Objectivist philosophy

(Redirected from Objectivism)

Categories: Cleanup from October 2005 | Objectivism | Philosophical theories | Philosophical movements

Objectivism is the philosophy developed by Russian-born American philosopher and author Ayn Rand. Objectivism holds that there is an independent reality, of which human beings are conscious through their senses, in which reason is the only way of gathering knowledge and only the individual rational mind can process these data, in which the proper moral purpose of one's life is to pursue one's own rational self-interest, and in which the only moral social system is full laissez-faire capitalism. Objectivism teaches that it is a person's right, responsibility and highest moral value to self and society to live by means of their own production. Selfless or altruistic living implies that we know better what another wants than they do, living by means of our own production can only happen when we produce what others value by their own free will. Gaining by use of force or fraud is outside of the moral code of objectivism. A person may use force to defend themselves but may never initate the use of force. Governments are created in order to enforce against fraud, coercion and use of force. Governments are given the only license to use force and that license is given only to counter the initiation of force. This limits government to courts, police, and a military and strictly limits government from using force for so called "public" purposes.

Rand characterizes Objectivism as a philosophy "for living on earth," grounded in reality and aimed at facilitating knowledge of the natural world and harmonious, mutually beneficial interactions between human beings. One major theme of Objectivist philosophy is a focus on the potential of the individual human being. Rand wrote:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.^[1]

Objectivism derives its name from the conception of knowledge and values as "objective," rather than as "intrinsic" or "subjective." According to Rand, neither concepts nor values are "intrinsic" to external reality, nor are they merely "subjective" (by which Rand means "arbitrary" or "created by [one's] feelings, desires, 'intuitions,' or whims"). Rather, properly formed concepts and values are objective in the sense that they meet the specific (cognitive and/or biocentric) needs of the individual human person. Valid concepts and values are, as she wrote, "determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind."

"Objectivism" was actually a secondary choice for the name of her philosophy. Rand said that "Existentialism" is the more appropriate term for her philosophy, as the most basic axiom of the philosophy is the statement that "existence exists." However, Rand claimed that Jean-Paul Sartre "corrupted" the meaning of the term "Existentialism."

She was asked in 1962 to summarize her philosophy "while standing on one foot" by a book salesman. A written account of this conversation was made into an introduction to Objectivism. Many use this as the official 'simplified' description. [2]

Objectivist principles

Metaphysics: objective reality

Main article: Objectivist metaphysics

The key tenets of the Objectivist metaphysics are captured in three propositions: (1) Existence exists, (2) Existence is Identity, and (3) Consciousness is Identification. The axiom of Existence affirms that reality (the universe, that which is) exists, and that it exists independently of human consciousness. The Law of Identity states that anything that exists is determinate, that is, has a fixed, finite nature (i.e., "A is A"). The Axiom of Consciousness affirms that one is conscious and that consciousness's function is the identification of reality. In addition to these three basic axioms, Objectivist philosophy affirms the Law of Causality as a corollary of the Law of Identity. The Law of Causality states that things act in accordance with their natures. These propositions are all held in Objectivism to be axiomatic. According to Objectivism, the proof of a proposition's being axiomatic is that it is both (a) self-evident and (b) cannot coherently be denied, because any argument against the proposition would have to suppose its truth.

Epistemology: reason

Main article: Objectivist epistemology

Objectivism's epistemology, like the other branches of Objectivism, was present in some form ever since the publication of Atlas Shrugged. However, it was more fully developed in Rand's 1967 work Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Rand considered her epistemology central to her philosophy, once remarking, "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." Egoism, however, implies pride, which is one of the Seven deadly sins. We can conclude that Objectivism clashes severely with Judeo-Christian morality and philosophy. Ayn Rand would have been proud of this conclusion.

