Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism?

[Capleton]

I would certainly like some comments about the "critique" of Objectivism that can be found by following the link below.

Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism?

by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.

http://radicalacademy.com/objcriticism.htm

To me he seems to have a poor grasp of the Objectivist position and the fact that his supposed critique is so short and timid makes him even more suspect. My critique of his critique is forthcoming (tommorow).

[danielshrugged]

The problem with the essay is more its very poor and rationalistic reasoning than its lack of knowledge of Objectivism. The main errors are:

1.) The quote at the beginning that describes materialism and with which Objectivists are said to agree is not--as presented--the normal meaning of materialism, nor is it the way materialism is used later in the essay. For he later says that materialism holds that "all reality is material and only material". Objectivist do not agree with this.

2.) The response to Objectivists' putting themselves in their own camp apart from materialism, idealism, and moderate realism is absurd. He says that Objectivism either claims that everything including ideas is material, or everything including ideas is non-material. Clearly, he says, Objectivism does not claim that everything is non-material. Therefore, it claims that everything is material. This by itself is a false alternative.

3.) Sensing the trouble, the essay pretends to consider the possiblity that Objectivism claims that both material and non-material exists. But if it held that non-material were possible, the essay claims, it would also have to hold that God is possible. And it does not hold this. Therefore, Objectivism does not hold that the non-material exists. This is a logical fallacy: ad hominem tu quoque. It is claimed that Objectivists must hold the view that God is possible in order to be consistent with their view that there is both material and non-material. And the fact that we do not hold that God is possible is presented as evidence that we don't even believe what we claim to believe. But the fact that the author of this essay cannot understand how we can entertain what seems to him to be two contradictory ideas--that God is not possible and that non-material exists--does not take away from the fact that the latter of these two is still part of our philosophy.

4.) And, of course, the essay is wrong that the existence of non-material implies the possiblity of God.

[stoneange]

In contrast to the double talk that seems to dominate this Doc's misguided attack...

Plainly stated, as an objectivist, it's not that I just simply believe that existence exists.... I do not contemplate the alternative. I don't care. Realism is dealing with what is actual in contrast to the imagined, be that reality material or non-material.

To require a classification of Objectivism into some preconceived category of EITHER Idealist or Materialist is the juvenile ramblings of an inherently prejudice mind.

[Axiom]

I was at a lecture by John Ridpath a while back, where he discussed the problem of rationalism in the Objectivist movement and in general. He made the very telling point that often the problem with rationalists is their inability to step outside of their particular framework of thought and analyze it - in effect they were stuck in a loop, because in attempting to evaluate their framework of thought they would look to other thoughts for the answer, rather than to reality (it's circular reasoning on a much deeper level, basically.)

Dr. Dolhenty seems to be stuck in the same infinite loop - he has this silly idea that materialism = no god, idealism = god. To him this is a given, so he deduces that since Objectivists are obviously atheists then they are materialists.

One example Dr. Ridpath used in the talk was as professor being confronted with the proposition that the analytic synthetic dychotomy was a false alternative - the response would come back "well, is that an analytic or a synthetic statement?"

Vecheslav Silagadze

[Capleton]

I enjoyed reading the potent critiques rendered so far. Although I still need to refine my own I will share it with all.

In the beginning of his supposed "critique" of Objectivism, Dolhenty states that, "Objectivist philosophers may take me to task for claiming that Objectivism appears to be simply another form of philosophical Materialism." He is correct in his estimation that Objectivists such as myself would find his view to be divorced from reality so to speak and thus worth being countered.

One can't help but detect that Dolhenty has a serious gripe with the Objectivist position that god commonly defined (a supernatural entity) does not exist. He made it clear on his Website that he believes in a god but on "nonrational" grounds so one is lead to the conclusion that though he sympathizes with many Objectivist positions he is resentful of Objectivism's atheistic nature. He comments on his own god beliefs by saying:

"I don't think that the existence of a personal God, that is, the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, can be proved through the use of human reason (or proved philosophically) [...] I do believe in a God which created and continually sustains the existence of all Reality. I do not base this belief of mine on any argument using human reason, although I would argue that the belief is not opposed to human reason, that is, it is not irrational or unreasonable. The belief is simply nonrational, that is, it is not based on human reason but on something else, probably what most people would consider faith. "

If his belief in god is not based on reason then it is indeed unreasonable (inconsistent with reason) in this context. For if it were based on reason then it could be proven (objectively) and thus be reasonable. But alas, he states that his belief in a personal god is not based on reason and that he thinks that the existence of the being cannot be shown to be a fact based on reasoned arguments. How unreasonable.

What's more, in an apparent desperate attempt to make out Objectivism to be a dogmatic materialistic philosophy he renders a loaded definition of philosophical materialism. The definition states:

“Modern Materialism holds that the universe is an unlimited material entity; [Objectivist do not concur] that the universe, including all matter and ener [g]y (motion or force), has always existed, and will always exist [Objectivism hold that existence exist absolutely but what constitutes the existent need not be only material]; that the world is a hard, tangible, material, objective reality that man can know [We concur]. It holds that matter existed before mind [Objectivists hold that existence precedes consciousness for a "f nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms"] ; that the material world is primary and that thoughts about this world are secondary [Objectivism holds that existence not merely the material is primary].” (Charles S. Seely, Modern Materialism: A Philosophy of Action.)

