My Divergence from Objectivism and Objectivists
I consider myself an Objectivist*, but there are some places where I disagree or, at least, don’t yet agree with Objectivism or with what many/most Objectivists think. I thought it might be fun to make a list of these issues, and maybe I’ll keep this up to date as my ideas grow and might eventually put links in to posts where I explain my views in more detail. Not all of these ideas are dealt with directly by Rand’s work, but for those that aren’t I believe my view differs from that of a significant portion of Objectivists, and that those Objectivists view the issue as an important philosophical one.
- I don’t think metaphysics on its own can tell us very much about cosmology or ontology, even to a greater extent than most Objectivists. For example, I don’t think we can say from philosophy alone whether the universe has finite spatial extent, whether the universe contains empty space or is completely filled with matter, whether instantaneous action at a distance is possible, or whether conscious awareness can play a special role in a fundamental physical theory. I do think all of these questions can be answered, and that many of them have been partially or totally answered by scientific study, but the answers cannot come from philosophy.
- I do not think all generalizations are fundamentally statements of causality. An important class of generalizations are, perhaps the most important class, but statements like “tables are furniture” and, even, “lightning is electrical discharge” are not statements of cause and effect (though they may have to be proven by identification of certain cause-effect relationships).
- I do not see that definitions are as important in the concept formation process as Rand did. I’m not convinced that they’re not as important as she thought, I just don’t see it (yet).
- I think Objectivists are libertarians.
- I disagree with the vast majority of the Objectivist sexual ethic. I think things like pornography (consumption and creation), casual sex, prostitution (selling and buying), non-monogamy both in terms of sexual partners and probably even in terms of life partners, and all sorts of kinks, fetishes, and orientations, even those that I might find extremely painful or disgusting, can all be moral in a wide variety of non-exceptional circumstances. This topic deserves its own blog post, and I just may write it some day.
- I think the gender roles that Rand’s theories of masculinity and femininity try to put people into (both in and out of bed) are rubbish. I think a women can rationally want to be president, that a man can be a primary caregiver, that transvestitism, transsexualism, and all sorts of gender-bending can be completely moral. In fact, I think most of the assumptions in our society about how a person’s genitals relate to their behaviour and preferences are largely fucked up and the fact that we need a concept for, for example, men who wear dresses is largely an indictment of our culture, not an indication about the nature of the behaviour itself. Also, while I do think that in cases of undetermined gender the singular masculine pronouns (e.g. “he”) are more grammatically appropriate than the third-person plural (e.g “they”), I think the word for person is “person” and not “man” and the word for people is “people” and not “men”.
- I think that the government must be the ultimate arbiter of retaliatory force, but not necessarily the only wielder of said force. For example, I think that a private individual who follows the proper procedures (e.g. obtaining warrants from a judge, following the proper limits on search and seizure, using only due force, announcing his presence, etc.) could be able to investigate crimes and even perform arrests. How such a system might work or whether the system would be preferable to the current one is not my point, my point is just that as long as there is a single entity ultimately responsible for determining the justice of the use of physical force the actual force-wielders need not be government agents. In particular this applies to military action: if there is a country where rights violations are occurring on a massive scale but there is no threat to your country or its citizens, I think there should be a path you can take to get together private volunteer forces, get your goals approved, and use force to stop the rights violations in the foreign country.
- I think that the “total war” view on warfare is completely mistaken. While I do think there are limits to the steps the military should take in preventing civilian casualties when attacking military targets, the idea that it’s moral to purposely target civilian centers is abhorrent. I think military actions like Sherman’s march to the sea are viciously unjust, and ideas like “the citizens are responsible for the actions of the government” and “the government couldn’t do what it’s doing without the support of its people” are extremely collectivist and completely ignorant of just how hard it is to change a government, especially a totalitarian one. I definitely don’t think things like building a mosque near ground zero or cheering in the streets after a terrorist attack are as such deserving of a forceful response.
- I don’t think an aesthetic view is fundamental in philosophy, and I don’t agree with Rand’s aesthetics. I don’t disagree with it either, I just don’t really have any views on the issue either way. I don’t get much out of painting, sculpture, architecture, or any other visual arts, and I’ve never understood how a philosophical understanding could deepen my appreciation of the arts I do care about (literature, television, film, theatre, and music).
