Proto-Objectivism

[hernan]

A discussion on another subject got me thinking about the question: is there a history to Objectivism before Ayn Rand?

The most obvious pre-Rand thinker is Adam Smith who wrote not only the Wealth of Nations but also The Theory of Moral Sentiments. His most enduring contribution is in regard particularly to the contribution of selfish interest.

I'm hard pressed to think of others who come close.

Any suggestions?

[aleph_0]

Adam Smith was not much of a pre-Objectivist considering his largely utilitarian ideas in politics and Humean ideas in ethics. As for metaphysics, I'm not sure he has any thoughts at all on the subject. Moreover, his economics were--while duly impressive and laudable--flatly wrong and based on an essentially (and ironically) Kantian notion of value.

Other thinkers who show a great deal of reason and spirit are Nietzsche's early- and middle-period writings, Spinoza, and obviously, Aristotle. Elements of Francis Bacon are quite enjoyable as well. Christopher Gustavus Tiedeman, Frederic Bastiat, John Locke, and Thomas Aquinas all come to mind. If you like, I may provide others as they occur to me.

[aequalsa]

A discussion on another subject got me thinking about the question: is there a history to Objectivism before Ayn Rand?

The most obvious pre-Rand thinker is Adam Smith who wrote not only the Wealth of Nations but also The Theory of Moral Sentiments. His most enduring contribution is in regard particularly to the contribution of selfish interest.

I'm hard pressed to think of others who come close.

Any suggestions?

HL Mencken

[Whoisjohngalt]

See also: Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson.

[DavidOdden]

A discussion on another subject got me thinking about the question: is there a history to Objectivism before Ayn Rand?

The most obvious pre-Rand thinker is Adam Smith who wrote not only the Wealth of Nations but also The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

I don't understand the question. There were numerous thinkers before Rand, such as Aristotle, Plato, Acquinas, Descartes, even Kant. Suppose you think that Beethoven is the best composer ever, then would it make sense to ask "Were there composers before Beethoven?" The other way of reading your question is, was Rand aware of or influenced by any earlier philosopher's ideas. Obviously she was very strongly influenced by Kant, though whether it was direct or indirect is hard to say (that is, did she set out the read Kant and realize "Yuck", or did she realize "Yuck" and then set out to figure out "Where does this Yuck come from"?). Are you asking "Are there any ideas which Rand promulgated, which she was nor aware of until she read X, and, having seen that X's idea is correct, she herself adopted it as part of Objectivism"? That's something that close personal acquaintances would have to provide data on.

Or are you asking, "What prior philosopher is closess, on some unspecified scale, to the sum of Rand's philosophy"? So I just don't know how to read your question.

[hernan]

First of all, thanks to everyone who has taken the time to answer my quetion.

I don't understand the question. ...Or are you asking, "What prior philosopher is closess, on some unspecified scale, to the sum of Rand's philosophy"? So I just don't know how to read your question.

Yes, I'm looking for thinkers (not necessarily philosphers) who come close to her thinking. Obviously, every great thinker stands on the shoulders of those who come before. But to me the most interesting spect of Rand's philsophy is her moral justification of selfishness as a virtue. This really sets her apart from virtually all others including many philosophers listed in this thread.

(I would say that the idea that selfishness is good is not new but that it had mostly been an unarticulated concept against which published philosphers set themselves against in arguing for self sacrifice for the common good.)

The only other person I could think of who come close is Adam Smith (with all due respect to the criticism cited above to his approach).

One can certainly find some arguments for the selfishness of "us" vs. "them" (usually in the form of civilizatoin vs. barbarians) but who, before Rand, explored the virtue of individuality as a moral organizing principle?

