Is O'ism a philosophy that stops mental growth?

[rob.sfo]

I recently engaged in a discussion with my brother about the TIA Daily article "An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State" and he posed a question that I need some help answering. I'm in my first year as a student of Objectivism and I don't feel that I have a firm enough grasp on the philosophy to effectively answer him.

He said, "Everything I've read in Objectivism and you've explained creates an atmosphere where all other thoughts are wrong because objectivists have already found the truth. I believe that Objectivism has a "we are right everyone else is wrong" philosophy that stops growth. I'm sure you dispute this and I'm curious as to what your response is." [please pardon the lack of capitalization of Objectivism...it's a direct quote so I thought I'd leave it as is]

He studied history in college and has studied aspects of different philosophies, but he definitely knows little about Objectivism. What he does think he knows seems to me to be false. My tactic so far has been to get him to study it himself (I've physically placed The Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged in his hands, and I'm ready to give him VoS, OPAR and whatever else is appropriate for him to get at least a basic understanding, but I don't think he's read what I've given him yet).

How would you address his question (outside of telling him to figure it out for himself)? I think he's at a juncture where I will either completely alienate him or prompt him to take an interest, based on how I answer him. Therefore I'm turning to those much smarter than me for some help.

Thanks,

Rob

Edited September 10, 2005 by softwareNerd

[realitycheck44]

First of all, I would tell him that Objectivism does not have a "we are right everyone else is wrong" philosophy; it has a "we are right because of (points x, y, z). These points are usually based on axioms. In fact, other philosophies stop growth by saying "I am right because I 'feel it' or 'I want it'." Plus, by saying two contradictory things can be right violates the law of identity. A is A.

Secondly, I would tell him Objectivism doesn't "create an atmosphere where all other thoughts are wrong because Objectivists have already found the truth." Other thoughts are wrong because they contradict reality. A is still A, and it can never be non-A. For example, the belief in a omnipotent god contradicts itself. Socialism contradicts man's nature and reality. You get the picture. Objectivism, in my brief study of it, is the only philosophy that does not contradict itself, the senses, or any axioms.

It sounds to me like his argument is just another form of "how are you so sure you're right?".

Zak

[softwareNerd]

Rob,

The starting point is whether any philosophy can be right, and in what sense. To step further back, ask yourself: what is philosophy? Is philosophy a field of knowledge, like science, mathematics, history, etc.? Or is philosophy something personal and optional, like whether one likes chocolate or vanilla, which is not really right or wrong in the first place.

How would you answer this question about philosophy as a subject, not just about Objectivism?

[FeatherFall]

It was my understanding that Objectivism, explicitly, is the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, which Objectivists hold as true based on their own evaluation of it in reference to reality.

That being said, in order to expand on Objectivist philosophy, one must agree with the foundation that Ayn Rand made explicit. So in this respect, some of what your brother said may be true. But don't let anyone confuse agreement with Objectivist philosophy because they believe it to be true, with agreement because Ayn Rand said so.

I should probably try to address a question that may come from this, and I don't know if I will give the correct answer. It might confuse the issue, but here it is, how does one determine what is accepted Objectivist philosophy when considering new creations, after the death of Ayn Rand, that cannot explicitly be sanctioned by her post mortem? Also, what determines the official the Objectivist stance when two Objectivists disagree?

I believe the answer to the first question can be easily answered. New theory is accepted when it is a philosophical idea that logically follows from Objectivism, or that can be incorporated with Objectivism without contradiction. The second question is more difficult to answer, because it involves the evaluation of each opposing idea to determine a few things.

First, is there truly a contradiction between both ideas? If not, they can both be accepted if they both do not contradict with the current body of Objectivist work.

Second, if only one is correct, the contradiction in one idea must be identified and dismissed. Again, if it is found that both conflict with the current accepted body of work, both must be dismissed. Any party that continues to hold the validity of their new idea when it has been shown to contradict Objectivism must cease calling themselves an Objectivist.

Again, while your brother may be close to correct in some way, he is way off base in concluding that Objectivism is accepted on authority alone. There is a growing community of people ready to check and re-check any addition.

I hope this addressed your question appropriately, Rob.

[Proverb]

[...]I believe that objectivism has a "we are right everyone else is wrong" philosophy that stops growth. [...]

