Second-guessing Ayn Rand (and experts in general.)

I just now fully realized something that stemmed out of a curious behavior I first witnessed over a decade ago. I find that many (but not necessarily most) fans and followers of Ayn Rand have a tendency to ask a certain type of “What if” question. Usually the question is in the form of “What would Ayn Rand think about (fill in the blank)?” Now on the surface this wouldn’t necessarily seem bothersome, but I always tended to find it peculiar. I think I now know why it’s not only strange to me but in fact un-Objectivist as well. I won’t go so far as to say that this type of question is anti-Objectivist for one simple reason: It is gratifying in a minor way for a person to realize that they came to the same conclusion as the one someone else who he admires had derived.

Nevertheless, I think this is a remarkable behavior for _Objectivists_. Consider that the whole entire philosophy is geared towards _reducing_ the individual burden for trying to make sense of the world. Ayn Rand flatly stated that concepts are formed in order to condense a bunch of information so that it is easier to retain and otherwise manipulate. If a person had to constantly “reinvent the wheel” in the manner of reforming a concept every time he came across a particular instance of that concept, then that person would effectively undermine their own conceptual ability. (Also, this type of questioning is _not_ typically necessary for one to check their logical premises.)

I am not saying that asking what Ayn Rand thought about a specific event or issue is anti-conceptual (although it tends to be a hallmark of people who are new to Objectivism.) I _am_ saying that that line of questioning if taken seriously as a means of gauging one’s understanding of Objectivism is self-defeating. While it is certainly true that principles are derived from real experience (by way of induction), it isn’t appropriate to go on “fishing expeditions”. That is, it’s not particularly helpful for a person to ask what someone else who happens to be expert in _some_ field thinks about a specific issue _if_ that questioner already has the means to discerning the answer for himself by doing his own logical work. If a person properly studies Objectivism (or at least basic logic), then that person will already have a way of making evaluations. This leads me to another divisive point.

A person has their own personal context, and I’m not appealing here to relativism of any sort either. While it may be fun to know what an expert thinks about something (as an interviewer might ask in a gossipy sort of way), it would not have to be immediately relatable to a questioner’s own circumstances. Again, my point isn’t related to whether someone _can_ benefit from such questions. I am saying that these types of questions are inefficient for learning. To put it differently, these types of questions are tangential as far as gaining _a proper method_ of learning is concerned.

I think that if people have been studying Objectivism for several years, and they are still particularly interested in wondering what Ayn Rand thought about some very specific circumstance, then that person has failed to understand how to induce and then apply the relevant Objectivist principles. Unless the person in question is a researcher or a historian, he should be relating concrete circumstances to principles in order to understand how those circumstances will affect his own life. It should be noted that even a historian (or for the matter, a reporter or actor) can not live vicariously through other people’s lives as a primary means of learning. That type of behavior is precisely the type which Ayn Rand was referring to when she coined the term “second-handers”. While we must rely on experts for ancillary aspects of our lives, we have to become “experts” on our own respective lives for each of us to fully realize our best efforts.

Dr. Peikoff’s 2006 election advisory.

Originally posted October 23, 2006

Capitalism Magazine has just published Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s advice for the impending biannual U.S. elections here. Unsurprisingly, he has reaffirmed his stance from previous elections where he has implored voters to offer Democratic support as a less onorous option compared with what would likely be the general Republican Party platform. More to the point, Dr. Peikoff’s emphasis is now much more intense.

This concerns me because while I do not think that American politics is likely to change much in the next year or so. I do think that Dr. Peikoff’s overall point resonates as strongly as ever viz. the Republican party is ultimately a proxy for the Christian conservative political agenda, and that agenda stands to gain much more ground in the near-future if it’s not thwarted. If this seems too far-fetched or curious, then consider that what stands to be the religious right’s agenda has been all but unchallenged by anyone. Simply put, what the Republican party ultimately stands for isn’t on the American citizenry’s negative radar right now.