My interpolations (above) ought to suggest that Mr. Dolhenty has some apologizing to do since he promised that, "I don't think there is much, if anything, in that paragraph which would be denied by Objectivists. If I am wrong, I will apologize and stand corrected." I must deny most of what is stated in the above definition, so there you go.

When I first read the definition that was given I had an acute urge to scratch my head. This is because I had always seen "Materialism" defined as, "the belief that only physical things truly exist". Of course, one can speculate on the implications of such a metaphysical view but I see little that can lend credence to the claim that Objectivism is dogmatically materialist.

Moreover, it amusing that Dolhenty would muse over the issue as to whether Objectivism is in essence Idealistic, Materialistic or none of the above. For instance, Dolhenty states, "There seems to be only two choices here. If the intellect and ideas are material existents, along with everything else in the universe, then Objectivism would appear to fall into the Materialist camp. " Even if it could be shown that ideas are material this in no way suggest that everything in existence (i.e., the universe) is material. The false alternative that is offered is a hopeless non sequitur. He goes on to state that, "If, on the other hand, the intellect and ideas are nonmaterial existents, and everything else in the universe is Idea or Thought or Mind, then Objectivism fall into the Idealist camp." Again, claiming that one thing is nonmaterial does not automatically mean one would go on to claim that all things are simply inner contents of the mind that bear no relation to reality.

In conclusion, Dolhenty has the archaic view that all gods are supposedly supernatural. He evades the fact that there are materialist who believe in god (s) though of a material composition. The rejection of the supernatural is not the same as the rejection of the god "concept". Objectivism rejects the mysticism peddled by Dolhenty and this seems to be a great bother to him.

[Guest heusdens]

The concept that everything that exists is physical matter, in some or other form, is also known under the term physicalism.

It should be noted however that philosophical materialism does not claim that everything that exists is physical matter. Does a school institution exist? A state or government board? Yes, of course they exist. But, although these kind of things would not exist outside, apart and independend of physical matter, their existence form is not to be thought of as the mere physical material form in which they exist.

What kind of physical matter exist, of which a school building is built, is hardly of any relevance for the way a school institution exist. We are dealing here of course with forms of highly organized social institutions.

Also they are material entities, but don't confuse this with physical matter.

Essential to understanding of the difference between Materialism and Idealism, is the answer to the question of what is the primary form of existence: matter or consciousness. Materialism answers to this question matter, and Idealism answers to this question consciousness.

The question now, as where to place Objectivism alongside this division between Materialism and Idealism, I think it can be clear that Objectivism can be thought of as a contemporary form of Materialism, assuming that it answers the question as to what the primary form of existence is in the same way as Materialism does.

In fact Objectivism does that, although Objectivism itself denies that, because the matter concept as Objectivism reflects to, is not the same as that of philosophical, dialectcial or historical materialism, but a very narrow matter concept. Objectivism claims that not all things that exist are material, which means the concept of matter as used within Objectivism does not cover every existing entity. Materialism claims however that everything that exist is material, i.e. they use a much broader concept of matter.

Objectivism itself claims it is it's own category. It may say so, but could nevertheless fall into either Materialism or Idealism, dependending on how it answers the primary question in philolosophy.

It should be noted further that the term matter is in itself a confusing term, since philosophical materialism uses it in a different meaning as physics does (in physics, matter an energy are seperate things, materialism regards them both as matter, as also other existing things, like social institutions).

Instead of the concept of matter, as used in materialism (which is a broad concept, and raises above the concept of physical matter/energy alone to also include social institutions, etc), Objectism simply refers to this as 'existence'.

Such a term can be understood as rather meaningless, or tautological, since of course, 'existence' exists. The materialist conception that all that exist is material, makes clear that it is an opposing viewpoint to that of Idealism.

This is however not a difference in point of view, but just a difference in terms used. The statement that 'everything that exists is material' in fact connects these two concepts and declares them equal.

Since I have not studied Objectivism in depth, I might be wrong on a few things, but as far as I know and understand Objectivism and Materialism, they are alltogether not much different, and much related.

Their main difference is the historical time epoch in which they have been evolved.

Philosophical and dialectical materialism has evolved some 150 years ago, although the roots of materialism must be understood to be much more ancient (Greek materialists). Objectivism is much more recent.

An important difference is their political points of view. Dialectical materialism, alongside with historical materialism, are directly linked to the class struggle, and is closely connected to the political point of view of the labour class. Objectivism on the other hand, must be considered to be the point of view of the bourgois class.

It holds to the idea that the current social system that is currently dominating the world and is the most advanced social system, is the only moral system.

That point of view is of course the point of view of the ruling classes of all previous social systems that were dominating and were the most advanced.

I.e. also the ruling class of ancient Greek slavery society, were devoted to the opinion that their society was the only moral and just social system.