Integrating Objectivism and Marxism

[Ilya Startsev]

Spiral Architect:

1. What I mean by idealizing is the separation of materialism onto vulgar and dialectic/metaphysical components and picking the latter; so, it becomes an idealism-primary materialism-secondary ideology. Communism was the ideal that Marx followed, Rand followed the Ego.
2. I never said that destruction is favored. I am against extreme force myself. I simply stated it in a way to ascertain what can be valued more in a different set of circumstances. I would never materialize this idea anyway.
3. So you never heard of collective unconscious? Or you heard but do not believe in it. That's sad because there is much scientific evidence for it, such as its effect on random number generators installed in different locations on the globe (this is explored more in documentaries "Zero Point: Beyond" and "I am", or you can google "Global Consciousness Project").
4. Watch a documentary "Invisible Empire: A New World Order." You do not have to accept it completely, but at least give it a try and consider their evidence and arguments. These invididuals are influencing world events through a collective, not a dictatorship, so, this part of Liberty is at least preserved.
5. I imply that a state should have minimum power over individuals, and individuals should have an unrestricted access to resources in their professional communities.
6. I said "with minimum power to control." What I meant was not controlling individuals and not having any excessive power over them. The same as in laissez faire capitalism. Please do not scew my point of view especially if we are in agreement.
7. Living for oneself and others is a logical statement. Tell me of a counterexample, please. All I am asking is to add "for others" part to an already existing statement. I am against tossing random results. In fact, I am against randomness, but for a logically organized unity. As an illustration, it's like following relativism in the context of quantum physics.
8. Let's look at evolution in its most basic sense, then, as a kind of positive change. As you can guess, something that does not change will stagnate and ultimately regress or destroy itself.
9. "a collective conciousness then there is no discussion" Why not, if it is a concept that should be explored and analyzed in greater detail? At least I am willing and open to it. What is there to be afraid of? Just see point 3. Please do not ignore the scientific evidence. It is not magic, but fact. We just need to look into it more rather than eschew it.


Eiuol:

1. I implied that, for example, molecules that compose your computer vibrate not because something external forced them to, but because they conduct energy, and in the most general sense, this energy is like consciousness. Of course, particles that make up your body also may be affected by you through laws of quantum physics and quantum biology. Yes, I was talking about everything that exists. This is how we connect with everything else besides us: we understand that there is an inherent essense that we share.
2. I am absolutely looking forward to making a new system out of Marxism and Objectivism. A new synthesis, that is. The trick is to crack this code and accept the challenge. The issue is that there are either individuals for Objectivism or for Marxism, but there are nearly no individuals, as far as I know, who are for both, like me. In a way this is integrating to our knowledge as well, so we can better understand where we stand by examining the opposites. Each has something true or false that is denied. The job is to find what is what.

 

bluecherry:
1. Of course, it is a "what." The question was stated in such a manner as to generate a response. "own natures interacting with each other" Yes, that's right. We have similar natures, don't you think? This nature is not purely material, or is it? Metaphysics says that it is consciousness. I hope that you would agree with me on that.
2. Impulse, initiation, the beginning of creation - these are areas of mind and Reason. These are what individuals are for in a society. A shared common goal is something that a society (read: a collective or a community, or even a family, as the smallest social unit that can constitute a society) sets out to attain. It can be some project to earn money, the production of offspring, or even an idea. The issue here is the scope of the idea herein that can be shared by the most people possible.

[Ninth Doctor]

Dear Objectivists, I challenge you to find a way to integrate your ideology with that of Marxism. Otherwise, please provide your reasons for avoiding any sort of integration/synthesis.

How about you demonstrate that there is a philosophical principle/observation in Marxism that is true and yet is denied/contradicted by Objectivism? And please don't skimp on the citations.

[bluecherry]

Who is the "we" in your first question to me? Do you mean you and I? If so, both of us being human beings, then yes, there is much overlap in our natures, but of course there are noteworthy differences ultimately too. The nature of both of us includes consciousness, but it also includes our physical bodies too.

 

"These are what individuals are for in a society."

What do you have to back this claim? Or even just that individuals do or should serve a society's purpose as opposed to vice versa?