You might think that sending Republicans out in this year’s election is a piece of cake considering how the press has been reporting ever-still lower poll percentages in regards to the Bush foreign policy. There is already evidence that the American people are unswayed by the press. For one thing, the citizenry has by and large allowed for the continued use of military in Iraq and Afghanistan. (The opponents to American involvement in the Middle East are if anything vilified by conservative traditionalists in our society as kooks and no-nothings.) Likewise, the recent push for military tribunals (while ostensibly justifiable) has been barely reported as something that American voters should be concerned about at all. Keep in mind that the press is still predominantly Leftist, and _they_ have hardly chastised the administration on a point that they would likely scream bloody murder over. It appears that even the press must have some substantial fear that the President isn’t as much of a lame duck as they would have hoped for (…or maybe the idealogues in journalism have simply surrendered?!?)

Still, there’s a more pressing and immediately personal point that Dr. Peikoff suggests which concerns me particularly as an Objectivist. He says, “In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.” Take note of the fact that he is not pointing to Objectivists as being exclusively burdened by the moral implications of this coming vote; he is ready to indict _anyone_ who can vote if they do not vote Democratic in order to stop a Republican seachange.

Now I have to say that I have always been in general agreement with Dr. Peikoff ever since his last election analysis, and actually I don’t think I’ve had much of a problem with any of his general political rhetoric since the days when he was hosting his own radio show. It has to be noted that his new election analysis is comprised of fighting words for anyone who takes this year’s elections seriously. If anything it gives me pause to wonder just how many Objectivists (and for the matter just how many American voters) actually realize both what is at stake for America’s near future as well as how revealing this vote can be as far as the moral character of the body politic goes.

I want to add that I might very well differ with Dr. Peikoff on what I would consider to be some lesser points. For one thing, I am skeptical that local elections should be viewed in the same way that he views the major elections. It could be that he thinks no good can come of electing _any_ Republicans anywhere, but I suspect that local elections would not have much of an effect as a paradigm shift. Likewise, if there is a Republican at the local level who is actually quasi-Objectivist (as unlikely as that may be), then he might have enough going for him to do some good (so long as he stays at the local level.) It just so happens that I live in an area where even the local politics might substantiate Dr. Peikoff’s fear since my old local representative Christopher Cox ended up leaving to head the SEC which of course is nothing but a pain for American corporations. The second caveat that I might have is that it could be that a select subgroup of the voting public might have a reason to vote Republican as far as their exclusively personal values are concerned. That is, while a young adult voter or a child of a voting parent might have several decades to plan for, an older non-parent is living for himself within a much smaller timeframe. It could be that someone such as a senior citizen does not anticipate much political change for the rest of his life, so he might want to vote for short-term change if he suspects that that is the only term left for him to consider. On the other hand, it might very well be that if such a person votes Republican, then he could be acting out of cynical loathing of politics as such i.e. he might be voting as an anti-idealist.

On the whole, I suppose that (once again) I agree with Dr. Peikoff. I think he has seen enough and has enough experience in his life for people to still take his ideas seriously. I also recall that the current director of the Ayn Rand Institute, Dr. Yaron Brook, once said something along the lines of, “Sometimes I took positions in opposition to Dr. Peikoff’s only to change my mind later after consulting with him further.” I suspect that this is very much one of those cases where people need to seriously get out of their immediate sphere of awareness and consider an issue in a much broader and long-term fashion.

The pseudo-safety of evasion.

Originally posted October 17, 2006

Ayn Rand made a point of claiming that avoiding intellectual discrimination is at the source of evil. I would also focus on the fact that avoiding intellectual responsibility as a matter of course over a long period of time is evidence of actually having a wholesale evil philosophy. This is to distinguish from an occasional flaw in thinking where a person lacks the will and/or knowledge to do the rationally selfish thing that he should. That person may either be just mistaken or on the wrong moral route, but that person can redeem himself without too much hardship. (He just needs to check his argumentative premises, reassess, and follow-up with better behavior.)

