Ayn Rand: Introduction to
Objectivism: Metaphysics © Susan Fleck
1) Philosophy is the fundamental force shaping every man
and culture
a)
The science that
guides men’s conceptual faculty (mind): every field & endeavor that counts
on this faculty
b)
Deepest issues of
philosophy are deepest root of men’s knowledge, action, history—triumphs &
disasters
c)
A human need as
much as need for food: Need of mind, without which man cannot obtain food (or
anything else)
d)
To satisfy this
need: understand philosophy is a system
of ideas: An integrating science
i)
It cannot be a
grab bag of isolated issues: All philosophic questions are interrelated
ii)
Questions raised
at random, without foundational context, produce questions proliferating in all
directions
(1)
Example: You read
one Ayn Rand article; you come away with only one idea- man should be selfish
(a)
How is this
generality to be applied to concrete situations? What is selfishness? Does it mean doing whatever you feel like doing? Who is Ayn Rand to say?
Etc. etc.
e)
One needs to know
how a philosophic idea relates to the other ideas that give it context,
definition, application, proof
i)
In order to
validate and rely on an idea: to make rational use of it, and, ultimately, to
live
2)
Objectivism’s
approach: Five major branches of Philosophy: Two basic ones are Metaphysics and
Epistemology.
a)
Nature of
universe as a whole & nature and means of human knowledge
i)
These two
branches make possible a view of the nature of man
b)
Three evaluative branches flow from these two
basic ones: Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics
3)
This course:
Basic essentials, building up
hierarchical order of the whole system
a)
Hegel said: The
True is the Whole. Is
b)
Plato, Aristotle,
Kant, Hegel,
i)
Philosopher Kings
4)
Metaphysics:
Basic Axioms
a)
i)
Proof is the
derivation of a conclusion from antecedent knowledge: nothing is antecedent to
axioms: they are the starting points of cognition, on which all proofs depend.
b)
Existence exists
i)
Begin as
philosophers where we began as babies: looking at the world (hearing, feeling,
tasting, smelling)
(1)
As philosophers
we can state when looking around at anything: it is
(a)
This (pointing to
a table) is. That (person) is. These things (in the room) are.
ii)
Parmenides, an
ancient Greek, formulated the principle: what is, is;
(1)
Existence is a
collective noun = sum of existents (things that exist)
iii)
This axiom is the
foundation for everything else.
(1)
Before you can
ask what things are, or what problems
men face in learning about them, or what one knows and how one knows it---
first, there must be something, and
one must know that there is.
(a)
If not, there is
nothing to consider or to know about
(2)
Existence is
the widest of all concepts: It
subsumes everything; everything which is, was, or will be
(a)
Every entity
(thing), action, attribute, relationship, including every state of
consciousness
iv)
This axiom does
NOT specify that a physical world
exists
(1)
It covers only
what is known, implicitly if not explicitly, by entire range of human species:
the fundamental fact that there is
something as against nothing
c)
You exist
possessing consciousness; this axiom
is implied by first axiom, Existence exists
i)
Consciousness:
the faculty of perceiving that which exists (being aware of)
ii)
This is not
inherent in the fact of existence per se: a world without conscious organisms
is possible (e.g., beginning of life forms during evolution of planets)
iii)
Consciousness is inherent in your grasp of existence: Inherent in saying “There is something—of which I am aware” is: “There is
something—of which I am aware.”
iv)
If scientists
(biologists/chemists/physicists) provide analysis of conditions of
consciousness in terms of physical structures, energy quanta, or something now
unknown, this does not alter fact that consciousness is an axiom
v)
Before one can
raise any questions pertaining to knowledge, one must first be conscious of something and recognize
that one is.
(1)
All questions
presuppose that one has a faculty of knowledge (i.e. the attributes of
consciousness)
vi)
vii)
“. . . these
two—existence and consciousness—are axioms you cannot escape . . . Whether you
know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms
remain the same: that it exists and
that you know it.”
d)
Law of identity:
A is A: to be is to be something, to
have a nature, to possess identity.
(Implicit is first two axioms)
i)
The identity of an existent means that which
it is, the sum of its attributes or characteristics.
(1)
A leaf at one at
the same time, it cannot be all red and all green . . .
ii)
(1)
not, existence has identity, which could imply identity
is something separable from existence
(2)
Why a separate
axiom? Two perspectives
(a)
Existence
differentiates a thing from nothing, from the absence of the thing (primary
identification).
