My Misgivings about Objectivsm

[Halffull]

I intend this to be a reasoned discussion between logical individuals looking to find a deeper truth. IE, no ad-hominem(sp?) attacks or emotional defenses.

Let me start off by saying that I love Ayn Rand's characters, and the ideals they hold. Integrity, Honesty, Achievement, Pride, are all things I endorse.

However, logically, as I've dug more into her philosophy, I've spotted several of what to me, seem obvious, logical falsehoods. I wanted to get some input from experienced Objectivists on this forum to see if maybe I'm just missing something (which I think is possible, but I see as unlikely due to the nature of the errors), or, if I'm not missing anything, how people reconcile their belief in objectivsm with the illogicality of it's premises.

So, I'm just going to list what I see as the glaring falsehoods used to underpin Objectivsm, and see what type of logical, well reasoned responses I get.

The central problem I see with Any Rand's basic premise is that she does not ever solve the Is/Ought problem. Assuming that what she says about life being the primary goal of living organisms is true (ignoring selfish gene theory and other empiric evidence that suggest otherwise), we can be convinced that this IS the primary goal of the living organism, in the sense that our nature is to protect our life. However, she then reaches a conclusion not supported by the premises thus stated. I'll quote:

"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”"

In the above paragraph, she somehow after, coming up with a lot of is's, has come to the conclusion that because the will to live IS in the nature of humans, that OUGHT to be our ultimate goal. Not only that, but any other ultimate values must be based on this core value.

The way she comes to this second conclusion is by having you imagine an immortal entity with values... she says this is a logical impossibility. However, not only do I have no trouble mentioning it, but she provides no logic for this impossibility.

Thus we have to conclusions that are unsupported by the premises.
1. Humans ought to hold their life above all else.
2. Values can only exist when they come from the premise of the will to live.

That's all I'm going to write about for now. I don't want to overload the forum with too many points, and risk the discussion getting muddled.

[Dream]

I've invited James Steele II to join the discussion, who can answer this in much more detail than I can, but I think the answer, or a great deal of it, rests on the premise that there is no such thing as an is/ought "problem" -- ie, the creation of this problem is false.

It's like saying individualism doesn't solve the "social responsibility problem" -- there is no such thing to begin with.

Sure you can combine the words together and create an abstract, but there is no fact of reality to tie it down and make it a concrete. I am not my brother's keeper, and this is not open to consideration. To argue it is to argue that you have the moral right to put a gun to my head and pull the trigger -- which I ardently and forever reject.

~~~

An immortal entity with values is an impossibility because you have removed a fundamental of existence from the equation of life -- that life is a developmental process, with an endpoint. Death.

Without an endpoint the developmental process becomes a cyclical loop, no longer capable of progressing forward. (This is my concern with transhumanism James).

~~~

Matt, the "obvious, logical falsehoods" you are perceiving is, so far as I can tell, your rejection of the axiom that existence exists, and subsequently, that life is the good, that you are in fact alive, that you exist, have a right to exist, that you posses free will, and volitional consciousness.

[Halffull]

I've invited James Steele II to join the discussion, who can answer this in much more detail than I can, but I think the answer, or a great deal of it, rests on the premise that there is no such thing as an is/ought "problem" -- ie, the creation of this problem is false.

It's like saying individualism doesn't solve the "social responsibility problem" -- there is no such thing to begin with.

Sure you can combine the words together and create an abstract, but there is no fact of reality to tie it down and make it a concrete. I am not my brother's keeper, and this is not open to consideration. To argue it is to argue that you have the moral right to put a gun to my head and pull the trigger -- which I ardently and forever reject.

~~~

An immortal entity with values is an impossibility because you have removed a fundamental of existence from the equation of life -- that life is a developmental process, with an endpoint. Death.

Without an endpoint the developmental process becomes a cyclical loop, no longer capable of progressing forward. (This is my concern with transhumanism James).

~~~

Hey Dream, well reasoned. I too could not accept the moral right to put a gone to my head and pull the trigger. It goes against everything I believe. However, for Objectivsm to be objective, this non-acceptance would have to be from reality (as you put it, the concept that existence exists, which is one of the only Axioms I'll willingly admit one can take and still be objective). Instead of from reality however, this comes from a bias evolution has planted in me to have this bias. Only once I accept the axiom that the instincts evolution has given me are instincts I should accept can I move from is to ought.

