Like my last two posts, this post will be another response to an issue that came up in Russell Glasser and Matt Dillahunty’s “Objecting to Objectivism” episode. This time the issue is objective reality. If you want more of a background into the show or why I’ve written these, you can read my last post on cooperation here or the previous post on “rational self-interest” here.

What they said

Starting around minute 40 (click here to get the video), Glasser moved to the issue of Objectivism’s stance on objectivity. The quote Glasser used is from Chapter 4 of Leonard Peikoff’s book, “Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.” He started the conversation with (transcript and emphasis by me):

Glasser: Leonard Peikoff, who is kinda of a disciple of Ayn Rand, and is responsible for a whole lot of material that has been published about Objectivism, mentions what is meant by objective reality. He says,

Peikoff: People often speak of “objective reality.” In this usage, which is harmless, “objective” means “independent of consciousness.” The actual purpose of the concept, however, is to be found not in metaphysics, but in epistemology. Strictly speaking, existents are not objective; they simply are. It is minds, and specifically conceptual processes, that are objective—or nonobjective.

Glasser: That seems ass-backwards to me. What he’s saying is [...] that the external world isn’t necessarily objective, but minds are. And that makes no sense.

Dillahunty: Well, I think he’s using language. I agree that it doesn’t make any sense, the second part.

Glasser: Yeah.

Dillahunty: But when he says, strictly speaking, existents are not objective, I think he’s saying — and not we’re getting back to word usage — I think he’s saying that they’re not objective in the sense that they’re talking about. When he says they simply are then, that goes back to the A is A thing.

Glasser: Yeah, right.

Dillahunty: Which we would agree with. A is definitely A.

Glasser: A is certainly A. I have no complaint about that.

Dillahunty: A is not A-ok. It’s just A.

Like their other objections to Objectivism, they’re not presenting any real idea or position that Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff made. And on top of that, they’re not even having a real discussion of the ideas. What doesn’t make sense about his quote? What is their position on objective reality, or even their opinion on how the phrase should be used? Does that phrase give a proper definition of Objectivism’s stance on objectivity? Who knows. They just lifted one out-of-context quote by Leonard Peikoff, called it “ass-backward” and said it made no sense, made a joke about “A is A,” and then moved on.

What Leonard Peikoff wrote

I think this is another case where adding just a little bit more of what Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff wrote could have steered the conversation in a completely (and more relevent) path and gave a more accurate presentation of Objectivism to their viewers and listeners. And like their other points, they wouldn’t have had to look very far. I’ll offer the same quote Glasser presented, but add the paragraph before it (emphasis mine):

Thus we reach Ayn Rand’s view of objectivity, which is a derivative of her theory of concepts. Here, in my own words, is her definition. To be “objective” in one’s conceptual activities is volitionally to adhere to reality by following certain rules of method, a method based on facts and appropriate to man’s form of cognition.

People often speak of “objective reality.” In this usage, which is harmless, “objective” means “independent of consciousness.” The actual purpose of the concept, however, is to be found not in metaphysics, but in epistemology. Strictly speaking, existents are not objective; they simply are. It is minds, and specifically conceptual processes, that are objective—or nonobjective.

If Glasser wanted to offer an explanation of what Objectivists mean by “objective reality,” wouldn’t Ayn Rand’s definition of what she means by “objective” help? Don’t these two paragraphs really belong together? You’ll have to ask Glasser why he excluded this, because I don’t understand.

And just to offer a little more context, here is the next paragraph Peikoff wrote (emphasis mine):

The concept of “objectivity” is essential to a rational epistemology; it is a requirement of the proper development of human consciousness and, ultimately, of human survival. (The elements of objectivity in Aristotle’s philosophy, even though incomplete and inconsistently formulated, enabled the West to achieve science and an industrial civilization.) A conceptual consciousness must focus on reality by a deliberate resolve, and it must discover and then choose to practice the method required to implement this resolve.

Objectivism holds that reason is man’s basic means of survival. No matter how different each of us may be, we still have to use reason to direct our actions in such a way that we can live. Objectivity is essential to that.

My Take

Ok, so I can’t help myself. I’m a “white board” kind of guy, and I’ve used drawings in previous blog posts to try to offer a simpler way to present an idea. And I don’t know about you, but I have trouble keeping my eyes focused when I read blog posts as big as this one. When I heard Glasser’s “that the external world isn’t necessarily objective, but minds are. And that makes no sense.” response to Leonard Peikoff’s quote, an example popped in my head.

