Fact and Value
Posted by random 8 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
I agree completely with “On Sanctioning the Sanctioners,” Peter Schwartz’s article in the last issue of TIA. That article has, however, raised questions in the mind of some readers. In particular, David Kelley, one of the persons whom the article implicitly criticizes, has written an articulate paper in reply, identifying his own philosophy on the relevant topics. He has sent a copy of this paper to me and to many other individuals.
In my judgment, Kelley’s paper is a repudiation of the fundamental principles of Objectivism. His statements make clear to me, in purely philosophic terms and for the first time, the root cause of the many schisms that have plagued the Objectivist movement since 1968. The cause goes to the essentials of what Objectivism is. I have, therefore, decided to interrupt my book on Objectivism in order to name this cause once and for all.
In the following, I am presupposing a basic knowledge of Ayn Rand’s ideas. I am writing to and for Objectivists, whether or not they have seen Kelley’s paper.
Read Fact and Value: http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_art...
In my judgment, Kelley’s paper is a repudiation of the fundamental principles of Objectivism. His statements make clear to me, in purely philosophic terms and for the first time, the root cause of the many schisms that have plagued the Objectivist movement since 1968. The cause goes to the essentials of what Objectivism is. I have, therefore, decided to interrupt my book on Objectivism in order to name this cause once and for all.
In the following, I am presupposing a basic knowledge of Ayn Rand’s ideas. I am writing to and for Objectivists, whether or not they have seen Kelley’s paper.
Read Fact and Value: http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_art...
The essential argument seems to be whether incorrect ideas are 'evil' in and of themselves. While the analysis that an incorrect idea is 'evil', even if actions are not taken based on it seems convincing, there is an association of the idea with the thinker of the idea that has unfortunate connotations. While we can argue with evil ideas, evil people are beyond the pale. With the death of Antonin Scalia recently, a quote has been circulating: “I attack ideas. I don’t attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can’t separate the two, you gotta get another day job.”
So, is the creator of an incorrect idea actually an evil person unworthy of civilized discourse? For by common usage of the word evil we imply intent as well as correctness. We are all capable of error. The existence of a perceivable objective world with objective truths does not automatically give us possession of those truths. We may incorrectly perceive information, fail to perceive all relevant information or make errors in our evaluation of the data. Any subject sufficiently complex to be worth discussing is also sufficiently complex that many opportunities for disagreement occur. To some, the knowledge that there IS an objective truth implies that they are in possession of it and leads to intolerance of those who disagree since they MUST be incorrect -- for there is only one truth. In many complex arguments the reality may well be the reverse of the Rabbi's statement "You're both right" -- they are probably both wrong in some aspect.
In this political year, I’ve often quoted Tolkien, and will do so once again. Treebeard, when asked who’s side he was on responds: “Side? I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side, little orc.” We are all in Treebeard’s position for no other human being agrees with us in absolutely all matters – and if they did what would we find to say to them? We share a common reality with everyone in the world, although we do not share a similar understanding of it. The question is whether it is better to remain alone in the forest with your truth or join the battle for middle earth.
Evil idea are Evil, for example environmentalism. The people who push these ideas are evil if they have been given the information showing that they are evil and still push these ideas.
While I agree with you that environmentalism is the source of much evil, there is still some objective validity to the idea that it is not life promoting to pee in the place you get your drinking water. Perhaps the biggest risk is simplistic thinking about complex issues.
I am concerned about the implied logic that follows the train: he is wrong, I can see that, he should be able to see it too, therefore he is deliberately being dishonest. It happens, but it's best not to attribute villainy when simple error suffices.
Peikoff is too arrogant for me and his fights to 'close' Objectivism were wrong headed and I think had more to do with his presumed 'position' within the intellectual side of Objectivism. Kelly, on the other hand may have been too willing to modify or soften the language and egoism of Objectivism in his outreach to Libertarians. But I do agree with Kelly to the 'openness' of Objectivity and it's applications to fields not addressed or fully explored by AR.
I will argue Objectivism here at GCO for the purpose of communication to the new, but in person arguments to most, IMHO, run up against 'closed' minds (believers), muddled thinkers, or the bad/evil thinkers--though I do still run onto an occasional honest error. But nearly always that idea from 'honest error' is presented from a questioning or not certain attitude.
Off the top of my head, that's the best I can do right now. I honestly hadn't thought that much about it before. Maybe it has more to do with personality that with the right/wrong position.
Do you really think Leonard Peikoff would be asking for a source? He spent more than half his life with Miss Rand,
If you discover and prove a truth...and remain alone it would make you a dead tree as someone else is sure to stumble into the same answer. Edison tested how many thousand filaments found one that worked by changing the requirements and discovering a new branch of electricity came up with a generator and transmission system... and yet that firs step discovery had been changed how many times since? What did the others miss? Not being Edison. I got that from a book.
I
I disagree with his premise that a philosophy is created whole and entire by its writer, in this case Ayn Rand. Prior philosophy underpinned and influenced her before, during, and after the creation of Objectivism. Some positively, some negatively. Your knowledge and judgment changes with time and use.
Do you think She could have created Objectivism without these influences and examples? I do not.
The tone of this article toward the end is reminiscent of either "because I say so" from a frustrated parent, or "because I say so" from some other authority figure uninterested in debate or discussion. I never bought that argument since it has a dearth of fact or evidence supporting it. That has not changed.
