What is the O'ist view on the unconcsious mind?

[Solomon Eagle]

Rand uses the term "subconscious", I think she might mean "preconscious", that is, that which isn't conscious at the moment but can be more or less easily recalled. My question is what an objectivist might think of the unconscious in the classical Freudian sense. It certainly poses the problem of the individual's being able to lie to himself.

(Corrected typo in title.-softwareNerd)

Edited June 23, 2005 by softwareNerd

[stephen_speicher]

Rand uses the term "subconscious", I think she might mean "preconscious", that is, that which isn't conscious at the moment but can be more or less easily recalled.

No. The subconscious is not simply that part of consciousness of which we are not currently aware. The subsconscious performs a large number of automatic processes that are not under direct control of the conscious mind. One can "reprogram," so to speak, some of these automatic processes, but they remain automatic functions just the same.

My question is what an objectivist might think of the unconscious in the classical Freudian sense.

The Freudian approach was essentially determinism, which is categorically rejected by Objectivism.

It certainly poses the problem of the individual's being able to lie to himself.

I have no idea what you mean. Please be more explicit.

[Bowzer]

I would highly recommend Dr. Binswanger's courses, Psycho-Epistemology and Psycho-Epistemology II.

[Solomon Eagle]

No. The subconscious is not simply that part of consciousness of which we are not currently aware. The subsconscious performs a large number of automatic processes that are not under direct control of the conscious mind. One can "reprogram," so to speak, some of these automatic processes, but they remain automatic functions just the same.

The Freudian approach was essentially determinism, which is categorically rejected by Objectivism.

I have no idea what you mean. Please be more explicit.

I take that back, I didn't mean he lies to himself, but rather, through an unconscious wish that secretly influences his behavior and thinking, he does and thinks things and even feels very strongly about them, without knowing why. It would make a rational choice more difficult if all the relavant information isn't always conscious.

(By the way, wouldn't automatic mental processes be deterministic? Then to acknowledge them and categorically reject them would be a self-contradiction. You must mean something else by "automatic processes" than I do.

[stephen_speicher]

I take that back, I didn't mean he lies to himself, but rather, through an unconscious wish that secretly influences his behavior and thinking,

The very way you word this -- an "unconscious wish" and "secretely influences" suggests that you may grant to the subconscious more than it deserves, as if it has a cognitive life of its own. And, thinking is under volitional control, as are behavioral actions, so any subconscious "influences," such as emotions, do not necessitate a specific mode of thought, nor need they determine one's actions.

he does and thinks things and even feels very strongly about them, without knowing why. It would make a rational choice more difficult if all the relavant information isn't always conscious.

It is true that you cannot escape the consequences of your prior thoughts and actions, so, yes, in that sense, if you characteristically do not exert the mental effort to understand what needs to be dealt with, if you characteristically suppress consideration of various issues, then you have programmed your subconscious to automatically respond in a way that will make it more difficult to face up to the facts. But, nevertheless, being rational is volitional and you can overcome that difficulty, at any specific time, by an act of choice, just as a characteristically rational person can choose to act in way other than rational. In other words, a tendancy towards relinquishing one's mind reinforces such an act, just as one who is on the premise of always remaining in full focus reinforces doing so, but each and every instance of either approach could be different by volitional choice.

(By the way, wouldn't automatic mental processes be deterministic? Then to acknowledge them and categorically reject them would be a self-contradiction. You must mean something else by "automatic processes" than I do.

Not all of our subconscious processes can even be indirectly controlled; these are brain processes that are intimately connected with physical functions. But our subconscious is also the repository of all the thinking that we do, so we can control the subconscious indirectly by the data we feed it and the standing orders we give it. The subconscious is a powerful integrator of all that we provide it, and this integration is what I refer to as an automatic process. But our conscious mind is volitional and we are always in control, making choices rather that acting deterministically.

[Solomon Eagle]

The very way you word this -- an "unconscious wish" and "secretely influences" suggests that you may grant to the subconscious more than it deserves, as if it has a cognitive life of its own. And, thinking is under volitional control, as are behavioral actions, so any subconscious "influences," such as emotions, do not necessitate a specific mode of thought, nor need they determine one's actions.

It is true that you cannot escape the consequences of your prior thoughts and actions, so, yes, in that sense, if you characteristically do not exert the mental effort to understand what needs to be dealt with, if you characteristically suppress consideration of various issues, then you have programmed your subconscious to automatically respond in a way that will make it more difficult to face up to the facts. But, nevertheless, being rational is volitional and you can overcome that difficulty, at any specific time, by an act of choice, just as a characteristically rational person can choose to act in way other than rational. In other words, a tendancy towards relinquishing one's mind reinforces such an act, just as one who is on the premise of always remaining in full focus reinforces doing so, but each and every instance of either approach could be different by volitional choice.   

Not all of our subconscious processes can even be indirectly controlled; these are brain processes that are intimately connected with physical functions. But our subconscious is also the repository of all the thinking that we do, so we can control the subconscious indirectly by the data we feed it and the standing orders we give it. The subconscious is a powerful integrator of all that we provide it, and this integration is what I refer to as an automatic process. But our conscious mind is volitional and we are always in control, making choices rather that acting deterministically.

Thanks. I have a much better idea of the difference between the Objectivist's concept of the unsc. and the more common idea of it. Thanks again.

[stephen_speicher]

Thanks. I have a much better idea of the difference between the Objectivist's concept of the unsc. and the more common idea of it. Thanks again.

You're welcome. But, if you do have a serious interest in exploring this, I would take Bowzer's advice on the references, and many more available at The Ayn Rand Bookstore.

[BurgessLau]

Thanks. I have a much better idea of the difference between the Objectivist's concept of the unsc. and the more common idea of it. Thanks again.

In studying Objectivism, the philosophy which Ayn Rand created, one of the best tools is The Ayn Rand Lexicon. There, under "Subconscious," you will find three pages of entries indicating Ayn Rand's views about one of the two parts of the mind, the subconscious mind.

On p. 484, in an edited transcription from a series of lectures by Leonard Peikoff, working under Ayn Rand's supervision, the text says in part:

"[Objectivism rejects the Freudian] theory of a dynamic unconscious -- i.e., the unconscious as a mystic entity, with a will and purpose of its own unknown to the conscious mind, like an inborn demon that continually raises Hell. Strictly speaking, Objectivism does not subscribe to the idea of an unconscious at all. We use the term 'subconscious' instead -- and that is simply a name for the content of your mind that you are not focused on at any given moment."

(The introductory note in square brackets is an insertion by the editor, philosopher Dr. Harry Binswanger.)

So, in summary, Objectivism has no concept of the "unconscious." Anyone who clams the existence of an unconscious part of the mind has the burden of proof that it exists.

P. S. -- Solomon, please note in your original post starting this thread: the correct spelling of the proper name for Ayn Rand's philosophy is "Objectivism." The word "objectivism" -- with a lowercase "o" -- names a particular doctrine in the traditional history of philosophy, not a whole philosophy, and certainly not the one Ayn Rand created.

[Bowzer]

Rand uses the term "subconscious", I think she might mean "preconscious"...

I just want to bring up a point elucidated by Burgess' post: I don't believe that there was a word stroked by Miss Rand's pen that wasn't completely intentional. She said what she meant and she meant what she said.