Edited January 28, 2014 by bluecherry

[Ilya Startsev]

Grames:

 

"Consciousness is the faculty of awareness by means of perceiving reality." "objects in motion require some force to keep them in motion" "at rest unless an external force acts upon the object" Good argument overall, thank you. This is one of proper definitions of consciousness, but I would like you to tell me what force acts on human beings to make us move. You may say mind, and we can equate the two, I hope. The complete definition of consciousness, however, is more complex than even that. It is not as exact, as Rand might have believed about the meaning of "man" in Atlas Shrugged in Francisco's speech. That is why I mentioned in the beginning that consciousness is like an engine. We move by our sheer will, which comes from our consciousness, which is within our mind, which is in our brain, the neuron network and neurological impulses.

[Ilya Startsev]

Ninth Doctor:

The Marxist dialectical materialism in its general entirety is true. It is based on a pattern of solid historical evidence in that we and our society had evolved from primitive tribes, through slavery, feudalism, capitalism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history), and now we are on a brink where and exactly when we have to decide whether we want to evolve to socialism or have an impending civil war in our country. This is the point when we decide how we want to live. I hope that we choose a better way than we have. It depends on us coming to terms here, to find a compromise that will work. Here is a balanced quote by Marx about the ultimate goal from that link: "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

 

 

bluecherry:

 

Here is what I believe in: we are all unique, but replaceable. Individuals die and are replaced by other individuals, even though there are no two individuals alike in the entire universe (or two of anyone/thing alike, for that matter, if we want to be metaphysical). Individuals serve each their own purpose but in a manner that is in harmony with others and thus could be said that is in addition done for the others as well. The ideal men of Rand had done this, but it is realized that one and others are inseparable.

[Ninth Doctor]

How about you demonstrate that there is a philosophical principle/observation in Marxism that is true and yet is denied/contradicted by Objectivism? And please don't skimp on the citations.

Ninth Doctor:

The Marxist dialectical materialism in its general entirety is true.

Meaning you agree with Marx's theory of history. Now, what is the Objectivist theory of history? Please demonstrate that you have some idea of what you're talking about.

[Ilya Startsev]

I haven't gotten to it yet. That's what I want to ask you.

[oso]

I haven't gotten to it yet. That's what I want to ask you.

Before you get to that, could you please integrate Marxism and National Socialism. It would also be great if you could integrate Newtonian physics and Aristotelian physics. Maybe even all four of those together.

[Ilya Startsev]

Before we integrate Marxism and National Socialism, there needs to be other integration done. Races are a lot more complex than societies, since they may cover more than one society at a time. Hitler did not understand the nature of society, so he corrupted the racial view with racism. Lenin, on the other hand, did not understand the nature of individual, so he corrupted the social view with dictatorship. As for Newtonian and Aristotelian physics, I hope you know that Aristotle thought that when you throw a rock, it stops in mid-air and suddenly falls straight down. Newton corrected it, by showing extensive evidence to the contrary and explaining it with an elegant theory, which yet employed Aristotelian logic.

[Repairman]

Ilya Startev, the comparative similarities between Objectivism and Marxism are very few indeed. While Marxism may have some flexibility for adaptation, Objectivism is quite explicit. Rand expressed the truth that to compromise with evil is to surrender to evil. Any attempt to "reconcile" or "integrate" these two extremely different philosophies is useless. Your time would be better served reading Marx and Rand, taking some time to think about their disciplines and principles, and deducing your own hypothesis.

[Ninth Doctor]

I haven't gotten to it yet. That's what I want to ask you.

The first 20 seconds are for you:

[Eiuol]

1.
"this energy is like consciousness"

So your use of the word consciousness is metaphorical for particles like molecules? Or are you saying that any action by an entity is what you call consciousness? The term for that is causality, or self-caused internally if you want to talk about plants. Objectivism talks about causality as entities interacting. At a particle level, consciousness is hardly applicable. Consciousness, although lacking a really comprehensive definition throughout Rand's works, will basically involve goal oriented action that goes with perception. By the way, I don't think Rand has enough written to show a theory of consciousness, but you are asking about Objectivism. Besides, to say "everything is conscious" is contrary to engineering, English language, psychology, neuroscience, history, geology, and so on. On the level of physics, consciousness doesn't even apply.