According to the Objectivist epistemology, through sensory perception and a process of reasoning, man can achieve absolute knowledge of his environment. Objectivism rejects philosophical skepticism. As a corollary, it also maintains that anything that is not learned by objective, rational means is not true knowledge, rejecting faith as a means of attaining knowledge. This slant on perceiving reality tends to turn interpersonal relationships into exercises in observing each other. Because intuition and empathy are denied (they are not rational) love is presumably now an analytic rather than an emotional process. No, to Rand everything is analytic, including emotion. In fact, she gives a very specific definition of it. In Objectivism, love is the act of valuing the happiness of another very highly and is considered a virtuous, healthy, selfish feeling; to say, for instance, that a man who spends a fortune to cure his wife of a disease obtains no happiness from his wife's life is to deny that he loves her.

Ethics: rational self-interest

Main article: Objectivist ethics

The ethics of Objectivism is based on the theory that each person is responsible for achieving his or her own rational self-interest. There is a difference, however, between rational self interest and what she calls "selfishness without a self" - a state of range-of-the-moment selfishness to promote a self that has no esteem. Thieves, according to her, are not motivated by a desire to live (as the man of production is), but by the desire to live on a sub-human level. Instead of using "that which promotes the concept of human life" as their standard of values, they promote "that which I value" as the standard of value; thus leaving a blank check on what is and isn't moral. The "I value" in that sentence can be replaced with "we value", "he values", or "He values" and still be a blank-check ethics-killer, according to Rand. She is not asking you to believe that either rational selfishness and hedonistic selfishness-without-a-self should be considered good and evil at the same time (as "double-think" may ask) but that the former should be considered good and the latter evil and that there is a "fundamental" difference between them.

Politics: individual rights and capitalism

The transition from the Objectivist ethics to the Objectivist theory of politics relies on the concept of rights. A "right", according to Objectivism, is a moral principle that both defines and sanctions a human being's freedom of action in a social or societal context. Objectivism holds that only individuals have rights; there is, in the Objectivist view, no such thing as a "collective right" that does not reduce without remainder to a set of individual rights. Furthermore, Objectivism is very specific about the set of "individual rights" that it recognizes; as such, the Objectivist list of individual rights differs significantly from the ones adopted by most governments, for example.

Although Objectivism does not use the term "natural rights", the rights it recognizes are based directly on the nature of human beings as described in its epistemology and ethics. Since human beings must make choices in order to survive as human beings, the basic requirement of a human life is the freedom to make, and act on, one's own independent rational judgment, according to one's self-interest.

Thus, Objectivism contends, the fundamental right of human beings is the right to life. By this phrase Objectivism means the right to act in furtherance of one's own life — not the right to have one's life protected, or to have one's survival guaranteed, by the involuntary effort of other human beings. Indeed, on the Objectivist account, one of the corollaries of the right to life is the right to property which, according to Objectivism, always represents the product of one's own effort; on this view, one person's right to life cannot entail the right to dispose of another's private property, under any circumstances. Under Objectivism, one has the right to transfer one's own property to whomever one wants for whatever reason, but such a transfer is only ethical if it is made under the terms of a trade freely consented to by both parties, in the absence of any form of coercion, each with the expectation that the trade will benefit them. It can be considered axiomatic within Objectivism that human beings have the right to manipulate nature in any way they see fit, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. From this, the right to property arises.

On the Objectivist account, the rights of other human beings are not of direct moral import to the agent who respects them; they acquire their moral purchase through an intermediate step. An Objectivist respects the rights of other human beings out of the recognition of the value to himself or herself of living in a world in which the freedom of action of other rational (or potentially rational) human beings is respected.

According to Objectivism, then, one's respect for the rights of others is founded on the value, to oneself, of other persons as actual or potential trading partners (whether it be trading in a material or emotional sense). Here is where Objectivism's claim about conflicts of interest attains its full significance: on the Objectivist view, it is precisely because there are no (irresoluble) such conflicts that it is possible for human beings to prosper in a rights-respecting society.