(b)
Existence
indicates that it is. Identity
indicates that it is. Perspective—it
is this vs. it is that
e)
Summary, 3
axioms: Inherent in one’s grasp of any object: there is something I am aware
of. There is—existence; something—identity; I am aware of—consciousness.
i)
This is the
foundation of human cognition. Cognition: The mental process
of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and
judgment.
ii)
One knows axioms
are true not by inference (antecedent knowledge), but by sense perception. E.g.
perceive a tomato:
(1)
No evidence that
it exists beyond fact that you perceive the tomato
(2)
No evidence that
you are aware, beyond the fact that you are
perceiving the tomato
5)
Causality is best
classified as a Corollary of Identity: A corollary is a self-evident
implication of already established knowledge.
a)
A corollary is
not self-evident apart from the principle(s) at its root. (An axiom does not
depend on an antecedent context.)
b)
A corollary is
not a theorem; it does not involve or require a process of proof – it is self-evident, once its context has
been grasped.
c)
Implicit
knowledge of causality: a form of grasping the relationship between the nature
of an entity and its mode of action
i)
An entity of a
certain kind acts in certain ways and only in these ways: e.g., if a child
shakes a rattle, it makes a sound
(1)
Action is action
of an entity & law of identity: Every entity has a specific nature
(existence is identity): Such an
entity must act in accordance with
its nature
d)
Cause and effect
is therefore a universal law of reality: Every action has a cause (by nature of
the entity which acts); and the same cause leads to the same effect. (Not proof
yet, just what is known implicitly in a perceptual grasp of reality)
i)
If a rock is let
go by someone holding it, it will fall to the ground (always, under same
circumstance)
ii)
e)
The causal link
relates an entity and its action. It does not relate two actions.
i)
Since
Renaissance: common for philosophers to speak as though actions directly cause
other actions (thus bypassing the entities altogether). E.g. the motion of one billiard ball striking a
second is commonly said to be the cause of the motion of the second (a motion
causes a motion).
(1)
Motions do not
act, entities do – try substituting an egg with same velocity—effect will be
different
ii)
The Law states
entities are the cause of actions, not that every entity, of whatever sort, has
a cause; but that every action does
f)
Natural law is
not a feature superimposed by some agency (e.g. God) on an otherwise “chaotic”
world
i)
There is no
possibility of a “chance” event, if “chance” means an exception to causality
ii)
Cause and effect
is part of the fabric of reality as such
(1)
Who caused
causality? Who created the universe? The answer is the same: existence exists
6)
Primacy of
Existence (versus Primacy of Consciousness)
a)
Consciousness is
something specific – it has an identity;
it has a nature by which it acts—it
acts in that way and only that way
i)
As a faculty of
perceiving (awareness of) an object, it does not create or change the
object
(1)
A child may hate
the food set in front of him; he may close his eyes, but his inner state does
not erase his dinner
ii)
Also, a faculty
of awareness of inner states:
feelings, emotions, thoughts, etc.
b)
Existence comes
first: THINGS ARE WHAT THEY ARE INDEPENDENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS
i)
. . . independent
of anyone’s (or any animal’s) perceptions, images, ideas, feelings
ii)
Consciousness, is
dependent; it’s function is to be a spectator: to look out, to perceive, to grasp that which is.
c)
Primacy of
Consciousness view: Consciousness is the primary metaphysical factor; Existence
is dependent
i)
. . . function of
consciousness in this view is not perception, but the creation of that which is.
7)
Knowledge per se
is knowledge of reality: therefore, every metaphysical principle has
epistemological implications
a)
primacy-of-existence
principle identifies fundamental
relationship between our cognitive faculty and existence
i)
If existence is
independent of consciousness, then knowledge of existence can be gained only by
extrospection
(1)
from data drawn
from the world; either direct sense data or from conceptual integrations of
such data
(2)
Introspection, is
not a means of external cognition
(knowledge of things outside of one’s person)
(3)
Process of reason (to be discussed later)
b)
primacy-of-consciousness
view entails an opposite theory of knowledge
i)
one discovers
knowledge about ‘true’ reality by using
introspection as the means of external cognition
(1)
by searching
elements of one’s mind detached from perception: intuitions, revelations,
innate ideas, innate structures
(2)
one does not
ignore reality (perceptions), one is going to existence’s “master” – whether
human or divine
(a)
seeking facts
directly from the source of facts, from the consciousness that creates them
ii)
this metaphysics
underlies every form of unreason: With rare exceptions, Western philosophy has
been dominated by attempts to place existence
as a subordinate realm. Objectivism is one of the rare exceptions.