2.
Facts should be integrated, not systems. Systems of thought tend to be internally consistent. You can take inspiration, but why say you want to smoosh Marxism and Objectivism together? Communism is inspired by Marxism but it isn't Marxism. Combining systems at will and hoping for the best is a bad idea. The thing about Communism is that it did Marxism all wrong, that's an example of forced integration gone wrong (plus Marxist predictions didn't materialize), like forcing a puzzle piece in place despite not fitting comfortably at all. If there's a lot right in both systems, sure, take ideas from both. But you have to present what you think is right/wrong. Otherwise, integration is merely a game.

[bluecherry]

"we are all . . . replaceable."

Replaceable in what sense?

 

"Individuals serve each their own purpose but in a manner that is in harmony with others . . ."

If they follow their rational self-interest, yes.

 

". . . and thus could be said that is in addition done for the others as well."

I do not see how you got from the first half of this sentence to this second part of the sentence. Not everything that can and/or does result from something is always part of the motive or sake of doing it. I may get some Chinese food, not finish it all, throw out the little that is left and then the trash can starts to give off a bad smell after a day or two. I didn't throw out the leftovers for the purpose of making the area around the trash can smell bad.

[Ilya Startsev]

Repairman:
"to compromise with evil is to surrender to evil" I am not asking you to compromise with an evil, but with a good. Only win/win situations are considered here. Think: Dagny + Rearden.
"reading Marx and Rand, taking some time to think about their disciplines and principles, and deducing your own hypothesis" That's what I am doing, but this is practice. Also, I am going to write my Master's Thesis on this.

Ninth Doctor:
It is unfortunate that you completely ignore the point of this thread. The point is to explore the possibility of integration together. Or did you expect me to know all the answers and do all the work by myself? I hoped that you were an individual who could clarify some historical concepts of Objectivism for me. You provided a fact of denial that you sought.

Eiuol:
1. I realize that this is a strange view for some of you. Consciousness is not understood by science either. The idea is that it causes the action, so causality would apply here. Perception, however, is not like ours but more metaphysical, even nonphysical. There is no localization of the electromagnetic field on those lower levels, but somehow they can manipulate it by the mere fact of their existence. To us, their manipulations would be hardly noticable, just like their vibrations. This perspective on consciousness may be the binding glue of Marxism and Objectivism.
2. Marxism provides enough support for Communism, but you are right, this is more like combining ideas than systems. I am not hoping for the best. I am projecting the best and am convinced of it. Marx believed that Communism follows Socialism that follows Capitalism. What Lenin had done was a disaster from the premise. It was not true socialism. It should not be forced. It is natural. This is what I am stressing. I am not going to try to integrate if we exhaust all of our ideas and not come to some consensus. Consider it a thought experiment then. Marxism got the idea of a perfect society right; Rand got the idea of an ideal life right. Challenge: find a natural way for these ideas to fit with each other.

bluecherry:
1. Replaceable in a sense that someone else can take your job and still do it well.
2. "If they follow their rational self-interest, yes." Absolutely. No denial of this.
3. "part of the motive or sake of doing it" It is only the natural, rational part. And that is why it's right. It only works for individual-society relations. Let me illustrate it this way: Rearden gave a break to Taggart Transcontinental for six months. He did not have to; he could have simply taken the money. Why did he do it? It was a natural thing to do to be a favorable character in the first place. Evolution of consciousness from self to society, but retaining both ends.

[Ilya Startsev]

Ok, here are my playing cards:

 

Particle--Void

Atom--Field

Molecule--Lattice

Cell--State

Tissue--Pulse

Organ--Aura

Body--Environment

Society--Nature

 

Read aura as an electromagnetic field on the level of organ-body. The left column has discreet entities I was talking about earlier, the right column has their correlating contexts. Tell me what you think.

[oso]

Ok, here are my playing cards:

 

Particle--Void

Atom--Field

Molecule--Lattice

Cell--State

Tissue--Pulse

Organ--Aura

Body--Environment

Society--Nature

 

Read aura as an electromagnetic field on the level of organ-body. The left column has discreet entities I was talking about earlier, the right column has their correlating contexts. Tell me what you think.

Sounds fun. Maybe we can build a religion around it.

[bluecherry]

"1. Replaceable in a sense that someone else can take your job and still do it well."

Would you contend that there have not been things created which would not have existed without some particular person or particular people?