I believe that the last 1 or 2 decades have comprised a new unfortunate era for America at least if not for the whole world. We have witnessed the transgressions of President Clinton. e.g. He allowed for “Filegate”, he sanctioned China as a “Most Favored Nation”, and he got America involved in the Balkan War. Also, at the beginning of his presidency, he offered safe harbor for Haitian refugees, then he changed his mind sending them back out to sea without substantial aid. We have witnessed the lack of appropriate response from both Bush administrations in regards to the threat of radical Islam. We also see great sympathy for religious tolerance in society even when it means allowing terrorist cells to financially and logistically grow as well as consideration for religion as a vehicle for substantial problem-solving despite a horrible track record. Likewise, the attack on industry and Capitalism in general goes on almost completely unabated. Even when some attempt in the media or the arts is made to appear sympathetic to Laissez-Faire politics, it is done in a curiously unintellectual and almost resigned way.

In other words, Americans may continue to look for answers, but they refuse to question the evil of altruism. At _this_ point in time, this refusal should be quite curious! Certainly, everyone knows about the Catholic scandal involving pedophilia. Also, no one can deny the physical threat made upon doctors who practice abortions. There is also no denying the critical role that religion plays in starting and strengthening war attacks made on generally moral nations around the world.

We hear all sorts of arguments made from both the political left and right on all sorts of issues that supposedly offer reasonable solutions, but no one dares to consider the root causes of these problems. Even Objectivists who have spent years studying the nature of contemporary politics are somewhat baffled by how Americans can continue to hold onto the same basic premises year after year despite what has transpired.

What needs to be faced at this time is not only that politics depends on individual actions i.e. ethics put into practice but those same individuals i.e. the American citizenry needs to face their own commitment to life-affirming values. That is, Americans need to have the morality _and_ the will to fight for the good even against what would seem to be short-term risks. We are long familiar with what Ayn Rand called “arguments from intimidation”. For example, if an honest person tries to offer a new and rational argument, then that person is often met with insults on his person i.e. ad hominem arguments. The intimidation against the original arguer finally is offered in the form of something like, “You can’t be serious (in giving that argument?!)” The motive of the bully is to squelch the argument since they at least implicitly figure that they can’t offer a proper counter-argument instead. (When Dr. Leonard Peikoff argued for attacking Iran as the center of radical Islam, some people in the press considered him to be stupid or crazy. Years later, we are now _explicitly_ finding that Iran is attempting to build nuclear bombs and has no intention of standing down.)

What could allow for such political misfires? How can seemingly well-meaning people suffer so much day-to-day misery in a land of wealth and freedom? Certainly, we can’t blame everyone as perpetually wrong or even crazy. Still, Americans seem to be as angry and frustrated as ever.

Again, I ask: Are Americans willing to face the root causes of their problems? Modern philosophy has provided many bad excuses for inept thinking. The Moderns doubt certainty and good values; some Moderns even seek to undercut existence itself as we know it. While the Modern philosophers’ intellectual errors are of a greater range and magnitude than those of non-intellectuals, both groups share something in common. All of these people are afraid to consider more realistic solutions. Both groups doubt perfection, and further they have come to accept skepticism to the point that they seemed resigned in not even wanting to be able to find solutions to their problems. The mystics (whether professional intellectuals or not) are ready to hand over their thinking responsibility to “God”. The secular people (whether professional intellectuals or not) are ready to just give up altogether and leave the problems for some one else to deal with. They are apt to say, “Oh well, it’s not _really_ my problem after all.” Of course, all of these people are still making excuses for their and other people’s behavior.

