Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Freedom Versus 'Freedom'

Rate this topic


KyaryPamyu

Recommended Posts

Objectivism upholds the 'if/then' model of morality ('if you want X, do Y'). At first glance, this is completely incompatible with the Categorical Imperative, which simply demands you to 'do it', no matter the context or situation. However, in philosophical discussion, the restrictive CI is always connected to concepts such as freedom, autonomy and human dignity, so what gives? Since human freedom is a hot topic for Objectivism as well, perhaps we can extract some nuggets of truth from the CI's two most popular formulations (those of Kant and Fichte). After a brief presentation of both, I'll tackle the issue of human autonomy, as applicable to the Objectivist Ethics.

______

Kant and the CI

Kant tackled morality as part of a wider project encompassing the human faculties: reason (theory), conscience (morality) and taste (aesthetics). In the first installment of his project (The Critique of Pure Reason), he argued that in conscious experience, when the world undergoes changes, it still remains the same world, and thus, you also remain the same self throughout. He then shows how certain relations, such as causality, enable this sameness-in-difference. But, although you can prove that such relations are necessay for preserving the sameness of the self, Kant claims that it's an unjustified leap to assume that the exact same relations operate beyond the senses (Prolegomena, § 28). Reason is extremely tempted to do that, but whenever it tries to make claims about what lies beyond experience, it short-circuits and ends up in antinomies, i.e. for a given metaphysical thesis, it can also prove its opposite, the antithesis.

However, since we're endowed with certain faculties such as moral conscience, we can show that certain assumptions are justified, albeit not provable. For example, morality presupposes a belief in freedom, i.e., in the ability to cause an action of our own will, without being forced to cause it. This model can be formally expressed as 'just do it' (the Categorical Imperative). The CI's rival is the Hypothetical Imperative, which can be expressed as follows: 'Do X, but only if you want to attain Y'.

According to Kant, since the CI is implicit in freedom of action, our concrete actions should be in harmony with that. For example, it's not possible to 'just lie', because lying depends on first building trust; this turns lying into a Hypothetical, rather than Categorical imperative. Kant also thought that human conscience is innately biased toward the CI, and that following the HI takes a toll on our dignity (in the latter, freedom is merely the 'freedom' to dutifully comply with everything nature asks you to do, like a good boy/girl). Since the phenomenal self is rooted in the noumenal self (outside of the senses), it's reasonable to assume that both selves are in harmony somehow, even if it looks as if maintaining the CI is sometimes impractical or useless.

Fichte's Formulation

Fichte believed that the proposition 'A exists' does not have universal truth, since 'A' could be a unicorn or a talking chinchilla. However, the proposition 'A = A' does have universal validity, and grounds all of logic. He wanted to track the source of this universal validity, and allegedly found it. He explained that, in self-consciousness, the self (as subject) relates itself to its own self (as object). Thus, in the proposition 'I = I', the mind opposes the two terms, then relates them (in ITOE-parlance, ‘differentiates and integrates’ them). While the truth of 'A exists' is conditional upon what 'A' stands for, the truth of 'A = A' is universal, since it points to an actual content, namely, the unity of subject and object.

Theoretical Portion

Thesis: I am I.
Antithesis: However, I (the subject) am also not I (the object). Those two are distinct, opposed.
Synthesis: The 'I' and 'Not-I' co-exist, each having some quantity relative to the other.

As you can see, rational integration (synthesis) does not succeed in resolving the separation of subject and object, it merely makes them cohabit. To properly achieve the unification that theoretical reason failed at, we'll simply have to incorporate this 'Not-I' into ourselves, through practical reason. In other words, if our bodies can follow our wills, so can the rest of material nature. Needless to say, that's a daunting project (but doable). Science, technology, art etc. will become our tools for this project.

