A summary of the Objectivist metaphysics

[Roundearth]

I'm posting a summary of Ayn Rand's metaphysics here to give the members of this forum an idea of what part of a real atheistic worldview "looks like." I'm sure many of you are already familiar with this philosophy and, for you, this will just be a refresher. Naturally I welcome any criticisms. The principle of charity requires that all falsehoods and fallacies be attributed to me before Ayn Rand, since I am not an expert in her philosophy by any means.

A person living in modern America is bombarded by claims from all sources. God exists, God doesn't exist, capitalism is true, capitalism is evil, abortion is good and beneficial, abortion is wrong and harmful. When we decide to become rational and systematic in how we handle these claims, we must first ask where knowledge begins. Where do we start, intellectually?

Ayn Rand's answer is that we must start with what cannot be denied. We cannot start with the question whether knowledge is possible to humans, because that question presupposes a knowledge of humans and possibility. So we begin with the fact of knowledge, and take as our starting point those claims that are self evident and undeniable. According to Rand, there are about seven self evident propositions that are implicit in the possibility of knowledge, called axioms.

An axiom is a statement that identifies a self evident proposition. The first three are: "existence exists," "A is A," and "I am conscious." It is obvious that in asserting any knowledge claim, I assent to all three of these. If there is nothing, there is no knowledge. If A is not A, my mind is helpless, and I cannot know any truth. If I am not conscious, then I cannot know anything.

Causality is a corollary of "A is A." If things have identities, then they act according to their identities. An acorn cannot grow into a theologian unless it is so different from what we normally call an acorn as to not deserve the name. So causality exists, and the universe acts in an orderly way.

It is an axiom that reality exists independent of consciousness. Rand calls this principle the primacy of existence. The primacy of existence is implicit in the concept of truth. When I say that a statement is true, I am saying that it corresponds to a reality that is out there, independent of my beliefs. To illustrate the primacy of existence, imagine that a meteor is streaking toward your home. Sitting in your kitchen willing the meteor not to exist will not make it poof out of existence. You must act. You must leave your home if you want to live.

It is an axiom that our senses give us knowledge of an independently existing reality. All concepts and all propositions presuppose this axiom because all concepts are formed, at their base, by abstraction from sensory observation. The senses cannot be attacked, and to see why in concrete terms let's take the standard skeptical position: "You do not know you're not a brain in a vat, so you cannot trust your senses, not even to tell you that you're sitting in a chair right now." This argument takes it as given that there are brains and vats, but says we must prove that we are sitting in a chair. In other words, it both accepts and rejects the evidence of the senses - a clear contradiction.

Further, it is an axiom that we have free will. Free will is the ability to choose. (Note that on Ayn Rand's conception, what we choose is the reasons that will determine our actions.) If there is no free will, then my mind is forced to act as it does by outside forces. In that case, I cannot say that my conclusions are true or false, just that they are what I was forced to conclude by the inexorable tugs of the forces compelling me to act. In asserting something, I assert that I am saying this because I was free to choose otherwise, but chose to say this based on the reasons in support of it.

That's enough Ayn Rand for now. Let me know what you think.

This summary was based heavily on this book. I recommend it to anyone who was interested by the above arguments and would like to see them presented better: Amazon.com: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (The Ayn Rand Library, Volume 6) (0051854014507): Leonard Peikoff: Books

Edited February 25, 2010 by Roundearth

[prisonchaplain]

I'll just share that as a college student I was somewhat anamored with Libertarian politics. So, I read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead with a good deal of enjoyment. Ultimately, though, I found that her politics commited the same errors as Marx did. She relied on the inherent goodness of humanity, and denied human compulsion to sin. Ultimately, Lord Acton was more compelling than Rand--absolute power does corrupt absolutely. Humanity cannot be trusted with too much. The story of the Tower of Babel was not about God protecting himself from us, but of his protecting us from ourselves.

