Objectivists speak about rationality which opens Pandora’s Box!
You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
Why Can Objectivism Not Match The Liberty & Justice Of Subjectivism?
Objectivists speak about rationality which opens Pandora’s Box!
Unless there is some severe mental disorder all decisions are rational to the subjective person making the decision. All subjective decisions made by subjective human beings are rational whether some outsider assesses those decisions as rational or not. Objectivists do not recognize this degree of subjectivity and fall into the trap of deluding themselves into an ego-driven interpretation of rationality of someone who they can not possibly know or understand. If taken further the objectivist may even take the ego-driven step of some kind of modifying intervention to ‘right’ the ‘wrong’ of the ‘irrational’ subjective decision.
With these tendencies an objectivist can easily become a statist if they gain any authoritative power since their ego has convinced them that they know more about the subjective person than the persom themselves.
I make irrational decisions all the time… but maybe I only recognize them as irrational because I’m an objectivist and am able to critically evaluate my own subjective thoughts and experiences. It’s not rocket science, real = real, and beliefs are formed based on logic.
I’m pretty sure it’s not contradictory to objectivism to recognize that each individual has their own reality and is viewed through their own lense… I’m also kind of sure (correct me if I’m wrong) that the saying “perception is reality” comes directly from Ms. Rand’s teachings.
“It’s not rocket science, real = real, and beliefs are formed based on logic.”
“I’m pretty sure it’s not contradictory to objectivism to recognize that each individual has their own reality and is viewed through their own lense”
These two sentences seem to contradict. How does real = real in an objective sense if everyone has their own reality? How can you rise above your individual subjective lens to a higher, objective reality?
“It’s not rocket science, real = real, and beliefs are formed based on logic.” should be taken in full context – it is applied directly to the previous sentence, describing an objectivist. This is not contradictory to the second point, the fact that not everybody adheres to logic the way an objectivist does.
My point was that an objectivist logically realizes that not everybody uses logic and reason to the same extent as them. (I’m sorry I don’t know how to say that without being redundant)
To answer your question though, in my understanding, a person rises above their subjective lens and into an objective reality through emotional maturation. It’s nothing more than being able to rationally view oneself. A person can choose to maintain their self-awareness on an emotional level, fully recognizing how they “feel” and stopping right there – or a person can adhere to an objective reality by evaluating “why” they feel something in a rational way.
If I understand you right, you are saying:
The vast majority of humans are rational by nature. Those who are not are deficient in some manner, such as illness or lack of development. Therefore their decisions are rational by nature, though they can be illogical or found lacking in accomplishing the desired goal. Praxaeologically this is indisputable.
I agree with you on all of that. I disagree on what follows however. I’m not sure if Objectivists would necessarily dispute the above (if so, they need to read more Mises) and furthermore I don’t think their disputes with that would lead them to become dictatorial rights-invaders. I think the average Objectivist would focus on the logic of actions taken rather than anything else.
I noticed deep epistemological issues in your comment.
So you think that rationality is if individual came up with the “truth” that taking a heroin is purpose of his life? He’s free to that, but that doesn’t mean that it’s rational. Subjectivism holds that truth is whatever an individual’s consciousness deems it to be—there are various versions: Society, mystical creature or each individual making up their own “truth”. I may sound extreme but subjectivism is really a negation of life.
“Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind.”
Objectivism is about “rational egoism”. I think many people are confused about what Ayn Rand said: “purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.” This doesn’t mean that we should be irrational about our desires. It’s about pursuing rational, long-term goals. Being a statist is not a rational self-interested action since it’s a contradiction in the terms of the rights, morality and reality. Rights are also objective because they rest on identifications of facts in reality.
It all comes down to ethics.
We know only what we know and based on our experience and knowledge we make subjective decisions. An objectivist can only pretend to make the claim that my decision is rational or irrational. Based on my experience and knowledge, which the objectivist cannot possibly understand, the decision is rational unless there is a mental disturbance (influenced by alcohol, for example).
It is only valid to assume that people (not compromised) make rational but subjective decisions.
As far as ethics is concerned it is unethical to deprive a person of the stimulative opportunities to develop ethics as a result of their subjective choices simply because some ego-driven know-it-all claims that they can decide what is rational or irrational regardless of the fact that they have no understanding of that person’s knowledge or experiences.
Would objectivists become statists? They already assume that they know what is better (rational) for people than the individuals themselves. Give them some power and it is conceivable that they will not only be ego-driven interpreters (convinced that they know what others should do) but also find ways to set things straight (ego-driven interventionism).
… uhh… you keep using the word rational – and I really do not think it means what you think it means.