[Whoisjohngalt]

If youare looking for earlier defenders of Laissez-faire, Herbert Spencer is a good place to start looking. He was the greatest defender of capitalism of the 19th century. What I am amazed at is that in spite of a giant like Spencer, Great Britain took the well-known road to socialism and misery.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Whoisjohngalt

[aleph_0]

Aristotle was an early proponent of selfishness as a moral virtue. Epicurus was not so very far off the mark, either. Nietzsche adopted an element of radical individualism and aggressive anti-Christianity. Also, many Age of Reason philosophers and after played with the idea that all men are selfish, though rarely going so far as to say that it was a moral virtue--but rather, that it was simply unavoidable. There was some precedent for her moral theory. I don't believe, however, that there was hardly any precedent for her political theory. F.A. Hayek was the first to associate economic control with socialism and draw the modern boundary between individualism and statism--but his moral tones were always behind the curtain and conservative Christian in nature. Rand was the first thinker to ever claim that capitalism was a moral political system.

As for Herbert Spencer, while I would agree that he pulled the world further to the (modern) right, he was explicitly a collectivist and I would argue that he played a significant role in ending the individualism of the Enlightenment.

And not to put too fine a point on it, Hernan, but I'm curious what ethical writings from Adam Smith make you think that he believed in selfishness? Have you read that work of his titled something like "On Sentiment"? He is explicitly Humean, unless of course you consider Hume to also be a precursor to Rand, to which idea I think you'll find a lot of opposition around here.

[KendallJ]

What about Say's work on political economy?

[hernan]

Thanks again everyone for your very generous suggestions. I think these are closer to what I was looking for.

It may well be that, in the sense that I am seeking, Rand was without precedent. That would be an ok answer. But I don't want to say that until I've exhausted the possiblities.

Aristotle was an early proponent of selfishness as a moral virtue. Epicurus was not so very far off the mark, either. Nietzsche adopted an element of radical individualism and aggressive anti-Christianity.

Certainly to a limited extent, the Greek concept of virtue as living a happy life is certainly a reasonable precedent but I think these philosophers were too ambiguous about the relationship between the individual and society. (Aristotle more or less punted on arguing for social virtues accepting them as given.)

Also, many Age of Reason philosophers and after played with the idea that all men are selfish, though rarely going so far as to say that it was a moral virtue--but rather, that it was simply unavoidable.

This is, I think, really the dominant theme of the history of philosophy. Selfishness was an original sin which required redemption of one form or another. For some it is the city/state, for others something else. Selfishness is a problem to which solutions were sought. Alternatively, human organization is explained in terms of mastering the primitive beast of selfishness.

F.A. Hayek was the first to associate economic control with socialism and draw the modern boundary between individualism and statism--but his moral tones were always behind the curtain and conservative Christian in nature. Rand was the first thinker to ever claim that capitalism was a moral political system.

And this is her (perhaps unique) contribution. I think Hayek, like Adam Smith, made political/policy argument, an argument about public choice. Rand drove this all the way down to individual choice.

And we should certainly include early American political theory in this category if only for it's relative focus on individuality (the "pursuit of happiness" and all).

If youare looking for earlier defenders of Laissez-faire, Herbert Spencer is a good place to start looking. He was the greatest defender of capitalism of the 19th century. What I am amazed at is that in spite of a giant like Spencer, Great Britain took the well-known road to socialism and misery.

As for Herbert Spencer, while I would agree that he pulled the world further to the (modern) right, he was explicitly a collectivist and I would argue that he played a significant role in ending the individualism of the Enlightenment. And not to put too fine a point on it, Hernan, but I'm curious what ethical writings from Adam Smith make you think that he believed in selfishness? Have you read that work of his titled something like "On Sentiment"? He is explicitly Humean, unless of course you consider Hume to also be a precursor to Rand, to which idea I think you'll find a lot of opposition around here.

What about Say's work on political economy?

I think these are all relevant as points of inspiration but they pertain to public choice and public policy, what a king ought to do or how one ought to vote. I am looking for precedence for Rand's individual choice theory, how one ought to behave in everyday life.

I think everyone here has identified a good set of pieces from which Rand assembled Objectivism and it may be that this is the answer to the question.

[aleph_0]

(Aristotle more or less punted on arguing for social virtues accepting them as given.)