Rand and the Choice To Live

Nature blackmails us with endless conditions to fulfill, so at first glance, it looks as if we're only 'free' to dutifully obey whatever nature nags us to do. One of the things I find remarkable about Rand's ethics, is that the basic choice underlying the 'if/then' model is unconditional. More specifically, the choice to live is a pre-moral choice, a precondition for the possibility of morality. Unfortunately, I think OPAR kind of ruins this insight by phrasing things like some pious cleric:

Quote

...however, there is nothing to do but grasp: it is—and then, if the fundamental alternative confronts one, bow one's head in a silent "amen," amounting to the words: "This is where I shall fight to stay. (pg. 212)

No thanks. I'm not bowing my head to anything. Contrast this with Rand's own presentation:

Quote

In answer to a man who was telling her she's got to do something or other, a wise old Negro woman said: "Mister, there's nothing I've got to do except die." (Causality Versus Duty)

That’s a big difference of emphasis. A free being does not pursue life because it's forced to do so by natural appetites, but rather: pursues life (with all of its appetites) as an act of freedom. Back to OPAR:

Quote

A man who would throw away his life without cause, who would reject the universe on principle and embrace a zero for its own sake—such a man, according to Objectivism, would belong on the lowest rung of hell. (pg. 248)

After claiming that the choice to live is pre-moral, Peikoff tactlessly brings up the rungs of hell, suggesting moral condemnation for the sin of not 'accepting reality' (choosing life). Kelley made fun of this in one of his lectures.

I just want to empathize how truly radical the 'pre-moral' idea is. Obviously, there's a stark difference between the CI and the Objectivist Ethics. The CI does not even allow people to take their own lives, because that would remove from existence an instrument of freedom. But Objectivism roots the fundamental choice in our absolute autonomy. Not in mechanical causality, not in nature's whims or in externally imposed edicts, but in us.

When it comes to those philosophies that uphold 'freedom for it's own sake' (e.g. Fichte's system of ethics), it's tempting to retort: 'no, it's freedom for life's sake'. But the dignity of freedom is so important, that its absence can completely absolish a person's desire to live. As always, one needs to go beyond what's 'technically true' and see the living, breathing reality that faces us. Another example: it's perfectly valid to speak of one's body as a tool/machine for one's will. Rand herself does this in Galt's Speech (FTNI, pg. 130) without contradicting her thesis that a person is an indivisible entity. Likewise, for Fichte, the 'Absolute I' is merely the target; the 'real I' is always a mind-body trying to incorporate the rest of nature into its will.

I think there's a grain of truth in the idea that the desire for freedom somehow underpins all of our actions. We strive for a perfect state of affairs that will finally satisfy us, yet the moment we find something that fits the bill, we're struck by its ghastly restrictiveness and incompleteness. The spirit revolts against limitation, all limitation.

Perhaps, if Objectivist 'activists' focused on presenting reason as a tool for freedom, we'd see a spike in interest for the philosophy. Personally, I'm definitely not in the camp of people that consider that it's not necessary to 'sell' reason to the masses. No human being is interested in something, unless that something bears positively on his freedom. At least, that's what attracted me to The Fountainhead and VoS in the first place: the fact that Rand wrote about the autonomy of the human spirit.

To this day, I still don't care about fawning over how cool Ancient Greece was, or about cringey polemics regarding alternative logics. This is another fact to consider: there might be Objectivists out there who don't care about most of the Objectivist memes, and maybe, *gasp*, they don't even enjoy Atlas Shrugged. All the more reason to focus on properly marketing the philosophy (forgive my blasphemous language), rather than struggling to pull in 500-1000 'rational newcomers' per year, of which at least a portion will be dogmatists who don't care to challenge their views, anyway.

______

Further Reading

Edited by KyaryPamyu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My spirit does not "revolt against limitation, all limitation." Without limitations there is no such thing as freedom or a bed that has been made or a word that has been said or written. Without limitations of structure and dynamics, there is no such thing as life, from amoeba to us. Limitations and our creativity utilizing them is all our engineering and all loveliness made by us.

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

After claiming that the choice to live is pre-moral, Peikoff tactlessly brings up the rungs of hell, suggesting moral condemnation for the sin of not 'accepting reality' (choosing life).