8)
Upon whose consciousness is existence
dependent? Three prevalent versions of primacy-of-consciousness
a)
The supernaturalistic version, from Plato to
Hume: existence is a product of a cosmic consciousness, God
i)
Supernatural:
that which is above or beyond nature. (Nature denotes existence as a system of
interconnected entities governed by law)
ii)
implicit in
Plato’s theory of Forms; explicit with Judeo-Christian theology (developed from
Plato)
iii)
God created the
Universe of matter, sustains it, and makes it lawful; but sometimes subverts
natural laws with miracles
iv)
Epistemologically,
this view leads to mysticism: knowledge rests on communications from Supreme
Mind to the human
(1)
direct
revelations, or ideas implanted, innately or otherwise, throughout the species
v)
“Who created the
universe?” question presupposes that the universe (matter) is not eternal; it
has a source beyond itself
(1)
Infinite regress:
Who created God? (a second creator, and so on): typical reply: He is an
inherently necessary being
(2)
Why do we
question what is the beginning of material
universe?. . . but don’t question a beginning of consciousness (which is a part
of the universe)?
(3)
Why do we refuse
to begin with the world (material)
which we know to exist, and jump
beyond to the unknowable?
b)
The social version: Kant secularized the
religious viewpoint (in order to save the faith!)
i)
cognitive structures, common to all men—their
innate forms of perception and conception—is what creates existence (the “phenomenal”
world).
ii)
God’s will thus
gives way to man’s consciousness, which becomes the metaphysical factor
underlying and ordering existence for
us
iii)
Kant’s theory
became explicit with Hegel’s development from Kant; dominated philosophy for
about two centuries
iv)
Today, with the social version, we hear: there are no
objective facts, but only “human” truth, truth “for man”
(1)
. . but even this is unattainable; there is only
national, racial, sexual, or homosexual truth
(2)
The GROUP
acquires the omnipotence once ascribed to God
v)
e.g. If a
government enacts a policy that must in
logic have disastrous consequences (such as national bankruptcy), the
policy’s defenders ask for optimism and faith. “If people believe in the policy, if they want
the system to work, then it will: i.e.,
a group can override facts; men’s mental contents can coerce reality
c)
The personal version: appeared throughout
history among skeptics
i)
Each man’s own
consciousness controls existence—for him
ii)
Protagoras: “Man
(each man individually) is the measure of all things; of things that are, that
they are, and of things that are not, that they are not.”
(1)
Each man’s
consciousness creates and inhabits its own private universe
iii)
No
epistemological standards or data; there is only truth “for me” (arbitrarily
derived) vs. truth “for you”
d)
Objectivism
rejects all of these forms on the same ground: existence exists
i)
not a derivative
or manifestation or appearance of some true reality at its root
ii)
its elements are
uncreated and eternal and its laws, immutable
iii)
Man can not create
something out of nothing (a void) and can not make any thing act in
contradiction to its nature
(1)
He can rearrange
the combinations of natural elements
(2)
Man can irrigate
the desert and make it bloom, but he cannot can not change the metaphysically
‘given’ of desert
(3)
Francis Bacon:
“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed”
iv)
Aristotle came
closest to this view; God was not large in his philosophy—Prime Mover as cause
of world’s motion
9)
Distinction
between metaphysically given and the man-made is crucial to every branch of
philosophy
a)
Metaphysically
given facts are reality: They are,
were, will be, and have to be
i)
Metaphysically
given facts cannot be evaluated as true or false, they simply are: man determines truth or falsehood
of his judgments by whether or not they correspond to or contradict the facts
of reality:
ii)
Metaphysically
given is the standard of right or
wrong, by which a (rational) man judges his goals, values, & his choices
b)
Man-made facts (things
or actions) are products of choice and must be evaluated: human choices can be
rational or irrational, right or wrong
i)
To confuse the
two kinds of facts: leads to serious errors: typified by idea “You can’t fight
(the reality of) city hall, or tradition.”
ii)
Realism
becomes a synonym for mindless conformity; approach leads to sanctioning of
status quo
(1)
e.g., it is
“unrealistic” to create representational art when the museums and art critics
favor only highly abstract art
c)
Other errors;
regarding metaphysically given as alterable – imagining an alternative, better,
more perfect universe
i)
Those who condemn
life (failure, frustration, pain, sorrow) and yearn for a heaven opposite of
metaphysically given
ii)
. . . or those
that view life as meaningless because of the fact of death: to rebel against
one’s eventual death is to rebel against life and reality
10)
Skeptics who
condemn human knowledge as invalid because it rests on sensory data (idea that
human senses are fallible)
a)
implication:
knowledge should depend on “direct,” non-sensory illuminaton (more on this
later)
b)
implication: If I
had created reality, I would have chosen a different cause for knowledge:
Reality’s model of cognition is unacceptable to me.
