Are Only Physical Things Objective?

Questions about Objectivism
1

I understand the word “Objective” to mean : Having actual existence or reality.

Objectivism states that A = A. This is true when you are dealing with physical objects in the universe. However, thoughts and ideas are not physical and exist only in the mind. Ideas such as morality, ethics and rights only exist because we make them exist. Here is an example of what im trying to say.

Apples will exist whether we believe they exist or not, because they are phyiscal. Rights exist only in the minds of men. Rights only exist because we created them. Without the minds of men, rights would cease to exist.

So , if Rights are objective and morality is objective it would be violating the Primacy of existance and supporting the Primacy of Conciousness. Our conciousness gives us our judgement but it is not a physical entity thus it can not be called objective.

This is all based on how I understand the main axioms of Objectivism.

Physical things are only objective.

Did I understand this correctly?

2

Before posting further on this topic, please give us your personal context by telling us which books about Objectivism you have read, what other studies you have done (e.g. philosophy, college work), how old you are, etc. We need to understand from where you’re coming and what your purpose is in joining this forum.

Rights only exist because we created them. Without the minds of men, rights would cease to exist.

So do airplanes exist only because a human created them. Therefore, subjective?

3

I understand the word “Objective” to mean : Having actual existence or reality.

That’s not really right. Even subjective “stuff” exists. “Objective” refers to something being independent of a specific consciousness, and “subjective” refers to something being particular to a specific consciousness. Be it objective or subjective, you’re talking about a relationship between a consciousness and an existent. Objectivism focuses on a particular kind of relationship betwen consciousness and the existent (one based on causality and the fact that the existent exists independent of the consciousness perceiving it). As an example, all sensations are subjective because only the person having them experiences them. The cause of a sensation is objectively describable, and the sensation actually does exist, but the experience is exclusive to the experiencer. There are shortcuts that allow you to get the point across, for example if you want to get another person to understand what you mean by “stabbing pain”, you could suggest that they apply a needle to their finger.

Objectivism states that A = A. This is true when you are dealing with physical objects in the universe. However, thoughts and ideas are not physical and exist only in the mind.

There is no contradiction between saying that thoughts exist in the mind, and saying that they exist. Light doesn’t have mass but it still exists and is physical. Now if you mean that a particular thought cannot be reduced to a fixed pattern of matter-and-energy interaction, then in that sense you’re probably right. (That’s a scientific question, and I’m not saying that I know for certain that the concept “justice” cannot be described in terms of an energy configuration, just that I see no evidence that this is even remotely possible). But that doesn’t negate the fact that ideas exist.

Apples will exist whether we believe they exist or not, because they are phyiscal. Rights exist only in the minds of men. Rights only exist because we created them.

The same is true of dogs, not to mention airplanes. I think (though am not totally sure) that this is true of apples as well. Let’s take something else, namely frogs. “Frog” as a class / concept only exist because of man, namely the fact that we created the concept. In fact, there isn’t complete agreement on what’s in the set “frog”. The specific existent, Frog number 32,197, exists because of some egg-related event. The important thing about rights is not that it is man-made (since all concepts are man-made), rather it’s that rights are necessarily about man, so without man, there’s nothing to talk about.

Our conciousness gives us our judgement but it is not a physical entity thus it can not be called objective.

This is the error: in the sense that you are using “physical”, not all things that exist are physical.

4

Before posting further on this topic, please give us your personal context by telling us which books about Objectivism you have read, what other studies you have done (e.g. philosophy, college work), how old you are, etc. We need to understand from where you’re coming and what your purpose is in joining this forum.

So do airplanes exist only because a human created them. Therefore, subjective?

Im a college student. I read 2/3 of Atlas Shrugged but I stopped reading (got distracted). The purpose of me joining the forum is to figure out whether or not Objectivism is a good philosophy for me to follow.

Airplanes exist because they are made of something physical. We know that Airplanes are Airplanes because they have physical properties. What I’m talking about is thoughts. They have no physical properties and they do not exist beyond the mind that is thinking them.

…existent exists independent of the consciousness perceiving it"

Since thoughts dont exist outside of the mind they are subjective. If thoughts had somehow become a physical property of the universe then they could be considered objective. Apples will always be apples because we know that the atoms make the apple.Thoughts are made of nothing. you cant put atoms together to make a thought tangible. Morality, Rights and the ideas that exist only in the mind will always be subjective.