In order to avoid making this axiom, you need to accept the premise that the fact that you should work to live is "self-evident", given the example listed above. I don't accept this premise because even though my gut agrees with the conclusion, I know that my gut isn't based on logic but on what will keep me alive (again, not a moral an ought, but just an is that stems from evolution... one could just as easily make the argument that it's my moral imperative to fall from high places while accelerating at 9.8 meters per a second... a moral is that stems from gravity, but doesn't have that added bonus of being "self-evident" due to my pre-conditioned emotions).
---

Your second argument I have a harder time understanding. It seems akin as saying that there is a point of perfection reached, at which point the only way the person has to go is down.

In which case there would be some optimal "longest life" for each organism, which ended at the height of their perfection. In order to accept this I would better need to understand the premises from which you drew these conclusions.

Why does the fact that something is a developmental process mean it has to have an endpoint?
Why does the fact that an entity is living forever make it incapable of progressing forward?

-----

Finally, could you show me the logical errors I've made that lead me to accept the following conclusions:
Existence Exists
Life is the good
I am alive
I exist,
I posses free will, and volitional consciousness.

[JamesSteeleII]

I'd love to sit down and write a lengthy response to this but I have other more important things going on - I know you'll all understand that I put myself first
For now though I'll suggest reading Uyl & Rasmussen's response to O'Neil and Osterfeld regarding Rand's dealing with the is-ought problem.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_6.pdf

Personally I can see how much confusion exists based upon her description of how it should be solved. Her wording has left a number of logical pitfalls. These are dealt withe however if thought about.

The main suggestion for how to solve the is-ought problem from the perspective of ethical naturalists is that 'oughts' can only exist in the light of goals. Thus 'oughts' must be necessarily teleological. But 'what' should these goals be and 'why'? Hume agreed that facts can be linked to values but was less sure of 'why' we should chose them over something else. The point Uyl & Rasmussen make is that life by necessity is inherently value laden and also teleological. In simple terms this means that man cannot value unless he first exists, and no matter what goal he chooses within life, life is necessary for him to achieve it and thus for him to achieve any goal he must first value life and act towards that ultimate end. The choices he can make are a result of his nature which are the conditions of his existence and his existence is teleological in that he will cease to exist if he fails to act accordingly.

Of course man's understanding of this is based upon how he epistemologically obtains this knowledge. That’s why epistemology necessarily precedes ethics as a philosophical branch. He has to identify the concept of existence and how this pertains to himself. He has to identify that his life is that which makes all else possible to him and that his life requires a particular course of action. Life is necessarily the value he must accept but only once it is identified and conceptualised. In this process however as with any form of reasoning he may get it wrong.

[JamesSteeleII]

Without an endpoint the developmental process becomes a cyclical loop, no longer capable of progressing forward. (This is my concern with transhumanism James).

Thats post-humanism though. Transhumanism from what I can tell is probably consistent with objectivist principle as it does intend to further progress man through technology. Post humanism is interested in going 'beyond man' into everlasting immortality. In a transhumanist world man can still die or be killed. Its just becomes pretty damn hard.

[Dream]

James, would trans-humanism not then be the ultimate split of the body and soul? It would then be physical instead of the attempt at the metaphysical as we see today.

~~~

Hallfull, couple thoughts.

The way she comes to this second conclusion is by having you imagine an immortal entity with values... she says this is a logical impossibility. However, not only do I have no trouble mentioning it, but she provides no logic for this impossibility.

Thus we have to conclusions that are unsupported by the premises.
1. Humans ought to hold their life above all else.
2. Values can only exist when they come from the premise of the will to live.

Ok, fair claim -- but you have failed to provide anything counter to what Rand is stating. You have no trouble mentioning it -- great. I have no problem mentioning that I believe in Zeus almighty ... that doesn't mean anything. I can create any number of infinite abstracts in my head and have zero trouble pronouncing them.

In light of this, I would in fact challenge you to define values. What is value? To whom? For what purpose?

~~~

... which is one of the only Axioms I'll willingly admit one can take and still be objective)

The way you wrote this, I think, is very revealing. You do not accept an axiomatic concept fully and completely -- for what it is -- you do so gritting your teeth and seemingly regretfully. The very idea of an axiom seems to be what you have difficulty with -- yet, in what way can you reject an axiom? The only way is by contradiction, which brings nothing but pain and suffering. I think your "teeth gritting" is in fact your refusal to actually accept the fact that axioms exist, regardless of what they are.