That aside, you said, "These are what individuals are for in a society." And I asked, "What do you have to back this claim? Or even just that individuals do or should serve a society's purpose as opposed to vice versa?" My question hasn't really been answered yet. You made a statement of society as a whole having some kind of collective intent and will, but your answer is more or less a description of what happens without any evidence of there being any collective intent behind it.

 

"It is only the natural, rational part."

What is your reasoning underlying this claim?

 

"Why did he do it?"

Because it benefitted him personally. Society as a whole wasn't part of that equation for him.

[Repairman]

Repairman:

"to compromise with evil is to surrender to evil" I am not asking you to compromise with an evil, but with a good. Only win/win situations are considered here. Think: Dagny + Rearden.

"reading Marx and Rand, taking some time to think about their disciplines and principles, and deducing your own hypothesis" That's what I am doing, but this is practice. Also, I am going to write my Master's Thesis on this.but retaining both ends.

I find it admirable that you should choose Rand's works, or Marx's works for a master's thesis. But I can assure you, Marxism is the very epitome of ideological evil, from Rand's perspective, and mine as well. At its root, just after the Dialectic Materialism, the entire philosophy rests on altruism. Rand denounced altruism as evil, and in expanded detail, she explained why altruism is evil. I can't understand your reference to "Dagny+Reardon," but you are attempting to co-join polar opposites.

[Spiral Architect]

I'm only going to address the last point: 

 

There is no point since you are making arbitrary claims that result in the supernatural.  Objectivism deals with actual facts, so with no common ground there is no debate.  You can claim anything you want when you play facts jokers wild when you create unprovable assertions.  Religion has been pulling that card game for millennia. 

 

I'll be blunt - There is no collective consciousness.  There is no collective stomach - no collective income - No collective emotion - no collective anything.  It's just individuals. There is no proof and even the most basic introspection will reveal that you are alone with your thoughts - or hunger - or income - etc.   

 

It is a construct developed by those who don't want the responsibility of being responsible for their own consciousness.  You would do well not to fall into their trap. 

 

Dialect Materialism is a sad joke.  A person being a product of inanimate objects is basically Maximum Overdrive sans a good Soundtrack. 

 

The thought that people are products of their toaster is frankly embarrassing.

 

It is a construct developed by a man with self-esteem issues who used it to justify his life of feeding of his betters while trying to destroy the jobs his feeders did. 

[Ilya Startsev]

bluecherry:
 

Would you contend that there have not been things created which would not have existed without some particular person or particular people?

I agree and do not contend with your statement, so, yes, but it is due to a unique nature of such things.
 

What do you have to back this claim? Or even just that individuals do or should serve a society's purpose as opposed to vice versa?

I believe that individuals exist so they can voluntarily unite into collectives. Evidence of the power of collectives is well known, but evidence for the power of actual consciousness of such collectives is known as "The Global Consciousness Project" (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/). This is how we can create a global reality to suit our desires. This is not a joke; please take it seriously.
 

It is only the natural, rational part.

Rational - look at the model that I showed earlier. Natural - we progress only when we are ready.
 

Because it benefitted him personally.

 

Imagine that he took that money and then Taggart Transcontinental would have collapsed. This is what I mean when one ignores either part of the statement: for oneself and others. These are inseparable. He might not have done it consciously because he was superconsciously aware already on the social level. Or it was pure luck on his part. Choose whatever suits your reasoning. I am merely providing a different perspective.

Repairman:
Scratch Marx off; I am only writing a thesis on Rand. Altruism is evil only in the definition that Rand provided. Think of Jonas Salk's altruism. It is a win/win situation. He did it as a challenge (kinda what we are doing here as well) to improve himself and his competence in virusology and because society desperately needed it. Please, ignore the kind of altruism that was preached at the times of Jesus Christ. We are living in a different reality. We can get a win/win situation on all levels without any physical force done against any party whatsoever. And yes, we are attempting to co-join polar opposites. As you know, this is the best kind of work, and if successful, it will not only change our consciousness, but that of the whole world as well. At least this is what I am looking for without a care for fame or fortune. I only think it fair to push forward an idea whose time has come and the idea that is good. Opposites in harmony is the most stable pair one can find.

Spiral Architect:
 

There is no collective consciousness.  There is no collective stomach - no collective income - No collective emotion - no collective anything.  It's just individuals.

