Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bush, Kerry, Binswanger And Peikoff

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The topic title notwithstanding this is not a political post but one that addresses a point of confusion for me about Objectivism. This confusion was merely highlighted by the recent opposing endorsements made for the U.S. presidential candidates by two of Objectivism's leading intellectuals.

My question is:

Given that 1) existence exists, 2) that A is A, 3) that Objectivism is a rational philosophy, 4) that value is objective and that 5) "honest errors of knowledge are possible. But such errors of knowledge are not nearly so commom as as some people wish to think" (Peikoff in Fact and Value); how can two leading Objectivists differ so fundamentally on an issue of such importance?

Again, I am not asking about the choices for President (God knows we get enough of this on Canuck T.V.! :) ). I am asking how, given external reality can two Objectivist thinkers (not specifically Peikoff and Binswanger and not specifically the election race) disagree fundamentally over any major issue?

And if these two giants disagree over an issue that is so publicly debated and so thoroughly analysed, how can the rest of be expected to agree on other aspects of moral judgement?

The conflicting endorsements seem to me to be an example of the (personal) frame of reference which is used as the basis for this type of decision (i.e. political, moral, ethical decisions) determining the conclusion one will reach. But the existence if these differing frames of reference in the first place does not seem to be consistent with Objectivism in that we are all dealing with the same objective reality.

I hope this post is not too confused. It is an issue that I have been confused over for some time while observing the disagreements that show up on this board.

Help!

Brent

P.S. my solution to the specific issue of Binswanger-Bush/Peikoff-Kerry is that, from an Objectivist POV, both candidates are so far from ideal that less fundamental areas of policy are being used to differentiate them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've addressed this in a few other threads.

I think the main issues are complexity and the impossibility of predicting the future exactly. Neither man is omniscient, so their judgements about who would make a better President are necessarily just that: judgements not proofs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've addressed this in a few other threads.

I think the main issues are complexity and the impossibility of predicting the future exactly. Neither man is omniscient, so their judgements about who would make a better President are necessarily just that: judgements not proofs.

Exactly.

A judgement like this is not a simple application of logic to known or ascertainable facts. There are just too many unknowns -- people's actual motives, future free will choices, etc. -- yet a decision is necessary. In such a circumstance, rational people have to employ assumptions as place-holders for known facts in their process of reasoning. As a result, their conclusions cannot be all that certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... how can two leading Objectivists differ so fundamentally on an issue of such importance?

...

Check your premises. The disagreement is not about fundamentals at all, and certainly not about philosophical fundamentals. To get to the point of picking Mr. B or Mr. K, a decision presupposes (in "zoom-in" order) a review of political philosophy, ideology, strategy for the Objectivist movement, and a tactical plan for advancing the movement in the U. S. at this particular time. Thus the actual decision is remote from the fundamentals in philosophy, or even in ideology (which is the application of a philosophy to the diagnosis of one's own particular milieu).

Besides the points made by those earlier in this thread, I would add this point: Different conclusions are inevitable if the methods used are different -- or worse, aren't explicated. With few exceptions -- Dr. Peikoff (pro-Kerry, sort of) and Rob Tracinski (pro-Bush, sort of) come to mind -- most debaters have not spelled out their method, that is, a method general enough to be usable in future elections.

I am very glad this debate has taken place, for many reasons. One, it will help me make a better decision and more efficiently in the next election. Two, both sides have brought up valuable points to watch for no matter who wins. And three, perhaps most importantly, as Betsy as noted elsewhere, this disagreement will help drive out the remaining True Believers from the Objectivist movement.

P. S. -- I am using True Believer in the sense that Eric Hoffer used it in his book, The True Believer, written, I recall, in the 1970s: One who attaches himself to a movement and believes everything its leaders say, thus abandoning independent judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Ms Rand is no longer with us to explain how she would vote in this particular election we can't say for sure what course of action is truly an Objectivist one. I personally could not envision her voting for any of the current presidential cadidates, but that's just me.

I also suspect that if she did indeed choose a particular candidate, she would not be pleased with other Objectivists who publicly selected differently (especially given the apparent extreme differences in candidates' views this year).

Since we'll never know what she would have done I have no trouble accepting the fact that Objectivists can endorse different political candidates and parties. That's just the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

A judgement like this is not a simple application of logic to known or ascertainable facts.  There are just too many unknowns -- people's actual motives, future free will choices, etc. -- yet a decision is necessary.  In such a circumstance, rational people have to employ assumptions as place-holders for known facts in their process of reasoning.  As a result, their conclusions cannot be all that certain.

Betsy et al,

Thanks for your responses.

