Philosophy On One Foot-The Basics of Objectivism by Ayn Rand
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years ago to Philosophy
During the last week, we've had 2 or 3 posts related to Conservatism vs Objectivism. I ran into this brief reply by Ayn Rand when she was asked if she could explain her philosophy while standing on one foot.
Her entire reply is well worth a read, but the last sentence of her reply is exactly on point to the disagreements expressed by some commenters in those referenced posts:
" Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics."
That reply was in 1962, but still addresses politics today, particularly here in Galt's Gulch. .
Her entire reply is well worth a read, but the last sentence of her reply is exactly on point to the disagreements expressed by some commenters in those referenced posts:
" Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics."
That reply was in 1962, but still addresses politics today, particularly here in Galt's Gulch. .
Dale has put together two outlines for talks. This is one of them. Moving between the 4 (some argue 5) platforms of a philosophy should be practiced. I notice that it is the most often contradiction in here. Most recently, between Ethics and Politics.having this handy chart helps , I think.
The reason this is important is that you may think you are having a discussion about Politics and the person you are talking to is talking about Ethics. For instance, you may be talking about censorship and they say eliminating someone comments on your website is censorship. You are talking about politics and you counter that you are not the government and neither is your website so it is impossible for you to violate their 1st amendment rights. They are talking ethics and believe that all opinions are equally valid and they look at you like your are a martian and claim you are to the right of Attila the Hun.
You start with the beauty of Atlas Shrugged (Aesthetics/Realization). They counter with heartless poltiics.
So, you then talk about individual rights (Politics/Respect), they counter with heartless morality.
So, you then talk about rational self interest (Ethics/Responsibility), they counter with multiculturalism and relativism.
So, you then talk about non-contradiction, logic, and axioms (Epistemology/Reason), and they counter with the quantum nature of reality and Kantian categories.
So, you ask them if they exist (Metaphysics/Reality), and they counter with you being a dogmatic Randroid - or some other personal attack, that being the only place you can go when someone demands of you that you treat reality as if it were real.
Always know the level you are arguing on, and always know that Reality is the foundation, without which, no traction will be gained. Work from Reality, through Reason, to Responsibility - especially the Responsibility to champion Respect in service of Realization. :-)
This context dropping happens plenty in the gulch and even among Os.
The challenge I personally find is that to pic someone down, you have to establish some SERIOUS common ground. Since few people understand logic, and the majority of those swallowed Kantian premises, they refuse to be pinned - rationality be damned.
In the 25 years of championing Rand's work, I rarely find it worth my time to do so.
Your "counters" remind me of Saul Alinsky's exhortation to "Use their morals against them." in "Rules for Radicals."
I am pretty sure I tend to get confused about these concepts because so many people use confusing language to express them, thinking, I am sure, that it makes them seem more intelligent. Well, maybe to themselves, anyway.
I do appreciate this.
The trick though still remains in the work Rand recommends for consistency in application and life.
"If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought" (emphasis added)
While his heroes tend to be rational themselves, and while he champions rationality, it is not rigorous. If he were to say - "humans are ALSO rationalizing animals - and as a betting man, I am not surprised when they use their intelligence to rationalize ..." I think this is a fair statement.
Most people don't check their premises. Most people blank out. They can start that journey and it is their moral responsibility. And most don't.
Edit:typo
as a single page, in case anyone wants it. -- j
.
this pm -- it's my birthday and I'm headed to my sister's
place for supper. -- j
.
and it's a "jpg" photo which can be grabbed and printed!
Thank You, Emma!!! -- j
Epistemology meaning definitions
Morals depend on the first two.
Can't get much shorter than that.
That's all three of them.
Q: Do you believe in evolution
A; No, I understand evolution, just as a I do not believe in gravity, I understand it.
But almost always I find that they're really spewing words from others and not from their own thoughts or actual comprehension.
From all the years of attempting to explain to and argue with others, at the foundational level, it's unacknowledged or unchallenged belief systems instilled or accepted during developmental and/or educational levels. Many, if not most of those beliefs aren't even consciously adopted, they seem to those that have them, as if they're just right. Those belief systems are throughout our lives, professions, and searches for answers.
There are as well, in Heinlein's words, 'those that can't or won't think' or fear doing it for themselves. But those are separate from the above description. I'm afraid, I just don't waste to much effort or time with men of this level (except when I find them on this site.)
Reading this book currently, struck me as appropriate for this discussion.