11)
Closely related
to idea that God could have created
things differently, and HE can alter
them if He chooses.
a)
Leibniz: the
universe is only one of many worlds; others do not exist because God chose
present one as the best
b)
Christianity
invites wishful thinking for alternative universes: virtue of “hope” and duty
of prayer
c)
Concept of
Omnipotence is logically incompatible with the law of identity: it is one or
the other
d)
Possible
Universes: idea also espoused by atheists and naturalists, philosophers who
routinely degrade the actual, calling it a realm of mere “brute” or
“contingent” facts—i.e., unintelligible and rewritable in what I call
“primacy-of-language”
e)
The thinker who
accepts the absolutism of the metaphysically given recognizes that it is his responsibility to conform to the
universe—vs. expecting existence to obey his wishes
12)
Idealism and
Materialism
a)
Idealists such as
Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, & Hegel—regard reality as a spiritual dimension
transcending and controlling the world of nature; nature is regarded as
deficient, ephemeral, imperfect—as only partly real; true reality is invariably
some function or form of consciousness (Plato’s Forms, Augustine’s God, Hegel’s
Ideas). These all amount to primacy-of-consciousness
b)
Materialists such
as Democritus, Hobbes, and Marx: uphold ‘true’ reality of nature, but deny
reality or efficacy of consciousness; consciousness is a useless byproduct of
brain or other motions. Man is essentially a body without a mind. Man’s
judgments reflect not an objective method of reason and logic, but the blind
operation of physical factors going on in the brain.
13)
For
a)
The nature of
man; the problem of Free Will are also subjects within Metaphysics:
14)
Epistemology is
the most complex branch and, in Objectivism, stands alongside Metaphysics at
the base of Philosophy
15)
The theory of the
mind-body conflict – has corrupted every branch and major issue of philosophy
a)
Plato (in Timaeus): matter is a principle of
imperfection, inherently in conflict with the highest ideals of the spirit:
leads to dichotomy: My dream vs. the actual which thwarts it; or the inner vs.
the outer; or value vs. fact; or the moral vs. the practical—broadest name of
dichotomy is the spiritual realm vs.
the material realm (the mind-body
conflict)
Three
problems in Greek Philosophy:
1.
The One and the Many (Problem of Universals)
(Also
problem of individuation: How can One thing, which must be Continuous, form
many things, which must be Discrete?
2.
Appearance and Reality (epistemology)
3.
Change
1. Problems explained: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110215185641AAYSXAB
The problem of finding the
one thing that lies behind all things in the universe is called the problem of
the one and the many...........We can see the same stability and constancy even
across objects. While the world is full of trees, there is still some constancy
and stability to "treeness" which never seems to change.
According to Aristotle, the
Platonists had an argument for the existence
of Forms that he called the “One Over Many
Ontologically speaking, this
is also the "problem of universals" because that one thing about
''the one that never changes" is the absolute universal. The Aristotelian
philosopher Ayn Rand wrote that this universal is "existence" itself.
"Existence exists" she wrote, because the statement "existence
does not exist" is a contradiction. Because "existence" takes in
ALL things--things we know, things we don't know, things we only believe,
things we made up, things we will never know, etc--it is "the one"
over the "many". So she didn't meant this as a tautology of rhetoric:
"an unnecessary or unessential (and sometimes unintentional) repetition of
meaning, using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same
thing twice".
She meant it as a statement
that non-existence cannot be the "default position" (my phrase) of
the universe because even religion states that "nothing can come from
nothing"; Catholicism, for example, says all that exists (except God) came
from the goodness of God. But "all things" is the universal
"one", then God is part of it and cannot be separate. To say
"existence does not exist" would have to include God also.
One thing most Greeks had not figured out about "appearance" vs
"reality" is that "appearance" in this sense is in the mind
and is our thought-out idea about reality. This means that our
"thoughts" won't always match reality, but most people some how
believe that what we immediately perceive IS reality. It is not. If you look at
the "duck-rabbit" one way you see duck. But when it explained as a
rabbit on its back looking at the sky, you see a rabbit instead.
"Appearance" in this sense is literally what your sense of reason
makes of the reality taken in by your senses.
"Change" is the
classic idea of "Being and Becoming". "There is no change
without a subject which is changed. Becoming presupposes Being."