5

Thoughts are made of nothing. you can’t put atoms together to make a thought tangible.

I would have to disagree with that. A thought can be ultimatelly broken down into electrical/chemical stimuli, which are physical in nature. By analogy, if we ever come up with ‘artificial intelligence’ (or at least a truly powerful processing computer, with adaptive algorithms), you will be able to trace its ‘thought process’, down to the binary cell states - 1’s and 0’s…

6

Im a college student. I read 2/3 of Atlas Shrugged but I stopped reading (got distracted). The purpose of me joining the forum is to figure out whether or not Objectivism is a good philosophy for me to follow.

Thank you for the information. This site has many college students and college-age people, including myself.

Morality, Rights and the ideas that exist only in the mind will always be subjective.

If you are trying to learn about Objectivism, I suggest you exercise caution with statements like this on this forum. One of Objectivism’s fundamental, and unique, principles is that morality is objective. A very strong anti-Objectivism statement like this one is not encouraged. Please review the forum rules for some guidelines about appropriate content.

If your interest in learning about Objectivism is genuine, and you genuinely wish to use this forum to help you learn Objectivism, you will yield better results if you adopt a more inquisitive tone. This is especially true about principles as fundamental as the objectivity of morality.

7

Airplanes exist because they are made of something physical. We know that Airplanes are Airplanes because they have physical properties. What I’m talking about is thoughts. They have no physical properties and they do not exist beyond the mind that is thinking them.

My first thought is that you’re taking on way too much at once. Iows, you need to study the philosophy a lot more to satisfactorily answer the kind of question you are asking. This is where Peikoff’s book OPAR comes in handy.

But, here is my crack at it for now, keeping in mind that I’m not the authoritative source here.

All valid ideas can be grounded in reality. Reality includes all things which exist and their actions.

“Objectivity” is a *process* of thought. It’s a process you go through to achieve valid knowledge. Iows, the phrase “objective reality” is meaningless. Reality is the standard of objectivity, and objectivity is the process by which you try to meet that standard.

Objective knowledge, as David referred to, is a result of our awareness of those things we pick up through our sensory-perceptual apparatus. Our conceptual knowledge, if valid, is based on a logical integration of our sensory-perceptual data.

For instance, I know about chairs, because I’ve observed lots of instances of chairs. I know about trees for the same reason. Knowledge on the conceptual level is built from many concrete instances of things like chairs and trees.

At the end of the day, our thoughts do exist in the mind in some state. They are real. The concepts we hold about things in the world are held in the mind as a certain kind of relationship between the things we sense and our sense organs. Exactly how they are held is a question for science.

Since thoughts dont exist outside of the mind they are subjective.

That’s not what Objectivists mean by “subjective”. This is where modern philosophy has defined objectivity out of existence. One is subjective when the knowledge one holds is not based in evidence and reason. Iows, when one is whimsical about knowledge, then the knowledge could not be valid. If I say there is a moon, then that is objective knowledge, based on direct sensory-perceptual evidence. If I say there is a kangaroo space alien on the moon that is arbitrary and subjective, i.e. not based on sensory-perceptual evidence, but entirely made up.

If thoughts had somehow become a physical property of the universe then they could be considered objective.

Well, thoughts are necessarily physical, or the result of a process, which requires physical things. The knowledge that the knowledge is of, however, is the result of an evidence based relationship.

This is a good question. The only problem is how much you are taking on in one step. Way too much at this point.

8

Since thoughts dont exist outside of the mind they are subjective. If thoughts had somehow become a physical property of the universe then they could be considered objective.

You’ve given a good example of the most common way of rendering a thought in a form where it can be objectively examined. Thoughts do exist when they are only in the mind of one person.

Apples will always be apples because we know that the atoms make the apple.

But clearly that isn’t true. Apples sometimes become applesauce, and they might get eaten, and I don’t want to go into the details but they are not apples thereafter. I also think you misunderstand the point about the physical nature of consciousness. The mind is unquestionably based on physical processes, and most of it is in your skull: stuff with mass and energy fields. It’s not as though thoughts are in some kind of “other universe” lacking mass or energy, or something floating “out there”. Digestion is also real, but you can’t point to a particular configuration of particles or field of energy, for all mammals (just to limit the discussion), which is “digestion”. That does not mean that digestion is unreal. Like consciousness, you cannot reduce digestion (or vision, or respiration) to a physical essential. You can vaporise an apple, preserving all of the constituent particles, and it will not be an apple anymore.

