An Ongoing Discussion Between a Young Man and Old Klaus
Part 2
Please click here to read the first part.
Please click here to read the third part.
Friend: Ha! Francisco blew up his entire organization! What a glorious reaction by James Taggart!
Klaus: Hell yeah!
--------------
Friend: I've seen you discuss the concept of metaphysics in various posts on Facebook, and I've been trying to get a grasp on what that entails. I've read some brief essays written on the subject, discussing the various ways in which Plato, Aristolte, and Socrates theorized. From what I have read, the physics of existence seems to be a broad subject that is not-so-easily defined.
Klaus: Metaphysics. It's not really well-described as "the physics of existence". Forget the "physics" part there, in the modern sense. It does not mean that. Metaphysics, in the Objectivist conception of philosophy, is the broadest, most general study of existence -- apart from the way the specialized sciences study things.
Issues in metaphysics are things like identity and causality -- principles which are presupposed by the specialized sciences. Another topic is the relationship between external reality and inner consciousness. The very first chapter in LP's OPAR is all about metaphysics. It is the best one-source-stop I know of. But it's somewhat premature for you to read that now. So don't worry so much about this -- now! Just go on enjoying AS.
--------------------
Friend: I finished AS. I must say, I have learned more from that book than any classroom of a public institution could have taught me.
Klaus: WOW! Great to hear! That's how all readers should feel. It surely applies to me, too. But too many readers are too obtuse to grasp its greatness. And that was just your FIRST reading. Like fine wine or whiskey, it improves with the years.
So what do you want to read now -- based on what you know and your own interests? Personally, I would recommend you read TF. But the order of other readings is now somewhat optional. For non-fiction, you could tackle CUI or VOS or PWNI. All depending on your own interests.
Friend: TF is definitely the next work of fiction. I would like to delve deeper into an Objectivist view of religion. Rand went into great detail regarding capitalism and individual rights in AS, but there was little in regard to religion. Galt discussed it briefly during his radio speech but I believe I would enjoy a more precise analysis. Also, please expand those acronyms, for I do not know their meanings. :-)
Klaus: Acronyms! Heh! Sorry. I listed CUI on our public webpage -- I should add all the others, too. PWNI: Philosophy, Who Needs It?
AR has various insightful analyses of religion scattered across many essays. Offhand, I don't now recall a really one-stop source for that in her writings. She took many religious pot-shots all over. But in LP's OPAR there are many explicit discussions of religious ideas. Although I am not sure I want to recommend you dive into that tome yet.
Regarding your: "Rand went into great detail regarding capitalism and individual rights in AS, but there was little in regard to religion." Yes, for those two first issues are positive issues, where truth needs to be identified and explicated. But religion -- it's just a heap of false ideas, so it's really only a topic for refutation. Which was never AR's main concern in her writings. To make an analogy: Why did AR not spend much time on astrology and numerology? Because those are not fields of real human cognition -- it's just a lot of ancient errors.
Friend: I see. Inject enough positive ideas into people and the negative will work itself out on its own, i.e. reason will defeat non-reason. I determined the fallacies of religion on my own, through logic and reason, long before discovering Objectivism.
Klaus: Yes, that is pretty much AR's methodology. When I started grade school, at age seven, I had decided religion was "fairy-tales for grown-ups". And I've held onto that view pretty firmly ever since -- although I've elaborated on a few aspects.
Friend: That is a sensible determination. It is interesting to note how the novel's antagonists held on to their obviously flawed morality with such blindness and ferocity. The characters were obviously exaggerated slightly for effect, but the message is clear. Do people cling to their misguided ideologies because of a fear of being wrong, or is it something else? Perhaps an unwillingness to accept reality?
Klaus: Well, we humans -- old habits die hard! There is "psychological inertia" in us, especially for long-held, abstract ideas. People find it easy to change, say, their diet: it's simple, concrete, easily tried and with few perceived dangers. But to change one's moral convictions -- usually held since childhood and reinforced by one's whole culture? Far, faaaaaaaaaaaaar harder.
Friend: I'm well aware that social pressure is a major influence. But to see reality, to grasp its nature and see its beauty with your own eyes, and then turn away? Something else must be at war in that individual's mind.
