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