I think of it like this. If someone uses Rand as an authority with me, rather than a source of material, I don't want to be an Objectivist. If someone uses Rand as a brilliant writer/philosopher and asks me to engage with them, unpacking the package deals, we are Objectivists.
As newspaper columns the articles were only about 800 words, but "Introducing Objectivism" was still packed with essentials in elaborations of each of the 'standing on one foot' items. A major emphasis in the last half was her contrast between her philosophy as the foundation of a free society versus the ethics and politics of altruism and statism -- which is also especially relevant to your immediate purpose of "That reply was in 1962, but still addresses politics today, particularly here in Galt's Gulch".
The segment of that broadcast in which she read "one foot" is also used in the Ayn Rand Institute Campus Course series as "Introducing Objectivism" https://campus.aynrand.org/campus-cou... where it is accompanied by video graphics added by ARI.
All the articles in The Ayn Rand Column are worth reading. Aside from the full series of 26 columns in the LA Times (and which were also available for syndication), the additional essays include a few from the 1940s.
.
your contributions, sir! -- john
.
-You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.
-Man is an end in himself.
-Give me liberty or give me death.
If anyone is interested in this or other Ayn Rand manuscripts, please contact me. Michael
http://www.penultimaterarebooks.com/
I had not seen this description before but it made instant perfect sense.
Sadly the bulk of one former tied to the center philosophically and politically group the, Republicans, are now the right wing of the left learning how to do stiff arm salutes and say We Serve The Party...starting with Rand and Cruz and finishing with Clinton and Sanders.
Ahh well....
It is possible to straddle the center and have one foot left and one right or one foot barely touching the center and the other going in one and one only direction - and by my way of thinking perfectly acceptable but one step further puts you in some other systems center and one may no longer claim the rights privileges and responsibilities of the Constitution with it's associated philosophy.
One of the best ideas of the political spectrum I've seen is of a four (4) sided matrix, with freedom being at one corner vs the others.
Mugwumping is better put as seizing any opportunity for agreement even though one loses all values in the trade. Doesn't apply.
Regardless, I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this thread.
State government by definition includes the idea of initiation of force - even if it only includes simple things like taxation and requiring citizens to be in or outside it's boundaries - but obviously it is much worse in the real world then that - as sacrificing such a basic moral principle at the start would lead.
Furthermore, any non-volunteer actions like that would by definition affect the economy, and therefore not be a complete separation of government and economy, as economists such as Walter Williams love to point out.
Either volunteerism or anarcho-capitalism would seem to fit Ayn Rand's criteria, but she didn't like anarcho-capitalism.
I don't think she was very consistent on this principle. As I am, I note it.
The dribble that 'if you do not agree with someone you do not understand them', that 'I must agree with a philosophy instead of objective reality', and 'the implied guilt trip and appeal to the masses' is the exact type of immature, non-objective, non reasoning trash I'd expect to find on an open forum as opposed to ones that only are for those using reason and reality - not appeals to authority. I made this objection to the forum when I signed up a year and a half ago.
I don't know what "dribble" you are referring to or what it has to do with this thread.
Regardless, lets pretend free market and capitalism are the same words. Then, by definition, the only political system that is fully an economic system of capitalism is by definition systems of anarcho-capitalism. All present commonly used systems think that in some cases, no matter how limited they are; police, fire, roads, they can force people to contribute wealth, time, and life to it to protect others and for the greater good and are, by definition, socialist - for the greater good.
It is not necessary to set up governments this way. Please note I am not an anarcho capitalist, but I expect most people here not to be able to follow the argument, as it requires actual thinking, inductive, objective from reality, as opposed to rote learning from someone elses book.
We have never had a complete capitalist system. Today we have a badly mixed system. It does not follow that all systems today are "socialist". Ours is a mixture of freedom and controls. It is no more "socialist" as its essence than "capitalist", with degrees of both; it has socialist aspects to it and capitalist aspects.
Ayn Rand's definition is not "goofy". She gave the reasons for the definition of the concept capitalism in "What is Capitalism?". She also explained why 'anarcho-capitalism' is a floating abstraction with no possible meaning in reality and with no free market possible, not "by definition" capitalism. She did not say, let alone "pretend", that "free market" and "capitalism" are synonyms.
The conceptual understanding and explanations of this are not "rote learning from someone else's book". If you have such condescending contempt for the people here that you pronounce we are not "able to follow the argument, as it requires actual thinking, inductive, objective from reality", then isn't the forum for you to be posting.
AR's description of an Individual states it well: "Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
An individualist is a man who says: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself."
But hang in there and you might get there eventually.
Hear Hear