[Roundearth]

I'll just share that as a college student I was somewhat anamored with Libertarian politics. So, I read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead with a good deal of enjoyment. Ultimately, though, I found that her politics commited the same errors as Marx did. She relied on the inherent goodness of humanity, and denied human compulsion to sin. Ultimately, Lord Acton was more compelling than Rand--absolute power does corrupt absolutely. Humanity cannot be trusted with too much. The story of the Tower of Babel was not about God protecting himself from us, but of his protecting us from ourselves.

I'm always amazed when people say that Rand thought man was inherently good. Most of the main characters in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are hopelessly corrupt, and so is most of the populace in those novels. Rand recognized that people are frequently evil and decried the state of our culture.

Rand thought that we have free will to choose whether we become good or evil. We choose to become good whenever we think, and we choose to become evil whenever we evade the need for thought. Man is neither inherently good nor inherently evil. He is born a blank slate, tabula rasa.

Rand did think that in general, people will side with a rational view over an irrational view. But that is a separate issue, and not pertinent to what we are innately.

Now, there are some people who take Rand's views and add in the tenet that man is inherently good. These people are the anarcho-libertarians, who say that we don't even need a government, and we can keep crime down by hiring mercenaries. By contrast, Rand recognized that crime and dishonesty will ALWAYS be part of society, which is why she made government a part of her ideal society.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Roundearth

[NeuroTypical]

Rand rocks. She helped me evolve from a hand-wringing emotionally-driven liberal, to the staunch conservative I am today.

I can see why an athiest would be her disciple on matters of faith and God. But not me.

LM

[Moksha]

I like both the hope of John Locke and the reality of Thomas Hobbs, but most of all I like Jesus. Jesus would say greed was a bad thing. He would drive the Randites out of the Temple.

[Finrock]

Interesting post. :) Let me first state that I am not familiar with Rand and works so my comments are based simply on the content and the thoughts that I have derived from this post.

It is an axiom that our senses give us knowledge of an independently existing reality. All concepts and all propositions presuppose this axiom because all concepts are formed, at their base, by abstraction from sensory observation. The senses cannot be attacked, and to see why in concrete terms let's take the standard skeptical position: "You do not know you're not a brain in a vat, so you cannot trust your senses, not even to tell you that you're sitting in a chair right now." This argument takes it as given that there are brains and vats, but says we must prove that we are sitting in a chair. In other words, it both accepts and rejects the evidence of the senses - a clear contradiction.

Although there was much more in your post, this particular section of it was the most problematic to me. To state, as an axiom, that the senses cannot be attacked, is borderline ludicrous. The senses have been proven over and over again to be fallible and they can and should be questioned. Not to say that they cannot be trusted at all, but to say that they cannot be attacked, simply isn't true. It seems to me that this axiom is being asserted only so as to prop up a philosophy that would otherwise fail without it.

Regards,

Finrock

[vestig8or]

Rand rocks. She helped me evolve from a hand-wringing emotionally-driven liberal, to the staunch conservative I am today.

I can see why an athiest would be her disciple on matters of faith and God. But not me.

LM

+100! Atlas Shrugged was a very influential book in my life. Don't agree with AR about everything, such as her views about abortion, but I will always be grateful to her for opening my eyes about the dangers of liberal collectivism.

[mikbone]

Jesus would say greed was a bad thing. He would drive the Randites out of the Temple.

I just read the Fountainhead and am currently reading Atlas Shrugged.

I don't know what you are trying to say above, but if you think that the characters of Howard Roark or Hank Rearden are greedy, then you completely misunderstand Rand.

You may wanna review the parable of the talents. Matthew 25: 14-30

I would go so far to say that the character of Howard Roark would fit nicely into Alma 48:17.

Rand gets integrity and honor. She obviously has a lot of confusion about love and sex, but all in all her writing is inspiring.

[vestig8or]

The dangers of resentment --disguised as "fairness", and then politicized via taxes, regulations, etc to punish success-- is a key message of Atlas Shrugged.

I'm just starting to read Scriptures. What are some passages that speak to the evils of resentment? I can imagine resentment being a twisted form of covetousness.

