Here Is Something You Can't Understand
I have never been able to grasp Objectivism, in the Ayn Rand sense. Her own explanation of it is briefly summarized here. From what I can make of it, Rand believes that reality is objective - that is, it is what it is, regardless of what anybody wishes it was, but that it can be figured out through reason - and therefore laissez-faire capitalism is the economic ideal. I'm pretty much on board with the premise, but the conclusion is a leap that, to me, comes totally out of left field. Or maybe right field. To be sure, there are volumes of essays and silly novels that attempt to bridge the gap between her premise and conclusion; it has been my attempts to get through them that have fallen short. So I do not wish to disparage Rand or any of her followers - it is your humble 'Dlogger who is the true ignoramus.
But today I discovered a parallel sort of philosophy - one that, like Objectivism, starts with a simple premise and quickly ventures off into socio-political ramifications. This philosophy is Naturalism, and its website is where I learned about it. Naturalism's basic premise is that in the Universe there is only physical matter: no spirits, otherwordly matter, weird psychic energy, or the like. As was the case with Objectivism, I am inclined to agree.
In fact, the basic premises of the two philosophies are very much alike, and I doubt an Objectivist and a Naturalist would disagree at all about the real, small-o objective nature of the Universe. Both philosophies hold natural science in the highest regard. But the conclusions and real-world ramifications of Objectivism and Naturalism are, at least to the hip urban 21st century American that I so am, polar opposites.
Naturalism takes its monistic premise and concludes that humans are wholly the results of their genes and issuing environments, that our lot in life is largely beyond our control (the philosophy takes pains to distance itself from Fatalism), and that compassion, cooperation, and forgiveness are of utmost human importance.
Now, my genes and environment bind me to Naturalism; I hiss at Objectivism. I fully understand neither. I hope all 'Dlog readers appreciate my disclosure and put my ramblings in an appropriate context.
Both philosophies use a powerful approach - an appeal to reason. Most rational people accept science as, if not absolute truth, then a mighty tool for understanding the Universe and, importantly, doing something with our place in it. So to begin a philosophy with only the basic premise that There is a world out there, outside of you, the observer, that you don't control with your thoughts, but that you can at least begin to make some modicum of sense of by using your brain will appeal to all but the most solipsistic of fringe thinkers (it will even appeal to fundamentally-inclined religious thinkers, who simply have a different idea about who (or Who) does have control over the Universe).
But the approach is just the approach; if what follows is utter hogwash, the philosophy should be dismissed (and even further reviled for having enticed the audience with such a sexy approach). Both philosophies immediately enter weaker argument-ground (like I said, you can't get much stronger than that premise). So neither philosophy should seduce for having an attractive basis. Their introductory statements should be viewed as a cheap trick to disarm skeptics.
Without getting into the nuts and bolts of the arguments, which I've already admitted I can't do, so please, call me an idiot and click somewhere else and avoid the Sunk-Cost Fallacy, which you're committing by continuing to read this bucket of bile, "because you've already made it this far." Or, grant me that we can judge these two philosophies' utilities without knowing how they get from their sexy beginnings to their stark-contrast ends. Followers of either of these two reason-loving philosophies would turn in their metaphysical badges in a heartbeat if it were shown conclusively that the real-world consequences of their beliefs put into action were pernicious to humanity.
First, we can judge utility empirically. Is laissez-faire capitalism good and useful? Do compassion and collectivism make our lives better? There are 231 years of data to examine. I submit that asking whether Objectivism trumps Naturalism is equivalent to asking whether modern American conservatism trumps modern American liberalism, in terms of which is a better (fairer, more effective, stabler, whatever . . .) guiding philosophy for governance. I am going to flesh out a thorough and coherent argument on this topic. And this suit is black.
My point is that the utility of each philosophy is something that is still hotly contested now, and although I know the answer, I prefer the Socratic method of teaching and will let 80 years of life on Earth draw it out of my readers.
Second, let's do the crazy thing and deny the philosophies' strong premises. How useful are these philosophies in an irrational world? This is going to sound a lot like Pascal's Wager, which is horrendous, but hear me out. The consequences of Objectivism are only good ideas if its basic premise is true: take away a reality that is accessible to each man, and you take away the heroic Man, his Tool of Reason, his perfection-fulfilling Drive of Self-Interest. You replace them with devious Man, his Affliction of Imperfect Understanding, and his destruction-leading-to Drive of Various Interests, and suddenly the resulting Objectivist ideas of individual choice and consequences and anti-collectivism don't seem likely to produce the best situation for human life on Earth.
The conclusions of Naturalism, on the other hand, actually rest on firmer ground if its basic premise is denied. That is, Naturalism is generous to rational people, but appealing to them is equivalent to jumping through hoops. Naturalism essays regularly reiterate their reliance on nothing but cold hard atoms in the void. They have to reiterate this, because Naturalism draws conclusions that are coherent with belief in God, purpose, order, and even Love. So if skeptical rationalists are all wrong and there are spirits and magick and dualism, the conclusions of Naturalism emerge unscathed - they are good ideas for either conception of Reality.