Klaus: But something like "morality" is a high-level abstraction. We can't directly "see" it, like we can see flowers and kitty-cats.
Friend: I refer to reality in this case moreso than morality, e.g. the observable effects of one's decisions. In the novel, the nation had almost completely collapsed into anarchy. To see that reality, and then claim we need MORE government interference?
Klaus: Take a look at Venezuela. Almost collapse -- then they clamor for the same old ideas. Even at the point of near-collapse -- it is never self-evident or obvious WHAT exactly has gone wrong with a society nor HOW to change things for the better. History has shown this countless times. It's real.
Friend: So in the mind of the central planners, society has failed in spite of their efforts, not not because of them.
Klaus: Their moral ideals are still Good -- they cling to that. But either people are rotten or the Universe is rotten -- which thwarts their Good Ideals in actual practice. That is a common rationalization. It is very, very, VERY hard for most people to let go of of their old moral ideals. It is just is. You must accept that.
Friend: I suppose I can understand. It is a difficult realization to see the lies of your life unravel before you. I had a Jim Taggart-esque breakdown when I finally realized everything I thought I knew was a lie. Personally, I would experience it 100 times over in order to keep the knowledge I possess now, but many aren't so accepting of change. I generally despise cliché, but ignorance is bliss for many people.
Klaus: So it is. For many.
Friend: So, the next book shall be TF. I might read two at a time, so a good pair might be VOS, perhaps?
Klaus: If ethics is your main interest now -- yes, then VOS. And TF is a superb accompaniment to VOS. Or rather, the other way around! Bear in mind that TF was released 14 years earlier than AS. And many ideas in it are a little bit in the proto-stage, compared to her final statements in AS. It is also a very, very different novel from AS in countless ways.
Klaus: TF is my personal favorite -- because, in great part, I am an artist. And not a businessman, politician, academic or some other Big Epochal World person. Those latter people tend to prefer AS, as their personal favorite. There is of course no "right" or "wrong" favorite here -- it's utterly optional, based on one's own personality and values.
Friend: I'm sure I will enjoy it nonetheless. I will let you know when I begin reading it, which will likely be a few weeks.
------------
Friend: I'm ordering a few books from Amazon. I need one more to complete the requirement for free shipping, and I am considering Peikoff's Objective Communication. Have you read it?
Klaus: Yes. All of LP's stuff -- both lectures and books -- totally excellent. Go for it. Which other books are you getting?
Friend: VOS, PWNI, For the New Intellectual, Objective Communication, and CTUI.
Klaus: Super collection!
Friend: It should keep me busy for a few months. While I am reading them I will also be working on TF, which I will acquire in a week or two.
--------------
Friend: One particular argument I get from the American left is that the Constitution grants the government clear and exclusive power to tax. This is technically true, and arguments from a moral standpoint are thus ineffective. It seems all Americans, regardless of political belief, adhere very strongly to the power and infallibility of the Constitution.
My question is this: How can one argue objectively against such taxation, and in the face of such radical opposition?
Klaus: Those people all have what we Objectivists call an "intrincicist" view of the Constitution: Because those statements are found there, the claim is to be automatically regarded as True and Right. It's a religious view, actually: treating the statements of the US Constitution as revelations, never to be questioned or challenged.
However, there is nothing intrinsically right and good about that man-made document. It must be judged and evaluated logically and objectively -- like all human products resulting from human volition.
Friend: It has been said many times that certain aspects of "statism" are quite similar to religion. I had never made the connection between those beliefs and the Constitution as a sort of religious text.
Klaus: And when thus evaluated -- it can be identified as simply WRONG. it is just one more philosophically mistaken idea in human history. Intrincisism cuts across all domains, religious as well as secular. It is a false view of human cognition. For details: OPAR. So you see, this seemingly political idea -- it has its root in a false epistemological idea: the nature of conceptual cognition.
Cognition as passive revelation. That is my shortest possible summary of intrincisist epistemology.
Actually, "passive" is redundant there, I used it just to emphasize. But there is no "active" revelation, so the word is not needed. Of course, there is no actual revelation either! But it neatly names the attitude involved.