I think that depends on who you ask--if you ask Alasdair MacIntyre, he will confirm you; if you ask James Lennox, he will deny you and argue that Aristotle founded his virtue ethics on health and human life, of which society is a part. If you agree with Lennox's interpretation, then, Ayn Rand's ethics are almost entirely unoriginal, except that it makes an explicit investigation into characterizing moral action as selfish and so shows that charity (or for a term an ancient Greek might have been more comfortable with, liberality) is only a virtue insofar as it benefits one's own health of the soul--i.e. happiness.

This is, I think, really the dominant theme of the history of philosophy. Selfishness was an original sin which required redemption of one form or another. For some it is the city/state, for others something else. Selfishness is a problem to which solutions were sought. Alternatively, human organization is explained in terms of mastering the primitive beast of selfishness.

Well, dominant today, but I would argue that before Descartes this kind of philosophical investigation would be unintelligible.

And we should certainly include early American political theory in this category if only for it's relative focus on individuality (the "pursuit of happiness" and all).

And let's not forget its emphasis on property. They only replaced "property" from "pursuit of life, liberty, and property" after some debate. Locke founded much of his political investigations on property, and Locke undoubted influenced the founding fathers.

I think these are all relevant as points of inspiration but they pertain to public choice and public policy, what a king ought to do or how one ought to vote. I am looking for precedence for Rand's individual choice theory, how one ought to behave in everyday life.

Neither Hume nor the text by Smith to which I refered were about public policy.

[Onar Åm]

It seems to me that Kant correctly identified the faults with both empiricism and rationalism, yet somehow managed to screw it up in his philosophy, taking the worst from empiricism and rationalism rather than the best. Normally 90% of the job in philosophy is discovering the right question to ask. Kant did this it seems to me, but tripped on the last 10%. Rand succeeded where Kant failed.

The puzzling thing about Kant is that for some reason he seems to have identified a major insight, namely that no-one can escape their own consciousness, yet failed to grasp that he fell into the very same trap as all the others with his philosophy. How do you manage to go from "can't escape your own consciousness" to the blatantly contradictory "ding an sich" *outside* consciousness? Well, I guess hindsight is the best vision.

[John McVey]

Onar:

Your post is implying that Kant was an honest thinker who just happened to mess up. I disagree - he was a thoroughly evil SOB who knew what he was doing (destroying the pursuit of knowledge) and why he was doing it (in ethics he was a religious fundamentalist of a kind that made Cromwellian puritans look licentious).

Nor do I think one can say he identified the major insight you mention. The very fact that there were competing schools with many adherents would have made it clear to all and sundry that there were problems all around. Everyone knew the problems, and Kant raised some of them as his 'antinomies' on the understanding of them being some of the most hotly contested. Kant discovered NOTHING - what he did was simply not to take sides among the existing thinkers and use the matter to foist his ideas upon the world as a 'solution.' He was a destroyer, nothing more.

Anyway, back to the topic of this thread. As it happens I wrote in the paragraph for Ayn Rand and ItOE in wikipedia under problem of universals the other day. I checked it this morning and someone has tweaked it to give mention to 'conceptualism' and referring to Peter Abelard. I thought about him a little before, and the smatterings I had suggested he might be a minor good-guy along side St Thomas Aquinas. The more I read, the more I like the guy. His race with St Bernard of Clairveaux is perhaps a minor version of the battle of Aristotle vs Plato. His grand love affair with Heloise, despite the sad ending, is something most Objectivists could well admire, not just for his bold defiance but Heloise's greatness as well. So, from what I can gather, anyone who wants to make a serious investigation of proto-Objectivist material prior to Rand may find Peter Abelaide and Heloise as worth researching. Not as good as Aristotle, Aquinas or Spinoza, but maybe up where with the second-tier best such as Avicenna, methinks.

JJM

[hernan]

Well, dominant today, but I would argue that before Descartes this kind of philosophical investigation would be unintelligible.

I find this a bit odd, Roman stoicism held duty over personal preferences in very high regard. Generally ancient societies tended to treat subjects as property of their lord/king/emperor. The Greeks were something of an exception but even they believed citizenship to be a central organizing moral principle.

