One quick rhetorical point: This does make him seem intolerant of the various optional aspects of other cultures, such as language, cuisine, and clothing.

Thinking about Some Concluding Thoughts

As I briefly mentioned in another entry,

logic and reason are good things to have, but so often the individual using logic isn’t the best person to evaluate the soundness of that logic.

The way to evaluate one's logic is by checking his conclusions against reality. Some would indeed be better at this than others. Also, one valid method of checking one's conclusions is indeed to consult others and carefully evaluate what they have to say.

This is one of the primary arguments I have against Objectivism as it is currently promulgated. Too often, Objectivists seem to attempt to bypass rational thought by falling into rote recitation: Capitalism! Rationality! Stupid Liberals! Multiculturalists! and the list goes on. Just as often, Objectivists seem too quick to throw Ayn Rand into the argument, or some other “well-established” Objectivist thinker. At worst, these are shortcuts to thought; at best, they are code words meant to express a wealth of meaning, like that code word “American,” or they are recitations of a higher authority which Objectivists have adopted rather than use their own capacity for rational thought -- most likely because they do not trust their own words to carry the day.

First off, using words frequently is not rote recitation. What am I, as a capitalist supposed to do when speaking of capitalism? Invent a new word for it every day?

And before I get into the issue of quotations, I see an important point buried in the notion that Objectivist blogs are "promulgating" Objectivism. Plainly, they do not, as Objectivism is a complex system of thought that no blog is going to be able to present effectively. Some Objectivist blogs (Including Don Watkins's very good one.) go so far as to include a disclaimer cautioning readers against drawing unwarranted conclusions about "Objectivism" from reading their blogs. This is a very good rhetorical point. If good ideas are worth presenting to others, it is also worthwhile to keep from misrepresenting such ideas.

As for quoting Rand and other Objectivists, I have addressed this before, in comments on his old blog (Find "Thoughts: Objectivists" and then click the comments), so let me quote myself on this matter.

As I said in my last comment, using another's argument is a good way to economize one's effort. I, for one, sometimes end up spending way more time on a post than I'd like even when quoting others, and am still not compeletly happy with it.

Insofar as quoting goes, you correctly point out that it shouldn't be used as a substitute for argument, either rhetorically or philosophically. The reasons are one and the same and will often show up in other ways as one who argues from authority is one who doesn't understand what he's talking about.

But you are wrong in dismissing what others say out of hand as "subjective." By that premise, no one ultimately knows anything, so what difference does it make if I quote my head off? When I quote someone in support of an argument of my own, it is because I am familiar with their reasoning and I agree with it.

You seem to assert that one can't call oneself an Objectivist unless one independently discovers [and expresses in wholly original words] every philosophical principle from primacy of existence to a romantic realist aesthetic. This is absurd: it took mankind milennia to do this. This criticism is analogous to saying that Frank Lloyd Wright was some kind of charletan because he didn't dig the clay of every brick from the ground himself, bake it into bricks, and build every wall, using mortar that he also invented and manufactured on his own.

In intellectual endeavor, as in any other, division of labor is what makes all achievement beyond the barest level possible. Of course, just as Wright used the finest materials, one should judge the works of others before accepting them and subsequently quoting them as part of his own argument.

This is what I have done with the work of Ayn Rand, for example. She made some pretty damned good bricks. I'll use one once in awhile when I'm building arguments of my own.

And now, after admitting that "American" might have a cultural definition as well as a legal meaning that describes citizenship, Curtis inisists that only the latter is "objective!"

Objectively speaking, any person born in America is already an American, whatever language or style of dress or religious ceremony is chosen by that person; but this concept doesn’t appear to be on the Young Objectivist’s radar.

I will address this comment as follows: Ummm. No. Not in the sense the blogger was talking about.

Jeopardy meets Weakest Link: My "final answers" are in the form of questions.

Now the next bit is interesting and more thought-provoking.

Why are Objectivists so concerned that their objectivism should be shared? Can objectivism be shared and remain objectivism? If a person’s individual capacity to think rationally and objectively is the cornerstone of Objectivist theory, why are Objectivists

1. quite convinced that vast numbers of humans are incapable of figuring out the objective truth unless
2. nanny-thinkers are there to guide, cajole, or coerce them into following the “proper” path?

I am beginning to think that the authentic Objectivist would tend to his own affairs, delivering up explanations of his M.O. only when asked -- if it served his purposes.

I will refrain from trying to think for anyone here, but reply with a few questions of my own. (1) Why would anyone discuss philosophical ideas? (2) How have I cajoled or coerced anybody by spouting off my opinions in a place one must voluntarily go? (3) So long as a society protects individual rights (i.e., keeps people from harming one another), what difference does it make to anyone what anyone else chooses to believe?

-- CAV

Note: Zach Oakes responds, making quite a few points of his own. Ouch!

Updates

8-4-05: Corrected one word. Added note with link to Oakes's rebuttal.