Betsy, I agree with all of your post. The vast majority of real life political, moral and ethical decisions are, of course, full of such uncertainties.

Yet, on this board we have some posters (in other threads recently).....the nuke Fallujah brigade.......who would have us believe that there is only one possible solution to terrorism, others who are anti-gay or find homosexuality immoral, still others who are pro-life etc., etc., and just as many who oppose these views.

On the one hand this puts the lie to those who would say that Objectivism is a dogmatic philosophy. But on the other hand it also shows that Objectivists are just as confused as any other "group" on important moral issues. Since Objectivism is a "philosophy for living life" I am confused by this divergence of views. Especially in light of the quote I gave from Fact and Value.

To those who have replied to a post on the election issue, I did try to make it clear that that is not what I was asking about!

My basic question is:

If existence exists, and if we are perfectly rational in our decision making etc., etc., i.e. if we hold the axoims of Objectivism to be true, shouldn't we arrive at the same, or at least similar, solutions to the vast majority of problems.......even political, moral and ethical problems?

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check your premises.

I am very glad this debate has taken place, for many reasons. One, it will help me make a better decision and more efficiently in the next election. Two, both sides have brought up valuable points to watch for no matter who wins. And three, perhaps most importantly, as Betsy as noted elsewhere, this disagreement will help drive out the remaining True Believers from the Objectivist movement.

P. S. -- I am using True Believer in the sense that Eric Hoffer used it in his book, The True Believer, written, I recall, in the 1970s: One who attaches himself to a movement and believes everything its leaders say, thus abandoning independent judgment.

BurgessLau,

My post was not about the method of arriving at a particular political preference. But the fact that given the same reality to evaluate and given two rational minds, the conclusions were different.

In this particular situation (i.e. the one I don't want to debate about! :) ), my guess is that from an Objectivist stand-point there is not enough to choose between the candidates for all Objectivists to side with one or the other. If the choice was George Bush vs. Lenin......or Kerry vs. Lenin.....I assume all Objectivists would make the rational choice for GWB or JFK.

But there are many other moral and ethical issues over which members of the board do not agree, homosexuality, abortion.... that I would have thought there was a rational basis for decision making between two clear choices.

So there are two possible choices:

1) either there are a lot of non-Objectivists here, or

2) some of these issues are just too complex to be agreed upon even by completely rational people.

Choice 1) doesn't satisfy me because it is suggestive of a dogmatic approach.....i.e. if everyone here was really an Objectivist we would all agree about everything!

Choice 2) doesn't satisfy me because it says that even completely rational Objectivists viewing the same real world existence can't arrive at the same conclusion.

This doesn't lessen the value I place on Objectivism as a philosophical support which helps me to live my life as a rational individual. But it still confuses me.

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we'll never know what she would have done I have no trouble accepting the fact that Objectivists can endorse different political candidates and parties.  That's just the way it is.

Are you then saying that if you did know how Miss Rand would have voted, that it would have influenced your decision?!

I am not questioning anyone's right to endorse anyone or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brent, in my opinion both 1 and 2 are somewhat correct, although mostly 2. There are few if any people in here who completely understand every aspect of Objectivism and can apply it to any given situation without ever making a mistake. And even if they could there are many situations where there is just not enough information available to make a clear choice.

Since Ms Rand is no longer with us to explain how she would vote in this particular election we can't say for sure what course of action is truly an Objectivist one. 

I don't think that is the right way to look at it. Not every statement AR made is formally part of Objectivism. Some of those statements were judgements where the possibility of rational agreement exists (for reasons already stated.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that is the right way to look at it. Not every statement AR made is formally part of Objectivism. Some of those statements were judgements where the possibility of rational agreement exists (for reasons already stated.)

I agree with you; fortunately no Objectivists here have taken the position that others who vote differently are not true Objectivists. Speculating on how Ms Rand would view all this was probably pointless on my part anyway.

(And I assume you meant to use the word "disagreement" in your remarks).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That aside, you have posed a very astute question, especially in view of Peikoff’s Fact and Value claim that “honest errors” of knowledge are possible, but not nearly as common as “some people wish to think.

We do live in interesting times.

Eddie

Eddie,

I am glad that others find the question astute, I have been debating whether to post such a question for a little while!

I must re-iterate though that the question was not about the election endorsements.

Also, I did not raise the Peikoff quote with any intention of opening a Peikoff "vs" Binswanger or Peikoff "vs" Kelley thread or of raising the issue of libertarianism in any way.

I only used the quote to reflect my own thoughts that using our rational minds on the same topics we should arrive at similar conclusions more often than we do, on any subject.