Let’s say that two guys come across a rock while walking. And they have different reactions:

Leonard Peikoff wrote “Strictly speaking, existents are not objective; they simply are. It is minds, and specifically conceptual processes, that are objective—or nonobjective.” I think this is an example of that. One of the guys looks at the situation objectively. He gathers data from his senses and comes to the correct conclusion. He says, “That’s a rock,” and nothing else. But the other takes a different approach. Instead of using the data he got from his senses, he added his own made-up belief and made a statement that has no relation to reality at all. He is not being objective.

But note: Nothing the two said about the rock changed its nature. The rock just is. So, Guy A is objective. Guy B is not objective. But the rock just *is.*

Now let’s pretend that there’s a big accident.

Judging by the X’s over their eyes, I think the accident killed both of them. Now that they’re gone, can you say the rock objective? Is the rock not objective? Neither. The concept “objective” is applicable only to each of the guy’s focus on reality, which neither are capable of doing any longer.

Subjective values

Glasser finished his “discussion” on Objectivist objectivity with the following:

Glasser: One of my central objections to Objectivism is the treatment of, is the sort of declaration that everything should be objective. That not only is the physical world objective, but there are values which everybody must have, and there are no real subjective values. If there are, it’s basically the result of bad thinking that’s not in line with Objectivism.

I don’t understand what he means by “values which everybody must have,” and it would have been nice if he had listed one. If he had, though, I think he would have started down a path that he ignored earlier in the show (check out the first post I wrote on self-interest). And if he wanted to discuss those things, he wouldn’t have left out so many relevant parts of Ayn Rand’s writing. I won’t go into this all right now, but I’ll just throw this out: If you choose to live as a human, there are certain values that you must have — and act upon them. For example, if you want to eat, you’ll need to value productivity — and be productive at least to the point that you can sustain yourself. Those rules are set by reality, not Ayn Rand. Objectivists are for living (well), and that’s the context in which they say people must value something.

I don’t understand what he means by “subjective values.”

Up next

Now that I think about it, my drawings above (and how I illustrated the death of two innocent individuals) is a good lead-in to the next issue from the show I will address: The train wreck in Atlas Shrugged. If you haven’t read the book, you might want to skip it.

Part 1: Objecting to Objectivism – The King’s Rational Self-Interest?
Part 2: Objecting to Objectivism – Cooperation
Part 3: Objecting to Objectivism – Objective Reality
Part 4: Objecting to Objectivism – The Train Scene
Part 5: Objecting to Objectivism – Teaching, Altruism, and the Profit Motive
Part 6: Objecting to Objectivism – Did Ayn Rand Read Kant?
Part 7: Objecting to Objectivism: Matt Doesn’t Like the Book He Didn’t Read

Yesterday in my post titled “Objecting to Objectivism – The King’s Rational Self-Interest?” I addressed how the Matt Dillahunty and Russel Glasser from “The Atheist Experience” got Ayn Rand’s position on “rational self-interest” all wrong in their “Objecting to Objectivism” episode. The problems go further than that, though, so as promised here’s another point brought up: Cooperation.

The issue of cooperation was brought up only briefly, but I think it’s worth mentioning for a couple reasons. First, what was said ran so contrary against what Ayn Rand had said about cooperation, it deserves a response just to get the facts straight. And when I say this I’m not just talking about statements from Ayn Rand that one would have to dig deep into her books to find, but from the very statement that Dillahunty and Glasser had just been discussing. And second, it’s an excuse to talk about an Objectivist idea that I otherwise probably wouldn’t write about.

What they said

Matt Dillahunty, somewhere around the 25-minute-or-so mark made the following statement (transcript and emphasis mine):

The thing that I have a problem with, in regards to number four, is the ideas, while they’re not particularly backed up initially, also seem kinda of sophomoric and short-sighted in the sense that there seems to be this big assumption that “I’ve thought about this, and I’ve concluded that this is the best way for everybody to live.” And it ignores, in my opinion, both the necessity of a cooperative society, the necessity of structure within that cooperative society, and the benefits that come from that. And how those benefits can benefit the individual as well as the group.

He didn’t define what he meant by “cooperative society,” but I think it’s fair to probably assume he means a society in which people work together for some common goal. I’m not sure what else it could mean. Now take that idea and compare it to what Ayn Rand said in “number 4″ he had just mentioned, which was a point in Ayn Rand’s essay “Introducing Objectivism” in which she said:

It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.

So, everybody deals with one another as traders, free to work together for mutual benefit… how can that be anything but cooperative? If two people want to cooperate with one another to do something, they can. If they don’t want to, they don’t. Even if one disagrees with that type of free society, that one sentence of Ayn Rand’s is enough to throw away the idea that she “ignores the necessity of a cooperative society.”