- I do not think patents and copyrights, when awarded in a proper intellectual property framework (which I think we don’t have today), should have any limits on their duration.
- I think any clear term in a properly signed contract should be enforceable. This includes contracts in which one person makes himself a slave, a person promises to allow another to punch him, etc. How these terms should be enforced is a difficult matter: in the absence of an enforcement clause, I can see a fine or jail until the uncooperative participant allows the contract to be followed. I don’t think it’s reasonable for the courts to have to bear the burden of actually enforcing each term (e.g. holding a person still so the other can punch him), but I don’t in principle have an objection to a court issuing permission to the winner of a breach-of-contract case to use appropriate force himself to satisfy the terms of the contract. I think that if such a system were to be put in place, most contracts would (properly, IMO) include a clause specifying monetary damages in case of breach.
My Treatment in Last Tuesday’s OAC Call
Last Tuesday (2/11/2010), Dr. Onkar Ghate, Debi Ghate, and Dr. Yaron Brook held a phone conference with most of the current OAC students. In preparation for this call, an email was sent out to the OAC students which, among other things, contained a PDF that had the conclusion of the ARI section of my recent post about Dr. McCaskey’s resignation, and none of the rest. In addition to many other topics, part of the phone conference consisted of Dr. Ghate discussing me and the post, based solely on that conclusion.
Only my conclusion was sent to the group, and only the conclusion was discussed. My post was long for a reason: I knew my conclusions were surprising and I wanted to make sure my evidence was presented as fully as possible. The conclusion was clearly not meant to stand alone. What possible reason was there to take my discussion out of context? I was never told that my post was being used, and if things had happened the way Dr. Ghate intended I wouldn’t have even known that there was an OAC call, let alone that I was discussed. Why was it so important that I not know about this?
My post was characterized as a “rant”. Granted, my post was long, but, however much one may disagree with the conclusions, that is a completely unwarranted description. I strove to make the reasons for my conclusions clear and based on the evidence in a calm, straightforward manner, and though my conclusions may be extreme that does not mean they are the emotionalistic, unsupported spewing that “rant” implies.
According to the discussion, my conclusion is an attack on the integrity and independence of current ARI intellectuals, and Dr. Ghate was surprised by that attack. I think it’s clear (especially given the rest of the article) that I was talking about the implications of the implicit policy of Dr. Peikoff’s email staying in place for the future of the Institute, not anything to do with any current intellectuals. My point (which I stand by) was that IF it’s true that a person can lose his job for an intellectually honest disagreement that does not imply disagreement with Objectivism or contradict the policies of the ARI (as appears to be the case here), THEN the climate at the ARI will be incompatible with the needs of an academic, and one implication of that is that any future work from the ARI will have to be looked over a bit more skeptically. Now, I’m not ruling out the possibility that someone could honestly interpret my statement otherwise, but no one at the ARI, including Dr. Ghate, ever contacted me to make sure my views were understood correctly, or to make sure I was aware of the implications. Why, if Dr. Ghate was so surprised, didn’t he say anything to me? [ADDENDUM 7/11/10 2335 EST: After Anon2 in the comments contacted me privately with his concerns, I want to clarify that it is possible to interpret Dr. Ghate as having said that it was possible I was unaware of the implications of my position. However, although that would mean he wasn't as unfair as I thought he was, it would just make it even more confusing that he didn't try to contact me first.]
I was apparently ridiculed for saying that my interpretation was “the only reasonable interpretation of these events”. That statement was meant to be read in the context of the rest of the post, that is “given what I’ve said here, this is the interpretation I’m lead to”. Obviously, if I was wrong about something in the body of the post, my conclusion is no longer supported as I thought it was, but I don’t see how it’s fair to interpret me as saying that any reasonable man looking at the situation would come to my conclusion. If I had thought that were the case, why would I have put so much time into giving my reasons?
It was claimed that I wrote this post without any attempt at communication or asking questions. This is absolutely false. On September 20th, nearly a month before the publication of my post, I sent an email to Dr. Brook raising the very same concerns I raised in the post. I then postponed writing my post to wait for a reply, which I only gave up on after Dr. Brook’s email published in the NoodleFood post about this issue made it clear that the ARI was not interested in (or able to) clarify the situation. There are at least four people who had intended to contact the ARI with questions who decided not to after I told them my email went unanswered.
