Understanding Objectivism

[volco]

Politics:

As I understand Objectivism, it is the perfect philosophy for rational men on a virgin place. That is, if I hypothetically created a country out of the ocean, I'd see Objectivism would be the best philosophy for myself and everyone in that island to follow.

But I live, as do you, in an established historical country, part of a historical civilization, that is, one that has inherited both the good and the evil of centuries of stumbling progress.

Within that civilization, since it belong to reality, I also recognize that Objectivism is quiet close to the truth. However its Politics, if devoid of every "pragmatic" compromising, gray tool renders it impossible to apply. One way would be to reform the most suitable country, the United States of America, another would be to create a country out of unclaimed or disputed territory.

One way to exemplify what I'm trying to explain by the impossibility to apply uncompromised Objectivist Politics into an existing state would be the difference between Milton Friedman's Chicago School and von Mises and even Hayek Austrian School of economics. One has been applied with relative success compromising itself in welfare democracies (USA). dicatorial (Chile) and Totalitarian (China) regimes, while the other remains chasing an ideal, dangerously close to the utopic.

Historical Perspective:

Ayn Rand devised a philosophy for the future, but I'd like to explore the origins of civilization and contrast them to Objectivist principles.

The premise is that during the dawn of man, the long process in which the species evolved gradually from monkey to human, a collectivist system inherited from our animal behavior, was indispensable for survival and development.

This doesn't debunk Objectivism, it merely draws a line, or indicates that Ayn Rand's philosophy is a (by-)product, a consequence of thousands of years of gradual achievements. It is not clear at which point in which civilization individualism could sprout, but before that point it is clear that full individualism would have been suicidal. I believe the evidence is right before our eyes, Individualism was enabled when it became a plausible philosophical ideal, around the Renaissance, and then maybe fully defined by Ayn Rand in the mid XXc.

Minorities make history, but majorities allow(ed) them to exist.

Probably now is the turning point, I see few reasons why not; but I need to understand Objectivism as most probably Ayn Rand herself did, as an achievement, not a natural state of humankind. In other words, I need to state that just as Ayn Rand taught us, we must never revert cause and consequence, for that would be like wanting to have the cake and eat it too. This means that we as humankind, can't have Philosophy, not even to speak of a Rational Philosophy, before we had 1) Superstition 2) Magic 3) Religion 4) Theology as in advanced religion 5) finally Free Philosophy.

This doesn't mean every civilization must endure all these stages, so long as other more mature civilization expands its knowledge. That is why thanks to the British, Papuans could be objectivists just by using their mind and available information. But without that contact, they would have to experience most developmental stages.

Analogically, a child could not be an Objectivist either - even the Institute recommends beginning with Anthem at around puberty (citation needed), at least not before the age of 4 or 6, and that would be optimistically stretching the limits Nature imposes on Development: be it of a child or of a species.

[BrassDragon]

The premise is that during the dawn of man, the long process in which the species evolved gradually from monkey to human, a collectivist system inherited from our animal behavior, was indispensable for survival and development.

If you believe this, you do not understand individualism. Care to try to defend this?

This doesn't debunk Objectivism, it merely draws a line, or indicates that Ayn Rand's philosophy is a (by-)product, a consequence of thousands of years of gradual achievements.

No - Objectivism was the product of Ayn Rand, who relied almost exclusively upon Aristotle.

I believe (can anyone cite this?) that AR wrote that Objectivism would not be complete, in its current form, without the Industrial Revolution, but I certainly do not think there is a reason to think a society would need to go through stages of "superstition," then "magic", etc, as you state.

[volco]

If you believe this, you do not understand individualism. Care to try to defend this?

Sure.

If you believe that the change from monkey to human was overnight you don't understand biological evolution.

Aristotle, and earlier philosophers, were able to even exist (that's what I call a by-product) because of the urban "over"-population that irredeemably collectivist systems produced.

From my humble studies of history I find that specially in the early civilizations, collectivism was not only the norm, but the tool that allowed them to grow to population sizes that allow for SPECIALISTS. That is, for people who don't have to either hunt and gather, or plow the land until they die.