Great thread!

[prisonchaplain]

I'm always amazed when people say that Rand thought man was inherently good. Most of the main characters in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are hopelessly corrupt, and so is most of the populace in those novels. Rand recognized that people are frequently evil and decried the state of our culture.

Okay, you make a fair point. I suppose I'd respond that Rand sees most people as weak, and unwilling to rely on their own talents. Weak and fearful. So much so, that they will often destroy others who dare to shine. And yet, her ideal society is one in which people realize their fears and insecurities, discard them (including religion, btw), and embrace the inner good. Freed from superstition and dependence on others, they can indeed form a noble, progressive, and supremely talented society.

Rand thought that we have free will to choose whether we become good or evil. We choose to become good whenever we think, and we choose to become evil whenever we evade the ]need for thought. Man is neither inherently good nor inherently evil. He is born a blank slate, tabula rasa.

Except that Rand sees the potential for good in all people, through cognitive liberty. Set people free from each other, from false obligations to society, or any "greater good," and they will blossom.

Rand did think that in general, people will side with a rational view over an irrational view. But that is a separate issue, and not pertinent to what we are innately.

Now, there are some people who take Rand's views and add in the tenet that man is inherently good. These people are the anarcho-libertarians, who say that we don't even need a government, and we can keep crime down by hiring mercenaries. By contrast, Rand recognized that crime and dishonesty will ALWAYS be part of society, which is why she made government a part of her ideal society.

To over simplify, the Communists saw society blossom when all people commit to the greater community good, whereas Rand saw the same when no people commit to the greater community good--but rather to their own wellbeing, in frankness and honesty.

Edited March 3, 2010 by prisonchaplain

[vestig8or]

Timely article about Ayn Rand's point of view in the Christian Science Monitor. "Apple acts like a producer. GM acts like a looter. It’s a key distinction that Ayn Rand laid out in ‘Atlas Shrugged.’"

[Connie]

Ms. Rand's politics are smack on. Her philosophy leaves much to be desired. She can keep her "ideal man" and good luck. I'd take a Christ-like man over a Roark-like man any day.

[Roundearth]

Interesting post. :) Let me first state that I am not familiar with Rand and works so my comments are based simply on the content and the thoughts that I have derived from this post.

Although there was much more in your post, this particular section of it was the most problematic to me. To state, as an axiom, that the senses cannot be attacked, is borderline ludicrous. The senses have been proven over and over again to be fallible and they can and should be questioned. Not to say that they cannot be trusted at all, but to say that they cannot be attacked, simply isn't true. It seems to me that this axiom is being asserted only so as to prop up a philosophy that would otherwise fail without it.

Regards,

Finrock

Thanks for your comment. I'm sure many people reading the OP had the same problem, and I'm glad someone brought it up.

Now, your comment does not rebut my argument for the senses being an axiom. This is a problem because now we have one argument for and one argument against, which leaves us without any specific conclusion. So I'd be interested in your rebuttal to the argument I made for the senses being an axiom in the OP.

To your argument. You argue that there have been various proofs that the senses are not reliable. What proofs, specifically? Obviously, I don't grant that any such proofs exist. And what would it even mean for the senses to be "unreliable"? A thing is unreliable if it is consistently inaccurate. But the senses cannot be accurate or inaccurate. Only an interpretation of sensory data can be accurate or inaccurate. So I don't think this argument succeeds.

[Finrock]

Good morning Roundearth. I trust you are well today? :)

But the senses cannot be accurate or inaccurate. Only an interpretation of sensory data can be accurate or inaccurate. So I don't think this argument succeeds.

A person is blind because the actual instrument (the eyes) is defective. Therefore their sense of vision is inaccurate (in fact it is completely unreliable). Because they are receiving inaccurate data from their eyes they can never accurately interpret the data.

Conclusion: The senses can be accurate or inaccurate.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited March 5, 2010 by Finrock
Edited to simplify and clarify argument.

[bytor2112]

I really love Ayn Rand....my FAVORITE is Anthem.