What is the difference between open and closed objectivism
Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
Nice digression. The lead post claimed that Rand "drew upon," i.e., made use of, ideas from Locke and Darwin, not that she was simply "consistent with" those ideas. I see nothing Darwinian in Objectivism as expressed by Miss Rand. Doubtless there are many admirers of Rand and Objectivism who adhere to Darwinism, and doubtless they read Darwinism into Objectivism (and Objectivism into Darwinism). But that's their problem.
As for your Rand quote, note that it is also "consistent with" Sir Francis Crick's view that terrestrial life could have been intelligently designed by space aliens for reasons unknown. That, too, is "consistent with" Rand's statement that reason is man's essential nature and that he requires reason in order to survive. "Requiring reason to survive" does not automatically entail Darwinism.
>You could find almost the exact same logic in a book on evolution.
What logic? The idea that living things use their most effective attributes to survive and propagate is perceptually and experientially obvious and pre-dates Darwin by thousands of years.
You have zero evidence that Rand was influenced by Darwinism. She probably had to read some Darwin in her university studies in Russia but that's about it. You're also a bit weak on intellectual history. Herbert Spencer's ideas on "survival of the fittest" appeared first; Darwin incorporated them into his ideas on biological speciation (so it's not really "social Darwinism," but "biological Spencerism"). What you're really saying, though you appear not to be aware of it, is that Rand was influenced by Herbert Spencer — which I believe she was not.
>. . She was clearly influenced by the ideas of evolution and incorporated them into her ethics.
Rational selfishness and egoism have nothing to do with Spencer's "survival of the fittest."
The idea that “In order to sustain its life, every living species has to follow a certain course of action required by its nature” this is consistent with Crick's is silly. Crick’s fundamental premise is not that all living species have certain needs in order to survive. But that is a basic premise of the selection principle of Evolution. You and Rand can deny it all you want, but that is like someone proving Pythagorean’s theorem, but saying they did not draw upon the ideas of Euclid, or calculating the escape velocity of an object from Earth but saying they did not draw from Newton’s ideas. The slight of hand is yours. The logic is clear.
Nice digression. The lead post claimed that Rand "drew upon," i.e., made use of, ideas from Locke and Darwin, not that she was simply "consistent with" those ideas. I see nothing Darwinian in Objectivism as expressed by Miss Rand. Doubtless there are many admirers of Rand and Objectivism who adhere to Darwinism, and doubtless they read Darwinism into Objectivism (and Objectivism into Darwinism). But that's their problem.
As for your Rand quote, note that it is also "consistent with" Sir Francis Crick's view that terrestrial life could have been intelligently designed by space aliens for reasons unknown. That, too, is "consistent with" Rand's statement that reason is man's essential nature and that he requires reason in order to survive. "Requiring reason to survive" does not automatically entail Darwinism.
>You could find almost the exact same logic in a book on evolution.
What logic? The idea that living things use their most effective attributes to survive and propagate is perceptually and experientially obvious and pre-dates Darwin by thousands of years.
You have zero evidence that Rand was influenced by Darwinism. She probably had to read some Darwin in her university studies in Russia but that's about it. You're also a bit weak on intellectual history. Herbert Spencer's ideas on "survival of the fittest" appeared first; Darwin incorporated them into his ideas on biological speciation (so it's not really "social Darwinism," but "biological Spencerism"). What you're really saying, though you appear not to be aware of it, is that Rand was influenced by Herbert Spencer — which I believe she was not.
>. . She was clearly influenced by the ideas of evolution and incorporated them into her ethics.
Rational selfishness and egoism have nothing to do with Spencer's "survival of the fittest."
“The Copenhagen interpretation leads to the most astonishing set of contradictions that ever existed in science. Those contradictions are usually presented under the name of paradoxes because that expression seems less absurd. In simple terms, the Copenhagen interpretation leads to observations that clearly imply three unsurmountable difficulties,
a) negation of causality
b) negation of realism and
c) involvement of infinite and imaginary velocities or masses.”
(Note the author was a Phd professor of physics in Canada)
He points out that Heinsenberg stated:
“Heisenberg [1.5] states clearly:
"The law of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory."”
I will not point out all the absurdities of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM but suffice it to say that many physicists never agreed with the Copenhagen including Einstein and Schrodinger. Feynman also struggled with the Copenhagen interpretation. A number of problems have arisen in QM because of this interpretation including where does spin come from, the infinite electric forces necessary for a point mass, and elephants spontaneously appearing out of thin air.
My interpretation of QM was that the Heinsenberg uncertainty principle required a statistical interpretation. Note that there have been a number of critiques of the uncertainty principle and the best interpretation as of today is that it just a result of a wave as opposed to the point mass of the Copenhagen interpretation.