Now I personally think it would be more productive for you to try to understand the nature of morality and the idea of an objective evaluation. Are those topics that do interest you?

9

Rights exist only in the minds of men. Rights only exist because we created them.

What definition of “rights” are you using?

Without the minds of men, rights would cease to exist.

This is correct, although not for the reason you think.

Im a college student. I read 2/3 of Atlas Shrugged but I stopped reading (got distracted). The purpose of me joining the forum is to figure out whether or not Objectivism is a good philosophy for me to follow.

Good to hear. I have to caution you that there is no short-cut to learning Objectivism, or to learn whether it is any good or not. My recommendation is to finish Atlas Shrugged, and if its message interests you in any way, start reading Ayn Rand’s non-fiction.

10

Objectivity simply means that you have worked to ensure that your ideas conform to reality. The three epistemological alternatives here are:

intrinsicism: which is the belief that reality imprints ideas on your mind somehow, meaning that your ideas will automatically conform to reality.

objectivism: ideas do not conform to reality automatically, but you can cause them to do so by exercising reason and always checking your ideas against reality, which is the ultimate arbiter.

subjectivism: your ideas will automatically conform to reality because they in fact create reality, so whatever you believe hard enough is necessarily true.

No “thing” is objective, because objectivity is an attribute of either consciousness or an idea held by a consciousness. It is an epistemological standard, not a metaphysical one. “Objective” reality is a (relatively) harmless phrase meaning something along the lines of “things without evaluative interpretation”, but objects qua objects are not objective, subjective, or anything else.

11

If thoughts had somehow become a physical property of the universe then they could be considered objective. Apples will always be apples because we know that the atoms make the apple.Thoughts are made of nothing. you cant put atoms together to make a thought tangible.

Is the mind that has the thought not part of the universe? Does the mind via the brain not have to use some physical means, i.e., chemical reactions and electrical impulses controled via volition to think the thoughts? If not how could a thought be said to exist? It couldn’t. But it does; so obviously it does through some physical mechanism even though this mechanism isn’t fully understood at present, it has to and DOES exist physically.

12

Since thoughts dont exist outside of the mind they are subjective.

No, they are always personal, but need not be subjective. (Thoughts are “subjective” only if they involve wishful thinking rather than a logical identification or evaluation of facts of reality.)

To find out what the philosophical idea of “subjective” means in the context of Objectivism (which is the context for this forum), see “Subjectivism,” The Ayn Rand Lexicon, pp. 486-490.

By the way, T_he Ayn Rand Lexicon_ is an indispensable tool for any study of Objectivism that is meant to be both serious and efficient.

13

I understand the word “Objective” to mean : Having actual existence or reality. […]

Did I understand this correctly?

No, but you are on the right track. See “Objectivity” in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. In the philosophy of Objectivism, which is the philosophy that sets the context for ObjectivismOnline.net, the term “objective” names two ideas.

One is metaphysical in its referent: “reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness.” (ARL, p. 345) For example, the computer in front of me is “objective” (has objective existence) in the sense that it exists whether I want it to or not.

The other idea named by “objectivity” is epistemological in its referent: “a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic).” (ARL, p. 345) Objectivism is objective in this sense. It is a set of ideas, which Ayn Rand formed, drawn logically from the (metaphysically objective) facts of reality, using reason and logic.

Suggestion: Abandon this hopeless attempt to learn a philosophy by discussing a subject you haven’t studied with individuals some of whom may not even understand – much less agree with – the philosophy you are investigating. (Keep in mind that many of the participants in OO.net are not Objectivists.) Go to the original source: Ayn Rand’s writings. ARL is a sort of guide to those writings (which you can order from The Ayn Rand Bookstore).

14

Go to the original source: Ayn Rand’s writings. ARL is a sort of guide to those writings (which you can order from The Ayn Rand Bookstore).

Burgess, perhaps you or someone else with a strong knowledge of Objectivism could recommend a good starting place? There may be a thread on this subject, but I’m nearly running out the door right now. Also, I vaguely recall an ARI or ARI-type site having a list of suggested reading order. Perhaps someone could offer this person and our other readers a link?

15

Physical things are only objective.