[aleph_0]

I'm not sure what relevance ancient forms of duty had to Descarte's impact--maybe it does indeed have some relationship, I just don't know what. What I was referring to was the modern concept of the most basic units of sensation building up your consciousness, and this applied to the realm of ethics: In essence, Hume.

[Inspector]

For a little focus: which part of Objectivism are you looking for similarities to? The most important part of any philosophy is its metaphysics and epistemology, but you may be looking for other areas.

[hernan]

For a little focus: which part of Objectivism are you looking for similarities to? The most important part of any philosophy is its metaphysics and epistemology, but you may be looking for other areas.

Judging from what I've read and what I've seen so far in this thread I would say that Rand's most unique contribution was providing a sound philosophical basis for the view that selfishness is a virtue, not a vice.

As I noted in the original post, the closest person I can think of to that position is Adam Smith. But as one poster correctly pointed out, Adam Smith (and free market economists generally) approach the matter from the welfare of the community, or the economy. Adam Smith rightly recognized that free, selfish individuals, operating through the market, are good for society (more or less).

Rand stood this line of argument on its head and demonstrated the virtue of selfishness without founding it upon community welfare or GDP growth. That is a very significant innovation in thought.

(This view does have some precedence in the Judeo-Christian tradition but I know that's an inappropriate topic for this forum.)

[Onar Åm]

Onar:

Your post is implying that Kant was an honest thinker who just happened to mess up. I disagree - he was a thoroughly evil SOB who knew what he was doing (destroying the pursuit of knowledge) and why he was doing it (in ethics he was a religious fundamentalist of a kind that made Cromwellian puritans look licentious).

This is very possibly so, although I'm not going to take your word for it. I haven't read Kant up close, and am not familiar with the material where he reveals that he is doing his distortion on purpose.

[John McVey]

Quoth Hernan:

Judging from what I've read and what I've seen so far in this thread I would say that Rand's most unique contribution was providing a sound philosophical basis for the view that selfishness is a virtue, not a vice.

That's too limited a range of sources IIRC + IMHO, her actual unique contribution was the sound basis for objectivity in ALL knowledge, where its application to ethics was a matter of course. THAT's why Objectivism is called Objectivism. There were others before her who attempted to give a reasonable grounds for ethical egoism, such as Aristotle and Spinoza, as opposed to the unreasoning brutes like Nietzsche and Stirner. The Ancient Greeks, at least in Athens, were commonly egoists, so she's not unique there in principle (though definitely in development) even as a rational egoist.

Quoth Onar:

This is very possibly so, although I'm not going to take your word for it. I haven't read Kant up close, and am not familiar with the material where he reveals that he is doing his distortion on purpose.

Most definitely a fair enough sentiment. Usually the simplest thing to do is go to the heart of the matter, which leads to the quote that every Objectivist discussing Kant eventually refers to, from the Preface to the Second Edition of CPR:

I cannot even make the assumption- as the practical interests of morality require- of God, freedom*, and immortality, if I do not deprive speculative reason of its pretensions to transcendent insight. For to arrive at these, it must make use of principles which, in fact, extend only to the objects of possible experience, and which cannot be applied to objects beyond this sphere without converting them into phenomena, and thus rendering the practical extension of pure reason impossible. I must, therefore, abolish knowledge, to make room for faith.

*freedom here = free will, not ethical or political freedom

He's saying that unless reason is brought to it's knees, at least with dealing with the question of morality, it will continue to question all the key religious tenets and bring them into serious common doubt. He knew very well, and could see it in the culture, that religion was losing sway amongst the intellectuals (cf Voltaire, d'Holbach), precisely because of the influence of reason being pushed further and further. After that paragraph, he goes on to claim that his legacy is to have engineered a tactical withdrawal combined with a shoring up of religion's defences by letting reason and science have the physical world but declaring that world unreal and reason incapable of learning of anything outside of it. It is this other world that religion comes from, and one learns of it by feeling and faith and not by reason.