If this is the central point your brother holds at odds with Objectivism, there is an easy answer.

It is an issue of Epistemology. (the theory of the aquisition of knowledge) The answer to this argument lies in a description of Objectivist Epistemology.

Knowledge is observational at it's simplest level. Your perceptual knowledge is a sum of your observations which have been differentiated from one another. Consider how you know a tree from a person for example. To transcend this level requires a higher act of the act of the mind, a higher level of differentiation where you don't deal with observations directly but with the concepts you have formed already. Notice how you can point at a 'table' or a 'chair' but it is considerably more difficult to "point" at 'furniture.'

This, very very roughly, describes why Objectivists say that all concepts can be reduced to their perceptual concretes.

On that note is where your answer comes in.

"Objectivist Philosophy stops 'growth'?" No, it's based on growth--on a hierarchy of knowledge--that is developed from the absolutes of reality.

Now, it seems more that he is saying that Objectivists don't even consider other philosophies. To a point I would say he's right because Objectivists deny any attempt at philosophy that is not in concert with reality and the means by which we live in it--Reason.

It's good that he hasn't refused to take reading material from you. I would suggest you refer him to Ch. 3 of "Intro. to Objectivist Epistemology" specifically if he is not interested in taking on this short read in it's entirety.

[rob.sfo]

Thanks for all the feedback so far.

It appears that my initial course of action -- to try an explain the Epistemological basis of Objectivism to my brother – was on track. My worry was that I would not perform the task adequately. Your responses have helped me out a lot. He still needs to read & discover for himself, but I hope I can plant a few healthy seeds.

SoftwareNerd, I would answer that Philosophy is the basis on which the other sciences rest. It deals with the fundamentals of existence within which the other sciences play. It’s only personal & optional in the sense that a person can choose to recognize that Philosophy drives all aspects of life and develop an integrated, coherent philosophy, or they can develop one full of contradiction. Or they can ignore the topic altogether and be a whim-worshiper.

I guess that leads into the topic of Epistemology since, recognizing that a philosophy needs to be an integrated system that deals with reality, one arrives (with a little help ) at the basic axioms of existence, identity & consciousness. The rest flows from there. Of course, one first needs to recognize that “a philosophy needs to be an integrated system that deals with reality” before they can make the next step, but I’m confident that my brother qualifies.

I’m going to gather my thoughts on the topic and give him the best breakdown I can, but then I’m going to insist that if he wants to discuss the topic further, he really needs to do some reading. He’s into reading ‘heavy’ material, so I might just have him skip the fiction and head straight for the guts. Should I recommend ITOE, VoS & OPAR (and at least GS from AS)? Any others to include (or any of those I should exclude), and in any particular order?

Thanks again,

Rob

[EDIT for a typo]

Edited September 10, 2005 by rob.sfo

[FeatherFall]

The books you give your brother first depend on his interests. If he is not into fiction, it is best that he waits for The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged until he is familiar with Objectivism. This will allow him to relate what he has learned to the plot, and will be more enjoyable if he comes to agree with Objectivism.

If he is passionate about politics, give him VoS or C:UI. Otherwise, OPAR and ItOE are good choices, since he is into heavier reading.

[y_feldblum]

"I have observed the facts of reality and I have come to these conclusions" is never the wrong path to take.

[softwareNerd]

I would answer that Philosophy is the basis on which the other sciences rest.  It deals with the fundamentals of existence within which the other sciences play.  It’s only personal & optional in the sense that a person can choose to recognize that Philosophy drives all aspects of life and develop an integrated, coherent philosophy, or they can develop one full of contradiction.  Or they can ignore the topic altogether and be a whim-worshiper. 

If this is simply stated to most people, they will find it rather abstract. I have a suggestion regarding the polemics here: slow down and understand what your brother is saying about philosophy.

Step 1: What is his philosophy?

Step 2: Within his philosophy, does he see some principles as being more fundamental than others? Which ones are the most fundamental?

Step 3: How has he arrived at those principles?

Step 4: Why does he think someone else may not arrive at the same principles as he?

Does your brother think that people with an Objectivist philosophy are just as right as he is, as long as they are not quite certain of themselves? Or does he think he is "more right" in some way?