Objectivist political theory therefore defends capitalism as the ideal form of human society. Objectivism reserves the name "capitalism" for full laissez-faire capitalism — i.e., a society in which individual rights are consistently respected and in which all property is (therefore) privately owned. Any system short of this is regarded by Objectivists as a "mixed economy" consisting of certain aspects of capitalism and its opposite (usually called socialism or statism),^[3] with pure socialism and/or tyranny at the opposite extreme.

Far from regarding capitalism as a dog-eat-dog pattern of social organization, Objectivism regards it as a beneficent system in which the innovations of the most creative benefit everyone else in the society at no loss to anyone. Indeed, Objectivism values creative achievement itself and regards capitalism as the only kind of society in which it can flourish.

A society is, by Objectivist standards, moral to the extent that individuals are free to pursue their goals. This freedom requires that human relationships of all forms be voluntary (which, in the Objectivist view, means that they must not involve the use of physical force), mutual consent being the defining characteristic of a free society. Thus the proper role of institutions of governance (whether minarchist government proper or its equivalent institutions in an anarchist society) is limited to using force in retaliation against those who initiate its use — i.e., against criminals and foreign aggressors. Economically, people are free to produce and exchange as they see fit, with as complete a separation of state and economics as of state and church.

Influence on libertarianism

Main article: Libertarianism and Objectivism

Libertarianism and Objectivism have a complex relationship. Though they share many of the same political goals, Objectivists see some libertarians as plagiarists of their ideas "with the teeth pulled out of them,"[4] whereas some libertarians see Objectivists as dogmatic, unrealistic, and uncompromising. According to Reason editor Nick Gillespie in the magazine's March 2005 issue focusing on Objectivism's influence, Ayn Rand is "one of the most important figures in the libertarian movement... A century after her birth and more than a decade after her death, Rand remains one of the best-selling and most widely influential figures in American thought and culture" in general and in libertarianism in particular. Still, he confesses that he is embarrassed by his magazine's association with her ideas.[5] In the same issue, Cathy Young says that "Libertarianism, the movement most closely connected to Rand’s ideas, is less an offspring than a rebel stepchild."[6]

Though they reject what they see as Randian dogmas, libertarians like Young still concede that "Rand was the most successful and widely read popularizer of the ideas of individual liberty and the free market of her day. In the 21st century... Rand’s message of reason and liberty... could be a rallying point" for a less dogmatic political movement with similar goals like libertarianism.

Esthetics: Romanticism

The Objectivist theory of art flows fairly directly from its epistemology, by way of "psycho-epistemology" (Objectivism's term for the study of human cognition as it involves interactions between the conscious and the subconscious mind). Art, according to Objectivism, serves a human cognitive need: it allows human beings to grasp concepts as though they were percepts.

Objectivism defines "art" as a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments" — that is, according to what the artist believes to be ultimately true and important about the nature of reality and humanity. In this respect Objectivism regards art as a way of presenting metaphysics concretely, in perceptual form.

The human need for art, on this view, stems from the need for cognitive economy. A concept is already a sort of mental shorthand standing for a large number of concretes, allowing a human being to think indirectly or implicitly of many more such concretes than can be held explicitly in mind. But a human being cannot hold indefinitely many concepts explicitly in mind either — and yet, on the Objectivist view, needs a comprehensive conceptual framework in order to provide guidance in life.

Art offers a way out of this dilemma by providing a perceptual, easily grasped means of communicating and thinking about a wide range of abstractions. Its function is thus similar to that of language, which uses concrete words to represent concepts.

Objectivism regards art as the only really effective way to communicate a moral or ethical ideal. Objectivism does not, however, regard art as propagandistic: even though art involves moral values and ideals, its purpose is not to educate, only to show or project.

Moreover, art need not be, and often is not, the outcome of a full-blown, explicit philosophy. Usually it stems from an artist's sense of life (which is preconceptual and largely emotional), and its appeal is similar to the viewer's or listener's sense of life.