Friend: It would take a great deal of effort to reach even the most casual of "intrinsicists" with the concept of a fallible Constitution. The typical response is one informing the "dissenter" to vote if they wish to change the Constitution or national law.
Klaus: Yes. But that is a separate problem. Rational, objective cognition is often hard. And changing older people's automatized epistemology is almost always near-impossible.
Friend: Most of the individuals I speak with are in their twenties, and already quite firm in their various beliefs. There have been some who would have doubtlessly spat upon me if we had been speaking in person. Such venomous reactions are somewhat unsettling.
Klaus: Yes, around 25 or so -- that is "old" in this context. Most people's minds are then nothing but hardened arteries.
Friend: I have disagreed with much of his analysis of morality, but Dawkins goes into great detail regarding the Darwinian nature of "mind hardening" in The God Delusion. I think much of it carries over from religious convictions into various other aspects of our lives as well.
Klaus: Religion poisons everything. Including a great many of the attitudes of outright secular people.
Friend: So remove the influence of the state from our schools, and freedom will naturally expand.
Klaus: It would help immensely. But our culture is still screwed-up philosophically, and freedom in education is no automatic panacea.
Friend: Of course not. But it would finally allow part of a new generation to grow and learn outside of the State's destructive influence. Imagine the world when, instead of 1% of the population possessing the capacity for reason, 2% possess it. The number would increase exponentially to nearly 100% within a few generations. I feel it should be the first step because those new, beautiful, rational minds would be free to mold the world into the freedom-loving rock it should be.
Klaus: Oh yeah, it would help fabulously, for sure. As I have often argued on FB: total separation of State and Education.
----------------
Friend: I recently completed the debate series -- Capitalism vs. Socialism: What is the Moral System?" --that you shared on Facebook. There was a lot of quality discussion involved, at least on the part of the Capitalists. I enjoyed it. Leonard Peikoff is an exceptional speaker.
Klaus: Great you heard it! It's an awesome debate, on many levels. Was this your first lecture-encounter with LP?
Friend: Indeed.
Klaus: There are heaps of superb lectures by LP here -- for VERY little money. I own almost all of his lectures.
estore.aynrand.org/c/7/leonard-peikoff
Most of it is premature for you -- now. But in time, you can get a hell of a self-education from LP.
Friend: Curse you, Klaus... as if you haven't given me enough items to spend money on... now I have to purchase lectures!
Klaus: Sorry about that. Nah. Not really. But lay off the lectures for now. The books are most important. Now.
Friend: I noticed during the debate that a great deal of the fundamental philosophy discussed by the Capitalists went unanswered by the socialists. Dr. Vickers also spoke a little too much about feminism, which wasn't even within the context of the debate. Her question asking how many men live off of the unpaid labor of their wives actually made me angry.
Klaus: Yes, what is MOST fascinating to me in that whole debate is the "mental types" on display. Quickly summarized as "rationality versus rambling".
Friend: I noticed that as well. Dr. Caplan made a few semi-cogent arguments, but much of it was as you said: rambling. I may have missed it, but I do not believe the Socialists ever made and argument from morality for their philosophy. They made various references to one's duty to the community, but they never established a foundational morality for their philosophy, unlike the capitalists who did so at the very beginning of the debate.
Klaus: You are right. They had ZERO moral arguments of any kind. They just assumed, axiomatically, that altruism was a given in all moral matters.
Friend: That seems to be common. They are unable to establish a foundation for their morality, and thus have no philosophical support for their beliefs. Perhaps it is this lack of a basic morality that prevents them from understanding the natural rights of man. By extension, many of them believe rights are to be given and taken solely at the State's discretion.
Klaus: Many Objectivist intellectuals, starting with AR, have said that in the whole history of philosophy, no actual ARGUMENT for altruism has ever been seriously offered.
Friend: I've purchased a few books by Keynes. They are collecting dust on my bookshelf. I intend to read them, at some point. Hopefully there may be some attempt at validating altruism within.
Klaus: No, there isn't, I am pretty sure.