Dillahunty also said that Objectivism ignores the necessity of structure within a cooperative society. Compare that to the next two sentences in the “number 4″ he just mentioned:

It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders.

How are laws that bar the use of physical force between individuals not considered as “structure?” Again, regardless of whether one agrees with Ayn Rand’s position, Dillahunty’s statements about Objectivism are not true. Objectivists are not anarchists. Objectivists hold that a government is necessary specifically for the purpose of protecting individual rights.

What Ayn Rand said about “Cooperation”

Ayn Rand wrote specifically about cooperation a number of times. Thanks to the Objectivist Research CD, I was able to quickly find a couple choice quotes and let Ayn Rand speak for herself.

From “Letters of Ayn Rand,” chapter 6:

Only free, independent men can cooperate and feel benevolence toward one another. But they can do it only because (and only so long as) they know that cooperation will involve no pain or injury to them—that is, no demand for self-sacrifice.

But cooperation cannot be placed first, in the sense of saying that we must cooperate with others—if by cooperation you mean acting in a common enterprise. There are instances when we wish to act together with others—and instances when we prefer to act alone. Here again, how would you apply it concretely, if you preached cooperation as a general rule of conduct, as a conscious policy to be adopted by every man? If the community in which I live needs me and wants me to be a night watchman for them, and I want to be a writer—do I have to cooperate?

Cooperation is not and cannot be a conscious, deliberate consideration, or a rule of conduct, or a set policy. It’s a consequence—call it a natural result, if you wish—of voluntary association among men, each acting in his own interest. The overall result of each pursuing his own interest will be a society of peaceful, harmonious cooperation—such as a capitalist society. But it’s not done through any “will to cooperate”—only through pursuing one’s own interests, while respecting the same right in those with whom we deal.

And from “The Journals of Ayn Rand,” Chapter 9:

Collectivism is compulsion. Compulsion and cooperation are not synonyms. They are opposites. Collectivism is group action by decree—and in matters where no group action is possible. Cooperation is a highly complex division of individual labor. Collectivism is not division, but herd action, in theory—and a gun stuck in your back in practice. You don’t cooperate at the point of a gun. Only free men can cooperate.

Dillahunty said that Ayn Rand “ignored” the necessity of cooperation. Given the quotes above, how could his assertion be defended. Agree or disagree with Ayn Rand — “cooperation” was not ignored.

Final Note

Perhaps I am being a little picky with this one statement by Dillahunty, especially given the fact that it might have been made off-the-cuff on a television show. He didn’t have the use of the backspace key that I used repeatedly as I wrote this blog post. Still, he was wrong, and this is another example as to how he and his co-host did not give an accurate presentation of Objectivism. Like I said in yesterday’s post, it’s as if the two are discussing what they *think* Objectivism is instead of what Ayn Rand put into her books.

There’s more, too. I’m in the mood to write this week, so I’ll continue soon. The next post will be either on their criticism of a statement by Leonard Peikoff on objective reality or of Glasser’s position on the meaning of the train wreck in Atlas Shrugged.

Part 1: Objecting to Objectivism – The King’s Rational Self-Interest?
Part 2: Objecting to Objectivism – Cooperation
Part 3: Objecting to Objectivism – Objective Reality
Part 4: Objecting to Objectivism – The Train Scene
Part 5: Objecting to Objectivism – Teaching, Altruism, and the Profit Motive
Part 6: Objecting to Objectivism – Did Ayn Rand Read Kant?
Part 7: Objecting to Objectivism: Matt Doesn’t Like the Book He Didn’t Read

I came across a podcast titled “Objecting to Objectivism” last week. This podcast was an audio cut from an episode of “The Atheist Experience,” a weekly cable-access show in Austin. On this episode hosts Matt Dillahunty and Russel Glasser, as you can guess from the title, discussed their disagreements with Objectivism for almost 90 minutes. It was recorded just three months ago, and the audio and video can be found through the archive section of their website or through Google Video.

I am an Objectivist, so obviously I disagree with the position the two have taken. However, I don’t have a problem with their opinion of Objectivism as much as I have a problem with how they’ve presented Objectivism. I don’t think the two have much knowledge of what Objectivism actually is (Dillahunty even admitted that he hadn’t read Atlas Shrugged), so the show is more about their objections to what they perceive Objectivism to be rather than what it actually is. If they had looked past a basic introduction to the philosophy they would have found that Ayn Rand had addressed their objections or offered further clarification on what she actually meant. Dillahunty and Glasser probably still wouldn’t agree with Ayn Rand, but they’d at least be able to host a real discussion of the merits of Objectivism.