Okay, but I take that as humorous rhetorical flair, a style that I personally enjoy. I say this because in many of his lectures, he says things that are straight up hilarious that nevertheless make the point he's making very clear. Anyway, OPAR I don't think is the best example of analyzing the premoral choice other than presenting that viewpoint. Tara Smith goes on about in a much more in-depth way in Viable Values.

12 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Perhaps, if Objectivist 'activists' focused on presenting reason as a tool for freedom, we'd see a spike in interest for the philosophy. Personally, I'm definitely not in the camp of people that consider that it's not necessary to 'sell' reason to the masses.

Got any examples? I agree with you, but I don't know if any such camp exists in the first place. 

12 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

All the more reason to focus on properly marketing the philosophy (forgive my blasphemous language), rather than struggling to pull in 500-1000 'rational newcomers' per year, of which at least a portion will be dogmatists who don't care to challenge their views, anyway.

What or who are you arguing against? You seem to be arguing against something that isn't happening in the first place. 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, the 'movement' would benefit from marketing the philosophy to non-fans, i.e., to people who dislike Ayn Rand as a person, or find her writing style to be obnoxious. As a parallel, we all benefit from studying term logic, but only a small portion of the population is interested in Aristotle as a person or writer. Focus more on making a cutural impact, less on Rand as a personality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 1:03 AM, KyaryPamyu said:

In short, the 'movement' would benefit from marketing the philosophy to non-fans, i.e., to people who dislike Ayn Rand as a person, or find her writing style to be obnoxious. As a parallel, we all benefit from studying term logic, but only a small portion of the population is interested in Aristotle as a person or writer. Focus more on making a cultural impact, less on Rand as a personality.

I still think one of the best ways to make a cultural impact is to produce literature or other dramatic works. Then you can appeal to the American sense of life while also providing the intellectual basis for that feeling. This is what Ayn Rand herself was doing when she wrote Atlas Shrugged -- but there is plenty of room for other works, in a variety of genres and styles, and with a variety of subjects and themes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 6:03 AM, KyaryPamyu said:

In short, the 'movement' would benefit from marketing the philosophy to non-fans, i.e., to people who dislike Ayn Rand as a person, or find her writing style to be obnoxious. As a parallel, we all benefit from studying term logic, but only a small portion of the population is interested in Aristotle as a person or writer. Focus more on making a cutural impact, less on Rand as a personality.

 

I agree that it's better to market the philosophy than the personality in a general sense. But I don't think it's worth marketing to people who dislike her as a person or find her writing style obnoxious (I wouldn't call these people "non-fans" though as it's too broad a term, maybe "opponents" or "detractors").

I think marketing Oist ideas to people who don't know anything about Rand is a better option, as it wouldn't have the fundamental "road bump" of their preconceptions against her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2023 at 11:23 PM, necrovore said:

I still think one of the best ways to make a cultural impact is to produce literature or other dramatic works. Then you can appeal to the American sense of life while also providing the intellectual basis for that feeling. This is what Ayn Rand herself was doing when she wrote Atlas Shrugged -- but there is plenty of room for other works, in a variety of genres and styles, and with a variety of subjects and themes.

I agree. Another area is gaming.

I'm a beginner game designer (mostly using C# and the Unity game engine) and I'm interested in creating games that feature Oist ideas. I think roleplaying games in particular would be a good place to attempt a new work based upon Oist ideas, as they revolve around giving the player choices (if very limited choices) and characters they interact with which could be a good way of introducing Oist ideas (in a non-player character who acts upon them, and choices the player can make some of which are in line of Oism). Then the choices the player makes in ideas they act on and characters they interact with could reach their natural conclusions.

Edited by metacreation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum, metacreation.

3 hours ago, metacreation said:

(I wouldn't call these people "non-fans" though as it's too broad a term, maybe "opponents" or "detractors").

People who hear about Rand for the first time can still dislike her writing style or her 'interview personality' after looking her up. And that's fine; even if you agree with her ideas 100%, you don't have to force yourself to read novels or essays you don't enjoy.