Before civilization, that is before the existence of excedent, individuals could only subsist as long as they remained in their group, which was obviously an extended family. At least those extended families, are the only ones that left us historic testimony.

When I use terms like magic, is not random at all. There is a clear difference between magic and religion, as the latter is a lot more abstract. Similar to the gap between religion and philosophy.

All I'm asking is your opinion on whether civilization could have behaved according to rational principles from the beginning and in that case to specify which is that beginning. From what I know, there is no such landmark, and the evolution from -certainly not individualist- monkeys to objectivist homo sapiens sapiens is a very GRADUAL one. Don't you agree?

Edited October 7, 2009 by volco

[Uriah]

One way to exemplify what I'm trying to explain by the impossibility to apply uncompromised Objectivist Politics into an existing state would be the difference between Milton Friedman's Chicago School and von Mises and even Hayek Austrian School of economics. One has been applied with relative success compromising itself in welfare democracies (USA). dicatorial (Chile) and Totalitarian (China) regimes, while the other remains chasing an ideal, dangerously close to the utopic.

Milton Friedman's contribution for Capitalism and therefore for the world as a whole was one of a kind and his influence on the western politics was only second to Keynes as long as we relate to economists. It is essential to understand that the differences on the principle level with the Austrian school got nothing to do with his success with the public's opinion and the cooperation with Thatcher and Reagan.

Explanation and intellectual debate are different things which are easy to be considered as the same: The first one mostly is the key for democracy to defend itself (this is the main problem of my country) and its main role is to show the facts in a way that the speaker's opinion will be reasonable for the listeners by their standards of right and wrong whatever they are. In Israel I am a "political friend" of religious and nationalist people because we have similar interests, on the intellectual level we'll be rivals.

I don't see anything wrong with it, Rand herself never had a problem to recommend on Misses' books though they had great disagreements on epistemology.

[BrassDragon]

Sure.

If you believe that the change from monkey to human was overnight you don't understand biological evolution.

Aristotle, and earlier philosophers, were able to even exist (that's what I call a by-product) because of the urban "over"-population that irredeemably collectivist systems produced.

From my humble studies of history I find that specially in the early civilizations, collectivism was not only the norm, but the tool that allowed them to grow to population sizes that allow for SPECIALISTS. That is, for people who don't have to either hunt and gather, or plow the land until they die.

I do understand biological evolution.

Why do you state that collectivism allowed population size to increase? Collectivism is not necessary for population size to increase. This is why I said you don't understand individualism.

When I use terms like magic, is not random at all. There is a clear difference between magic and religion, as the latter is a lot more abstract. Similar to the gap between religion and philosophy.

All I'm asking is your opinion on whether civilization could have behaved according to rational principles from the beginning and in that case to specify which is that beginning. From what I know, there is no such landmark, and the evolution from -certainly not individualist- monkeys to objectivist homo sapiens sapiens is a very GRADUAL one. Don't you agree?

Religion is not a correct abstraction from magic. Both are wrong; they are conceptually disconnected from reality. Neither Ayn Rand nor Aristotle relied upon religion or magic.

Monkeys are not individualistic or collectivist. Those concepts are only conceptually valid when one is referring to humans. You might say that monkeys "cooperate" and live in groups. It is also necessary for humans to cooperate and live in groups, to flourish; it always has been since the dawn of our species. Cooeration does not equate to collectivism. In fact, cooperation is most profitable, and most possible, in a system of individualism.

Monkeys are "individualistic" in the sense that they "selfishly" pursue what is best for their own individual lives (which often means cooperating). The reason I put these terms in quotes is because monkeys act on instinct, not using a conceptual faculty.

There is no reason primitive humans could not accept a rudiamentary form of philosophy, rather than religion.

[Mixon]

Probably now is the turning point, I see few reasons why not; but I need to understand Objectivism as most probably Ayn Rand herself did, as an achievement, not a natural state of humankind. In other words, I need to state that just as Ayn Rand taught us, we must never revert cause and consequence, for that would be like wanting to have the cake and eat it too. This means that we as humankind, can't have Philosophy, not even to speak of a Rational Philosophy, before we had 1) Superstition 2) Magic 3) Religion 4) Theology as in advanced religion 5) finally Free Philosophy.