The timing and reasoning of my departure from the OAC were also discussed on the call (with my friends and former classmates in the audience!), as was Dr. Ghate’s interpretation of my attitude toward him and the OAC as a whole. Now, I don’t particularly mind them knowing all of that, but that information is mine to tell. If Dr. Ghate thought it was important that the students know these private facts, why didn’t he contact me first to make sure I was ok with them being discussed?
Finally, Dr. Ghate made assumptions about why I am no longer recommending the OAC that I can characterize as nothing less than a completely baseless fantasy. It was suggested (apparently in a very condescending tone) that I planned to tell stories that took class discussions out of context to demonstrate the lack of intellectual independence of OAC students. My post was explicitly set up to be supported only by publicly available facts, and I have given no indication that I thought the classes had evidence of intellectual cowardice (in fact, my experiences demonstrate otherwise), that I would take classroom discussion (that I promised, when joining the OAC, not to spread) out of context, or that anything in this entire post was based on my personal experience in the OAC at all. Why didn’t Dr. Ghate take me at my word: that I was no longer recommending the OAC because I didn’t think the ARI has an appropriate environment for an intellectual so long as Dr. Peikoff’s email goes unchallenged? Perhaps he disagrees with that conclusion, but at least that is what I actually said.
As you can probably guess, I’m extremely upset and furious. I’ve been misrepresented, been subjected to falsehoods, and never received even the courtesy of an email letting me know that anyone took issue with my statement (let alone checking to make sure I was interpreted properly). I sent an email to Dr. Ghate, Dr. Brook, Debi Ghate, and (based on mistaken information about her relationship to the call) Dr. Tara Smith asking for an explanation of this treatment of me, and received nothing. This aspect of the situation has been terrible on many levels: that I’ve been attacked in front of my friends and former classmates, that, if Dr. Ghate had had his way, I wouldn’t have had a chance to defend/explain myself or (if I had thought I had done wrong) apologize, that a man I respected and liked treated me and my intellectual work in such an inappropriate (and, frankly, mean) fashion, and that an educator abused his authority and position to attack his former student in order to provide a “lesson” to his current ones. In order to explain my situation and feelings, to defend myself to my classmates who heard the attack, and to allow the general public to know what Dr. Ghate (sanctioned, by silent assent, by Debi Ghate and Dr. Brook) has done and to judge him accordingly, I had to publish this post. I hope this will help lead to a more just resolution of the situation, but at the very least I will have said my piece.
If you want more information about this situation or my views, please feel free to contact me.
ADDENDUM (7/11/10, 2040 EST):
I have received several comments from those concerned with the source of my information. To that, I have two comments:
- I am certain that I am not leaving out important context, and that the remarks I claim were made were made. If you want to know the details of how, please contact me privately.
- Perhaps it can be claimed that I should never have been given the information I was given. But I was, and once I knew that I was slandered in front of 70+ OAC students I could hardly stay silent, especially not for a privacy policy that is not binding on me. And even if you disagree with me knowing what I know, I think people should focus on the facts of what was said, included whether it was fair or not, and not on the means by which I learned them.
CPL: A Clarification
One of the most important practical ideas of Objectivism’s ethical theory, and sadly one that seems to be misunderstood by many Objectivists, is the notion of a central purpose in life (a CPL). The purpose of this post is to discuss the misunderstanding as I see it, but before I do so a general review of the idea is in order.
A CPL is the central, guiding purpose around which one’s entire value hierarchy is shaped. Acting in accordance with that purpose is the primary goal of one’s days, the value to which all other values are subordinated. While many proper values (such as the joy of relaxing on the beach or watching a clever television show) are not productive in nature, the CPL must be a productive pursuit and such non-productive values must only be pursued if they are in harmony with the central purpose. As Ayn Rand explained in her 1964 Playboy interview, having a CPL enables man to live a happy, integrated life whereas its lack ensures conflict:
A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man’s life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find . . . .