 

These are the kinds of misconceptions we are trying to work out. What you believe in is chaos. I believe in natural order. But I am flexible, just as the system that I am trying to delineate here. So, as to your metaphorical speaking about collective stomachs and whatnot - these are true but on a metaphysical level when you project Organ--Aura onto Society. Just so, it helps one understand the inner workings of the subject of analysis. This is no laughing matter. Equate economics with society's soul, its materializations with a circulotary system, and government equate with society's mind, its materializations with a nervous system. We are alone with what pertains to us as bodies and to parts of our bodies. I am simply asking our egos to expand beyond our bodies and notice that we are interconnected and overlapping parts of our environment, and thus parts of society as well. If you want to watch a positive documentary on this topic, I recommend watching "I am" (http://putlocker.bz/watch-i-am-online-free-putlocker.html). I think you will enjoy it!

It is a construct developed by those who don't want the responsibility of being responsible for their own consciousness.

We do everything through our consciousness. How can we be not responsible for it? Come on, people are a lot smarter now than those characters from Atlas Shrugged.
 

A person being a product of inanimate objects

I hope that you realized that I am putting consciousness back into the equation. So, no, we are not merely inanimate. More that than, we are not, only if we so choose, a mere bodily consciousness that only derives pleasure from material things. It should be evident from the different layers of the model that organic entities should not be confused with inorganic ones. Unfortunately, in the science today that is rapidly approaching a transhumanist agenda (e.g., 2045.com), we are seen merely as "lumbering robots" (by words of Richard Dawkins). We are NOT robots or machines. Rand was right - we have spirits; Rand was right - we live to be happy and to feel, not to be heartless robots.
 

It is a construct developed by a man with self-esteem issues who used it to justify his life of feeding of his betters while trying to destroy the jobs his feeders did.

This is a very negative view. Please do not confuse Marx with Lenin. The latter one is responsible for the horrible revolution that consumed so many of people's lives. Yet, we have Rand thanks to him. Think about Marx in this way: he was a creator of an ideology, ideas of which can still be used for the best purpose and intent and for the betterment of humankind. I am still waiting for a scientific historical perspective on evolution by Ayn Rand. There is none, as far as I know.

[Ilya Startsev]

So, what can we take from these two systems? From Communism/Communalism we can take a great common goal - something towards which we can all strive together, like space exploration. From laissez-faire capitalism we can take the pursuit to freely develop one's culture-generating tendencies and creative professions/trades. Both systems already share that government should be minimal and unintrusive.

[softwareNerd]

Altruism is evil only in the definition that Rand provided.

Rand is not using some special definition here. In casual speech, you might loosely use "altruism" to mean "helping people", but that is not the standard, accepted philosophical definition. Check the Stanford philosophy site or the wiki, for more.

 

Think of Jonas Salk's altruism.

If his motivations were as you say ("for the challenge"), he was not being altruistic in the first place. How can you approach writing a thesis if you are going to construct your own non-standard definitions for widely-used terms? It is bound to cause confusion.

Of course nothing in Objectivism says one cannot help people. Indeed, Objectivism does not say that material values are the main thing one must seek in life -- as Rand's novels clearly dramatize. People often do things as a challenge, or because they enjoy the creation of value, even if they're not obvious direct beneficiaries. 

Edited January 28, 2014 by softwareNerd

[tadmjones]

What makes Marx wrong is the way in which he speaks about 'society'. In his meaning it is an organic whole, an extistential entity comprimised(somehow) of individuals, He ascribed it characteristics, attributes and actions. 'Society' is not a thing, it is a concept that refers to the idea of speaking of a group of individuals. Only individuals exist, society is descriptive of them as a group. A society is usually used to refer to a group of indviduals that live in geographic proximity  and share/practice similar laws and culture. It is not an entity, you can not 'do' anything to it apart from 'doing' something to each individual that comprises it. The mistaken use of that one floating abstraction produced volumes of mistakes.