Generally Objectivism favors an esthetic of Romanticism, which on its Objectivist definition is a category of art treating the existence of human volition as true and important. In this sense, for Objectivism, Romanticism is the school of art that takes values seriously, regards human reason as efficacious, and projects human ideals as achievable. Objectivism contrasts such Romanticism with Naturalism, which it regards as a category of art that denies or downplays the role of human volition in the achievement of values.

Response to Objectivist philosophy

It is fair to say that, of people who are familiar with Objecitivsm, reactions are rarely neutral. Her beliefs are often supported with great passion or derided with great disgust, with little in between. The general reaction of academia has been in the latter category, to the point where Objectivism is often not taken as a serious contribution to the field and therefore unworthy of little more than dismissal. To be specific, critics in academia often conclude that many of the specific stances are demonstrably false rehashes of old errors, and even where the belief system happens to endorse true conclusions, it does so on a fallacious basis. For example, a number of philosophers who completely agree with Rand on the topic of atheism nonetheless find her basis for it laughable and frankly embarassing.

Although many academics ignore Objectivism, some have published in academic journals on various aspects of Objectivism. Rand published most of her non-fiction essays in her own newsletter and earlier in the journal she edited, in which only those who largely agreed with Objectivism were published. She did not publish in conventional academic journals. Much of the non-fiction Objectivist corpus is available only in the form of audio recordings.

Academic institutional support for Objectivism has increased in recent years. Cambridge University Press is publishing Dr. Tara Smith's The Virtuous Egoist: Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. There are or have been Objectivist programs and fellowships at the University of Pittsburgh (Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science), University of Texas/Austin, University of North Carolina/Chapel Hill, and several other universities. And there are some 50 members of The Ayn Rand Society, an affiliated group with the American Philosophical Society, Eastern Division. Leonard Peikoff published a comprehensive presentation of Objectivism entitled Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Other works have been directed at academic audiences, such as Viable Values by Tara Smith, The Evidence of the Senses by David Kelley, and The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts by Harry Binswanger. An academic journal, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies has been publishing interdisciplinary scholarly essays on Rand and Objectivism since 1999. Whether this new scholarship and institutional support will result in a dialogue between mainstream academic philosophy and Objectivism remains to be seen.

For detailed summaries of specific responses to Objectivism, see bibliography of work on Objectivism.

"Randroid"

Randroid is a portmanteau of Rand's name with the word android, referring to those who profess Rand's philosophy in a robot-like manner, reciting what they read without questioning it. Among some critics of Rand's ideas, therefore, Randroid is used as a pejorative term for the followers of Rand's philosophy. It is sometimes used by followers of Objectivism to describe others within the group who are new or express what they consider to be a shallow understanding of the concepts. Recently, usually in a way that mocks how silly the term is to them, some Objectivists who make a hobby of studying the philosophy as well as Rand's works have called themselves this. It should also be noted, however, that Objectivism has been frequently referred to as a cult by its critics [7][8].

The term 'Randroid' is also sometimes used for thought experiments in debates over whether a robot/android could have values, a purpose to its actions. It is a tenet of objectivism that organic life is uniquely purposeful, so that an android could only have purpose relative to the service of an organic living thing.

Criticism of Objectivism

Many people who are not supporters of the beliefs and ideals of Ayn Rand do not describe them by the allegedly biased terms "Objectivism" or "rationalism", which suggest that those beliefs and ideals are in fact objective and rational. Instead, they call them "Randian" or "Randist", which make no such assumptions, and which suggests that the ties between the beliefs and their originator are so strong that following her philosophy necessitates following her.

Some (such as Michael Shermer) see the philosophy as being a cult or having a cult-like mentality. Shermer stresses how members of the orthodox movement are expected to consider Ayn Rand "the greatest human being to ever live" and look at anyone that disagrees with Rand as "irrational." This would be the opposite of an individualist philosophy and would, ironically, be similar to a collectivist one. The irony was not lost on Rand, who called her inner circle "The Collective". Like other things associated with Rand, this is fiercely debated.