Friend: I am doubtful, but it would be nice to see an honest attempt for once. I haven't heard anything about Dr. Ridpath before. Is he still living?
Klaus: Yes, he is still. alive. He is 80 and retired. His health has been a bit troubled in the last few years, alas. I have met JR a number of times -- very wonderful guy.
Friend: That seems to be a common personality trait among Objectivists.
Klaus: Well, there are some unsavory O-folks out there, too -- but most of the publically prominent O-intellectuals are quite splendid folks.
----------------
Friend: Regarding the concept of voting and government restriction in an Objectivist society: what publications are there?
Klaus: Hmmm. Offhand, I don't now recall much on voting. There may be some remarks here and there, but very little -- because it's a trivial side-issue in political theory.
What do you men by "government restriction" here? The whole Objectivist theory of the nature of individual rights circumscribe very clearly what "restrictions" there are on the Government: They may only PROTECT rights -- never violate them. That is the nature and purpose of the State.
Friend: As far as specifics in political structure, e.g. State personnel decisions. I understand the duty of the State as described by Objectivist philosophy, but I haven't heard anything regarding staffing. Surely voting must take place in order to fill what few state positions there would be.
Klaus: Yes, but democratic voting in a fully free society -- it is a rather small and trivial matter. I shall ask some other Objectivists if they have any leads to this issue. But I myself do not. Because: small and trivial matter!
Friend: What opinion do you and other Objectivists hold of voting in our current political landscapes? I ask for this reason: I am often regarded as a fool for not participating, especially in the American South.
Klaus: Well, I myself have -- across 35 years -- chosen to NEVER vote in Norwegian elections. Because I despise all the voting-choices I am served.
Friend: I see. You know, I might have voted for Rand Paul in our 2016 presidential election. Since he dropped out, I might continue my no-vote tradition. Have there been no freedom-loving Norwegian candidates at all in those 35 years?
Klaus: This is each man for himself, I think: either you CAN stand to vote for The Lesser Evil -- or you cannot manage even that, without puking. I am in that latter category.
Well, it's not a matter of "candidates" in Norway -- but of parties. We have around one dozen political parties involved in every election here. The individuals in those parties do not matter at all as much as the individuals in American elections.
But yes, there was one man here, in the 1970s. He was named Anders Lange -- and he explicitly acknowledged AR as one of his main inspirations for his views. He formed a political party. It's called "Fremskrittspartiet" -- "The Progress Party". I was enthusiastic, at first, and I admired Lange. But sadly, he died after only 2-3 years in Parliament. And then his party was taken over by various kinds of Pragmatist-types. My Dad votes for Fremskrittspartiet. But I cannot bring myself to do it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Lange
Oh, he died after only ONE year in office.
Lange supported the economic policies of Milton Friedman.[51] When questioned in 1973 about who his "favourite hero" was, Lange responded Ayn Rand.[52] He also said that his motto was "stand on your own feet, and not on others'."
Friend: So in Norway, you vote for a party rather than individuals and the party chooses its own members? It is unfortunate that he died so quickly. It seems as though he could have made some drastic, much-needed changes for Norway and, perhaps, the world.
Klaus: Yes, about the party-stuff. Well, I doubt he could really have managed very much -- he was fighting against our long-established welfare statism, which 98% of the population has supported for 80 years. But Lange was a colorful guy, whom I admired in my youth. I went to hear him speak in a huuuuuuuuuuuge downtown Oslo meeting, in 1973 -- when I was a wee 15. Before then, I had had zero interest in politics. I later became friends with two Oslo people who had known Lange well and worked for his newspaper -- so I got to hear many Lange tales from them!
AR herself knew of her influence on Lange in far-away Norway -- she explicitly mentions him in the very last issue of her "AR Letter" publication, around 1974.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Party_(Norway)
Long-time chairman Carl I. Hagen was from 1978 to 2006 the undisputed leader of the party, and in many ways personally controlled the ideology and direction of the party; most notably demonstrated by effectively expelling the most radical libertarian faction in 1994
In 1983 I personally sold copies of my Norwegian edition of TF to Hagen -- in his office at the Parliament. My co-publisher friend John and I, we marched in and found his office -- and "forced" him to buy 2-3 copies. :-) But Hagen was the man who watered-down the MUCH better ideas and policies of the founder, Lange.