From Merriam Webster (and basically all iterations of the definition I’m finding are the same)
: based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings
: having the ability to reason or think about things clearly
So… why are you railing on about whether an objectivist thinks your decisions are rational are not? Are they based on facts or reason? If you are making decisions emotionally (as we all do from time to time) are you then able to evaluate those decisions reasonably and clearly?
Objectivism is founded so heavily in logic and reason that none of us can rightly deny that every individual’s perceptions taint their thinking. I mean… you are stating the obvious, are you not? Nobody here has said that each individual does not claim their own perception to reality based on their own subjective experiences.
Objectivism, when adopted as a philosophy in ones own life, simply means that we strive to behave rationally and to honor logic and reason when making our own decisions, and painting our own world view with that brush. OURS. Not yours.
Here’s a test for you Sarah: Let’s assume that an objectivist is also an atheist (there are many). Let’s assume that an individual makes decisions in their life in a way that includes faith in God in whatever myriad ways that can be appreciated by this person.
The atheist objectivist would adamantly think (and perhaps say) that the person’s subjective decision is actually irrational.
In fact the objectivist may be so convinced in the objectivist methodology that they use it in combination with their senses to deny the existence of God and then claim that that is the only ‘rational’ conclusion.
It is so much more favorable to liberty and justice to simply adopt the human reality of subjectivism and leave all the judgmental nature behind.
Subjectivity can never lead to a consistent outcome of justice, ever. Quantification is requisite to accountability, accountability is requisite to justice. Only objective assessment can discern quantification. Objectivity=quantification=accountability=justice.
You have also ignored my assessment of the nature of objective reality, apparently since I didn’t post it on this spur of the thread, so I will pst it again…
There exists objective reality. 2+2=4 is not a subjective equation, as in our reality it is always a truism. Correspondingly, there are physics phenomena that I can show you through demonstration and predict the outcome with extreme precision prior to the demonstration. This is by any but the most liberal interpretation of the word, objective. The ‘everything is subjective’ crowd seizes on the inability of mankind to fully understand his surroundings, and to not have capacity to fully experience all natural phenomena, and runs with it to the conclusion that we can never know anything for certain. Yet, I just expressed to you instances where I can predict, and then demonstrate knowledge of great understanding, many times with 100% accuracy. But the real crux of Objectivism is that there exists, for any practical purpose, a reality that we can discern, and it doesn’t do us any service to wish that reality wasn’t so. Learning to accept that reality, and our place in it, leads us to the best expression of our capacities, and thereby the happiest, most fruitful life possible. Coincidentally, I don’t know a single person that identifies as an Objectivist that doesn’t lead a generally happy existence, while I know plenty of people who identify as literally any other political persuasion, that are constantly complaining about their lot and their life. Why is that, do you think?
“Subjectivity can never lead to a consistent outcome of justice, ever.” which means if I can even show that it happens once then that statement is proven incorrect.
Every time a person who has no knowledge of the reason and circumstances of an individual’s choice, yet a judgment is passed even to the extent where among certain people the merit of the individuals’ decision-making is called into suspicion, every time (consistently) this happens there is an injustice and conversely every time such an injustice does not happen (appreciation of human subjectivity) justice consistently occurs.
“it doesn’t do us any service to wish that reality wasn’t so” and so to expect humans to fall in the same category as a mathematical equation or a physical law pertaining to an object with no free will does us no service since the reality is that humans are subjective beings. Otherwise according to your reasoned ‘reality’ you cannot change your patterns or decisions which is in no way realistic and of no service according to the same reason given.
What is the consequence if an objectivist does in fact adamantly assert that your decision to believe in God is irrational? You are what… not considered by that person to be an objectivist? So what? You’re obviously not trying to “be” one anyways. Atheists of all philosophical backgrounds like to go on and on about the irrationality of God… it’s not exactly exclusive to objectivism. I’m pretty sure your primary issue then lies with atheists.
I’m not an atheist, nor a christian, nor an agnostic (if it makes any difference). Other objectivists might claim I can’t possibly employ their philosophy to its fullest extent because I don’t embrace atheism. Do I care? Nope. Not one bit. That little hiccup certainly isn’t going to cause me to abandon reason, logic, and objectivity.
You might find this article I wrote a while ago interesting:
Both science and religion are victims of the ego-driven interpreters. The most visible example of the ego-driven interpreter in the science of praxeology is the objectivists claim to be able to decide what is rational.
“Subjectivity can never lead to a consistent outcome of justice, ever.”
Because I try my best to be objective in my approaches, I purposefully qualified this statement with the word “consistent,” so by all means, find an approach to justice that includes the subjective application of logic that consistently gets it right, and I will concede the point.