Superstition, magic, religion, & theology are all forms of irrationality and reflect the notion that knowledge comes from faith. Rational philosophy, indeed all rational thought, is based on objective facts. The two are diametrically opposed. Rationality did not evolve from irrationality. Historically, it is true that the Dark Ages preceded the Age of Reason. However, you have taken this and falsely ascribed the latter as a consequence of the former. The fact that one event occurs after another does not necessarily mean it is a consequence of former. By the same token, the fact that one event precedes another does not necessarily mean it is a cause of the latter. To assert that humanity needed superstition as a pre-requisite for rational philosophy is as like saying that freedom evolved from slavery.

From my humble studies of history I find that specially in the early civilizations, collectivism was not only the norm, but the tool that allowed them to grow to population sizes that allow for SPECIALISTS. That is, for people who don't have to either hunt and gather, or plow the land until they die.

Again, you have made the same error. Collectivism did not permit or set the stage for a specialized division of labor, capital accumulation and free trade did. Free market capitalism promotes both.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Mixon

[volco]

Uriah on Mises:

I specifically mean that Objetivism is more akin to Austrian Economics than to the Chicago School, not the other way around. Everything else you said is pretty much accurate.

Mixon and Dragon:

First: I agree that free trade and free minds, acting cooperatively, are the most likely and only ethical way to growth. We have a big misunderstanding: I'm not talking about 2000 years of human evolution when we've been around as we are biologically for maybe 10x more. I'm not arguing that a dark age was necessary for the renaissance. I'm talking about, 6000 years ago when Civilization FIRST SPROUTED (as far as we know).

At that time humans evolved from tribe to proto-civilization, and at that time the tribe was held together through the force of the warrior, the fear of the magician, and the guilt of the blood.

In an ironical twist, it was probably those warriors (as in the case of Oppenheimer's theory) or those magicians who were the first to act individually, that is, outside their inherited roles.

Of course reason can't evolve from irrationality, but I'm afraid it's a bit more complex than that:

Reason can't evolve without abstract thinking, and the transition from magic towards religion was a huge epistemological achievement, back then.

Remember those cave paintings of animals? Those were painted by some special people among the tribe, while others went out trying to hunt the very animals that were being painted. Notice how the paintings of the animals overlap, denoting that they were not done for an aesthetical purpose but for a ritual one. The key here is that the painting of the game is done at the same time the hunting takes place. And that was it.

Religion on the other hand is when - while just as irrationally as with magic - humans begin to (mis)integrate concepts creating abstract concepts for the sake of them being abstract: The Supernatural World is created, and a sense of long term accompanies the stretching of abstract thought: Now rituals are performed to gain a benefit or oust a demon, on a seasonal basis. It coincides with the birth of agriculture.

Now, how could a rational philosophy sprout in those pre-religion tribes where everything that wasn't a totem, was a taboo?

Let's take an example: The Hitites, or Hatti, didn't punish manslaughter or even homicide but with a fine, while intercourse with an animal meant a death sentence: proof the lasting power of the taboo. We can see just the same today in the Islamic Legal Code.

There was a point when all these became unnecessary, but I contend that before that it was impossible to avoid it.

I suggest we research a little bit more the distinction between magic and religion not to make a package-deal of all things irrational and to gain some perspective.

Edited October 7, 2009 by volco

[BrassDragon]

Well, I have several points to make in response.

(1) Reason doesn't have to "evolve". It seems to me that when the witch doctor claims a magical dance or drawing on the wall of a cave will yeild a desired result, an early human with a rational faculty can just as easily say "I don't believe that" as "I do believe that." Clearly, there would be contradictory claims: one witch doctor says one thing works, and another witch doctor says another works. So it is implicitly obvious that knowledge is not automatic, even to a cave man.

(2) Knowledge is contextual. For example, if a cave man says "the land is flat," because he lives in the middle of a large plane and can't observe anything different - that doesn't invalidate the knowledge. The knowledge is valid within the context of his life. I'm not sure if this is directly relevant to this discussion, but I imagine it could be relevant somehow.

