The One in the Many for Some

I could spend the rest of my natural-born life talking about the subject of false alternatives.  In the meantime, I am going to focus on a specific example of that logical fallacy.  It is entirely natural to wish to prioritize, judge, and make comparisons.  Of course, adjudication depends on references; in the case of ethics, the standard is in the form of normative principles.  Likewise, as Ayn Rand indicated, the specific reference is to Man's Life.  Briefly, she was considering not simply what comes to mind nor what is possible; no, she always was reaching for what was simultaneously possible and _ideal_.  That is, as a philosopher and literary expert she attempted to encourage people to look past their given momentary range, issues of the day, minor personal problems _for at least long enough_ to consider what could possibly be in store for their own future existence.

Since humanity lives and dies by its ability to not only think but also to make use of knowledge by way of manifesting practical solutions which improve their individual lives over long periods of time, it behooves those people to consider their values in an organized and, more to the point, a conceptually integrated fashion.  The bottom line is that: whether people know it or not, they explicitly acknowledge it or not, or they care about it or not, knowledge theory underpins all decisions including those decisions focusing on value-judgements.

With the aforementioned in mind, I find an ever-growing and ongoing peeve in the form of the pedestrian pretense for judgement today.  People routinely get defensive about their respective jobs, their favorite sports teams, their favored music or movies, and so on.  To be concerned with those subjects is fine and even sometimes valiant.  To be concerned with those issues without much understanding but with much emotionalism is _not_ suitable or productive.  As someone who has been using Internet services since the mid-1990's and as someone who has used social media and networking as long as they were recognized as such, I've got more than a fair idea of how people communicate online. 

Obviously, most people aren't interested in philosophy let alone Objectivism.  I'm more concerned with the lack of interest in logic _altogether_.  It goes without saying here, that more people should take epistemology seriously (and this very much includes supposed Objectivists).  Likewise, hardly anyone formally studies logic, and it's quite unlikely that hardly anyone will do that in the foreseeable future.  As both Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have indicated, people induce their knowledge in a piecemeal way.  (These days, that's a process that goes on almost completely unwittingly.)

It's easy to establish that people depend on philosophy in general as well as the particular consequences of logic.  Likewise, just as most people understandably get their knowledge piece-by-piece, they attempt to form their respective philosophies part-by-part, but then those same people typically fall short of even trying to complete the process of systematizing any philosophy at all.  Naturally, this state finds these people at a disadvantage in that they can only hope to come to correct conclusions _sometimes_, solve problems _sometimes_, and in turn, work with other people in a mutually beneficial matter _occasionally_. 

Now to turn to the world of online communication as we know it today…

Examples of false alternatives and particularly the one I'm thinking of now are so readily available/seemingly omnipresent that I'll refer people to simply consider the online world for themselves.  It is true that what people discuss via Facebook, Twitter, blogging websites, et al. are normally of some minimal value at the least.  (It's not yet as if most people are contemptible and mindless post-Modernist fools although the current culture would suggest an unfortunate direction as far as that goes…)  In the main, while the _content_ of what is discussed is generally worthy of attention, it would be of far greater benefit if those same people also considered the realm of _methodology_.  Having an opinion does not indicate the validity of the opinion or the credibility of the person who has the opinion; there's more at stake… 

I could go into grave detail as to the nature of the false alternative in question, but for now I will offer a general overview.  One would think (after some consideration) that _not_ offering an opinion at all doesn't facilitate progress i.e. silence is _not_ golden in this context.  Yet, many online participants would have their readers think that simply offering an opinion should register a knee-jerk reaction that sweeps away anything not to immediate liking.  (See: AR's elaboration on the fallacy of argument from intimidation for more on this tendency.  http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/argument_from_intimidation.html )  It _is_ the case that coming up with a summary conclusion is not only prudent; such a result is also ideal …if it's truly _essentialized_.

Now we get to the meat of the matter:  Yes indeed, online participants will actually and frequently condemn those who offer objectively-honed opinions.  Wait for it, (of course!) there is even a corresponding conceptual trichotomy in this case.  Let's look at how people behave.  If someone were to explicate an honestly-obtained and simplified (let alone a properly essentialized) consequent, then many people will exclaim something along the lines of: "…but that's too broad!", "…that's overly simplistic!" or "…that doesn't fully consider all possibilities in the world!"  I've even had someone quickly conclude that I was _religious_ under such circumstances!!!  (There's a long-running problem of religion implicitly dominating the field of epistemology even in the midst of the transition to Modernism and thereafter, but that is for another discussion at another time.)