In the absence of such agreement I am happy to move on trying to maximise my own self-interest. But I still contend that the vast majority of any population has no idea what their own (especially long-term) self-interest is......and this seems to leave us at "the hidden hand" of Adam Smith, which I am not sure fits in with Objectivist thinking?!

This might be a bit of a ramble....long day in the office!

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you then saying that if you did know how Miss Rand would have voted, that it would have influenced your decision?!

Yes. Anyone who could make a rational argument for why they are voting a particular way could influence me to change my mind. Their reasons could be better than mine, or could point out flaws in my own logic. (Especially Ms Rand).

In fact a lot of the arguments regarding the election put forth by people in this forum have helped me to reinforce my own position (though not change it in this case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Ms Rand is no longer with us to explain how she would vote in this particular election we can't say for sure what course of action is truly an Objectivist one.

I'm not sure if the meaning that is in this sentence is what you intended. Is Ms Rand the only person possible to take a truly Objectivist course of action? Does it mean that since she'll never be here again, we can only guess at what would constitute action according to Objectivist principles? Or are we stuck with the phenomenal Objectivism, being now cut off from the noumenal Objectivism that emanated from the mind of Ms Rand?

I ask this because, taking your statement straight, there was then simply no reason for her to communicate her philosophy at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep just as Betsy so astutely remarked, the differences between LP and HB will really shake up the people who view Objectivism dogmatically. Brent, Objectivism is not a deductive system where you start with "A is A" and spin a web of logic that in the end 'proves' that you ought to have a cookie and milk this morning.

If this doesn't explain why LP and HB can both validly argue for different candidates, I'll be glad to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep just as Betsy so astutely remarked, the differences between LP and HB will really shake up the people who view Objectivism dogmatically. Brent, Objectivism is not a deductive system where you start with "A is A" and spin a web of logic that in the end 'proves' that you ought to have a cookie and milk this morning.

If this doesn't explain why LP and HB can both validly argue for different candidates, I'll be glad to clarify.

I understand why, on the election issue, two leading (and influential) Objectivist thinkers can disagree on their respective choice of candidates, at least given the choices available in this election. And I agree that this disagreement alone is one in the face for those who think that Objectivism is dogmatic.

I am actually regreting using the example of the LP/HB difference of opinion to try to make my point.

So.....leaving aside any reference to the election.....I am still confused over the large differences of opinion (and conclusion) that can be derived by rational minds making decisions based on the same set of existential facts. Especially when I try to bring this fact into line with LP's quote about honest differences of opinion being much rarer in reality then is supposed.

So yes, any clarification would be appreciated :D .

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand why, on the election issue, two leading (and influential) Objectivist thinkers can disagree on their respective choice of candidates, at least given the choices available in this election. And I agree that this disagreement alone is one in the face for those who think that Objectivism is dogmatic.

I am actually regreting using the example of the LP/HB difference of opinion to try to make my point.

So.....leaving aside any reference to the election.....I am still confused over the large differences of opinion (and conclusion) that can be derived by rational minds making decisions based on the same set of existential facts. Especially when I try to bring this fact into line with LP's quote about honest differences of opinion being much rarer in reality then is supposed.

So yes, any clarification would be appreciated :D .

Brent

True, it is the same set of existential facts--but the facts are quite complex and incredibly numerous. There are even some crucial facts which are not known or at least not well-established.

Remember that among other things, we are trying to judge their characters AND predict their future actions--the two most difficult and error-prone forms of rational judgments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that is the right way to look at it. Not every statement AR made is formally part of Objectivism. Some of those statements were judgements where the possibility of rational agreement exists (for reasons already stated.)

Oops, typo; I meant disagreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the meaning that is in this sentence is what you intended. Is Ms Rand the only person possible to take a truly Objectivist course of action? Does it mean that since she'll never be here again, we can only guess at what would constitute action according to Objectivist principles? Or are we stuck with the phenomenal Objectivism, being now cut off from the noumenal Objectivism that emanated from the mind of Ms Rand?

I ask this because, taking your statement straight, there was then simply no reason for her to communicate her philosophy at all.

If I understand what you are asking, the reason is that only the philosophy written or approved by Ayn Rand is part of Objectivism. Anything else not approved by her, even if it is fully consistent with Objectivism, would be "in the Objectivist tradition" if I may coin a phrase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brent,

Although you want to close the subject of HB/LP's opinions on the election, I want to bring it up again. You ask in your post how can two people with the same philosophy validly reach two vastly differing conclusions.