All human cultures in some
way have to deal with accounting for the myriad of objects and phenomena
surrounding them. We live in a world of infinite objects that are constantly
changing, yet even in this imposing world of objects and change, there seems to
be an underlying unity and stability. For instance, every human being begins as
an infant and then grows into an adult. Every adult is a different object than
they were as an infant—in fact, they are unrecognizable as being the same
object. Yet we recognize that the are the same object , that something
has remained the same even though the infant has changed into an object that is
nowhere close to its original state
This observation of the world
of phenomena leads many cultures to believe that the infinity of things and
their changes can ultimately be related back to a single object, material, or
idea. The problem of finding the one thing that lies behind all things in the
universe is called the problem of the one and the many. Basically
stated, the problem of the one and the many begins from the assumption that the
universe is one thing. Because it is one thing, there must be one, unifying
aspect behind everything. This aspect could be material, such as water, or air,
or atoms. It could be an idea, such as number, or "mind." It could be
divine, such as the Christian concept of God or the Chinese concept of
Shang-ti, the "Lord on High." The problem, of course, is figuring out
what that one, unifying idea is.
Philosophy in the Western
world begins with this question; the earliest Greek philosophers mainly
concerned themselves with this question. As a result, the problem of the one
and the many still dominates Western concepts of the universe, including modern
physics, which has set for itself the goal of finding the theory that will
"unify" (unify means "make into one thing") the laws of
physics. (The God Particle)
3. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Metaphysics-One-Many-Infinite-Finite.htm
Friedrich
Nietzsche, The Greeks, 1880) Greek philosophy seems
to begin with a preposterous fancy, with the proposition (of Thales) that water
is the origin and mother-womb of all things. Is it really necessary to stop
there and become serious? Yes, and for three reasons: firstly, because the
proposition does enunciate something about the origin of things; secondly,
because it does so without figure and fable; thirdly and lastly, because it
contained, although only in the chrysalis state, the idea :everything is one.
... That which drove him (Thales) to this generalization was a metaphysical
dogma, which had its origin in a mystic intuition and which together with the
ever renewed endeavours to express it better, we find in all philosophies - the
proposition: everything
is one!
The Problem of
the One and the Many is at the very foundation of all human knowledge (as the
quotes above clearly demonstrate). It is a problem that has been known for many
thousands of years without solution, thus it is hardly surprising that it is
now accepted by many that we can never solve the Problem of the One and
the Many, thus we can never directly know what exists, what reality is
(what we are and how we are interconnected to everything around us!).
In fact there is only one solution - which is the most simple
solution. It is now well accepted in modern physics that Matter interacts (e.g.
Light and Gravity) with all other Matter in the Universe, as Smolin writes,
It can no longer
be maintained that the properties of any one thing in the universe are
independent of the existence or non-existence of everything else. It is, at
last, no longer sensible to speak of a universe with only one thing in it. (Lee
Smolin, 1997)
Thus to understand the Structure of Matter we must understand
the Structure of the Universe, and this means we must know the One thing that
is common to and connects the Many things within the Universe. As Leibniz
correctly and profoundly says;
Reality cannot be
found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things
with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)
Clearly there is a
sense in which the infinite exists and another in which it does not.
(Aristotle, Physics)
Time - The Spherical
Standing Wave Motion of Space
causes matter's activity and the phenomena of Time.
This confirms Aristotle and
Spinoza's connection of
Motion and Time, and most significantly connects these two things back to one
thing Space.---Movement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is -
indeed time is either identical to movement or is some
affection of it. (Aristotle)
As Time is caused by (wave) Motion
, thus only Matter (as Spherical Wave Motions of Space) experiences Time. Space
is Eternal (has always existed) and does not experience Time (thus there was no
Big Bang creation of Space/Universe).
But for me, truth
is the sovereign principle, which included numerous other principles. This
truth is not only truthfulness in word, but truthfulness in thought also, and
not only the relative truth of our conception, but the Absolute Truth, the
Eternal Principle, that is God. There are innumerable definitions of God,
because His manifestations are innumerable. They overwhelm me with wonder and
awe and for a moment stun me. But I worship God as Truth only. I have not yet
found Him, but I am seeking after Him. I am prepared to sacrifice the things
dearest to me in pursuit of this quest. Even if the sacrifice demanded be my
very life, I hope I may be prepared to give it. But as long as I have not
realised this Absolute Truth, so long must I hold by the relative truth as I
have conceived it. (Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi)
How is Space
connected to Matter - How does Matter interact with all the other Matter in the
Universe? Uniting Matter / Universe, Subject / Object, Self / Other (See Einstein, Metaphysics
of Relativity, 1950)