What They Said

The best example of how a deeper look into Ayn Rand’s own writings might have made a better show is how the two discussed Rand’s use of the phrase “rational self-interest.” Glasser read the following point from Ayn Rand’s article titled “Introducing Objectivism” in the Objectivist Newsletter (and in the Voice of Reason):

“3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

Glasser said that he thought that Ayn Rand was mixing values and the objective reality she mentioned in earlier points, and the conversation let to this (my transcript):

Dillahunty: Rational self-interest is not clearly defined within this context. What you may consider to be in your best self-interest and consider it rational, someone might object to it.

Glasser: Let me throw out an example. What if someone a guy wants to sacrifice himself for somebody else? Who the hell is Ayn Rand to tell him that he can’t do that?

Dillahunty: It would be a free expression of her opinion that he is not acting consistently with her moral values.

Glasser went on to read Ayn Rand’s next point in the article in which Ayn Rand stated that she advocated capitalism. Glausser replied,

Glasser: To take an extreme example, you might say that a monarchy is not an ideal system. But like Mel Brooks said, it’s good to be the king. And if you’re going to say the ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism and not monarchy, I think the king wouldn’t agree with that. It really depends on whose point of view you’re talking from.

Dillahunty: Or what the goal is.

Glasser: Right. What the goal is. And the goal is something that ought to be discussed way before we get to the idea of evaluating what is the ideal system.

What Objectivism States

It is true that Ayn Rand’s introduction to her philosophy needed more context, which is probably why Ayn Rand stated that the article was the “briefest” summary of her opinion and was to be taken as a frame of reference for future columns. But still, I think she gave a clue with the following statement (emphasis mine):

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.

The clue there would be “life.” Glasser and Dillahunty both agreed that a goal needs to be discussed, but they didn’t identify the goal Ayn Rand identified repeatedly in her writings: man’s life. As Leonard Peikoff wrote in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (emphasis mine):

Ayn Rand upholds rational self-interest. This means the ethics of selfishness, with man’s life as the standard of value defining “self-interest,” and rationality as the primary virtue defining the method of achieving it.

And from her essay Man’s Rights:

The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

The questions Dillahunty and Glasser were good, but they just didn’t know (or mention) that Ayn Rand had answered them.

Who’s point of view? A human being.
What’s the goal? Living on earth.
How do we go about it? Freedom of each human being to exercise his means of living.
What political-economic system allows for that? One that protects every individual’s ability to live, given the facts above.

Needless to say, kings are people, too. I’m not an expert in history by any means, but I do know that kings and dictators haven’t always lived happy or long lives. Their royalty might give them the ability to steal, hurt, or kill their “subjects,” but that doesn’t change the fact that stealing, thuggery, and murder are not ways to survive. Monarchy, as a political-economic system, removes each individual’s ability (both the king’s and his subjects) to live according to their means of survival: Their reason.

Almost There

If you listen to the portion of the podcast that I mentioned above, you’ll soon afterwards hear Dillahunty mention that Ayn Rand had more essays in which she further explained her position. He also said that he might even agree that if the goal is freedom, individualism, and the encouragement of individual rights is the goal, then laissez-faire capitalism might be best. Those goals might seem closer to Ayn Rand’s position, but it’s still not there. Like capitalism, you still have to determine the goal before knowing that freedom, individualism, and individual rights are good things. And if Dillahunty knew about the positions she had made in other essays, why not bring them into the discussion? Even the few quotes included above would have given a more accurate presentation of Objectivism.

Final Point

Just to reiterate: I’m not trying to argue against what Dillahunty and Glasser stated or arguing for Objectivism by writing this. I just want to point out that the “Objecting to Objectivism” show had a few holes in its presentation of Objectivism. If one wants to discuss the merits of anything they should first identify what that thing is, and Dillahunty and Glasser missed some fundamental points with Objectivism. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t expect them to know everything about Objectivism before talking about it, but I think they should have offered their viewers a better explanation of what Objectivism is before they tried to tear it down.

They covered much more than “rational self-interest” in their show, and I’ll be writing soon on some other arguments they made that I disagree with. Next up: The issue of “cooperation.”