[Ilya Startsev]

softwareNerd:
From the first link: "In everyday parlance, an action would only be called ‘altruistic’ if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another." And if there is a want, there is some (even unrealized) selfishness involved. That's what I meant. By Johas Salk's example, I meant that he never talked about himself or his input. His selfishness might had been unrealized. He could have been unaware. The point is that both sides of equation should be present. Otherwise, it's a regression into either extreme.
 

does not say that material values are the main thing one must seek in life

Well, she derived pleasures from material things, namely, sex. As an opposite example, I derive greatest pleasures from my ideas, especially when they work and if people get something from them or even from an argument about them. So, yes, I am exquisitely enjoying all of this. Thank you. Keep the comments coming.

tadmjones:
Society is an organic whole. It has a life of its own. Just look at history, look from any perspective above one's own. Think visually from a bird's eye. The kinds of pattern flows in individual actions (e.g., general behavior in the stores, roads, construction, etc.) are the actions of society. Our cities look like microchips. They have a structure outside of individual bodies. If you think there is no society, then think back to the prehistoric times, when people were in geographic proximity, hunting, gathering, and running wild on their own. There was no society and thus no progress or science. No change outside of individual bodily actions. The great misunderstanding that is involved is that a society is NOT only "a group of indviduals that live in geographic proximity and share/practice similar laws and culture". It is a group that shares something on a personal level as well. It is internal in addition to external. This can be a memory, in the case of a family, or an idea, in the case of religion. These are not mere sums of individuals, just like a machine is not a mere sum of particles. To destroy a group, one can destroy their ideology, for example, as that is what was done by Objectivism + Capitalism against the U.S.S.R. We did not kill anyone on either side during the Cold War, didn't we? We did not have to, in order to break that society. Do you see this now, Tad? Let me reiterate: society is an organic whole because its individuals create it with their actions and behavior. It is not a mere sum because it includes those actions, behaviors, ideas, structures, buildings, etc. etc. and individuals as mere bodies. Is your body a machine, Tad? Can someone cut it to pieces, spread it apart, jumble it, put it back in some order and you will live? The same about a society. If an ideological interface of a society is broken (which may happen with death of a leader, but does not have to, since it depends on how well the rest picked up on his ideas and believed in them), individuals will fall apart and nothing will help to restore a society back to norm. If you only view a society as a mere machine, then in parallel others incorrectly view your body as a machine. But it's not true, now, or is it? One is made up of individuals, the other of particles. Do you believe this? A body is organic and capable of change and growth; a society is the same way. I really hope this helps, Tad.

[Eiuol]

I read your response to me, but as I read your responses to others, I got ideas that answered you and gets at fundamental disagreements. (And thanks to all the others for asking useful questions to bring out your views).

 

Imagine that he took that money and then Taggart Transcontinental would have collapsed. This is what I mean when one ignores either part of the statement: for oneself and others. These are inseparable. He might not have done it consciously because he was superconsciously aware already on the social level. Or it was pure luck on his part. Choose whatever suits your reasoning. I am merely providing a different perspective.

Okay, the thing that keeps cropping up is this notion of a collective as inherently part of all action, thus individuals must exist and thrive as an organic element of society. For instance, cells must thrive individually, but are part of a body's conscious will. So even if a person is not aware of their role or don't care about their role, they operate under the conscious elements of society. And society under the global collective. And so on. Just as we are not aware of a subconscious, we are aware not aware of a superconscious, a consciousness as a sum of individuals.

All this would make sense, but it really ignores any philosophical and scientific investigation of consciousness. Or denies consciousness as a motivator, or denies mental states, while transforming consciousness into anything that has a nature or identity. So, I think your idea goes like this: By materialism, dualism is false, there is no mystical controller of the brain. Consciousness exists, but it can't really consist of mental states, beliefs, desires, or all those other ideas that require those non-concrete ideas about consciousness. Because of that, it  becomes clear all that exists is conscious, meaning everything an entity does by its own identity is what we should mean by consciousness. Society's operate by their identity, as do individuals, establishing a collective consciousness as part of who we are even if we don't know it. That view is also clear when you say even if a person explicitly says they did something for there own benefit, the belief doesn't count - they also acted for society's sake by being part of a society.

Boiled down into a phrase: behaviorism that doesn't deny consciousness.

While no one has a total theory of consciousness by regular standards, your notion of consciousness is pre-Freud, before anyone even thought about psychology as a field of study. I can't integrate it any more than I can integrate the four humors into modern medicine. Individual beliefs, thinking, values, knowledge, (intentionality as it's called in modern philosophy of mind) all of these are a big part of Objectivist positions on everything, while what you've said so far can't be integrated without major contradictions.