Friend: I'm sure he would never have been accepted if he had kept the original ideas. As unfortunate as it is, one must often "sell out" some of one's ideology before being considered viable for political power. Just as Galt would have been forced to sell out if he had accepted the offered position of economic dictator.
Klaus: Lange had enough strength and integrity to always speak his mind. But then Death happened -- and smaller men rushed to fill his void.
Friend: Such is the way of things. Death seems to come too early to the best of us, sometimes.
Klaus: There is no death-pattern. Death is random.
Friend: Oh, I know. It's just the deeply rooted perception that comes with the death of good people.
Klaus: Yup.
--------------
Friend:
From my perspective, libertarianism and Objectivism are quite similar in their philosophies. Based on my limited knowledge of Objectivism, it would seem the biggest difference is the lack of a fundamental morality on the part of libertarians. In essence, libertarianism lacks a philosophy for life. For example, they claim the NAP, yet have no basis for their claim. It simply "is." Given on the similarities, what prevents those individuals from moving into Objectivism as I did?
Klaus: You are totally spot-on! Excellent!
Regarding your "What prevents those individuals from moving into Objectivism as I did?"
In one word: Subjectivism.
In less formal philosophical terms, Libertarians are too often -- 80% or more of them -- what AR called "whim-worshipers". The want to "do their own thing" -- unrestrained by deeper principles, especially moral principles.
A friend of mine -- now a long-term Objectivist -- started out in Libertarian circles. He told me he had observed an interesting thing. As he put it, "Both they and I were all in favor of decriminalizing drugs. But THEY -- the Libertarians -- wanted this because they just wanted to USE drugs. Whereas I had no interest in that -- I just wanted principled freedom." So I think that captures well the whim-worshiping, subjectivist element of most Libertarians.
Friend: I've made similar connections with various libertarians I have known. The missing moral principles is what initially drove me away from it. I am friends with some very bright young libertarians on Facebook. I may try to introduce them to Objectivism, once my own knowledge is sufficiently developed.
Friend: As a minor digression, I suppose those libertarians are unaware of the effects on the drug market when freedom is made a reality.
Klaus: There is hope for some of them. So it might not be wasted. But a huuuuuuge percentage have the problems we have discussed above.
Friend: I really only know of 2 or 3 that would be open to discussion. It's almost like most libertarians want anarchy, but they want a state to protect it for them. The logical fallacies quickly become evident.
Klaus: They are walking contradictions, most of them. And too many of them despise and attack AR and Oism, relentlessly. They have a real hatred of us Objectivists -- because we stress morality, rationality and objectivity in human affairs.
------------
Friend: Have you mentored many new Objectivists?
Klaus: Well, define "many". :-) I have helped out maybe two dozen newbies, across the years.
Friend: Sounds like you have made a significant contribution to Objectivism.
Klaus: I have tried, on my own level.
Friend: I enjoy mentoring in my own various fields of "expertise," though they are quite few. My wife often tells me I should become a teacher, but I could never do that. There is one trait I find absolutely contemptible, moreso than any other: apathy. It is a loathsome plague upon our world, and it is one I completely refuse to tolerate. As it is most common in teenagers and young adults, my career as a teacher would likely end with my death or imprisonment in a psychological hospital.
Klaus: HEH! I have done quite a bit of paid tutoring in computers and graphics. So all my students were fairly self-motivated, since they chose to pay for my services. But I have still had a few who indeed suffered from apathy. Then it was not the least bit interesting. But I enjoy making things clear to other people.
Friend: Indeed, our universities would be crowded with far fewer lazy fools if we were required to pay for our own education. Alas, its status as a "right" floods our halls with the dispassionate, which ruins university for everyone. I avoided much of it during grades 6-12 due to my placement in "advanced" classes, but it still lingered in the school like a noxious cloud.
Klaus: In Norway and Sweden and Denmark -- even all university education is "free". Guess how that impacts the quality of the students?
Friend: I'm well aware.
----------
Please click here to read the first part.
Please click here to read the third part.