Well it's just that sometimes reality doesn't offer us choices that precisely match our values. Sometimes we have to pigeonhole our choices into the options available. In the example of our election, HB and LP have somewhat, sort of, but not really different or diametrically opposed, value systems and knowledge. HB barely, by a tinsy eensy bit, chose Bush over Kerry. LP very reluctantly, and even in opposition to his earlier support for Bush, chose Kerry. What happened was this minute difference in their values translated into them endorsing diametrically opposed candidates.

Although those more experienced can explain this better than I, but from my understanding and experience people can't have vastly different values and opinions if they subscribe to the same philosophy. Even if they have made completely different choices in their lives, some values are objective and inherent in the philosophy they both subscribe to. For example, the values of man, of hope, of reason, of a hero, are all prominent in the Objectivist corpus, so two who truly subscribe to this philosophy will invariably end up sharing at least the philosophy's values, if they share nothing else (which is itself unlikely).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brent,

Although you want to close the subject of HB/LP's opinions on the election, I want to bring it up again. You ask in your post how can two people with the same philosophy validly reach two vastly differing conclusions.

I only want to distance this thread from that particular example lest it appear that I am criticising either LP or HB or Objectivism itself for the inability to objectively agree :D .

Well it's just that sometimes reality doesn't offer us choices that precisely match our values. Sometimes we have to pigeonhole our choices into the options available. In the example of our election, HB and LP have somewhat, sort of, but not really different or diametrically opposed, value systems and knowledge. HB barely, by a tinsy eensy bit, chose Bush over Kerry. LP very reluctantly, and even in opposition to his earlier support for Bush, chose Kerry. What happened was this minute difference in their values translated into them endorsing diametrically opposed candidates.

Yes, I understand. As I said earlier had the choice been Bush/Lenin or Kerry/Lenin I assume both (LP and HB) would have endorsed the non-Lenin option.

Although those more experienced can explain this better than I, but from my understanding and experience people can't have vastly different values and opinions if they subscribe to the same philosophy. Even if they have made completely different choices in their lives, some values are objective and inherent in the philosophy they both subscribe to. For example, the values of man, of hope, of reason, of a hero, are all prominent in the Objectivist corpus, so two who truly subscribe to this philosophy will invariably end up sharing at least the philosophy's values, if they share nothing else (which is itself unlikely).

You make this point very well and I agree with you again. Using the axioms and a rational mind to arrive at values enables a logical choice to be made. One can then challenge one's own assumptions or logical process, or be challenged by others, with a view to refining a position.

However, now to give a more contentious example of my original point and reason for starting this thread. If you look at the various threads on Iraq, you will see diametrically opposed views on the war and how it is being pursued.

I have read some articles by Yarron Brook (another respected Objectivist) who advocates an extremely "Wolfowitzian" approach to the situation in Iraq and I have read other posts here which are much more diplomacy oriented.

So, both raze Fallujah and excercise military restraint are options put forward by Objectivists. These options are diametrical opposites, both suggested by Objectivists who, no doubt, think they are operating from the same philosophical axioms and excercising their own rational thinking.

In this situation (which is only one example) there is no fine line to draw between the approaches or solutions. Yet both are advocated by people who would consider themselves Objectivists. This seems to me to be a puzzle.

(I realise that there is no official Objectivist position on Iraq).

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the meaning that is in this sentence is what you intended. Is Ms Rand the only person possible to take a truly Objectivist course of action? Does it mean that since she'll never be here again, we can only guess at what would constitute action according to Objectivist principles? Or are we stuck with the phenomenal Objectivism, being now cut off from the noumenal Objectivism that emanated from the mind of Ms Rand?

I ask this because, taking your statement straight, there was then simply no reason for her to communicate her philosophy at all.

I believe that if Ms Rand were alive today and able to articulata her position on a candidate, there would be few if any Objectivists who would disagree with her. Would this mean that those who would support a different candidate are taking a non-objectivist position? No. As long as their method for arriving at their conclusions were based on Objectivist principles.

I assume Ms Rand would look at it the same way, and not see it as a departure from her philosophy - although she would likely take great pains to point out their errors and persuede them to accept her position. (But I don't know this for certain). I think an error I made though is ascribing the label Objectivism to a position, when it is really the process that leads to the position which may, or may not be Objectivist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think an error I made though is ascribing the label Objectivism to a position,  when it is really the process that leads to the position which may, or may not be Objectivist.

But, in that case, couldn't the process just as well be called logic....or rational judgement?

Is Objectivism a process or a body of philosophical thought?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, in that case, couldn't the process just as well be called logic....or rational judgement?

Is Objectivism a process or a body of philosophical thought?

In short, Objectivism is both a body of philosophical thought and a method/tool.

Have you read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff? If not I suggest you do so. A close study of this book should clarify your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...