3 hours ago, metacreation said:

I think roleplaying games in particular would be a good place to attempt a new work based upon Oist ideas, as they revolve around giving the player choices (if very limited choices) and characters they interact with which could be a good way of introducing Oist ideas

Cool idea. I think the 'like' button is disabled on posts made by newly registered users, so I'll just quote you instead.

Edited by KyaryPamyu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2023 at 3:40 AM, metacreation said:

I'm a beginner game designer

Beginner like starting college studying game design, or getting more involved in that kind of work after being in another field? I'm pretty curious, what you mentioned is something I used to think a lot about when I was very new to Oism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2023 at 10:33 PM, Eiuol said:

Beginner like starting college studying game design, or getting more involved in that kind of work after being in another field? I'm pretty curious, what you mentioned is something I used to think a lot about when I was very new to Oism.

Beginner as in an on-and-off hobbyist designer for 25 years while doing other work, and now focused on becoming a full-time professional game designer.

Edited by metacreation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2023 at 11:00 AM, KyaryPamyu said:

Welcome to the forum, metacreation.

ty

On 3/13/2023 at 11:00 AM, KyaryPamyu said:
On 3/13/2023 at 7:35 AM, metacreation said:

(I wouldn't call these people "non-fans" though as it's too broad a term, maybe "opponents" or "detractors").

People who hear about Rand for the first time can still dislike her writing style or her 'interview personality' after looking her up. And that's fine; even if you agree with her ideas 100%, you don't have to force yourself to read novels or essays you don't enjoy.

I personally was immediately impressed by Rand's writing when I came across it about 8 years ago with The Fountainhead and loved everything I found after that too. I had not come across any information about her before then.

But I suppose I don't know what proportion of people in general would have that response and what proportion would choose to dislike her, and that's part of deciding what approach to take. I expect that second-handers that look for bloggers or other media personalities to make their opinions for them would generally dislike her because I think that the majority of public opinions about Rand are negative, and I also expect that people like that would make up a substantial proportion of people.

Of the people that come across her and choose to dislike her interview personality or ideas very quickly, I'm doubtful that there's going to be a high success rate in changing their minds.

But I don't know the statistics. Suppose 80% of people are second-handers who dislike her immediately and 20% are not and are open to her ideas, I think you'd have a drastically better success rate focusing on introducing the 20% to her ideas.

If you suppose that 80% of the 20% can be convinced of Oist ideas, and a 20% of the 80%, then it's even in terms of output (16% of all target people are affected by each strategy). But the negative impact of the 80% of the 80% (64% of the total) possibly spreading more negative misunderstandings would make targeting the open-minded 20% more effective.

If it's instead a 50% success proportion with the second-handed 80% then, even with a 100% success rate on the open-minded 20%, it would overall be much more effective to target the message to the 80% (with 40% of the total population convinced vs 20% by targeting the open-minded).

In conclusion, there's some audience research needed to get an idea of which strategy is most effective before heavily committing to any specific strategy.

Edited by metacreation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KyaryPamyu

Among people I’ve known who have read Rand’s novels and were critical of them, it was because on about every page, she brings on some ideological or philosophical point. And either they find that a defect in literature as literature or they are grabbed by the ideas, and if they don’t like them, they start ridiculing the characters and story as replacement for arguing out the ideas. For many years, people I met who responded positively to Rand’s novels and ideas were one or two standard deviations above average intelligence. Since the handy internet has come about, I’ve gotten to see the lower levels who respond positively and who are a little sad in their limited ability to stick with reasoning and to make or adopt a consistent and well-understood philosophy of life for themselves.

I do not “get” talk about how to market the philosophy. What is the purpose? Trying to make the world a better place? I don’t think that is actually a sensible goal in life. Just making your own life and the lives of others as individuals better seems the sensible thing to me. But then one’s focus is on individuals one gets to know and interact with as individual persons, not their falling into statistical groups for what looks like political hopes, which is sensibly a second-thought concern in a well-lived life.

I like the local focus of Henry Rearden. Make products. Find traders for it. His focus is on that work, for satisfaction and for making a lot of money. He attends also to persons who are not commercial traders such as the young government man Tony, whom Rearden inspires, and to the philosophical guy Francisco, who gives Rearden much psychological liberation, and of course, he attends to the with-benefits of that trader whose suit he gets into thinking about putting his hand under. 

