2-4-2005 Rand's Objectivism

A local newspaper recently ran an article on Ayn Rand, her followers, and her philosophy of Objectivism. From the Ayn Rand website (www.aynrand.org), I got the following:

"My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute: facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man - every man - is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. 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."

Of course, this "Objectivism" is more or less a restatement of materialism or physicalism, wherein the basis of truth is that which is perceived through the senses. Reality, then, extends only to that which is perceivable to us. Rand rejects any reality beyond the physical world. This is the basis of all philosophic systems of physicalism or materialism. Reality, life, and the nature of consciousness are defined only by that which we can see, hear, touch, buy, and drive.

Note that Rand is careful to define "reason" as the interpretation of empirical, physical, or material perceptions. To Rand, the reason is a tool for relating us to a physical, or material reality. This, of course, directly contrasts the classical "rationalist" concept of the reason. As constructed by Descartes, and the classical rationalists preceding him, the reason existed objectively, and the sensory input of the senses was not to be trusted. In rejecting the input of the senses and the physical world behind them, Descartes’' reason became the only sure thing. As the famous quote goes, "I think, therefore, I am." Consciousness was the basis of defining the nature of reality.

Let us also throw into the discussion the ideas of theology, both theistic and non-theistic. In a theistic system, an external supernatural being or group of beings exist, in a reality not represnted by empirical physical materials. In non-theistic systems, states of being or consciousness (nirvana) exist that transcend the physical and material. Of course, these are also in direct conflict with materialism (or objectivism).

It is from this conflict with spiritual philosophies that materialism has suffered so much grief as an ideal thought the ages. Since the material world offers no physical evidence that human beings are in any way connected, share any common spirit, or have any purpose other than self interest, materialists have traditionally found it difficult to justify ethical or moral treatment beyond a minimalist, golden rule based, self interested level. (See point 3 of Rand's statement above) The only reason to be nice to other human beings, in the physical world, is that they may, in turn, be less likely to kill you, and might even repay you any favors that you do them. Random kindness, charity, karmic goodness, or other socialistic acts where the individual self interest is sacrificed for others is, at best, a silly whim of religious folk, or at worst, an oppressive act of government.

(On Rand’s political conclusion, in her points listed above, it should be noted that laissez-faire capitalism does not follow as an ideal political system for the self interested materialist. The reasons are varied. As an example, Laissez-faire capitalism in the modern world allows for the purchasing of the individual’s reason through propaganda. Marketing, advertising, misinformation, and propaganda, freely purchased, traded, consumed, and proliferated have been demonstrably successful in inciting reasonable men to act contrary to their own self interests. Death by junk food induced obesity comes to mind as an example. The counter argument is that the individual is responsible for guarding himself against misinformation. However, it must be granted that the presence of successful thought control, even if it applies only to the most stupid and dim-witted portions of the population, nullifies the integrity of the free market system, which relies on intelligent economic decisions at all levels.)

The problem with objectivism, in my opinion, is a problem of being at the extremist end of a question to which neither extreme can successfully answer. Descartes claimed that only rational though could produce truth. Materialism claims that truth is only present in the physical world. However, neither school can produce convincing evidence to disprove the other. Rationalism may disprove the reliability of the senses themselves, but cannot disprove the physical reality. Likewise, materialism can focus on the physical reality, but cannot disprove the existence of other realities.

To illustrate, let us consider the opposing ideas of creationism and evolutionism. Evolutionists claim that human beings evolved from the primordial ooze by a process of mutations, each of which necessitated by causes and conditions of the physical world. Taking the evolutionist theorem as a basis, creationists point to “gaps” or “jumps” in the evolutionary process, claiming that certain mutations were not necessitated at the time they occurred. This, they further claim, points to the presence of an intelligent Designer or Creator.

At a certain level, neither is wrong. Evolutionists can claim that all mutations were required at the time they occurred, but proof is beyond their grasp. Likewise, creationists would be hard pressed to prove that a given mutation was in fact out of sequence. It should be noted that the presence of a Designer or Creator does not necessarily follow the identification of a gap in the evolutionary process. Such a gap could point to another explanation beyond our comprehension, which does not involve a Creator. In any case, neither is entirely correct for lack of positive evidence. Neither can be disproved for lack of contrary evidence. Both may claim sufficient evidence for consideration, and “reject” the claims of the other (as opposed to disproving), but no more.

Similarly, materialism can only “reject” rationalism and spiritualism, but cannot offer prove of the non-existence of realities outside of the physical. Religious (theist) persons often claim that God materialized events in their lives. “This morning, God put a trash can right where I needed it to jump into and avoid being eaten by a mob of rabid marmots.” While the claim may seem ridiculous to materialists, it cannot be disproved, and as such claims are so often espoused by perfectly reasonable, rational, and intelligent persons, their validity should not be dismissed.

At a more reasonable level, many have intelligently argues that immaterial realities are at work in the material world. Materialists, of course, reject the idea, assuming that if all the intricacies of the material could be understood (most practically through scientific inquiry), the immaterial explanations would be unnecessary. Spiritualism counters by proposing that ongoing investigations are doomed to never unlock fully the understanding of all material things. In this, the point must be ceded. In my lifetime, such a scientific breakthrough is unlikely.

So, where does that put me? If I cannot completely reject the existence of realities other than physical, and cannot fully prove the objective and independent nature of physical reality, what can be concluded?

Not much, unfortunately. Rand, of course, in her fourth point, warns against this type of concession of the validity of both sides (as should be expected from an extremist spokesperson). However, a not too unsuccessful philosopher proposed the concept of “the middle path” quite some time ago. As a basis of life practice, his ideas seem to work well. His name was Siddhartha Goutama – the Buddha, the enlightened one.

More later, of course.