I discovered Naturalism after reading this essay. I have long wanted to write an essay on what I think happens to us when we die, but I have had tremendous trouble putting it into words. (To those who say it doesn't matter, I say "Go to Hell.") Thomas W. Clark almost exactly illustrates my thoughts on the subject. His argument still has the same weak point mine would, were I to articulate it, but I found the essay last night in a book I bought for freshman-year philosophy class, and I would have believed you if you'd told me Thomas W. Clark has a time machine and went to the future and copied the text right out of a Turdlog post from 2022 or so.
But today I discovered a parallel sort of philosophy - one that, like Objectivism, starts with a simple premise and quickly ventures off into socio-political ramifications. This philosophy is Naturalism, and its website is where I learned about it. Naturalism's basic premise is that in the Universe there is only physical matter: no spirits, otherwordly matter, weird psychic energy, or the like. As was the case with Objectivism, I am inclined to agree.
In fact, the basic premises of the two philosophies are very much alike, and I doubt an Objectivist and a Naturalist would disagree at all about the real, small-o objective nature of the Universe. Both philosophies hold natural science in the highest regard. But the conclusions and real-world ramifications of Objectivism and Naturalism are, at least to the hip urban 21st century American that I so am, polar opposites.
Naturalism takes its monistic premise and concludes that humans are wholly the results of their genes and issuing environments, that our lot in life is largely beyond our control (the philosophy takes pains to distance itself from Fatalism), and that compassion, cooperation, and forgiveness are of utmost human importance.
Now, my genes and environment bind me to Naturalism; I hiss at Objectivism. I fully understand neither. I hope all 'Dlog readers appreciate my disclosure and put my ramblings in an appropriate context.
Both philosophies use a powerful approach - an appeal to reason. Most rational people accept science as, if not absolute truth, then a mighty tool for understanding the Universe and, importantly, doing something with our place in it. So to begin a philosophy with only the basic premise that There is a world out there, outside of you, the observer, that you don't control with your thoughts, but that you can at least begin to make some modicum of sense of by using your brain will appeal to all but the most solipsistic of fringe thinkers (it will even appeal to fundamentally-inclined religious thinkers, who simply have a different idea about who (or Who) does have control over the Universe).
But the approach is just the approach; if what follows is utter hogwash, the philosophy should be dismissed (and even further reviled for having enticed the audience with such a sexy approach). Both philosophies immediately enter weaker argument-ground (like I said, you can't get much stronger than that premise). So neither philosophy should seduce for having an attractive basis. Their introductory statements should be viewed as a cheap trick to disarm skeptics.
Without getting into the nuts and bolts of the arguments, which I've already admitted I can't do, so please, call me an idiot and click somewhere else and avoid the Sunk-Cost Fallacy, which you're committing by continuing to read this bucket of bile, "because you've already made it this far." Or, grant me that we can judge these two philosophies' utilities without knowing how they get from their sexy beginnings to their stark-contrast ends. Followers of either of these two reason-loving philosophies would turn in their metaphysical badges in a heartbeat if it were shown conclusively that the real-world consequences of their beliefs put into action were pernicious to humanity.
First, we can judge utility empirically. Is laissez-faire capitalism good and useful? Do compassion and collectivism make our lives better? There are 231 years of data to examine. I submit that asking whether Objectivism trumps Naturalism is equivalent to asking whether modern American conservatism trumps modern American liberalism, in terms of which is a better (fairer, more effective, stabler, whatever . . .) guiding philosophy for governance. I am going to flesh out a thorough and coherent argument on this topic. And this suit is black.
My point is that the utility of each philosophy is something that is still hotly contested now, and although I know the answer, I prefer the Socratic method of teaching and will let 80 years of life on Earth draw it out of my readers.
Second, let's do the crazy thing and deny the philosophies' strong premises. How useful are these philosophies in an irrational world? This is going to sound a lot like Pascal's Wager, which is horrendous, but hear me out. The consequences of Objectivism are only good ideas if its basic premise is true: take away a reality that is accessible to each man, and you take away the heroic Man, his Tool of Reason, his perfection-fulfilling Drive of Self-Interest. You replace them with devious Man, his Affliction of Imperfect Understanding, and his destruction-leading-to Drive of Various Interests, and suddenly the resulting Objectivist ideas of individual choice and consequences and anti-collectivism don't seem likely to produce the best situation for human life on Earth.
The conclusions of Naturalism, on the other hand, actually rest on firmer ground if its basic premise is denied. That is, Naturalism is generous to rational people, but appealing to them is equivalent to jumping through hoops. Naturalism essays regularly reiterate their reliance on nothing but cold hard atoms in the void. They have to reiterate this, because Naturalism draws conclusions that are coherent with belief in God, purpose, order, and even Love. So if skeptical rationalists are all wrong and there are spirits and magick and dualism, the conclusions of Naturalism emerge unscathed - they are good ideas for either conception of Reality.
I discovered Naturalism after reading this essay. I have long wanted to write an essay on what I think happens to us when we die, but I have had tremendous trouble putting it into words. (To those who say it doesn't matter, I say "Go to Hell.") Thomas W. Clark almost exactly illustrates my thoughts on the subject. His argument still has the same weak point mine would, were I to articulate it, but I found the essay last night in a book I bought for freshman-year philosophy class, and I would have believed you if you'd told me Thomas W. Clark has a time machine and went to the future and copied the text right out of a Turdlog post from 2022 or so.
posted by john at
10:57 AM
0 Comments
