Individualism

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

A bit of history:

From what I’ve read, in the 1930’s Ayn Rand was trying to find “A moral defense of individualism”. From what I understand she could not do so but was able to do so quite easily for “individual rights”.

By 1971 I’d noticed that Miss Rand referred to what could be called two axes of (philosophical) power “Reason-individualism-capitalism” and “mysticism-collectivism-statism”. Sometimes she used other triads but the gist was the same. Late that year, I was doing an Engish class term paper on Rand. As part of my theses I proposed that Objectivism was “coherent” or internally consistent. Following her triads I set up an 11-step chain of syllogisms of the Mathematical Logic to which I could then apply Boolean processes

a->b, b->c…->x form then using our definitions, the Chain Rule and Lase of Detechment I would would get a->x therefore x and it would hold that Objectivism was indeed coherent. I was successful but not entirely happy with it, although I still felt like the cat that ate the canary, this was my first synthesis and the first public rigorous synthesis to test Objectivism and it worked. I made the QED stick, just that it was not Super Glue.

Now the (loosely) sticking point was individualism. Just as Miss Rand was unable to find a moral defense of individualism but did when she used “individual rights”, I was really not able to seat individualism in the chain of syllogisms very well, I endied up putting it between “reason” and “justice” but it really didn’t quite fit.

Well, there’s a reason it didn’t quite fit, which took me years to figure out.

http://dancona.spacepatrol.us/individ.html

Everything that exists exists individually. Even gases and liquids exist first as molecules

Being a metapysical characterisitc. it’s at the top of the food chain.

For “Existence Exists” we have 3 stated corollaries. “Existence, Identity and Consciousness”. How I see no reason to believe there cannot be more, maybe even an infinite number.

To exist is to be something (Identity) and some how (Form). One could argue that form is part of identiy. Maybe, I’m not metaphysically against that idea but it’s starting to put a bit of a burnden on Identiy It may be that individualism is the form in which things exist.

If that is so, then it would be a corollary of Existence Exists and an Axiomatic Concept n’est ce pas?

2

One cannot go from “individuals exist” to the idea that individualism is good. Following your own reasoning, one would have to claim that “molecules exist” is more fundamental than"individuals exist". This might lead to “molecularism”.

Also, the moral defense of individualism is not based on individual rights. It is the opposite: individual rights follow from the fact (inter alia) that individualism is moral.

You can derive very little from the proposition that “existence exists”.

3

It would help if you recapitulated what you mean by individualism. I assume you still mean this definition from your webpage:

Individualism is the recongnition that the individual exists prior to, and apart from any and all groups. As a statement about existence it is a metaphysical doctrine. That means it is an unconditional, essential and therefore unchangeable fact of reality. It is neither true nor false, it just is, period end of story. That is why we speak in terms of “recognizing” it rahter than knowing or coming to a knowledge of it. It is neither good or evil. It preceeds moral judgement because it preceeds ethics becuase it is metaphysical and Metaphysics comes before Ethics.

Well. It is metaphysical, but it is the metaphysical nature of man. It is not appropriate to the metaphysical nature of a hive insect. Individualism/metaphysical nature of man slots in where Peikoff put it in OPAR, a fact pulled in between epistemology and ethics so that ethics is for humans and not rational hive insects.

4

It

Well. It is metaphysical, but it is the metaphysical nature of man. It is not appropriate to the metaphysical nature of a hive insect.

Have you never been stung by only one bee? I have. The fact that a hive insect may not be aware of it’s existance as a single entity is irrelevant because it is not the bug’s busienss to know that. It’s ours, hence “consciousness”. Could you have a hive of insects without having first the insect of which the hive consists of many. You need the one before the many to esbablish the truth of any. Beyond that, each hive has only one queen.

Individualism/metaphysical nature of man slots in where Peikoff put it in OPAR, a fact pulled in between epistemology and ethics so that ethics is for humans and not rational hive insects.