[Dream]

To progress forward in life as a human being with a mind and soul demands that you experienced a biological as well psychological birth into the individual that you are. At the risk of sounding like Morpheus from the Matrix, what has a beginning necessarily has an end. Without an end you are now back to the indestructible robot concept. What can be of value to it? Pleasure? Pain? What do these things signify?

[Halffull]

James, would trans-humanism not then be the ultimate split of the body and soul? It would then be physical instead of the attempt at the metaphysical as we see today.

~~~

Hallfull, couple thoughts.

The way she comes to this second conclusion is by having you imagine an immortal entity with values... she says this is a logical impossibility. However, not only do I have no trouble mentioning it, but she provides no logic for this impossibility.

Thus we have to conclusions that are unsupported by the premises.
1. Humans ought to hold their life above all else.
2. Values can only exist when they come from the premise of the will to live.

Ok, fair claim -- but you have failed to provide anything counter to what Rand is stating. You have no trouble mentioning it -- great. I have no problem mentioning that I believe in Zeus almighty ... that doesn't mean anything. I can create any number of infinite abstracts in my head and have zero trouble pronouncing them.

In light of this, I would in fact challenge you to define values. What is value? To whom? For what purpose?

~~~

... which is one of the only Axioms I'll willingly admit one can take and still be objective)

The way you wrote this, I think, is very revealing. You do not accept an axiomatic concept fully and completely -- for what it is -- you do so gritting your teeth and seemingly regretfully. The very idea of an axiom seems to be what you have difficulty with -- yet, in what way can you reject an axiom? The only way is by contradiction, which brings nothing but pain and suffering. I think your "teeth gritting" is in fact your refusal to actually accept the fact that axioms exist, regardless of what they are.

I'll try respond to this, with the caveat that I haven't yet had the time to go through all of James' links. Mentioning should have been "imagining". I stated it this way only because Ayn Rand's proof was to say "imagine if this was the case and see how impossible it is". I imagined it and didn't see the impossibility. My definition of values are the standards by which one judges ones own actions, beliefs, and feelings... This is of course subjective, but I haven't yet been convinced of an argument that allows me to find an objective definition of them (although from what I read of James' links, there might be something there.)

I am skeptical of our ability to create objective Axiom's from reality. The first step of course, is accepting that reality exists and you can learn from it. Accepting that, you hit a brick wall with problems of induction and the nature of reality (Cave Allegory). I know that there are axioms that are accepted after that, but I reject that these axioms are objective... by nature, they're subjective. My teeth gritting comes from the recognizing of this fact, a recognition which Ayn Rand calls evil and mystical... but which she doesn't logically address... she simply starts with other (subjective) axioms that invalidate it. Again, I would like nothing more than my values to be objective... for me to have THE right answer, and not just A right answer. But I see no logic that that's the case.

As to the question of " What can be of value to it? Pleasure? Pain? What do these things signify?" You seem to be assuming that these must have some deeper meaning beyond the feelings themselves(IE, be objective). However, that assumption you've only proven by accepting it as a premise to your argument. This is circular reasoning.

[Dream]

Again, I would like nothing more than my values to be objective... for me to have THE right answer, and not just A right answer.

This statement further exemplifies what I am recognizing in your posts on this thread. This is more "teeth gritting". By teeth gritting I mean a refusal to accept your mind and your sensory perception of reality as valid and possessing the ability to be accurate. Dj Fuji had/has this same problem. You see it expressed in his Community Tapes interview.

He states and expresses with his hands that objective reality exists, and that there are a million and one different subjective ways of looking at it. What he does not address, there, or in his life thus far so far as I am aware, is whether or not any one of those perspectives can be and is RIGHT.

I think I speak for James in addition to my self in saying that you are resisting the self-responsibility necessary to live consciously, which necessarily includes trusting the judgement of your own mind.

This is what you mean when you say you want "the" right answer and not "a" right answer -- you refuse reason as your only absolute and the validity of your mind in the process.

I know I will not always be right -- but I know that I can be right.

You rest on the contradictory and false axiom that man can know nothing -- yet, in what way and by what means do you know that man can know nothing?

No one can live for you Matt, you have to accept the axioms on your own, and thank god for that =)

-- Dream