He genuinely is a religious fundamentalist, echoing by implication the same anti-reason sentiment made by Pascal when he wrote in a note stitched into his favourite jacket (and which he died in) clamouring for fire-and-serenity religion and 'not the god of the philosophers.' (This was also referred to in OPAR). He explicitly identifies reason and religion as incompatible, thought I haven't read (nor am I all that motivated to read) the book about religion within the confines of reason alone so I don't know how far he takes that point. What matters is that he himself says what he is doing and why, and that content is reason enough to condemn him as evil. There are other threads on this site that also have some useful information, and as for the Objectivist literature Miss Rand's article "Causality versus Duty" (available in PWNI as chapter 10, also The Objectivist of July 1970), is also helpful and shows how Kant deliberately set things up to push people towards religion by making them hate reason by saying that reason meant the unremitting pain and drudgery of the Categorical Imperative.

JJM

[Shading Inc.]

Adam Smith was not much of a pre-Objectivist considering his largely utilitarian ideas in politics and Humean ideas in ethics. As for metaphysics, I'm not sure he has any thoughts at all on the subject. Moreover, his economics were--while duly impressive and laudable--flatly wrong and based on an essentially (and ironically) Kantian notion of value.

Other thinkers who show a great deal of reason and spirit are Nietzsche's early- and middle-period writings, Spinoza, and obviously, Aristotle. Elements of Francis Bacon are quite enjoyable as well. Christopher Gustavus Tiedeman, Frederic Bastiat, John Locke, and Thomas Aquinas all come to mind. If you like, I may provide others as they occur to me.

I'm not into Smith, nor into Tiedeman or Bastiat. Nietzsche, Spinoza, Aristotle, Bacon, Locke and Aquinas I can tell you however, are fundamentally incompatible with objectivism.

[hernan]

That's too limited a range of sources IIRC + IMHO, her actual unique contribution was the sound basis for objectivity in ALL knowledge, where its application to ethics was a matter of course. THAT's why Objectivism is called Objectivism. There were others before her who attempted to give a reasonable grounds for ethical egoism, such as Aristotle and Spinoza, as opposed to the unreasoning brutes like Nietzsche and Stirner. The Ancient Greeks, at least in Athens, were commonly egoists, so she's not unique there in principle (though definitely in development) even as a rational egoist.

Ok, I stand corrected. In any case, its pre-Rand "ethical egoism" that interests me. I'll take a look at those two and see what I can find. As I noted previously, my impression was that Aristotle was more standard Greek in his ethical outlook.

[aleph_0]

Now are Nietzsche, Spinoza, Aristotle, Bacon, Locke, and Aquinas fundamentally incomptabible with Rand? Why are you not "into" Tiedeman or Bastiat?

[y_feldblum]

Ethical egoism follows only from a certain outlook on reality and on man's basic nature, on man's place in reality, and on the strength of man's ability to be aware of reality.

Rand was primarily an advocate of a metaphysical/epistemological outlook that can be essentialized in one statement: reality is real, and I can choose to be aware of it. It was only from this point of view that she could develop her ethical egoism.

[hernan]

I flipped through a couple books on Aristotle at the bookstore this weekend, one specifically on his ethics. They both reinforced my impression that Aristotle was pretty standard Greek in his outlook. His theory of duties sounded more like Kant than Rand.

[Wotan]

I think Aleph answers this question best:

Aristotle was an early proponent of selfishness as a moral virtue. Epicurus was not so very far off the mark, either. Nietzsche adopted an element of radical individualism and aggressive anti-Christianity. Also, many Age of Reason philosophers and after played with the idea that all men are selfish, though rarely going so far as to say that it was a moral virtue--but rather, that it was simply unavoidable. There was some precedent for her moral theory. I don't believe, however, that there was hardly any precedent for her political theory. F.A. Hayek was the first to associate economic control with socialism and draw the modern boundary between individualism and statism...

But Rand was sui generis. She was a huge philosophical radical and stunning innovator.

Still, I call her an Aristotelian.

I think Objectivism is ultimately drawn from bits and pieces of the Greeks (Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics), the Romans (Cicero, Aurelius), the Enlightenment liberals (Locke, Voltaire, Jefferson), and especially the 1900s Austrian economic thinkers -- who covered so much more than mere economics.