If you are endeavoring to teach, being unwilling to deal with questions is a handicap.
Basically, since I want debate and discussion I am excluded. How do you check premises without those tools?
She recognized that she was challenging all the major philosophical tenants that have become widely accepted and very much rejected those who tried to compromise in the name of her philosophy. Those who resent that are still personally attacking her and Leonard Peikoff for retaining their integrity. That is not a "'told you so' from a frustrated parent" or "because I say so". Those who want to rewrite Ayn Rand should simply go elsewhere and do whatever they do in their own name.
The open vs. closed Objectivism argument is important and there I whole heartedly agree with Kelley. The closed objectivism is (has been) a disaster. It turns Objectivism into a history project. All important areas of study (Geometry, Newtonian mechanics) are open to advances by other people.
Kelley is definitely an Objectivist and Peikoff's response to Kelley is out of proportion to any supposed offense.
Ayn Rand's philosophy has a content. It does not just say go out and "be independent", or "be rational", or "have common sense". It advocates fundamental principles to be applied in one's life through understanding of the reasons for them -- not go cook up whatever you want to in the name of "independence" contradicting what is known and in the name of her philosophy regarded as "open" to whatever you want it to mean.
The six aspects of rationality she identified and explained as basic are independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride. Which ones are you "not a fan of"?
The detailed, systematic explanation and illustration of the primary virtues are in her "The Objectivist Ethics" and Atlas Shrugged, and Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Leonard Peikoff explained the nature of the virtues in detail and systematically. After seven chapters preceding and establishing the basis for the one on "Virtue", he began:
"'Rationality' is a broad abstraction. Now we must learn more fully how to apply it to the concrete choices of human life. We must study the derivative virtues (and values) recognized by the Objectivist ethics.
"Since these virtues are expressions of rationality, they are logically interconnected, both in theory and in practice. None can be validated in isolation, apart from the others; nor can a man practice any one of them consistently while defaulting on the others. In defining a series of virtues, Ayn Rand is abstracting, separating out for purposes of specialized study elements of a single whole. What she seeks to clarify by this means, however, is the whole. The Objectivist ethics upholds not disconnected rules, but an integrated way of life, every aspect of which entails all the others..."
"... Ayn Rand defines six major derivatives of the virtue of rationality... [she] did not regard this list as necessarily exhaustive or the order of its items as logically mandatory. Her concern was not to cover every application of virtue, but to identify the essentials of rationality in the most important areas and aspects of human life. This is the minimum moral knowledge needed by a man if he seeks to follow reason consistently, as a matter of principle, in his daily choices and actions..."
The difference between her ethics and an ethics prescribing "duties", as in religion and Kant, are explained in her "Causality Versus Duty" in Philosophy: Who Needs It and in the chapter "The Good" in Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
If Objectivism hopes to be widespread, I think it needs to be brought down to the level where people live. AS, except for Galts speech, was pretty much that way. Galts speech was WAY too high and mighty to be waded through by most people (at least that was my thought on it). AS1 movie was pretty good, but it got less intelligible in AS2 and finally quite boring in AS3.
Dyed in the wool Objectivists would be good at writing a new consititution and things like that. But whats needed is to show people on the street HOW statism isnt good for them in practical terms; how it results in Venezuelan disasters; and specifically how we can change our existing culture away from it and improve things.
Unlike Christianity and particularly the Catholic Church, Objectivism encourages an individual to develop his/her philosophy from first principles based on objective (intentionally lower case) reality. Given that, there will undoubtedly be some, hopefully small, variance in what one has experienced as reality. This is precisely one of the points that I expected would come up in my post from last week. I think only one person (jlc?) had brought it up.
The "use of the word schism or attribution of evil to legitimate arguments" is not the cause of a lack of "larger audience". You can believe whatever you like and read whatever you like. It doesn't allow someone who doesn't understand what she wrote and contradicts much of it to be "90% Objectivism" because he has convinced himself that he has derived a philosophy "from first principles".
Such cold, hostile, contemptuous, suspicious and dictatorial an atmosphere for human relationships is anti-value. The way Peikoff sketches his version of Objectivism, its reality is joyless, tense, fearful, even paranoid. He is the one who has turned gold into a lead chain around the minds and hearts of his adherents.
And he is so shackled into his role as guardian of the legacy that he cannot see that Kelley has rescued Ayn Rand's philosophy from Peikoff's rigor mortis to bring it into the light of life, reason, achievement and happiness. Thank you, David.
All this has caused to remind me of questions that I've had. I'll put them forth in the future as "Ask The Gulch" format. Meanwhile, the Gulch is serving up some heady brew in its posts.
The mere tolerance of the rejection of reality, of life and it's effects upon others; willing or unwilling, knowing or unknowing, capable or incapable of the accounting for the outcome; not just to the one, but to all, is evil, disorder, a form of max entropy and will eventually lead to disorder and chaos.
Kant, and the left lead their perversions from a rejection of absolute right and wrongs.
There are inherently rights and wrongs built in to creation itself.
They lack the mind or the will to know them.
These are the creatures I identify in my work as parasitical humanoids; devoid of conscience, a mind and are just a body with only a brain.
Funny...until now, I didn't think this was an objective truth.
Thank you, Carl