I think that you meant your sentence, quoted above, to say: “Only physical things are objective.” (Proper placement of the adverb “only” is crucial.) Before you pursue this subject further, you should be aware that the concept “physical” is a complex scientific concept. It is not a philosophical concept. You need to decide whether you are thinking about science or philosophy. Switching back and forth between them, without knowledge of doing so, adds confusion rather than clarity.

For the concept “physical,” see Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pp. 245-246 and others listed in the index under “Matter.”

16

Burgess, perhaps you […] could recommend a good starting place?

First, a general suggestion for learning any philosophy – whether Plato’s, Aristotle’s, Kant’s, or Ayn Rand’s. (They are the four giants of philosophy). Do not focus too much on any particular point until you have made some study of the philosophy overall. Then, when you have the “big picture,” that is, the general context, you can focus on a particular principle – and see how it is produced or see how it affects other ideas in the philosophy.

My personal suggestion for studying Objectivism is to read Ayn Rand’s fiction first, because it shows you not only the key ideas but also what those ideas mean if applied to reality, according to the philosopher who created the ideas.

Then I would buy The Ayn Rand Lexicon and follow my interests. Selfish interest – especially if it is passionate – is the nuclear fuel of study. The beauty of ARL is that it not only gives you substantial excerpts on all the main elements of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, it also connects them – through the cross references list at the end of each article. The book is alphabetical (the excerpts for “Axioms” come before those on “Zero, Reification of”), but you can read the excerpts in your own order.

When you find a subject particularly valuable to your selfish interests, you can buy the original work from which a particular exerpt was taken, and then read that full work (article or book).

An alternative is to purchase (from The Ayn Rand Bookstore) Harry Binswanger’s audiotape lecture, “How to Study Ayn Rand’s Writings.” Dr. Binswanger is the editor of The Ayn Rand Lexicon. He has mastered Objectivism. He knows what he is talking about.

17

I understand the word “Objective” to mean : Having actual existence or reality.

Objectivism states that A = A. This is true when you are dealing with physical objects in the universe. However, thoughts and ideas are not physical and exist only in the mind. Ideas such as morality, ethics and rights only exist because we make them exist. Here is an example of what im trying to say.

Start with something less complex and potentially confusing than thoughts. What about the equator, the center of mass of a physical system, and the Mandelbrot set in mathematics. Are these things ‘physical’? Well, they certainly dont exist in the same way as apples or trees; they are highly theoretical constructs which would not be included in a description of the universe at the most fundamental level. And yet, they are not arbitrary products of the human mind either. There are objective facts about all these objects which can be studied by science, and they are indispensible within various theories. So to say that they werent ‘objective’ would be misleading. We can make statements about the equator that were true before any human first came up with the concept, so its not like the act of thinking about it somehow brought it into being.

18

It’s not as though thoughts are in some kind of “other universe” lacking mass or energy, or something floating “out there”.

Also, just a beginner to Rand/Objectivism, but I don’t completely agree with this, but maybe it doesn’t matter. I do agree that thoughts have a physical basis, but that physical basis is incidental and in a sense meaningless. Software for example can be stored in many media (optical, magnetic, whatever) with totally different physical representations of the SAME software. The concept of thought is the same. There is an existence of thought ‘above’ or at least independent of the physical. This is not mysticism, but I really don’t know if it matters all that much, but I’m curious to hear comments.

19

Our conciousness gives us our judgement but it is not a physical entity thus it can not be called objective.

So if you don’t think judgement can be objective, then do you think anybody should be in jail?

Airplanes exist because they are made of something physical. We know that Airplanes are Airplanes because they have physical properties. What I’m talking about is thoughts. They have no physical properties and they do not exist beyond the mind that is thinking them.

So what were airplanes before they existed? They were thoughts. The only thing that brought airplanes into physical form was the mind of man.

Were the thoughts, ideas, and principles formulated in the minds of the Wright brothers objective? I think the fact that thousands of flights are made every day without incident is an elegant proof of the objectivity of the Wright brother’s thoughts.

20

I do agree that thoughts have a physical basis, but that physical basis is incidental and in a sense meaningless.

I don’t think there’s any sense in which the physical basis of thoughts is meaningless, but you are entirely correct that it’s not important. I generally hesitate to mention the “computer program” analogy because people often cannot get the fact this doesn’t mean I’m saying that the brain is a computer, but the physical basis of computer programs is a quite apt analogy.