Now you hopefully have an idea of what a CPL is, and probably why it’s so important. So now, something that a CPL is not: A CPL is not synonymous with a career. This is really important, so I repeat: a CPL need not be a career! This is something I’ve seen quite a few Objectivists get wrong, and it has led to misled advice given by some and frustrated negative self-images by others.
Don’t get me wrong, a CPL can be, and often is, a career. Your central purpose can be working as a database programmer peopleguy, or a lawyer, or a novelist, or many other such pursuits. Moreover, I think for most of your life your CPL should be a career, so long as your society is the kind willing to pay for your work. But there are two important points missed by those who think a CPL must be a career: first, your CPL can change over your lifetime, and second, everyone at every stage in life needs a CPL (at least implicitly). To see the first point, consider the fact that Ayn Rand herself probably had two major CPLs in her adult life: first, to portray man as he could and ought to be (which work culminated in Atlas Shrugged), and second, to flesh out and spread her philosophy of Objectivism (which work consisted of several anthologies, speeches, lectures, newsletters, and at least one significant book). Or, for another example, consider Leonard Peikoff, who has announced plans to switch from philosophy after the culmination of his work on the DIM hypothesis into the field of science fiction writing. Before I address the second point, I want to clarify something about the scope of a CPL.
A CPL exists to guide your actions in the present. A CPL will certainly imply taking actions with long-range effects, and in most cases will even involve long range planning, but qua CPL its purpose is to guide your choices here and now, today. Should I pick up that physics text or reread ItOE? Should I apply to grad school or start looking for jobs after college? Should I sign this 99 year contract as a representative of my company? These are the types of questions that a CPL helps answer. A CPL is not something you just refer to when thinking about your future, it should be there (implicit or explicit) in every choice and judgment you make.
So now, back to the second point missed by equating a CPL with a career: Everyone at every stage of life can, and should, have a CPL. A child who integrates acts with the ultimate goal of learning how the world works has a central (implicit) principle “serv[ing] to integrate all the other concerns of [his] life.” A teenager working to form his character and determine which ideas he wants to guide his life can’t be said to be “drift[ing] helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment.” A young adult taking various jobs and exploring his passions in order to determine a career to which he wants to dedicate his life is surely able to “enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind.” Indeed, all of these (learning how the world works, forming ones character, figuring out ones career) ARE valid central purposes.
So why does this all matter? Because it is important to know (especially, though not exclusively, for younger Objectivists) that one is NOT stuck with the false alternative of either having a central, fulfilling career goal or being consigned to an aimless, purposeless existence. If you have a career and it is your central purpose, awesome and great for you. If you don’t or it isn’t, though, don’t worry! There are other productive purposes that could never be considered a career (such as “shaping ones own character”) or don’t work as a career in today’s world (such as “writing rational screenplays for big-budget films” may be given the state of Hollywood) that CAN work as valid central purposes. Of course, you need to survive, so if you need to take a job to support yourself you should, but it doesn’t need to become your central purpose. By all means, work as a waitress during the day and audition for plays on the weekends. Or finish your science degree while considering becoming an artist. Or move to Atlanta and make money doing various odd jobs while soul-searching and figuring out what you really want. You can still be happy and purposeful, and your worth is not lessened in the least.
Quick Thoughts on Terms and Conditions
(Note: I am not a lawyer, and this post does not necessarily reflect the state of any current legal system. This is a post about the morality, not the current legality, of a particular type of action)
To the savvy internet user, it’s second-nature: You find a new website requiring login information, you create a new account, put in your details, make sure to uncheck all the boxes allowing them to spam you, and check the box agreeing to the terms and conditions, and move on to using the site. But how many people actually read those terms and conditions? They may be obnoxiously long, written in dense legalese, and grant ridiculous powers to the content provider, but checking that box without reading, understanding, and committing to act in accordance with those terms is morally equivalent to fraud (there is a possible border case if you’re willing to accept their terms without reviewing them and the checkbox doesn’t specify that you have read the terms, but that is a dangerous decision). This is an extremely clear-cut case: the owners of the site have the right to set any terms they wish delimiting your use of their property. You may not like it, you may not want to spend the time needed to read through the contract, and you may not like the terms you find if you do, but your only moral choices are to accept the terms, negotiate new terms with the owner, or decline the use of the site. To make any other choice is to force your desires on the site owner.