(3) You are misusing "package-deal". It is correct to group magic and religion under the concept "irrational systems of thought," beause in both cases, that is a fundamental distinction. See http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/package-...fallacy_of.html

[Uriah]

Uriah on Mises:

I specifically mean that Objetivism is more akin to Austrian Economics than to the Chicago School, not the other way around.

I didn't claim differently and this is not my point.

If I understood correctly you claimed that the reason for Friedman's success in areas such as public's opinion and politics was his willingness to compromise, it is easy to conclude from this statement that intellectuals have only two options: Willingness to compromise on ideas or live as idealists. None of them is true or moral as long as the intellectual is aiming for a meaningful change and not just a theoretical solution.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Uriah

[Jake_Ellison]

Reason can't evolve without abstract thinking, and the transition from magic towards religion was a huge epistemological achievement, back then.

Reason is abstract thinking, not a consequence of it. (Abstract thinking based on perception, that is.) Reason is what is used for learning. When a child learns, he forms concepts based on the world around him (on information provided by his senses), using his rational faculty, his capacity to reason.

I don't see why that would not be exactly how a pre-historic (pre-religion) child learned.

Religion on the other hand is when - while just as irrationally as with magic - humans begin to (mis)integrate concepts creating abstract concepts for the sake of them being abstract: The Supernatural World is created, and a sense of long term accompanies the stretching of abstract thought: Now rituals are performed to gain a benefit or oust a demon, on a seasonal basis. It coincides with the birth of agriculture.

Are you saying that religion helped train people's minds to think? That somehow man's rational faculty evolved with the advent of religion?

I don't understand your hypothesis very well, and I don't understand what it is exactly that you are offering as evidence of your hypothesis. (I don't understand what those drawings prove)

Be a bit clearer please, perhaps give a concrete example of something a pre-religion person could not learn, that religion would've helped them learn. (a concept one would form, the other would not, if they both had the same information)

[whYNOT]

There has never been a group or collective, cause or movement, that aided or brought about, or helped evolve, Reason and the Individual, until now.

The rational individual is a product of nothing else but himself. And he always existed, despite the community, the clan, or tribe. Yet everything that we call civilised came from a tiny number of them.

Volco, you describe individualism as an obvious, 'natural' evolution ( my reading ). This is the argument of a Social Darwinist who sees survival of the collective as the Primary. I must echo an earlier criticism, that you don't understand Individualism yet.

This idea that Man is on a steadily ("gradually") ascending scale, with the era one is living in as his highest point, is inherently flawed. So we went from Dark Ages to Renaissance to Age of Reason, and cannot begin to imagine another Dark Age just around the corner.

No chance, one might think. Mmmm, not so sure about that.

[JeffS]

All I'm asking is your opinion on whether civilization could have behaved according to rational principles from the beginning and in that case to specify which is that beginning. From what I know, there is no such landmark, and the evolution from -certainly not individualist- monkeys to objectivist homo sapiens sapiens is a very GRADUAL one. Don't you agree?

I'm pretty sure civilization behaved at least as rationally at its birth as it does now. In fact, I would venture the guess that rational behavior has existed as long as homo sapiens sapiens has existed. Yes, there's been mysticism from the get-go, but when viewed on the whole - how do men interact with each other within society - rational behavior has existed from the start. There's still mysticism today - either the overt mysticism of the deists, or the obfuscated mysticism of those who replace "god" with "society." Yet when men must interact with other men, on a day-to-day basis, they find they can not escape reality, nor the fact that they are dealing with other homo sapiens sapiens, and must act accordingly if they wish to get what they need and want.

[volco]

Thanks for your feedback. I have read every post but will not reply case by case for you are right in correcting me, but it would be missing the point. As you may have noticed I am using many analogies and examples instead of the usual literal discourse: I am raising these points upon the understanding that I have already studied and I agree with Individualism and Objectivism. I'm trying to put it in perspective. I am currently re-reading Kurzweil's works, and McNall Burns History of Western Civilization if that information helps.