There is a philosophy that enshrines evasion, and it’s called rationalism. The rationalists think that offering a solution is equal to offering the correct solution. That is, they are more concerned with getting rid of responsibility. They do this by making an intellectual bait-and-switch. In effect, they are saying, I will give you my opinion (whether sound or not) and, in turn, you should leave me alone. They can even follow this up with more of the same. These people might say: “Oh, you didn’t _really_ want my opinion.” “Who am I to (really) know?” “Oh, you will (really) figure it out for yourself anyway.” As you should see, what they really are doing is saying that _reality_ itself is negotiable… even expendable. (They are a type of Subjectivist in this respect because they are more oriented to reforming other people’s opinions even at the expense of truth than trying to reshape matter into a more pro-human life use.) Well, of course, with such a tactic, these people cannot offer solutions. They have effectively tried to look like they have solved problems without doing the necessary work that would lead to problem solving.

What is necessary for problem solving no matter the time, place, or magnitude? As Aristotle and Ayn Rand indicated, logic is the tool for problem-solving. If you go to someone for help, and that person avoids logical scrutiny, then you can be assured that you will neither get a solution to your problem nor are you likely to be able to rely on that person very much in the future (unless he shows signs of changing his philosophy.)

I want to stress that logic is something that absolutely every person needs to study regardless of their respective education or philosophy. Logic is not exclusive to those who are in a particular field, and it’s not exclusive to those who are deemed intellectuals. Becoming adept at the use of logic is (point blank) a matter of survival.

If America and the world are to be saved, then ultimately it is upon the shoulders of the logicians who everyone depends on. Whoever and wherever someone can argue by using “non-contradictory identification” as Ayn Rand put it, then everyone benefits from arguments which are more applicable and efficient. The religious people want everyone to get “closer to God”, and the environmentalists want everyone to “protect and support Mother Earth.” Ask yourself what has Earth or God _actually done_ for you. You are the operator and governor of your life. If you wish to own and operate your life as a fully-formed human should, then you must always strive to use logic as best as your are able. Likewise, people must come to substitute their false gods of “God” and Earth with the reality of Francis Bacon’s advice: “For nature to be commanded, it(s rules) must be obeyed.” Logic comes into play when people properly ascertain the world that they live in, but for any source of knowledge to be useful it must be acted on with haste. It is my hope that as Objectivist philosophy is spread around the world, people will come to act with greater honor and take action that is both rational _and_ expedient.

Some cultural effects of Ayn Rand’s theory of concepts, part 1.

Originally posted October 8, 2006

There are several reasons for the appeal of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. The philosophy is based on reconciling the aspects of reality with one’s own life by way of conceptual integration. Objectivism offers practicable solutions for problems in thinking, managing one’s life, and living among others. It also argues for the currently best existing approach which an artist should take as to idealizing a better world by using physical materials in a Romantically stylized manner.

There’s an interesting tangent I want to mention. I wish to offer a potential point of controversy for consideration or even discussion. Since some people are under the mistaken impression that questioning an authority is equal to demeaning the same, I wish to clarify my intention here. I’m not interested in undermining the credibility of Ayn Rand’s aesthetic theory. I do think that, given the way she communicated that theory, it is at the least harder to discern her intentions for her broader view of art (as compared to her view of politics or ethics.)

She wrote several novels, a play, and several short stories. She also wrote a book on her theory of art, but it was focused on the art of literature. She also has offered opinions on music and painting among other arts, but she wasn’t a musician or a musical teacher. Nor was she a sculptor or an Earth material art teacher. Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s systematized offerings of her view of art in _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_ and _Objectivism Through Induction_ should be considered in terms of being authoritative interpretations of her view which are not _officially_ her view. One implication of this situation is that it is likely even more important than usual to review the primary sources of her aesthetic theory as against substantiating her other views.