Part 1: Objecting to Objectivism – The King’s Rational Self-Interest?
Part 2: Objecting to Objectivism – Cooperation
Part 3: Objecting to Objectivism – Objective Reality
Part 4: Objecting to Objectivism – The Train Scene
Part 5: Objecting to Objectivism – Teaching, Altruism, and the Profit Motive
Part 6: Objecting to Objectivism – Did Ayn Rand Read Kant?
Part 7: Objecting to Objectivism: Matt Doesn’t Like the Book He Didn’t Read

I voted yesterday, but it was a spur-of-the-moment decision. Like I said earlier, my plan was to totally skip the voting booth this year. Since the decision to not to vote is usually attributed to laziness or cynicism (and usually that’s accurate), I want to take a few minutes to explain how I made my decision. It’s pretty simple, anyway:

It’s not worth my time.

I know that sounds like cynicism, but that’s not how I mean it. When I say that it’s not worth my time, it’s more of a statement of the high value I place on my time. I don’t have enough time in the day to do everything I want to do. Every night ends with a battle between my desire to keep going and the limits of my stamina. No matter what I’m doing — whether it’s working on a big project for work, watching a movie with my wife, programming on a side-project, writing a blog post, etc. — I always seem to want to do it 30 minutes longer than I can stay awake. When I eventually go to bed, I often fall asleep thinking about the time I lost and how I won’t let it happen the next day.

Whether or not that’s healthy, it’s who I am. That’s how I behave, and I do it because I want to. As the election got closer and I started to see huge lines for early voting, the biggest thought in my head was, “That’s one night I’m not getting [X] done,” with [X] being whatever I happened to be into that day. I started to resent Election Day, even! I believe that it’s best not to dwell on things that cause stress or discomfort, so in true GTD fashion I decided to make a hard, fast decision and relieve the pressure. I decided not to vote.

I’m still happy with that decision, and I would have kept with it if there was any wait at my voting station. Since there was no wait, I didn’t have to give up the rest of my plans for the night. And what a night it was! I had a nice, quiet dinner with my wife at a restaurant (oooh, Olive Garden!), I debated individual rights with my family at an Election Night party at my brother’s apartment, and I spent over an hour working on my always-going GTD project. And I made it to bed before midnight, too! How horrible would it have been to have to sacrifice any of those things just to cast a ballot for a group of people and issues that I don’t care for.

And for those that might not know what I mean by sacrifice, check out what Leonard Peikoff wrote in “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.”

Life requires that man gain values, not lose them. It requires assertive action, achievement, success, not abnegation, renunciation, surrender. It requires self-tending—in other words, the exact opposite of sacrifice.

A “sacrifice” is the surrender of a value, such as money, career, loved ones, freedom, for the sake of a lesser value or of a nonvalue (if one acquires an equal or a greater value from a transaction, then it is an even trade or a gain, not a sacrifice). A rational man, however, chooses his values and their hierarchical ranking not by whim, but by a process of cognition. To tell such a man to surrender his values is to tell him: surrender your judgment, contradict your knowledge, sacrifice your mind. But this is something a man dare not sacrifice.

Needless to say, I totally agree with that, and it’s a great way to live!

But what about participating in the work to make our country better? Isn’t that a value? Definitely, but I don’t think voting is a very effective way to cause *change* (this year’s magic word). Most of the work involved in voting is done BEFORE any votes are cast. Just look at the ballot and ask how it was created. Why did we have to choose between a Republican and a Democrat? Why people voting on whether all state documents have to be in English? Why are people voting on whether gay people can get married? And why did we ever have to vote on whether citizens would be taxed to refurbish the Kansas City Chief’s stadium? The real driving force between things like these are *ideas.* Ideas such as “Every man has a right to his life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property” or “I am my brother’s keeper!” or “I like football and you should pay for it.” The only way this country is going to get better is to get the objective, pro-human-survival ideas to trump the many of the other ideas that are popular today today. Based on this, I’d say that someone with a random opinion and the ability to pull a lever every 2-4 years does nothing when compared to someone with good, objective ideas and the ability to spread them to others.

I like to think that I’m one of the latter. Did I mention that through good, honest discussions about individual rights with friends and family, I convinced at least two people not to vote for Obama? Don’t tell me I didn’t have my say in this election!

For most of the year, I planned on voting “none of the above” for president through a write-in. Then, a few weeks ago when I was incredibly busy, I decided that I’d prefer to spend my free time on something else. Especially if it took hours of my time! However, when I drove past the voting area on the way home and say practically nobody there, so I stopped and voted. It took only a few minutes, especially because I left most of the ballot blank. I don’t mind sharing my votes:

For President: John Galt (write-in)
For Representative: Voted for the Republican running against Dennis Moore, whom I really don’t like. I don’t even remember the Republican’s name, though.
Voted against this year’s school tax raise.
Voted against tax for a “research triangle.”

Abstained on everything else.