Criticism of Rand's reading of the history of philosophy

Rand regarded her philosophical efforts as the beginning of the correction of a deeply troubled world, and she believed that the world has gotten into its present troubled state largely through the uncritical acceptance, by both intellectuals and others, of traditional philosophy.

Especially in the title essay of her early work, For the New Intellectual, Rand levels serious criticisms of canonical historical philosophers, especially Plato, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, G. W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Herbert Spencer. In her later book, Philosophy: Who Needs It, she repeats and enlarges upon her criticisms of Kant, and she also accuses famed Harvard political theorist John Rawls of gross philosophical errors. Some have accused Rand of misinterpreting the works of these philosophers (see, e.g., Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy by Fred Seddon).

Rand's interpretation and criticism of the views of Immanuel Kant, in particular, have sparked considerable controversy.

Many critics take issue with Rand's interpretation of Kant's metaphysics: like early critics of Kant, Rand interprets Kant as an empirical idealist. It is a long-standing question of Kant scholarship whether this interpretation is correct; in the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant claimed that his transcendental idealism was different from empirical idealism. Contemporary philosophers such as Jonathan Bennett, James van Cleve, and Rae Langton continue to debate this issue.

Other critics focus on Rand's reading of Kant's ethical philosophy. Rand alleges that Kantian ethics is a version of selflessness, an ethics of self-sacrifice. Kant's defenders claim that Kantian ethics is primarily an ethics of reason, because the categorical imperative amounts to a demand that the intent behind one's actions be logically consistent, or in Kantian terminology, that "the maxim of one's act be universalizable." Though Rand denigrates Kant's system as the absolute opposite of Objectivism, some writers have even suggested that Rand drew on Kantian ideas without realizing it. "She despised Immanuel Kant but then actually invokes 'treating persons as ends rather than as means only' to explain the nature of morality,"[9] argues Dr. Kelley Ross. In Rand's favor, Kant clearly does maintain (in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals) that an action motivated by inclination or self-interest is entirely lacking in moral worth. Still, fewer commentators have agreed with Rand's characterization of Kantianism as self-sacrificial. The contemporary philosopher Thomas E. Hill has explicitly defended Kant against this charge in his article, "Happiness and Human Flourishing in Kant's Ethics," in the anthology Human Flourishing.

Another attack on Rand comes from her outright rejection of David Hume's ideas at the foundations of her philosophy. Hume famously maintained, "No is implies an ought," but Rand disagreed by arguing that values are a species of fact (see is-ought problem). She wrote, "In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Some have suggested that Rand's solution begs the question by assuming that life is the highest value as a hidden premise of the argument. See also Objectivist Metaethics, Controversy over Ayn Rand.

Notes

1. ^  Rand, Ayn. (1996) Atlas Shrugged. Signet Book; 35th Anniv edition. Appendix. ISBN 0451191145

See also

• Ayn Rand
• Objectivist movement
• Nathaniel Branden
• Leonard Peikoff
• Bibliography of work on Objectivism
• Neo-Objectivism
• Minarchism

External links

• Essentials of Objectivism
• The Ayn Rand Institute — The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism
• ARI Watch — a critical review of the Ayn Rand Institute
• The Objectivist Center
• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy — Ayn Rand
• TIA Daily — Daily news and commentary from the Objectivist perspective by e-mail
• The Objectivism Wiki
• The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism
• Importance of Philosophy
• The Capitalism Site
• The Objectivism Reference Center includes both advocacy and criticism articles
• Sense Of Life Objectivists

de:Objektivismus (Ayn Rand) es:Objetivismo he:אובייקטיביזם hu:Objektivizmus sk:Objektivizmus (Ayn Randová) fi:Objektivismi (Rand) sv:Objektivism