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boydstun said:

I do not “get” talk about how to market the philosophy.

Institutes like ARI and TAS follow a specific 'marketing plan', so I think it's worth considering what can and cannot be achieved by those plans. For the rest of us, who didn't choose a career in promoting Objectivism, I wholly agree with you on simply doing our thing and enjoying life.

History abounds with philosopher-writers: Schiller, Dostoevsky, Sartre, Camus are prime examples. I noticed that many of them have at least one organization attached to their name. I think the Ayn Rand Institute is exactly that: an organization dedicated to promoting Ayn Rand's work - of which Objectivism is but one strand among many. Such an organization can expect precisely what, for example, the Albert Camus Society can expect: bringing together veteran fans, attracting a few new ones, and encouraging new scholarly research. 

In this respect, I think the Atlas Society (the open-system advocate) is different from ARI. Imagine that a few intellectuals took it upon themselves to expand the philosophy of Camus. Well, you obviously can't do that, because Camus is Camus. So I think that TAS is, in fact, offering an alternative to Rand's system-as-she-left-it. (Of course, offering such an alternative is compatible with promoting Ayn Rand the philosopher-writer).

If, let's say, 10% of the population read Camus, quoted Camus, attended lectures on Camus every summer, adopted his terminology verbatim, imitated his manner of acting, and excommunicated various individuals, what would we call that? A cult, or a fanatical fan base. Human knowledge is a decentralized business. People can accept Camus' ideas without liking his novels or haircut. No one is commiting a folly by choosing to never read Camus himself, and relying instead on accurate presentations by other authors. This is what it means for knowledge to successfully 'infect' the world. Science and philosophy cannot have Jesus-figures.

Anyone who is committed to promoting Objectivism should imagine the following scenario: a world where everybody learns Objectivist ideas from K-pop and TV dramas, but barely anyone has heard of Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand. If said promoters find no problem with this picture, there's a high chance they're committed to spreading the philosophy, rather than to spreading Ayn Rand's writings.

Edited by KyaryPamyu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2023 at 12:33 PM, KyaryPamyu said:

Anyone who is committed to promoting Objectivism should imagine the following scenario: a world where everybody learns Objectivist ideas from K-pop and TV dramas, but barely anyone has heard of Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand. If said promoters find no problem with this picture, there's a high chance they're committed to spreading the philosophy, rather than to spreading Ayn Rand's writings.

You are right in the sense that it is better to promote good ideas in general. But Oist ideas are the ideas that Rand wrote about. You can't promote Oist ideas completely divorced from her fiction, because those absolutely part of core understanding. That isn't to say the only correct way to talk about philosophy is to talk about Rand and no one else. What I'm saying is don't bother promoting "the philosophy", that's not what's important. Not everyone has to make a deep dive, and you can understand good ideas without reading a word of Rand. 

On 3/19/2023 at 12:33 PM, KyaryPamyu said:

Such an organization can expect precisely what, for example, the Albert Camus Society can expect: bringing together veteran fans, attracting a few new ones, and encouraging new scholarly research. 

I don't think the analogy works, existentialism is pretty much against systematic philosophy. Still, if you want to understand existentialism, you can't get by with not reading Camus.  If you don't want to do it, then you won't understand existentialism. Of course, an existentialist might promote what they think are good ideas, and they can recommend related literature about existentialism that would discuss these good ideas. But if they want to promote existentialism specifically, they have to promote Camus. Or at least, only by reading Camus would you be learning about existentialism (or any of the other existentialist philosophers who called themselves that). 

It really does sound weird to have an existentialist promoting Camus explicitly and as the only way to understand what is true. (Would an existential even say that truth is objective? Well, you get the idea!) In the same way, I think it's better to think about promoting philosophy in a way that doesn't involve mentioning Rand very much. I will certainly mention where I get my ideas from, but I don't actually mention Rand much. 

Promoting good ideas involves promoting many kinds of people. 

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...