The above cited book shows that the Copenhagen gang drew heavily on the philosophy of Kant, Hegel and Berkley (I do not know of him). The also drew heavily on the philosophical atomists from Democritus on. However, neither the math nor experimental evidence required this interpretation.
My personal opinion is that we will find that ultimately everything is a wave and not a point particle.
In conclusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM flies in the face of 400 years of western science that A is A and that causality exists. In fact a literal interpretation of Copenhagen interpretation leads to the absurd result that there is no causality, so anything can happen. This defeats the whole concept of experimental science and like other proponents of irrationality even the proponents did not take their ideas seriously.
I will break up my response between evolution and QM.
Here is what Rand said (see the lexicon)
Man’s essential characteristic is his rational faculty. Man’s mind is his basic means of survival—his only means of gaining knowledge . . . .
In order to sustain its life, every living species has to follow a certain course of action required by its nature. The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival.
“What Is Capitalism?”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 16
Whether Rand admits it or not this statement is fundamentally consistent with Darwin and evolution. You could find almost the exact same logic in a book on evolution. . She was clearly influenced by the ideas of evolution and incorporated them into her ethics.
Darwin? She openly asserted that she knew little of "Darwin's theory" at a Ford Hall Forum lecture she gave. Note the word "theory". She never claimed evolution (specifically as conceived by Darwin) was a fact. Additionally, Darwinism is contrary to Aristotelianism; if Rand sided with the latter, she could not have sided with the former.
>>>The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is in complete contradiction with Rand and 400 years of western science.
Bunk. Four-hundred years of western science are founded on the non-Aristotelian principle of hypothesis plus experimentation to test the hypothesis. Aristotelian science is based on logical demonstration: locating the presumed "essence" or "essential characteristic" of phenomena.
Objectivists will have to accept the idea that randomness (or "chance") is itself a real causal principle in the universe — along with strict mechanical determinism and purposeful goal-directed action — and that their assumption that all statistical explanations can eventually be reduced to, and replaced by, strictly deterministic ones (in which the final state of a particle, or system of particles, at t=n, can be predicted with 100% certainty, by knowing with 100% certainty the state of the particle, or system of particles, at t=0 and some physical law, expressed by a mathematical function that describes the behavior of the particle for any value of "t") is a fantasy. Many statistical explanations can only be replaced by other statistical explanations, **ad infinitum**, and no state is ever reached in which the statistics can be abandoned in favor of a "certain", deterministic law. This is by the nature of things, and not because of a presumed lack of knowledge.
Additionally, one question asked by an audience member to Leonard Peikoff at one his "Philosophy of Objectivism" lectures in New York City many years ago — with Ayn Rand in attendance (sitting in the audience holding hands with Frank O'Connor) — was whether there can be any such thing as an "Objectivist science." Peikoff said, "No." Science is science. There can be such a thing as "Objectivist art" or an "Objectivist aesthetics," but not an "Objectivist science." There is no "Objectivist physics" vs. "Quantum physics" or "Objectivist chemistry" vs. "Quantum chemistry."
>>>If Objectivism is going to be a meaningful philosophy it has to be an open philosophy in the sense that it is not just about what Rand said – it is about the principles she laid out.
If it is to be a philosophy at all, and not a cult or a religion, then Objectivists have to accept the idea that Ayn Rand *might* be wrong on this or that issue, or that her philosophy might be wrong on this or that issue.
If the philosophy of Objectivism is closed, then it is a dead philosophy. Here are some of my humble suggestions where Objectivism can be expanded or refined. I think it is fair to say that Rand drew upon the ideas of Locke and Darwin, even though she gave them no credit. I think the ideas of Rand can be used to define a system of economics that is consistent with her ideas. (Note I do not believe, nor did she that Austrian Economics or Adam Smith were completely consistent with Objectivism) I think her ideas of ethics can be further refined by our knowledge of the nature of man, evolution, and entropy. I think physics is desperately in need of her ideas. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is in complete contradiction with Rand and 400 years of western science. Whether someone is an Objectivist or an idea is Objectivism has to be evaluated rationally on whether it is logically consistent with the fundamental principles of Objectivism. Gun Control is clearly not consistent with Objectivism, Christianity is clearly inconsistent with Objectivism, global warming regulations are clearly inconsistent with Objectivism, voting for a socialist like Barak Obama is completely inconsistent with Objectivism Other cases may be more difficult to evaluate. If Objectivism is going to be a meaningful philosophy it has to be an open philosophy in the sense that it is not just about what Rand said – it is about the principles she laid out.
You may find this article helpful, r.