What is interesting to me about these particular reactions is that they provide evidence that those people are grasping …but only unsuccessfully starting to see the more fundamental issues which are in play.  What basic trichotomy (or false dichotomy) underpins this scenario further?  Well to start with, we can go back to the classic trap that Ayn Rand elaborated on: Intrinsicism vs. Subjectivism i.e. what Dr. Peikoff has referenced as the "I-O-S" trichotomy.  Just to make the point of reference, it's worth noting that _all_ religious people _are_ Intrinsicists (although like their Subjectivist brethren, they are want to utilize psychological rationalism).  In turn, when those who aren't familiar with philosophy encounter a wholesale concept, they are unlikely to know AR's conceptual theory.  Further, they are going to attempt to grasp for whatever reference that's available.  Hence, (given the popularity of religion) they make the headlong leap to associate a legitimate concept with the anti-concepts of religious mystics. (Suffice it to say that I can and have made the relevant and proper distinction between such anti-concepts and valid concepts many times …for decades actually.  In this light, it is wholly impossible for a real Objectivist to be dogmatic.)

The Subjectivist flip-side to this argumentative coin amounts to figuratively throwing one's hand up in the air in resignation: "Who knows?", "Who cares?", "There are multiple logics(!)…" and so on.  Such a person might very well continue to argue _while unwittingly trying to undercut i.e. concept-steal_ the very axioms their arguments depend on.  E.g. Claiming that there are multiple (inappropriate) explanations or multiple logics is an outright violation of Identity law.  Likewise, stating indifference and/or ambivalence while continuing to argue a point as before violates Causality law.  Such a person has put himself outside logic, and no benefit can be garnered from arguing with him (outside of skills testing).

An interesting conclusion we can draw right now: a) Typically (though naturally not universally) those who claim sympathy to Intrinsicist philosophies want to argue _more_ with the supposed purpose of gaining greater understanding (despite their assumption that "God" is already omniscient.) b) Typically (though not universally) those who claim sympathy to Subjectivist philosophies want to _cut off_ arguments sooner with the supposed purpose that more discussion would be futile (despite their typical support of university studies which is supposed to be predicated on gaining knowledge via scientific method).  (The underlying thinking is interesting but beyond the scope of the subject here.)

In summation, there is a prevailing but un(der)stated acceptance of the false choice between blind acceptance of the conventional thinking of the day vs. acceptance that knowledge isn't possible.  Of course, the true alternative is provided via truly scientific methodology viz. Objectivist episteme.

Now for a peculiar twist:  The reason why I was considering this false dilemma more frequently is that in recent years, there has been a growing though barely organized cadre of pseudo-Objectivists who have castigated formerly and justifiably venerated Objectivist intellectuals such as Leonard Peikoff and more recently, David Harriman.  There is a bitter and savage irony here.  Peikoff and Harriman have (almost exclusively) brought not just Objectivism but the inherent and fundamental structural aspect of conceptual validation in the form of induction to the foreground.  The very people who have most vociferously opposed them are supposed Objectivists …who suffer from badly pre-conceived notions on what Objectivism actually is.  That is, the very people who have done the most to promulgate real Objectivism in recent years haven't been supported by supposed ardent Objectivists (as would be expected).  Rather, Peikoff and Harriman have been considered as outcasts deviating from Ayn Rand's work(!!!) …by the very sophomoric and pretentious pseudo-intellectuals who hardly have a hairsbreadth of the understanding necessary to even begin to lodge such arguments.  (I will _only_ make a passing remark about a recent controversy involving David Harriman as to say that his newest attackers are not only devoid of epistemic prowess, they also fit the bill of the very Intrinsicist profile I outlined earlier i.e. it's just more of the same nonsense.  IF by some stretch of the imagination, David Harriman has some contradiction that poses a threat to his readership and students, then that can be dealt with at the time.  Leave it to Intrinsicists to try to pre-empt other people's thinking, when they haven't hardly checked their own premises at all!!!)

I can't reiterate the point enough:  I _STARTED_ with a long and persistent study of logic over a period of years before I ever encountered Objectivism as a full-blown system.  I always assumed and expected that Ayn Rand would depend on her readership to take such preparation to heart for themselves.  She is on record in expressing occasional disappointment with her readers, and it should be no misunderstanding or surprise as to what the nature of that disappoint ultimately is.  For it is the case, that that disappoint is of the same type as I have today.