While the comparatively different and respective attention Ayn Rand paid to different philosophical subjects has no essentially negative impact on a student’s interpretation of her philosophy, those students will have to adjust their study method accordingly. Further, given the nature of society, Ayn Rand’s mechanical approach to issuing her body of work has similar implications for how her ideas are distributed among wider audiences. Though not entirely reflective of Ayn Rand’s work, the way Objectivist experts approach their polemic work is telling. For example, the Ayn Rand Institute has typically advocated Ayn Rand’s aethetics by promoting her own fictional works. On the other hand, ARI speakers more often lecture on her ethics and politics than her epistemology and aesthetics. It should also be noted that no one person or organization can currently comprehensively promote her large body of work in just one chronological generation (of roughly 20 years.) Ideally, I would like to see other organizations rationally promote her work whether they are Objectivist or not. No such other organization can currently compare to ARI in this respect although I have some hope that (in another generation or two) they will not _substantially_ remain alone in this endeavor.

Advocates of Objectivism should not only consider what parts of the philosophy they wish to promote by priority but also the method which they use to make their promotion effective. I think Objectivists who are engaged in this type of promotion have substantially varied in the quality and focus of their work. There is more to their success than their respective passions and education. In some future post, I will offer a key component to taking Objectivist polemics and activism to “the next level”.

I LOVE TECHNOLOGY!

Originally posted October 5, 2006

There’s no substitute for experience! Sometimes no matter how much and how long you consider theory, it takes an ideological connection i.e. a mental integration which is spurred on by accidentally garnered happenstance to really drive a point home. That is, sometimes you just don’t see things for what they are until you trip and fall all over it!

Here’s a personal example:
For the past year or so, I have been dreading my work situation, and I’m by no means completely “out of the woods” yet. Still, I clearly improved my life by methodically taking action, and even before “the penny has dropped” I can see that things have irrefrangibly changed for the better. For whatever reasons, one of the problems I’ve had to face in my career involves my health. Everyone knows procrastination is bad, but reality has a way of making that point clear!

I got to a point where I had to quit my job, and I have absolutely no regrets about that, but one of the things I had failed to attend to was an urgent medical matter. Long story short, I managed to visit a doctor,and in a course of hardly 2 hours, he: 1) had tests performed, 2) diagnosed the problem, and 3) offered a short-term solution while acknowledging the long-term circumstances.

The bottom line is that at a few weeks later I can’t help but really appreciate how important this medical visit was. I don’t generally regret how I handled my work situation, but I have to admit that if I got medical attention sooner I would have worked those last few months with less attendant pain.

I could write a whole other post on what might go into making the solution (albeit a temporary one) even possible to exist in our society. Nevertheless, it is _extremely_ sobering to go through this experience. That is, I witnessed an expert at work, and then I bore the benefits of that expertise. The kicker is that this quickly delivered solution costs only a few hundred dollars in American currency. Honestly, I wasn’t expecting things to work out so quickly or so affordably, and I’ve experienced similar efforts several years before. It’s still been heartening, and this is all in spite of the sheer onslaught of regulatory insanity that medical practitioners have to endure. (Just go to www.afcm.org, and read the materials if you doubt the risk that future medical practice will involve.)

I really wanted to take this further, but I am up late at night trying to calm myself so that I can start a new job which I can now tackle WITHOUT PAIN thanks to my doctor!

If there were anything I would want anyone to consider about health care today, then it’s this: You have NO IDEA how much your medical practitioners have to go through just to provide you with decent care. If you are not in the profession, then you would most likely think twice about trying to work in a profession with that related magnitude of bureaucratic entanglement.

An introductory proviso.

As of today, October 24th, 2006, I am going to be mirroring posts from another blog. The next several posts have already been published elsewhere. Once the old posts have been posted here (and I hope to complete this process today), I will, in all likelihood, only make new and original posts here from then on.

Also, for the record, the blog name could be interpreted in more than one way. I will only offer a hint in the meantime... I am an unexpurgated supporter of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. My interest is not to undercut the philosophy but to elaborate on and apply it.