This is a very good example as I try to imagine life 6000 years ago. Or now in the Amazonian wilderness or Papuan Highlands.

Well, I have several points to make in response.

(1) Reason doesn't have to "evolve". It seems to me that when the witch doctor claims a magical dance or drawing on the wall of a cave will yeild a desired result, an early human with a rational faculty can just as easily say "I don't believe that" as "I do believe that." Clearly, there would be contradictory claims: one witch doctor says one thing works, and another witch doctor says another works. So it is implicitly obvious that knowledge is not automatic, even to a cave man.

The example of the Hittite Law as how breaking a taboo was more severely punished than homicide was not random:

If the disagreeing individual in question speaks out, he would be breaking the law, resulting in either his or her prompt death, or luckily expulsion or escape from the tribe, which results at best in a Robinson Crusoe scenario. Anthem's scenario on the other hand is in the future, where the fugitive discovers the remainders of an earlier civilization, He doesn't create a new one out of nothing.

Indeed Reason doesn't have to evolve, but it requires certain freedom to make it pervasively explicit.

(2) Knowledge is contextual. For example, if a cave man says "the land is flat," because he lives in the middle of a large plane and can't observe anything different - that doesn't invalidate the knowledge. The knowledge is valid within the context of his life. I'm not sure if this is directly relevant to this discussion, but I imagine it could be relevant somehow.

Yes! Actually this basically my point. I'm trying to imagine the different gradual stages from the first biologically classifiable humans whose context was limited to that of an animal world: no writing and very little oral tradition. As knowledge, as simple as sufficient amount and variety of experiences, widens the context - and surplus enables spare time and longer lifespans, then humans reach a point in which they are able to act freely. Before that proposed "stage", which is not a landmark but a knee of a curve, I contend humans enjoying an average lifespan of 20 years, tended to live and die within the yoke of the family-tribe.

(3) You are misusing "package-deal". It is correct to group magic and religion under the concept "irrational systems of thought," beause in both cases, that is a fundamental distinction. See http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/package-...fallacy_of.html

Correct. I mean that Human Intelligence is double-edged and can engage in rational thinking but will many times resort to irrational thinking specially when it serves a purpose such as not being killed by your fellow tribe mates and not starving/freezing outside the village.

---

I don't know exactly where this thread belongs, maybe in history or religion, the point is that I'm not defying Objectivism, I'm trying to just add the dimension of time, and test where and when rational principles could have actually succeeded. Maybe in all historic times they apply, but I'm not sure about prehistoric times.

I raise this because I suspect Humankind might be approaching the opportunity to make a similar jump as prehistoric man made to historic man. The advent of literacy and the advent of "machine aided literacy" form the Chinese and Gutenberg to Alan Turing and Bill Gates, have a lot in common. If this is indeed happening, or rather if we make it happen, then our context will change as much. i.e. one thing that occurred to me was that in a computer you almost can have the cake and eat it too: I mean you can have as many copies of a files as you want, and experiment with it as many times as you want. You may play a game and go back to earlier saved file and thus develop two or more "parallel universes", or sandboxes rather.

Reality is still real, and so existence, but after creating a mirror of it, we can play with it in earlier unthinkable ways.

Edited October 8, 2009 by volco

[volco]

Another way to see the same problem:

Just think of Objectivist ethics: "the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose"

When in the history of mankind was the concept of happiness first invented, achieved, or more accurately divorced from the concept of obligation: The oldest morality of them all, and so the most persistent, the one that we inherited sheerly from our animal past, and the one that Ayn Rand as a childless grown-up woman defied just as much as with her philosophy: the Obligation to Perpetuate the Species.

If we think of the "glamorous" lives of those 20 year-old village "elders", then probably sex was one of the few things enjoyable about being alive and aware of it. And at the same time Man became aware of it, He transformed it into taboo.

Why? How? What purpose did it fulfill? If we have always been a rational species, then how much depends on the environment? How can we account for our irrationality-ridden history? And finally, why are we* asking ourselves these kind of questions, openly and freely, at the same time that the brain remains the only organ to fully understand?

*1 "we" the people that have lived in freedom in these lasts 150 years or so.