I’ll be damned!. In the origianal synthesis, I put it between reason and justice (the granting of the deserved and the withholding of the undeserved) after which I put egoism. But that did not seem right. individualism seemed out of place.

By “individualism” I meant a metaphysical doctrine that all things exist, at some level, individually; weate (drops or molecules), cats, dogs, bugs and men. This was not a moral or ethical anything, just recognizing a fact that is always true, which is why I presume it to be metaphysical and a condition of existence. Ethics pre-supposes metaphysics (an well as epistemology since rationality requires both factual premises and valid process)

5

Have you never been stung by only one bee? I have. The fact that a hive insect may not be aware of it’s existance as a single entity is irrelevant because it is not the bug’s busienss to know that. It’s ours, hence “consciousness”. Could you have a hive of insects without having first the insect of which the hive consists of many. You need the one before the many to esbablish the truth of any. Beyond that, each hive has only one queen.

All true, but the idea behind the “metaphysical nature of X” is to pick out the most important characteristic of an organism that is its mode and means of survival. The metaphysical nature of a plant is its gathering what it needs by root and branch and consequent lack of mobility, of a fish is its breathing and moving in water, of a typical bird is its mobility through the air (whether it be herbivore or carnivore), of a herd animal the combination of its herbivorous roaming the plain and safety in numbers, of a predator its ability to both find and then overpower and kill prey.

The metaphysical nature of a hive insect is the social cooperation of individuals in gathering resources for the benefit of the reproducing class. Individualism doesn’t apply to hive insects in the sense that the most important individual in the colony cannot survive apart from the labor of her workers, and that relation is not a trade but built-in slavery.

6

All true, but the idea behind the “metaphysical nature of X” is to pick out the most important characteristic of an organism that is its mode and means of survival. The metaphysical nature of a plant is its gathering what it needs by root and branch and consequent lack of mobility, of a fish is its breathing and moving in water, of a typical bird is its mobility through the air (whether it be herbivore or carnivore), of a herd animal the combination of its herbivorous roaming the plain and safety in numbers, of a predator its ability to both find and then overpower and kill prey.

The metaphysical nature of a hive insect is the social cooperation of individuals in gathering resources for the benefit of the reproducing class. Individualism doesn’t apply to hive insects in the sense that the most important individual in the colony cannot survive apart from the labor of her workers, and that relation is not a trade but built-in slavery.

We are getting bogged down in the specifics of various living things. I used that because that is what you gave me. What I’m saying is that the basic unit of all things is the individual. this is true for air (molecules of gas) water, cars, dogs, cats, people; everything. By individualism I mean the recognition of that fact as an overarching fact. I make no comment on the specific characteristics of any specific genus or specie or even animacy

I don’t know about built in slavery. I tend to think the hive creature is closer to a computerized machine than a thinking being. I don’t think they even have a central nervous system

the hvie creature, or more correctly the termitary was the model of the socialists of the early twnetieth century for its efficiency.

7

What I’m saying is that the basic unit of all things is the individual. this is true for air (molecules of gas) water, cars, dogs, cats, people; everything. By individualism I mean the recognition of that fact as an overarching fact.

What fact? This is gobbledygook! Somehow air is considered as being made up of individual molecules, but men aren’t?

8

I think you might be confusing the term “entity” with that of “individualism”. While it is true that, say, a TV, a computer, a spoon, a rock, and a lake, etc. are entities; the term “individualism” does not apply to them. The term “individualism” refers to the fact that each man is a metaphysical entity and that the mind operates according to each individual, that we are not like ants and termites which are governed by signals from the queen rather than according to the workings of their own conscious awareness of existence. Individualism is very important to counter both communism and socialism, because these systems attempt to organize societies as if man the individual does not exist – that society is the entity, and not the individual mind. Roark’s courtroom speech sums it all up as individualism versus collectivism (and second-handedness).