“…and so to expect humans to fall in the same category as a mathematical equation or a physical law pertaining to an object with no free will does us no service since the reality is that humans are subjective beings. Otherwise according to your reasoned ‘reality’ you cannot change your patterns or decisions which is in no way realistic and of no service according to the same reason given.”
I never once claimed that we couldn’t alter our behavior, and you either purposefully, or ignorantly removed the context of the contention in order to make your point. This is called a strawman argument, and it is very bad form. What I said is that objective reality exists, as demonstrated by our understanding of mathematics and physics, among other scientific disciplines. The world actually operates in a manner that we can discern, and the Objectivist takes that objective reality into consideration when approaching their own behaviors, because wishing it wasn’t so is illogical.
The simple reality of all of this is that subjectivity is what the politician subsists on, and they use subjectivity in order to defend the inflation of the money supply, in order to keep drugs illegal, in order to run up huge deficits, and in order to accomplish nearly all of the OBJECTIVELY negative policies that our government practices. Subjectivity allows for the abstracts that these behaviors rest on to take hold in the public consciousness as ‘reality,’ and only objectivity can combat these objectively destructive behaviors.
I disagree – any number of dictionaries also claim to decide what is rational as well, as demonstrated by the definition provided earlier.
A decision is rational if it is based on logic and reason, and not emotion. A person is considered rational if they are able to clearly employ thinking and reasoning.
I see no malice in that.
I never denied the value of objectivity, rather I deny the objectivist’s claim that they have they ability to classify ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ decisions by subjective individuals. They can never claim to have the information that would make that classification possible and so to make the claim anyway is a delusion and an injustice towards those who were inappropriately classified by these ego-driven interpreters.
If people are making subjective decisions that are contrary to the advancement of civilization then things can be done to improve the knowledge and experiences so that the subjective decisions are better.
Politicians are ego-driven and couldn’t care less about the subjective valuation of people.
I can classify rational or irrational by using logic and reason. If you say that believing in god is rational, or making up your own “truth” is considered a reasonable action, i know that you have epistemological issues. Subjectivism is the moral code of grayness. It’s not black or white, it’s in between. The morality of relativism. Therefor, social subjectivism claims that there is no evil or good and that no one can say what’s evil and what’s good.
Regarding politicans: you are completely missing the facts. They are usually extremely morally relative. Moral relativism is typical for “modern socialists”. I will soon write an article regarding this topic.
“I can classify rational or irrational by using logic and reason” for yourself. But then that is a subjective choice and a subjective decision that others may not share and which you may feel differently about some time later.
I am not talking about ‘social’ anything and definitely not social subjectiveness (which makes no sense). A human being is subjective and a human being acts (decides).
Moral relativity is the consequence of separation from that which is Absolute and that is the consequence of ego-driven interpretation within each Age and over the ages.
At the level of the individual we know absolutely that individuals make decisions subjectively and we know that those who claim to know something that is impossible to know (the unique subjectivity of the individual at that time and place based on the knowledge and experiences up until that moment) are exercising moral relativity.
Bruce, i can see that you are talking about relative knowledge, with your statement, you are claiming that any form of knowledge should be used in a relative terms without any thought about long term outcomes? That means, your justification for immoral actions will be “because i know”? Haha, it’s funny, i’m sorry. 🙂
Just because you created your own “truth” it doesn’t mean that it’s rational. You can be hardly convinced that it’s rational, but according to the facts of reality, it’s not. It’s not about “what objectivists know what others should do” you are sounding like objectivists are using force to apply their ideas, haha.
Scepticism is indeed absence of rationality and in the outcomes, it’s similar to mysticism.
“Ego-driven-know-it-all” what do you imply with this?
There exists objective reality. 2+2=4 is not a subjective equation, as in our reality it is always a truism. Correspondingly, there are physics phenomena that I can show you through demonstration and predict the outcome with extreme precision prior to the demonstration. This is by any but the most liberal interpretation of the word, objective. The ‘everything is subjective’ crowd seizes on the inability of mankind to fully understand his surroundings, and to not have capacity to fully experience all natural phenomena, and runs with it to the conclusion that we can never know anything for certain. Yet, I just expressed to you instances where I can predict, and then demonstrate knowledge of great understanding, many times with 100% accuracy. But the real crux of Objectivism is that there exists, for any practical purpose, a reality that we can discern, and it doesn’t do us any service to wish that reality wasn’t so. Learning to accept that reality, and our place in it, leads us to the best expression of our capacities, and thereby the happiest, most fruitful life possible. Coincidentally, I don’t know a single person that identifies as an Objectivist that doesn’t lead a generally happy existence, while I know plenty of people who identify as literally any other political persuasion, that are constantly complaining about their lot and their life. Why is that, do you think?
